Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/07/21 - Agenda Packet ~i0500 Civic Ce~.ter Drive + Rancho Cucamcngs, CA 9'i730-380'i AGT~I~DAS ~GULAM MEETINGS ~st and 3rd Wednesdays + 7:00 p.m. AGI~NC¥~ ~OA1R~ ~: CI[T¥ COUNC~[L MEMBERS William J. Alexander .................... Mayor Diane Williams ............... Mayor Pro Tern [Rex Gutierrez ............................ Member Roberl J. MowdltsheE ............... Member Donald J. Kur~h, ~.D ................ Member Jack [.am ......................... City Manager James t. i~Jiarkman ............. City A~orney Debra J. Adams ..................... City Clerk ©~DEM @Y BUS~NESS 5:30 p.m. Closed Session .................... Yapia Conference F~oom 7:00 p.rn, Regular Redevelopmen~ Agency ~ee~ing... Council Ch=m~ers ~egular Fire Protection District ~ee~ing ... Council Ch~m~ers Regular City Council Meeting ............. Council Cham~ers INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC 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 keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply 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 promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the 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. It is important to list your name, address and phone number. Comments are generally 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 Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City has added the option for customers without cable access to view the meetings "on-demand" from their computers. The added feature of "Streaming Video On Demand" is available on the City's website at www.ci.rancho- cucamonga.ca.us/whatsnew.htm for those with Hi-bandwidth (DSI../Cable Modem) or Low-bandwidth (Dial-up) Internet service. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 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:llwww, ci. rancho-cucamonga.ca, us If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.  CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 1 ~,RANcHO HALL, f0500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA [ A. CALL TO ORDER I 1. Roll Call: Alexander __, Gutierrez __, Howdyshell__, Kurth__, and Williams__. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 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 City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. Il ,,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS I 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 CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Warrants, Register July 1 through July 13, 2004, and Payroll ending July 13, 2004, for the total amount of $3,778,319.76 2. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 25 30, 2004. 3. Approval of plans and specifications for the "Removal and Replacement of Grand Prix Fire Damaged Fencing along the Skyline, 31 Monroe Canyon, Davis and Hermosa Easement Community Equestrian Trails" and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice inviting Bids," to be funded from Capital Reserve Acct. No. 1025001- 5650/1497025-0 as approved in the FY 2004/05 budget. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 2 (~?~NCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-225 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS" AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BiDS 4. Approval of plans and specifications for the "Removal and 37 Replacement of Grand Prix Fire Damaged Flexible Metal Guard Rails and Posts at 4 Locations" and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice inviting Bids," to be funded from Capital Reserve Acct. No. 1025001-5650/1498025-0 as approved in the FY 2004/05 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 04-226 39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS" AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval to Summarily Vacate the Drainage and Trail Easement of 43 Parcel Map No. 15349, a dedicated easement for future drainage and trail purposes, located north of Church Street, east side of Milliken Avenue; V-196 - APN: 227-151-73. RESOLUTION NO. 04-227 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15349, A DEDICATED EASEMENT FOR FUTURE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL PURPOSES, LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, EASE SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE; V-196 - APN: 227-151-73 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ' JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ~CHO HALL, '10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE 6. Approval of Resolution allowing City Engineer to send a Notice of 48 Intent to Purchase Property, to be funded by developer, in response to a Caltrans offer to sell pursuant to Government Code 54220 through 54227, for property located on the east side of Mulberry Street, south of 210 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Creek Channel, APN: 228-011-18 and -29. RESOLUTION NO. 04-228 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO SEND NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MULBERRY STREET, SOUTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND WEST OF ETIWANDA CREEK CHANNEL 7. Approval for the purchase of one lot of lobby furniture for Central Park from Lloyd Henry Interior Systems, Inc., of Montrose, CA, in the 56 amount of $79,044 and appropriation of $79,044 from the Park Development Fund balance into Fund 1120305-5200. 8. Approval of a Request from Valley Baseball Inc. (Quakes) and 58 Baseballers Against Drugs (BAD) for a Waiver of Fees and Charges for a Free Youth Baseball Clinic at the Rancho Cucamonga Stadium on August 3, 2004. 9. Approval of Amendment to (CO#03-100) agreement with Dan 62 Guerra & Associates for Increased Scope of Work to Include Additional Staking Services for the Central Park Landscape and Irrigation Project. 10. Approval of an Amendment to the Ground Lease between the City of 63 Rancho Cucamonga and J. Filippi Winery for property located at 12467 Base Line Road. 11. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, 66 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 and Summarily Ordering the Vacation (V-197) of Peach Tree Lane and disposition of City-owned property by quitclaiming Lot A and a portion of Lot B of Tract 9588, for Tract 16430 located on the west side of Archibald Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Hillside Road, submitted by Archibald Ventures, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-229 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16430, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND SECURITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 4 (~?~CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-230 70 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 16430 RESOLUTION NO. 04-231 81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION (V-197) OF PEACH TREE LANE AND DISPOSITION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY BY QUITCLAIMING LOT A AND A PORTION OF LOT B OF TRACT 9588 12. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities 84 and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 7 for Tract Map 16113, located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue, submitted by Trimark pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-232 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 16113, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 04-233 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT MAP 16113 13. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement and Improvement 99 Securities for Public Street Improvements and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Ma,Ptth 161671 located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9 Street, submitted by ON Vineyard, LLC. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 5 (.~,RANcHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-234 102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 16167, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 04-235 '103 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 16167 14. Approval to award the execution of a contract in the amount of 112 $166,555.55 to Global Presenter (CO 04-093) of Huntington Beach, and authorize the expenditure of a contingency in the amount of $12,481.91 for an Audio/Visual Presentation System Upgrade for the City Council Chambers and to furnish and install an Audio/Visual Presentation System for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and authorize an appropriation of $21,475.00 from the COPS/Dreier EOC Grant to Acct. No. 1382105-5603 and an appropriation of $66,171.76 ($61,998.10 plus a 5% contingency of $4,173.66) to Acct. No. 2624801-565011348624~6314 for the EOC System (total cost of $83,473.10 plus contingency of $1,173.66), and approval of a transfer from Acct. No. 2650801-9624 to Acct. No. 262400-8650 in the amount of $66,171.76. 15. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Associated Engineers, Inc. (CO 04-094), Dan Guerra & Associates (CO 04-095), '1 '14 Dawson Surveying, Inc. (CO 04-096), and SB&O, Inc. (CO 04-097) to provide Annual Construction Survey Services for FY 2004/2005, with an option to renew annually up to an additional two years after review of fees and mutual agreement of both parties, for proposed Capital Improvement Projects through the City, for a total not to exceed $500,000 annually, to be funded from various individual project accounts. 16. Approval of Professional Services Agreements with Krazan & 119 Associates, Inc. (CO 04-098), Ninyo & Moore (CO 04-099), and RMA Group (CO 04-100) to provide annual soils and material testing services for FY 2004/2005, with an option to renew annually up to an additional two years after review of fees and mutual agreement of both parties, for proposed Capital Improvement Projects throughout the City, for a total not to exceed $500,000 annually, to be funded from various individual project accounts. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 6 (~,~CHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UGAMONGA 17, Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance 145 Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DRC2001-00719, located at the east side of the southern terminus of Hyssop Drive, east of the 1-15 Freeway, submitted by Erin Madison, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 04-236 147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2001-00719 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 18. Approval of release of a Real Property Improvement Contract and 148 Lien Agreement for Pamel Map 13692, located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 04-237 150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING OF REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 13692, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SiDE OF NORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE 19. Approval to accept the Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Street 151 Rehabilitation Improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street, Contract No. 03-058 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 $2,851,650.37. RESOLUTION NO. 04-238 1S4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN AND STREET REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM VIVERO STREET TO 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-058 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 20. Disapproval of Final Map for Tract Map 16114, located on the ease 155 side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue, submitted by Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 7 ~,RANCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-239 157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DISAPPROVING TRACT MAP 16114 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. No Items Submitted. I G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS l The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Annexation of '158 approximately 240 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 21 thru 26 and 0225-084-02 and 03. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed 158 General Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY (~NCttO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH 158 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Etiwanda North SpecifSc Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Contrel/Resource Conservation and master-planned circulation modifications to the north, for land located north of the SCL corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25 and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH 158 PACIFIC - A proposed subdivision of 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots and a remainder parcel in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCL corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed '158 Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 168.77 acres of land within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCL corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0226-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-1051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 and General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410. RESOLUTION NO. 04-240 318 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TRACY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 9 (.~,~NCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCL) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25 AND 26 AND 0225-084-02 RESOLUTION NO. 04-241 322 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCL) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A,' DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 04-242 388 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND CONSERVATION FOR 168.77 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCL) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084- 02 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 10 (.~,[~',~CHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA ORDINANCE NO. 729 (first reading) 400 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409, TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND FLOOD CONTROL/RESOURCE CONSERVATION FOR 168.77 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02 RESOLUTION NO. 04-243 413 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDiViSION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SCE CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084- 02  CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 11 RANCHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ~UCALMONGA ORDINANCE NO. 730 first reading) 451 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND TRAIGH PACIFIC, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 168.77 ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 269 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted, IICITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. STATUS OF EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES - 489 BELLA VISTA PROJECT 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW 494 DRC2003-00961 - LYNNE AND RENEE MASSEY RESOLUTION NO. 04-244 495 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00961, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,628 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON LOT 12 OF TRACT 10035 IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8045 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-631-02  CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 21, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY (..~?~NCHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONG~ J. COUNCIL BUSINESS [: The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. PARKS1 RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 497 UPDATE 2. CONSIDERATION OF LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE'S 507 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW BOARD MEMBER 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. L. 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 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 15, 2004, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP 00211911 7/1/2004 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 9.87 AP 00211912 7/1/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 511.80 AP 00211912 7/1/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 539.23 AP 00211912 7/1/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 17.30 AP 00211912 7/1/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO 1NC 358.23 AP 00211913 7/1/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 801.67 AP - 00211913 7/1/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 367.37 AP - 00211913 7/1/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 75.00 AP - 00211913 7/1/201M ABC LOCKSMITHS 103.18 AP - 00211914 7/1/2004 ABLAC 281.36 AP - 00211915 7/1/2004 ABLETRONICS 42.02 AP - 00211916 7/1/2004 ADAMS, RUDY 15.00 AP - 00211916 7/1/2004 ADAMS, RUDY 200.00 AP - 00211917 7/1/2004 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,155.00 AP - 00211917 7/1/2004 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,056.00 AP - 00211918 7/1/2004 AIRGAS WEST 16.24 AP - 00211919 7/1/2004 AKBAR, SHANILA 31.50 AP - 00211920 7/1/2004 ALL AMERICAN BALLOON SUPPLY 262.75 AP - 00211921 7/1/2004 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 113.70 AP - 00211922 7/1/2004 ALPERT PRINTING 4,887.77 AP - 00211922 7/1/2004 ALPERT PRINTING 52.50 AP - 00211923 7/1/2004 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 1,002.50 AP - 00211923 7/1/2004 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 1,002.50 AP - 00211924 7/1/2004 ALVAREZ, ALICE 152.00 AP - 00211926 7/1/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 69.70 AP - 00211926 7/1/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 155.40 AP - 00211927 7/1/2004 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 3,598.00 AP - 00211928 7/1/2004 ARBOR NURSERY INC 248.90 AP - 00211929 7/1/2004 ARCH WIRELESS 1,001.75 AP - 00211930 7/1/2004 ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL 50.00 AP - 00211931 7/1/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 7,733.90 AP - 00211932 7/i/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,208.21 AP - 00211932 7/i/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 255.63 AP - 00211932 7/1/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 127.21 AP - 00211934 7/1/2004 ASHBY, MONICA 81.00 AP - 00211935 7/1/2004 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF UPLAND 236.80 AP- 00211936 7/1/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 5,174.87 AP - 00211936 7/1/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 526.25 AP 00211937 7/1/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 36.10 AP 00211937 7/1/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 29.00 AP 00211937 7/1/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 88.89 AP 00211938 7/1/2004 BAKER, SHARI 600.00 AP 00211939 7/1/2004 BANEGAS, SILVIA 32.00 AP 00211940 7/1/2004 BARRERA, ROBERT 40.00 AP 00211942 7/1/2004 BEI BETTER ENERGY IDEAS 247.80 AP 00211943 7/1/2004 BERILLA, SUSAN 44.00 AP 00211944 7/1/2004 BOLECHOWSKI, STEPHANIE 45.00 AP 00211945 7/1/2004 BORDNER, MARGIE 330.00 AP - 00211946 7/i/2004 BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES INC, MICHAEL 1,896.59 AP - 00211948 7/1/2004 BROWER, DENISE 264.00 AP - 00211949 7/1/2004 BROWN, DARRYL 56.00 AP - 00211950 7/1/2004 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 320.26 AP - 00211951 7/1/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 22.50 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 1 Current Date: 07/14/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00211951 7/1/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 25.00 AP - 00211952 7/1/2004 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 2,165.79 AP - 00211953 7/1/2004 CA/vIERON WELDING SUPPLY 169.17 AP - 00211954 7/1/2004 CAMPOS, CAYETANA 60.00 AP - 00211955 7/1/2004 CARPENTERS WOOD SHOP 700.00 AP - 00211956 7/1/2004 CHING, CLAUDIA 34.00 AP - 00211957 7/1/2004 CITY RENTALS 473.91 AP - 00211957 71112004 CITY RENTALS 1,108.33 AP - 00211957 7/1/2004 CITY RENTALS 622.58 AP - 00211957 7/1/2004 CITY RENTALS 260.15 AP - 00211958 7/1/2004 CITY TERRACE SERVICE INC. 475.00 AP - 00211959 7/1/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 10,340.00 AP - 00211959 7/1/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 540.00 AP- 00211960 7/1/2004 CLARY, ROSA 83.50 AP - 00211962 7/1/2004 COLLIER, JACKIE 40.00 AP - 00211963 7/1/2004 COMPASS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. 24.00 AP - 00211964 7/1/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 707.11 AP - 00211964 7/1/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1 723.27 AP - 00211964 7/1/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 1,282.23 AP - 00211964 7/1/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1 1,483.76 AP - 00211964 7/1/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS I 1,410.18 AP - 00211965 7/1/2004 COOK, CANDACE 76.00 AP - 00211966 7/i/2004 COOK, GINA 40.00 AP - 00211967 7/1/2004 CORONA, LORENA 209.00 AP - 00211968 7/1/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP - 00211968 7/1/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP - 00211969 7/1/2004 CUCAMONGA SCHOOL DISTRICT 11,546.27 AP - 00211970 7/1/2004 CZECH, SHERYL 78.80 AP - 00211971 7/1/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 83,840.00 AP - 00211971 7/1/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 64,938.00 AP - 00211971 7/1/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 13,778.00 AP - 00211971 7/1/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 15,557.50 AP - 00211973 7/1/2004 DAVIS, MARCELLE 40.00 AP - 00211974 7/1/2004 DAWSON & ASSOCIATES 2,110.00 AP - 00211976 7/1/2004 DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 450.00 AP - 00211977 7/1/2004 DI~VENDORF, CHRISTOPHER 261.25 AP - 00211978 7/1/2004 DISPENSING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 270.94 AP - 00211979 7/1/2004 DOUGLASS, ROBYNN 675.00 AP - 00211980 7/1/2004 DP SOLUTIONS INC 1,500.00 AP - 00211981 7/1/2004 DUGAN, ALLISON 444.13 AP - 00211982 7/1/2004 EGGERS, ROBERT 513.50 AP - 00211983 7/1/2004 ELLIFF, DAWN 85.00 AP - 00211984 7/1/2004 ESGIL CORPORATION 63,117.16 AP - 00211984 7/112004 ESGIL CORPORATION 47,576.56 AP - 00211984 71112004 ESGIL CORPORATION 11,000.00 AP - 00211985 7/1/2004 ESQUIVEL, ANA 40.00 AP - 00211986 7/1/2004 ESRI INC 15.50 AP - 00211987 7/1/2004 FARRI, JOHN & STEPHANIE 64.00 AP - 00211988 7/1/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 21.65 AP - 00211988 7/t/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.97 AP - 00211988 7/1/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.02 AP - 00211988 7/1/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.97 AP - 00211988 7/1/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.02 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 2 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time' ~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00211989 7/1/2004 FENCE CRA~ OF UPLAND INC 42.02 AP - 00211989 7/1/2004 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLAND INC 296.53 AP - 00211990 7/1/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 651.00 AP - 00211990 7/1/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 868.00 AP- 00211991 7/1/2004 FONTANA STEEL 1.00 AP - 00211992 7/1/2004 GALLS INC 1,515.34 AP - 00211993 7/1/2004 GARCIA, SILVIA 170.00 AP - 00211998 7/1/2004 GOLF VENTURES WEST 238.83 AP - 00211999 7/1/2004 GONZALES, CARLOS 50.00 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 160.12 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 222.48 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 44.34 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 81.88 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 92.75 AP - 00212000 7/1/2004 GRAINGER, WW 345.37 AP - 00212001 7/1/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 83.53 AP - 00212001 7/1/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 275.84 AP - 00212001 7/1/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 344.79 AP - 00212001 7/1/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 646.50 AP - 00212001 7/1/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 128.94 AP - 00212002 7/1/2004 GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES 6,925.74 AP - 00212003 7/1/2004 GUGOL, FE 26.00 AP - 00212004 7/1/2004 HAKIMI, SUSAN 139.68 AP - 00212004 7/1/2004 HAKIMI, SUSAN 263.95 AP - 00212005 7/1/2004 HAP, DS, ROBERT 86.14 AP - 00212006 7/1/2004 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP - 00212008 7/1/2004 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES 4,607.96 AP - 00212008 7/1/2004 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES 1,200.00 AP - 00212009 7/1/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 111.21 AP - 00212009 7/1/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 33.41 AP - 00212010 7/1/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1,158.60 AP - 00212010 7/1/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 113.68 AP - 00212011 7/1/2004 HOSE MAN INC 130.72 AP ~ 00212012 7/1/2004 HOWDYSHELL, ROBERT 85.16 AP - 00212012 7/1/2004 HOWDYSHELL, ROBERT 510.75 AP - 00212013 7/1/2004 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 690.62 ~ AP-00212014 7/1/2004 HUNT, JAMES 24.50 AP - 00212015 7/1/2004 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP - 00212016 7/1/2004 HYDE, KAREN 40.00 AP - 00212017 7/1/2004 IBM CORPORATION 252.63 AP - 00212017 7/1/2004 IBM CORPORATION 9,727.68 AP - 00212019 7/1/2004 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 510.00 AP ~ 00212020 7/1/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 144.48 AP - 00212021 7/1/2004 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 439.62 AP ~ 00212021 7/1/2004 INTRAVAIA ROCK AND SAND 197.30 AP - 00212022 7/1/2004 JOBS AVAILABLE 128.80 AP - 00212023 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,545.91 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 8,451.08 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,809.63 AP - 00212024 7/112004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 6,546.17 AP - 00212024 7/I/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,996.62 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,287.16 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,117.76 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 3 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.,,~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,659.92 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,872.30 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 9,754.37 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,809.92 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,669.32 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,079.53 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 7,632.45 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,746.05 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,998.90 AP - 00212024 7/1/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 10,169.68 AP - 00212025 7/1/2004 JONES, BOB 2,560.00 AP - 00212026 7/1/2004 JONES, DOROTHY 88.00 AP - 00212027 7/1/2004 JORGENSEN, LISA 58.00 AP - 00212027 7/1/2004 JORGENSEN, LISA 64.00 AP - 00212028 7/i/2004 KENNEDY, JANE 114.00 AP - 00212029 7/1/2004 KIRTLEY, NATALIE 24.00 AP - 00212030 7/1/2004 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 4,100.00 AP - 00212030 7/1/2004 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 1,070.00 AP - 00212031 7/1/2004 L S A ASSOCIATES INC 6,835.00 AP - 00212032 7/1/2004 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORPORATION 96.19 AP - 00212033 7/1/2004 LASTING IMPRESSIONS PRINTING CO 892.47 AP - 00212034 7/1/2004 LAY, MATTHEW 76.00 AP - 00212035 7/1/2004 LEISING, CHERYL 50.00 AP- 00212036 7/1/2004 LIEBERT CASSDY WHITMORE 336.00 AP - 00212037 7/1/2004 LILBURN CORPORATION 2,686.00 AP - 00212037 7/1/2004 LIt. BURN CORPORATION 2,713.00 AP - 00212037 7/1/2004 LILBURN CORPORATION 749.00 AP - 00212038 7/1/2004 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 200.00 AP- 00212038 7/1/2004 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 150.00 AP - 00212038 7/1/2004 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 150.00 AP - 00212039 7/1/2004 LOPEZ, ROBERT 60.00 AP - 00212040 7/1/2004 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 91.43 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 182.42 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 295.70 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 337.56 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 251.25 AP - 00212041 7/1/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 19.71 AP - 00212042 7/1/2004 MACDONALD, ANN 14.00 AP - 00212043 7/1/2004 MACKIE, LAURA 39.00 AP - 00212044 7/1/2004 MARINELLI, DIANE 81.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 253.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 77.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 298.00 AP- 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 102.38 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 119.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 121.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 101.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 900.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 92.54 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 101.00 AP - 00212045 7/1/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 101.00 AP - 00212046 7/1/2004 MARSTON, SHELLY 160.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 4 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA PEG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:t, 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Cheek Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212047 7/1/2004 MARTIN, DOUG 40.00 AP - 00212048 7/1/2004 MARTINEZ, RENEE' 8.00 AP - 00212049 7/1/2004 MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 59.44 AP - 00212050 7/1/2004 MCCLINTON, BRAD 196.00 AP - 00212051 7/1/2004 MCWHORTER, KlM 675.00 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 144.50 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 248.50 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 172.25 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 117.25 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 144.50 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 144.50 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 72.25 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 72.25 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 19.40 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 144.50 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 216.75 AP - 00212052 7/1/2004 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 72.25 AP - 00212053 7/1/2004 MORGAN, RUTH 88.00 AP - 00212054 7/1/2004 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 77.55 AP - 00212055 7/1/2004 MOUSER, JOANN 88.00 AP - 00212056 7/1/2004 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 8.31 AP - 00212057 7/1/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 26,630.75 AP - 00212058 7/1/2004 NATIONS RENT 70.04 AP - 00212059 7/1/2004 NBSGOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 750.00 AP - 00212059 7/1/2004 NBSGOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 275.00 AP - 00212059 7/1/2004 NBSGOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 2,725.00 AP - 00212060 7/1/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 46.28 AP - 00212060 7/1/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 49.53 AP - 00212061 7/1/2004 NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES 960.00 AP - 00212062 7/1/2004 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 80.00 AP - 00212063 7/1/2004 NIKPOUR, SHIRIN 30.00 AP - 00212064 7/1/2004 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 1,643.00 AP - 00212065 7/1/2004 NORMAN, ANA 40.00 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 16.23 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -13.21 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 258.42 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 47.84 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 15.12 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 5.02 AP ~ 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 636.05 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 45.57 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 16.46 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 83.39 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 349.80 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 7.69 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 256.07 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 80.44 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 43.02 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 435.76 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 373.49 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 2,202.32 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 36.56 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 139.60 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 5 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name. Amount AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 121.00 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 88.66 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -28.90 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 23.59 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 85.64 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 11.78 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 29.10 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 318.82 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 9.85 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 100.00 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 406.69 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 47.40 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 181.53 AP - 002~2067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 5.17 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 40.00 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 100.00 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 159.86 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 3.31 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 28.90 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 251.81 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 293.86 AP - 00212067 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -1.96 AP - 00212068 7/1/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 53.21 AP - 00212068 7/1/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 537.45 AP - 00212068 7/1/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 5,880.47 AP - 00212068 7/1/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 2,002.74 AP - 00212069 7/1/2004 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 231.86 AP - 00212070 7/1/2004 PATTON SALES CORP 66.58 AP - 00212071 7/1/2004 PEREZ, MANUELA 78.00 AP - 00212072 7/1/2004 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 741.86 AP - 00212073 7/1/2004 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 1,100.00 AP- 00212074 7/1/2004 PITASSI ARCHITECTS INC 886.51 AP - 00212075 7/1/2004 POUK AND STEINLE INC. 572,453.12 AP - 00212076 7/1/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 156.63 AP - 00212077 7/1/2004 QUICK WRAP BAGS 438.95 AP - 00212078 7/1/2004 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP - 00212079 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 40.00 AP - 00212079 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 40.00 AP - 00212079 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMME! 45.00 AP - 00212079 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 15.00 AP - 00212080 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YM' 953.29 AP - 00212080 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YM~ 907.90 AP - 00212080 7/1/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YM 1,216.74 AP - 00212081 7/1/2004 RAULS AUTO TRIM INC 211.94 AP - 00212082 7/1/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 2.91 AP - 00212082 7/1/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 23.26 AP - 00212082 7/1/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00212082 7/1/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 258.60 AP - 00212083 7/1/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 137.37 AP - 00212084 7/1/2004 REFRIGERATION SERVICE & INSTALLATION 286.88 AP - 00212084 7/1/2004 REFRIGERATION SERVICE & INSTALLATION 110.00 AP - 00212084 7/1/2004 REFRIGERATION SERVICE & INSTALLATION 808.11 AP - 00212084 7/1/2004 REFRIGERATION SERVICE & INSTALLATION 900.22 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 6 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC-CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212085 7/1/2004 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP - 00212086 7/1/2004 RENTERIA, MARLENE 300.00 AP - 00212087 7/1/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 5,960.00 AP-00212087 7/1/2004 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 12,100.08 AP - 00212088 7/1/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 340.45 AP - 00212088 7/1/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,844.00 AP - 00212088 7/1/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,396.00 AP - 00212088 7/1/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,040.00 AP-00212089 7/1/2004 RISK REACTOR 2,684.81 AP - 00212091 7/1/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 226.00 AP - 00212092 7/1/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 250.00 AP - 00212093 7/1/2004 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 1,056.00 AP - 00212094 7/1/2004 RONQUILLO, REINERIO 81.00 AP - 00212095 7/1/2004 SAID, FADIA 80.00 AP - 00212097 7/1/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 893.52 AP - 00212098 7/1/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 12,500.00 AP - 00212099 7/1/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYh4 213.50 AP - 00212100 7/1/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYi~ 213.00 AP - 00212101 7/1/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYM 166.50 AP - 00212102 7/1/2004 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 387.90 AP - 00212102 7/1/2004 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 627.07 AP - 00212102 7/1/2004 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO INC 144.37 AP - 00212103 7/1/2004 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER 500.00 AP - 00212103 7/i/2004 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER 2,391.00 AP - 00212103 7/1/2004 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER 1,500.00 AP - 00212104 7/1/2004 SANFILIPPO, COLLEEN 175.00 AP - 00212105 7/1/2004 SEATON, MARIAN 200.00 AP - 00212107 7/1/2004 SEPULVEDA, MARK 78.80 AP - 00212108 7/1/2004 SHAH, SILPA 104.00 AP - 00212109 7/1/2004 SHIRVANIAN FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTN 1,080.95 AP - 00212110 7/1/2004 SHOETERIA 140.59 AP - 00212110 7/1/2004 SHOETERIA 150.00 AP - 00212111 7/1/2004 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 992.59 AP- 00212111 7/1/2004 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 1,837.14 AP- 00212111 7/1/2004 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 370.47 AP - 00212111 7/1/2004 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 720.64 AP - 00212111 7/1/2004 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 1,731.00 AP - 00212112 7/1/2004 SCOTT, DIANA 250.00 AP- 00212113 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 1,071.47 AP - 00212113 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY -436.60 AP - 00212114 7/1/2004 SMART AND FINAL 45.82 AP - 00212114 7/1/2004 SMART AND FINAL 80.24 AP - 00212115 7/1/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 127.33 AP - 00212115 7/1/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,059.04 AP - 00212116 7/1/2004 SOLORZANO, LORI 7.00 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,176.37 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 122.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.77 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.86 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 7 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC -CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,e,~ 16:19:3 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.00 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.19 AP- 00212122 7/112004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.96 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 103.89 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.69 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.17 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.19 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.53 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51,57 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14,19 AP - 00212122 71112004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.46 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 0.95 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOIJTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 89.13 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.25 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.57 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.21 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.57 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.40 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 294.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.20 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 250.53 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.46 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/i/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.26 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.67 AP - 00212122 7/i/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.79 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.51 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.87 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.04 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11.53 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 8 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~""~r 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.80 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.42 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 169.75 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.70 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.92 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.03 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.82 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.72 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 97.67 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.19 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.15 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 483.72 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.83 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.42 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 174.50 AP - 00212122 7/1/200~- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 96.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.38 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.31 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.14 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.41 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 120.64 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.40 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 131.14 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 9 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC- CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.42 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 402.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 160.23 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.91 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.36 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.34 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.23 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERI(I CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.81 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.63 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.17 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 233.37 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.78 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.52 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.71 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.69 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.64 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.59 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.11 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.50 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.43 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.03 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.17 AP - 00212122 7/l/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP- 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTI~ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.91 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/i/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.15 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.04 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.27 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.26 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.53 AP - 00212122 7/I/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.19 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 10 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout TimeL & 16:19:3 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.58 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 92.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 111.10 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.87 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.17 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.04 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.33 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 124.09 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.43 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.47 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 82.52 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.43 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.43 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.15 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.04 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.91 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.18 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2.30 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212122 7/I/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.38 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.49 AP - 00212122 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212123 7/1/2004 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS 332.00 AP - 00212124 7/1/2004 SPECTRA COMPANY 206.00 AP - 00212124 7/1/2004 SPECTRA COMPANY 1,000.00 AP - 00212125 7/1/2004 SPEEDWAY MUI~YLER INC 590.82 AP - 00212126 7/1/2004 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 961.39 AP - 00212126 7/1/2004 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 2,934.15 AP - 00212126 7/1/2004 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 7.26 AP - 00212127 7/1/2004 STATEWIDE RENT A FENCE INC 1,237.00 AP - 00212128 7/1/2004 STERLING COFI~EE SERVICE 42.20 AP - 00212129 7/1/2004 STOFA, JOSEPH 15.00 AP - 00212130 7/1/2004 TAGLE, MARGARET 70.00 AP - 00212130 7/1/2004 TAGLE, MARGARET 180.00 AP - 00212131 7/1/2004 TALBERT, CYNTHIA 45.00 AP - 00212132 7/1/2004 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY, O C 183.79 AP - 00212132 7/1/2004 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY, O C 274.46 AP - 00212132 7/1/2004 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY, O C 207.63 AP - 00212133 7/1/2004 TEMME, ED 152.48 AP - 00212134 7/1/2004 THOMPSON, STEPHANIE 28.00 AP - 00212135 7/1/2004 TOMARK SPORTS INC 156.69 AP - 00212135 7/1/2004 TOMARK SPORTS INC 143.30 AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 7,554.01 AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 12,411.36 AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 4,963.18 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 11 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:t/ 16:19:3 II CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 5,826.86 AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 9,952.98 AP - 00212136 7/1/2004 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 1,436.78 AP - 00212137 7/1/2004 TRUDO, TERRANCE 80.00 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCAKE 365.00 AP- 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,831.66 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 11,189.00 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 646.03 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 935.34 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 6,401.00 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 6,169.00 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 224.35 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 62.60 AP - 00212138 7/1/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 128.76 AP - 00212141 7/112004 UNITED TRAFFIC 4,291.25 AP - 00212142 7/1/2004 UNITED WAY 590.32 AP-00212143 7/1/2004 UPS 22.65 AP - 00212145 7/1/2004 UTLEY, LAURA 48.00 AP - 00212146 7/1/2004 VALUM, ANNE MARIE 42.87 AP - 00212147 7/1/2004 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 357.00 AP - 00212148 7/1/2004 VOLM, LIZA 112.50 AP - 00212149 7/I/2004 VU, LUONG DINH 130.63 AP - 00212150 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 560.79 AP- 00212150 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 55.19 AP- 00212151 7/1/2004 WARD, DESIREE 525.00 AP - 00212152 7/1/2004 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 119.80 AP - 00212153 7/1/2004 WARREN, RUBEN 357.00 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 593.14 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 272.67 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 509.10 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 305.69 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 991.74 AP - 00212154 7/1/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 32.58 AP - 00212155 7/1/2004 WE DO EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND SUPPLY INC 285.76 AP - 00212156 7/1/2004 WEST END MATERIAL SUPPLY 12.07 AP - 00212157 7/1/2004 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS INC 629.77 AP - 00212159 7/1/2004 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 90,000.00 AP - 00212159 7/1/2004 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 19,087.50 AP - 00212160 7/1/2004 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN AND SMART 14,971.08 AP - 00212161 7/1/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 829.78 AP - 00212161 7/1/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 0.01 AP-00212161 7/1/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 2,153.81 AP - 00212161 7/1/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 1,794.04 AP - 00212162 7/1/2004 YARBROUGH, TONI 40.00 AP - 00212163 7/1/2004 YEE, LARRY 51.00 AP - 00212164 7/1/2004 YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES LP 780.00 AP - 00212165 7/1/2004 ZARAGOZA, EDITH 28.00 AP - 00212166 7/1/2004 ZENDEJAS, APRIL 34.00 AP - 00212167 7/1/2004 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 786.16 AP - 00212168 7/1/2004 CALIFORNIA JOURNAL 43.00 AP - 00212169 7/1/2004 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 73,327.19 AP - 00212170 7/1/2004 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 75.30 AP - 00212171 7/1/2004 ENGSTROM, DANIEL 2,200.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 12 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:tm 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212172 7/1/2004 EVANS, CATHLEEN 100.00 AP - 00212173 7/1/2004 EZ RENTALS 1,349.49 AP - 00212175 7/1/2004 LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 138.00 AP- 00212176 7/1/2004 LETS STOR IT 58.00 AP- 00212177 7/1/2004 PRINCIPAL Lllq~ 15,879.89 AP - 00212178 7/1/2004 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 9,250.00 AP - 00212179 71112004 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 1,900.00 AP - 00212180 7/1/2004 SOUTHERN CALIF WASTE MGMT FORUM 25.00 AP - 00212181 7/1/2004 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 269.86 AP - 00212182 7/1/2004 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 7,776.00 AP - 00212185 7/I/2004 IW MARRIOTT DESERT SPRINGS RESORT 108.16 AP - 00212186 7/1/2004 MMASC 175.00 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -1.96 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -28.90 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 28.90 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 16.46 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 83.39 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 293.86 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 15.12 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -13.21 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 47.84 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 258.42 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 251.81 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 23.59 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 5.02 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 100.00 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 9.85 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 5.17 AP - 00212188 7/t/2004 OmCE DEPOT 16.23 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 7.69 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 181.53 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 88.66 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 3.31 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 45.57 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFF/CE DEPOT 36.56 AP - 00212188 7/t/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 85.64 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 47.40 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 121.00 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 139.60 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 373.49 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 80.44 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 349.80 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 2,202.32 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 406.69 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 435.76 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 636.05 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 43.02 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 256.07 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 11.78 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 159.86 AP - 00212188 7/1/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 318.82 AP - 00212188 7/I/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 29.10 AP - 00212189 7/1/2004 OLIVAS, GLORIA ANN 100.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 13 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ 16:19:3 1,9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212190 7/1/2004 ORNELAS, ESTHER 40.00 AP - 00212191 7/1/2004 BUQUET, CHARLES 500.00 AP - 00212192 7/1/2004 MASTERCRAFT 9,600.00 AP - 00212193 7/1/2004 SILVA CONSTRUCTION 250.00 AP - 00212194 7/1/2004 EMCOR SERVICE 4,392.46 AP - 00212195 7/I/2004 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS 256.50 AP - 00212195 7/1/2004 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS 278.16 AP - 00212196 7/1/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 336.50 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 521.92 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 1,062.03 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 161.79 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 260.76 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 739.92 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 2,835.08 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 499.88 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 288.27 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 243.87 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 71.16 AP - 00212197 7/1/2004 SIR SPEEDY 177.96 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 277.19 AP - 00212198 7/t/2004 US PRINTING 294.97 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 292.00 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 271.26 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 1,065.11 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 271.26 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 334.03 AP - 00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 108.61 AP-00212198 7/1/2004 US PRINTING 3,823.40 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 37.54 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 217.86 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 145.23 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 343.31 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 278.73 AP - 00212199 7/1/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 178.60 AP - 00212200 7/7/2004 HERTZ LOCAL EDITION RENT A CAR 808.13 AP - 00212201 7/7/2004 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 78.99 AP - 00212201 7/7/2004 A AND K 30 MIN PHOTO LAB INC 10.01 AP - 00212202 7/7/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 203.74 AP - 00212202 7/7/2004 AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO INC 151.82 AP - 00212203 7/7/2004 ADAMSON, TODD 40.00 AP - 00212204 7/7/2004 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 135.00 AP - 00212206 7/7/2004 ALLIANCE BUS LINES INC 519.30 AP - 00212208 7/7/2004 ALTA FIRE EQUIPMENT CO 62.91 AP - 00212209 7/7/2004 ALTA LOMA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 100.00 AP - 00212210 7/7/2004 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES 430.08 AP - 00212211 7/7/2004 ALTA LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 3,700.00 AP - 00212212 7/7/2004 BARNASH, SHANNON 12.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 6,940.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 10,005.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 1,845.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 5,528.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 9,960.00 AP - 00212213 7/7/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 2,490.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 14 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,.! 16:19:3 /q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212214 7/7/2004 BERG, MARIA 40.00 AP - 00212215 7/7/2004 BETTENCOURT, TANA 28.00 AP- 00212216 7/7/2004 BOYLE ENGINEERING 14,245.75 AP - 00212217 7/7/2004 BURTON, BRIDGETTE 130.00 AP - 00212218 7/7/2004 CALIFORNIA CODE CHECK 1NC. 9,520.00 AP - 00212219 7/7/2004 CALIFORNIA MARKETING SPECIALISTS 236.96 AP - 00212220 7/7/2004 CENTRAL CITIES SIGNS INC 7.27 AP - 00212220 7/7/2004 CENTRAL CITIES SIGNS INC 352.67 AP - 00212220 7/7/2004 CENTRAL CITIES SIGNS 1NC 766.75 AP - 00212221 7/7/2004 CERTIIqED AUTO CARE 174.67 AP - 00212221 7/7/2004 CERTIIqED AUTO CARE 26.83 AP - 00212221 7/7/2004 CERTIIqED AUTO CARE 54.77 AP - 00212222 7/7/2004 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 1,577.46 AP - 00212223 7/7/2004 CHI, LUCY 80.00 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 124.05 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 403.21 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 31.02 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 31.02 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 186.10 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 217.11 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 248.13 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 992.52 AP - 00212224 7/7/2004 CINGULAR INTERACTIVE LP 868.45 AP - 00212225 7/7/2004 CITY NATIONAL BANK 82,492.61 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 59.29 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 88.49 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 1,057.22 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 36.00 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 895.00 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 46.00 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 108.00 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 84.00 AP - 00212227 7/7/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 107.50 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,980.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 501.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,299.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 199.28 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 705.98 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 934.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 29.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 941.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 133.38 AP- 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 121.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 44.03 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.33 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 258.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 279.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,205.58 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 497.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 119.58 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 296.58 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 574.88 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 15 Current Date: 07114/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:t ~ 16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 200.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 262.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 117.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 126.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 104.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 80.48 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 224.13 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 262.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CLICAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 84.28 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 47.15 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 75.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 96.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 228.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 44.03 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 140.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 180.53 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 57.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 127.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,924.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,973.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 153.98 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 116.03 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 61.28 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 340.28 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.78 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 449.53 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,244.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 69.33 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,015.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,826.58 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,241.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 76.23 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,001.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 969.78 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,296.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,635.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 497.13 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 489.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,092.83 AP - 002 I2231 7/7/2004 CLICAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 757.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA.VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 409.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 45.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 70.13 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.33 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 74.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 140.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 221.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 31.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 23.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 33.98 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 31.68 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 16 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:a~ 16:19:3 /ia CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 671.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,760.98 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,660.48 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,309.23 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 333.48 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 814.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 578.33 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,504.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,834.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,338.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,112.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,474.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 670.33 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 250.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 27.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 93.13 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 177.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 367.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 308.18 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 150.53 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 149.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 265.63 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 38.28 AP ~ 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 22.48 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 100.03 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.68 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,059.68 AP ~ 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 663.43 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 852.13 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 114.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 134.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 131.08 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 182.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 41.73 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 32.83 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 404.78 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 973.93 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 862.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 650.88 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 307.38 AP - 00212231 7/7/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 717.48 AP - 00212232 7/7/2004 D A R E AMERICA MERCHANDISE 903.40 AP - 00212233 7/7/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 1,307.29 AP - 00212233 7/7/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 1,307.29 AP - 00212233 7/7/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 1,307.29 AP - 00212234 7/7/2004 DUITSMAN, ERIN 75.00 AP - 00212235 7/7/2004 DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING 2,853.65 AP - 00212236 7/7/2004 EASYLINK SERVICES CORP. 3.77 AP - 00212237 7/7/2004 Eb-TYCHIOU, AUDREY 150.00 AP - 00212238 7/7/2004 EMPIRE CLEANERS 354.00 AP - 00212239 7/7/2004 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 91.16 AP - 00212240 7/7/2004 ESQUIVEL, TARA 39.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 17 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:i ~ 16:19:3 / / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212241 7/7/2004 FAKHOURR, MAILER 40.00 AP - 00212242 7/7/2004 FARR, GERI 63.00 AP - 00212243 7/7/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 18.14 AP - 00212244 7/712004 FILARSKY AND WATT 300.00 AP - 00212245 7/7/2004 FIRST PLACE TROPHIES 188.56 AP - 00212246 7/7/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 56.14 AP - 00212246 7/7/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 63.40 AP - 00212247 7/7/2004 FREEMAN, RENAE 40.00 AP - 00212248 7/7/2004 FRITTS FORD 22,595.87 AP - 00212248 7/7/2004 FRITTS FORD 22,628.19 AP - 00212248 7/7/2004 FRITTS FORD 22,628.19 AP - 00212248 7/7/2004 FRITTS FORD 22,595.87 AP - 00212251 7/7/2004 GALLS INC 39.80 AP - 00212252 7/7/2004 GAMEZ, LENORE 78.00 AP - 00212253 7/7/2004 GEOGRAPHICS 284.46 AP - 00212254 7/7/2004 GIORDANO, MARIANNA 260.00 AP - 00212255 7/7/2004 GRIDER, JESSICA 80.00 AP - 00212256 7/7/2004 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY 700.00 AP - 00212257 7/7/2004 HARRIS, JIM 50.00 AP - 00212258 7/7/2004 HARTILL, MELISSA 34.00 AP - 00212259 7/7/2004 HERNANDEZ, LUANA 192.00 AP - 00212260 7/7/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 857.69 AP - 00212260 7/7/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 643.27 AP - 00212263 7/7/2004 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY 68.95 AP - 00212266 7/7/2004 JANIKOWSKI PLUMBING INC 316.85 AP - 00212267 7/7/2004 J1MENEZ, ARRICA 240.00 AP - 00212268 7/7/2004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 882.17 AP - 00212268 7/7/2004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 912.50 AP - 00212269 7/7/2004 KATIES HOUSEKEEPING SERVICE INC 110.47 AP - 00212271 7/7/2004 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC 1,141.72 AP - 00212272 7/7/2004 LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY 3,497.40 AP - 00212273 7/7/2004 LEWIS OPERATING CORP 22.00 AP - 00212274 7/7/2004 LIL STITCH 309.78 AP - 00212275 7/7/2004 LOBOS, JULIE 36.37 AP - 00212276 7/7/2004 LONG, SUE 95.00 AP - 00212277 7/7/2004 MAIN STREET SIGNS 242.44 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 101.00 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 336.15 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 423.00 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBiNG 77.00 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 280.00 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 558.00 AP - 00212278 7/7/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 133.00 AP - 00212279 7/7/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00212279 7/7/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00212279 7/7/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00212280 7/7/2004 MATRIX INSTIUTE-IE 1,360.00 AP - 00212283 7/7/2004 NATHANI, NEETA 39.00 AP - 00212284 7/7/2004 NATIONAL EVENT SERVICES 465.43 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 200.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 18 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:~ I~ 16:19:3 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 450.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 276.38 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLLrFIONS INC -276.38 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212285 7/7/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00212287 7/7/2004 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 4,515.50 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 853.69 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 82.14 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 14.27 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 70.31 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 206.88 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 98.87 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 123.52 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -7.82 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 80.51 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 320.73 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 90.91 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -44.44 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 14.83 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 57.27 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 305.63 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 90.91 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 90.91 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 95.76 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 63.52 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 31.29 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 60.86 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 89.25 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 7.82 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 27.90 AP - 00212289 7/7/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 20.14 AP - 00212290 7/7/2004 OH, JENNY 57.00 AP - 00212291 7/7/2004 OPEN APPS 550.00 AP - 00212292 7/7/2004 ORTIZ, PETE 45.00 AP - 00212293 7/7/2004 OTT, LAURA 342.00 AP - 00212293 7/7/2004 OTT, LAURA 97.50 AP - 00212293 7/7/2004 OTT, LAURA 108.00 AP - 00212296 7/7/2004 PEREZ, CARLOS 1,360.06 AP - 00212297 7/7/2004 PERPETUAL STORAGE 636.00 AP- 00212297 7/7/2004 PERPETUAL STORAGE 879.20 AP - 00212299 7/7/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 34.39 AP - 00212299 7/7/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 243.65 AP - 00212299 7/7/2004 POMONA VALLEY KAWASAKI 423.11 AP - 00212300 7/7/2004 PRIMA 55.00 AP - 00212301 7/7/2004 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 766.93 AP - 00212301 7/7/2004 PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE 514.49 AP - 00212302 7/7/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00212302 7/7/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 41.92 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 19 Cui'rent Date: 07/14/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timel~ i~ 16:19:3 [ 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212304 7/712004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 584.18 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 4,539.68 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 1,459.63 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 41.92 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 358.10 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 31.92 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 225.10 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 134.34 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 180.21 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 390.02 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 30.00 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 335.15 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 212.12 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 31.92 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 523.51 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 1,134.88 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 1,191.23 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 317.96 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 58.88 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 39.02 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 264.57 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 362.03 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 330.89 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 205.47 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 330.89 AP - 00212304 7/7/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 59.01 AP - 00212305 7/7/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 80.00 AP - 00212306 7/7/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YM~ 940.49 AP - 00212306 7/7/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FONTANA FAMILY YM' 1,602.41 AP - 00212307 7/7/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 21.82 AP - 00212307 7/7/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 8.73 AP - 00212308 7/7/2004 REGAN, JO CAROL 125.72 AP - 00212309 7/7/2004 RENTERIA, MARLENE 500.00 AP - 00212310 7/7/2004 REYES, CRISTINA 34.00 AP - 00212311 7/7/2004 REZAI, TINA 80.00 AP - 00212312 7/7/2004 RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTA 42.87 AP-00212313 7/7/2004 ROIAS, CARLOS 12.19 AP - 00212313 7/7/2004 ROJAS, CARLOS 6.26 AP - 00212314 7/7/2004 RUBENS TACOS #2 319.06 AP - 00212315 7/7/2004 S B AND O INC 1,392.00 AP - 00212316 7/7/2004 SAFARILAND LTD INC 116.00 AP - 00212316 7/7/2004 SAFARILAND LTD INC 116.00 AP - 00212317 7/7/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 220.00 AP - 00212318 7/7/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 300.00 AP - 00212319 7/7/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 1,250.98 AP ~ 00212320 7/7/2004 SBC LONG DISTANCE 21.27 AP - 00212321 7/7/2004 SBC 55.23 AP - 00212321 7/7/2004 SBC 55.23 AP - 00212321 7/7/2004 SBC 1,352.31 AP - 00212323 7/7/2004 SILVER, EDNA 70.00 AP - 00212323 7/7/2004 SILVER, EDNA 80.00 AP - 00212324 7/7/2004 SKYLINE ORANGE COUNTY 1,945.97 AP - 00212325 7/7/2004 SMART AND FINAL 62.71 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 20 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~.~ .,16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212326 7/7/2004 SMIDERLY, FRANNY 520.00 AP - 00212331 7/7/2004 SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COIV~ANY 824,926.11 AP - 00212331 7/7/2004 SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY -82,492.61 AP - 00212332 7/7/2004 TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC, DAVID 3,750.36 AP - 00212332 7/7/2004 TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC, DAVID 1,610.22 AP - 00212334 7/7/2004 TEST OUT CORP 2,204.23 AP - 00212334 7/712004 TEST OUT CORP 4.65 AP - 00212337 7/7/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 2,696.98 AP - 00212337 7/7/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 22,924.34 AP-00212339 7/7/2004 UPS 18.26 AP - 00212339 7/7/2004 UPS 17.84 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 2,760.00 AP ~ 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 2,070.00 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 5,548.79 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 1,670.52 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 6,003.03 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 2,852.00 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 2,622.00 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 5,801.77 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 1,768.28 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 1,811.26 AP - 00212340 7/7/2004 US GUARDS CO INC 5,819.00 AP - 00212342 7/7/2004 VEND U COMPANY 274.24 AP - 00212342 7/7/2004 VEND U COMPANY 133.22 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 29.68 AP ~ 00212344 7/7/2004 VERLZON 20.41 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.52 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 27.56 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.98 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 27.95 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 89.73 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 29.34 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERLZON 91.19 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 38.93 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 38.93 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 27.91 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 30.30 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 56.70 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 29.34 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERiZON 464.25 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 87.20 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 52.61 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 56.76 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 43.02 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 91.19 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 113.39 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 276.18 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 21 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ / 16:19:3 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.88 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.03 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.41 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.56 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 30.63 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 30.65 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 136.84 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 55.81 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 51.45 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.41 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 28.35 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.76 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 26.67 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 20.46 AP - 00212344 7/7/2004 VERIZON 55.81 AP - 00212345 7/7/2004 VERIZON 1,160.50 AP - 00212346 7/7/2004 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC 500.00 AP - 00212348 7/7/2004 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 91.16 AP - 00212349 7/7/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 329.91 AP - 00212349 7/7/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 434.28 AP - 00212351 7/7/2004 WIGGINS, ALISON 49.00 AP - 00212351 7/7/2004 WIGGINS, ALISON 34.00 AP-00212352 7/7/2004 WILLDANASSOCIATES 86,160.00 AP - 00212354 7/7/2004 WORMDAHL, AMY 100.00 AP - 00212355 7/7/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 210.21 AP - 00212357 7/7/2004 ABLAC 16.39 AP - 00212359 7/7/2004 ALMBLAD, KENNETH 275.00 AP - 00212360 7/7/2004 BILL BLANCHARDS LITTLE BIG BAND 250.00 AP - 00212360 7/7/2004 BILL BLANCHARDS LITTLE BIG BAND 250.00 AP - 00212361 7/7/2004 BLEVINS, DAVE 245.27 AP - 00212362 7/7/2004 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00212363 7/7/2004 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP - 00212364 7/7/2004 DELTA DENTAL 32,440.56 AP - 00212365 7/7/2004 DISNEYLAND RESORT 1,870.00 AP - 00212366 7/7/2004 DORTA, GEORGE 275.00 AP - 00212367 7/7/2004 GUARDIAN 2,745.30 AP - 00212368 7/7/2004 HARMONY ARTISTS INC 1,750.00 AP - 00212369 7/7/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 172.80 AP - 00212370 7/7/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 172.80 AP - 00212372 7/7/2004 KELLY, SEAN 1,500.00 AP - 00212374 7/7/2004 MAGIC MOUNTAIN 1,210.00 AP - 00212375 7/7/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 60.00 AP - 00212376 7/7/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 10,500.27 AP - 00212377 7/7/2004 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 316.25 AP - 00212378 7/7/2004 PMI 886.52 AP - 00212379 7/7/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 6.81 AP - 00212380 7/7/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 100.00 AP- 00212381 7/7/2004 RCPFA 6,174.71 AP - 00212383 7/7/2004 SHJ~RIFFS COURT SERVICES 75.00 AP - 00212384 7/7/2004 SIPHOMSAY, SID 400.00 AP - 00212385 7/7/2004 SLJ PRO AUDIO SERVICES 1,200.00 AP - 00212386 7/7/2004 SLUKA, SUSAN 600.00 AP - 00212388 7/7/2004 STADIUM PLAZA SOUTH LLC 473.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 22 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Tim ~,j,~16:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212389 7/7/2004 UNITED WAY 49.00 AP - 00212390 7/7/2004 WAGNER, SHAWN TEES 100.00 AP-00212391 7/7/2004 WETIP 6,021.00 AP - 00212392 7/8/2004 JONES, BOB 2,560.00 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.13 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.00 AP - 002 I2394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.57 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.86 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.33 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 82.12 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.94 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.24 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.05 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.14 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.03 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 129.66 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.47 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 177.79 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.90 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 140.00 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.48 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.52 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 94.47 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 151.09 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.05 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 376.30 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.46 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.42 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 64.50 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 146.21 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 37.93 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 159.82 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112.24 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 457.25 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.47 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ' 29,549.15 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.00 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41,536.55 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 125.15 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.52 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.87 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 58.92 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.79 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.86 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.67 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 99.31 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) 13.74 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 23 Current Date: 07/14/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timel,n ,~6:19:3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 7/1/2004 through 7/13/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00212394 7/8/2ff)4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.86 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 94.01 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.69 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.74 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.87 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 48.18 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CAL]FORNIA EDISON 98.24 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.79 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.75 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 215.25 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,819.16 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 186.34 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112.20 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 252.83 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.29 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 96.92 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13.76 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 67.55 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 221.33 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,439.13 AP - 00212394 7/8/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.65 AP - 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DALLY BULLETIN 229.28 AP - 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DALLY BULLETIN 234.26 AP- 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DALLY BULLETIN 224.16 AP - 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 179.48 AP - 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 224.30 AP - 00212395 7/12/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 244.22 Total for Check ID AP: 3,060,720.33 Total for Entity: 3,060,720.33 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 24 Current Date: 07/14/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ ,~'6:19:3 City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary June 30, 2004 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM investments Value Value Value Portlollo Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Local Agency Investment Funds 29,215,019.69 29,215,019.69 29,215,019.69 16.02 1 I 1.449 1.469 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 1,515,000.00 1,510,025,19 1,515,000.00 0.83 733 424 2.150 2.180 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 146,750,000.00 144,509,781 ~53 146,652,562.50 80.42 1,483 1,254 3.229 3.274 Treasury Securities - Coupon 5,000,000.00 5,000,000~00 4,985,54688 2.73 1,070 1,048 3.184 3.229 Investments 182,480,019.69 180,234,826.41 182,368,129.07 100.0(Y'/o 1,228 1,040 2.934 2.974 Cash and Accrued Interest Passbook/Checking 545,752,82 545,752.82 545,752.82 1 1 0.493 0.500 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase 11,377.03 11,377.03 Subtotal 557,12985 557,12g 95 Total Cash and Investments 183,925,772.51 180,791,956.26 182,925,258.92 1,228 1,040 2.934 2.974 Total Earnings June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year TO Date Fiscal Year Ending Current Year 454,542.56 4,624,187.68 4,624,187.68 Average Daily Balance 176,967,768.65 163,052,472.90 Effective Rate of Return 3.13% 2.83% -I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity with the investment policy adopted March 5, 2003. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month-end market values were obtained from (IDC)-Intaractive Data Corporation pricing service. The attached Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents as of the prior month's end is provided under the City official Investment Policy. The provisions of the individual bond documents govern the management of these funds. Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 07/13~2004 - 16: PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V6~21 Repo~1Ver, 5.00 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Daysto Maturity CUSIP Inveatment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Data Local Agency Investment Funds SYS00005 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 29,215,019.69 29,215,019.69 29,215,019.69 1.469 1.449 1 Subtotal and Average 25,305,019.69 29,215,019.69 29~15,019.69 29,215,019.69 1,449 1 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 06050E6Q3 1228 BANK OF AMERICA 08/27/2003 1,515,000.00 1,510,025.19 1,515,000.00 2.150 2.150 424 08/29/2005 Subtotal and Average 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,510,025.19 1,515,000.00 2.150 424 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331QK55 1199 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/19/2003 2,500,000.CO 2,432,031.25 2,496,875.00 3.120 3.104 1,418 05/19/2008 31331QM79 1205 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/05/2003 2,000,000.00 1,950,625~00 2,000,000.00 3.210 3.166 1,433 06/03/2008 31331QN78 1207 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/00/2003 5,500,000.00 5,369,375.00 5,500,000.00 2.440 2.407 981 03/09/2007 31331Q7C5 1226 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/13/2003 3,000,000.00 2,954,062.50 2,995,312.50 3.050 3.049 1,138 08/13/2007 31331TFG1 1231 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 09/24/2003 2,000,000.00 1,984,37500 1,996,562.50 3.370 3.370 1,180 09/24/2007 31331TGV7 1236 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 10/27/2003 3,000,000.00 2,965,312.50 3,000,000 00 3.010 2.969 1,030 04/27/2007 31331THR5 1241 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 11/10/2003 2,000,000.00 1,983,750.00 2,000,000.00 3.170 3127 1,043 05/10/2(;07 31331TND9 1244 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/17/2003 2,000,000.00 1,968,125.00 2,COO,000.00 3.970 3.916 1,447 06J17/2008 31331TWH0 1253 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/17/2004 2,000,000 00 1,924,375.00 2,000,000.00 3.240 3.196 1,355 03/17/2008 31331TWJ6 1254 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/17/2004 4,000,000.00 3,840,000.00 3,997,500.00 3.550 3.517 1,600 11/17/2008 31331TG62 1263 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/29/2004 3,500,000.00 3,478,125.00 3,479,000.00 3.920 4.012 1,579 10/27/2008 31331TU25 1272 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 0rD/10/~2004 3,000,000.00 3,022,500.00 3,000,000.00 4.0(X) 3.945 1,257 12/10/2007 313,39XJJ4 1210 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 0rD/1 2/2CO3 5,000,000.00 4,879,687.50 5,000,000.00 2.650 2.614 1,075 06/11/2007 31339XB78 1211 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/15/2003 3,000,000.00 2,926,875.00 3,000,000.00 2.430 2.397 988 00/15/2007 31339XLB8 1212 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/19/2003 2,000,000.00 1,949,375.00 2,000,000.00 2.625 2.589 1,083 06/19/2007 31339XPL2 1213 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/25/2003 2,000,000.00 1,930,000.00 2,000,000.00 2.450 2.417 1,182 09/26~2007 31339YHG0 1218 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/10/2003 3,000,000.00 2,929,687.50 3,000,000.00 2.540 2.506 1,019 04/16/2007 3133X1P27 1237 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/27/2003 3,000,000.00 2,988,750.00 3,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 1,579 10/27/2008 3133X3DX8 1247 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2004 2,000,000.00 1,981,875.00 2,000,000.00 3.355 3.310 1,215 1 0/29/~007 3133X3E25 1248 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2004 2,000,000~00 1,978,750.00 2,000,000.00 3.320 3.275 1,215 10/29/2007 3133X4MR9 1255 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/2004 5,000,000.00 4,937,600.00 5,000,000.00 2.750 2.713 908 12~26/~2006 3133X4XF3 1256 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/29/2(X)4 2,000,000.00 1,946,875.00 2,000,000.00 3.500 3.452 1,275 12/28/2007 3133X5WA2 1264 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/30/2004 2,000,000.00 1,964,375.00 2,000,000.CO 3.210 3.167 1,308 01/30/2008 3133X77K4 1268 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/26/2004 2,000,000.CO 2,012,500~00 2,000,000.00 4.080 4.025 1,335 0~/25/2008 3133X76T6 1269 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2004 2,000,0CO.00 2,013,760.00 1,999,375.00 4.070 4.024 1,337 02/25/2008 3133X7FRO 1273 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06Jl 7~2004 3,000,000.00 3,013,125.00 3,000,000.00 4.250 4.193 1,355 03/17/2008 3128X1BD8 1198 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 00/19/2003 5,000,000.00 4,935,399.63 4,993,750.00 3.500 3.479 1,418 00/19/2008 3128XIFG7 1203 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/20/2003 3,0~O,~O0.00 2,949,176.79 3,000,000.00 2.500 2.466 880 11~8/2(X)6  Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 07/13~2004 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment a Issuer Balance Data Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3128X1DK0 1204 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP. 05/26/2003 4,000,000.00 3,927,559.82 4,000,000.00 3.100 3.058 1,245 11/28/2007 3128X1JDO 1208 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/12/2003 5,000,000.00 4,846,209.72 4,998,500.00 3.030 2.995 1,441 06/11/2008 3128X1JN8 1209 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/12/2003 2,000,000.00 1,940,834.05 2,000,000,00 2.400 2.367 1,075 06/11/2007 3128X1L96 1233 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 10/08/2003 4,000,o00.00 3,971,868.29 3,997,600.00 2.800 2.792 808 09/17/2(306 3128X12K2 1239 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 11/03/2003 4,000,000.00 3,987,520.14 3,983,125,00 4.010 4.048 1,574 10/22/2008 3128X2P25 1257 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 03/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,967,236.94 3,000,000,00 4.000 3945 1,733 03/30/2009 3128X07G8 1258 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/12/2004 1,250,000.00 1,241,081 24 1,248,750.00 3.650 3626 1,406 05~7/2008 3128X25Y7 1260 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/19/2004 2,000,000.D0 1,956,789.86 1,997,600.00 2.920 2.916 1,205 10/19/2007 3128X3SF9 1261 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG CORP. 04/26/2004 1,000,000.00 988,995.06 1,000,000.00 3,280 3.235 1,212 10/26/2007 3128X3CS0 1262 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 04/29/2004 5,000,000.00 4,969,870.00 5,000,000.00 3.450 3.403 1,215 10/29/'2007 312~X3FD0 1266 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 05/17/2004 2,000,000.00 2,000,216.06 2,000,000.00 3.500 3.452 1,050 06/17/2007 3128X3FC2 1267 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP 05/24/2004 3,000,000.00 3,002,805.18 2,999.062.50 3.750 3.708 1,240 11/23/2007 3136F3VQ6 1202 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/27/2003 7,000,000.00 6,809,687.50 6,996,500.00 2.500 2.479 1,058 05/23/2007 3136F3Q82 1219 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 07/16/2003 4,000,000.00 3,878,750.00 4,C~O,0OO.O0 2.500 2.466 1,110 07/15/2007 3136F32F2 1222 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 07/29/2003 4,000,000.00 3,908,75000 3,993,75000 3300 3299 1,489 07/29/2008 3136F4B45 1243 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 12/12/2003 2,000,000.00 1,975,000.00 2,000,000.00 3.300 3.255 894 12/12/200~ 3136F5EE7 1250 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 03/05/2004 3,000,000.00 2,958.750.CO 2,979,300.00 3.750 3.850 1,621 1 2/0~2008 3136F5GP0 1252 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 03/15/2004 4,000,000.00 3,966,250.00 4,000,000.00 4.040 3.985 1,719 00/16/2009 3136F5PB1 1259 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 04/12/2004 1,000,000.00 980,937.50 1,000,000.00 3.020 2.979 1,198 10/12/2007 3136F5ZV6 1270 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 06/03/2004 5,000,000.00 5,020,312.50 5,000,000.00 4.300 4.242 1,341 00/03/2008 Subtntal and Average 145,410,979.17 146,750,060.00 144,509,781.53 146,652,562.50 3,229 1,254 Treasury Securities - Coupon 912828CG3 1271 TREASURY NOTE 06/09/2004 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,985,54~.88 3.125 3.184 1,048 05/13/2007 Subtotal and Average 3,656,067.71 5,000,600.00 5,000,000.00 4,985,546.88 3.184 1,048 Total and Average 176,967,768.65 182,480,019.69 180,234,826.41 182,368,129.07 2.934 1,040 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 07/13~2004 o 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 4 Portfolio Details - Cash June 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Inwstrnent # Issuer Balance Data Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts SYS00180 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 545,752.82 545,752.82 545,752.82 0.500 0.493 1 Average Balance 0.00 Accrued Interest at Purchase 11,377.03 11,377.03 1 Subtotal 557,129.85 557,129.85 Total Cash and Investmentss 176,967,768.65 183,025,772.51 180,791,956.26 182,925,258.92 2.934 1,040  Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 07/13'2004 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity By Type June 1, 2004 through June 30, 2004 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) SYS00~05 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 1.469 6,5B0,000.00 11,800,000.00 Subtotal 34,515,019.69 6,500,000.00 11,800,000.00 29,215,019.69 Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts (Monthly Summary) SYS00180 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 0.500 0.00 553,395.79 Subtotal 1,099,148.61 0.00 553,395.79 545,752.82 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank Subtotal 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331TU25 1272 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 4000 06/10/2004 3,000,000.00 0.00 3133M94J8 01050 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 6230 06/17/2004 0.C~ 2,984,531.25 3133X7FR0 1273 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 4250 06/17/2004 3,000,000 00 0.00 3136FSZV6 1270 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 4.300 06/03/2004 5,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 138,637,093.75 11,000,000.00 2,984,531.25 146,652,562.50 Treasury Securities - Coupon 912528CG3 1271 TREASURY NOTE 3 125 06/09/2004 4,985,546 88 0.00 Subtotal 0.00 4,985,546.88 0.00 4,985,546.88 Total 175,766,262.05 22,485,546.88 15,337,927.04 182,913,881.89 ~ Po~fo~io CITY ~ cP Run Date: 07/13~2004 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V6.21 Rerx)rt Var. 5.00 City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended May 31,2004 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue Pavlno Ag;ent Account Name Investment Date Date Yield Value Assessment District No 93-1 US Bank Imprvmnt Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A* 0.46% $ 257,311.78 Masi Plaza Imprvmnt Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A Reserve Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A* 0.46% 242,787.42 Reserve Fund N/A N/A N/A Redemp. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A 0.35% 289.76 Redemp. Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 500,388.96 PFA RFDG Rev Bonds series US Bank Expense Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.00% $ Cash N/A N/A N/A 1999 A (St) & 1999 B (Subord) Sub Resrv. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.46% 581,167.75 Cash N/A N/A N/A Sr. Resrv. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.46% 1,091,793.86 Cash N/A N/A N/A Redemption Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/19gg N/A* 0.00% Cash N/A N/A N/A Revenue Fund First American Treasury Obligation 3/2/2000 N/A" 0.00% Cash N/A N/A N/A Residual Fund First American Treasury Obligation 1/16/2001 N/A* 0.46% 119,675.43 Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 1,792,637.04 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS * Note: These investments are money market accounts which have no stated maturity date as they may be liquidated upon demand. ~ i:~financelCashwfthFiscalAgents.xls 7/13/200411:50AM R A N H O C U C A M O N G A E N GI N E E R I N G D EPA R T M E N T Staff Report DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer lay: Jeff Barnes, Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent SUBJEC'I': APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS" AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" TO BE FUNDED FROM CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT NUMBER 1025001-5650/1497025-0 AS APPROVED IN THE FY 2004/05 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the "Removal and Replacement of Grand Prix Fire Damaged Fencing Located Along the Skyline, Monroe Canyon, Davis and Hermosa Easement Community Trails" and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids" to be funded from Capital Reserve account number 1025001-5650/1497025- 0 as approved in the FY 2004/05 budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Immediately after the Grand Prix fire, city Parks staff surveyed the north end of the city for landscape infrastructure damage and found that trail fencing had been burned and destroyed in several locations, specifically: Area of Damage Approximate Fence Length Damaged Skyline Trail--from the northeast comer of Almond Street and Skyline Road to approximately 615 feet north in the Community Trail on the east side of Skyline Road. 976 LF Monroe Canyon Trail--3 locations generally located from 184 feet north of the northeast comer of Mojave Drive and Reales Street to the Los Angeles Department of 927 LF Water and Power gate approximately 2380 feet to the northeast. Davis Trail--9 locations generally located beginning at the Canyon Creek Horse Ranch on Almond Street west of Amethyst, continuing northwest for 962 feet. 696 LF Hermosa Easement--from the Community Trail east of 10174 and 10166 Sun Valley Drive, continuing southeast to the section north of 5048 Almond Street. 973 LF 3/ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT--REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS JULY 21, 2004 P^GE 2 The scope of the work to be performed in general consists of the removal and off-site disposal of burned, melted and non-standard PVC fencing, including removing existing damaged or sub-standard PVC posts or stubs to 4 inches below grade, restoring the excavated post holes with decomposed granite and the installation of 2-rail or 3-rail PVC fencing. The Finance Department has submitted a request to the State Office of Emergency Services seeking reimbursement in the amount of $59,394.24 for the actual fencing damaged as directed by State OES and was based upon cost estimates provided by Country Estate Fence Co., Inc. subsequent to the Grand Prix Fire event. This estimate does not include the preferred repair of replacing the existing, abutting, older, non-uniform, non-standard fencing; nor, does it include a ten percent contingency. Site Number 1 - Skyline Trail $14,705.52 Site Number 2 - Monroe Canyon Trail $16,676.59 Site Number 3 - Davis Trail $15,666.82 Site Number 4 - Hermosa Trail $12,345.31 Total Estimated Cost Submitted to OES $59,394.24 To date, we have received a check for $3,900.00 (preliminary Federal Share of $3,750.00 plus administrative expenses of $150.00) with an additional amount of $55,644.24 (plus administrative expenses) approved and pending disbursement from the State. This project has been approved by City Council in the FY 2004/05 budget. Engineer's estimate for this project including replacing the existing, abutting, non-standard fencing is $88,133.10 ($80,121 plus a 10% contingency). R~pect~ully submitted, Wil¥_arn//.J. O'Neil City~c=,ffgineer WJO/dlw SOLUTION NO. ¥" 2 g 5 A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OE THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS" AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council has prepared specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS". 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council will receive at the OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN THE OFFICES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ON OR BEFORE THE HOUR OF 2:15 P.M. ON AUGUST 18, 2004 sealed bids or proposals for "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS" 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 City Council, California, marked, "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF Resolution No. Page 2 GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG TIlE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND ItERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS". A Pre-Bid Job Walk is scheduled for Wednesday, August 11, 2004, beginning at 9 a.m. and lasting approximately 2 hours. Bidders should meet at the intersection of Almond Street and Skyline Drive where the job walk will continue to throe additional locations. Bidders sho~41d provide their own transportation to the additional locations. THIS MEETING IS MANDATORY. Verification of attendance at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be documented by signing in at the beginning of the meeting. Any bidder not documented as being present at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be excluded from the bid process. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor 'Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provision 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 works 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: 1. 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 2. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or 3. 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 loqally, or 4. 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 Resolution No. Page 3 eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (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, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred pement (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. Resolution No. Page 4 No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors 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), C- 27 (Landscaping Contractor), or C-13 (Fencing Contractor), in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and roles and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non- reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FENCING LOCATED ALONG THE SKYLINE, MONROE CANYON, DAVIS AND HERMOSA EASEMENT COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAILS" may be directed to: Don Gentry, Maintenance Supervisor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2700, ext. 4114 By order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 21st day of July, 2004. ADVERTISE ON: July 27, 2004 and August 3, 2004 ~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A I,' ' ' - , , I E N G I N F E R [ N G D E PA R T M E N T Staff Report DATE: July 21, 2004 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Gary Varney, Streets Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS" AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE "NOTICE INVITING B1DS" TO BE FUNDED FROM CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT NUMBER 1025001-5650/1498025-0 AS APPROVED IN TIlE FY 2004/05 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the "Removal and Replacement of Grand Prix Fire Damaged Flexible Metal Guard Rails and Posts at 4 Locations" and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids" to be funded from Capital Reserve account number 1025001-5650/1498025-0 as approved in the FY 2004/05 budget. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Immediately after the Grand Prix fire, city Streets Department personnel surveyed burn areas for infrastructure damage and identified four (4) locations where flexible metal guardrail was damaged; flexible metal guardrail is used to protect vehicular traffic from traveling off roadways. City streets personnel secured these guardrail locations with temporary guardrail sections while bid specifications were being prepared for permanent repair of this damaged infrastructure. The guardrail locations to be repaired are specifically: Area of Damage Approximate Guard Rail Length Damaged Location gl-Northwest comer of Skyline Drive and Big Tree Road 100 LF Location #2-200 ft. east of location gl on Big Tree Road 120 LF Location #3-West side of Banyan, south of Wilson 75 LF Location #4-East side of Banyan, South of Wilson I barricade post City Council Staff Report--REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS JULY 21, 2004 PAGE 2 The scope of the work to be performed in general consists of the removal, disposal and replacement of flexible guardrail and applicable signage as outlined in the Schedule of Cost and Lump Sum Amounts in the bid documents. All work includes hardware, metal beam guard railing, steel posts with wood blocks, end pieces and all directional signage. The Finance Department has submitted a request for reimbursement of $12,740.16 to the State Office of Emergency Services based on cost estimates provided by Public Works staff subsequent to the Grand Prix Fire event. The estimate consisted of the following: Wood barricade, Crestview north of Almond $ 300.00 (work completed in-house) Guard rails - Skyline, North of Almond $ 8,373.00 (locations 1 & 2) Sign and sign post - Etiwanda north of North Rim $ 100.00 (work completed in-house) Guard rails and signage, Banyan south of Wilson $ 3,683.00 (locations 3 & 4) Hazard mitigation (replace wood posts with steel posts as requested by State OES) $ 284.16 (locations 3 & 4) Total Estimated Cost Submitted to OES $12,740.16 To date, we have received a check for $221.12 (preliminary Federal Share of $213.12 plus an additional amount of $8.00 for administrative expenses) for this project; however, due to the large disparity in the amount requested for reimbursement and the amount received, staff has submitted an appeal to the State for the remaining requested amount of $12,527.04 and is awaiting a response. This project has been approved by City Council in the FY 2004/05 budget. Engineer's estimate for this project is $13,200. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:GV:dlw A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS" AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council has prepared specifications for the qonstmction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS". 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 SEA LED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council 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 AUGUST 18, 2004 sealed bids or proposals for "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS" 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 City Council, California, marked, "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS". A Pre-Bid Job Walk is scheduled for August 11, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Yard, 9153 Ninth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730, where Resolution No. Page 2 bidders may present questions regarding the Bid Documents: Plans, Proposals, Specifications. THIS MEETING IS MANDATORY. Verification of attendance at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be documented by signing in at the meeting. Any bidder not documented as being present at the Pre-Bid Job Walk will be excluded from the bid process. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provision 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 works 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: 1. 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 2. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or 3. 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 4. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable Resolution No. Page 3 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 hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (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, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Resolution No. Page 4 Contractor shall possess any and all contractors 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 "D-42" (Sign Installation), or "C-32" (Parking and Highway Improvement Contractor), in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for "REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF GRAND PRIX FIRE DAMAGED FLEXIBLE METAL GUARD RAILS AND POSTS AT 4 LOCATIONS" may be directed to: Ernest Ruiz, Maintenance Supervisor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2730, ext. 4108 By order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 21st day of July, 2004. ADVERTISE ON: July 27, 2004 and August 3, 2004 R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Shaft Repo DATE: July 21, 2004 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 SIJI~IF~IF: APPROVAL TO SUMMARILY VACATE THE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15349, A DEDICATED EASEMENT FOR FUTURE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL PURPOSES, LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE; V-196 -APN: 227- 151-73 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution summarily ordering the vacation of the drainage and trail easement of Parcel Map No. 15349, a dedicated easement for future drainage and trail purposes, authorizing the City Clerk to present a certified copy of this resolution and exhibits to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bemardino County, California. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On August 28, 2001, Parcel Map 15349 recorded with a 15-foot wide dedication of an easement for future drainage and trail purposes. The master trail plan was subsequently modified and the proposed trail location was no longer necessary. The proposed adjacent development of Tract Map 16512 processed a Lot Line Adjustment eliminating 10 feet of said easement. The remaining 5 feet of said easement shall be vacated, as the proposed trail is unnecessary and unusable. On November 12, 2003, Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 16512 per Resolution No. 03-169 with the condition to vacate the easement for drainage and trail purposes. On July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission determined the vacation conforms to the General Plan and recommended that the vacation occur. Respectfully submitted, Willia~ J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:RG:tch Attachments II ~- TERRA VICINITY IV/AP N. TS. CITY OF ITEM: [~,~,g~'/'qF-hlT V.A¢,a,T/o/'d RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: VIC./All ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: RESOLUTION l~)/'//'' ,'~"~' 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15349, A DEDICATED EASEMENT FOR FUTURE DRAINAGE AND TRAIL PURPOSES, LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE; V-196 -APN: 227-151-73 WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8333, of the Streets and Highway Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate the drainage and trail easement of Parcel Map No. 15349, a dedicated easement for futura drainage and trail purposes, located north of Church Street, east side of Milliken Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission on July 14, 2004 by minute action found and determined that the summary vacation of the subject dedicated easement herein contemplated conforms to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that the dedicated drainage and trail easement is no longer requirad and has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga heraby makes its order vacating the drainage and trail easement of Parcel Map No. 15349, a dedicated easement for future drainage and trail purposes, located north of Chumh Street, east side of Milliken Avenue, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B". SECTION 2: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said dedicated easement no longer constitutes a public use easement. SECTION 3: That the subject vacation shall be subject to the reservation and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. SECTION 5: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. EXHIBIT A Sheet I of 1 EXHIBIT "A" DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT VACATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 572 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED MARCH 18, 2004 AS DOCUMENT NO~ 2004-0186721, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 5.00 FEET OF THAT CERTAIN 15.00 FEET WIDE EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND TRAIL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON PARCEL MAP 15349, AND SHOWN ON MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 193, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. SAiD SOUTHERLY 5.00 FEET ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY 5.00 FEET OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND CONTAINING 0.063 ACKES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF, EXItIBIT "B". Prepared by: Madole and Associates, Inc. William Roaro Jasso ~.S. 4756 ~ 'bate Exp: 9-30-2005 DRAINAGE AND TRAIL EASEMENT VACATION SHEET I OF I EXHIBIT "B" -NORTHERLY LINE OF PAR 2 PAR. i L.L.A. 572 _.z/~,) "~ ~ DOC. NO. 2004-189721 EASE, ENT TABLE PAB. 2 L.L.A. 572 DOC. ~ ~' ~DE EASEWENT FOR DRAINAGE AND TRNL~ HO. 200~-- ~ ~9 72~ PURPOSES PER P.W. ~9 P.W.B. ~9~/~2-~ N~ ~ 12' ~DE SIDEWALK AND ~AIL EASEMENT PER P.~. ~ ~ m ~ DR~AY ~SEWEN[ DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "C" OF INSTRUWENT NO. 200~-020~25, O.N. REC. ~ 4' ~DE SIDEWALK EASEMENT PER R~. 1128~ "' % ~ ~ CEN~RUNE OF A 5.~ FOOT ~IDE ~NDS~PE ~SE~ENT DESCRIBED IN . 5 L.L.A. 572 DOC. NO. 2004-189721 PARCEL 5 OF P.~. 15549 P.M.B. ~95/42-44 C ~ DEL TA RADIUS ,o.o ~. ~s~ )jj~ADOLE ~ ASSOCIATES, ~NC. P. US. 475~ EX~: 9/~0/05 ~~Y/ I ~ ~ I I I ~ RANCHO CUCA~ONGA. ~ 9~7~0 DATE' O~/Je{O~ ~ -- -- -- S~L6 /~ R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E~.~ .' ~;~ , -- , , ~ ri ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Sti ff Report DATE: July 21,2004 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: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ALLOWING CITY ENGINEER TO SEND A NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY, TO BE FUNDED BY DEVELOPER, IN RESPONSE TO A CALTRANS OFFER TO SELL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54220 THROUGH 54227, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MULBERRY STREET, SOUTH OF 210 FREEWAY AND WEST OF ETIWANDA CREEK CHANNEL, APN 228-011-18 AND -29 RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the City Engineer to send a Notice of Intent to Purchase property which the California Department of Transportation has offered to sell, located on the east side of Mulberry Street south of the 210 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Creek Channel. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On June 22, 2004, the Redevelopment Agency received the attached letter from Caltrans. The property in question is on the opposite side of Etiwanda Creek Channel from a Recreational Vehicle storage project recentJy approved by the Planning Commission, with a condition of approval that the developer obtain secondary access rights across this same property. On April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission approved DRC2003-00048 for a Self Storage facility located on landlocked property bordered by the 210 and 15 Freeways and Etiwanda Creek Channel. Primary access to the site will be from Victoria Street, between Victoria Basin and the 1-15 overpass, across San Bernardino County Flood Control District property. For emergency purposes, the developer was required to provide secondary access to the site from Fisher Drive, a frontage road to the 210 Freeway that currently ends at Mulberry Street. City Council Staff Report DRC2003-00048 July 21,2004 Page 2 The excess property now being offered for sale is the only undeveloped property between Mulberry Street and Etiwanda Creek Channel. Although it contains 1.7 acres and is zoned Low Residential, the unique shape of the parcel limits its potential for further subdivision. The narrow frontage on Mulberry Street may be limited by the need to provide access to the rear of the site, either with a local street extension of Fisher Drive or private driveways in flag lots. The developer has requested the City reserve the rights to provide the required second access. The City Attorney concurs the acquisition of the property for access to a public street is a legitimate purpose. The Developer will pay all costs associated with the acquisition. Once Caltrans receives letters of intent from interested agencies, they will prepare a fair market value appraisal of the surplus land and begin negotiations. This letter of intent does not commit the City to purchasing the land; it only opens the door for future negotiations. If the City acquires this property, with fair market value paid by developer of DRC2003-00048, we can use the property to provide access to property on the East side of Etiwanda Creek Channel and for open space purposes. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION Willia d.~O'~ei~ City Engineer WJO:BAM:tch Attachments: Vicinity Map Offer to Sell Letter Resolution iA, NORTH ~ NTS ITEM: Intent to Purchase Caltrans Excess Property / EXHIBIT: Vicinity Map STA~'E OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS, TFU~.NSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ District 08 '64 W. 4Ih Street, 6th Floor- SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92401-1400 TDD (909) 383-6300 June 22, 2004 File # 08-SBd-2]0-9,8 Disposal Unit # DD00g098-0]-0] Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency A1tn: Ms. Linda Daniels, RDA Director 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 OFFER TO SELL EXCESS LAND Dear Ms. Daniels: The California Department of Transportation hereby offers to sell the excess land shown on the off ached map in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54220 through 54227 of the California Government Code. The following facts pertain to this land: 1. Size: 1.699 acres (74,038 SF)-see map 2. Present Zoning: Residential 3. Highest and Best Use: Residential 4. Topography: Level 5. Improvements: None 6. Encumbrances: Special assessments if any, restrictions, reservations and easements of record. 7. Remarks: If this property is sold via direct sale to a public agency, this property shall be conveyed to the grantee to be used by the grantee, its successors or assigns solely for a public purpose as outlined in California Government Code Sections 54220-54227 inclusive. A, Sale at Fair Market Value Any sale pursuant to the above-noted statutes will be at current appraised fair market value. B. Notification of intent te Purchase Excess Land Please notify the undersigned within sixty (60) days of this notice if you intend to purchase this excess land. Please state the intended public use of the property in the notice of intent to purchase. If we do not hear fTom your agency within sixty (60) days, the land will be disposed of in another manner. C. Resale of Land for Development of Low and Moderate Income Housin.q Government Code Section 54224 allows a local agency, housing authority of redevelopment agency to reconvey land purchased from our Department to a nonprofit or for-profit housing developer for development of Iow and moderate income housing. D. Multiple Offers In the event our Department receives offers for the purchase of this excess land from more than one entity, we shall give first priority to the entity which agrees to use the site for housing for persons and families of Iow or moderate income, except that 'first priority shall be given to an entity which agrees to use the site for park or recreational purposes if the land being offered is already being used and will continue to be used for park or recreational purposes, or if the land is designated for park and recreational use in the local general plan and will be developed for that purpose, (Government Code Section 54227). If we receive a notice of intent to purchase this land from you within sixty (60) days of the date of this letter, we will complete a fair market value appraisal of the surplus land. Upon cbmpletion of the appraisal, we will commence negotiations with your agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54223 regarding the sale of the land. If the price cannot be agreed upon after a sixty (60) day negotiation period, our Department may dispose of the land without further regards to Government Code Sections 54220 through 54227. ~incerely, John Hotchkiss, Right of Way Agent Excess Land Sales 909 383 4332 Responses back to: Caltrans-Right of Way Excess Land At-tn: John Hotchkiss 464 W. 4~h Street 6~ floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Eric, 574 D~ST. COUNTY ROUTE POST ,~41L E T., 1 N ~ F,~., b /:'V., S,., ~,, M., o,~ sB,~ 2,o 9.9 ~o~Ftr ®~x ~,~¢~e ~¢,~D~ i EXHIBIT "B" I 55 ~ ~) i 60 TO S~N BERNARD~NO ~ IMP. ROUTE 30 SECTION ~W 28 ~ ? SECTION 27 I ii ~$ECTION UNE 57 ~~rOR SECTION ~~H~''' ~ ~ 33 rb PARCEl. ! : ' ; ~ · ~ , , &-6 38'~8" ' ~ ~ / ' ' '- ~89 3Z5 · ¢0.06 .... ,J R=500 . ~ , = &=4* 0g'40" ~ .... ~ R:470.00' ~ PARCEL ~ ~ "' ,~' ~ ' ~ .. DIRECTOR'S DEED MAP A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO SEND A NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MULBERRY STREET, SOUTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND WEST OF ETIWANDA CREEK CHANNEL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Offer to Sell Excess Land, located on the east side of Mulberry Street south of the 210 Freeway and west of Etiwanda Channel, from the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the City desires to gain possession of said property for the purpose of providing secondary emergency access to landlocked property on the east side of Day Creek Channel; and WHEREAS, a development has already been approved with a condition of approval to obtain access to Fisher Drive across said pmperty. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby resolves, that the City Engineer is hereby authorized to send a Notice of Intent to Purchase said property on behaff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 55 T H E C I T Y 0 F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DA'I'E: ,July 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE LOT OF LOBBY FURNITURE FOR CENTRAL PARK FROM LLOYD HENRY INTERIOR SYSTEMS~ INC. OF MONTROSE~ CALIFORNIA~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $79~044 AND APPROPRIATION OF $79~044 FROM THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND BALANCE INTO ACCOUNT NUMBER 1120305-5200 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended to authorize the purchase of one lot of lobby furniture for Central Park from Lloyd Henry Interior Systems, Inc., of Montrose, California in the amount of $79,044 and appropriate $79,044 from the Park Development fund balance into account number 1120305-5200 BACKGROUND With the completion of Central Park early this November, many furniture items are required to be ordered to complete the interior furnishings of the building. One furniture requirement identified for Central Park is the various items for the building's lobby/entrance areas. During the design phase of Central Park, Lloyd Henry Interior Systems worked very closely with the project's architect, Robert R. Coffee Architect + Associates to determine an appropriate furniture selection for the building. Through an extensive design review committee, made up of City Staff, a final decision was made for the selection of various lobby furniture and complementary cabinetry and tables to fit Central Park's design and interior theme. As this furniture has a current lead-time of fourteen (14) weeks, an immediate approval is needed to make the Park's opening date. The furniture is hand crafted to specifically fit the Page 2 Central Park Lobby Furniture Staff Report July 21,2004 building's architectural attributes, one main area being the building's large fireplace lobby area. As with the case of specific pieces of artwork, the furniture's design, placement within the facility along with the selected fabric, makes for a complete complement to building's overall color design and architectural characteristics. With this in mind, Purchasing recommends a sole-source purchase with no further researching of the product and ask that approval be given to proceed with the order to Lloyd Henry Interiors to meet the delivery deadline of early November. R A C h O C U C a M O N G A I ~' C 0 I~IM ~I N ITY SERVICES Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 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: APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FROM VALLEY BASEBALL, INC. (QUAKES) AND BASEBALLERS AGAINST DRUGS (BAD) FOR A WAIVER OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR A FREE YOUTH BASEBALL CLINIC AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM ON AUGUST 3, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a request from the Quakes to hold a free youth baseball clinic in conjunction with Baseballers Against Drugs (BAD) at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on August 3, 2004, and waive associated fees and charges. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City has received a request from Baseballers Against Drugs to hold a free youth baseball clinic at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on Tuesday, August 3, 2004. The Clinic would be held in cooperation with Valley Baseball Inc. (the Quakes). The 2004 event would be the fifth clinic offered at the Epicenter in conjunction with Baseballers Against Drugs and the Quakes. The Clinic is proposed to be a 2¼ - hour program that focuses on both the improvement of youngsters' baseball and life skills. The clinic will feature Quakes players and ex-Major League baseball players. The clinic will be open to both boys and girls ranging in age between 7 and 14 years of age. Featured activities include interactive pitching, batting and fielding instruction, plus inspirational messages, questions and answers with big leaguers and an autograph session. The clinic will be free of charge to the youngsters and can accommodate approximately 200-300 children. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FROM QUAKES BASEBALLERS AGAINST DRUGS (BAD) FOR WAIVER OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR A FREE YOUTH BASEBALL CLINIC JULY 21, 2004 Staff recommends that City Council consider the waiver of fees associated with the proposed free youth baseball clinic as the event directly supports the City's intent for Valley Baseball Club Inc. to host programs at the Epicenter with character building, anti-drug, anti- gang and pro-education themes for the youngsters of our community. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the City for the waiver of fees and charges associated with this event is approximately $2,300. Community Services Director Attachments / :tC~MMSERV~C~un¢i~&B~ards~CityC~unci~Sta~Rep~rt$~2~4~Quakes.BAD Y~uthBa$eba~C/inic. 7. 2'L 04. doc -2- ~un 17 04 O~:O1p ~OV IHPRCT 00~ ~O~ ~740 p.~ ~.~;I JIM DANTONA BASEBALLERS AGAINST DRUGS ~ ® Ma~rL~gue~Ei~m~ DAVE ZALL Pa~a P~hon RICHARD WEIER CiW of ~cho Cuc~onga 10500 Civic C~tcr Dr. ~cho Cuc~ong~ CA 91 De~ B~eb~lcrs Ag~ ~gs is ple~cd to offer i~ c~cr b~l~g, g~pro-cduca~on climes to ~c ~cho Cu~onga co~W for ~c ~z s~gh~ yc~. With ~e p~cipa~on of~c ~cho Cuc~onga ~es ~d foyer Major b~lplay~, B~ ~ conducted ~ese c~cs absolutely F~E of ch~gc at ~e Epicenter. C~l~cn 1~ ~e ~cnt~s o~e g~c of b~cb~l w~lc l~g some ;mpo~t lessons abo~ life. We have bccn proud to offer ~s sc~icc to con'tics s~ce 1989, rcac~ng ov~ 70,000 c~l~cn ~tion~dc. For it's co~W work, B~ w~ honored ~ ~c 2003 Vol~tcer Org~a~on of ~c Yc~ awed ~om ~= Assoc~a~on of ~fessio~s. We look fo~ to scrag ~c c~l~cn of~cho ~c~onga ag~n on Au~ 3, 2004. a~ission ~ well ~ ~e tee s~ ~d b~eb~ls to be auto~aph~ by playe~ at ~e conclusion of~e event. A~en~ce ~ R~cho Cu~onga ~ ~ways ~n ~n ~e 300 r~ge ~d we expect ~e ~e ~s ye~. We ~n~y ~quest ~t ~e Ci~ of ~cho Cu~onga help m by w~ving ~y fees for use of The Epi~nter. ~y sa~gs ~at we a~n ~e m~ed to ~e ~ by ~lo~g mom c~cs ~d mow c~l~en to p~ieipate. I've ~eluded b~k~d ~o~fion on o~ awed-wing org~i~fion ~ well ~ ~e appli~t[on iBelf for yo~ ~view. If you ~ve ~y quesfio~ or conc~, ple~ do not hesitate to contact me ~d feel ~ee to visit o~ web site: *~'.bad.org. Reg~ds, D / Jo~ D~tona National Headqua~ers 5~5 East Los ~ge~s Avenue * Suite ~ * Si~ Valley, Califomia 930~5213 o P~ne 805/~-1~9 o Fax 805/5~37~ Web Si~: ~.~d.org ~ E-mail: h~amnO~d.o~ Jun 17 04 03:01p GOV IHPRCT GO~ ~G~ 3740 p.~ OA.'ro.^ £ounder and Chair B 'A~~ TOM' DAVIS BASEBALLERS AGAINST DRUGS ® Major League Batting Champion DAVE ZALL JOHN DA~n'ONA BASEBALLERS AGAINST DRUGS ~ng co,.,.,,.~,,. RIDHARD WEIER Where Kids Are Champions! s~.~t,:,~.~,.,~,~ "2003 Yolunteer Organization of the l~ear" Baseballcrs Against Drugs (BAD) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1989 by former ballplayer Jim Dentona and dedicated to "focusing the energy of today's youth into positive thin]Ding and action." For fifteen years BAD has hosted hundreds of free baseball clinics across thc country, appeared at Red Ribbon Days and League openings, participated in church and school special events, bringing together professional ballplayers and young people. While teaching the fundamental skills of the game, BAD reinforces some fundamental lessons in li~'e wifl~ its anti-drug, anti-gang, pro-education message. Character, self~discipline and self-esteem are touted as thc children both learn and play. Clinics begin with players describing events in their own careers, warning kids against the dangerous allure of drugs and gangs while emphasizing the hnportance of staying in school. Children ar~ then placed into groups according to age and arc ~anght ~he basic skills of hitting, pitching and fielding. Clh~ics include group question and answer, free giveaway items with tee shirts, baseballs and memorabilia, as well as an autograph session. Over 300 current and former professional baseball players have lent thalr ~e, energy and names to BAD, including Hall of Famers Ernie Banks and Orlando Cepeda as well as 2-time National League Batting Champion Tonm~y Davis, who now serves as BAD's Director of Player R¢la~ons. Active locally with the hometown Los Angeles Dodgers and Anaheim Angels, BAD has worked nationally with fifteen Major League and Minor League franchises. Drugs do not diserimina~e with regards to its victims so neither does BAD. Players r~present a diverse range ofbackgreunds and activities ~ake place in thc inner city, suburbs, or anywhere young people may b~ exposed to drugs and the lure of peer pressure. No~ahly, BAD clinics have always been free to all who attend. With major funding provided from corporations and organizations like McDo~ald'z Operators,4ssociation of Soud~ern California, The Walter Lantz Foundatio~ Galpin Ford, Kaiser Permanente and GTE Directories - BAD has reached out to tens o~'thousands of children nationwide. In 1991, BAD was awarded thc prestigious FBI Community Leadership ,~ward. In 2003, the program received Yolunteer Organization of the Year honors from the Association of Fundraising Professionals on National Philanthropy Day. Non-.Profit Tax ID# 95-4237572 National Headquarlem 5775 C~st Loz ~n~eles ~v~nue o Suite 222 o Sim] Valley, Cal~omia 950c~52~3 ° P~0ne 805/§83-~439 ~ Fax 805/§83-3?40 Web Siie: wv~w. bad.or~ ° E-~il: homemn@bad.org _ .... T H C I T Y 0 F I~.A N C14 O CUCAMONGA DA3F_: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner SLIBJEb~: APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAN GUERRA & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CENTRAL PARK SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $42,500 TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1120305-5650/1343120-0. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council increase the scope of the existing Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra & Associates to provide additional construction survey and administration services for the landscape and imgation portion of the Rancho Cucamonga Central Park Senior/Community Center Project in an amount not to exceed $42,500 to be funded from Account No.1120305-5650/1343120-0. BACKGROUND Dan Guerm & Associates was awarded the survey and staking contract through a competitive process prior to the commencement of construction at the Central Park site. At that time it was understood bhat the work they were to perfom~ was for the on-site road alignment, building placement, and any additional survey and site work required as a part of the contract with the building contractor, Douglas E. BamharL Since that lime, American Landscape was awarded the landscape and irrigation contract for the same Cenbat Park project. Due to the complexity of having 2 contractors within the same area, it was necessary to expand the scope of the original contract with Dan Guerra & Associates to add additional staking services for the landscape and irrigation portion of the project to specifically identify the role of each contractor. Staff has compared the hourly rates with the existing Professional services Agreement that was approved through the competitive process, and finds that they;~onsistenL _ Comm~mity Services Director R A N C H O C U C A M 0 N G A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Staff Report DATE: ,July 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A GROUND LEASE BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND J. FILIPPI VINTAGE CO. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Amendment to the Ground Lease between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and J. Filippi Vintage Co. BACKGROUND: In November 2002 the City and the J. Filippi Vintage Co. entered into a 99 year Ground Lease for the property commonly known as the Regina-Ellena Winery, which is located at 12467 Base Line Road. The Lease allows for the continued operation and use of the property by the Filippi's as a winery and wine-related uses, including a grape vineyard. ANALYSIS: Since the time the Lease was approved, the City has obtained additional land (refer to Exhibit "A" - Additional Land Location) adjacent to the winery property through a street vacation and quit-claim action of Old Base Line Road from Standard Pacific, the adjacent residential developer. A portion of the vacated street will be used to complete the public trail and street improvement work at the southwest intersection of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane. Staff has recommended the balance of the quit-claimed land, which is approximately 66' x 550', be incorporated into the existing Ground Lease. The additional land can be used for winery or winery-related purposes, which is consistent with the uses allowed for in the current Lease. Three other modifications have also been included in the Amendment. The first involves language so the Lease is consistent with a previously approved Conditional Use Permit 94-5 regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The second modification clarifies insurance provisions. The third area of modification relates to a change in time frame for the complete planting of the permanent vineyard land. The Tenant has been delayed in planting because of the various construction projects that have been occurring in the area. The southern portion of the site has been temporarily used as both a contractor's office trailer site and dirt storage area during the construction of the streets in the area. Also, the Tenant will be padicipating in the installation of a sewer line in the near future on the southern portion of the site, which will affect a portion of the lease area identified as vineyard land. The tenant has also advised the Agency the planting of the vines is best during late summer/early fall, thus providing one opportunity each year for successful planting. The Amendment provides additional time to the Tenant to completely plant and harvest the required vineyard land areas as identified in the Lease. The Ground Lease Amendment is on file in the office of the City Clerk and has been signed by the Tenant. Respectfully submitted, Linda D. Daniels Redevelopment Director Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Additional Land Location I:\RDA\LDANI ELS\Regina Wine~\SR 072104 Amendment to Ground Lease.doc 2 Land Loc, o.-l'lbri ~or'tl~ 1,4~o Not 1'o THE C I f Y OF Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Shelley Hayes, Engineer Technician SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE . MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 AND SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION (V-197) OF PEACH TREE LANE AND DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY BY QUITCLAIMING LOT A AND A PORTION OF LOT B OF TRACT 9588, FOR TRACT 16430 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND HILLSIDE ROAD SUBMITTED BY ARCHIBALD VENTURES, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 16430, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 2, and summarily ordering the vacation (V-197) of Peach Tree Lane and disposition of City owned property by Quitclaiming Lot A and a portion of Lot B of Tract 9588, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement; and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer to present the Tract Map to the County Recorder to be filed for record; and authorizing the City Clerk to cause a certified copy of the resolution to be recorded in the office of the county recorder and dispose of City owned property, by recording a quitclaim deed. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 16430, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Hillside Road in the Very Low Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 13, 2003 for the division of 13.6 acres into 23 lots. One of the conditions for the development of the Tentative Tract Map is to vacate Peach Tree Lane and re-grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and adjacent property owners, and construct public improvements along Klusman Avenue. On May 26, 2004 the Planning Commission, by consent found Lot A and a portion of Lot B of Tract 9588 conforms with the General Plan and through minute action made a finding thereof. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16430 -ARCHIBALD VENTURES, LLC July 21,2004 Page 2 The Developer, Archibald Ventures, LLC, is submitting an Agreement and Securities to ~ guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $ 913,900.00 Labor and Material Bond $ 456.950.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully sub.mitted, (~W. il~.m J."O Neil 6i~y Engineer WJO:SH:tch Attachments Vicinity Map City of Rancho Cucamonga TRACT 16430 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16430, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16430, submitted by Amhibald Ventures, LLC, and consisting of 23 lots located on the west side of Archibald Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Hillside Road, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 13, 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 16430 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on the Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all 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 Archibald Ventures, LLC, as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offedng 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. 16430 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESO'UT, O,,O. ¥' Z Sb A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TR 16430 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 (the "72 Act"), said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape District Maintenance No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of 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 owner of properly within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and RESOLUTION NO. TR 16430- ARCHIBALD VENTURES, LLC July 21,2004 Page 2 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 72 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly cons, ented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 Act and/or Article XlIID applicable to the authorization to 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 to 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 B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: This 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 Improvements. 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 levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. -/! Exhibit A To Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: ARCHIBALD VENTURES, LLC The legal description of the Properties are: See attached Exhibit "A" (pages A-2 - A-3). EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 TRACT 16430 LMD AREA-xxxxx CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NORTII COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ' 7'~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCR.I[P'F[ON Real property in the City of, County of, State of, described as follows: Parcel No. 1 That portion of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 22, Township 1 North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Heridian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the official plat of said land on tile in the District Land Office described as follows: Beginning at.a point in the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 22, said point being 30 feet West of the East Line of said Section 22 and 15 feet North of the South Une of said Section 22; Thence Northerly and parallel to the East Line of said Section 22, a distance of 486.25 feet; Thence Westerly and parallel to the South Line of said Section 22, a Distance of 448.00 feet; Thence Southerly and parallel to the East Line of said Section 22, a distance of 486.25 feet; Thence Easterly and parallel to the South Line of said Section 22, a distance of 448.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Except therefrom all uranium, thodum and other fissionable materials, ali oil, gas, petroleum, asphaltum, and other hydrocarbon substances and other minerals and mineral ores of every kind and character, whether similar to these herein specified or not, within or underlying, or which may be produced from the hereinbefore described land, together with the right to use that portion only of said land which underlies a plane parallel to and 500 feet below the present surface of said land, for the purpose of prospecting for, developing and/or extracting said uranium, thorium, and other fissionable materials, oil, gas, petroleum, asphaltum, and other mineral or hydrocarbon substances from said land, it: being expressly understood'and agreed that there shall be no right to enter upon the surface of said land, or to use said land or any portion thereof to said depth of $00 feet, for any purpose whatsoever, as excepted and reserved in the deed from Southern Surplus Realty Co., a Corporation, recorded July 8, 1982, as instrument no. 82-133090 Official Records. Parcel No. 2 That portion of Section 22, Township 1 North, range 7 West, San Bemardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, in the .ludidal Township of Cucamonga, according to Official Government Survey, particularly described as follows: Commencing S03 feet North and 30 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Section 22, Thence North 817 feet; Thence West 510 feet; Thence South 817 feet; Thence East 510 feet ot the Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom the North 4].4 feet thereof Parcel No. 3 The North 414.00 feet of the following described propeKo/: That portion of Section 22, Township I North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Rancho Cucemonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official Government Survey, particularly described as follows: Commencing 503.00 feet North and 30.00 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Section 22; Thence North 817.00 feet; Thence West 510.00 feet; Thence South 817.00 feet; Thence East 510.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel No. 4: The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township I North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, according to the Official Government Survey thereof. Except therefrom all that portion thereof conveyed in document recorded August 16, 1889, in Book 101 of Deeds, page 310, records of said County. Also except therefrom all that portion thereof conveyed in document recorded March 7, 1891 in Book 127 of Deeds, page 279, records of said County. Also except therefrom all that portion thereof lying westerly of the easterly boundary of property conveyed in document recorded June 18, 1907, in Book 395 of Deeds, page 215, records of said County. A-3 Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD gl) represents 23.63 acres of landscape area, 41.88 acres of parks and 16.66 acres of community trails that are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The 41.88 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2003/2004) For Project: TR 16430 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD # 1 --- 10 ......... SLD # 2 8 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LIVID # 1 9,265 --- 11,053 35 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel DU or Acres S 1 S 2 L 1 23 --- 46 46 23 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2003/2004 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City): # of # of Rate Per Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Units Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 7699 1.0 7951 $92.21 $733,161.71 Family Multi- Units 7091 0.5 3570 $92.21 $329,189.70 Family Corem/Ind. Acre 2 1.0 2 $92.21 $184.42 TOTAL $1,062,535.83 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16430) is: 23 D.U. x 1.0 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $2,120.83 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 Type Units Units Units Unit Revenue Factor 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 Commercia Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 I TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property TR 16430) is: 23 D.U. x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $817.42 Annual Assessment C-I TR 16430 7t~ STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2003/04. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 6050 1.00 6050 $39.97 $241,818.50 Family Multi Family Unit 24 1.00 919 $39.97 $36,732.43 Commemial Acre 19.05 2.00 19.05 $39.97 $1,522.86 Total $280,073.79 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16430) is: 23 D.U. x 2 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $1,838.62 Annual Assessment C-2 TR 16430 7q CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR TR 16430 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O"NElL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 14th day of July 2004, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on fiie in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District· That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California· EXECUTED this 14th day of July 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. / CITY EI~GilNEE~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA R O U ION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION (V-197) OF PEACH TREE LANE AND DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY BY QUITCLAIMING LOT A AND A PORTION OF LOT B OF TRACT 9588 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed under Section 8300, et. seq., of the Streets and Highway Code, also known as the Street Vacation Act of 1941. SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed under Section 37350 and 37351 of the California Government Code, for the disposition of City owned property. SECTION 3: That the City Council hereby makes its order to vacating Peach Tree Lane and disposition of City owned property by quitclaiming Lot A and a portion of Lot B of Tract 9588, as shown on Map V-197 legal description and plat and Quitclaim Deed, legal description and plat, respectively, and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 4: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said street no longer constitutes a public use easement. SECTION 5: The subject vacation and disposition of City owned property shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record. SECTION 6: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force. SECTION 7: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded, along with the properly executed quitclaim deed, in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. ~E~',~ ~ TENTATIVE TRACT No. 16430 MANNING SHEET I OF I SHE~ EXHIBIT "B" (PROPOSED VACATION OF PEACH TREE lANE) N 89'26'00" £ 328.27' (328.33') °~1~] ~' 13g.37' (139.39') ~ .~"-l- ~~188'90' {188.94') ~, "'~ ~ ~ ~8~2 0 ~ ' ~ P~H~TREE~E z '~ N 8F2 '0~ E ~ I L=31.07' (L=31.07') SI ~1~ 30' 30' ~  /{ WILSON AVENUE ,~  50 25 0 50 I I I SK~CH TO ACCOMP~ ~ D~RI~ON ~HIC S~ P~D~ OF: ~GEND ~ INDICA~S SUBJECT PROPER~ INDICATES SUBJECT PEOPER~ BOUND~Y LINE 5/05/04 INDICATES EXISTING LOT LINES M.B.141~12-15 ~:X40320(~.N.~032~)X~p~N~XEX.-~-0~.d~ 5/05/2004 R ^ N C H O C U C A M O N G A DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Rene Guerrem, Assistant Engineer S~: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7 FOR TRACT MAP 16113, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY TRIMARK PACIFIC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map 16113, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 7' and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. `1 and 7' and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map `161 '13, located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Wilson ^venue, in the Very Low Residential District (Etiwanda Specific Plan), was approved by the Planning Commission on June 27', 200'1. This project is for a subdivision of 23 parcels on 17.2 acres of land. The Developer, Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, is submitting an agreement, securities and monumentation cash deposit to guarantee the construction of the public street improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $2,433,600.00 Labor and Material Bond $1,216,800.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit $ 3,550.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16113 - TRIMARK PACIFIC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC July 21, 2004 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga Valley Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT SERVICES ENGINE, ERING DEPARTMENT Willi~ar~/O. 0 Nell City Engineer WJO:RG:tch Attachments WILSON AV~-NUE - 24TH ST. L OCA TION VIC/N/FY MA F~ I VICINITY MAP CITY OF ITEM: 7/~. I&ll~ RANCHO CU~AMONGA --- TITLE: [/[C /l~l l~ I~t,~p ~ENGINEERR,~G DFv'iS/Ol~ -- --- EXHiBiT:--.~ _~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 16113, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16113, submitted by Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, and consisting of a subdivision of 17.2 acres of land into 23 pamels, located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue, in the Very Low Residential District (Etiwanda Specific Plan) was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on June 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, Tract Map 16113 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on the Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by posting the Improvement Securities by Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, as developer; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities 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. 16113 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESO,U - O. ¢¥- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7 FOR TRACT MAP 16113 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 (the "72 Act"), said Landscape Maintenance District 7, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of 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 owner of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 72 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 TR 16113 - TRIMARK PACIFIC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC July 21,2004 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 72 Act and/or Article XillD applicable to the authorization to 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 to 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 amount snot to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2: This 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 determine in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvements. 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 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: TRIMARK PACIFIC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company The legal description of the Property is: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" (PAGES A-2 AND A-3) The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-4 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL NO. 1: THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP ! NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMC~GA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CAUFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL GOVERNHENT PLAT OF SAID LAND, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING 573 rt:~-r NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORI~FR OF THE EAST !/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP ! NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS PER GOVERNMEI~r SURVEY, THENCE EAST 570 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 FEET; THENCE EAS-~ 750 FEET TO TH~ EAS'FERN BOUNDARY OF THE 1/4 SECTION; THENCE NORTH ~8! FEET; THENCE WEST 660 FEET; THENCE NORTH 330 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE 1/4 S~CTION; THENCE WE~T 660 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE !/4; TGHENCE SOUTH 747 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE INTEREST IN THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO OF ROAD PURPOSE BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 7, !948; IN BOOK2!86, PAGE 109, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A-2 TR. 16113 EXHIBIT "A" (CONTINUED) THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING 573 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 QF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE EAST 457 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 113 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 FEET; THENCE EAST 750 FEET TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAS I ERLY LINE 481 FEET TO A POINT 330 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 1/4 SECTION; THENCE WEST 863 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 417 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEScRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTH 115.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND, DESCRIBED AS FOLJ.OWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE SOUTH 330 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET; THENCE NORTH 330 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4; THENCE WEST 660 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE INTEREST IN THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1948 IN BOOK 2186, PAGE 109, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL NO. 2: THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY O'F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PLAT OF THE LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, DESCRIBED AS ' FOLLOWS: COMNENCING 573 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/~[ OF SAID SECT[ON 28; THENCE EAST 457 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 113 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 FEET; THENCE EAST 750 FEET TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 481 FEET TO A POINT 330 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 1/4 SECTION; THENCE WEST 863 FEET; THENCE 5OUTH 417 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. A-3 TR. 16113 EXHIBIT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7 b/IL SL~N AVE STIZE~T I_I~HTS Zd- s'rP--~-T T~ ~ 17 o EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA noR'rll COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7-'JE. {G/{~ ~.~ Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA): Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (LMD #7) represents landscape sites throughout the Etiwanda North Area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be' directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, community trails and Etiwanda Creek 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. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA): Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (SLD #7) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street ~ights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the North Etiwanda area of the City. Generally, this area encompasses the area of the City east of Day Creek Channel and north of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the North Etiwanda area. Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2004~2005) For Project: TR 16113 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLMD # 1 --- 7 ......... SLMD # 7 17 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 7 13,000 ...... 170 *Existing items installed with original project (TR 16113) Assessment Units by District Parcel DU SLMD1 SLMD7 LMD7 --- 23 23 23 23 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 (NORTH ETIWANDA) The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $307.05 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda): # of Rate Per # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 1572 1.00 1572 $307.05 $482,682.60 Comm/Ind. Acre 5 2.00 10 $307.05 $3,070.50 TOTAL $485,753.10 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16113) is: 23 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $307.05 Rate Per A.U. = $7,062.15 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I (ARTERIAL STREETS) The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 19,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Multi-Family Unit 7,402 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 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 (TR 16113) is: 23 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate PerA. U. = $408.71 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA).' The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $33.32 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel 1804 1.00 1804 $33.32 $60,109.28 Comm/Ind Acre 5 2.00 10 $33.32 $333.20 TOTAL $60,442.48 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 16113) is: 23 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $33.32 Rate Per A.U. = $766.36 Annual Assessment CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION FOR TRACT 16113 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILLIAM J. O"NElL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That I am the CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. That on the 14th day July of 2004, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this 14th day of July 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 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 AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 16167, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND 9TM STREET, SUBMITTED BY ON VINEYARD, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 16167, accepting the subject Agreement and Securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement and the City Clerk to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 12, 2003, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 16167, located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2). This project is for a subdivision of 20.52 acres of land into seven parcels. The Developer, On Vineyard, LLC, is submitting an Agreement and Securities to guarantee the construction of the public street improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $294,800.00 (Letter of Credit # 300516379-1372) Labor and Material Bond $147,400.00 (Letter of Credit # 300516379-1372) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 16167- ON VINEYARD, LLC July 21,2004 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga Valley Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:RG:tch Attachments ARROW ROUTE 9th STREET b. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE CITY OF ITEM: VIC. IN! RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: ?A~.cE[. ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 16167, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC STREET IM PROVEM ENTS WHEREAS, Tentative Pamel Map 16167, submitted by On Vineyard, LLC, and consisting of a subdivision of 7 parcels on 20.52 acres of land, located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map 16167 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by posting the Improvement Securities by On Vineyard, LLC, as developer; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities 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 Pamel Map No. 16167 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION 0~'/'' .'~ 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 16167 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 (the "72 Act"), said Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 72 Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of 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 owner of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 72 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XlIID") 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 72 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 PM 16167 - ON VINEYARD, LLC July 21,2004 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 72 Act and/or Adicle XIIID applicable to the authorization to 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 to 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 amount snot to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2: This 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 determine in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvements. 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 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: ON VINEYARD, LLC The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL 1: LOT 10, ACCORDING TO PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10 OF CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20, PAGE 44 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5194, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 50, PAGE 33 AND 34 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. ALSO, EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6005, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGES 11 AND 12 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. ALSO, EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 9611 PAGE 694 OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-014592, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM PARCEL 2 DESCRIBED HEREIN. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF LOT 10, ACCORDING TO PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10 OF CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 20 PAGE 44, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 840 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 33 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 300 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF A 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 300 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF LOT 9, ACCORDING TO PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10 OF CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20 PAGE 44 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 9611 PAGE 694, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF LOT 8 OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 10 OF THE CUCAMONGA VINEYARD TRACT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20 PAGE 44 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE NORTH 00° 12' 50" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A DISTANCE OF 297.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 47' 10" EAST, 5.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST AND WHOSE RADIUS IS 344.265, A DISTANCE OF 399.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTH 84° 49' 10" WEST, 212.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-3 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. EXHIBIT "A"- ,~ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 $'rg-maT- 'Tr~ ~ ~ 4I EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~oa'rl~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO /~) STATE OF CALIFORNIA Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I (GENERAL CITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. I (LMD #1) represents 23.63 acres of landscape area, 41.88 acres of parks and 16.66 acres of community trails that are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The 41.88 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I (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. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Exhibit "B" continued Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2004~2005) For Project: PM 16167 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLMD # 1 --- 2 --- I .... SLMD # 2 --- 7 ......... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 1 ......... 41 *Existing items installed with original project (PM 16167) Assessment Units by District Parcel DU SLMD1 SLMD2 LMD1 7 --- 7 7 7 lO? Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I (GENERAL CITY) The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City): # of Physical # of Rate Per Units Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 7699 1.0 7699 $92.21 $709,924.79 Family Multi-Family Unit 7091 0.5 3545.5 $92.21 $326,930.56 Comm/Ind. Parcel 2 1.0 2 $92.21 $184.42 TOTAL $1,037,039.77 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 16167) is: 7 Parcels x A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate PerA. U. = $645.47 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Family Parcel t9,803 1.00 19,803 $17.77 $351,899.31 Multi-Family Unit 7,402 · 1.00 7,402 $17.77 $131,533.54 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 (PM 16167) is: 20.52 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $729.28 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 5,798 1.00 5,798 $39.97 $264.042.00 Family Commercial Acre 19.05 2.00 19.05 $39.97 $1,522.86 Total $233,268.92 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 16167) is: 20.52 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $1,640.37 Annual Assessment T H E C I T Y 0 F I~A N C II 0 C U CA M 0 N GA Staff Report TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager DATE: July 21,2004 SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AWARD THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $166,555.55 TO GLOBAL PRESENTER OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,481.91 FOR AN AUDIONISUAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM UPGRADE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND TO FURNISH AND INSTALL AN AUDIONISUAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM FOR THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) AND AUTHORIZE AN APPROPRIATION OF $91,390.70 ($83,082.45 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $8,308.25) TO ACCT. NO. 1712001-5603 FOR THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS UPGRADE AND AUTHORIZE AN APPROPRIATION OF $21,475.00 FROM THE COPS/DREIER EOC GRANT TO ACCT. NO. 1382105-5603 AND AN APPROPRIATION OF $66,171.76 ($61,998.10 PLUS A 5% CONTINGENCY OF $4,173.66) TO ACCT. NO. 2624801- 5650/1348624-6314 FOR THE EOC SYSTEM (TOTAL COST OF $83,473.10 PLUS CONTINGENCY OF $4,173.66), AND APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER FROM ACCT. NO. 2650801-9624 TO ACCT. NO. 262400-8650 IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,171.76 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board approve the award to execute a contract in the amount of $166,555.55 to Global Presenter of Huntington Beach, and authorize the expenditure of a contingency in the amount of $12,481.91 for an audio/visual presentation system upgrade for the City Council Chambers and to furnish and install an audio/visual presentation system for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and authorize an appropriation of $91,390.70 ($83,082.45 plus a 10% contingency of $8,308.25) to acct. no. 1712001-5603 for the Council Chambers upgrade and authorize an appropriation of $21,475.00 from the AUTHORIZA~ON FOR A/VCONTRACTAWARD Ju~ 21, 2004 Page 2 Cops/Dreier Eec Grant to acct. no. 1382105-5603 and an appropriation of $66,171.76 ($61,998.10 plus a 5% contingency of $4,173.66)to acct. no. 2624801- 5650/1348624-6314 for the Eec system (total cost of $83,473.10 plus contingency of $4,173.66), and approval of a transfer from acct. no. 2650801-9624 to acct. no. 262400-8650 in the amount of $66,171.76. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Council Chambers audio/visual system is in need of an upgrade due to obsolescence of equipment that is now twelve years old. Within the past 30 - 60 days the system has expedientially experienced equipment failures indicating a possible total failure of the system. The information Systems staff and technical consultants agree that a full upgrade to the systems is now needed. The Eec system will be a new installation for the newly constructed Eec located on the third floor of the Police Department facility. Information Systems and the Fire District provided specifications for these audio/visual systems to Purchasing. Purchasing prepared a formal Request for Proposal and sent it to eleven (11) vendors and posted the Request for Proposal (RFP) to the Purchasing website. An additional two (2) vendors obtained the RFP from the website and registered on the source list with Purchasing. Four (4) proposals and one (1)"no bid" were received. Purchasing and Information Systems staff conducted interviews with the companies that submitted proposals for both systems and completed reference checks. After analysis of the proposals by Information Systems, Fire District, and Purchasing staff, it has been determined that Global Presenter has submitted the lowest, most responsive, responsible proposal that meets the specifications required by the City. Copies of all documentation used to determine this award are available in Purchasing for your review. Respectfully submitted, Duane Baker 0- Linda Daniels Assistant to the City Manager Redevelopment Agency Director R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S ffReport DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAl_ SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC., DAN GUERRA & ASSOCIATES, DAWSON SURVEYING, INC., AND SB&O, INC., TO PROVIDE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SURVEY SERVICES FOR FY 2004/2005, WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW ANNUALLY UP TO AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS AFTER REVIEW OF FEES AND MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES, FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 ANNUALLY, TO BE FUNDED FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ACCOUNTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreements with Associated Engineers, Inc., Dan Guerra & Associates, Dawson Surveying, Inc., SB&O, Inc., to provide annual construction survey services for FY 2004/2005, with an option to renew annually up to an additional two years after review of fees and mutual agreement of both parties, for proposed capital improvement projects throughout the City, for a total not to exceed $500,000 annually, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreements and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Requests for proposals were advertised to provide construction survey services on an annual basis for various improvement projects within the City. Seven firms responded, and after review and rating of the proposals, those submitted from Associated Engineers, Inc., CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Construction Survey Services - Professional Services Agreement July 21,2004 Page 2 Dan Guerra & Associates, Dawson Surveying, Inc., SB&O, Inc., were accepted as meeting the best needs of the City based on their qualifications, experience, and schedule of fees. Individual capital improvement projects requiring construction survey services will be awarded on a rotating basis between the consulting firms of Dawson Surveying, Inc. and SB&O, Inc. first, as their fees are very competitive. However, because these consulting firms have other clients other than the City they may not be available from time to time, and therefore, the consulting firms of Associated Engineers and Guerra & Associates would be selected upon their availability. Services will be on a time and materials basis in accordance with the schedule of fees and type of project. Because each individual project survey requirement and cost will vary dependent on the work required, a proposal will be requested from the consultant along with an estimated cost. At that time a requisition will be processed for the services using the account number(s) for the individual project. The combined total cost of the consultants selected for each individual project will not exceed the amount listed in the subject matter, unless authorized by the City Council. Re~.~u Ily submitted, City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments Dawson Surveying.: inc. Land Surveyors SCHEDULE OF RATES Project Manager ................................................................. $ 85.00 per hour Survey Crew (2 person) ........................................................ $165.00 per hour Survey Crew (3 person) ........................................................ $ 200.00 per hour 1332 Villa Slreet * Riverside, CA 92507 * Ph - 909-682-3286 * Fax - 909-682-3281 E-mail - dawsurv~direcway.com / ?b FEE SCHEDULE - October 2003 Expert Witness (Deposition/Court Appearance) .................................................................... $300.00/hr ProfessiOnal Consultation ......................................................................................................... 160.O0/hr Principal ................................................................................................................................... 160.00/hr Project Manager ....................................................................................................................... 130.00/hr Project Engineer ....................................................................................................................... 115.00/hr Assistant Project Engineer ............... : ........................................................................................ 105.00/b.r Design Engineer ......................................................................................................................... 97.00/hr Staff Engineer ............................................................................................................................ 82.00/hr Senior Design Draltsman ........................................................................................................... 85.00/hr Design Draftsman .......~ .............................................................................................................. 78.00/hr Drat~sman .................................................................................................................................. 70.00/hr Delineator .................................................................................................................................. 56.00/hr Associate Planner ....................................................................................................................... 80.00/hr Senior Land Surveyor .............................................................................................................. 125.00/hr Survey Supervisor .................................................................................................................... 110.00/hr Assistant Land Surveyor ............................................................................................................ 95.00gar 1-Man Survey Crew.~ ............................................................................................................... 115.00/b-r 2-Man Survey Crew ................................................................................................................. 180.00/hr 3-Man Survey Crew ................................................................................................................. 240.00/hr 2-Man Survey Crew (Overtime) .............................................................................................. 230.00/hr 2-Man Survey Crew (Doubletime) ........................................................................................... 300.00/hr 1-Man Survey Crew (Global Positioning System) .................................................................... 160.00/hr 2-Man Survey Crew (Global Positioning System) .................................................................... 220.O0/hr 3-Man Survey Crew (Global Positioning System) .................................................................... 270.00/hr Computer Technician/Survey Notes ........................................................................................... 95.00/hr Contract Coordinator ................................................................................................................. 75.00/hr Administrative Technician ......................................................................................................... 54.00/hr Delivery Service ......................................................................................................................... 34.00/hr Prints & Reproduction Charges ............................................................................................ Cost + 10% Outside Consulting & Outside Delivery Services ................................................................. Cost + 10% In the event of any increase of costs due to thc granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits due to the terms of any new labor agreement during thc lifetime of this agreement, such increases shall be adjusted to all fees. Client hereby agrees that thc balance as stated on the billing fi.om the engineer to client is correct, conclusive and binding on thc client unless client, within ten (10) days from the date of the making of the billing, notifies engineer in writing of thc particular item that is alleged to be incorrect. Time is of the essence regarding the provisions of tins paragraph. Monthly billing will be mailed to Client Accounts Payable and to a specified project manager as requested. Client hereby agrees that costs for subsequent requests of billing and/or exhibit copies wig be borne by Client and billed on a time and materials basis (T&M) under Client reimbursable Job No. XXXX0.99 NOTE: Under the terms and conditions of this contract, a late payment FINANCE CHARGE will be computed at the periodic rate of 1.00% per month, which is an ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE of 12% and will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing 30 days after the date on which payment of the balance, pursuant to this contract, is required to be made. Dan uerra & Associates CIVIL ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS 10271-9 TRADEMARK STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA 91750 PHONE: (909) 987-4506 - FAX: (909) 941-1528 STANDARD HOURLY RATES PRINCIPAL ENGINEER $160.00 per hour PROJECT MANAGER $135.00 per hour DESIGNERfDESIGNER CADD $115.00 per hour DRAFTSMAN/DRAFTSMAN CADD $105.00 per hour TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES $110.00 per hour 1-MAN SURVEY CREW* $160.00 per hour 2-MAN SURVEY CREW * $205.00 per hour 3-MAN SURVEY CREW * $250.00 per hour CLERICAL $ 70.00 per hour CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES $105.00 per hour Above rates include mileage, equipment and instruments (exclusive of rentals), use of office space and materials and supplies. Rates exclude use of consultants, equipment remal, blueprinting, photocopying, reproductions, etc., which will be charged at Engineer's cost plus 15% administration, if incurred. Overtime rates will be 50% greater than those rates listed. Overtime is defined as work in excess of eight (8) hours per day (twelve (12) hours maximum), 40 hours per week and Saturday. Rates for Sunday and Dan Guerra & Associates approved holidays and work in excess of twelve (12) hours per day .will be 100% greater than those rates listed. · Rates exclude use of Global Positioning System Equipment. GPS use rates will be added at $925/day. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMEN¥ Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., NINYO & MOORE, AND RMA GROUP, TO PROVIDE ANNUAL SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR FY 2004/2005, WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW ANNUALLY UP TO AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS AFTER REVIEW OF FEES AND MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES, FOR PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 ANNUALLY, TO BE FUNDED FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ACCOUNTS RECOMMENDATION ~t is recommended that the City Council approve the Professional Services Agreements with Krazan & Associates, Inc., Ninyo & Moore, and RMA Group, to provide annual soils and materials testing services for FY 2004/2005, with an option to renew annually up to an additional two years after review of fees and mutual agreement of both parties, for proposed capital improvement projects throughout the City, for a total not to exceed $500,000 annually, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreements and the City Clerk to attest thereto. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Requests for proposals were advertised to provide soils and materials testing services on an annual basis for various improvement projects within the City. Four firms responded, and after review and rating of the proposals, those submitted from Krazan & CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Soils and Materials Testing Services - Professional Services Agreement July 2'1, 2004 Page 2 Associates, Inc., Ninyo & Moore, and RMA Group, were accepted as meeting the best needs of the City based on their qualifications, experience, and schedule of fees. Individual capital improvement projects requiring soils and materials testing services will be awarded on a rotating basis between the three consulting firms chosen and upon consultant availability. Services will be on a time and materials basis in accordance with the schedule of fees and type of project. Because each individual project testing requirement and cost will vary dependent on the work required, a proposal will be requested from the consultant along with an estimated cost. At that time a requisition will be processed for the services using the account number(s) for the individual project. The combined total cost of the consultants selected for each individual project will not exceed the amount listed in the subject matter, unless authorized by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Willia~n~/J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments City of Rancho Cucamonga ~o//$ and Ma~da/$ T~sb~g - Annual.~r~/ces June Ir 2004 SCHEDULE OF FEES 2003 Technician Description R te/Cost $58.00 Soil Technician $60.00 Senior Soil Teclmician $58.00 Soil Technician - Retosting $62.00 Public Works Inspector $60.00 Public Works Technician $60.00 Public Works Inspector - Asphalt Paving $58.00 Public Works Inspector - Asphalt Plant $60.00 Public Work Inspector - Concrete Paving $58.00 Public Works Inspector - Concrete Plant $85.00 Public Works Inspector - Resident Inspection $55.00 Traffic Control Personnel $55.00 Laboratory Technician - Field Lab $55.00 Laboratory Technician Batch Preparation $62.00 Special Inspector -Reinforced Concrete (ICBO) $62.00 Special Inspector - Pre-Stressed Concrete (ICBO) $62.00 Special Inspector - Concrete Batch Plant $58.00 Concrete Technician (ACI) $45.00 Pick-up & Delivery of Test Specimens $58.00 ID Reinforcing or Stmcnaal Steel $62.00 Special Inspector Fire Proofing (ICBO) $62.00 Special Inspector Epoxy Bolting $62.00 Special Inspector Root"rog / Nailing $62.00 Special Inspector Masonry (ICBO) $65.00 Special Inspector - Masonry (DSA) $60.00 Special Inspector - Grout Batch Plant $62.00 Special Inspector - Field Welding (AWS CWO Special Inspector - Shop Welding (AWS CWO $62.00 Special Inspector - Stxuctuml Steel (ICBO) $62.00 Special Inspector- High Strength Bolting (ICBO) $62.00 Special Inspector - Timber $65.00 Proposal and -~d=~aent of ~ualifi~aUons 17 City of Rancho Cucamonga So~Is and Hater~als TesO'n~l - Annual ~ervices June 1t 2004 Technician (cont.) Description Rate/Cost Ultrasonic Testing - Level I1 Technician $65.00 Ultrasonic Testing - Level III Technician $95.00 Magnetic Ptmicle Technician - Level II $65.00 Liquid Penetrants Technician - Level II $65.00 Anchor Pull Tests $70.00 Bolt Torque Tests $70.00 Project Inspector (IOR) $85.00 Asphalt Coring $80.00 Concrete Coring $80.00 Horizontal Wall Coring $85.00 Assistant Wall Coring $58.00 Coring Bit Wear (per inch) $2.00 Supervising Soil Technician $80.00 Supervising - Public Works $80.00 Supervising - Special Inspection $80.00 Quality Control Manager $80.00 Per Diem $65.00 Shit~ Differential $2.00 Proposal and S;~;~nent of (~ualiffcalYons 18 City of Rancho Cucamonga Eoils and P;=to ia/$ T~tdn9 - Annua/ Ee~ice~ 3une ~'r 2004 Lab Aggregates Description Rate/Cost AbraSion by Los Angeles Rattler $225.00 Cleanness Value - Fine or Coarse $125.00 Deleterious Substance Determination $100.00 $85.00 Dry Rodded Unit Weight $225.00 Durability Index - Fine & Coarse $150.00 Durability Test - Coarse Durability Test - Fine $100.00 Fineness Modulus $80.00 Flat and Elongated Pieces - (per size fraction) $125.00 Fractured Faces - (per size fraction) $35.00 Light Weight Particles $200.00 Moisture Content $20.00 Organic Impurities $65.00 Pement Clay in Sands by Hydrometer $90.00 Pementage Crashed Particles $125.00 Potential Reactivity - Chemical Method $350.00 Sand Equivalent $85.00 Sieve Analysis-Fine & Coarse Aggregates $110.00 Sieve Analysis-Fine Aggregates (passing No. 4) $95.00 Sieve Analysis-Coarse Aggregates (Retained on No 4) $65.00 Soundness by Sodium Sulfate-(Coarse Series) $255.00 Soundness by Sodium Sulfate (Fine Series) $330.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption of Coarse Aggregate $30.00 Apparent Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate $40.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption of Fine Aggregate $40.00 Fine Aggregate Angularity (T304) $65.00 g ~fl)ll~ proposal a~d S;~;~i~=t of (lualifi~;li= 19 City of Rancho Cucamonga Eo//$ and Ffateda~ Tes~'ng - Annual Eerv/ces 3une :!.t 2004 Lab Asphalt l)eseription Rate/Cost Fihn Stripping $95.00 $65.00 Ke Factor KfFactor $85.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility $200.00 Swell Potential (CAL 305) $165.00 Bulk Specific Gravity Per Specimen (ASTM Saturated Surface Dry) $40.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (ASTM Saturated Surface Dry Cores) $40.00 Bulk Specific Gravity Per Specimen (ASTM Paxafilm Coated) $45.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (ASTM Parafiim Coated Cores) $45.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (CTM 308 Method A) $45.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (CTM 308 Method A Cores) $45.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (CTM 308 Method C) $40.00 Bulk Specific Gravity (CTM 308 Method C Cores) $40.00 Field Test Maximum Density (CAL 375) $95.00 Lab Test Maximum Density (CAL 375) $195.00 Lab Test Maximum Density - Hveem Method $195.00 Lab Test Maximum Density - Marshall Method $195.00 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity - Rice $175.00 Marshall Stability and Flow - lab compacted $280.00 Marshall Stability and Flow - field compacted $190.00 Hveem Stability (CTM 366) $195.00 Hveem Stability (ASTM D 1560) $195.00 Moisture Content of Mix (CAL 370) $25.00 Moisture Content of Mix (CAL 310) $185.00 Tensile Strength Ratio (AASHTO T283) $550.00 Surface Abrasion Test (CAL 360) $450.00 Extraction - Percent Asphalt by Ignition Oven $100.00 Extraction - Percent Asphalt by Ignition Oven - Calibration $250.00 Exa-action - Percent Asphalt by Solvents (Vacuum) $125.00 Extraction - Percent Asphalt by Solvents (Centrifuge) $125.00 Gradation of Extracted Aggregate $110.00 Percent Voids (CAL 367) $125.00 Percent Residue by Evaporation (ASTM D244) $100.00 Emulsion Sieve Test (ASTM D244) $75.00 Wet Tract Abrasion (ASTM D3910) $100.00 Proposal and Stateraent of ~aaliflcaifons 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga Soils and I~latedal$ TesEng - Annual Services June 're 2004 Lab Concrete Description Rate/Cost Mix ~)esign Review - Calculation Only $175.00 Concrete Cylinder Cured and/or Compression Tested $18.00 Compression Test Cores-8" maximum diameter (including uimmin§ $50.00 insulating Concrete Cylinders - Compression Test $25.00 Insulating Concrete Cylinders - Constant Weight $25.00 Flexaral SU'ength-Concrete Beams $85.00 Gunitc Compression Tests $20.00 Shotcrete Compression Tests $20.00 Concrete Modulus of Elasticity $150.00 Concrete Shrinkage Test (set of 3) $165.00 Cement Content of Hardened Concrete $1,100.00 Splitting Tensile Test $65.00 Unit Weight of Cylinders $45.00 Air Content CAL 504 $60.00 Ball Penetraction CAL 533 $60.00 Slab Moisture Test $16.00 Side to Side Crush (CCT1 T-108) $6.00 Water Retention of Liquid Curing Compound - CTM 534 $375.00 Length of Drilled Cores CTM 531 $30.00 Surface Abrasion of Concrete (CT 550) $400.00 Density of Spray Applied Fire Proofing $40.00 ~ ~11~ pr~p~land$~ate~entofqualificalYor~ 21 City of Rancho Cucamonga So/Is and I~latedals Tesl~h~l - Annual ~rvices 3une ].t 2004 Lab Masonry Description Rate/Cost Block Compressive Strength Test (set of 3) $75.00 Block, as Received Moisture & Absorption (set of 3) $50.00 Block, Lineal Shrinkage ASTM C426 (set of 3) $50.00 Block, Unit Weight and Dimensions (set of 3) $150.00 Block, Conformance tn ASTM C90 (set of 9) $300.00 Brick, Compression (set of 3) $45.00 Brick, as received Moisture & Absorption (set of 3) $70.00 Brick, 5 hr Boil $55.00 Brick, Modulus of Rupture $55.00 Mortar Compression Test (2" x 4" Cylinder) $25.00 Grout Compression Test (3" x 6" Prism) $25.00 Masonry Cores, Compression - 8" max. diameter $35.00 Masonry Cores, Shear - 8" max. diameter $45.00 Tensile Test - CMA Method $60.00 Masonry Assemblage Compressive Strength 8" Block $55.00 Masonry Assemblage Compressive Strength 12" Block $75.00 Masonry. Assemblage Compressive Sh'ength 16" Block $95.00 Trimming of Test Specimens $30.00 Cube Compression Test 2x2x2 $16.00 Roof Tile Conformance (set of 10) $275.00 Mortar Strength of PCC Sand - CTM 515 $800.00 . ~ ~ pr~pt~ala~..~;.=ment~C~alific~tlYon~ 22 City of Rancho Cucamonga ..q~i/s an~ I~aterial$ Te~:in[/ - Annua/..~rvic'~s June Ir 2004 Lab Steel Description Rate/Cost TensiOn & Bend - Rebar ('No. 8 or smaller) $50.00 Tension & Bend - Rebar (No. 11) $60.00 Tension & Bend - P. cbar (No. 14) $80.00 Chemical Analysis $250.00 Tension - Rebar only $20.00 Bend - Rebar only $35.00 Tension Test - Swuctural Steel $65.00 Bend Test - Structural Steel $35.00 Machine Coupons for Structural Steel Chemical Analysis $250.00 and ~tagen~t o/' ~t t~ltl~catfons 23 City of Rancho Cucamonga Soils and iVatedal$ Te~dng - Annua/ Eer~es lune ~.r 2004 Lab Soil Description Rate/Cost At, cd,erg Limits $65.00 California Bearin§ Ratio $350.00 Consolidation (no time rate) $150.00 Consolidation (with time rates) $200.00 Direct Shear $95.00 Expansion Index (UBC Standard 29-2) $95.00 Falling Head Permeability of Soil $100.00 Collapse Potential $90.00 Hydrometer Analysis $80.00 Lab Density Determinations by Drive Tube $15.00 Lab Moisture Determinations $8.00 Matric Suction - Filter Paper Method $65.00 Maximum Density - Optimum Moisture (ASTM D 1557) $175.00 Calif Impact Max Density (CAL 216) $190.00 Percent Organic Materials $15.00 pH & Resistivity of Soils Saturated Paste $35.00 R-Value $225.00 Oversized Rock Correction $25.00 Sand Equivalent $50.00 Check Point - Maximum Density Optimum Moisture (ASTM D1557) Sieve Analysis of Soils $110.00 Percent Finer Than No. 200- Wash Only $25.00 Soluble Sulfate $45.00 Specific Gravity of Soils $75.00 Consolidation / Swell Potential $175.00 Unconfined Compression Test $90.00 ESP - Sodium Exchange Potential $45.00 Soil Cement (set of 3) $580.00 Shrinkage factor by Resin $120.00 Soil Cement Maximum Density - Optimum Moisture (ASTM D558) $140.00 Soil Cement Laborato~ Specimen Preparation D559 $35.00 Soil Cement Compression Test D1633 $20.00 Chloride Content (CTM 422) $30.00 ~J~J~ ~ .~.,o/~e/a~t ~ _~J:~'ee'~.t~ o f (~ual~caffo~s 24 City of Rancho Cucamonga Soils and ~a£~i~15 Tesgn~l - Annual.¢ervices June :l.z 2004 Office Description Rate/Cost Administrative 530.00 Secretarial $30.00 Data Entry $25.00 Report Copies $5.00 Geotechnical Report Copies $25.00 Additional Report Copies per page $0.50 Mail Expenses $0.00 Principal Engineer - Office $145.00 Principal Engineer - Field $145.00 Principal Engineer - Consultation $145.00 Principal Engineer - Job Conference $145.00 Principal Engineer - Expert Witness $250.00 Principal Engineer - Court Appearance $300.00 Project Engineer - Office $105.00 Project Engineer - Field $105.00 Project Engineer - Consultation $105.00 Project Engineer - Job Conference $105.00 StaffEngineer - Office $85.00 Staff Engineer - Field $85.00 Drafting $50.00 Fault Search $100.00 Response Spectra $300.00 Plan Copies (per sheet) $2.00 Plan Copies oversized (per sheet) $5.00 Project Manager- Office $105.00 Project Manager - Field $105.00 Project Manager - Job Conference $105.00 Proposal and S~atemetyt of Oualificalfor~ 25 City of' Rancho Cucamonga ~oils and ~¢ater~ls Testing/- Annu~/ ~erv/c~ 3une 1r 2004 Office (cont.) Description Rite/Cost Principal Geologist - Office $125.00 Principal Geologist - Field $125.00 Principal Geologist - Consultation $125.00 Principal Geologist - Job Conference $125.00 Principal Geologist - Expert Wimess $150.00 Principal Geologist - Court Appearance $250.00 Project Geologist - Office $95.00 Project Geologist - Field $95.00 Project Geologist - Consultation $95.00 Project Geologist - Job Conference $95.00 Staff Geologist - Office $70.00 StaffGeologist - Field $70.00 ~J[i~ ~ lh~osal and Si. Erment of (~ualificaUor~ 26 City of Rancho Cucamonga So~Is and Mateda/s Testin9 - Annua/ ~rvice~ June Ir 2004 Office (cont.) Description Rate/Cost Principal Geologist - Office $125.00 Principal Geologist - Field $125.00 Principal Geologist - Consultation $125.00 Principal Geologist - Job Conference $125.00 Principal Geologist - Expert Witness $150.00 Principal Geologist - Court Appearance $250.00 Project Geologist - Office $95.00 Project Geologist - Field $95.00 Project Geologist - Consultation $95.00 Project Geologist - Job Conference $95.00 Staff Geologist - Office $70.00 Staff Geologist 2 Field $70.00 Soils and Materials Testing Services - Annual Services June 29, 2004 Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga, Calitornia Proposal No. P-12306 SCHEDULE OF FEES HOURLY CHARGES FOR PERSONNEL Pdncip~l Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist ........................................................................................... $ 135 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .............................................................................................. $ 122 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .................................................................................. $ 122 Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .............................................................................................. $ 109 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist ...................................................................................... $ 98 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .................................................................................................. $ 86 IS/GIS Specialist ..................................................................................................................................................... $ 86 Field Operations Manager ...................................................................................................................................... $ 68 Supervisory Technician*. ........................................................................................................................................ $ 68 Nondestructive Examination Technician, UT, MT, LP*. ......................................................................................... $ 75 Senior Field/Laboretory Technician*. ..................................................................................................................... $ 63 Field/Laboratory Technician* .................................................................................................................................. $ 57 ACI Concrete Technician*. ..................................................................................................................................... $ 57 Concrete/Asphalt Batch Plant Inspector* ............................................................................................................... $ 57 Special Inspector (Concrete, Masonry, Steel, Welding, and Fireproofing)*. ......................................................... $ 57 Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator ......................................................................................................................... $ 57 Geotechnical/EnvironmentaFLaboratory Assistant ................................................................................................ $ 49 Information Specialist ............................................................................................................................................. $ 42 Data Processin~l, Technical Editin~l, or Reproduction ............................................................................................ $ 36 OTHER CHARGES ExpertWitnessTestimony ............................................................................................................................ $ 250/hr PID/FID Usage .............................................................................................................................................. $ 120/day Coring Machine Usage (inciudestechnician) ............................................................................................... $ 100/hr Anchor load test equipment (includes technician) ....................................................................................... $ 89/hr Hand Auger Equipment ................................................................................................................................ $ 55/day Inclinometer Usage ...................................................................................................................................... $ 20/hr Vapor Emission Kits ..................................................................................................................................... $ 30/kit Level D Personal Protective Equipment (per person per day) .................................................................... $ 25 Ip/d Rebar Locator (Pachometer) ........................................................................................................................ $ 22/hr Nuclear Density Gauge Usage ..................................................................................................................... $ No charge Field Vehicle Usage ...................................................................................................................................... $ 6/hr Direct Project Expenses ....................................................................................................................... Cost plus 15 % Laborator~ testin~,l, c, leophysical equipment, and other special equipment provided upon request. NOTES (Field Services) For field and laboratory technicians and special inspectors, regular hourly rates are charged dudng normal weekday construction hours. Overtime rates at 1.5 times the regular rates will be charged for work pedormed outside normal construction hours and all day on Saturdays and Sundays. Rates at twice the regular rates will be charged for all work in excess of 12 hours in one day or on holidays. Lead time for any requested service is 24 hours. Special inspection rates are based on a 4-hour minimum for the first 4 hours and an 8-hour minimum for hours exceeding 4 hours. Field Technicians are charged portal to portal. *Indicates rates that are based on Prevailing Wage Determination made by the State of California, Director of IndusMal Relations on a semiannual basis and are subject to their revision. INVOICES Invoices will be submitted monthly and are due upon receipt. A service charge of 1.0 percent per month may be charged on accounts not paid within 30 days. Ontario Fee Schedule Page 3 TERMS OF PAYMENT AND CHARGES Terms of Payment Invoices shall be deemed delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the invoice date and will be subject to a late payment charge of 1.5% per month as liquidated damages for additional credit and collection expenses incurred by Krazan & Associates, Inc. ~ <~0.~,~ Y Char.qes Minimum Charges Hourly field services have a,4 hour minimum charge. Hourly office services have a one hour minimum charge. Regular Time Charges Regular time charges are Monday through Friday, between 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Other arrangements available upon pre-approval. Time and One-Half Charges Time and one-half charges will be rendered on weekdays for services extending beyond regular time, 8-12 hours of total service that day. Saturday services are commonly available at time and one-half charges. Double Time Charges Services rendered on Holidays, Sunday, in excess of 8 hours on Saturday, or in excess of 12 hours on weekdays, will be charged at double the normal rate. Portal to Portal Charges A portal to portal charge per call applies to all inspection and field work. Miscellaneous and Subcontractor Charges Miscellaneous or unusual charges, such as parking, mailing, shipping, etc., and/or subcontractor charges, such as backhoe fees, will be charged to the client at cost plus 15%. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 4 Subsistence On remote jobs or projects, subsistence, when not furnished, will be an additional charge. Cancellation Eate cancellation may be subject to reasonable charges if personnel cannot be appropriately reassigned or if remobilization is required. Insurance Krazan & Associates, Inc. carries in excess of all insurance required by law. Additional costs of extra insurance certificates, co-insurance endorsements or additional insurance will be charged to the client at cost plus 15%. Supervisor Charges Supervisor charges are above and beyond unit rates quoted. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 5 GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES Professional t Principal Engineer ..................................................................................................... $175.00/hr. Registered Senior Engineer ........................................................................................ 135.00/hr. Registered Geologist ................................................................................................... 125.00/hr. Certified Asbestos Inspector/Manager ........................................................................ 110.00/hr, Project Engineer/Manager ........................................................................................... 110.00/hr. Project Geologist ......................................................................................................... 110.00/hr. Chemist ....................................................................................................................... 110.00/hr. Environmental Specialist ............................................................................................. 110.00/hr. Project Administration & Analysis ............................................................................. .... 110.00/hr. Field Engineer/Inspector .............................................................................................. 105.00/hr. Field Geologist ............................................................................................................. 105.00/hr. Technical Engineering Technician .............................. : ................................................................ $75.00/hr. Environmental Technician ............................................................................................. 75.00/hr. AutoCad/Engineering Technician .................................................................................. 75.00/hr. Support Clerical ..................................................................................................................... $45.00/Repon Subsistence ................................................................................................................. 85.00/day. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With OJ~ces Serving the Western United States Soils and Materials Testing Services - Annual Services June 29, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Proposal No. P.12306 SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test, Test Desi~lnation, and Price Per Test Soils Concrete AtterbergUmita, D4318, CT204 ..................................................... $ 125 Cement Analysis Chemical and Physleal, C109 ...........................$ 1,500 Califernia Bearing Ra~o (CBR), D 1883 ........................................... $ 350 C~mpression Testa, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 ....................................... $ 19 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 ............................. $ 100 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec ........................................ $ 125 ConsolidalJon, D 2435, CT 219 ........................................................ $ 200 Concrete Mix Design, per Tdal Batch, 6 cylinder, ACI ................... $ 650 Consolidallon - Time Rate, D 2435, CT 219 ................................... $ 50 Conc£ete Corns, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42 ............ $ 40 Direct Shear - Undleturbed, D 3080, CT 222 .................................. $ 200 D~ng Shrinkage, C 157 ................................................................. $ 200 Direct Shear - Remolded, D 3080, CT 222 ..................................... $ 250 Flexural Test. C 78 .......................................................................... $ 40 Durability Index, CT 229 ................................................................... $ 140 Flexural Test, C 293 ........................................................................ $ 45 Expansion Index, D 4829, UBC 18-2 ............................................... $ 140 Rexural Test, CT 523 ...................................................................... $ 50 Expansion Pot'"'""~nf~al (Method A), D 4546 ......................................... $ 130 Gunite/Shotcrete, Panels, 3cutesmsperpaneiandtest, ACI....$ 190 ExpansNe Pressure (Method C), D 4546 ......................................... $ 130 Jobsite Tesllng Laboratory .............................................................. Quote Geofabric Tensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 .............................. $ 150 Ughtweight Concrete Fill, C~mprassion, C 495 ............................. $ 30 HydraulicConducfivity, D5084 ........................................................ $ 250 PetrographicAna~ysis, C856 ......................................................... $ 1,000 Hydrometer Anal~is, D 422, CT 203 ............................................... $ 140 Splitting Tensile Sf~ongth, C 496 ..................................................... $ 65 Double Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203 .................................. $ 270 Maximum Density O 1557, D 698, CT 216, & AASHTO T-180 ...... $ 150 Reinforcin~ and Structural Steel (Rock con,ec~ons add $65) Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 ................................................ $ 50 Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Pest/Organic Soils ................... $ 90 Ha[dness Test, Rockwea, A-370 .................................................... $ 40 Moisture Only, D 2216, CT 226 .................................... ; ................... $ 18 High Sbength Bait, NCt & Wesher Confermance, set, A-32 .......... $ 100 Mofstum and Density, D 2937 .......................................................... $ 30 Medmnically Splleed Rdmfordng Teneile Test, ACl ...................... $ 80 Pen~eability, CH, D 2434, CT 220 ................................................... $ 200 Pm-Stress S~and (7 v,~re), A 416 ................................................... $ 125 pH and Resistivity, CT 643 ............................................................... $ 95 Chemical Analysle, A-36, A-615 ..................................................... $ 100 R-veiue, D2844, CT301 .................................................................. $ 215 Reinforeing Tesslen or Bend up te No. 11,A615& A706 ........... $ 42 Sand Equivalent, D 2419, CT 217 .................................................... $ 80 Structural Steet Tensile Test: Up te 200,000 lbs. Sieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202 ......................................................... $ 95 (mec~ining e.xta ), A 370 ............................................................... $ 52 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 .................................... $ 75 Welded R~ntorcing Tensile Test: Up to No. 11 bars, ACI ............. $ 46 Specillc Gravity, D 854 ..................................................................... $ 75 Asphalt Concrete ._~ TdaxialShear, C.O., three points, CT230 ....................................... $ 350 Asphalt Mix Design, Cagrans .......................................................... $ 2,000 TriaxJal Shear, C.U., three points, D 4767, CT 230 ......................... $ 325 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec ........................................... $ 135 Triaxiei Shear, U.U., ene point, D 2850, CT 230 .............................. $ 125 Exlra~on, % AsphalL including Gradation, D 2172, CT 310 ........ $ 190 Unconllned Compressien, O 2166, CT 221 ..................................... $ 160 Film Shipping, CT 3g?- .................................................................... $ 80 Wax Density, D 1188 ........................................................................ $ 75 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight CTM or AS3WI, CT 366 ............ $ 170 RoofinR Mamhall Slebiiity, Flow and Unit Weight, T-245 ............................. $ 190 Built-up Ronllng, cut-cut samples, D 2829 ...................................... $ 150 Maximum Theoref~cal Unit Weight, D 2041 .................................... $ 90 Roofing Materials AnaJysis, D 2829 ................................................. $ 450 Swell, CT 305 .................................................................................. $ 150 Roofing 331e Abso~pllon, (set of 5), USC 15-5 .................................. $ 150 Unit Weight sample or (xxe, D 2726, CT 308 ................................ $ 75 Roofing Tile Sbength Test, (set of 5), USC 1 5-5 ............................. $ 150 A~amcmtes Masonry Absoq3llon, Coame, C 127 .............................................................. $ 25 B~ck Absoq)IJon, 24-hour submemion, C B7 ................................... 35 Absoq~f~3n, Fine, C 128 ................................................................... $ 25 Sdck Abso~pIJon, 5-hour boiling, C 67 .............................................. 48 Clay Lumps and Friable Parades, C 142 ....................................... $ 95 Brid( Abso~f~on, 7-day, C 67 ........................................................... 53 Cleannees Value, CT 227 ............................................................... $ 110 Bdck Compression Test, C 67 ......................................................... 34 Crashed Particles, CT 205 .............................................................. $ 130 Brick Efflorescence, C 67 ................................................................. 34 Durability, Coarse, CT 229 .............................................................. $ 120 Bdck ModuJus of Rupture, C 67 ....................................................... 34 Durebility, Fine, CT 229 ................................................................... $ 120 Brick Moisture as received, C 67 ...................................................... 28 Los Angeles Abresion, C 131 or C 535 .......................................... $ 165 Brick Satura§on Coeffident, C 67 ..................................................... 44 Mortar making proped~s of fine aggregate, C 87 .......................... $ 245 ~ Concrete Block Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 .........................~. 39 Organic ImpudUes, C 40 ................................................................. $ 50 Conc~*ete Block Confom*tance Package. C 90 ................................. I 350 Potenllei Reactivity of Aggregata (Chemical Method). C 289 ........ $ 350 Concrete Block Unear Shrinkage, C 426 ......................................... : 100 Sand Equivalent, CT 217 ................................................................ $ 80 Concrete Bleck Unit Weight and Absoq)flen, C 140 ........................ 50 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C 136 ..................................... $ 95 Cores, Compreseion or Shesr Bond, CA Code ............................... 34 Sieve Analysis, Fine ,N3gnegate (including wesh), C 136 ...............$ 95 Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism compression, UBC 21-18 .................. ; 19 Sodium Sulfate Soundness (per size frac~on), C 88 .....................$ 145 Masonry Mortar, 2:(4 cytinder ccmpre. S~on, UBC 21-16 ................. 19 Spedllc Gravity, Coarse, C 127 ...................................................... $ 65 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, USC 21-17 ....................... 90 Spedllc Gravity, Fine, C 128 ........................................................... $ 75 Ninyo & Moore is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. Ontario Fee Schedule Page 7 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SOils - Foundations - Geology Exploratory Drilling, Sampling, and Travel Light Duty Drilling (continuous flight auger by Mobile Drill Minuteman or Giddings, operator only) ........................................................... $155.00/hr. Drilling (continuous flight, hollow stem auger or rotary wash, wi2 operators) CME 45 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ..................................................................... 175.00/hr. CME 55 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ..................................................................... 185.00/hr. Mobile Drill B-61/HDX Drill Rig (truck mounted) ............................................... 185.00/hr. Mileage (support vehicles) .................................................................................. 00.50/mi. Mileage (drill rig) ................................................................................................. 00.80/mi. Laboratory Tests Sieve Analysis, Coarse, ASTM C 136 ........ . .............................................................. $160.00/ea. Fine (including wash), ASTM C 137, C 177 ................................................................. 95.00/ea. Hydrometer Analysis, ASTM D 422 ............................................................................... 90.00/ea. Specific Gravity, Bulk SSD, Coarse, ASTM C 127, C 117 ........................................... 115.00/ea. Fine, ASTM C 128 ..................................................................................................... 195.00/ea. Atterberg Limits, ASTM D 4318 ................................................................................... 160.00/ea. Moisture-Density Relations of Soils, ASTM D 698, D 1557, State 216 ....................... 175.00/ea. Consolidation Test ASTM D 2435 ............................................................................... 225.00/ea. Triaxial Compression Test, ASTM D 2850 Unconsolidated, Undrained .............................................................................. 235.00/ea. Consolidated, Undrained .................................................................................. 325.00/ea. Consolidated, Undrained with Pore Pressure ................................................... 500.00/ea. Unconfined Compression Test, ASTM D 2166 .............................................................. 85.00/ea. Expansion Index, UBC-29-2 ........................................................................................ 195.00/ea. Direct Shear Test, ASTM D 3080 Consolidated, Drained, 3 points ........................................................................ 215.00/ea. Permeability, Constant Falling Head, ASTM 2434 ...................................................... 225.00/ea. Permeability, Falling Head/Flexible Wall (ASTM D5084), 1.4"-4". .............................. 325.00 ea. Permeability, Falling Head/Flexible Wall (ASTM D5084), 6" ...................................... 450.00 ea. Permeability, Falling Head/Flexible Wall (ASTM D5084), 12" . ................................... 750.00 ea. Permeability Sample Remold ........................................................................................ 40.00 ea. Sulfate Content .............................................................................................................. 40.00/ea. "R" (Resistance) Value, Cal. 301, ASTM D 2844 ........................................................ 240.00/ea. "R" (Resistance) Value, Lime Treated or Requiring Recombining ............................... 280.00/ea. California Bearing Ratio, ASTM D 1883 ...................................................................... 650.00/ea. Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1195, D 1196 ................................................................... By Quote Index Tests not Listed ................................................................................................... By Quote KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 137 With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 8 CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES Administrative Engine,ering Review ................................................................................................... $110.00/hr. Report Preparation ................................................................................................... 45.00/report Job Site Inspection Soil Compaction .......................................................................................................... $60.00/hr. Masonry, Concrete, Gunite, Epoxy ................................................................................ 60.00/hr. Structural Steel, Welding, Bolt Torque .......................................................................... 60.00/hr. Pile Driving, Soldier Beams, Shoring, Caissons .......................................................... 110.00/hr. Build-up Roofing, Fire Proofing ..................................................................................... 60.00/hr. Plant Inspection Structural Steel Fabrication ......................................................................................... $60.00/hr. Concrete Batch Plant ..................................................................................................... 60.00/hr. Pipe Plant (Reinforced Concrete, Clay, etc) .................................................................. 60.00/hr. Glue-Laminated Fabrication (Local) .............................................................................. 60.00/hr. Asphalt Batch Plant ........................................................ : .............................................. 60.00/hr. Nondestructive Examination Ultrasonic, Magnetic Particle, Dye Penetrant ................................................................ By Quote Radiographic ............... ' ............................... ' ........................... , ....................................... By Quote Pachometer ................................................................................................................... By Quote Schmidt Hammer ........................................................................................................... By Quote Coring Technician and Equipment ........................................................................................ $130.00/hr. -Bit Charge ...................................................................................................................... 7.00/inch KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Of~ces Serving the IVcstern United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 9 Concrete Cylinder, Beams & Cores Compression Test, 6" x 12" Cylinders, Including Hold, ASTM C 39 (set of 4) ........... $100.00/set Compression Test, Cores, ASTM C 42 (Does Not Include Special Prep. time) ............ 50.00/ea. Core Cutting (In Laboratory) .......................................................... ; ............................... 40.00/ea. Flexure Test, 6" x 6" Beams, ASTM C 78 ...................................................................... 95.00/ea. Splitting Tensile, 6" x 12" Cylinders, ASTM C 496 ........................................................ 50.00/ea. Modules of Elasticity Test - Static, ASTM C 469 ........................................................... 85.00/ea. Unit Weight Determination ............................................................................................ 25.00/ea. Shrinkage Length Change (3 Beams, 4 Readings, Up to 90 Days), ASTM C 157 Modified .............. $260.00 Additional Reading ..................................................................................... 30.00/3 bar set Storage Over 90 days, Per set of 3 Beams .............................................................. 20.00/month Mix Design Aggregate Tests for Concrete Mix Designs Only, Including Sieve Analysis, Specific Gravity, No. 200 Wash, Organic Impurities, Weight Per Cubic Foot, Per Aggregate Size ......................................................................................... $400.00/ea. Review of Mix Design Prepared by Others .................................................................. 130.00/ea. Trial Batch, ASTM C192 .............................................................................................. 900.00lea. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, I1NC. /~~ With Ofi~ces Serving the IVestern United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page I0 Reinforcement Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Tensilefl'est, No. 11 Bar or Smaller ........................................................................... $50.00/ea. Bend Test, No. 11 Bar or Smaller .................................................................................. 45.00/ea. Tensile Test, No. 14 Bar ................................................................................................ 70.00/ea. Tensile Test, No. 18 Bar ................................................................................................ 80.00/ea. Receive and Distribute Mill Certificates ......................................................................... 10.00/ea. Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded, No. 11 Bar or Smaller .............................................................. $50.00/ea. Tensile Test, Welded, No. 14 Bar ................................................................................. 80.00/ea. Tensile Test, Welded, No. 18 Bar .................................................................................. 80.00/ea. Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar ....................... : ............................................... 115.00/ea. Nick Break, Welded Re-Bar ........................................................................................... 30.00/ea. Prestress (Attachments To Be Furnished by Client) Tensile Test and Elongation In 24" for Prestress Strand, ASTM A 416 ...................... $95.00/ea. Tensile Test and Elongation In 10" for Prestressing Wire, ASTM A 421 ....................... 50.00/ea. Modules of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) .................................................................... 110.00/ea. Aggregates Basic Tests Sieve Analysis - Processed (Each Size), ASTM C 130 ............................................. $100.00/ea. Sieve Analysis - Pit Run .............................................................................................. 165.00/ea. Specific Gravity, Coarse, ASTM C 127 ................ - ......................................................... 95.00/ea. Specific Gravity, Fine, ASTM C 128 .............................................................................. 95.00/ea. Absorption, ASTM C 127, 128 ....................................................................................... 50.00/ea. Unit Weight Per Cubic Foot, ASTM C 29 ...................................................................... 55.00/ea. Deleterious Materials Organic impurities, ASTM C 40 ............................................................................. :....$80.00/ea. Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, ASTM C 142 ......................................................... 115.00/ea. Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve, ASTM C 117 ........................................................... 65.00/ea. Coal and Lignite, ASTM C 123 .................................................................................... 115.00/ea. Soft Particles, ASTM C 235 ........................................................................................... 80.00/ea. Acid Solubility ................................................................................................................ 40.00/ea. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 14'ith Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 11 Physical Properties Soundness - Sodium or Magnesium (5 cycle), ASTM C 88 ...................................... $390.00/ea. Abrasion (L.A. Rattler 100 & 500 cycles), ASTM C 131 .............................................. 225.00/ea. Potential Reactivity (Chemical'Method 3 Determinations), ASTM C 289 .................... 450.00/ea. Potential Reactivity (Mortar Bar Method, ASTM C 227 ............................................... 500.00/ea. Percent Flat or Elongated Particles, CRD C 119 ......................................................... 130.00/ea. Percent Crushed Particles, Calif. 205 .......................................................................... 105.00/ea. State Tests Cleanness Value, CAL. 227 ...................................................................................... $130.00/ea. Durability Index, CAL. 229 ........................................................................................... 195.00/ea. Sand Equivalent (Average of 3), CAL. 217 .................................................................... 95.00/ea. Clay by Hydrometer Methods, ASTM D 422 .................................................................. 90.00/ea. "R" (Resistance) Value, CAL. 301, ASTM D 2844 ....................................................... 240.00/ea. "R" (Resistance) Value, Lime Treated or Requiring Recombining ............................ ,..280.00/ea. Asphaltic Concrete Stability Tests Hveem, Pro-Mixed, CAL. 304 ......................................................................... $290.00/ea. Hveem, Lab-Mixed, CAL. 304 ........................................................................... 400.00/ea. Marshall, Pre-Mixed, ASTM D 1559 ................................................................. 290.00/ea. Marshall, Lab-Mixed, ASTM D 1559 ................................................................. 400.00/ea. Maximum Density Hveem, Pre-Mixed, CAL. 304 ........................................................................... 290.00/ea. Hveem, Lab-Mixed, CAL. 304 .......... : ................................................................ 400.00/ea. Marshall, Pre-Mixed,.ASTM D 1559 ................................................................ 290.00/ea. Marshall, Lab-Mixed, ASTM D 1559 ................................................................. 400.00/ea. Gradation on Extracted Sample (Including Wash) ...................................................... 180.00lea -Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight (Rice Gravity) ASTM 204 ...................................... 250.00/ea. Complete Asphalt Concrete Mix Design (Hveem or Marshall) ....................................... By Quote Extraction, % Asphalt, ASTM D 2172 (Method B) or CAL. 310 Excluding Ash Correction .................................................................................. 160.00/ea. Penetration ASTM D ................................................................................................... 720.00/ea. Asphalt Core Density ..................................................................................................... 35.00/ea. AC Content, CAL 382 .................................................................................................. 160.00/ea. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. lq/ With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 12 Masonry and Related Materials Brick ASTM C 67 Modules of Rapture (Flexure) ...................................................................................... $65.00/ea. · 'h 40 00/ca Compressive Streng~ ..................................................................................................... Absorption - 5 Hour or 24 Hour ..................................................................................... 50.00/ea. Bo,,, ,2or Hour ......................................................................................................... Initial Rate of Absorption ............................................................................................... ~-~';.~.',= ' Efflorescence ............................................................................................................... ~ ~ u~'~)~lr~cal~ Dimensions, Overall, Coring, Shell and Web Thickness ............................................ Coefficient of Friction (Slip Test) ................................................................................... 30.00/ea. Cores, Compre,s. sion ...., ................................................................................................. 40.00/ea. Cores, Shear, 6 and 8 Diameter, 2 Faces ........................................................... 60.00/core Concrete Block ASTM C 140 Moisture Content as Received .................................................................................... $40.00/ea. Absorption .................................................. ~ ................................................. : ................ 65.00/ea. Compression ................................................................................................................. 70.00/ea. Tension ........................................................................................................................ 130.00/ea. Shrinkage, Modified British, ASTM C 426 ............................................................. 130.00/ea. Compression, 4,/6/8 Cores ............................................................................................ 65.00/ea. Masonry Prisms ASTM E 447 Compression Test, Grouted Prisms .......................................................................... $150.00/ea. Cutting Prisms ............................................................................................................... By Quote Unreinforced Masonry Building Testa In-Place Shear (Push) Tests ......................................................................................... i~y Quote 15 Degree Core Shear Tests ......................................................................................... y Quote Wall Anchors ................................................................................................................. By Quote Mortar & Grout UBC Standard 24-22 Compression, 2" x 4" Mortar Cylinder ......................................................................... $25.00/ea. Compression, 3" x 6" Grout Prisms ............................................................................... 25.00/ea. Compression Test, 2" Cubes, ASTM C 109 .................................................................. 30.00/ea. Gypsum Roof Fill ASTM C 495 Compression Test ....................................................................................................... $16.00/ea. Density ........................................................................................................................... 25.00/ea. Gunite Compression, 2, 4, 6" Cores, ASTM C 42 ................................................................... $40.00/ea. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 13 Roofing Tile Roofing Tile Breaking Strength per U.B.C ................................................................... $25.00/ea. Tile Absorption ................................................................................................. 40.00/ea. Roofing Tile Additional/Speciai Tests ............................................................................ By Quote Roofing Slate , Modules of Rupture ..................................................................................................... $50.00/ea. Modules of Elasticity .................................................................................................... 130.00/ea.= Water Absorpt on .......................................................................................................... 50.00/e~. · 65 00/e vveatherlng .................................................................. .................................................... Fireproofing Tests Field Sampling by Technician ...................................................................................... A $75.00/hr. Oven Dry Density .................................................................................................... .~0.00/sample Miscellaneous and Specialty Testing Testing Machines Testing Machine with Operator in Laboratory 60,000 to 250,000 Machine (Compression Only) 30 Minutes including set-up time, Minimum .......................................................... $110.00 60 Minutes including set-up time, Minimum ............................................................ 160.00 400,000 Pound Machine (Universal) 30 Minutes including set-up time, Minimum ............................................................ 160.00 60 Minutes including set-up time, Minimum ............................................................ 225.00 Load Tests .......................................................................................................... By Quote Calibration of Skidmore-Wilhelm Device & Torque Wrench -Calibration of Skidmore-Wilhelm Device, in Lab ............................................................... $70.00 Calibration of Torque Wrench, each bolt size (3 Required) ................................................. 60.00 Calibration of Hydraulic Jacks First Jack ........................................................................................................................... $70.00 Each Additional Jack (same time) ........................................................ ~ .................... 60.00 Preparation of Electrical System for Test, each ............................................................ By Quote Note: Extra handling charges will be made on any ram or pump too heavy or bulky for one man to safely lift. APl Gauge Calibration ................................................................................................. $90.00/ea. Hydrostatic Tests ......................................................................................................... By Quote & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAZAN With Offices Serving the Western United States Ontario Fee Schedule Page 14 Manhole Cover Tests 1-3 ............................................................................................................................. $100.00/ea. More than 3 ............................. ....................................................................................... 85.00/ea. Mechanical Testing Services Tensile'Test - No Strain Measurement, Yield by Halt of Dial Up to 100,000 lb ............................................................................................... $30.00/ea. 100,001 to 200,000 lb ......................................................................................... 45.00/ea. Over 200,000 lb., each ....................................................................................... By Quote Tensile Test - Mechanical Non-Printout Extensometer for Strain .................................. 30.00/ea. Tensile Test - Electronic Extensometer with Recorded Printout ................................... 50.00/test More than 1 test ............................................................................................................. By Quote Load Tests, Flexural, Bend, Impact, Axial, Racking ...................................................... By Quote Strain Gauge Testing ..................................................................................................... By Quote Bend Test ................................................................................................................ ~ ..... 30.00/ea. Note: Sockets furnished by client Salt Spray Set Up ............................................................................................................................. $195.00 24 Hours, per panel ............................................................................................................. 40.00 Multi.Channel Computer Aided Data Acquisition of: Acceleration ................................................................................................................... By Quote Vibration ........................................................................................................................ By Quote Movements (1.0001 inch) .............................................................................................. By QuOte Pressure ........................................................................................................................ ~BY ~QuU~tt; Machine Control Movement ........................................................................................... t~y ~ Temperature .................................................................................................................. By Quote Strain Gauge ................................................................................................................. By Quote Stress Analysis ........................................... ................................................................... By Quote Metals Weld Procedure Qualification and Welder Qualification Weld Tensile Test ............................................................................................ * ........... $60.00/ea. Weld Bend Test ............................................................................................................. 33.00/ea. Machining for Weld Test, 1/2" thickness and less ......................................................... 32.00/ea. Machining for Weld Test, over 1/2" thickness ............................................................... 47.00/ea. Weld-Macro Etch ........................................................................................................... 52.00/ea. Weld-Fracture Test ........................................................................................................ 33.00/ea. Weld-Radiographic ........................................................................................................ By Quote Report Charge ........................................... · .................................................................. 45.00/ea. Weld Procedures Qualifications .................................................................................... By Quote KP. AZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Iqq With Offices Serving tile Western United States R A N H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: July 7, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Karen Tarlton, Pub. Sve. Tech I :~dI~'Y, CI': ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2001-00719, LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF HYSSOP DRIVE, EAST OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY, SUBMI'I-rED BY ERIN MADISON, INC. RECOMMENDATION The required improvements for DRC2001-00719 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Councii 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 f DRC2001-00719, located on the east side of the southern terminus of Hyssop Drive, east of the 1-15 Freeway, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is substantial amount of time has lapsed with no defects in workmanship, therefore no Maintenance Bond is required. Developer: Erin Madison, Inc. Release: Faithful Performance Bond No. 833541S $16,800.00 R e/.~tf u Ily submitted, Wil 'a~m/J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:tch Attachments VICINITY MAP F O O TI't lLL ;~~ CITY OF RANI:IlO CUGAMOII.GA R SO UT, O. ¢¥,.. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2001-00719 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DRC2001-00719 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work is complete; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE 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. T HE C I T Y OF ^~c.~ Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 'fO: 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 RELEASE OF A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 13692, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution releasing the real property improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel Map 13692 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the Resolution approving same and cause same Resolution to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS A real property improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel Map 13692 was approved by City Council on April 15, 1992, and recorded as document number 92-317285. The agreement is for future construction of street improvements within the irrevocable offer of dedication (Parcel "A") at the northeast corner of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 13692. Tract 16237 is being constructed adjacent to this site, and has vacated said offer of dedication thus eliminating the need for the real property improvement contract and lien agreement. Re~@~ctfully submitted, h?. William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:RG:tch Attachments VlCiNI-F'/ MAP IF_.EI..EAS~ ~? t..I Eld A~F-EEHE~NT SCALE 74¢-¢EI. PM¢ I~ ?~q2. 1-= 20' PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP 13692, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHRIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE i W HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adopted Resolution No. -102 accepting a real ~roperty improvement contract and lien agreement for Parcel Map p692; and WHEREAS, the ~mprovements required under the lien agreement are no longer necessary and said real property improvement contract and lien agreement is no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga does hereby release said real property improvement contract and lien agreement from Parcel Map 13692, and the Mayor is authorized to sign this resolution and the City Clerk is hereb~ authorized and directed to cause Release of Lien to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bemardino, State of California. R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Counci'l Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Techn~ian SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN AND STREET REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM VIVERO STREET TO 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-058 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 $2,851,650.37 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Street Rehabilitation improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street, Contract No. 03-058, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Faithful Performance Bond, authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $2,666,305.00 six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $133,315.25, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $2,851,650.37. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Street Rehabilitation Improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street scope of work consisted of potholing and protection of utilities, removal and replacement of existing improvements, trenching, shoring, construction of reinforced 151 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Accept Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Street Rehabilitation Improvements July 21,2004 Page 2 concrete storm drain and laterals, catch basins, backfill, compaction, trench repair, pavement rehabilitation including removals and placement of crushed aggregate base and asphalt concrete pavement, coldplane, and placement and maintenance of K-rail. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: > Budgeted Amount: $3,000,000.00 ~ Account Number: 11763035650/1296176-0 ~ Engineer's Estimate: $3,384,334.50 > City Council's Approval to Advertise: April 16, 2003 ~ Publish dates for local paper: April 22 & 29, 2003 > Bid Opening: June 3, 2003 ~, Contract Award Date: June 18, 2003 ~ Low Bidder: Albert W. Davies, Inc. > Contract Amount: $2,666,305.00 > 10% Contingency: $266,630.50 > Final Contract Amount: $2,851,650.37 ~ Difference in Contract Amount: $185,345.37 (6.95%) The net increase in the total cost of the contract is a result of sixteen (16) change orders for various items that were necessary to facilitate the construction of the storm drain while maintaining traffic flow to the public. Notable changes that were significant to the increase were the realignment of Line 'B' in Base Line Road adding 36-inch RCP to minimize traffic disruption, installation of an edge drain to intercept water drainage sheeting under the pavement from an unknown source, and over excavation for wet and unsuitable sub-grade on Carnelian Street. In addition, SANBAG by cooperative agreement will reimburse the City the storm drain cost of $2,143,864.49, which in turn the City will reimburse SANBAG annually fifty (50) percent of the general City drainage funds collected the prior year until the total amount advanced by SANBAG has been repaid. Respectfully submitted, wi~'ia~ J. o Neil City'~ngineer WJO:JAD/RO:Is 152. 24TH 5T ~NSP ~TM 5T 4TH .ST ONTAP-.IO CI~ LIMIT ~OJ~CT LOCATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND s'l~s~r P.~I~ITATION IMPROvis~i~q~I~ VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. ~/' ~ 5 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN AND STREET REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM VIVERO STREET TO 19TM STREET, CONTRACT NO. 03-058 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the Carnelian Street Storm Drain and Street Rehabilitation Improvements from Vivero Street to 19th Street, Contract No. 03-058, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. R A N C h O C U C A M O N G A E N G I N E E R I N G D E p A R T M E N T Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 TO:, Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager I:RO~: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Rene Guerrero, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR TRACT MAP 16114, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY TRIMARK PACIFIC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LLC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions disapproving Tract Map 16114 and authorizing the Mayor to sign said resolution. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map 16114, located on the east side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue, in the Very Low Residential District (Etiwanda Specific Plan), was approved by the Planning Commission on June 27, 2001. This project is for a subdivision of 21 parcels on 15.0 acres of land. The tentative map approvat was to expire on June 27, 2004. On June 24, 2004, the Developer, Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, submitted the final map for approval, so as to prevent expiration. Per Subdivision Map Act Section 66458, the City must take action on the map at the next available City Council meeting. Upon review, the City has found that the Developer has been unable to obtain the necessary rights-of-way to construct Master Plan Storm Drain facilities to serve the project, which were conditioned at the time of tentative map approval. Per Subdivision Map Act Section 66473, the City shall disapprove the final map for failure to meet requirements or conditions that were applicable to the subdivision at the time of approval of the tentative map. The Developer is aware that the City is proceeding with disapproval. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ii it ~aE~ ~ aC; rlrlrl~ii WJO:RG:tch Attachments WILSON AVENUE - 24TN ST. AVE PROJECT L OCA TION WC/A//?F/¢/~/~ VICINITY MAP CITY OF ~; ITEM: 73~. Ilall.q" RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,..- 'rITLE: x/l~ll"!!7~ MA~ -- Ei'gOINEER~-~G DtVISi~,N ..... · EXHIBIT: J- "~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DISAPPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 16114 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 16114, submitted by Trimark Pacific Rancho Cucamonga, LLC, and consisting of a subdivision of 15.0 acres of land into 21 pamels, located on the east side of East Avenue, south of Wilson Avenue, in the Very Low Residential District (Etiwanda Specific Plan) was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on June 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 16114 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on the Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, the developer has been unable to obtain the necessary rights-of-way to construct Master Plan Storm Drain facilities to serve the project, which were conditions established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City; and WHEREAS, by Section 66473 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to disapprove said final map for failure to meet requirements or conditions that were applicable to the subdivision at the time of approval of the tentative map; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Tract Map No. 16114, be and the same is hereby disapproved. /57 T HE C I T Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Annexation of approximately 240 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 21 thru 26, and 0225- 084-02 and 03. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed General Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation, for land located north of the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation and master-planned circulation modifications to the north, for land located north of the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed subdivision of 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots and a remainder parcel in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control (FC) within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the Southern California CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 2 Edison (SCE) Corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225- 083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26, and 0225-084-02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 168.77 acres of land within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, lobated north of the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions in the order presented: A. Adopt the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 and Annexation DRC2003-01051; B. Adopt the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of approximately 240 acres of land located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; C. Adopt the Resolution allowing a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation for approximately 166.77 acres of land; D. Adopt the Ordinance allowing an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan changing the district designation for 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation; and master-planned circulation modifications to the north; E. Deny the Appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 14749, as submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated June 12, 2004; F. Adopt the Ordinance to allow the City to enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Traigh Pacific, for the purpose of developing an approximate 168.77-acre site with up to 269 residential lots. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: A. Project Summary The proposed Tentative Tract Map is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan within the City's Sphere of Influence and occupies 168.77 acres of which 107.28 net acres will be developed with single-family residential (99.26), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 3 remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The project site is currently vacant and, until recently, supported relatively undisturbed native vegetation. In October of 2003, the Grand Prix fire burned the entire project site. Native vegetation could eventually regenerate on this site if left undeveloped. Several easements occur on-site, including two planned roadway right-of-ways and two public utility easements. The project property line extends to the centerline of the two planned roadways in the project vicinity including: 1) Etiwanda Avenue, which runs along the western properly boundary; and 2) East Avenue, which runs along the eastern property boundary. Two SCE public utility easements occur adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Both easements are over 300 feet wide. B. Summary of Planning Commission Acti~)n Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Henderson reported that modified Engineering conditions had been placed in front of the Commissioners for their consideration and that the applicant also received, reviewed, and concurred with the modified conditions. Commissioner Stewart noted that on Page F-J, 185, the minimum lot size is 8,400 square feet but the Development Agreement indicates 7,200 square foot lots. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Page 9 of the Development Agreement indicates the correction. Craig Sherman, attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., noted that 1) Several changes had occurred since the adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and that impacts were not measured within the scope of the existing conditions; 2) Other annexation projects were being presented and heard separately rather than collectively in violation of CEQA; 3) The need for a water study; 4) The need for public review of the Development Agreement - (He commented that one of the Commissioners noted a discrepancy based upon that which was studied in the EIR and that which is represented by the Development Agreement); 5) Use of County lands for private development; 6) Traffic circulation allowing further growth to the north of the site; 7) Equestrian use correlated to the additional projects proposed and the lack of analysis of equestrian use/impacts on all the proposals; and 8) The need for mitigation of impacts related to edge effects/fire zone and related clearing requirements. Dr. Travis Longcore, principal of Land Protection Partners and the Co-founder and Science Director of the Urban Wildlands Group, presented his views as detailed in his letter dated June 9, 2004 and included the following subjects: 1) Biological impacts of fuel modification; 2) Hydrological function and soil; 3) Impacts to sensitive bird species; 4) Impacts of noise on sensitive species; 5) Free roaming cats; 6) Impacts on wildlife movement along Etiwanda Creek; 7) Impacts of artificial night lighting; 8) Biological impacts of increased trail use by hikers and equestrians and the need for analysis of proposed equestrian facilities. Kathleen Stockwell, an amateur botanist and professional naturalist with 7 years experience as a I~eserve Ranger for the County of Orange, stated she is involved in educational research at the university level. She reported that she has hiked the National Forest in our area for 30 years and CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB'1-]'14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 4 is concerned about the proposed development just below the border of the preserve area. She specifically referred to impacts on the Plumbers Mariposa Lily and that it is a candidate for the endangered species list. She noted several issues she believes to be related to the project area development: 1) Effects on sensitive species such as the Mariposa lilies; 2) Bird migration; 3) Earthquake hazard assessment and safety; 4)A necessity for studies regarding the wildland/urban interface; 5) A need for a water study; 6) Public safety issues specifically related to the high power lines and Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) levels - She expressed concern that high Santa Aha winds would blow down the power lines; and 7) Water recharge and the sale of mitigation lands. Tim Johnson, field representative from the office of Paul Biane, Supervisor Second District, County Board of Supervisors, presented a letter for the record in support of the Tracy Development project citing the asset of a trailhead park with sufficient parking for busses and cars and picnic area for the citizens' enjoyment. Mr. Johnson noted that the increased public access will minimize the use of recreational vehicles on the trail and that the access for hiking has been approved by the Departments of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife. Carol Douglass, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she represents the Alta Loma Riding Club (ALRC). She reported that she believes horses cause less damage than off-road vehicles in the hillside areas. She noted that she believes that with an increase in equestrian use combined with the changed borders, the damage caused by off-road vehicles will be less and more easily monitored. She added that she had initial concerns about the project until she was informed that if the City did not annex the property, the project would be developed using County standards, which are less favorable standards than the City's. She remarked that the fees taken in for the equestrian park will benefit the community and to the equestrian program including handicapped riders (Rising Stars). Craig Page, President of C.A. Page Company, clarified the density of the project, and indicated that only 107.27 acres of the 168.8-acre site would be developed; therefore, the density was arrived at by applying the 2.5 units per acre to the 107.27-acre figure, not by applying it to the 168 acres. He indicated that some County land that is being used has been declared surplus lands. He noted that regarding boundaries related to fire mitigation, there are two 300-foot corridors on the north and south maintained by Edison with an access road. He added that the seismic issues are covered in the Environmental Impact Report as well as the flood control issues, and that the City and County have master plans addressing hydrology issues. He remarked that the developer's civil engineer has also addressed it and it can be found in the technical appendices of the EIR. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Ennis reported that the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted/amended in 1992 and that it is a land use-controlling document and that periodically amendments are made. He commented that it is a policy decision and not a legal requirement to change the underlying land use regulations applicable to an area. He reported that the various annexations are all owned independent of one another and therefore are analyzed independently. He stated that they all have their own plans as to how they would like to develop their property and they are being CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page .5 processed independently. He remarked that each Environmental Impact Report does have a cumulative impact section and therefore there is a coordinated approach to the environmental analysis of the collective projects. He added that because none of the individual annexations have 500 units, we couldn't require a water study to be done. He noted that the Development Agreement must be consistent with the EIR. He pointed out that the EIR does indicate the project, what it is and what the approvals would be including the Development Agreement. He commented that on page 19 of the EIR, the project description notes the trailhead and throughout the document impacts are analyzed which relate to the parks and public facilities (traffic as an example) and therefore what is discussed within the Development Agreement is not beyond the scope of what was contained in the EIR. He mentioned that the project does not encourage growth-inducing impacts. He commented that growth-inducing impacts occur when a "leap frog" type of development is approved beyond the existing natural border of established infrastructure. He pointed out that this project is adjacent to the existing developed portion of the City and it is not putting development out in an "island" situation surrounded by areas that have no infrastructure. He refuted Dr. Longcore's claim that the EIR does not address impacts on off-site conditions because the north and south boundaries of the project have existing Edison corridor easements and they have impacts on interface'issues in terms of fuel modification they engage in and the types of access roads they have and the impacts the existing easements will have. He pointed out that on page 142 of the EIR, wildlife movement is analyzed contrary to Dr. Longcore's report. He also mentioned that the Mariposa Lily is also discussed within the analysis. Mr. Ennis mentioned that the project is allowing for mitigation lands at a ratio of 1.5:1. He concluded with remarks in reference to seismic and flood impacts. He noted that seismic analysis of the project area'was extensive and is discussed in the EIR. He added that there are detailed mitigation measures noted on page 68 that address those impacts. He added that flood hazards were also extensively analyzed. Commissioner Fletcher commented that fuel modification mitigation measures are included which require a 30-foot zone (zone 1) from any structure along the northern project boundary and 50-70 feet (zone 2) away from any structures or to the lot property line. He asked if there is any requirement beyond the property lines. Mr. Ennis reported that with respect to off-site fuel modification to the northern and southern project boundaries there is an Edison corridor that creates a fuel modification zone and to the east along Etiwanda Creek, there will not be any homes directly adjacent to the creek and there is a road and therefore there is no need to change the fuel modification plan to meet that standard. Vice Chairman McNiel mentioned that he is not aware of proof of the theory that EMR causes Leukemia in children. He added that there are issues to which the experts do not agree. Commissioner McPhail commented that she has personally researched EMFs and that there are conflicting conclusions among the experts with regard to the effects of power lines. She reported that the comments were all taken to heart and considered carefully. She said that if the Commission denies the project, it would be built under County standards, which would not be in the best interest of the public. She noted that the preservation lands ratio of 1.5:1 is a fine thing and she supports that. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUB'I-D14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Stewart remarked that she has read the materials supplied to her and has listened to the comments and testimony of Dr. Longcore and appreciated his educational remarks. She commented that she also likes to hike and bike and would like to see it preserved but she maintained that with the annexation, the City gets control, a lower density of development that is more compatible to the area, conservation areas, an equestrian park, and 164 acres in habitat preserve lands. She noted that the impacts are mitigated and that there are far more ~ositives than negatives with the annexation. Vice Chairman McNiel added that what Commissioners Stewart and McPhail said previously is true, the lands originally annexed were developed at standards far below ours. He said that if this project were developed under the County standards, it would not have nearly the same restrictions that we are imposing today. The tentative tract map, associated development agreement, and annexation for the project were reviewed and approved at the June 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. C. Project Analysis- General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment - The General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) Amendments are necessary to bring the project in to technical compliance with the proposed net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre (1.59 dwelling units per acre gross density). It should be noted that the project site is designated three dwelling units per acre under the County's General Plan and zoning and, therefore, would have resulted in greater density and number of dwelling units than currently proposed. Also, the current density and lot sizes are consistent with the previously approved annexation and tract map for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project immediately west of the subject site. The planned amendments result in acreage changes as follows: EXISTING GENERAL PROPOSED GENERAL PROi~OSED PLAN PLAN EXISTING ENSP ENSP Very Low (118 Acres) Low (102.81 Acres) Very Low (118 Acres) Low (102.81 Acres) Conservation (2.85 Acres) Conservation (18.04 Acres) FC (25.64 Acres) RC (77.17 Acres) The proposed amendments accomplish the goals of the tract development while reflecting the intent of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to create conservation areas relative to Etiwanda Creek. The circulation amendment portion of this Project is the elimination of the upper Loop Collector Street consistent with the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates project to the west. This street is no longer needed for the following reasons: · This development and Rancho Etiwanda Estates are gated communities with private streets and independent circulation. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBT-F14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 7 · The establishment of the Etiwanda North Preserve and other conservation areas to the north has reduced the need to accommodate additional traffic cimulation from the north. · The circulation amendment will reduce public maintenance costs and reduce impacts to the nearby conservation areas. Tentative Tract Map 14749 - The project will provide a maximum of 269 single-family residences with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and an average lot size of 11,600 square feet. Development is planned to occur in five phases and would span over a three-year period. A breakdown of proposed land uses is provided in Table 1. Existing roadways in the immediate project vicinity include Etiwanda Aven[Je, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. The extension of Etiwanda Avenue north to the project boundary along with the construction of Lower Crest Road will provide primary access. The construction of East Avenue north to Lower Crest Road will provide additional access. The Lower Crest Collector, which will be located above the southern SCE utility power line corridor, will be the primary east to west thoroughfare outside the gated portion of the project. The timing and alignment of this street extension is being coordinated with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project (located immediately west of the project site). The resideQtial podion of the project will be gated, with the main gate located along Lower Crest Road. A secondary gate will be located at the intersection of Lower Crest Road and East Avenue. A third exit-only gate will be located at the terminus of the extension of Etiwanda Avenue north of Lower Crest. The interior roadway system will consist of private streets and will be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association, while the City will maintain the other road segments. Channels will be provided an~l designed to accommodate off-site flows from the area tributary from future channel extension. This will occur along the north side of this project and the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. Drainage from the north will be intercepted and discharged into East Etiwanda Creek. A Fuel Modification Plan has also been prepared to assist in developing site-specific precautions for fire protection. The purpose of the Fuel Modification Plan is to provide a wildland fire hazard assessment, a long-term perimeter vegetative fuel modification and maintenance plan, and a long- term "firewise landscaping" and fuel modification plan for the landscaped area immediately surrounding all structures. An Appeal to the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Tract Map was submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attomey for Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated June 12, 2004. The appeal letter was based on the adequacy of the Environmental impact Report. A response to this matter is included in Exhibit "E" - Responses to Correspondence. The Development Aqreement: The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the property owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 8 applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney as to form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Aqreement: 10 years 2. A Homeowner's Association must be formed to assume responsibility and maintenance of the gates, common area streets, drainage facilities interim detention basins, utility easements, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping (including the north side of "Lower Crest Collector") and walls throughout the project. 3. The property owner shall design and construct improvements to the City Community Trail network along the Etiwanda Creek .levee, and parallel to the northerly extension of Etiwanda Avenue along the west project boundary, in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 1004. 4.- The straight sections on interior streets (Street W) may be greater than 800 feet because the project is a private gated community, thereby limiting traffic impacts from any other development through the project. 5. ~,11 interior streets that have driveway acc~.ss to single-family residential lots may be designed with a 50-foot right-of-way utilizing a rolled curb; all other streets within the tract shall have a 60-foot right-of-way with a City standard 6-inch curb face. 6. The property owner shall: 1) Improve Etiwanda Avenue as a Secondary Arterial, from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector;" 2) Construct East Avenue Collector Street improvements from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector;" and 3) Construct Lower Crest Collector Street improvements along the entire length of the project site. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City. Engineer. 7. Fees: · The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $269,000.00 (based upon $1,000.00 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; ·The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $1,775,400.00 ($6,600.00 per unit) for park purposes; and · In exchange for construction of landscaping improvements along the south side of "Lower Crest Collector," the property owner is not required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 8. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page 9 9. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer a minimum of 164 acres of land to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other suitable non-profit agency as determined by the City Planner, for permanent open space and habitat preservation, along with funding (in an amount to be determined by the receiving agency), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. This shall be accomplished prior to recor(~ing of the Final Tract Map. 10. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: 1) All perimeter landscaping, including the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood monumentation, fencing, signage, and landscaping shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 100th dwelling, and 2) All Master Plan storm drain improvements shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. The Annexation: The proposed annexation would include the 168.?7-acre project site and adjacent parcels owned by SBCFCD for a total of 240 acres, located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the project. Environmental Impact Report: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address all actions that are anticipated for the review and approval of the project, including the actions by the Planning Commission and City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as actions that may be required by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed within the EIR: Land Use and Planning; Population and Housing; Earth Resources; Water Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Energy and Material Resources; Hazards; Noise; Public Services; Utilities; Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Agriculture and Recreation. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table ES-1 of the EIR. The EIR concluded that upon implementation of project design features and all recommended mitigation measures, short-term and long-term impacts to air quality would remain significant. Significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources (i.e. elimination of approximately 109 acres of sage scrub and habitat), and long-term aesthetic impacts related to the visual characteristics of the site would remain significant. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with existing and proposed development within the community and surrounding area would be significant for the following issues: Air Quality (short-term and long-term air emissions) and impacts to biological resources due to the continued loss on the Etiwanda Fan and the region as a whole. The Project will also contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use, flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial fan sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes, overcrowded schools, inadequate utilities and loss of views. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRAIGH PACIFIC ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051; GPA DRC2003-00410; ENSPA DRC2003-00409; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749; AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 July 21, 2004 Page ] 0 Based on these findings, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081. The statement is attached to the Resolution of Approval. CORRESPONDENCE: A large packet of materials was received from Craig Sherman at 7:00 p.m. on June 9, 2004. The items included a letter dated June 8, 2004 in opposition to the project. Because of their large size they were conveyed under separate cover. Responses to this correspondence are attached as Exhibit "E." CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for SUB'I-1'14749, Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, and Annexation DRC2003-01051; to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 240 acres of land located north of the lower SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; to allow the General Plan Land Use Amendment from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation for approximately 1~8.77 acres of land; to approve the amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to change the district designation for 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation, and master-planned circulation modifications to the north; deny the appeal thus upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 14749; and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the City to enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. City Planner BB:LH\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Regional Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 2004 Exhibit "D" Planning Commission Minutes dated June 9, 2004 Exhibit "E" Responses to Correspondence Provided under separate cover Exhibit "F" CEQA Findings dated June 2004 Exhibit "G" Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Exhibit "H" Final Conditions Resolution Certifying the Final EIR Resolution to Initiate Proceedings for Annexation DRC2003-01051 Resolution Approving a General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 Ordinance Approving Amendment to Etiwanda North Specific Plan DRC2003-00409 Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 Project S ~_/ Rancho Cucamonga = = Fontana nlario Legend - -- - Annexation Boundary Tentative Tract Bountary EXHIBIT "A" Tracy Development LOT 'y' % EXHIBIT "B" Tracy Development THE CITY OF I~ANC~O CU CAM ONCA DATE: June g, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal ~lanner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Annexation of approximately 240 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 21 thru 26, and 0225-084-02 and 03. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed General Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083- 05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation, and master-planned circulation modifications to the north, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTl'14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed subdivision of 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots and a remainder parcel in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control (FC) within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCE Corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26, and 0225-084-02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 168.77 acres of land within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. EXHIBIT"C" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUBTT14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9,2004 Page2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: The density will be approximately 2.5 dwelling units per acre based on 269 units on 107.3 acres proposed for housing, drainage, and open space. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq - (Etiwanda North Specific Plan unless otherwise noted): Project Site - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - The project site is currently vacant. North Flood ControVUtility Corridor and Hillside Residential District - Overhead power transmission lines and associated easements belonging to Southern California Edison (SCE) and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and vacant land are located north of the site. North of the easements are a few scattered single-family residences near the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. South - Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - A SCE power line corridor is located ~south of the site, and land southeast of the site includes Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area, is presently vacant, and is primarily within San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and SCE easements or ownership. West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - The area immediately west of the site is vacant and is the site of the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates. East Conservation and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) - The land area east of the site is currently vacant and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324 - Henderson Creek. C. General ~'lan Desiqnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) North - Flood ControVUtility Corridor and Hillside Residential South - Utility Corridor- East Conservation and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) West Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The proposed Tentative Tract Map is located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan within the City's Sphere of Influence and occupies 168.77 acres of which 107.28 net acres will be developed with single-family residential (99.26), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The project site is currently vacant and, until recently, supported relatively undisturbed native vegetation. In October of 2003, the Grand Prix fire burned the entire project site. Native vegetation could eventually regenerate on this site if left undeveloped. Several easements occur on-site, including two planned roadway right-of-ways and two public utility easements. The project property line extends to the centerline of the two planned roadways in the project vicinity including: 1) Etiwanda Avenue, which runs along the western property boundary; and 2) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUBTT14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9, 2004 Page 3 East Avenue, which runs along the eastern property boundary. Two .SCE public utility easements occur adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Both easements are over 300 feet wide. ANALYSIS: A. General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments: The General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) Amendments are necessary to bring the project in to technical compliance with the proposed net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre (1.59 dwelling units per acre gross density). It should be noted that the project site is designated three dwelling units per acre under the County's General Plan and zoning and, therefore, would have resulted in greater density and number of dwelling units than currently proposed. Also, the current density and lot sizes are consistent with the previously approved annexation and tract map for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project immediately west of the subject site. The planned amendments result in acreage changes as follows: EXISTING GENERAL PROPOSED GENERAL EXISTING ENSP PROPOSED ENSP PLAN PLAN Very Low (118 Low (102.81 Acres) Very Low (118 Acres) Low (102.81 Acres) Acres) Conservation (2.85 Acres) Conservation (18.04 Acres) FC (25.64 Acres) RC (77.17 Acres) The proposed amendments accomplish the goals of the tract development while reflecting the intent of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) to create conservation areas relative to Etiwanda Creek. The 'circulation amendment portion of this Project is the elimination of the upper Loop Collector Street consistent with the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates project to the west. This street is no longer needed for the following reasons: · This development and Rancho Etiwanda Estates are gated communities with private streets and independent circulation. · - The establishment of the Etiwanda North Preserve and other conservation areas to the north has reduced the need to accommodate additional traffic circulation from the north. · The circulation amendment will reduce public maintenance costs and reduce impacts to the nearby conservation areas. B. Tentative Tract Map: The project will provide a maximum of 269 single-family residences with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and an average lot size of 11,600 square feet. Development is planned to occur in five phases and would span over a three-year period. A breakdown of proposed land uses is provided in Table 1. Existing roadways in the immediate project vicinity include Etiwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue. The extension of Etiwanda Avenue north to the project boundary along with the construction of Lower Crest Road will provide primary access. The construction of East Avenue north to Lower Crest Road will provide additional access. The Lower Crest Collector, which will be /"/2_ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUB'I-1'14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9, 2004 Page 4 located above the southern SCE utility power line corridor, will be the primary east to west thoroughfare outside the gated portion of the project. The timing and alignment of this street extension is being coordinated with the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project (located immediately west of the project site). The residential portion of the project will be gated, with the main gate located along Lower Crest Road. A secondary gate will be located at the intersection of Lower Crest Road and East Avenue. A third exit-only gate will be located at the terminus of the extension of Etiwanda Avenue north of Lower Crest. The interior roadway system will consist of private streets and will be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association, while the City will maintain the other road segments. Channels will be provided and designed to accommodate off-site flows from the area tributary from future channel extension. This will occur along the north side of this project and the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. Drainage from the north will be intercepted and discharged into East Etiwanda Creek. A F~uel Modification Plan has also been prepared to assist in developing site-specific precautions for fire protection. The purpose of the Fuel Modification Plan is to provide a wildland fire hazard assessment, a long-term perimeter vegetative fuel modification and maintenance plan,.and a long- term "firewise landscaping" and fuel modification .plan for the landscaped area immediately surrounding all structures. C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Fletcher, McPhail, Fong) reviewed the project on September 2, 2003. Staff explained the unique conceptual use and design of the Open Space parcels. The ~applicant provided conceptual designs based on criteria that had been provided by staff during earlier meetings. Staff indicated that the Conceptual Landscape Plan was designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Guidelines pertaining to the "Lower Crest Collector," neighborhood entry monument, and the palette of street trees and slope planting materials. The Committee recommended approval of the project with no additional modifications. D. Park and Recreation Commission: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Park Site Concept Plans associated with the project on November 20, 2003. Staff indicated that the proposed development included the creation of open space and recreational use on two parcels of land. One parcel, located on the southeast corner of the site on East Avenue, is being considered for an indoor Equestrian Center. The other parcel, located on the southwest corner of the site on Etiwanda Avenue, is being explored by staff as a trailhead and information kiosk site for the North Etiwanda P~eserve. The Commission discussed several issues including: adequacy of parking being provided at the proposed equestrian center; trails within the proposed development; whether the development is part of the equestrian overlay area; whether the two parcels are adjacent to public streets; how the equestrian center correlates with the General Plan Master Plan; the possibility of SCE using their easements; concern that motorists might be unaware of horse riders, and concern with the City's ability to maintain the equestrian facility. It was indicated to the Commission that parking spaces would be designed to accommodate trucks with horse trailers; no trails were planned within the development; the project site was zoned within an equestrian overlay area with a $1,000 per dwelling mitigation fee being proposed as provided for under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (See attached Exhibit "D" pages II- 24 through 11-26 of the ENSP for reference). The Commission indicated that the project was approved in concept following the addressing of two issues: 1) Land Use, and 2) preparation of an operational model for the Center. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUB'I-r14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9,2004 Page 5 E. Development A.qreement: The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project-specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the property owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney as to form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Aqreement: 10 years 2. A Homeowner's Association must be formed to assume responsibility and maintenance of the gates, common area streets, drainage facilities interim detention basins, utility easements, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping (including the north side of "Lower Crest Collector") and walls throughout the project. 3. The property owner shall design and construct improvements to the City Community Trail network along the Etiwanda Creek levee, and parallel to the northerly extension of Etiwanda Avenue along the west project boundary, in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 1004. 4. The straight sections on interior streets (Street W) may be greater than 800 feet because the project is a private gated community, thereby limiting traffic impacts from any other development through the project. 5. All interior streets that have driveway access to single-family residential lots may be designed with a 50-foot right-of-way utilizing a rolled curb; all other streets within the tract shall have a 60-foot right-of-way with a City standard 6-inch curb face. 6. The property owner shall 1) improve Etiwanda Avenue as a Secondary Arterial, from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector;" 2) construct East Avenue Collector Street improvements from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector;" and 3) construct Lower Crest Collector Street improvements along the entire length of the project site. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Fees: · The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $269,000.00 (based upon $1,000.00 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; · The Property Owner shall pay a sum totaling $1,775,400.00 ($6,600.00 per unit) for park purposes; and · In exchange for construction of landscaping improvements along the south side of "Lower Crest Collector," the property owner is not required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 8. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.., / ? PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUBTT14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9,2004 Page 6 9. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Open Space Transfer Plan establishes a requirement that the property owner transfer a minimum of 164 acres of land to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other suitable non-profit agency as determined by the City Planner, for permanent open space and habitat preservation, along with funding (in an amount to be determined by the receiving agency), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. This shall be accomplished prior to recording of the Final Tract Map. 10. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) All perimeter landscaping, including the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation, fencing, signage, and landscaping shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 100th dwelling, and b) All Master Plan storm drain improvements shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. F. Annexation: The proposed annexation would include the 268.77-acre project site and adjacent parcels owned by SBCFCD for a total of 240 acres, located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the project. G. Environmental Impact Report: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address all actions that are anticipated for the review and approval of the project, including the actions by the Planning Commission and City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as actions that may be required by SBCFCD, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. Based on the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study that was prepared for the project, the following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed within the EIR: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Earth Resources, Water Resources, Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resoumes, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Agricultural Resources, and Recreation. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table ES-1 of the EIR. The EIR concluded that upon implementation of project design features and all recommended mitigation measures, short-term and long-term impacts to air quality would remain significant. Additionally, direct impacts to Biological Resources related to loss of sage scrub habitat dominated by white sage, and impacts to Aesthetics related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a developed planned community and associated light and glare. The Project will also contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use, flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial fan sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes, overcrowded schools, inadequate utilities, and loss of views. Based on these findings, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081. The statement is attached to the Resolution of Approval. 175 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2003-01051, DRC2003-00410, DRC2003-00409, SUBTT14749, DRC2003-00411 June 9,2004 Page 7 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, and notices were sent to all individuals and organizations that have commented on the EIR during the public comment period. In addition, all individuals that provided comments during the comment period have received copies of the "Response to Comments" at least ten days pdor to this hearing, as required by CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions in the order presented: A. Certify the EIR for the purposes of tentative tract map approval and recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for all other applications; and B. Adopt the Resolution recommending the City Council initiate proceedings for Annexation DR02003-01051; and C. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; and D. Recommend that the City Council approve Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment; and E. Approve Tentative Tract Map SUB'I-I'14749; and F. Recommend that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 associated with the proposed project. City Planner BB:LH/ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Final Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover) Exhibit "D" Etiwanda North Specific Plan Pages 11-24 thru 11-26 Draft Resolution Recommending Certification of the Final EIR for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 Draft Resolution to Initiate Proceedings For Annexation DRC2003-01051 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 C 0 Project .~ :e Rancho Cucamoa~a  ~ F~na On. Ho Legend - -- - Annexation Boundary [Tentative Tract Bountary Tracy Development / 177 T~c¥ Development / 7~ EXHIBIT "C" PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER 7.0 OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS CONCEPT One of the primary goals in developing the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is the establishment of a comprehensive open space system (see Exhibit'10). The unique characteristics of the natural environment, including the narrow canyons and rocky peaks of the San Gabriel mountains, as well as the diverse biological and wildlife habitats found in the bog and the Etiwanda and San Sevaine Wash areas, are included in the Etiwanda North planning effort'to ensure that these features become an integral part of the cgmmunity. This can be accomplished by defining appropriate uses for the various open space elements and providing visual and/or physical access to them from other portions of the development. Complete connection of the open space system, along with the provision of substantially more open space than is typical, is possible in Etiwanda North because of the unusually large amounts of acreage controlled by public and quasi-public agencies, pursuant to negotiation of joint-use agreements. In addition, open space to the north, west, and east is protected by existing National Forest and potential part and conservation lands. The open space areas provide an abundant resource for community design, active and passive recreation, and wildlife habitat conservation. These natural areas, plus areas of landscaping and trail development as part of street rights-of- way, provide the major elements of'the open space network. The open space network provides opportunities for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle transportation links throughout the Etiwanda North community. The open space plan components are described as developed parkland, natural or undeveloped open space, enhanced open space and trails. 7.1 DEVELOPED PARKLAND Parks are a high community priority in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A hierarchy of parks is included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Park designations, as shown on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 17, and the Open Space and Trails Plan, Exhibit 10, are not site-specific, and are shown to indicate the general location of parks within a neighborhood area. Improved park sites will be required as a condition of development. Park development shall be to the specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services and Community DevelQpment Department. 7.1.1 Reqlonal Park The purpose of the regional park is to provide unique recreational opportunities for the West Valley area of San Bernardino County. An opportunity exists to establish a regional park in conjunction with the 200-acre wildlife habitat preservation and mitigation area within the Day Creek Spreading Grounds. Historically, a regional park has been identified in the vicinity of the Day Creek Spreading Grounds as Chaffey Regional Park. The primary purpose of Chaffey Regional Park within the Plan area will be passive recreation compatible with the habitat preservation requirement for the area. T~ails are a compatible use and shall be permitted. Active recreation is not permitted within a 'mitigation area. However, an area adjoining the habitat mitigation area could be established for compatible, but more intensive uses, including picnic facilities, day-use playing fields, equestrian trailer-in facilities, restrooms, and parking. Development of a County Regional Park would require County sponsorship. 7.1.2 Equestrian Center An opportunity for a minimum 25-acre equestrian center exists adjoining the Day Creek neighborhood on 55 acres of Southern California Edison surplus land. The site has' excellent access to the community and regional trail system planned within the utility corridors. The same utility corridors also provide a boundary for the site on the north and south. Day Creek Boulevard provides the western boundary and Cucamonga County Water District's Royer-Nesbitt Water Treatment Plant provides a buffer to the east of the site. II-25 The provision of a community equestrian center is in addition to the park requirements. The purpose of the equestrian center is to provide boarding facilities in-lieu of equestrian-size lots in order to be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Equestrian Overlay District of the General Plan. Since the equestrian center is mitigation in-lieu of equestrian lots within the Specific Plan, no park credit-shall be awarded for the center. An equestrian center shall include but not be limited to the following: a minimum 25-acre site boarding and day use facilities a buffer between equestrian use and residential development a buffer between equestrian use and other active sport uses access to community and regional trail facilities. Contribution toward the acquisition and development of the equestrian center shall be a condition of development for all tracts Which have a minimum lot size of less than 20,000 square feet which are within the General Plan Equestrian Overlay District. Maintenance shall be supported by use fees. It is expected that the facility will be operated through a lease arrangement. Acquisition and development of the equestrian center shall be consistent with .the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Infrastructure Phasing Plan (Appendix D). 7.~.3 Nelqhborhood Parks The neighborhood park needs for the Specific Plan area are discussed in Section 9.9. However, potential neighborhood park facilities are II-26 described in this section as they relate to the Open Space Plan. A minimum of five neighborhood parks shall be provided within the Etiwanda North. Specific Plan area. The purpose of a neighborhood park is to provide "walk to" recreation facilities serving a one- mile radius and shall be centrally located within each neighborhood. At least one neighborhood park shall be located in each of the five Etiwanda North neighborhoods. Consistent with the City's General Plan goal, neighborhood parks shall equal 5 acres per thousand population: Day Creek - minimum five acre unencumbered site, l! acres total required. Upper Etiwanda - minimum five acre unencumbered site, 20 acres total required. The Oaks - minimum 9.4 acre knoll 'site. Etiwanda Highlands -' minimum five acre unencumbered sit~ 15 acres total required. Chaffey - minimum l0 acre unencumbered site (includes 5 acres for the Caryn Planned Community park development). Where feasible, a neighborhood park shall be located adjacent to a school site and joint use facilities shall be encouraged. However, each facility shall be of adequate size to be a stand-alone facility. Neighborhood trails and paseos shall be located within adjoining developments to provide internal access to the park sites and Community trails. Also, internal paseos shall be encouraged to provide open 'space that is accessible to the public. II-27 Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that that would be an issue the applicant would have to take to the Council if they wanted to pursue that. He suggested the applicant take pictures as the building lirman McNiel closed the public headng. believes the Vadance makes sense for this lot, Motion: Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the Vadance DRC2004-00376. Motion carded b~ ~ following vote: AYES: McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MAClAS, - carded E. NON-CONSTRUCTION )NAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00454- LEWIS COMPANIES - A request to install an off-site office trailer for the Homecoming project, located at the southwest comer 'ch Street and Malaga Drive - APN: 0227-151-49. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the ' report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public headn Stacy Lin, Lewis Apartment Communities, , Upland, stated she represents the Lewis Apartment Communities on the project. Vice Chairman McNiel asked how long the temporar be there. Ms. Lin stated it would be targeted to the end of August at the c~letion of the clubhouse. Vice Chairman McNiel confirmed it would be the end of August orthe fl~of September of this year. Ms. Lin stated that was correct. Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart said it is straightforward and for a limited pedod of time. -~. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to approve the non-construction ~n~ional Use Permit DRC2004-00454. Motion carded by the following vote:  F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Annexation of approximately 240 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 21 thru 26 and 0225-084-02 and 03. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 9, 2004 Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410- TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed General Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre)~ to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. H. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very-Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation and master-planned circulation modifications to the north, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue ~ APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTI'14749- TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed subdivision of 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots and a remainder parcel in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and-Flood Control within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-0041.0, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Df~C2003-00411 - TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed- Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 168.77 acres of land within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 and General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, gave the staff report. Mr. Henderson reported that modified Engineering conditions have been placed in front of the Commissioners for their consideration and that the applicant also received, reviewed, and concurred with the modified conditions. He noted for the record that a large packet of materials was received from Craig Sherman at 7:00 p.m. The items included a letter dated June 8, 2004 detailing comments in opposition of the project. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if {he continuation of Etiwanda Avenue and the 26-foot half street indicated on the modified exhibit would ever be completed as a full street? Mr. Henderson affirmed that there is room for a full street if it is needed in the future. He remarked that staff is hopeful the private properly to the north will also becomehabitat and that then they can downgrade that street to emergency access only. He added that we also want to allow private owners access to their properties. He said that at this time they would provide the minimum allowed for public access and safety vehicles. Commissioner Stewart noted that on Page F-J, 185, the minimum lot size is 8,400 square feet but the Development Agreement indicates 7,200 square foot lots. Planning commission Minutes -6- June 9, 2004 Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey stated that Page 9 of the Development Agreement indicates the correction. Commissioner Fletcher commented that there are 5 phases shown for the proposed development. He asked when the equestrian park and trailhead would be developed. Mr. Henderson replied that the Development Agreement requires all park improvements be constructed during the first phase. Craig Page, representing Traigh Pacific, 200 Opal Avenue, Newport Beach stated that the project was analyzed several times by both the City and the County, the project is compatible with the adjacent property, the community, the land uses, and that the conditions of approval including the amended Engineering conditions are acceptable. He asked for approval of the project. Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification of the total development fees per unit. Mr. Page reported that each unit will pay about $6,600 in park fees, $1,000 in equestrian fees and over $10,000 in drainage fees along with some other fees totaling about $30,000 and up in fees per unit. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Craig Sherman, 1901 First Avenue, Suite 335, San Diego, stated he represents Spidt of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. He noted he was providing comments based upon other projects (approximately 91 pages) within the planning area to be included in the record along with an 18-page comment letter in reference to the Tracy project being presented this evening. He reported that he had attempted to fax the document to the City to various fax numbers throughout the City for approximately one hour with no success. He said he was mentioning this because if other environmental agencies had also attempted to fax their comments they too would have been unsuccessful and with that in mind, he felt the City should allow them to include whatever comments maybe received tomorrow as part of the record. Mr. Sherman noted that his comments address the following issues: 1) Current existing conditions of the site vs. outdated studies that were performed twelve years ago - He stated that much has changed since the adoption of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said that the early applications to the City and County are outdated and that he believes a lot of the impacts are not measured within the scope of current existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed; 2) Other annexation projects are being presented and heard separately rather than collectively in violation of _CEQA and other planning principals; 3) The need for a water study - He remarked that we have a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment occurring at the same time in the same cycle and all of these projects add up to more than 500 homes. He said that because we have di~,ided up/bisected/segmented the projects we do not have to do it. He asked what would happen in a 20-year d~ year or wet year in terms of ove~ll planning for the water supply. He said this is what happens when you segment the projects up in terms of the plan amendments; 4) The need for public review of the Development Agreement- He commented that one of the Commissioners noted a discrepancy based upon that which was studied in the EIR and that which is represented by the Development Agreement. He indicated that this would be a reason to circulate the Development Agreement at the time the EIR is circulated so that the public is informed of its contents, so it can be reviewed in terms of CEQA, and so the public can comment on it and to catch these kinds of issues. He noted that the Development Agreement controls if there is any discrepancy and therefore there could be things put in the agreement that do not agree with the other documents and yet it would be the controlling document. He noted that there are two projects (equestrian canter and the trailhead) that he does not believe were analyzed by the EIR as separate standout projects and the direct/indirect impacts related to them. He added that another example would be the Hillside Design Review and zoning standards with respect to grading. He noted that the project is excluded from the Hillside Design Review. He took exception to this because he questioned whether this was addressed in the environmental documents. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 9, 2004 Secondly, he said the purpose of the Development Agreement is to lock in the zoning for the project, not to grant favors or exceptions from the zoning code. He suggested that this would be the same as granting a variance; 5) Use of County lands for private development - He asked if the County is an applicant because it appears they are. He noted that the County is not a developer here. He said much of this land is deed restricted for conservation use only land. He reported that he has provided information/evidence in his packet of materials to show how these areas relate to this project; 6) T~:affic circulation allowing further growth to the north of the site - He noted that the roads are being widened or planned to a certain width to leave the door open for future growth impacts that are not covered by the environmental documents. He suggested the width of the road is inappropriate for the development planned to the north. He said it either needs to be analyzed or adequately conditioned; 7) Equestrian use correlated to the additional projects proposed and the lack of analysis of equestrian use/impacts on all the proposals - He commented that the environmental documents only suggest an equestrian lot but fails to note how many horses, the equestrian center hours of operation, how many people per day and the related traffic and that these issues have not been analyzed; 8) The need for mitigation of impacts related to edge effects/tire zone and related clearing requirements - He said that for such a large fuel modification zone (150 feet), there would be significant off site impacts that need to be contained within the project not outside of the project and analyzed and mitigated. Dr. Travis Longcore, P.O. Box 24020, Los Angeles, stated he currently teaches at the University of Southern California and University of California at Los Angeles, is a principal of Land Protection Partners and the Co-founder and Science Director of the Urban Wildlands Group. Dr. Longcore presented his views as detailed in his letter dated June 9, 2004 and received by the secretary for the. record. His presentation included the following subjects: 1) Biological impacts of fuel modification - He indicated that there are a number of effects that will occur off site of the development. He said one effect is that it takes out habitat. He said this development would cause entry points for invasive species such as invasive plant species and grasses. He reported that some of these grasses have a faster flash point than native grasses and therefore could alter the fire danger of the area. He stated that irrigation of the area could promote the invasion of the exotic arthropods (argentine ants/common in our homes) that wreak havoc on native ground dwelling ants (harvester ants) and displace them from the habitat. He added that these ants kill off the harvester ants, which are responsible for spreading _seeds that would help regenerate native plants to the area following a tire. He added that harvester ants are the preferred food of homy toads; 2) Hydrological function and soil stability - He commented that these things are impacted by recreational use/trail use and those impacts; 3) Impacts to sensitive bird species - He commented that Cooper's hawks that live in urban areas are more likely to have less successful clutches, are more likely to die from colliding with things, and are more likely to die from diseases from other birds such as pigeons that accompany human development; 4) Impacts of noise on sensitive species - He commented that noise affects birds more than humans and that they need to be able to communicate with one another. He commented that the EIR does not address how noise will affect the birds, only the humans; 5) Free roaming cats - He said outside cats will eat the native critters; 6) Impacts on wildlife movement along Etiwanda Creek; 7) impacts of artificial night lighting - He commented that predators tend to like Iow night lighting and that although the development is not planned within the creek itself, could affect the habits of the predators; and 8) Biological impacts of increased trail use by hikers and equestrians - He commented that the equestrian facilities need to be analyzed for impacts. He remarked that one such impact is erosion from horses and the other disturbance caused by hikers. He said that if the area is going to be used for recreational purposes, then it needs to be disclosed as a result of this development. He commented that horses do not seem to disturb the birds as much as hikers because they see the horse as just another large animal (such as a deer) and therefore it is not perceived as a threat. He noted that horses cause double the amount of erosion as that caused by foot traffic. He reported that non-native seeds taken in by the horse through eating are eliminated and distributed along the trail, which again promotes invasive plant species in the area. He added that the use of rodent poisoning often accompanies the use of horses. He noted that two major causes of death to predators are cars and poisons. He added that manure Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 9, 2004 from the horses is high in nitrogen and it encourages the growth of exotic weeds. He reported that water quality is also affected by horse manure. Dr. Longcore also submitted for the record his resume, a research articles entitled "Ecological Effects of Fuel Modification on Arthropods and Other Wildlife in an Urbanizing Wildland," "Trail Con'idors as Habitat and Conduits for Movement of Plant Species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA," "Influence of Llamas, Horses, and Hikers on Soil Erosion from Established Recreation Trails in Western Montana, USA," 'q'he effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors," The Effects of Recreation on Birds: A Literature Review," "A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems," and a periodical article taken from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, "Ecological Light Pollution." Commissioner Fletcher asked where one would draw the line between human interaction with the environment. Dr. Longcore said that it is a delicate one. He noted that the only reason people save the natural wodd is because they care about it and appreciate it and they have been out in it. He said the goal is to recognize the impacts, be honest about them, and take steps to mitigate them. He also suggested that you plan natural areas so that you know where you want to specifically have only resource management areas for no interaction and other areas for more disruptive recreational uses. He said it is a value judgment and that his job was to supply the information so that the Commission can make the decision. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the EIR for this project indicates that this area has a "iow biological value." He remarked that he raised many issues about cdtters that may or may not be endangered and he noted that we kill rodents as well. He asked for Dr. Longcore's response to that. Dr. Longcore reported that he has read many EIRs that indicate the areas analyzed have no biological value. He said he does not necessarily agree with that because we have lost much of the sage scrub habitat and we are adjacent to areas that have had endangered species in the past. He remarked that just because something is not on the verge of extinction does not indicate that it is devoid of value. He said his job is to point out the values and allow the Commission to judge them. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he loses the significance of such things as "the war of the ants." Dr. Longcore responded that this leads to the issues of small reptiles that are listed by the State as sensitive species (homy toads). He explained that the toads lose their prey (the harvester ants being destroyed by the exotic ants) and then the toad species could be lost. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he did not see anything in this EIR regarding these species, only comments about the loss of the sage scrub and that there were diffedng opinions regarding that issue. Dr. Longcore stated that there were a number of sensitive species, although not charismatic species, were documented from the site. Commissioner Stewart commented that 164 acres is being donated as habitat preserve. She asked if this does not do something towards addressing some of these issues. Dr. Longcore responded that the nexus of his comments were not in response to the ratio of lands being contributed for the site rather that there are impacts to the habitat off-site from the development that have not been discussed in the environmental documents and mitigated for. He commented that if we continue to mitigate as we have in the past at a 1:1 ratio, then we end up with "half as much" every time we do a development, and at the end of the day, we end up with less open Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 9, 2004 space. He added that the resource agencies suggest a 5:1 ratio and this project is obliterating 169 acres of habitat. Commissioner Stewart remarked that along with Commissioner Fletcher, she has difficulty knowing where to draw the line when we get down to the ants. She asked how does one mitigate for a cat. Dr. Longcore stated that if this is considered dudng the design process, a restriction could be placed on the development stating that this development has a "cats indoors only policy," which is supported by the Human Society and other resource agencies. Kathleen Stockwell, 22792 Orange, Mission Viejo, stated she is an amateur botanist and professional naturalist and 7 years experience as a Reserve Ranger for the County of Orange and is involved in educational research at the university level. She reported that she has hiked the National Forest in our area for 30 years and is concerned about the proposed development just below the border of the preserve area. She specifically referred to impacts on the Plumbers Madposa Lily and that it is a candidate for the endangered species list. She referred to a photograph in a book entitled California's Wild Gardens, page 175. She explained that because of the fires, prolific blooming has been observed in the lily species. She commented that they bloomed in an army of colors. She stated that this particular area is a biological hotspot and that it is one of the most endangered habitats in the world. She said there are many species in the area that are considered very sensitive. She commented that the typical way to mitigate for the lilies is to dig them up and move them elsewhere. She said you could not mitigate for the thousands of them that are there. She noted several issues she believes to be related to the project area development: 1) Effects on sensitive species such as the Mariposa lilies - She noted that they were observed far south of the project area; 2) Bird migration - She said birds (sage sparrows) nesting after the fires were observed as far south as they could go (along Wilson Avenue at the north edge of the project site); 3) Earthquake hazard assessment and safety- She asked if fault lines had been thoroughly mapped and setbacks determined for homes in the area. She noted that old maps indicate homes are built dght on the fault lines. She commented that there are many earthquake escarpments in the area; 4) A necessity for studies regarding the wildland/urban interface - She noted that motorcycles, A'TV's and pickup trucks are seriously intruding on the area. She mentioned a security factor with the high power lines; 5) A need for a water study - She commented that a road with pipe infrastructure completely washed out, and following the winter storms, the debris basins almost failed and subsequently had to be cleaned out and/or repaired; 6) Public safety issues spocifically related to the high power lines and Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) levels - She expressed concern that high Santa Ana winds would blow down the power lines. She mentioned that two towers in Etiwanda completely blew down in a previous windstorm and that it could be a public safety issue if homes are built there. She added that she has read that childhood leukemia is directly related to EMRs and should be considered a health issue. She commented that an emergency escape route would be needed in the case of disaster involving the high power lines; and 7) Water recharge and the sale of mitigation lands - She asked why the land was set aside bythe Flood Control District and why was it determined to be a mitigation area in the past and why is it being sold now. Ms. Stockwell stated she would prefer that these lands be set aside and added to the preserve. Tim Johnson, 10244 Arrow Route #24, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a field representative from the offices of Paul Biane, Supervisor Second District, County Board of Supervisors, County of San Bemardino. He presented a letter for the record in support of the Tracy Development project c~ting the asset of a trailhead park with sufficient parking for busses and cars and picnic area for the citizens' enjoyment. He added that a kiosk would be placed in the park. He added that there will be increased public awareness of the preserve area and the mitigation lands provided. Mr. Johnson specifically noted that the increased public access will minimize the use of recreational vehicles on the trail and that the access for hiking has been approved by the Departments of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 9, 2004 Carol Douglass, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she represents the Alta Loma Riding Club (ALRC). She reported that she believes horses cause less damage than off-read vehicles in the hillside areas. She noted that she believes that with an increase in equestrian use combined with the changed borders, the damage caused by off-road vehicles will be less and more easily monitored. She mentioned that although they are sorry to see open space disappearing, she commented that the City has done a good job in planning and had good vision for these future uses. She noted that she feels the growth is appropriate. She added that she had initial concerns about the project until she was informed that if the City did not annex the property, the project would be developed using County standards, which are less favorable standards than the City's. She remarked that the fees taken in for the equestrian park will benefit the community and to the equestrian program including handicapped alders (Rising Stars). Ms Douglass added that the retention basins flooded not so much because of captured rainfall and runoff, but because of heavy debds that flowed into the basins created by the fires last fall. She commented that the ALRC supports the annexation and feels it is a positive move. Craig Page made closing remarks in reference to the density of the project. He pointed out that there is a misconception regarding the density of the project. He said the entire project includes about 168 acres but that includes portions of the property that are not going to be developed. He noted that those acres are included because they are previously un-subdivided property and that only 107.27 acres will actually be developed and that some of the County lands will not be developed at Etiwanda Creek. He indicated that some County land that is being used has been declared surplus lands. He said the density is arrived at by applying the 2.5 units per acro to the 107.27-acre figure, not by applying it to the 168 acres. He said it is a true density based upon the developed area. He reported that the north upland area to be developed is 20 feet higher in elevation than the creek area and there is no water flow for the purpose of recharge there. He noted that regarding boundaries related to fire mitigation, there are-two 300-foot corridors on the north and south maintained by Edison with an access road. He said that the developer would take over the maintenance of the area. He noted that the mitigation land is based upon a 1.5:1 not 1:1 based upon the 107+ developed acres. He added that the seismic issues are covered in the Environmental Impact Report as well as the flood control issues. He noted that the City and County have master plans addressing the hydrology issues. He remarked that the developer's civil engineer has also-addressed it and it can be found in the technical appendices of the EIR. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Ennis commented that there were many items mentioned but that he would respond to some of them at this time. He reported that the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted/amended in 1992 and that it is a land use-controlling document and that periodically amendments are made. He commented that it is a policy decision and not a legal requirement to change the underlying land use regulations applicable to an area. He reported that the various annexations are all owned independent of one another and therefore are analyzed independently. He stated that they all have their own plans as to how they would like to develop their property and they are being processed independently. He remarked that each Environmental Impact Report does have a cumulative impact section and therefore there is a coordinated approach to the environmental analysis of the collective projects. He added that because none of the individual annexations have 500 units, we couldn't require a water study to be done. He noted that the Development Agreement must be consistent with the EIR. He pointed out that the EIR does indicate the project, what it is and what the approvals would be including the Development Agreement. He commented that on page 19 of the EIR, the project description notes the trailhead and throughout the document impacts are analyzed which relate to the parks and public facilities (traffic as an example) and therefore what is discussed within the Development Agreement is not beyond the scope of what was contained in the EIR. He mentioned that the project does not encourage growth-inducing impacts. He commented that growth-inducing impacts occur when a "leap frog" type of development is approved beyond the existing natural border of established infrastructure. He pointed out that this project is adjacent to the existing developed portion of the City and it is not putting development out in an "island" situation Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 9, 2004 surrounded by areas that have no infrastructure. He refuted Dr. Longcore's claim that the EIR does not address impacts on off-site conditions because the north and south boundaries of the project have existing Edison corridor easements and they have impacts on interface issues in terms of fuel modification they engage in and the types of access roads they have and the impacts the existing easements will have. He pointed out that on page 142 of the EIR, wildlife movement is analyzed contrary to Dr. Longcore's report. He also mentioned that the Madposa Lily is also discussed within the analysis. Mr. Ennis mentioned that the project is allowing for mitigation lands at a ratio of 1.5:1. He concluded with remarks in reference to seismic and flood impacts. He noted that seismic analysis of the project area was extensive and is discussed in the EIR. He added that there are detailed mitigation measures noted on page 68 that address those impacts. He added that flood hazards were also extensively analyzed. Commissioner Fletcher commented that fuel modification mitigation measures are included which require a 30.foot zone (zone 1) from any structure along the northern project boundary and 50-70 feet (zone 2) away from any structures or to the lot property line. He asked if there is any requirement beyond the property lines. Mr. I=nnis reported that with respect to off-site fuel modification to the northern and southem project boundaries is an Edison corridor that creates a fuel modification zone and to the east along Etiwanda Creek, there will not be any homes directly adjacent to the creek and there is a read and therefore there is no need to change the fuel modification plan to meet that standard. Vice Chairman McNiel mentioned that he is not aware of proof of the theory that FMR causes Leukemia in children. He-added that there are issues to which the experts do not agree. Commissioner Fletcher commented that annexations are difficult projects to assess because vadous experts have different opinions about them and their impacts. He added that it is a respectful difference. He noted that Ms. Stockwell mentioned concerns about future hbmeowners. He said others are more concerned about environmental aspects. He commented that when he moved to Rancho Cucamonga in 1981, he was impressed with the views of the valley and the mountains and thought it would be a lovely place to have a home. He said there are others that believe these foothills would be a lovely place to have a home. He remarked that many people walk and enjoy the natural areas and others prefer there be no access to these areas. He noted that his biggest concern is that because of the site being located in the foothills, he feels the lots should be larger, but he recognizes this is part of the negotiation and process and the annexation will work out better for the residents in the end. Commissioner McPhail commented that she has personally researched EMFs and that there are conflicting conclusions among the experts with regard to the effects of power lines. She reported that the comments were all taken to heart and considered carefully and that the City does care about the "critters" and we also care about the impacts in the future. She said that if the Commission denies the project, it would be built under County standards, which would not be in the best interest of the public. She noted that the preservation lands ratio of 1.5:1 is a fine thing and she supports that. She indicated her questions had been answered to her satisfaction and she supports the project. Commissioner Stewart remarked that she has read the materials supplied to her and has listened to the comments and testimony of Dr. Longcore and appreciated his educational remarks. She commented that she also likes to hike and bike and would like to see it preserved but she maintained that with the annexation, the City gets control, a lower density of development that is more compatible to the area, conservation areas, an equestrian park, and 164 acres in habitat preserve lands. She noted that the impacts are mitigated and that there are far more positives than negatives with the annexation. Planning Commission Minutes -1-2- June 9, 2004 Vice Chairman McNiel added that what Commissioners Stewart and McPhail said previously is true, the lands originally annexed were developed at standards far below ours. He said that if this project were develop)ed under the County standards, it would not have neadv the same restrictions that we are imposing today. Motion: Moved bv McPhail, seconded bv Fletcher, to recommend approval of Items F-J with the amended pages to be forwarded for final approval by the City Council. Motion carried by the followin~l vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS. - carried K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRC2004-00521 - ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT - A review of General Plan consistency of the proposed site acquisition of approximately 14 acres of land for an elementary school in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Etiwanda South Oveday District, located on the south side of Miller approximately 400 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1100-131-02 and the easterly 3.8 of 1100-13!-01. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Fletcher asked to see the Victoda Arbors Master Plan proposed. Brad Bullet, City Planner noted that on page K-10 of the the site can be made out from the exhibit. Shawn Judson, representing the Etiwanda School Distdct East Avenue, Etiwanda, indicated he was available for questions. Vice Chairman McNiel asked odginal site located within the Victoda Arbors Community. Mr. Judson reported that there are three the first being the irregular shape prohibiting good use of the space, the second related first is that the adjacent wetlands leaves them with additional unusable space a lack of build classrooms and the third is the overall size of the property which He added that the school district is not intending to abandon the original site, that it ma, in the future. Vice Chairman McNiel fice of the State Architect should be able to come up with property. Mr. Judson re this is not an "offthe shelf'' design and they have been creative but that the wetlands additional issue with the outbreak of the West Nile Virus and that the area for mosquitoes. He added that there is not sufficient turf area and that a joint use agreement for the park. He indicated they have only received a verbal a and nothing in wdting has been received. Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that joint use has always been part of the plan since this all began. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 9, 2004 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Findings Related to the Tracy Development Project and Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) June 2004 EXHIBIT "F" '7 -.~/- ~ ~' C~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction .............................................................................................. : ....................... 2 II. Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 2 III. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 4 IV. Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation ...................................... ._. ............... 4 A. Land Use ................................................................................................................ 4 B. Population and Housing ......................................................................................... 6 C. Energy and Mineral Resources .............................................................................. 7 D. Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 8 E. Recreation ............................................................................................................... 9 V. Environmental_Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant. .....................9 A. Earth Resources .................................................................................................... 10 B. Water Resources ................................................................................................... 15 C. Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................. 20 D. Hazards ................................................................................................................. 25 E. Noise ..................................................................................................................... 29 F. Public Services ..................................................................................................... 34 G. Utilities ................................................................................................................. 38 H. Cultural Resources ...................................................................... ~ ........................ 43 VI. Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant ....................................................................................................................... 46 A. Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 46 B. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 54 C. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 62 VII. Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 65 A. No Project-No Development Alternative ............................................................. 66 B. No Project-Open Space Alternative ..................................................................... 66 C. Reduced Intensity Alternative .............................................................................. 67 D. Modified Site Plan Alternative ............................................................................. 70 E. Rural Density Alternative ..................................................................................... 72 F. Comparison of Alternative ................................................................................... 75 C:~Documents and S et ~ings\j ohn. nelson ~.ocal -i- Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLK30Winal Tracy Findings. DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page VIII. Growth-Inducing Impacts., ........................................................................................... 77 IX. Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts ......................................................................... 78 X. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations .................................. 79 A. Legal Requirements .............................................................................................. 79 B. Project Benefits .................................................................................................... 79 XI. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report ................................................. 81 A. Findings: ............................................................................................................... 81 B. Conclusions: ......................................................................................................... 81 XII. Custodian of Record ....................................................................................................... 81 C:XDocuments and Settings\john,nelson\Local -ii- Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLlO0~Final Tracy Findings. DOC FACTS, FINDINGS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE TRACY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (SCH # 2003081085) I. INTRODUCTION The City Council ("Council") and Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") in certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") related to the Tracy Development Project, makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented in Section X. These findings are based on the entire administrative record on this matter, including the EIR. The EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to the Califomi_a Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"). II. PROJECT SUMMARY The Tracy Development Project is proposed to consist of a maximum of 269 single- family residences with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and an average tot size of 11,600 square feet, with a density of approximately 2.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on 108.9 acres plus 59.9 acres of conservation lands totaling 168.8 acres. This 168.8 acres of land is bordered on the west by Etiwanda Avenue, on the east by Etiwanda Creek, and on the north and south by two Southern California Edison high voltage power line corridors currently within the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino ("Project site"). The applicant Traigh-Pacific (d.b.a. Tracy Building Corporation) (the "Applicant") has filed a request for land use actions necessary for the development of the Tracy Development Project ("Project"), including the Project Site Annexation DRC2003-01051 'into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Pacific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, and other related actions for thc Project site, cun~ently within the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers for the Project site after annexation. The City, as lead agency, determined that an EIR should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on August 11, 2003 and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, approximately nine written statements were received by the City in response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on October 22, 2003 to familiarize the public with the Project and the environmental review process and receive input as to the scope of the Draft EIR and issues of community concern. The Draft E1R was completed and released for public review on or about December 4, 2003, and the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice and published the Notice of Completion on December 4, 2003 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department counter and the public library, and made free copies available to the public. During the 45-day comment_ period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086. All potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR. During the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received approximately seven written comments. After production of the Final EIR, the City received one additional written comment. Pursuant to Public Reso.urces Code section 21092.5, the City provided written responses to comments to all commenting agencies within the statutory time frame. The City prepared the Final EIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting agencies. The Planning Commission of the City, at its regularly scheduled public meetings on May 12, 2004, reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. As contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project. All the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the. City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that ali of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated. The EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. All of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council and Planning Commission pursuant to this findings attachment are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this findings attachment. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth hei'ein, are described in Section V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII. Prior to taking action, the City Council and Planning Commission have heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and heatings. The Draft EIR and Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City Councilor Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project. No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiting recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. III; SUMMARY OF FINDINGS At a public hearing assembled on June 9, 2004, the City determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: 1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through identified and feasible mitigation measures; or 3) significant and will be ~lessened by the identified and feasible mitigation measures. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQLrIRING MITIGATION The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Land Use Physical Division of a Community: Most of the land immediately surrounding the Project is presently vacant. (Final EIR, p. 13.) As such, there is no community that the Project could physically divide. However, the area in the vicinity of the Project site is experiencing a slow transition from rural and open space uses to more suburban uses, with the most recent project proposed immediately south of the site. (Ibid.) The Project is generally compatible with the suburban-style development that is likely to occur in this area (i.e., 2-3 units/acre). (Final EIR, p. 16.) The Project is also compatible with existing residential development to the southwest and south (3+ units/acre). (Final EIR, p. 13.) Since the Project will blend in well with future development that will occur in the Project area, the Project's development will not physically divide a community. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to this aspect of land use, and no mitigation is necessary. Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations: Certain portions of the Project site are currently designated as Very Low Density Residential ("VL") in the land use plan for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan ("ENSP"). (Final EIR, p. 37.) The VL designation allows a maximum density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre ("du/ac") with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. (Ibid.) The densities outlined in the Project would be inconsistent with this density designation as lot sizes are set at a minimum of 8,400 square feet and an overall residential density of 2.5 du/ac, although its gross density is within the VL designation (1.6 du/ac). (Final EIR, p. 42.) However, concurrent with tentative map approval, and as part of this Project as defined, a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment are to be submitted so that densities, and other Project features, are consistent with all applicable City planning documents. Specifically, the General Plan and the ENSP are to be modified to permit Low Density (24 dwelling units per acre) development for the Project site. As such, the Project, so defined as to include the proposed amendments, along with and including its park, equestrian trail, landscaping plan, and other design considerations is consistent with the intent and goals of the City's General Plan, the ENSP, and the City's Equestrian Overlay Zone. (See Final EIR, pp. 33-45.) Also, the proposed Project is consistent with the policies contained in the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Comprehensive Plan and'Western Riverside Sub-Regional Plan policies regarding population growth, housing, and employment forecasts, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Basin Plan, the County of San Bemardino's Master Plan for roads, flood control activities, regional parks and trails, and the Water and Sewer Master Plans for the Cucamonga County Water District ("CCWD"). (Final EIR, p. 39.) Further, this Project is defined so that prior to recordation of each phase, or issuance of grading permits for each phase, the Project's developer is to submit and obtain approval of a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's Neighborhood Theme Plan in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. This requirement will further ensure that the Project's design remains consistent with the City's ENSP and land use policies. (Final EIR, p. 45.) In addition, the ENSP contains a provision that all lots less than 20,000 square feet shall provide an in-lieu contribution of $1000 per lot for development of an Equestrian Center. The .44 acre equestrian park in the southeast portion of the Project implements this goal. (Final EIR, p. 42.) Also, the Project is required to comply with the City's Development Code. (Final EIR, p. 44.) Neither San Bernardino County nor the City have adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") or a Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP"). (Final EIR, p. 38.) The County, however, has previously worked on a San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species HCP that could potentially include the Project area. (ibid.) However, it is currently on hold. (Ibid.) Possible impacts to the potential San Bernardino HCP are only speculative since such a plan does not yet exist. As such, no mitigation is required under CEQA in regard to the Project's potential inconsistency with this non-existent HCP. Also, in 1992, the County formed the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program to identify existing open space lands having specific resource value and to provide guidelines to encourage the preservations of these lands. (Ibid.) Specific resources of value include critical biological habitats, unique plant communities, riparian areas, wildlife corridor connections, and lands with special scenic, archeological, or historical value. (Ibid.) Lands can also be included that provide connections between resource areas and help reduce fragmentation of the resources. (Ibid.) This voluntary program also encourages landowners to use these mechanisms to promote preservation of resoume areas. (Ibid.) Development of the Project would prevent the Project site from being included in this voluntary program. However, since the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program is a voluntary program, the decision of the Applicant not to participate does not cause any inconsistency. The Project's impacts to biological resources, and proposed mitigation measures for such impacts are fully discussed in the EIR. (See Biological Resources below.) The Project site is presently owned by three landowners; Traigh Pacific, GE and EM Madrid, and San Bemardino County Flood Control District. (Final EIR, p. 33.) Absent proper City policies, this situation could have significant impacts if improvements are planned, or required on the property of ~n owner that' withdraws from the Project or is unwilling to abide by agreements made by the other owners. ~(~_~.) However, this Project requires that all mitigation measures proposed, as specified in these Findings and the Final EIR, are binding upon the Project developer or any future developer of the Project site. This requirement is consistent with City policy and State law. As such this is not a potentially significant impact. B. Population and Housing The Project site is currently vacant, so the proposed Project will not displace existing housing or population that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Final EIR, p. 46.) The population and housing of the San Bemardino Association of Governments ("SanBAG") areal including the Project area, are expected to increase by approximately (~0 percent over the r~ext 20 years. (ibid.) Similarly, the population and housing of the City, including its Sphere of Influence and the Project area, are expected to increase by 45 percent from 2000 to 2020. (Ibid.) This Project, therefore, provides new housing in an area with a substantial demand for new housing. At the same time, the Project is expected to generate approximately 831 new City residents, based on the proposed 269 dwelling units times the current City average household size figure of 3.147 persons per household (California Department of Finance 2003). (Final EIR, p. 47.) The projected Project population therefore represents 1.5 percent of the total 58,000 new people expected in the City of Rancho Cucamonga through 2020, or 0.5 percent of the total City population by 2020. (Ibid.) Similarly, the Project's housing represents 1.4 percent of the 19,500 new housing expected in the City by 2020, or 0.3 percent of the total City housing. (Ibid.) By comparison, the Project population represents only 0.08 percent of the projected population and 0.03 percent of the projected housing of the SanBAG region for the same period. (Ibid.) The Project is expected to result in occupancy of approximately 80 residential units per year for a · little over 3 years, which equals 8.2 percent of the projected housing growth for the City during that time (19,500 units divided by 20 years = 975 units per year City-wide). (Ibid.) The Project is therefore well within the growth limits of the City and this portion of San Bemardino County. Thus, the Project appropriately contributes to the City and SANBAG's objectives of meeting housing demands and its impact to population and housing is, therefore, less than significant. (Ibid.) C. Energy and Mineral Resources In accordance with SMARA, the City's General Plan has developed appropriate strategies to address the proper placement of mineral resource operations within the City's planning area. (General Plan, p. IV-38) These strategies reflect land use patterns recognizing both the regional value of existing aggregate resoumes in the planning area, and balances the projected needs for such resources against future development. (General Plan, p. IV-39) Aggregate material is necessary for urban construction and having a local source of this material is advantageous for builders (General Plan, p. IV-7) However, development of the Project will not substantially impact the supply of available aggregate mineral resources for the region as a whole. Currently, a rock crashing plant is located within Day Creek, the only active aggregate operation within the City's sphere of influence. (General Plan, p. IV-Il) The Project will not effect the operation of this facility. Despite the presence of this facility within the City, the City has recognized that sand and gravel deposits available for mining operations within the Rancho Cucamonga area are limited, and will continue to be limited, due to conflicts between urban growth and mining operations. (General Plan, p. IV-12) Indeed, the General Plan specifically considers the regional significance of these resources, but concludes that the general existence of aggregate resources within the City should not preclude development. (General Plan, p. IV-39) The City's General Plan provisions regarding mineral resources (Section 2.2.1, pages IV- 7 through IV-13 and IV-41) establishes that .neither the Project site or the East Etiwanda Creek contain "regionally significant aggregate resources," and that the Project site does not warrant any special designation or protection regarding the presence of mineral resources. The Project site is about a mile southeast of Sector D-16 which comprises a portion of the alluvial fan of Day Creek. (Final Supp., p. 9.) Data indicates that the majority of the aggregate resources from this area are concentrated along the larger Deer and Day Creeks, approximately three miles east of Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) In contrast, there are no active or planned mining activities on or near the Project site. (Final Supp., p. 10.) Instead, the City's General Plan indicates the Project area is already planned for residential development, and the Project site has existing or planned residential development adjacent to the west, south, and east across the creek, and major power lines border the site on the north and south. (Ibid.) It is therefore reasonable to conclude that development of the Project site would not represent a significant impact to this area's an_d region's mineral resources. (Final Supp., p. 10-11 .) The City will continue its efforts to establish the most appropriate boundaries for mineral resource zones within the City, as outlined in the General Plan. The City is also working to implement these policies in a timely fashion as indicted in Appendix 6 of the General Plan. Further, if mineral resource extraction were to be proposed one day for the Etiwanda creek channel or other adjacent or nearby properties designated by the State and the City as having regionally significant resources, the General Plan provides for a harmonization of potentially conflicting land uses through the development of special buffering measures. (General Plan, p. IV-40). All together then, development of the Project will not cause a significant impact to mineral resources because any possible resources onsite are not designated as significant by the City, and the .Project would not significantly impact future extractions in the Project area. That being said, although the Project's impact to mineral resources is less than significant, there is no way to avoid covering over most of the Project site with man-made surfaces (e.g., streets, turf, etc.). Also, none of the alternatives would preserve a large enough area of land that could be mined without creating significant impacts on the residential portion of the Project or nearby existing or future residential areas. Development of the Project will consume non-renewable fossil fuels, mainl) in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction vehicles. (Final EIR, p. 151.) Operation of the Project will also consume non-renewable fossil fuels, mainly the consumption of natural gas, the generation of electricity, and vehicle fuels for residents, employees, and Project visitors. (Ibid.) At build-out, the Project will consume approximately 4,085 kilowatt-hours per day of electricity and about 58,874 cubic feet per day of natural gas (Ibid., see also Final EIR Section 3.12, Utilities.). Further, assuming an average consumption of 18 miles per gallon, a total of 3,284 gallons of gasoline will be consumed by the Project on a dally basis. (Final EIR, p. 152.) Although this represents a substantial increase in energy use on the Project site over existing levels, Southern California Edis6n and the Southern California Gas Co. have indicated in writing that they i:an accommodate this increase, but with the caveat that they do remain subject to regulatory actions by the California Public Utilities Commission that could affect their service abilities. (Final EIR, p. 151.) However, on a statewide level, the Project will only cause a minor and insignificant increase in the usage of energy. Further, the Project will comply with all applicable energy conservation regulations, including Section IV, Managing Environmental Resources, of the City's General Plan and Title 24 of the California Code dealing with energy conservation design in residential structures. (Final EIR, p. 152.) The Project will also conform to the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the Uniform Plumbing Code to assure safe installation of electrical and natural gas systems. (Final EIR, p. 153.) Compliance with all these standard codes, and regulatory requirements will ensure that the Project will be developed in a manner that is consistent with the City's high energy efficiency standards for new housing developments. As such, the impact to energy resources will not be significant. (Ibid.) D. Agriculture While locations near the Project have supported extensive agriculture in the past, the Project site and surrounding area has never been used for productive agriculture due to the Project site's rocky soils and the area's strong seasonal winds. (Final EIR, p. 209-211.) Aerial photographs of the immediate area surrounding the Project, dating back as far as 1980, do not indicate any active agricultural activities. (ibid.) For these reasons, development of the site will not have any adverse impacts related to agricultural resources. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project does not conflict with existing zoning related to agriculture uses, nor does it conflict with a Wil]iamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract. (ibid.) Also, the proposed Project will not result in off-site conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Ibid.) Further, the Project site does not contain or support any prime or otherwise important agricultural soils. (Ibid.) Therefore, there will be no significant impacts related to agricultural resources. (Ibid.) E. .Recreation The City General Plan requires new projects to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per 1000 population. (Final EIR, p 212.) Under this standard, the Project is required to provide 4.37 acres of parkland based on 269 planned units times the City's current occupancy rate or 3.25 persons per household (269 units times 3.25 persons per unit equals 874 project residents divided by 5 acres/1000 residents equals 4.37 acres). (ibid.) The Project will provide 5.81 acres of parks and .44 acres of equestrian trails, which exceeds the City's requirement. (ibid.) Ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the open space/park lands require ongoing effort, and the City typically identifies the method of maintenance prior to approving new parkland. (ibid.) The creation of recreation facilities could cause an adverse physical effect on the environment if not maintained properly. (ibid.) To prevent this from being a potentially adverse impact, the Applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to coordinate and fund the formation of a Landscape Maintenance District to maintain the Project's community park to the satisfaction of the City. (Ibid.) Overall, although open space will be removed by development of the Project, this will not be a significant impact, as the proposed park and equestrian trail amount to the benefit to recreatibn resources that exceeds the City's requirements and are consistent with all the City's applicable General Plan policies. (Final EIR, p. 213.) The Project proposes that the .44 acres of equestrian trail be located along the eastern portion of the Project adjacent to Etiwanda Creek. (Final EIR, p. 213.) This trail will connect to the proposed equestrian park located at the southeast portion of the developed area of the Project adjacent to Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) An equestrian trail is proposed along the western edge of the Project within the Etiwanda Avenue right-of-way. The Project is also adjacent to two Edison power corridors on which the City may locate a regional network. (Ibid.) Consequently, the Project's equestrian trails will complement the other trails and networks of thais proposed by the City. That is, the continuing development of the equestrian trail system will. also benefit the recreation opportunities for City residents. (Ibid.) V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft and Final EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. A "significant effect on the environment" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including ]and, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance .... "(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15382.) The potentially significant impacts of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: A. Earth Resources 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Project site, like most of the Southem California region, is subject to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking from numerous regional faults. (Final EIR. pp. 51, 57.) The San. Andreas Fault Zone, the largest fault structure in California, is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 52.) The San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a 8.3 magnitude or greater earthquake and poses the highest potential risks to the Project site in terms of seismic movement and duration of an event. (Final EIR, p. 55.) The Project area is also subject to strong seismic activity from various other faults in the region which could create moderate to significant horizontal accelerations and strong ground shaking. (Final EIR, p. 55- 59.) For instance, the Cucamonga Fault Study Zone is located less than a quarter mile north of the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 52, 55.) Also, though the Project site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, the San Bemardino County Geologic Hazards Map does show the Etiwanda Avenue Fault Zone intersecting the southeast comer of the Project site. (Ibid.) In afiy case, active faults are typical to Southern California, so it is reasonable to expect a moderately strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime of any proposed development. (Final EIR, p. 51.) While seismic risks to new structures and residents in this area are properly considered significant absent mitigation, other seismic-related impacts such as ground rapture, liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, seismically-induced landslides, seiches, tsunamis, and inundation due to failure of large water storage facilities are not anticipated on-site. (Final EIR, pp. 62-64.) Development of the Project site (i.e., grading, cleating and grubbing) will require grading over a period of 2-3 months, requiring approximately 500,000 cubic yards of earthwork to be moved. (Final EIR, pp. 63-65.) Development will also remove the top layers of soil along with vegetation. (Ibid.) The removal of vegetation during grading will expose the underlying topsoil to a short-term increased potential for erosion. (Ibid.) Cut and fill areas that expose sandy or gravelly soils will also be subject to the highest potential for erosion by surface runoff. (Ibid.) Long-term increases to erosion potential will occur as a result of increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures (Ibid., See also, Section 3.4, Water Resources). Furthermore, the construction of unpaved emergency access routes will leave more soils axposed and vulnerable to erosion. (Ibid.) Also, the steep sides of the nearby East Etiwanda Creek channel might be subject to localized damage or failure if grading activities were to occur too close to the bank. (Ibid.) Absent mitigation, this activity related to construction of the Project could cause significant impacts. Develoiiment of the Project site will also cause minor changes in local topography, but these changes should not contribute to, or create, any unusual or unstable slope conditions. The overall topography of the site will not change. (Ibid.) However, Section 6.3.8 of Chapter III, Developing the Community, of the City's General Plan addresses Hillside Development and has certa/n requirements for slopes of 5 to 7.9 percent, and the Project has the potential to fail to meet all the applicable requirements. (Ibid.) 10 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to Earth Resoumes to a less than significant level: Standard Conditions of Approval and Codes Project design, including seismic design, will be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association. The Project must also adhere to the City's standard erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The potential impacts and the corresponding standard conditions or code applications that will help to mitigate the potential impacts, are as shown in Table 3.3-3 of the Final EIR, entitled Seismic Related Conditions and Codes. (Final EIR, p. 66.) Geotechnical Mitigation Measures 3-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with the recommendations and general earthwork and grading specifications found in thc RMA Group Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C of Final EIR.). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. (Final EIR, p. 67.) 3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or recordation of each phase, a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation shall be prepared and approved for the residential building areas and all roads. The report shall demonstrate that each lot is buildable and identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants. This report shall · also examine the drainage area adjacent to East Etiwanda Creek to identify potential landslide, erosion, or other slopes that could affect the residential area. Subsequent foundation and other design guidelines in these studies shall be consistent with the standards established in the RMAGroup Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 67- 68.) 3-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or recordation, construction measures recommended by the detailed geological inv&stigation shall be identified on grading plans and implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 68.) Wind Erosion Mitigation Measures 3-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permits for each phase, the developer shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan to the City that meets all applicable requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Plan must be approved by the City Building and Safety Department, prior to issuance of the grading permit and demonstrate that methods are in place to assure the following: a) Areas disturbed by construction activities and/or used to store backfill materials, will be sprayed with water at least twice a day, in the morning and aftemoon, or more often if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site. b) Storage piles, which are to be left in place for more than three working days shall either be sprayed with a non-toxic soil binder or covered with plastic or revegetated until placed in use. c) Tires of vehicles will be washed before the vehicle leaves the Project site and enters a paved road. d) Dirt on paved surfaces shall be removed daily to minimize generation of fugitive dust. (Final EIR, p. 68.) NOTE: Additional mitigation measures included in Section 3.6, Air Quality, also address impacts from dust that will help reduce wind erosion impacts. (Final EIR, p. 68.) Water Erosion Mitigation Measures 3-$ Prior to the issuance of building permits, where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, a detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to grading plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees, and shall be consistent with thc Neighborhood Theme Plan of thc Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of thc City Planner. (Final EIR, p. 68.) 3-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, graded, but undeveloped land shall bc maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. This measure shah be implemented to thc satisfaction of thc City Building Official. (Final EIR, p. 69.) 3-7 Prior to thc issuance of occupancy permits, planting of developed ]and shall comply with the Nationai Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. This measure shall be implemented to thc satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 3-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits, all grading shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnica] Report included as Appendix B of the Final E1R. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 12 NOTE: Additional mitigation measures included in Section 3.4, Water Resources, also address impacts from dust. These measures will assist in minimizing water-related erosion impacts. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation. While the Project will expose people and property to seismic hazards, these conditions are similar throughout Southern California. (Final EIR, pp. 51-69.) Further, the available geologic and seismic data indicates that no major active faults traverse the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 62.) While the San Bemardino County Geologic Hazards Map shows that the Etiwanda Avenue Fault Zone crosses the far southeast comer of the Project site, the Project's Geotechnical study indicates that this is not the case, and that the Fault Zone is actually located further southeast of the Project site. (See Plate 1 of the Project's Geotechnical Report.) Moreover, since the Project site contains mostly course alluvial soils, liquefaction is considered unlikely due to the fact that the historic depth of the ground water has been on the order of 250 feet or more. (Final EIR, p. 64.) Since liquefaction most often occurs in areas of shallow groundwater underlying areas with loose, unconsolidated soils, the liquefaction potential for the Project site is properly considered insignificant. (Ibid.) Further, according to the Project's geotechnical report, the probability of deep-seated landslides occurring is considered remote because the slope onsite is not great enough to contribute to any significant threat from rock falls. (ibid.) Also, the Standard Conditions of Approval for the City, and the applicable standard code provisions, will ensure that the Project will be constructed according to the State of California's high seismic safety standards. (ibid.) Specifically, mitigation measures 3-1 through 3-3 require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 67-68.) The implementation of these specific engineering and design measures according to the professional standards for licensed geologists, and according to the geologic and soil limitations for each buildable lot, will ensure that each residential structure will be designed to withstand the anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions associated with the Project site. Therefore, potential adverse impacts related to earthquakes and seismic activities will be reduced to a less than significant level.(Final EIR, pp. 67-69.) While the Project will result in the disruption of soil and topography, the disruption will not be significant. The Project design creates slopes that will fall within a slope category regulated by the City's General Plan (i.e., 5-7.9 percent). (Final EIR, p. 63.) However, approximately 96 percent of the Project site has slope gradients of less than 7 percent. (Final EIR, p. 58.) Further, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the soils on the Project site as Soboba stony loamy sand, which typically occurs on two to four percent slopes. (Final EIR, p. 60.) The original land use plan of the Project, i.e. the one that was previously submitted to the County for approval, had a standard grading scheme with relatively straight streets, linear lot alignments, and did not incorporate contour grading into its design. (Final EIR, p. 63.) The Project, as currently designed, has more curvilinear streets and is more sensitive to existing contours, and as such complies with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, and is generally consistent with the overall intent of the guidelines, and is consistent with the ENSP's standards. (Final Eli>, Supp., p. 3; Final EIR, pp 63- 64.) Moreover, once a specific grading plan is prepared, additional slope evaluations and a slope stability analysis will be prepared consistent with implementation of the recommendations of the Project's geotechnical report (see Appendix C of the Final EIR.) As documented in this report, engineered cut and fill slopes can be safely constructed at a 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope angles. (Final EIR, p. 63.) As slopes within the Project site will not exceed 9 percent, an angle far below the 2 to 1 ratio, all slopes will be well within the required safety threshold. (Ibid.) When these proper planning, construction, and engineering practices are incorporated into the Project, potential impacts related to the sloping topography and unstable slope conditions will not be significant. Implementation of the above mitigation measures relating to wind and water erosion, as well as those listed in the finding for Air Quality and Water Resources will reduce impacts related to the erosion of soil to a less than significant level. (Final EIR, pp. 68-69.) Spraying the soil with water twice a day, while consuming water resources, will sufficiently prevent soil from becoming loose and from leaving the Project site. (Ibid.) Similarly, ensuring that vehicles do not leave the Project site with soil on their tires, will ensure that the soil remains onsite. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project will not impact soils within the Etiwanda channel as the Creek is not located on the Project site, and the Project developer will be required to comply with its NPDES permit, preventing all potentially significant discharge effects. (Final EIR, p. 68.) 4. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts resulting from grading and construction of development projects in the area, including cut and fill operations, will potentially alter the natural topography of hundreds of acres in the region. (Final EIR, p. 221.) Much of the project area consists of coalescing downward plane. (ibid.) This may, in some cases, require extensive cut and fill operations, which will impact landforms. (ibid.) However, it is expected that development will use the lower, more level areas while preserving the steeper slopes. (Ibid.) The presence of regional faults creates the potential for damage caused by major earthquakes. (ibid.) Proper building designs should reduce damages to a minimum. (Ibid.) Although most of the soils in the immediate area are composed of alluvial material, soil limitations and potential impacts can be mitigated by careful grading and foundation design. (ibid.) For this reason, anticipated development is not expected to have a cumulatively considerable impact on earth.resources. (Ibid.) Similarly, regional geotechnical constraints will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on the proposed project or cumulative projects, as long as proper design and engineering are implemented based on available seismic and other geotechnical data. (ibid.) The proposed project represents an incremental portion of this potential impact. (Ibid.) Implementation of standard conditions, existing codes, proposed Project design features, and mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant erosion impacts, includin~ cumulative impacts, to less that significant levels. If all other adjacent projects also comply with the same standard conditions, existing codes, and permits such as the NPDES permits, impacts from those adjacent projects will ensure no cumulative significant impacts in the Project's region. Further, since there is no evidence that the surface grading associated with the Project's development will alter the Project site's underlying geological makeup (Final EIR, p. 63.), development of the Project will not have a cumulatively significant effect. B. Water Resources 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Surface Water Development of the Project will alter the composition of surface runoff presently entering local drainages. (Final EIR, p. 77.) Runoff is presently limited to natural sediments from the surrounding foothills. (Ibid.) Conversion of the site to urban uses will increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fecdlizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.). (Ibid.) These materials will reach the local drainage system, not so much by direct dumping, but by small amounts of material washing off the streets during storms or street-sweeping activities. (Ibid.) The amount of runoff will also significantly increase after onsite grading and construction of impervious streets, roof and parking facilities, and the irrigation of landscaped areas. Without mitigation, this impact is considered potentially significant. (Ibid.) Water-Related Hazards The Project site is not associated with any potential catastrophic events, such as mudflows, flooding, or tsunami. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will not impa~t any ocean waters. The Project-is not located within the 100-year floodplain, or within the flood hazard area of a levee or dam. (Ibid.) However, the National Flood Insurance Program, operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps to identify potential flooding problems, referred to as 100-year and 500-year floods. (Final EIR, p. 71.) FEMA has identified the Project site in a flood zone designated as a "Flood Zone D." (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will also increase the amount of onsite runoff by covering over pervious native soils with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and buildings, however, not to such a degree as to create a hazard. (Final EIR, p. 77.) In addition, the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District have identified a network of drainage improvements and a funding mechanism that will be required to prevent flooding in the Project area. (Ibid.) Groundwater Due to the limited size of the Project, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project will significantly affect the direction of surface or groundwater flow. (Ibid.) However, development of the Project site may incrementally increase the amount of urban pollutants in onsite runoff, some of which may eventually reach local groundwater. (Ibid.) This includes chemicals such as household cleaners, automotive fuels, etc. that may be spilled by new residents on the site. (Ibid.) Until recently, only industrial activities that made intensive use of chemicals or hazardous materials were considered significant sources of groundwater pollution, and this residential development is very unlikely to contribute a significant amount of urban pollution. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to water resources to a less than significant level: standard Conditions of Approval and Codes a. The following City standards apply to the Project relative to water resources: · Prohibit activities within identified floodways that would interfere with the channel capacity or would substantially increase erosion, silta/ion or otherwise disturb the watercourse; · Review individual project design to insure the stability of slopes adjacent to flood control facilities, which could be blocked due to slope failures; · Require that measures be taken to control runoff from construction sites; · Require revegetation and/or development on newly graded sites to control erosion; · Control grading operations during the rainy season; and · A soil erosion control plan may be required in conjunction with grading plans. (Final EIR, pp. 77-78.) As a condition of approval, the City will require the Project to comply, or be consistent with, these requirements as applicable. (Ibid.) b. Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and shall incorporate the minimum standards for the FEMA, which insures that 100-year flood protection is provided to all habitable dwellings located within the floodplain. (Ibid.) c. All streets will be designed so that storm water does not exceed the top of the curb for a 10-year storm event and the right-of-way line for a 100-year storm on any street. Storm drains will collect excess water. (Ibid.) 16 Mitigation Measures The following additional measures will assure that potentially significant impacts related to water resources are mitigated to below a level of significance: FloodingfFiood Control 4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations), if necessary, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Board. Copies of the same shall be provided to City Building and Safety. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 79.) 4-2 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the planned revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site shall be installed, subject to approval by the San Be~nardino County Flood Control District and receipt of that approval to the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 4-3 Prior to the recordation of each phase or approval of a grading permit, the Project proponent will implement the on- and off-site drainage system improvements as outlined in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D). This includes detention facilities proposed . at 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) and Etiwanda Creek or onsite, participation in the County's Etiwanda Creek fee program, and participation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Etiwanda/San~ Sevaine Area Drainage Policy program, including appropriate fair share fees. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Ibid.) Water Quality 4-4 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 ("Birds") that will be used on- site 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 June 2000. (Ibid.) 4-5 Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant 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. (Final EIR, p. 80.) The following measures will also be required to prevent impacts relative to regional flood control facilities: 4-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the San Bemardino County Flood Control District requirements, as applicable. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 4-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer will pay the required drainage fee related to the San Bemardino County Flood Control District Etiwanda Creek watershed. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation. A detailed hydrology study was completed for the Project site, which included East Etiwanda Creek in May of 2000, and which is attached to the Final EIR as Appendix C. (Final EIR, p. 73.) According to the most recent FEMA Flood Rate Map (panel 060270 7900D August 1985), the entire Project site lies in Zone D. (Final EIR, p. 71.) This zone is one identified by FEMA as an area of minimal but undetermined flooding. (Ibid.) Even though a portion of the Project site is currently owned by the San Bemardino County Flood Control District ("Flood Control District") for flood control purposes, the Project site is not located in a Flood Plain Safety Overlay District or Dam Inundation Overlay Area as identified in the City's General Plan. (Ibid.) That is why the Project site was determined to be surplus by the Flood Control District. Moreover, the Project's hydrology study, based on considerable flood plain analysis by the Flood Control District, indicates that a 100-year storm flow wilt already be contained with the middle portion of the Etiwanda Creek channel and does not reach the west bank adjacent to the Project. (Final EIR, p. 73.) Nevertheless, to eliminate any potential flood impact to the Project site and adjacent properties, the Project Applicant will be required to comply with the mitigation measures above, including the City's Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy. (Final EIR, p. 77-80.) Spe_cifically, this mitigation will require a storm drain to be constructed within the entry road pursuant to mitigation measure 4-3. Also, pursuant to mitigation measure 4-3, detention facilities are proposed be constructed along 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) and Etiwanda Creek at a location and in a manner that will be subject to review and approval by the Flood Control District. The Project developer will be required to build the detention facilities, offsite drainage improvements, and participate in the County's Etiwanda Creek fee program. (Ibid.) If the offsite detention and these identified improvements are not completed prior to construction, the Project's will have to provide onsite detention facilities, to the satisfaction of the City and the County Flood Control District, until the offsite detention facilities and the identified improvements are completed. (Ibid.) At the same time, the Project does not propose any improvement to Etiwanda Creek, and Project construction will not impact the banks or channels of the Etiwanda Creek, except for the addition of a connection from the proposed storm drain along the northern boundary of the site to the East Etiwanda Creek channel which will require "punching through" the west bank of the channel and a small reinfomed outlet structure. (See Final EIR Supp., p 2.) These mitigation measures, which themselves will have only minimal impacts that were analyzed in the EIR, will ensure that no significant flood impacts to the Project and adjacent properties will occur as a result of Project development. Regarding water quality impacts, the requirement that the Project developer will have to apply for a and receive a NPDES permit, and implement all applicable BMPs. (Final EIR, pp. 79~80.) The required terms of this permit, under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, will ensure that no significant impacts will result from Project development. These standardized permits and requirements have been designed by regulating agencies to ensure that the required standards established under the federal Clean Water Act and California's Porter-Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 will be met. Also, if necessary, mitigation measure 4~1 mquims the Project's developer to obtain any appropriate permits under the Clean Water Act for dredge and fill activities on the .48 acres of land on the Project site identified to be under the jurisdiction of the USACOE, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Cumulative Impacts. As development occurs, local water resoumes, surface and underground, will be incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, runoff is increased, and more urban pollutants are introduced into local runoff. (Final EIR, pp. 221-222.) However, these impacts are not expected to be significant as long as the City and County continue to require developers to decrease on-site runoff an_d to properly plan flood control improvements for new developments. (Ibid.) Cumulative developments in the area are expected to add 4,111 residential units, resulting in a "worst case" population of 13,319 persons to the area. (Ibid.) Based on an average water consumption rate of 200 gallons per person per day, cumulative growth is expected to consume 2.66 million gallons or 8.1 acre-feet of water per day. (Ibid.) Over the long-term, the City and County may wish to encourage use of imported water to prevent overdrafting of local sources, although it would make the area more dependent on non- local water, which in turn could require more water facilities to be built and result in additional environmental impacts. (Ibid.) Importation would allow local water 'to be mom available for emergencies if regional supplies were temporarily lost (i.e., aqueduct damage, earthquake, etc.). (Ibid.) New development should have "first flush" basins at the inlet point of areas that produce urban pollutants (e.g., parking lots). (ibid.) As growth continues, them may be cumulatively considerable impacts to water resources, mainly flood control and water quality. (Ibid.) It is also possible, though not fully documented, that cumulative water demand will exceed the sustainable yield of the local groundwater basin or surface water supplies. However, the proposed project mpmsents only a small portion of these potential cumulative impacts. (Ibid.) With the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, any potentially significant cumulative impacts to water resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. (Final EIR, p. 80.) The mitigation required for this Project will effectively reduce any potential flood risk for the Project, and adjacent properties, far beyond the risk that could be caused by the Project's development. That is, the cumulative impact of the Project's will, overall, be a net benefit to the 19 . tq City's and County's flood control efforts. Further, the requirement that the Project's developers comply with all applicable federal, state, and City and County requirements regarding water quality are substantially the same as requirements on nearby developments. If similar requirements are made for later developers, the cumulative impacts will continue to be less than significant. C. Transportation and Circulation 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Trip Generation The proposed Project would increase motor vehicle trips associated with the urban development on the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 87.) Table 3.5-1 of the Final EIR, Project Trip Generation, summarizes Project related traffic volumes for average dally and peak hour traffic volumes. Peak hour trips are those that occur during the highest one-hour period in the morning and highest one-hour period in the aftenloon (typically 7:00 - 8:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively). (Ibid.) The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build out. (Ibid.) Of this total, approximately 220 vehicles per hour are expected during the peak morning hours, while approximately 373 vehicles are expected during the peak evening hours. (Ibid.) The traffic reducing potential of public transit was not considered in the RKJK traffic study. (Ibid.) Traffic Projections presented in the report are therefore conservative in that public transit could be effective in reducing traffic volumes. (ibid.) Adjoining land uses and other development in the area will also generate vehicular trips, which must be evaluated in relation to Project impacts. (ibid.) Table 3.5-2 of the Final EIR, Cumulative Development Trip Generation, lists the proposed other development land uses, which depicts thc dally and peak hour vehicle trips generated in the vicinity of the study area. (Ibid.) Trip Distribution Trip characteristics of the Project were estimated based upon several factors, including the geographical orientation of the Project site, the location of various anticipated employment, commercial, and recreational destinations, and the site's proximity to the regional freeway system. (Final EIR, p. 89.) Also assumed in the trip characteristics are certain proposed arterial streets and collectors, as well as the local street systems that would be in place at the time of Project development. (Ibid.) Based on local and regional land uses, the traffic consultant distributed Project traffic onto the local roadway network, as shown in Figure 3.5-4 of the Fina1 EIR, Project Trip Distribution. (Ibid.) For the Project traffic study, it was assumed that, at build out, 68 percent of the Project traffic will enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32 percent will use East Avenue. (Ibid.) It is also assumed 22 percent of the Project traffic will eventually travel west on Route 210. (Ibid.) These increases in vehicle traffic, including the 20 .2,t5 distribution of the vehicle traffic on some roads more intensely than others, is a potentially significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 102.) Intersection Analysis The current technical guide used to evaluate traffic operations is the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM"), Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. (Final El]R, p. 89.) The HCM defines the level of service as a qualitative measure for describing operation conditions within a cimulation system. (ibid.) This method describes operational conditions, such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and most importantly, safety. (Ibid.) The criteria used for Level of Service ("LOS") was based on the type of roadway and whether traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. (Ibid.) The criteria for LOS determination is summarized in Table 3.5-3 of the Final EIR, Level of Service Definitions, and Table 3-5 of the Final EIR, Level of Service Criteria. (Ibid.) Finally, the 1997 HCM methodology is currently required by the County for unsignalized intersection analysis. (Ibid.) Methodologies for the traffic analysis are discussed in detail in the RKJK analysis. (Ibid.)_ For the purpose of this EIR, Endo Engineering analyzed the site and traffic report, provided by RKJK. (Ibid.) Endo used the 1997 HCM methodology in their analysis. (Ibid.) The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (i.e., flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differs slightly depending on the type of traffic control. (Ibid.) The HCM methodology defines LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (Ibid.) Delay time can vary depending on the type of intersection control (i.e. traffic signals, two-way stop signs, or four way stop signs). (Ibid.) For signalized intersections, average stopped delay per vehicle is used to determine LOS. (Ibid.) Signalized intersections are evaluated against the HCM intersection analysis program. (Ibid.) Study area intersections, which are stop sign controlled or with stop control on the minor streets, have only been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. (Ibid.) For intersections that are controlled by ail way stop signs, the HCM methodology for multi-way stop controlled intersections was used. (ibid.) The level of services are defined for the various analysis methodologies in Table 3.54 of the Final EIR, Level of Service (LOS) Criteria. (Ibid.) Four intersections in the vicinity of the Project have been evaluated to determine their existing levels of service. (ibid.) The four intersections and their morning and evening peak hour Level of Service (LOS) are listed in Table 3.5-5 of the Final EIR, Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions. (Ibid.) A discussion of Level of Service follows the table. (Ibid.) Estimates of existing traffic conditions are delineated in Figure 3.5-5 of the Final EIR, Existing Average Daily Traffic. (ibid.) Development of the Project could have a potentially significant impact upon the level of service at Etlwanda and Highland Ave, in particular, because the Endo Engineering Study prepared by RKJK indicates that the LOS at this intersection could be reduced to LOS D during the A.M. peak hour at full Project build out in 2015. (Final EIR, p. 102.) 2. Findings The Project would add an increment of traffic resulting in a potential for cumulatively significant impacts if certain improvements are not undertaken. The following mitigation measures will reduce Project traffic impacts to below a level of significance: 5-1 Prior to the issuance of.the first occupancy permit for the Project, the following intersections are projected to be warranted for traffic signals by opening year: · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 West Bound Ramp (EW) · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 East Bound Ramp (EW) · Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) · Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) · East Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, as identified in the Project traffic report, to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bemardino and/or City of Rancho Cucamonga, as appropriate. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 104.) 5-2 Prior to the issuance of building pem!i.'ts for each phase, the Project shall incorporate bus turn-outs and/or shelters if required by Omni-Trans and/or the Transportation Commission. The project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from these agencies to assure compliance with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans. Confirmation of contact and compliance with their requirements shall be provided to the City Engineer. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) Note: Mitigation Measure 6-12 in Air Quality (Section 3.6) also addresses public transit to help mitigate air quality impacts. (Ibid.) 5-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay a fair share basis for off-site improvements as identified in the Project traffic report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including but not limited to the following: (Final EIR, p. 105.) · 24th Avenue (Wilson Avenue) from Etiwanda Avenue to Day Creek; · Day Creek Boulevard from 24th (Wilson) to Highland Avenue; 22 · 24th (Wilson) between Etiwanda Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and · East Avenue from south of the Project limit to 23rd Street. 5-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections, as outlined in the Project traffic report. The Project share of the cost has been calculated based on the proportion of the Project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour Year 2015 traffic volume. The Project's fair share of identified intersection and roadway link cost is $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Engineer, including any changes in the Project's fair share contribution due to changes in the Consumer Price Index or similar public works measures. (Ibid.) 5-5 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first residential unit, the developer shall construct East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue to City standards, as outlined in the Project traffic report. These improvements will be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) Note: Measure 6-5 in Section 3.6, Air Quality, restricts receipt of construction materials to non- peak hours, which will help reduce potential traffic impacts during those tim_es. (Ibid.) 5-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate all construction- related activities to minimize congestion and delay on local roadways, to the satisfaction of City Engineer. (ibid.) 5-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or land disturbing activity, the developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan ("DCP") to the City Building and Safety Department consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. The DCP shall include activities to reduce on-site and on-site dust production. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. Such activities shall include, but are not limited.to, the following: (Final EIR, pp. 105-106.) a) Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil shall be kept moist through a minimum of twice dally watering m reduce fugitive dust. b) Street sweeping shall be conducted, when visible soil accumulations occur along site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday. c) Ail tracks hauling dirt away from the site shall be covered to prevent the generation of fugitive dust. d) During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, and activities on unpaved surfaces shall be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. 3. Supporting Explanation. The Project's Traffic Study indicates that traffic and circulation improvements associated with the Project will result in ail intersections operating at a LOS of C or better, except the intersection at Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue during peak morning hours. (Final EIR, p. 94.) During this time, the Project's Traffic Study indicates that traffic at this intersection will have a LOS of D at Project build out in 2015, unless any additional improvement occurs before 2015. (See Table 3.5-7 Project Traffic Impacts-Build out (2015) Final EIR, p. 99.) As it tums out, the required improvements to this intersection were made as part of the extension of the Route 210 to the City. (Finai Supp., p. 3.) Thus, this intersection will operate at a level that well exceeds the L.OS D identified in the Project's traffic study. Since the City has set a standard of LOS of D for all new projects to maintain City streets, this Project, even without the recent improvements, would have nevertheless met the City's LOS standards_at full Project build out. (Ibid.) Oq, erail, the required LOS standard will be met by a number of different circulation improvements, as identified herein, with signalization providing the greatest improvement at designated intersections. (Finai EIR, pp. 104-106.) In addition, the Project is consistent with transportation-related City General Plan goals. (Final EIR, pp. 101-102.) The Project is also consistent with the West Valley Foothills Sub- Regional Plan guidelines because-it provides a road system of an appropriate scale for the foothills area; it achieves the City's LOS standards; it discourages through traffic within the residentiaI area; and provides pedestrian and bicycle trails on-site that will connect to adjacent trails planned by the City. (Ibid.) With implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the above mitigation measures, the Project will not produce significant long-term impacts to traffic or circulation. (Finai EIR, p. 106.) 4. Cumulative Impacts.' The traffic analysis for-the proposed project includes an anaiysis of cumulative impacts. As growth occurs, there will be cumulatively considerable traffic impacts in the Etiwanda community. (Final EIR, p. 222.) Cumulative growth could generate approximately 2,956 average daily trips based on 220 vehicles per hour during AM peak hours and 373 during the PM hours. (Ibid.) Increased traffic volumes and related congestion at major' intersections and along major roadways, most notably Etiwanda and East Avenues at 24th Street, especially during peak hours. (Ibid.) As long as recommended and needed improvements to the infrastructure are completed in a timely manner, regional impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project does not represent a significant contribution to this impact as discussed in Section 3.5, Transportation and Circulation. (Ibid.) D. Hazards · 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Hazardous Materials: The proposed Project will expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazmat spills on nearby state highways. (Final EIR, p. 155.) However, this risk is not elevated for the Project site and would be typical for any suburban development proposed in Southern California. (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will involve the use of, and may require the temporary storage of, vehicle fuels on the site. (Ibid.) After construction is complete, occupancy or operation of the Project will involve the rn~nor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses (e.g. cleaning and automotive compounds) including landscape maintenance (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers). (Ibid.) Due to the type of land uses proposed (e.g., residential and open space), large amounts of hazardous materials will not be stored on- site, although small amounts of necessary maintenance chemicals will be stored in individual structures and for park maintenance. (Ibid.) Nearby schools will also not be affected by any hazardous materials related to this Project. (Ibid.) Wildland Fires: . The proposed Project will expose more people and structures to potential wild fire hazards. (Ibid.) Converse/y, development of the Project will permanently remove some fire prone vegetation from the Project site. (Ibid.) Wildlife/Human Interaction: The proposed Project would expose additional residents to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. (Ibid.) This risk is similar .for residents throughout the foothill communities and is not particularly elevated for this site. (Ibid.) This hazard may be slightly higher for new Project residents compared to existing ~:esidents, because areas with larger lots and lower housing density have more open space and may attract more animals. (Ibid.) Conversely, areas with more homes closer together may attract wildlife if, for example, trashcans are left uncovered or other attractions are readily available. (Ibid.) This particular hazard is difficult to quantify for different areas, but it is reasonable to conclude that residents of the foothill communities will generally face some incremental increased risk from interactions with wildlife. 2. Findings The following measures are proposed to help assure that potentially significant impacts regarding hazmat release during construction, wildlife/human interaction, and wild fires are mitigated to below a level of significance. Hazardous Materials: 9-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or land disturbing activity for each phase, the developer shall submit a plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ("RCH?D") for each phase for the proper clean up of any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released during construction. The plan will require the developer to properly clean-up and remove any contaminated soil or other material; restore the affected area to background conditions or to regulatory threshold levels for the contaminant(s) accidentally released or discovered; and deliver the contaminated material to an appropriate treatment, recycling, or landfill facility in accordance with the regulations for the type of contaminant ac~cidentally released and collected for management. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the RCi~D. (Final EIR, p. 157.) Wildland Fires: 9-2 . Each individual lot owner will be required to maintain their side and back yards with 30 feet of ir~gated "firewise" Zone 1 landscaping or equivalent. No buildings are to be built within this setback area. Swimming pools and non-combustible deck coverings are permissible. Any remaining portion of the backyard lot wiil be maintained to either Zone 1 or Zone 2 criteria depending on the lot depth. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Ibid.) 9-3 Landscape and maintenance for the manufactured slopes common areas will be to Zone 2 criteria. These areas may be irrigated, ornamental firewise landscaping, or planted with · native fire resistant plants and trees. Access points .every $00 feet shall be available to perform annual maintenance. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Ibid.) 9--4 A special fuel modification zone easement shall be located outside and adjacent to the northern Project boundary within the electric utility corridor and on flood control district land where all native and exotic vegetation will be treated to Zone 2 criteria on a strip of land 50 feet in width. Also, a Fuel Modification Zone Easement of 75 feet in width will be created and maintained by the maintenance authority adjacent to the east side of Lot 46, Phase 4. Alternatively, the tentative tract map may be modified to allow an appropriate onsite Fuel Modification Zone along the northern boundary if the electric corridor cannot be used. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Final EIR, p. 158.) 9-5 All residential structures within the Tract 14749 development will be built with a Class A Roof Assembly, including a Class A roof covering and attic or foundation ventilation louvers or ventilation openings in vertical walls shall not exceed 144 square inches per opening. These opening shall be covered with IA inch mesh corrosion-resistant metal screening or other approved material that offers equivalent protection. Attic ventilation shall also comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.). Ventilation louvers and openings may be incorporated as pan of access assemblies. This 26 ~2/ measure shall be 'implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Ibid.) 9-6 A six-foot high solid non-combustible wall shall be constructed along the entire length of the north, east and west property lines to minimize fire danger. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) Wildlife/Human Interaction: 9-7 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide signs along the community trails, including the west bank of East Etiwanda Creek, that warn residents of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions. The wording, design, number, and placement of the signs shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (ibid.) 9-8 The applicant shall provide wildlife resistant trash receptacles at the parks and other public facilities to prevent foraging by local wildlife. The design and placement of the receptacles shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation. The risk of exposure to hazardous materials for the Project is typical for any suburban development in Southern California and will not create any unusual potential health hazard. (Final EIR, p. 156.) In addition, mitigation measure 9-1 ensures that any hazardous materials discovered on the Project site, or any spills or releases of hazardous material related to Project construction will be mitigated pursuant to the requirements of federal and state laws and to the satisfaction of the RCFPD. (Final EIR, p. 157.) After construction is completed, the Project site will be surrounded by either landscaped area or the Etiwanda Creek, significantly reducing the future danger of wild fires. (Final EIR, pp. 157-158.) In addition, the Project will meet RCI~D requirements for brush clearing, and add water service to the site, significant improving fire-fighting capabilities. (Final EIR, p. 155.) These Project design features will reduce impacts related to fire safety to less than significant levels. (Final EIR, p. 158.) Impacts related to wildlife/human interactions will be mitigated by providing warning signs in high-risk areas of such potential risks, and by placing wildlife resistant trash receptacles in public areas pursuant to mitigation measures 9-7 and 9-8. (Final EIR, p. 158.) Further, since growth is gradually occurring in the Project area, including immediately south of the Project site, the result will be that somewhat fewer wild animals will live in the Project area. Therefore, with implementation of the standard conditions, Project design features, and above mitigation measures, all project-level and cumulative impacts related to hazards will be reduced to below a level of significance. (Ibid.) 4. Cumulative Impacts. Continued growth will increase the potential for dangerous interactions with native wildlife (e.g., rattlesnakes, mountain lion, bear, coyote, etc.) as long as these species remain in the foothills proximate to human activity. (Final EIR, p. 223-224.) While this will be an incremental impact, the experiences of other developing foothill communities (i.e., Arcadia, Monrovia, etc.) indicate that these impacts may be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) As development occurs, the area will experience an incremental increase in the use of hazardous materials, mainly from domestic sources (i.e., household cleane~, gardening chemicals, automotive fluids, etc.). (Ibid.) It is expected that these materials will be handled, transported, and disposed of properly, according to existing regulations. (Ibid.) However, growth may also increase the amount of illegal dumping of these materials in the area, which is especially destructive in the foothill area. (Ibid.) Because natural streams and chaparral vegetation are more prevalent in the foothills than in urban areas, they are more susceptible to damage from these illegally dumped materials. (Ibid.) Therefore, planned development could have cumulatively significant impacts, although the proposed project, being entirely residential, Will probably not mal~e a significant contribution to this potential cumulative impact. (Ibid.) The area is served by two highways (SR-210 and Interstate 15) that can provide routes for evacuation out of the area in all directions but immediately north. (Ibid.) However, the local roads leading to these major highways are currently limited, although it is planned that they will be improved as they are needed (i.e., as development occurs). (Ibid.) Access for Project residents to evacuate the area in the event of a localized emergency (i.e., small tire) is available in several directions. (Ibid.) To the south, Etiwanda and East Avenues provide access south to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Ibid.) Residents can also travel west on Wilson Avenue, which is presently incomplete. (Ibid.) When completed, 24th Street can also provide east and west access. (Ibid.) If the area were to experience a major disaster (e.g., major flood, fire, or earthquake), evacuation of several thousand residents via the current road system would probably take several hours, which is marginal even assuming there is adequate warning. (Ibid.) Fuel modification requirements for the project reduce its potential to be impacted by a major tire. (Ibid.) Based on available information, evacuation routes for the foothill area appear to be presently adequate but must be expanded as planned growth occurs, otherwise, this impact could become cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) CEQA does not allow mitigation of project impacts to be deferred in lieu of conducting additional studies. (Ibid.) However, this represents only a potential cumulative impact that may or may not occur as a result of existing area-wide conditions. (Ibid.) If these conditions do indeed represent threats to the foothill community, the proposed Project will contribute only ah incremental portion of the increased impact due to the number of units proposed. With the implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potentially significant cumulative impacts to land use and planning will be reduced to a less than significant level. Indeed, the improvements made as part of the Project will marginally reduce the likelihood of additional wild fires in the area, and the possibility of dangerous wildlife/human interactions. E. Noise 1. Potential significant Impacts. Short-Term Impacts: Construction of thc proposed Project will produce ground borne noise or vibrations during grading operations. (Final EIR, p. 163-164.) Although surrounding properties are currently vacant, more distant receptors could be impacted. (Ibid.) Such ground vibrations will, however, cease after construction is completed. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will also cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. (Ibid.) Temporary noise impacts will occur adjacent to site access routes and onsite in areas under construction. (Ibid.) Since the surrounding properties are vacant, the potential for significant noise impacts on local residents is, however, low. (Ibid.) Earth-moving equipment will be thc loudest equipment with noise ranging up to about 90-dB. (Ibid.) Long-Term Impacts: Thc~ proposed Project will increase long-term noise levels, mainly from thc additional motor vehicle noise, and from general human activity. (Final EIR, p. 166.) As the site is developed, Project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in area-wide noise levels throughout the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will produce incremental long-term noise impacts, in addition to cumulative noise impacts that will result from increased urbanization of the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) Detailed noise calculations for thc Project were prepared by Endo Engineering in July 2000 using the accepted Federal Highway Administration methodology. (Ibid.) Table 3.10-3 of the Final EIR, Project-Related Increase in Motor Vehicle Noise, summarizes the 24-hour CNEL level at I00 feet from the roadway edge along seven area roads for existing, opening year, and build out (after year 2015) both without and with the Project. (ibid.) The future traffic noise environment in the Project vicinity is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. (ibid.) Table 3.10-4 of the Final EIR, 2015+ Project Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways, compares thc noise level changes attributable to area build out without thc Project versus the increment attributable to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Maximum noise level increases from no-Project to build out are 59.5 dB, while the maximum Project traffic-related noise impact is 3.0 dB CNEL. (ibid.) As a general planning guide, noise level differences of less than 1.0 dB arc not perceptible, and 3.0 dB is the commonly accepted threshold for people to perceive that noise levels have measurably changed. (Ibid.) The individual differences in noise levels between existing and future arc shown in Table 3.10-4 of the Final EIR, 20J5+ Project Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways.. (Ibid.) Although the individual Project noise impact is below the generally accepted significance threshold, cumulative noise impacts are well in excess of these thresholds. (Ibid.) 29 As traffic disperses within the Project site, noise levels will decrease. (Final EIR, p. 167.) As volumes decrease and speeds drop within residential communities, the need for perimeter noise protection will also decrease. (Ibid.) For a travel speed of 40 mph, the 65 dB CNEL contour distances decrease to less than 50 feet from the centerline when daily traffic volumes drop to less than 7,000 ADT. (Ibid.) Streets with less than this threshold volume likely will not require noise protection, or alternately, will offer the opportunity to have the homes front the street instead of having a rear yard exposure to the roadway. (Ibid.) The threshold level for evaluation of noise protection requirements is 60 dB CNEL. (Ibid.) This level occurs at 50 feet from the roadway centerline when daily traffic volumes exceed 2,000 ADT. (ibid.) Any future roadway that has abutting noise-sensitive (homes, schools, parks, chumhes) uses and is forecast to carry over 2,000 vehicles will require a noise abatement study at the tract map level for future Project construction. (ibid.) The triggering level for actual noise mitigation likely will not be reached until a 7,000 ADT daily traffic level. (Ibid.) Opening Year (2005) Noise levels on.streets within the study area were quantified based upon year 2003+ Project traffic volumes. (Ibid.) Table 3.10-3 of the Final EIR, Project-Relatedlncrease in 2003 Motor Vehicle Noise, provides the Projected noise exposure adjacent to roadways carrying appreciable volumes of Project-related traffic. (Ibid.) As shown in the figure, noise levels at fifty feet from the centerline of area roadways will range from a low of 58. i CNEL along Wilson Avenue (east of Etiwanda Avenue) to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue (east of Etiwanda Avenue). (ibid.) Build out (2015) To determine long-term noise impacts, engineers compared the Projected 2015 CNEL (no Project) with the Projected 2015 CNEL plus the Project traffic. (ibid.) The noise impact calculations are summarized in Table 13.4 of the Final EIR, 2015+ Project Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways. (Ibid.) Increases in noise levels are expected by the year 2015 from Project traffic along Highland Avenue and east of Etiwanda Avenue (78.5 CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline). (Ibid.) However, traffic volumes on Etiwanda Avenue (north of Wilson Avenue) and Wilson Avenue (west of Etiwanda Avenue) will generate the lowest motor vehicle noise levels (64.7 CNEL). (ibid.) Therefore, Project noise impacts at build out are not expected to be significant. (ibid.) The proposed Project may result in temporary exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the City General Plan Noise Element during construction. (ibid.) Vacant lots surround the site, therefore there are no sensitive receptors to noise at or near the site. (ibid.) The only noise generated would be that of construction related activities. (Ibid.) The Project must meet the City Noise Ordinance standards as a condition of building permit approval. (Ibid.) The Project must also comply with the City Development Code which sets noise standards for potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise sources. (Ibid.) The Project is not located in close proximity to major noise sources such as rail 30 lines, freeways, or airports. (Ibid.) The potential for significant impacts related to excessive noise will be discussed below. (Ibid.) Summary Upon completion, the proposed Project will not generate an audible noise increase (greater than 3.0 dBA) along any of the roadway links, except Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue. (Final EIR, p. 168.) Even with Project-related traffic, the 60 CNEL contour will remain within the right-of-way of Wilson Avenue. (Ibid.) With year 2015 traffic volumes, the proposed Project will not generate an audible noise increase (greater than 3.0 dBA) along any of the roadway links. (Ibid.) The Project noise impact study concludes that off-site noise impacts will be individually less than significant, but cumulatively significant. (Ibid.) Off-site impact mitigation is not feasible because the cumulative impact is incrementally due to hundreds of planned developments. '(Ibid.) Over the long-term, noise-sensitive land uses typically incorporate their own noise protection (e.g., schools install block walls, double-glazed windows, or air conditioned classrooms so windows can be kept closed). (Ibid.) In addition, less sensitive land uses are often allowed to be located and used as a buffer between roadways and sensitive receivers. (Ibid.) Other Noise Sources: The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or a private airstrip. (ibid.)- Furthermore, the Project site is not in close proximity to major noise_ sources such as rail lines, freeways, or industries. (ibid.) 2. Findings The following measures are proposed to help assure that potentially significant impacts regarding noise during construction and at Project build out are mitigated to below a level of significance. Short-Term ~Construction) N6ise 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 n~tional holiday. (Final EIR, p. 173.) 10-1 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 31 , 26 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 construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. (Ibid.) 10-2 During construction, haul track 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. (Ibid.) 10-3 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase, the developer shall confirm to Building and Safety in writing that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall use properly operating mufflers. No combustion equipment, such as pumps or generators, shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 6:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. Stationary equipment shall be placed in such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors. Additionally, stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors as well. The developer shall include this provision and adherence to all conditions of approval as a requirement of all construction contracts for this site. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction · of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) 104 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, all construction staging shall be performed at least 500 feet from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas, as indicated on the grading plan, will be subject to rex/iew and approval by the City Planning · Department. (ibid.) Long-Term (Occupancy) Noise 10-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each' phase, the developer will document that exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. (Final EIR, p. 174.) 10-6 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase, the developer shall document that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.) 10-7 - Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer shall incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. Residential Jots with rear yards or side yards adjacent to collector streets (i.e. Lower Crest) shall be constructed with a 6-foot block wall along the perimeter or demonstrate with an additional noise study that ultimate traffic volumes onsite will not exceed the 32 noise performance standards in the City Development Code to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.) NOTE: In addition, the traffic mitigation measures 5-1, 5-3, and 5-4 will help reduce noise- related impacts from Project traffic by contributing to various roadway and intersection improvements. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation Short-Term (Construction) Noise Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures 10-1 through 10-4 will reduce any short-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Final EIR, p. 174.) Mitigation measure 10-1 ensures that the City's noise ordinance will not be violated by construction activity. (Final EIR, p. 173.) Measure 10-2 limits the exposure that City residents will have to noise from construction vehicles to work days, during which time many residents will not be at home, and would not typically be sleeping. (Ibid.) Further, to the extent that trips are required in excess of 100 per day, this measure requires the City to prepare a noise mitigation plan to further reduce potential impacts. (ibid.) Measures 10-3 and 10-4 protect sensitive receptors at or near the Project site, by requiring mufflers and or barriers, plus a minimum distance for construction activities to take place away from occupied dwelling. (ibid.) Together, these measures will mitigated noise from construction activities to a ]ess than significant level. Long-Term (Occupancy) Noise While the Project's noise study indicates that noise levels on Wilson 'Avenue itself will exceed thresholds for significance in the long term, noise levels are only expected to exceed City thresholds within the Wilson Avenue's right-of-way itself, where no sensitive users could possibly locate. (Final EIR, p. 168.) That is, any potentially significant impact is limited to the roadway and adjacent fight-away itself, and not the Project area or any other adjacent areas. Mitigation measure 10-5 and 10-6, however, also require the Project developer, before the issuance of building permits for each phase, to demonstrate that noise thresholds for both interior and exterior meet the City's standards of no greater than 45 db CNI~J. for interior noise and 65 db CNEL for exterior noise. (Finale EIR, p. 174.) Mitigation measure 10-7 ensures that residences located on collector streets, i.e., Lower Crest, will include an additional sound attenuation feature such as a 6-foot block wall to ensure that noise impacts from those collector streets, as they begin to receive more traffic, will not exceed City standards. (Ibid.) These measures ensure that if there are any subsequent changes to the noise environment in the Project area because of any unforeseen circumstances, the Project will continue to meet the City's noise standards even at full build out. (Ibid.) Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that noise levels do not exceed City's requirements, and remain less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, with the implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and the above mitigation measures, the Project will not cause any short-term or long-term significant noise impacts. (Ibid.) 4. Cumulative Impacts Construction activities of the various development projects will cause temporary impacts on the ambient noise environment, which is relatively quiet at present. (Final EIR, p. 224.) It is expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project level. (Ibid.) The major cumulative noise impacts in the area would result from increased traffic volumes impacting existing surrounding dwelling units and increasing noise levels beyond local standards (i.e., 60 CNEL). (Ibid.) Future noise levels are projected to increase over existing noise levels by more than 3 dBA on the CNEL scale for many of the roadways in the Project area, however, in many cases the 3 dB increase is the result of very low traffic volumes on rural roads. (Ibid.) Existing residences should not be exposed to significant noise impacts, even with the general increase in area-wide noise levels. (Ibid.) Additionally, only those roadways that have a significant noise increase and are adjacent to existing residential developments are of concern. (Ibid.) Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed will be mitigated by the developer at the time of design. (Ibid.! Area roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have cumulatively considerable impacts on noise. (Ibid.) However, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project will make a significant contribution to cumulative noise impacts according to the Project noise report prepared by The Chambers Group. (Ibid.) As long as careful long-term planning, engineering and construction practices continue to be employed by the City, and projects comply with local and regional plans, anticipated cumulative noise impacts will be effectively mitigated to less than significant levels. F. Public Services 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Fire Protection The development of the proposed Project would create the need for additional fire protection services. (Final EIR, p. 178.) The Project would add to the number of incidents responded to by the fire department, and thus the Applicant should contribute financing to the department for additional fire related services. (ibid.) Further, as evidenced by thc recent Grand Prix fires, the area lies in a high fire hazard area. (Ibid.) Since the Project is in a Fire Overlay District, certain requirements on construction are necessary. (Ibid.) This includes water supply, access, and fuel modification plans and landscape design (RCFPD, 2000). (Ibid.) Police Protection The proposed Project will generate an incremental increased need for police protection in the Project area. (Ibid.) As the Project population increases, there will be a related increase in service calls typical of suburban areas (e.g., domestic problems, theft, vandalism, etc.). (Ibid.) However, the Sheriff's Department has indicated the Project is not expected to create any significant demand or impact on police services (RCSD 2000). (Ibid.) Access to the site and surrounding ama by police personnel will not be significantly impacted, as the Project will have "Knox" boxes that will allow emergency access. (Ibid.) Schools Historical enrollments in both the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) and the Etiwanda Elementary School District (EESD) schools have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. (Final EIR, p. 179.) The districts have also experienced periodic "spikes" in enrollments depending on various regional conditions (e.g., during the civil strife in Los Angeles). (ibid.) Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the Project could generate as many as 111 K-5 students, 56 6-8 grade students, and 40 high school students at build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household, as shown in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. (Ibid.) The actual number of students generated will depend on Project phasing (i.e., how many units are built and occupied each year). (ibid.) The developer presently proposes 5 phases over 3 years. (ibid.) At present, enrollments at all of the schools serving the Project site are at or over their capacities, as shown previously in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. (Ibid.) Payment of state-mandated developer impact fees represents full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools. (Ibid.) Library The proposed Project will create an incremental increase in the use of, and the need for, library facilities and. services. (ibid.) While many of its services have been augmented by internet use at home and work, there is a continuing need for libraries and their unique services in the future. (ibid.) The Project is expected to generate revenues for library services in excess of expected costs (Gobar 1999). (ibid.) Medical serVices The proposed Project will create an incremental increase in the use of, and the need for, medical facilities in the area in direct proportion to the occupancy of the Project. (Ibid.) Many general medical services are provided by County health care facilities, but other general and many specialized services are provided by private companies. (Ibid.) At present, private or corporate insurance, or government subsidized programs (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid) cover the vast majority of medical costs, so there will be no significant impacts to area medical facilities as a result of development of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Roads The Project will generate an incremental increase in maintenance needs for federal, state, and County government by increased traffic from Project residents. (Ibid.) The Project will provide additional funds to the City and County in the form of increased property and gasoline taxes to help fund road maintenance. (Ibid.) Construction and maintenance of internal roads will be the responsibility of the developer. (ibid.) According to the Gobar fiscal report, the Project is expected to generate road revenues in excess of road maintenance costs. (Ibid.) The Project will, therefore, produce no significant impacts related to roads. (Ibid.) Other Public Facilities At full build out, the proposed Project could generate as many as 861 additional residents that will require general governmental services from the County. (Final EIR, p. 180.) The Project will, likewise, provide additional funds to the County in the form of increased sales taxes, subventions, and other taxes to help fund these governmental services. (Ibid.) 2. Findings The following measures will reduce service-related impacts to below a level of significance: 11-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries to the affected public agencies as stipulated in the Development Agreement. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety l~epartment. (Final EIR, p. 183.) 11-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall comply with all design requirements of affected public agencies such as police, fire, health, etc. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Cits' Planning Department. (Ibid.) 11-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Department with regard to determination of adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire resistant structural materials in project buildings. (Ibid.) 11-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay all legally established impact fees to the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District in accordance with state law. Proof of such payment shall be submitted to City Building and Safety Department. (ibid.) 11-5 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer shall post a bond in an amount to be determined by the City Engineering Department to ensure installation and maintenance of all public and private roads and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation Project impacts related to services will be mitigated primarily by the payment of all legally established public service fees prior to the issuance of the building permits, pursuant to the terms of the Project's Development Agreement and mitigation measure 1 i-1. (Final E[R, p. 183.) The Project will also provide for new roads to the Project site and will contribute funding toward improvements and signalizations in surrounding area, which will help improve fire safety to the area. (Fina! EIR, p. 179.) In addition, the Project will follow requirements from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District related to water supply, access, and fuel modification plans and landscape design. (Final EIR, p. 178.) Currently, the response time from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to the Project area is five minutes ninety percent of'the time. (Final EIR, p. 175.) Fire Station 176 is currently a proposed station in the Project area, however, a temporary station has already been constructed and is operating at the CCWD facility on Etiwanda Avenue (Ibid.) This station's long-term funding and operations are conditioned upon construction of a certain number of residential dwellings. (Ibid.) As residents from this Project are added to the City, and other residents from any future projects in this area are also added, this new station should become permanent, improving already excellent response times. (Ibid.) As a condition of approval, the Project developer will be required to participate in the funding of Fire Station 176 as deemed appropriate by the City's Planning Director. Not only will the Project meet all required State, County and City standards for fire safe construction, mitigation measure 11-3 requires the Project developer will meet with the Fire Department prior to constructi® so as to ensure adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire resistant stmctural materials in Project buildings. (Final EIR, p. 183.)With payment of all required fees relating to payment for fire services, the Project impacts related to fire protection are less than significant. (Ibid.) Current enrollment at all of the schools serving the Project site are at or over their current capacities. (Final EIR, p. 179.) Typically this would be considered a significant impact, however, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state-mandated developer impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment conditions of the affected schools. (Final EIR, p. 179.) Mitigation-measures 11-1 and 114 require such fees. (Final Eli*,, p. 183.) Therefore, payment of school fees to schools serving the Project site will mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) With implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform codes, payment of impact fees for all other potential impacts to public services, and the above mitigation measures, the Project will not result in any significant impacts to public services, including fire safety and schools. (Final EIR, p. 183.) Further, the Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the City's General Plan relating to public services. (Final EIR, pp. 180- 181.) 4. Cumulative Impacts The County Sheriff's office has indicated that it has adequate facilities and staffing to accommodate the project and continued growth in the area. (Final EIR, p. 225) The Project will also be required to pay its share of impact fees. (Ibid.) As the area develops, the level of service 37 may decline, however, at this point in time, the project's impacts to police services are not cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) The local fire authority has indicated that it has adequate facilities and staffing to accommodate the project and continued growth in the area. (Ibid.) New development, including the proposed Project, will be required to pay its fair share of fire impact fees. (Ibid.) Continued growth will put additional pressure on fire protection services by adding residents and structures to this area. (Ibid.) However, it will also help reduce existing fire hazards in the area by improving roads, water service, and introducing projects that have adequate fire safety zones around them, such as is required for the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, the long-term impacts on fire services will not be cumulatively considerable. (ibid.) The Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School District have indicated that they can accommodate students from the proposed Project. (ibid.) The two school districts are also expecting enrollments to continue increasing and accommodating growth mainly by using portables (CJUHSD, 2000 and EFSD, 2000). (Ibid.) At present, the payment of developer fees is considered adequate mitigation for individual project -impacts under CEQA. (Ibid.) However, these fees may be inadequate over the long term to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding mechanisms have been successfully established. (Ibid.) Based on this information, it can be reasonably concluded that growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on school services, and the proposed Project will contribute incrementally to this impact. (Ibid.) With continued growth, developers will continue to pay their fair share of impact fees which will support public services for the area. As long as careful long-term planning, engineeri_ng and construction practices are employed, and later projects comply with the same local and regional plans, anticipated cumulative impacts related to public services will be effectively mitigated to less than significant levels. G. Utilities 1. Potential Si~mificant Impact Water The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not consume any domestic water. (Final EIR, p. 184.) Based upon the Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan residential water consumption factor, (3,571.2 gallons per acre per day), the 168.8 acre-Project will require approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day. (Final EIR, p. 185.) Water will be provided via a 12-inch main, which was constructed in Etiwanda Avenue with the development of Tracts 14139 and 13527. (Ibid.) This main will provide water to the Project from an existing two million-gallon' reservoir (Reservoir 5C). (Ibid.) Reservoir 5C, north of the Project, will provide storage and supply to the zone that serves the Project. (Ibid.) The reservoir is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the Project at an elevation of 2,090 feet. (Ibid.) However, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities will eventually be required to serve water to the Project, and the Project's developer will be required, as a condition of approval, to participate in funding these improvements as necessary and as specified in Cucamonga County Water District's Master Plan. (Final EIR Supp., p. 12.) The Project engineer expects individual water pressure for the development to be in a range of 40 PSI (pounds per square inch) to 111 PSI. (Ibid.) Lots that exceed the 80-PSI standard will have pressure reducers to comply with building code regulations. (Ibid.) Finally, fire flow hydrant demands are expected at 1,250 GPM with 20-PSI residual pressure. (Ibid.) This will be accommodated by a dedicated interior looping water supply system (SE 2000). (Ibid.) Water supply facilities within the Project will be constructed and financed by the developer. (Final EIR, p. 186.) Because the backbone system is already in place, and no additional backbone construction is anticipated except for what has already been planned for according to Cucamonga County's Master Plan, this impact will be less than significant. (Ibid.) Furthermore, no new entitlements or resources am required for the Project. (Ibid.) Also, no significant Project-specific or cumulative impacts were identified. (Ibid.)' The CCWD has issued a letter to the Applicant indicating "the District has adequate supply of water available to meet the needs of the development, including minimum fire flow requirement as established by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District" (R. Silva, CCWD). (ibid.) Sewer Based on the CCWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the Project area is 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day. (Ibid.) Therefore, the 265 residential units proposed in the Project will generhte approximately 71,550 gallons of sewage per day (0.07 mgd). (Ibid.) In addition, the proposed Project will comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain Section 401 and Section 402 permiis prior to Project construction. (Ibid.) Presently, them are no existing trunk sewers in th6 Project area. (Ibid.) A fifteen-inch sewer exists near the intersection of East Street and the 1-15 Freeway. (ibid.) To provide service, the developer will construct approximately 13,600 feet of off-site sewer main to the southeast comer of the Project. (ibid.) The Project's backbone sewer system will be constructed by the developer, but it is anticipated the developer will finance the system with a Mello-Roos assessment district (SE 2000). (ibid.) In addition, the CCWD has issued a leuer to the developer indicating "the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for this development" (R. Silva, CCWD, March 10, 1999). (ibid.) Flood Control A drainage study (Appendix D) has been completed in coordination with the San Bemardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control. (Ibid.) The study includes several flood control measures, which will be implemented as part of the Project. (Ibid.) Based on data from the Project hydrology study, the Project will not produce any significant impacts relative to flood control. (Ibid.) Electricity Implementation for the proposed Project will result in the consumption of approximately 4,085 kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day) or 1,491,023 kWh of electricity annually based on full occupancy. (Ibid..) Southern California Edison has indicated that they are able to provide service to the Project without significant impact and that they are ready to instail electrical distribution facilities for the Project in accordance with applicable tariffs, rules, and authorizations (SCE, 2000, SCAQMD, 1993). (Ibid.) Natural Gas At build out, the Project will consume approxim_ately 58,874 cubic feet per day of natural gas, assuming full occupancy. (Final EIR, p. 187.) Connecting gas service to the site may temporarily disrupt traffic or pedestrian access along Etiwanda and East Avenue. (Ibid.) This is not anticipated to produce any significant impacts with regard to natural gas service. (Ibid.) The existing gas line along Etiwanda Avenue will be protected in place (SCGC, 2000). (ibid.) Telephone Implementation of the proposed Project would require the installation of buried cables to serve new development. (Ibid.) No adverse impacts to telephone service would result from the Project implementation (Verizon, 2000). (Ibid.) Cable TV Implementation of the proposed Project would require the installation of buried cables to new developments. (Ibid.) No adverse impacts to cable service would result from Project implementation. (ibid.) -Growth and development in the area has been anticipated and has been planned for by Charter Communications (CC, 2000). (Ibid.) Solid Waste According to the website of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board, County residents generate an average of eight pounds of solid waste per person per day. (Ibid.) Since the Project is proposed to have 265 units with 861 new residents, the Project could generate as much as 6,888 pounds or 3.4 tons per day of solid waste. (ibid.) According to San Bernardino County's Integrated Waste Management Plan, adequate capacity has been identified in the valley landfills to meet growth within the County Service Areas for the next five or more years. (Ibid.) In addition, the County has up to thirty years of additional landfill capacity available if the Mid-Valley facility is expanded as proposed. (Ibid.) The County has implemented recycling programs, as required by state law and the local Source Reduction and Recycling Element. (Ibid.) The Project will not produce any significant impacts related to solid waste based on available disposal capacity of County landfills. (Ibid.) Since fees are collected for refuse collection services, increased service levels will be expanded and funded through user fees. (Ibid.) Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated with regard to solid waste collection or disposal. (Ibid.) 2. Findings The following measures are proposed to ensure that service-related impacts remain below a level of significance: 12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service. Additionally, the Cucamonga County Water District will be required to provide funds to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency for treatment of the project's wastewater. Proof of such payment shall be submitted to the City Building and Safety Department. (Final EIR, p. 190.) 12-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, development plans shall be provided to Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, and Verizon, as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the project site. This shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 12-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain will- serve letters from SCE, SCGC, and Verizon and place them on file with the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 12-4 Prior to tbe'issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with the guidelines provided by SCE, SCGC, and Verizon in regard to easement restrictions, construction guidelines, protection of pipeline easements, and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing easements of these companies. This shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation Water will be provided from an existing reservoir and existing water line. (Final EIR, p. 185.) Because the Project's developer will be required to contribute to funding for the additional offsite physical facilities that will be needed to serve water to the Project and other adjacent development in the future, as previously identified in the Cucamonga County Water District's Master Plan, no significant impacts to water supply is anticipated. (Final EIR Supp., pp. 11-12.) Moreover, the Project does not reach the threshold under SB 221 that requires new developments over 500 units to demonstrate a reliable water supply for 20 years, nor does the water to be supplied to the Project represent 10 percent or more of Cucamonga Valley Water District's ("CVWD") annual water supply. (Final EIR, p. 186.) Southern California Edison has indicated that they are able to provide service to the Project without significant impact and that they are ready to install any needed distribution facilities. (Final EIR, p. 189; see also Energy and Mineral Resources.) No adverse impacts are anticipated by telephone or cable providers as a result of the Project. (Final EIR, p. 190.) While at present there are no existing trunk sewers in the Project area, the Project developer will form a Mello-Roos assessment district which may fund a sewer line to the Project. (Final El]R, p. 186.) A fifteen-inch sewer exists near the intersection of East Street and the 1-15 Freeway. To provide service, the developer will construct approximately 13,600 feet of off-site sewer main to the southeast comer of the Project. The Project's backbone sewer system will be constructed by the developer (Ibid.) In addition, the CCWD has issued a letter to the developer indicating "the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for this development." (Ibid.) Adequate capacity has been identified in the valley landfills to meet growth within the County Service Area for the next five or more years. (Final EIR, p. 187.) With planned expansion and County waste reductions programs in place the Project will not produce any significant impacts related to solid waste. (Ibid.) Implementation of the Project will not result in the need for new utility systems, or substantial alterations to electric or natural gas systems. (Final EIR, p. 186-187.) With implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform codes, and mitigation measures, the Project will not result in any significant utility impacts. (Final EIR, p. 1900 4. Cumulative Impacts The North Etiwanda communities are served by a variety of public and private water purveyors and suppliers. (Final EIR, p. 225-226.) Many residents are on local wells while others have piped water. (Ibid:) Continued growth will require expansion of existing water systems and additional hook-ups. (Ibid.) There should be no significant short-term impacts as long as water lines are extended or wells installed as needed. (Ibid.) However, there may be significant cumulative impacts if more wells are installed and more groundwater is removed than can be sustained by the local aquifers. (Ibid.) In addition, new growth will undoubtedly require more dependence on imported water from northern California. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will contribute incrementally to these water-related impacts. Most of the Etiwanda community is served by sewer systems, while many areas throughout the foothills still use septic tanks or holding systems. (Ibid.) Given the cost and difficulty of installing a piped network, it is unlikely that all residences in foothill areas will be fully sewered anytime in the foreseeable future. (Ibid.) This does not represent a significant impact in itself, as long as overall development densities remain low so septic systems do not overload the local soils and impact the groundwater. (Ibid.) While the continued use of septic systems may have a cumulatively considerable impact on the area, the proposed Project will have a piped sewer system and so will not contribute significantly to this potential impact. (Ibid.) Much of the East Etiwanda Creek area presently does not have improved flood control stmctures but rather depends on local topography and natural drainages to convey runoff. (Ibid.) At present, there are no major flooding threats identified in the Project area, although many areas suffer from short-term flooding or inundation during heavy storms or snowmelt. (Ibid.) While the area may continue to have considerable flooding impacts, the proposed Project will not contribute significantly to this impact since it will be required to mitigate its projected-related drainage impacts as part of its development approval, and the improvements needed to mitigate those impacts are part of a regional drainage system eventually planned for this area. (Ibid.) Continued growth will require additional electric and natural gas hook-ups throughout the Etiwanda community. (Ibid.) No major impacts to energy resources are expected to occur as a result of continued growth, and thus the Project's impacts on energy resources will not be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) As long as careful long-term planning, engineering and construction practices are employed, and future development continue to comply with local and regional plans and fee obligations, anticipated cumulative impacts related to all utilities, including water, cumulative impacts will remain less than significant levels. (Final EIR, pp. 226-227, 228.) H. Cultural Resources Two cultural resources inventory reports were completed for this Project site. The first report was prepared by the Chambers Group in June of 1998 (Chambers 1998). (Final EIR, p. 202.) The second study was prepared by the Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) in June of 2000. (Ibid.) These documents were prepared to identify and assess the significance of prehistoric and/or historic cultural resources, which may exist on the subject site. (Ibid.) TLC also reviewed the Chambers report, which included data on recorded site CA-SBR-313H. (ibid.) Copies of these ~eport~ are included in Appendix G. (Ibid.) 1. Potentially Significant Impacts Paleontological Resources The research conducted for this Project indicates that the major portion of rocks underlying the Project property likely have a "Low Paleontological Sensitivity." (Final EIR, p. 202, 204.) Further, the geotechnical study of the property indicated that most of the strata contain sedimentary and alluvial deposits that are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (ibid.) According to the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Unit Development EIR, a fossil horse skull was identified approximately a mile northwest of the Project site. (Ibid.) This specimen was removed from the site and it is presently on display at the San Bernardino County Museum. strata contain sedimentary and alluvial deposits that are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (ibid.) It is not known if the formation, in which the skull was found, will produce additional fossil resources, though because of the soil structure such additional fossil resources are unlikely, though possible. (ibid.) No other fossils or paleontological resources, however, have been recorded or discovered on this Project site (MBA, 1988). (Ibid.) Further, the records search for the Project concluded that no additional sites have been recorded within a mile of the site (CGI2, 1998). (Ibid.) A rcheological/Historical Resources One historic archeo]ogical site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H. (Final EIR, p. 204.) This prior survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880's. (Ibid.) Its structure consists of rock walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. (Ibid.) This archeological resource was previously deemed potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. (Ibid.) The record search conducted for this Project recommended that an archeological test program be performed within the identified site area. (Ibid.) Historical research was also recommended to provide a context for the material remains found at the site. (Ibid.) It was recommended that the test program and the historical research should be used to evaluate the site's eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the site was determined eligible, a data recovery program was determined to be necessary. (Ibid.) 2. Findings The following measures have been selected from the City's standard mitigation measures and are proposed to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources are below a level of significance: 14-1 · A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a preconstruction 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 b/: appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not'be limited to, the following measures: (Final EIR, p. 207.) · 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; and · Submit summary report to the City. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bemardino County Museum. 14-2 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 will: (Ibid.) · 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 resoumes management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resoumes within the Project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bemardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving; and · If artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, official representatives of the Native American group will be consulted to determine the most appropriate 'disposition of the artifacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in agreement with County Museum and the Native America!a_ group. 3. Supporting Explanation Adverse paleontological impacts are not anticipated because the sedimentary and alluvial deposits on the Project site are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (Final EIR, p. 204.) However, if any paleontological res_oumes are found during grading or construction, mitigation measure 14-1 ensures that the resoumes will be properly excavated, preserved, and transferred to the San Bemardino County Museum. (Final EIR, p. 207.) In June of 2000, the Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) evaluated the site pursuant to thresholds contained in the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. (Final EIR, p. 204.) The TLC concluded that the site CA-SBR-313 IH was not the location of the Chinese labor camp as previously indicated. (Ibid.) It is believed that the site once served a more utilitarian purpose as a stock pen or corral. (Ibid.) Therefore, CA-SBR- 3131H was determined by the TLC to represent an insignificant resource and lacks sufficient merit for consideration in the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. (Ibid.) Work will be halted in the event that human remains are discovered during excavation. (Final EIR, p. 206.) In addition, mitigation measure 14-1 and 14-2 requires the presence of paleontological and archeological monitors onsite during grading. (Final EIR, pp. 207-208.) These monitors have the authority to stop grading in the event that fossils or artifacts are found so that they will be conserved. (Ibid.) Mitigation measure 14-2 also requires that if artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, official representatives of the Native American group will be consulted to determine the most appropriate disposition of the artifacts. (Ibid.) 45 Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Project will not have significant impacts on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. (Final EIR, p. 208.) 4. Cumulative Impacts Development of the area could impact archaeological and/or paleontological resources because excavation activities will disturb native soils. (Final EIR, p. 2.) It is possible the area contains undiscovered archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources. (Ibid.) As long as qualified personnel are retained to conduct surveys of land to be developed, and are retained to be present during grading of approved developments, potential impacts to these resources will not be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) Therefore, cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources from Project development are considered less than significant. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Final Ell*, and herein, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level: Project level (i.e., direct) and cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources and Aesthetics. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b)(2), the City cannot approve the Project unless it first finds: (1) under Public Utilities Code section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, and (2) under State CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b)(2)(B), that the Project benefits outweigh the remaining significant effects and are therefore acceptable pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093. A. Air Quality 1. Significant Unavoidable Effects Short-Term (Construction) Impacts The Air Quality Impact Analysis, conducted by Synectecology and the Chambers Group Inc.,- dated March 28, 2000 and included in its entirety in Appendix F of the Final EIR ("Chambers Group study"), is based upon appropriate methodologies, as established in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA Handbook. (Final EIR, p. 107.) The Project site consists of 168.8 total acres, however, only about 107 acres would be disturbed (i.e., graded) for the proposed residential development. (Final EIR, p. 113.) Dust 46 emissions were calculated by the Chambers Group study based on a worst case assumption of 10 acres being disturbed on any given day, which would generate as much as 550 pounds per day of PM~0 (10 acres times 55 pounds/day). (Ibid.) However, implementation of a typical dust control program, as recommended by the SCAQMD, could reduce these emissions to 275 pounds per day (i.e., 50 percent). (Ibid.) Even with this level of reduction, however, Project grading would still exceed the maximum daily PM~0 emission threshold of 150 pounds per day according to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook PM~0 Significance Thresholds. (Ibid.) Construction activities will also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds ("VOC") from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. (Ibid.) The volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated-by SCAQMD rules, as are paints and solvents. (Ibid_.) Even water-based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs such that paint and other architectural coatings are the primary source of construction-related VOC emissions. (Ibid.) For the purposes of this "worst case" analysis, it is assumed that standard water-based materials will be used for this Project. (Ibid.) Typical water-based paints contain around two pounds of VOC per gallon of paint (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9- 13-C). (ibid.) If painting one home requires 20 gallons of paint, about 40 pounds of VOCs will be released per house painted (inside and out). (ibid.) Painting more than two homes per day would cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of ¥OCs to be exceeded. (ibid.) Exhaust emissions would result from on and off-site heavy equipment. (Final EIR, p. 114.) The types and numbers of equipment are expected to vary among contractors, therefore emissions could not be quantified by the Chambers Group study with certainty. (ibid.) However, typical emission rates for a single diesel powered scraper were obtained from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook and are provided in Table 9-4 of the Final EIR, Typical Construction Equipment Emissions. (Ibid.) Diesel scrapers are the most common equipment used for grading activities. (Ibid.) A Project will likely utilize ten to twenty pieces of heavy equipment at any one time during mass grading operations. (Ibid.) Assuming that ten pieces of heavy equipment were operated an average of eight hours per day, the emissions anticipated are also shown on Table 94 of the Final EIR, Typical Construction Equipment Emissions. (ibid.) Of the five types of air pollutants listed in Table 9-4 of the Final EIR, only Nitrogen Oxides and Reactive Organic Compounds ("ROC") would exceed the SCAQMD-established threshold of significance during construction operations. (ibid.) To summarize, according to the Chambers Group Study air quality analysis, the Project will produce significant emissions of NOx and Reactive Organic Compounds ("ROC") during construction because of exhaust from on and off-sim heavy equipment. (Ibid.) Additionally, unless fewer than two homes are painted on any given day, or the average daily consumption of paint is limited to 37.5 gallons per day, VOC emissions will exceed SCAQMD significance levels. (Ibid.) Finally, particulates produced from Project grading, even with mitigation, may still exceed the maximum daily PM~0 emission threshold of 150 pounds per day according to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook PM~0 Significance Thresholds. (Ibid.) 47 Long-Term (Operational) Impacts The greatest Project-related air quality concern centers on the 2,536 external vehicle trips that would be generated at Project completion. (Final EIR, p. 116.) Typical San Bemardino County residential trip lengths average about 10 miles, so the additional 25,360 vehicle miles traveled from Project traffic would produce additional air quality impacts. (Ibid.) Together with stationary emissions from power plants, and comparable facilities, the proposed Project will generate 436 pounds per day of CO, NOx, ROG, and PM~0 at build out. (Ibid.) According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, the Project would exceed applicable NOx and PMm standards for significance for the Project's Long-Term (Operational) Impacts. (Ibid.) Secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption in power plants or on-site heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similarly consumptive appliances. (Ibid.) General development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources, such as cleaning products, landscaping equipment, and fireplaces, which contribute to off-site emissions. (ibid.) Sensitive Receptors Certain groups of people, such as the elderly, young children, hospital patients, are especially sensitive to air pollutant health effects. (Final EIR, p. 118.) The SCAQMD requires an analysis of potential impacts to any nearby land uses that contain these "sensitive receptors." (ibid.) Of particular concern are unusually high concentrations of CO called "hot spots." (Ibid.) Etiwanda Intermediate School is a sensitive receptor located approximately 1.4 miles south of the Project site. (Ibid.) The exhaust emissions generated by the proposed Project traffic may impact this school due to its proximity to travel routes. (Final EIR, p. 1190 Therefore, a "hot spot" analysis was conducted for the Chambers Group study near intersections where Project vehicles might cause extended traffic congestion and have a potential to create pockets of toxic gases such as CO. (Ibid.) A "hot spot" analysis concluded that projected concentrations of CO at Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue would be significant until this intersection is fully signalized. (Ibid.) Further, the 5.81 acres of park facilities and 2.71 acres of open space planned for the Project, plus the network of trials to be developed by the City, are places where sensitive receptors could be located. 2. Findings The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to air quality to the extent feasible: Short-Term (Construction) Impacts 6-1 During construction, 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. (Final El[R, p. 123.) 6-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading pernuts, developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low 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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. (Ibid.) 6-3 During construction, 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, low-pressure spray, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid...) 6-4 During construction, all asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.) 6-5 During grading and construction, the prime contractor shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be~ left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). (Ibid.) '6-6 During construction, all construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: (ibid.) · 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; and · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 49 ~,~qq 6-7 During grading, the site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Final EIR, p. 124.) 6-8 Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or mom to reduce PMm emissions. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.) 6-9 During construction, contractors shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.) 6-10 During construction, contractors shall ensure that construction and grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.) Note:~ Short-Term (Construction) Air Quality impacts will also be mitigated by the measures established in Transportation and Circulation, including mitigation measure 5-7 and Earth Resources, including mitigation measure 3-4. Obid..) Long-Term (Operational) Impacts 6-11 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances and water heaters. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. (Ibid.) 6-12 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. (Ibid.) 6-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit and obtain approval of a plan for the provision of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities for Project residents throughout the Project. The plan shall detail the construction timing for bike racks at the two parks, sidewalks, and trails based upon completion prior to occupancy of the first unit of the s ~ubject phase. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid_.) 6-14 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall make a fair share contribution to a park and ride facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 Freeways that would serve Project residents. The fair share calculation shall be determined to the satisfaction of City Engineer. The applicant shall place the appropriate funds in a special account for such purposes. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.) 6-15 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park to OmniTrans standards if so directed by OmniTrans, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 125.) Note: Mitigation Measure 5-2 in Transportation and Circulation addresses potential public transit improvements to help mitigate potential traffic impacts, and would also help reduce potential air quality impacts. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Constructioh activity emissions are generally difficult to quantify because the exact type and amount of equipment that will used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day is not known with any reasonable certainty. (Final EIR, p. 121.) Here, the custom orientation of the Project should spread construction (and thus construction-related emissions) over a longer period of time than would be the case for similar sized projects who construct all residences at the same time as part of a single tract development. (Final EIR, p. 123.) The emissions which do result from construction activities will be minimized as fully as possible through the comprehensive mitigation as set forth above and in the Final EIR. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, these proposed mitigation measures should reduce projected emissions overall by approximately twenty percent. (Final EIR, p. 125.) Specifically, mitigation measures 6-1, 6-2, 6-5, 6-9 and 6-10 will ensure that criteria emissions from construction and grading equipment will be limited to the greatest extent feasible by only allowing properly tuned and serviced equipment to operate on the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 123-124.) Further, these mitigation measures require a preference for low-emission vehicles, and require that all vehicles operate in a manner that prevents unnecessary exhaust and idling. The Chambers Group study does indicate that these mitigation measures should reduce projected ROC emissions from 2.89 tons per quarter to 2.3 tons per quarter, which is less than the SCAQMD's significance threshold for ROC (2.5 tons per quarter). (Final EIR, p. 125.) However, ROC emissions will still exceed significance thresholds if more than two houses are painted on a single day. (Final EIR, p. 113.) This conclusion remains the same no matter if the URBEMIS 2002 or the URBEMIS 7G model is used to calculate emissions significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25-26.) Mitigation measures 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8 (plus mitigation measures established in Transportation and Circulation, including mitigation measure 5-7 and Earth Resources mitigation measures 3-4), will require PM~0 emissions to be reduced to the greatest extent feasible by restricting the ability of dust and dirt to escape the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 123-124.) 51 .2q However, even with this mitigation, the PMl0 emissions during construction and particularly during grading activities, will likely exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. (Final EIR, p. 113.) Further, these mitigation measures will not reduce construction-related NOx emissions to less than significant levels. (Final EIR, p. 125.) Thus, despite the City's and the Project developer's best efforts, according to the SCAQMD's CEQA Guidebook the numbers of heavy equipment anticipated to be needed to grade and prepare the Project site for construction, plus certain construction activities such as applying paint, will result in emissions that exceed the threshold standard for these specified criteria pollutants on a short-term basis. Again, this conclusion remains the same no matter if the URBEMIS 2002 or the URBEMIS 7G model is used to calculate emissions significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25-26.) Long-Term (Operational Effects) The Long-Term (Operational Effects) of the Project are primarily related to the operation of vehicles by Project residents. (Final EIR, p. 116.) Implementation of mitigation measure 6-13 related to pedes~an and bicycle facilities, mitigation measure 6-14 related to park and ride facilities, and mitigation measure 6-15 related to bus shelters will encourage residents to engage in activities that reduce vehicle trips. (Final EIR, pp. 124-125.) However, even with implementation of these measures, vehlcle trips will still produce significant long-term air quality impacts because daily emission levels for NOx and ROG remain significant under the standards established by the SCAQMD. (Final EIR, p. 125.) This significance conclusion remains the same despite the use of the URBEMIS 7G model for evaluating potential impacts rather than the URBEMIS 2002 model. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25.) As noted in the responses to the comments submitted by the SCAQMD, the emissions factors for the newer URBEMIS 2002 model are higher than those in the URBEMIS 7G. (Ibid.) As such, Project emissions will still exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for those specified pollutants that already exceed thresholds, no matter which modeling program is utilized. Moreover, those pollutants that do not exceed thresholds under the URBEMIS 7G study would not now exceed these thresholds or become significant. The Project's transportation consultants have indicated that there are few, if any, effective mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions for NOx and ROG. (Final EIR, p. 125.) As such, even if the Project's traffic consultant used the URBEMIS 2002 model, the mitigation proposed and adopted (as well as the significance conclusions) would have remained exactly the same. Therefore operation-related emissions were properly analyzed, but do remain a significant air quality impact. (Ibid.) Because the Chamber's Group study concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed Project will result in a significant impact to air quality, a South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ("SCAQMP") Consistency determination is necessary. (Final EIR, p. 118.) The SCAQMD recognizes two key indicators of consistency relative to the determination by the SCAQMP. (Ibid.) The first indicator is whether the project would result in an increase in frequency or sensitivity or existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations. (Ibid.) These criteria are also reached if the action would delay timely attainment of air quality standards, or the interim emissions reductions specified in the SCAQMP. (Ibid.) The second indicator is whether the Project will exceed the assumptions in the SCAQMP in the year 2010 or increments based on the year of Project build out. (ibid.) As documented by the Chamber's Group study, development and operation of the Project will be consistent with the SCAQMP. 52 q7 Since development of the Project site, with appropriate minor adjustments related to allowable project density, is already be consistent with the General Plan and the ENSP in that these documents both recognized that residential development was to occur on the Project site, the consistency analysis has already been completed by the SCAQMD. That is, when the City's General Plan and the ENSP were approved, the development anticipated by these documents was determined to be consistent with the SCAQMP. (ibi~.) Moreover, this consistency with the SCAQMP is demonstrated by the Project's consistency with other applicable portions of the City's General Plan. Chapter 5 of the City's General Plan, "Maintaining Public Health and Safety," the City's actions to improve air quality are integrated with other related-regional and local programs, such as the SCAQMP and the Congestion Management Plan ("CMP"). (Final Ell>,, p. 119.) Here, as noted by the Final EIR, the Project is consistent with the County's CMP, and the Project is specifically being analyzed pursuant to the requirements SCAQMP. (Ibid.) Further, the City's General Plan also provides that the City will promote non-motorized transportation. (Ibid.) Since the Project contains multi-use trails that will encourage non- motorized access to the Project, the Project is consistent with this air quality policy of the General Plan. ~(_~_~.) Sensitive Receptors The improvements that have taken place to the Etiwanda Avenue and High]and Avenue intersection as part of the extension of the 1-210 freeway have reduced the CO concentrations to below a level of significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 26.) Further, the active portions of thc recreational areas and the park site, such as the athletic playing fields, as designed will bc located far enough away from "thc Lower Crest Collector" to effectively minimize exposure to sensitive receptors and prevent a significant impact. Parking facilities will be located adjacent to the recreational facilities and would serve as a buffer from vehicular traffic and emissions. 4. Cumulative ~ Construction of development projects in the area will have cumulative air quality impacts. (Final EIR, p. 222.) Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction that will occur separately and simultaneously. (Ibid.) However, the greatest cumulative impact on regional air quality will be the addition of incremental pollutants from increased traffic and vehicular emissions in the area and increased energy consumption from the planned projects. (Ibid.) This will be a significant air quality impact both on a project level and on a regional basis. (Ibid.) Ultimate development of the area will generate thousands of additional trips per day based on standard trip generation conditions (see Section 3.6, Air Quality). Assuming an anticipated generation of 2,956 dally vehicle trips at buildout, area development will eventually produce air pollutants close to SCAQMD thresholds. (Ibid.) The Chambers Group estimates that continued growth would produce incremental but cumulatively considerable amounts of additional air pollutants from increased traffic, mainly NOx and ROG. (Ibid.) This will be the eventual result of cumulative residential, commercial, and industrial development in the community. (Ibid.) The traffic and the air quality analyses include cumulative CO levels and the Project itself does not present a cumulative impact. (Ibid.) Even with implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features and the above mitigation measures, the Project will produce significant short-term air quality impacts from ROG emissions, and significant long- term air quality impacts from NOx and ROG/ROC emissions. (Final EIR, p. 125.) In addition, the Project will incrementally contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts from development of the Etiwanda area. (lbi.d_.) The emissions in excess of SCAQMD significance thresholds, in particular, represent a significant Project impact. (Ibid.) B. Biological Resources 1. Significant Unavoidable Effects Vegetation The Project site encompasses 168.8 acres in a portion of the Etiwanda Creek watershed known as the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan. (Final EIR, p. 126.) The biological studies for the Project, conducted by The Chambers Group ("TCG") from 1998 through 2000 with updated gnatcatcher surveys in 2002, determined-that the development of the Project site will eliminate approximately 109 acres of sage scrub that is "strongly denominated by white sage..." TCG's studies also indicate that the Project site also included California sagebrush, California buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia. (Final EIR, p. 127.) That is, though white sage (Salvia apiana) predominates the P~oject site, other sage scrub species was found sporadically throughout the Project site. In addition, non-native (invasive) annual grasses such as wild oat and red brome were common onsite. (Ibid., a complete list of plant species present onsite is attached to the Final EIR as Appendix G.) The Final EIR then concluded that the TCG referred to the sage scrub vegetation on the Project site as "white sage series" because it is largely monotypic and dominated by this one upland scrub indicator species. (Final EIR, p. 127.) Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded this vegetation to be distinct and less diverse collection of habitat than high-quality RAFSS, which is typically composed of a more diverse collection of sage scrubs and other plants, and that the high concentration of white sage scrub onsite indicates that the sage scrub on the Project site and could be properly classified as white sage series or as Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub ("RUSS") according to Holland's 1986. (Final EIR, p. 127.) A joint comment letter received from the USFWS and DFG argues that the Project site itself, as well as the entire Etiwanda fan, still contains an intact, biological significant, and viable stand of RAFSS, but did not indicate the basis for this conclusion. This comment letter also pointed out an apparent inconsistency between the labeling of the sage scrub onsite, as in some places the scrub is referred to as RAFSS, while the EIR document at one place argues that the sage scrub is Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub ("RUSS"). (Final EIR Supp., p. 4.) The term RAFSS is often used in a generic sense to refer to sage scrub located on an alluvial fan or historic alluvial fan along the south foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) That is, the term RAFSS is often and conveniently used to refer to the many kinds of vegetation throughout 54 an alluvial fan area. The Final EIR clarifies that it does appear that the sage scrub onsite, · consisting of largely monotypic white sage series, is considered by many experts as a sub-group, or a variant of RAFSS, (Final EIR Supp., p. 4°6.) However, as noted by the April 12, 2004 study conducted by George Wines, no matter the technical classification given to the sage scrub, it continues to be the case that the habitat is dominated by white sage, including even after the November 2003 Grand Prix fire that left approximately 95% of the Project site burned. This study indicates that at as of April 14, 2004, approximately 85.9% of the species onsite are Salvia apiana. Although there is some ambiguity regarding the proper label for these related sage scrubs, the EIR does consistently describe the composition of the sage scrub onsite as being predominated by white sage, and that the loss of this habitat is a significant impact. The Final EIR also consistently indicates that the channelization of Day Creek years ago eliminated the sheet flow that historically scoured this area, and as such the sheet flows that are necessary to support a viable Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS") natural community over the long-term have been eliminated. (Final EIR, pp. 127, 128.) That is, while it appears to be true that the Project site is currently composed of sage scrub that is a sub-group or variant of RAFSS, the long-term lack of sheet flows on the Project site have severely limited the type of sage scrub that is viable. (Ibid.) The result is a largely monotypic stand of white sage scrub that could be further degrade over the years. The TCG study also noted that while a more diverse and vibrant RAFSS community also appears to occur in Etiwanda Creek east of the proposed development area, this community is topographically separated from the largely monotypic sage scrub on the Project site by an approximately 50-foot high embankment along the creek channel. (Final EIR, p. 128.) As a result, development of the Project will not significantly impact this apparently viable off-site RAFSS that. does appear to be present in the general Project area. Though the EIR determines that 'although the sage scrub onsite does not have the same habitat value as undisturbed RAFSS, it is nonetheless valuable to a variety of animal species that have been found in or are believed to inhabit the North Etiwanda area, though at this point the site remains badly damaged by the wildfires. (Final EIR, p. 132.) Further, development of the Project site will likely impact (assuming the wildfires have not permanently destroyed these plants) the following sensitive plant species (see Table 3.7-1) and will require appropriate mitigation: 1) Plummer's mariposa lily (listed - federal Species of Special Concern) is found onsite; (Final EIR, p. 131.) 2) Pious daisy (not listed - CNPS List lB) was found onsite in past, and site has suitable habitat; and (Ibid.) 3) Four spineflowers - Ramona, prostrate, California, and Party's. All have moderate to high potential to occur onsite. Parry's is federal Species of Special Concem, the other three species considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society. (Ibid.) In addition, the listed Santa Ana River wooly star has the potential to exist in the Project area, but only in the Etiwanda Creek channel. (Final Ell{, p. 130.) Again, the only disturbance to the Etiwanda Creek bank from the Project will be where the new storm drain line may tie into the creek channel. Available data indicates that there will only be negligible impacts to the following sensitive plant species: Southern California black walnut; Parish's desert thom; Laguna mountains jewel-flower; Johnston's buckwheat; lemon lily; Peirson's spring beauty; San Gabriel linanthus; Pringle's monardella; and California muhly grass. (Final EIR, p. 130.) These species were not observed and them is no suitable habitat onsite, therefore, they have little or no potential to occur onsite. (Ibid.) Wildlife Development of the Project site will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including: sharp-shinned hawk; Southern California mfous-crowned sparrow; red-shouldered hawk; white-tailed kite; northern harrier; Cooper's hawk; San Diego homed lizard; and orange- throated whiptail. (Final EIR, pp. 132-134.) The California gnatcatcher was not observed on-sim and h-as a low probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. (Ibid.) However, the species has been found in the general area of the Project site, and the Project site has been designated as critical habitat. (Final EIR, p. 142.) Previous sightings within the last few years have been made about half a mile west and north of the Project. (Ibid.) The Etiwanda Creek channel also contains suitable habitat for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat ("SBKR"). (Final EIR, 134.) In addition, the Etiwanda Creek area has been included in the critical habitat for this species, as designated by the USFWS. (Ibid.) However, since no channel improvements are currently proposed that would impact this habitat, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. (Ibid.) H~)wever, revetment along the creek adjacent to the site is identified as an improvement planned at some point by the San Bemardino County Flood Control District. (ibid.) Such activity in or along the channel could impact the SBKR if it is indeed present in this area. (Ibid.) The flood control -channel along the north side of the Project will require a penetration of the west bank of the Etiwanda Creek, including an energy dissipater. (Final EIR Supp., p. 2.) Prior to construction, the area proposed for this work will have a protocol survey performed to assure there will be no impacts to SBKR. (Ibid.) If any impacts are identified, they will be mitigated at an appropriate ratio based on the number of individual SBKR and amount and quality of habitat affected. (ibid.) Development of the site is not expected to impact the California mastiff bat or Nelson's bighorn sheep because they were not observed and there is no suitable habitat onsite, so there is little to no potential for them to utilize the Project sim. (Final EIR, p. 134.) Specialized Wildlife Habitats The Project will not directly impact the Etiwanda creek channel, but the introduction of structures and humans in close proximity along the west bank of thc creek may restrict wildlife movement to the east bank of the creek. (Final EIR, p. 143.) However, as long as the eastern bank and streambed are not impacted by development, wildlife can continue to move through this area using the creek as a movement corridor. ~(_~_.~.) A wildlife corridor in the strict scientific sense is a specific route for migratory animals such as deer or elk. (Ibid.) However, the common use of the word refers more to the general movement of wildlife, especially larger mammals such as deer and coyote, through an area with relatively undisturbed native vegetation. (Ibid.) This movement may or may not follow specific routes, only some of which may be identified by biologists during typical field surveys. (Ibid.) While the Project site is not a wildlife corridor in the strict ecological sense, wildlife does tend to move through the area, including the Project site. (Ibid.) Development of the site will also remove natural vegetation that provides foraging for raptoral birds and supports several sensitive or otherwise protected species. (Final EIR, p. 144.) Scrub-covered meadows and open land adjacent to taller structures. (e.g., Edison power line towers and fences) provide opportunities for raptors to perch and forage along much of this foothill area. (Ibid.) This loss may not be substantial on a Project level, but is likely significant on a cumulative basis unless sufficient land is preserved under the NEOSHPP program or as mitigation. (Ibic!.) Jurisdictional Land/Wetlands Development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in 4 small drainages that are under ACOE jurisdiction, although none of these areas are considered wetlands. (Final EIR, pp. 135-137, 144.) In addition, the 4 drainages contain 0.27 acres of land under CDF&G jurisdiction but bnly 0.01 acre (400 square feet along Drainage A) that supports riparian vegetation. (Ibid.) These 4 small drainages do not contain water except during storm activity and, therefore, no aquatic wildlife corridors will be affected. (Final EIR, p. 144.) A mitigation ratio of 1:1 has nevertheless been recommended to replace these losses. (Ibid.) NEOSHPP/County General Plan The Project developer proposes no onsite preseryation of open space lands to compensate for the loss of this land. (Final EIR, p. 144.) Therefore, thc Project as proposed is not consistent with the goals of the NEOSI-IPP program. (ibid.) Since a possible MSHCP for the County is not currently being pursued, the Project cannot be evaluated relative to consistency with a this non- existent conservation program. (Ibid.) State and Federal Regulations Development of the site may require subsequent permitting action through the United States Army Co~ps of Engineers (i.e., Section 404), which would trigger consultation with the USFWS due to this area being designated as critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and the SBKR. A Section 1601/1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement with DFG could also be required for removal of the four small drainages onsite. (Final EIR, p. 145.) 57 2. Findings The following measures will reduce significant and potentially significant biological impacts of the Project to the greatest extent feasible: 7-1 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate federal Clean Water Act ("CWA") Section 404 permit fi.om the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ff a permit is required, the applicant will mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land or wetland areas at a minimum 1:1 ratio, which is consistent with the Project delineation report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Final EIR, p. 148.) 7-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a CWA Section 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if necessary. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Final EIR, p. 149.) 7-3 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement ("SAA") from the California Department of Fish and Game. If an SAA is required, the applicant will mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land at a minimum 1:1 ratio as recommended by the Project biology report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Ibid.) 7-4 . ' Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all manufactured slopes on the periphery of the development shall be landscaped as approved by Planning staff. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the first unit in each phase. Prior to recordation of each phase, the phase map shall contain a note requiring this measure. (Ibid.) 7-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall acquire and convey to the County Special District OS-1 or other appropriate conservation organization 164 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that supports alluvial fan sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub. This measure is proposed to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. This offsite mitigation land (OML) shall be of equal or greater habitat value than that of the project site. The identification and transfer of OIVIL will be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department, in accordance with the guidelines of the NEOSHPP. All reasonable efforts will be made to locate the OML within or near the NEOSHPP area. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid; Final EIR Supp., p. 8.) 7-6 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a protocol gnatcatcher survey will be conducted. If any individuals or nesting pairs of birds are found onsite, the developer shall obtain appropriate take authorization and additional mitigation land shall be added to the amount of Offsite Mitigation Land (OML) described in Measure 10-5 according to the following minimum_ratios: individual = 15 acres, nested pair = 30 acres. If gnatcatchers are found onsite, an Incidental Take Permit would be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildilfe Service either by a Section 10(a) permit or through a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) 7-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall conduct a protocol survey for the San Bemardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana wooly star within those areas of East Etiwanda Creek within 50 feet of the connection of the new northern drainage channel to the creek channel. This survey is to verify that these species do not occupy area to be disturbed by construction. If SBKR and/or Santa Ana wooly star are found to be present, the developer shall comply with applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requirements, which may include obtaining a federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit or a Section 7 Consultation. SBKR or wooly star habitat disturbed by construction will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 subject to any subsequent USF&WS permit conditions and receipt or notification to the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) (Final Em, p. 149.) 7-8 If grading of the site has not occurred before February 15 of 2005, protocol surveys for SBKR and gnatcatcbers will be performed over the entire site, and each spring thereafter, until grading is completed. Any occupied habitat found during those surveys for either species will be added to the amount of offsite mitigation land required under the Final EIR. (ibid..) (Final EIR Supp., p. 7.) 7-9 The developer will provide an appropriate contribution for the Project toward funding a local brown-headed cowbird trapping program to further benefit gnatcatchers in this area. The amount of this contribution, and the location of the trapping program, shall be determined by the City in consultation with DFG. The contribution shall be made prior to grading, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. (Ibid.) 7-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting birds on the site. Any occupied nest shall be avoided and separated by at least 200 feet from ground-disturbing activities. Nesting areas are to be marked by orange construction fencing. The biologist shall verify a nest has been abandoned prior to removing the fencing and commencing ground-disturbing activities in any of these areas. (Final EIR Supp, p. 8.) Note: Additional mitigation measures related to slope plantings, irrigation, and landscaping are located in Section 3.13.7, Aesthetics, Mitigation Measures. (Final EIR, p. 149.) 3. ~anation The Project's impact to biological resources due to the loss of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, and the loss or raptor foraging land, will be greatly reduced by · implementation of mitigation measure 7.5. This mitigation measure requires that the Applicant to undertake reasonable efforts to convey land containing a variant of alluvial fan sage scrub within or near the NEOSHPP area at a 1.5:1 ratio for the vegetation that will be removed for Project development. (Ibid.) The Project developer and the City have voluntarily agreed to increase this mitigation ratio from 1:1 to address the comments made by the public, although the City believes that a 1:1 ratio remains reasonable and legally adequate given the low-quality of the habitat on- site. (Final Supp. EIR, p. 8.) This additional commitment, however, is made in a spirit of cooperation, and is designed to fully address the comments and concerns made regarding the Final EIR by the USFWS, DFG, and the Spirit of the Sage council. USFWS, DFG and others have commented that loss of onsite vegetation should be mitigated at a ratio of up to 5:1. (Final EIR, p. 145.) However, them was no empirical data provided that demonstrated why this ratio was legally permissible or appropriate, especially considering mitigation of impacts from surrounding projects has only ranged from 1:1 to 3:1. (Ibid.) Moreover, a March 2002 settlement agreement reached between the City and the Spirit of the Sage Council for impacts to RAFSS habitat of higher biological value for development of the nearby 250 acre Rancho Etiwanda Estates, was at an approximately 1:1 ratio, including impacts related to an USACOE permit that will likely be unnecessary here. Further, a similar settlement agreement between the_Spirit of the Sage Council and U.C.P. Incorporated roached in July 2000 for the 186 acre Crest project adjacent to the Day Creek and including similar or higher quality habitat also settled for certain cash payments related to an endowment, attorneys' fees, and the conveyance of offsite mitigation lands totaling approximately 135 'aCres, which is substantially less than a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio in mitigation measure 7-5 was selected in large part because the Project site does not contain high-quality RAFSS. (Ibid.) The habitat onsite does not provide any significant value to otherwise sensitive plant and animal species. Repeated surveys of the Project site have not found CAGN, SBKR, or any other listed species that would indicate a higher habitat value and could justify a higher mitigation ratio. (ibid.) Indeed, this is a prime indicator of the fact that the RAFSS onsite is of low quality. Further, this sage scrub is also evidently fragmented or isolated from higher quality habitat by proposed development to the west, disturbed power line corridors to the north and south, and Etiwanda Creek to the east. (ibid.) Moreover, as already discussed above, channelization of the Day Creek years ago shut off the historical flow of scouring flood waters across this portion of the Etiwanda alluvial fan. That is, long ago actions by federal agencies have forever prevented the biological conditions necessary to support RAFSS of a high biological value over the long-term. (ibid.) Moreover, the flood control channel required by the City and County across the north boundary of the Project site will further eliminate any runoff from land north of the site, thereby continuing the natural degradation experienced in this area that began when the historical drainages such as Day Creek were first channelized. (Ibid.) This process of degradation would therefore continue with or without the proposed Project. (ibid.) Further, additional OML will be provided in the event any gnatcatchers are discovered during protocol surveys. (Final EIR, p. 149.) Also, the San Beruardino kangaroo rat ("SBKRD does have a slight potential to occur in the area due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat within certain areas of East Etiwanda Creek. (Final EIR, p. 134.) Therefore, protocol surveys will be conducted in the areas likely to be disturbed during revetment installation in the Etiwanda Creek. (Final EIR, p. 149.) In the event that SBIGR are found, the Project developer will also be required to comply will all applicable USFWS and DFG requirements and obtain any necessary 60 ~55 permits, including appropriate take authorization where required. (Ibid.) Consultation with USFWS and DFG, if necessary, could result in the Applicant acquiring additional mitigation lands. All OML that will be acquired will be conveyed to County Special District OS-1 (or other another appropriate entity as approved by the City Planner) pursuant to mitigation measure 7-5, and should add to the other large blocks of habitat that are being preserved in the foothills north of the City. (Final EIR, p. 149.) The requirement that a qualified group will have to manage the conveyed habitat will ensure that the habitat remains a valuable biological resource in years to come. Large blocks of habitat allow for more effective management and preservation of habitat and species that would be possible if smaller blocks of land, such as the Project site, were to be maintained instead. Thus, while development of the Project site will remove this 109 acres of sage scrub habitat and this will be a significant impact to biological resources, the inclusion of a larger block should benefit the overall preservation goals of the City and County. In addition, mitigation measures other than 7-5, as specified in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and as described above, will further ensure that the Project's impacts to biological resources are mitigated to the extent feasible. The federal and state permits potentially required by mitigation measures 7-1 through 7-4 will ensure that development of the Project site will comply will all other applicable federal and state taws relating to the Project's construction activities that could impact streams or wetlands on or adjacent to the Project site, as appropriate. (Final EIR, pp. 148- 149.) Further, compliance with mitigation measure 7-10 ensures compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and mitigation measure 7-9 will require the Project developer to assist with the County's efforts to reduce cowbirds, which can negatively impact gnatcatchers that could potentially t3e located on properties adjacent to the Project site. (Final EIR Supp., pp. 7-8.) The standard conditions and uniform codes, Project design features, and implementation of the specified mitigation measures will help reduce significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat and wildlife movement, but not below significant levels. (Final EIR, pp. 150.) Therefore, despite appropriate mitigation, the Project's impacts related to Biological Resources remain significant. (Ibid.) 4. Cumula~ Continued development in the foothill area will further impact local flora and fauna, mainly through the loss of sage scrub habitat. (Final EIR, p. 223.) Wildlife will have fewer resource areas to use, although most of these areas are already surrounded by development. (Ibid..) Increased traffic will also result in increased mortality of native wildlife (i.e., roadkills). (Ibid..) Some of the planned growth is in "infill" areas, but much of the outlying areas contain RAFSS and other sage scrub habitat and not enough land has been preserved yet under the NEOSI-IPP to effectively mitigate the cumulative loss of this habitat. (Ibid.) Although preservation of the OML pursuant to mitigation measure 7-5 will benefit the City and County's overall conservation efforts by adding to the large contiguous block of habitat within or near NEOSHPP, the Project will still remove approximately 109 acres of sage scrub that is a sub- group or variant of RAFSS. Therefore, planned development will still have a cumulatively considerable impact on the area's biological resources, including loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed project will contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts due to the continued loss on the Etiwanda Fan and the region as a whole. This cumulative impact also includes restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area by encroachment of human structures and activities. C. _Aesthetics 1. Significant Unavoidable Impacts Short-Term Views Alteration of the landscape by grading and clearing will change the existing topography into a series of pads to support the new community. (Final EIR, p. 193.) Further, views of the Project site will include heavy construction equipment and machinery preparing the Project site for construction of the new homes. (Ibid.) Dust will also obscure or interfere with views of the area during grading, although fugitive dust will disperse relatively soon after the end of construction. ~(_~__~.) Temporary impacts to views of the site will be most pronounced from the existing residential development at the southwest comer of the site. (Ibid.) Long-Term Views The Project will produce long-term aesthetic impacts at the Project site which will fundamentally change the visual and aesthetic character of the area, transforming the existing natural terrain into a developed and a planned community. (Final EIR, p. 194.) Most of the Project site will be graded in conjunction with the residential structures being proposed. (Ibid.) The present viewshed of the mountains and the valley below will be replaced by a new suburban community, mainly a variety of residential structures. (ibid.) As shown in Figure 2-6(a) of the Final EIR, A View Looking North From the Southern Border, portions of the Project site are visible from many vantage points. (Ibid.) Even during hazy condition days, the surrounding foothill community will see residential structures instead of boulder-strewn, brush-covered undisturbed open space land. (Ibid.) Figure 3.13-2 of the Final EIR, Concept.ual Photographic Rendering, provides a conceptual representation of the future appearance of the Project. (Ibid.) The East Etiwanda Creek channel, however, will remain in its present condition, which will help maintain the natural visual character of that potion of the Project area. (Ibid.) Another major component of evaluating impacts to views is the presence of the Edison towers. (Ibid.) These towers are presently visible from anywhere in North Etiwanda, and will continue to be visible as the Project is completed and occupied. (Ibid.) The continued presence of these towers will degrade the otherwise consistent suburban development views to which development of the Project contributes. (Ibid.) However, the overall visual change will dominate the viewscape, in that views will be essentially transformed from foothill open space to suburban development. (Ibid.) NEOSHPP The Project is located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSI-IPP) area established by the County of San Bernardino to encourage retention of open space and biological values. (Ibid.) The visual characteristic of the site is predominately native vegetation open space interspersed with boulders. (Ibid.) Development of the Project will fundamentally alter the visual characteristics of the site, changing it from rural open space to a typical suburban residential community. (Ibid.) This loss of open space land represents a potentially significant visual impact based on the goals of the NEOSFIPP program. (ibid.) Light and Glare The Project consists of single family detached residential units which will require a variety of lighting at night. (Final EIR, p. 197.) Streetlights will also be used in conjunction with new streets and a proposed community park. (Ibid.) Glare will also increase with the addition of windows in the surrounding community. (ibid.) At this time, it is only possible to predict that nighttime light levels in the Project area {rill increase substantially. (Ibid.) It is not necessary or economical t6 attempt to estimate the specific amount of light increase. (Ibid.) However, it is reasonable to conclude that this increase will be at least potentially significant given ambient conditions (i.e., the current lack of night lights in the area). (Ibid.) Since the North Etiwanda area is rural and relatively dark at present, this increase is considered a significant impact. (Ibid.) 2. Findings - The following measures will reduce significant and potentially significant aesthetics impacts of the Project to the greatest extent feasible: 13-1 All outdoor lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department for plan check and shall comply with the requirements of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines and the City General Plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. (Final EIR, p. 201.) 13-2 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall submit construction plans for any signage associated with the site, including entrance monuments (but excluding street signs and traffic signs), primarily of natural appearing materials (i.e. wood and rock), consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines. If signs are lighted, light must be directed toward the sign rather than backlighting. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) 13-3 Prior to final inspection or occupancy of each phase, the City will evaluate the site lighting, including entrance lighting, for potential on and offsite impacts. The lighting will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize on-site impacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.) 13-4 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer will provide the telephone numbers of persons to contact if there are complaints about noise, odors, night-lighting, etc. from activities on the Project site. This information should be displayed on a sign visible from the entrance to the development. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.) 13-5 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer will prepare a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan for the Phase 1 area along the "Lower West Collector," to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. Special attention shall be given to the landscape treatments along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue and at entrances to the Project. (Ibid.) Note: Mitigation Measure 7-4 in Section 3.7, Biological Resources, requires the applicant to secure offsite land to mitigate the loss of 109 acres of sage scrub vegetation. This m/tigation will also effectively mitigate potential impacts to NEOSHPP relative to voluntary preservation of open space. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Rationale Any night lighting introduced in the future will be designed to minimize spillage into nearby onsite and offsite residential areas. (Final EIR, p. 201.) The lighting impacts that will result in lighting levels typical for most suburban development. However, given the current rural character and generally dark ambient' light levels of the Etiwanda area, even with the above mitigation measures, the Project will still produce significant aesthetic impacts related to views and nighttime lighting. (Ibid.) The Project includes 8.02 acres of open space facilities will help reduce aesthetic impacts. Planned building heights will also help prevent the restriction of views. (Final EIR, p. 200.) In addition, the Project will utilize the design guidelines set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the County of San Bemardino General Plan. (ibid.) These guidelines encourage low density residences, preservation of visual and historic characteristics of the area, and a neighborhood character or theme that will enhance the aesthetic and visual qualities between the existing land use and future land uses. (ibid.) The threshold of significance regarding the transition of natural open space to developed uses is a difficult balancing act of planning and environmental issues. (Final EIR, p. 198.) Property owners, developers and many urban planners often consider the conversion of open space to development to be a fundamental change, but not necessarily an adverse change as long as the new structures are attractive and well planned. (Ibid.) In contrast, many residents and environmentalists consider the loss of open space and the building of new comminutes to be significantly adverse regardless of the appearance of the development. (Ibid.) Overall, since development of the Project will fundamentally alter the appearance of the Property site, its impact is properly considered to be significant. Further, since development of the Project conflicts with NEOSHPP's goal of protecting views, this conflict remains significant because views for the entire Project area will likely be impacted.. (Final EIR, p. 199.) 64 4. .Cumulative Im ap..~ Anticipated growth will slowly but fundamentally change the visual and aesthetic character of the Project area from largely vacant, rural rolling terrain to medium density suburban development. (Final EIR, p. 226.) Continued development will also significantly increase ambient light and glare. (lbi.d..) If ultimate development occurs according to SCAG projections, these impacts may be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid..) Even if the proposed Project and other new developments are similar in appearance and scale to existing developments, the proposed Project will contribute incrementally to these cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts. (Ibid.) VII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The City hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described below. CEQA requires than an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of thc project, which: (I) offer substantial environmental advantages over thc project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 5126.6.) An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of the project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (Ibid.) In all cases the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. (Ibid.) The lead agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed project and: (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social economic, technological or other considerations which make the altemative infeasible. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.) Although the State CEQA Guidelines directs lead agencies to consider the feasibility of an alternative location, that alternative is not required: "[i]f the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locati® exists." ~(_~_.~.) However, the lead agency "must disclose the masons for this conclusion and should include the reasons in the EIR." (ibid.) To the best of the City's knowledge and understanding, the Project applicant neither owns nor controls any other sites within the City or nearby areas suitable for the development of the Project. The Final EIR identified the City's objectives for the Tracy Development Project at page 15, and they are as follows: · Be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; · To annex the proposed Project into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; · Integrate the Project into the character of the surrounding communities and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; · Establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; · Provide a system of public/community facilities, including parks, trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; · Limit impacts to surrounding uses and residents, and to the community character; · Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; · Minimize imPacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies, and · Provide a variety of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. The Final EIR considered a total of 5 alternatives to the Project, plus the no project alternative, which are examined in detail as follows: A. No Project-No Development Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and would not be developed into a residential community. (Final EIR, p. 230.) Assuming that the site remains undeveloped, all significant Project specific impacts will be avoided. (Ibid.) However, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed, although not to the same degree as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse environmental consequences associated with land development of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) However, this alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site or any of the other Project objectives. (ibid.) B. No Proiect-Open Space Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and not be developed into a residential community. (Final EIR, p. 231.) Contrary to the No Project - No Development Alternative, however, this alternative would designate the site to be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. (Ibid_.) This alternative would avoid ail the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although not to the same degree as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse environmental consequences associated with land development of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) However, this alternative also does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site or any other Project objectives. (ibid.) Further, the value of the open space habitat would be minimal if and when additional development occurs adjacent to the Project site, effectively cutting off the Project site from larger intact blocks of habitat. C. Reduced Intensity Alternative The Project sit~ is currently designated by the County's General 'Plan for residential development at 3 units per acre, although the City's General Plan requirements limit development on the site to a lower density. ~(_~_.~.) It can be reasonably anticipated that, assuming the Project is not approved, that another residential development project would be submitted in the near future under County jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Another development project on this site would probably propose somewhere between 2 and 3 units per acre on 110 developable acres. The current Project proposes 269 units (1.59 units per gross acre), and it is likely that any future development Project would contain a similar number of units compared to the proposed Project, and thus produce similar impacts. (Ibid.) Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed exclusively into residential uses and the park relocated to some 'other (as yet unidentified) property in the Etiwanda area. (Ibid_.) Although a specific site plan is not proposed, it is assumed it would have approximately the same buildable area (109 acres) and have to meet the County's parkland, open space, fire safety, and road requirements. (Ibid.) Based on these constraints, this alternative would probably result in a maximum of 180 units. (Ibid.) While this alternative would have 85 fewer lots than the proposed Project, they would be of correspondingly higher value than the smaller lots of the proposed Project. (ibid.) One additional restriction of this alternative would be to limit homes to one story to help preserve views of the hills to the north. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate the land use impacts associated with inconsistency with the City's General Plan (i.e., no GPA) and some of the long-term air quality impacts. (Ibid.) However, these impacts would probably just be relocated to some other nearby property due to the continued need for residences and parks in the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) The following sections analyze specific impacts of this alternative compared to the proposed Project: 1. _Evaluatio~ 67 Land Use - Based on currently approved policies, this alternative would not be consistent with both the City and County General Plan designations, although fewer units are proposed than would be allowed under the County General Plan. (Final EIR, p. 232.) This alternative does not eliminate the potentially significant land use impacts of the proposed Project, nor is it fully consistent with the NEOSHPP because it does not identify specific mitigation lands to be preserved. Other land use impacts are similar to those of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Population and Housing - This alternative would allow 47 percent fewer units and residents than under the proposed Project (180 vs. 265 units and 585 vs. 861 residents). (Ibid.) Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant. (Ibid.! Earth Resources - This alternative is similar to the proposed Project although it would introduce fewer residents and structures into a seismically active area. (Ibid.) It .would also require slightly less grading for roads and building pads. (ibid.) Impact to soils would be equivalent to proposed Project. (ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, potentially significant but mitigable through implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and professional engineering and construction standards. (Ibid.) Water Resources - This alternative would produce larger lots with fewer impermeable surfaces, which may reduce runoff rates slightly. (Ibid.) Slower runoff would incrementally reduce potential erosion and silta~tion of nearby East Etiwanda Creek, which would be mitigated in the same manner as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard practices). (Ibid.) Transportation and Circulation - This alternative would have 32 percent fewer units and so wo~ld produce significantly fewer vehicular trips (approximately 2,000 vs. 2,956) and outside trips to the parks would be eliminated (i.e., moved to another park site). (ibid.) Overall, impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project and less than significant. (Ibid.) Air Quality - This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG, but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural coatings. (Final EIR, p. 235.) However, this alternative would reduce long-term emissions from Project vehicular trips and elimination of the 2 parks by approximately 30 percent (40.5 pounds vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 38.9 pounds vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would reduce them to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Biological Resources - As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the removal of 109 acres of sage scrub vegetation. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would likely mitigate using the same measure recommended for the proposed Project (i.e., acquisition of adequate offsite replacement habitat). (ibid.) If this same measure is implemented for this alternative, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., remains significant after mitigation). (Ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources - Under this alternative, fewer residents would consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (Ibid.) However, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Hazards - Under this alternative, hazards would be substantially less because the number of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, and human/wildlife' interactions would be reduced. (Final EIR, p. 233.) However, any project, including the Project and this alternative, that introduces a sizeable number of humans into this area would produce similar impacts. (Ibid.) Noise - This altemative would reduce construction-related noise levels, as well as long- term noise levels, by reducing the number of units and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e., 47 percent less). (Ibid.) However, the impacts of this alternative are similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Public Services - This alternative would require incrementally less public services by introducing fewer structures and residents into the area, but impacts would still be similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Utilities - Somewhat reduced but equivalent to the proposed .Project (i.e., not significant). (~bid.) Aesthetics ~ This alternative would have fewer units and they would be restricted to one story in height, which would significantly reduce impacts related to views. (Ibid.) Therefore, aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, coral~ared to the proposed Project which has significant impacts related to views and night lighting. (Ibid.) Cultural Resources - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (~id.) Agriculture - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Recreation - This alternative produces impacts that are significantly greater than those of the proposed Project by eliminating the 2 parks. (Ibid.) 2. Finding on Reduced Intensity Alternative This alternative would relocate the parks to some other yet-undetermined offsite property, and propose 180 units with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a height limit of one story based on current County General Plan requirements. (Ibid.) It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to land use (consistency with the City's minimum lot size requirement), long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emission), and aesthetics (views and night lighting). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions ("ROG") and loss of biological resources will remain. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate many of the significant or potentially significant impacts a~sociated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Those significant impacts remaining could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time. (Ibid.) However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. (Ibid.) While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project developer's and the City's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio and generates a reasonable return on investment. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR.) Also, as this alternative would not meet the other Project goals, including the goal of developing park space for City residents. D. Modified Site Plan Alternative This alternative would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. (Final EIR, p. 234.) It would also cluster the residential lots but on smaller lots (approximately 6,000 square feet) in the southwestern portion of the site to provide an additional 15 acres of open space along the west side'of Etiwanda Creek and to connect the relatively undisturbed lands within the Edison power corridors. (Ibid.) It would also eliminate the "surplus" fl_ood control property from development. ~(_~_.~-) This alternative would not restrict building heights to one story and eliminate the 2 parks, but would provide 2 acres of neighborhood park to meet the County's Quimby Act requirements (3 acres per thousand population). (ibid.) This alternative would allow approximately 200 units to be constructed compared to the 269 units allowed in the proposed Project (65 less units) and would require a redesign of the internal circulation system. While this alternative would not completely eliminate all impacts associated with the Project, it would reduce aesthetic impacts related to views and night lighting of the Park as well as long-term air quality impacts. (ibid.) The following sections analyze specific impacts of this alternative compared to the proposed Project: 1. Evaluation of Im acts Land Use - Based on the current approved policies, this alternative would not be consistent with County General Plan land use designations or the City's General Plan regarding minimum lot sizes (6,000 square feet proposed vs. 20,000 square feet City standard). (Ibid.) However, this alternative is more consistent with the NEOSHPP because it sets aside more mitigation land onsite to be preserved. (Ibid.) Other land use impacts are similar to those of the proposed Project. Population and Housing - This alternative would allow 25 percent fewer units and residents than under the proposed Project (200 vs. 269 units and650 vs. 831 residents). (Ibid.) Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant. (Ibid.) Earth Resources - This alternative is similar to the proposed Project although it would introduce fewer residents and structures into a seismically active area. (ibid..) It would also require slightly less grading for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Impact to soils would be equivalent to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project, potentially significant but mitigable through implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and professional engineering and construction standards. (Ibid.) Water Resources - This alternative would provide more open space with less impermeable surfaces, which may reduce runoff rates slightly. (Ibid.) Slower runoff would incrementally reduce potential erosion and siltation of nearby East Etiwanda Creek, which would be mitigated in the same manner as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts are similar to the proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard practices). (ibid.) Transportation and Circulation - This alternative would produce 25 percent fewer vehicular trips from residential units (approximately 2,000 vs. 2,650 trips), although outside trips to the 2 parks would be the same. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project and less than significant. (Ibid.) Air Quality - This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG, but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural coatings. (ibid.) Howeyer, this alternative would reduce long-.term emissions from Project vehicular trips by approximately 25 percent (41.8 pounds vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 42.6 pounds vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would reduce them to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Biological Resources - This alternative would result in the removal of 85 acres of sage scrub vegetation, which is 25 acres less than the proposed Project but still considered significant. (Ibid;) However, this alternative would likely mitigate using the same measures recommended for the proposed Project (i.e., acquisition of adequate offsite sage scrub vegetation land) and it would maintain the wildlife movement corridor along Etiwanda Creek. (ibid.) If the proposed sage scrub mitigation measure is implemented for this alternative as well, impacts to biological impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources - Under this. alternative, fewer residents would consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (ibid.) However, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (lbid.) Itazards - Under this alternative, hazards would be slightly less by reducing the number of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, human/wildlife interactions. (ibid.) However, any project, including the proposed Project and this alternative, that introduces a sizeable number of humans into this area would produce similar impacts. (Ibid.) Noise - This alternative would reduce construction-related noise by reducing the number of units to be built, as well as reducing long-term noise levels by reducing the number of units and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e., 25 percent less). (ibid.) However, the impacts of this altemfitive are similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Public Services - This alternative would require incrementally less public services by introducing fewer structures and residents into the area, but they would still be similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Utilities - Somewhat reduced but equivalent to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). {'Ibid.) Aesthetics - This alternative would have fewer units but they would not be restricted to one story in height, so it would reduce impacts related to views, but not to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant related to night lighting, compared to the proposed Project which has significant impacts related to both views and night lighting. (ibid.) Cultural Resources - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (ibid.) Agriculture - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (ibid.) Recreation - This alternative reduces impacts compared to those of the proposed Project by providing one neighborhood park. (Ibid.) 2. Finding on the Modified Site Plan Alternative This alternative would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with a height limit of one story. (Final EIR, p. 236.) This plan would reduce the impacts of the proposed Project related to long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions) to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG), and biological resources (relative to the North Etiwanda Open .Space and Habitat Preservation Program) would remain. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate some of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio and generates a reasonable return on investment as well as the proposed Project. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR.) E. Rural Density Alternative The City commented on the Draft EIR that the "City Density" alternative was not fully consistent with City development guidelines and policies for this area. {'Ibid.) This new alternative has been developed to be consistent with City policies and guidelines. (Ibid.) The property is currently designated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan as Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. (Ibid.) According to the proposed Project tract map, 72 the site has 107.3 acres of developable land. However, the City has optional development standards that are applicable to this category which would set aside almost 70 acres as open space. (Ibid.) In this case, the open space acreage would be set aside for biological habitat. The remaining 37.3 acres of developable land would allow approximately 75 units to be built under this alternative. (Ibid.) The City's Hillside Development regulations apply to this site. The current Project proposes 269 units (2.47 units per acre), so this alternative would have 190 less units (a 72 percent reduction) and would be consistent with the City's hillside guidelines. (Ibid.) This alternative would not have 2 parks at the perimeter of the project, but would rather have a small neighborhood park in the middle of the project. (Ibid.) Although the project would only generate a Quimby Act requirement for 1.2 acres of parkland, the City has a minimum requirement of 5 acres for a neighborhood park. (Ibid.) Under this alternative, the residential lots would be clustered along the southem and western portions of the site, leaving the 70 acres of open space along the Etiwanda Creek channel and the northern SCE power corridor. (Ibid.) These homes would be on half-acre lots and be up to 2-story. (Ibid.) This alternative would substantially reduce long-term air quality impacts and would also eliminate impacts associated with removal of biological habitat onsite, since the 70 acres of open space would represent an onsite mitigation ratio of 2:1 for loss of alluvial fan habitat. (Ibid.) The following sections analyze specific impacts of this alternative compared to the proposed Project: 1. Evaluation of Impacts for Rural Density Alternative Land Use - This alternative would be consistent with both the City and County General Plan designations, although fewer units are proposed than would be allowed under the County General Plan. (ibid.) This alternative eliminates the potentially significant land use impacts of the proposed Project and is consistent with the NEOSHPP because it identifies specific mitigation lands to be preserved. (Ibid.) Other land use impacts are similar to those of the proposed Project. (ibid.) Population and Housing - This alternative would allow 72 percent fewer units and residents than under the proposed Project (75 vs. 269 units and 245 vs. 831 residents). (Final EIR, p. 237.) Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant. (Ibid.) Earth Resources - This alternative would introduce fewer residents and structures into a seismically active area. (Ibid.) It would also require less grading for roads and building pads. Impact to soils would be equivalent to proposed Project. (Ibid.) The overall, impact would be similar to the proposed Project, which is potentially significant but mitigable through implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and profession, al engineering and construction standards. (Ibid.) Water Resources - This alternative would produce larger lots with fewer impermeable surfaces, which would reduce runoff as well as incrementally reduce potential erosion and siltation of nearby East Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) Overall, water-related impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard practices). (Ibid.) Transportation and Circulation - This alternative would have 72 percent fewer units and so would produce significantly fewer vehicular trips (approximately 720 vs. 2,956) and outside trips to the parks would be eliminated (i.e., moved to another park site). (I~. id.) Overall, impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project and less than significant. (Ibid.) Air Quality - This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG, but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural coatings. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would reduce long-term emissions from project vehicular trips by approximately 70 percent (16.7 pounds vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 17 pounds vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would reduce them to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Biological Resources - This alternative would preserve 70 acres of sage scrub vegetation and only remove 37 acres. (Ibid.) It would also maintain the wildlife movement corridor along Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) This alternative would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels after mitigation. (ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources - Under this alternative, fewer residents would consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (Ibid.) HoweYer, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (ibid.) Hazards - Under this alternative, hazards would be substantially less because the number of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, and human/wildlife interactions would be reduced. (Ibid.) However, any project, including the proposed Project and this alternative, that introduces additional humans into this area which would produce similar impacts related to hazards. (ibid.) Noise - This alternative would reduce constmctionorelated noise levels, as well as long- term noise levels, by reducing the number of units and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e., 72 pement less). (Ibid.) However, the impacts of this alternative are similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Public Services - This alternative would require less public services by introducing fewer structures and residents into the area, but impacts would still be similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Final EIR, p. 238.) Utilities - Reduced compared to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Aesthetics - This alternative would have much fewer units on larger lots, with 70 acres of open space to the north and northeastern portions of the site. (ibid.) While the units would not necessarily be restricted to one story, this alternative would still significantly reduce impacts related to views. (Ibid.) The aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, compared to the proposed Project which has significant impacts related to views and night lighting. (Ibid.) Cultural Resources - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Agriculture - This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.) Recreation - This alternative produces impacts that are greater than those of the proposed Project by eliminating the 2 parks but substitute a neighborhood park for Project residents. (Ibid.) 2. Finding on Rural Density Alternative This alternative would have 75 units on half-acre lots, clustered along the southern portion of the site. (Ibid.) It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to b!ological resources in terms of loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions will remain. (Ibid.) In addition, this alternative does ngt provide the benefit of providing park facilities. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when needed. (ibid.) However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. (Ibid.) While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cosffbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR.) Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents. F. Comparison of Alternative Table 6-1 of the Final EIR, Comparison of Project Altemative, and Table 6-2, Comparison of Significant Alternative Impacts, summarize and compare the anticipated impacts of alternatives. (Ibid.) No Project - No Development -- The property would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. (Ibid.) No Proiect - Open Space -- The property would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. (Final EIR, p. 239.) This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. (ibid.) Reduced Intensity Alternative -- This alternative proposes 180 units with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a height limit of one story. (ibid.) It would eliminate the significant impacts of long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emission), but would still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and biological resources. (Ibid.) In addition, this alternative does not provide the beneficial impact of providing needed park facilities. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cosffbenefit ratio for the_City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but does not meet the Project's objectives. (Ibid.) Modified Site Plan Alternative -- This alternative would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the site. (ibid.) It would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. (ibid.) It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cos~enefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. (Ibid.) Rural Densi .ty Alternative -- This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on the site with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. (Ibid.) Units would be clustered on 37 acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open space and biological habitat. (ibid.) This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. (Ibid.) This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of two parks. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is 76 .9..7/ environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives. (Ibid.) The CEQA Guidelines require identification of an environmentally superior alternative (Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Of those aitematives discussed in this section, the two "No Project" Alternatives (No Development and Open Space) are. both environmentally superior aitematives that would avoid all of the Project-related environmental impacts. (Final EIR, p. 239.) However, the CEQA Guidelines stipulate that, "if the environmentally superior aitemative is the no project aitemative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior aitemative among the other aitematives" (Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, the Rural Density (Alternative 3) is the most environmentally superior to the proposed Project since it eliminates ail of the significant impacts of the proposed Project except air quaiity emissions from construction. (Final EIR, p. 239.) VIII. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss the ways in which the Project would induce growth, including whether it could foster economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, the removal of obstacles to population growth or the construction of additional housing. State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) refers to growth inducement as ways in which the proposed Project w~)uld either directly or indirectly stimulate economic or population growth in the Project vicinity and the surrounding region. The California Environmentai Quaiity_Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines require the evaluation of growth inducing impacts of the proposed project, as well as the cumulative impacts of the Project plus other reasonably foreseeable public or private projects planned in the same area. Growth inducement can take many forms. A project can remove barriers, provide access, or eliminate other constraints, which encourage growth that has aiready been approved and anticipated through the Generai Plan process. (Finai EIR, p. 216-217.) The "planned" growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with underlying assumptions that adequate supporting infrastructure will be built. (Ibid.) This is perhaps best described as accommodating or facilitating growth, but for the purpose of this section, the term "inducing" is used. (Ibid.) Development in the foothill communities has become a direct growth-inducing impact, due to increases in population moving or migrating into the outlying community, and the area has created a need for new housing in the West Valley Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area. (Ibid.) Hence, new housing projects, such as the current proposal, are not growth inducing by themselves, .but a part of the regional growth in the area. This Project helps meet these additional housing demands. (Ibid.) The proposed Project may also stimulate growth in the foothills of the Etiwanda community, generally by improving existing roads and the construction of new urban infrastructure. (Ibid.) Growth of the Etiwanda area constitutes several thousand residential units, .ZTZ. therefore, the predicted "buildout" population in the Project area would be considered significant. (Ibid.) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regularly publishes growth predictions for use in traffic growth management and planning punposes. (Ibid.) SCAG has predicted the population growth forecast for the Etiwanda community for the upcoming decade. (Ibid.) They estimate the population in 2000 to be 128,300, in 2010 to be 155,900 and 186,300 in 2020. (ibid.) The proposed Project therefore represents 1.45 percent of the predicted population growth in the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) In comparison, the San Bemardino Area of Governments suggests that the sub-region that includes the City of Rancho Cucamonga will have a population of 1,772,700 by the year 2000 which will increase to 2,829,800 by 2020. (Ibid.) This represents an estimated annual growth rate of 1.6 percent over the period, similar to the growth rate anticipated for the City during the same period. (Ibid.) It should be noted that the closure of Etiwanda Avenue north of Lower Crest Collector Road will help restrict growth in the areas north of the project site by controlling or limiting public access to these areas. IX. UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes, which would result from a proposed action, should it be implemented. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2.) The proposed Project will create the following sign!ficant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: Short-Term Air Quality: Air pollutants generated by construction of the Project will be significant, primarily oxides of nitrogen from vehicle exhaust and reactive organic compounds from the application of architectural coatings, based on the CEQA significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (Final EIR, p. 228.) Long-Term Air Quality: Vehicular emissions from dally operation (i.e., occupation) of the Project will produce significant levels of oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic compounds, according to the CEQA significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (ibid.) Biological Resources: The Project will eliminate alluvial fan vegetation, contributing to cumulative impacts to biological resources. (ibid.) Aesthetics: Development of the Project will alter the appearance of the Property site and will conflict with NEOSHPP's goal of protecting views, and as such views for the entire Project area will be impacted despite mitigation. (Final EIR, p. 199.) Cumulative: The Project will also contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use, flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial fan sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes, overcrowded gchools, inadequate utilities, and loss of views. (Ibid.) Mitigation: No other significant adverse environmental impacts are expected as long as the following are implemented as proposed and outlined in this document: 1) standard conditions 78 and uniform codes; 2) project design features outlined in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis; and 3) the project mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis. (Ibid.) The primary irreversible environmental impact of the Project will be the commitment of capital, labor, materials, and especially the land to construct a housing development. (Ibid.) Construction of the Project will also result in the consumption of a variety of non-renewable or slowly renewable resources such as sand and gravel, asphalt, lumber, petrochemical construction materials, metals, fossil fuels, and water. (Ibid.) Over the long-term, daily occupancy of the Project will require the consumption of additional non-renewable or slowly renewable resources such as water and fossil fuels. The consumption of these resources will be similar to other suburban development in the foothill region. (Ibid.) The development will urbanize a relatively undeveloped area. (Final EIR, p. 13.) The level of-urbanization is consistent with housing developments throughout the City, San Bemardino County and Southern California. (Ibid.) Impacts associated with aesthetics, and air quality and biological resources will be mitigated, but not eliminated with the programs as outlined in the mitigation measures. X. PROJECT BENEFITS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Legal Requirements. State CEQA Guidelines sections 15093(a) and (b) state that: "CEQA requires~ the decision-making agency to .balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable." "When the lead agency approves a Project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record." B. Pro, iect Benefits. The City Council or Planning Commission finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality, biological resources, aesthetics and related cumulative impacts associated with the Project. The City Council or Planning Commission finds that the benefits set forth below, when balanced against the unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values which accrue to the community: · The Project will provide new housing in an area with a substantial demand for new housing, thereby assisting in meeting the regional housing needs. The Project will provide up to 269 quality single-family residences for approximately 83 residents. (Final EIR, p. 47) · The Project will provide 5.8 acres of land for a community park plus .44 acres for the City's equestrian trail, which exceeds the City's mitigation requirements and Project impacts. (Final Em, p. 212) · The Project will provide improved non-vehicular circulation through its addition of the .44 acres of equestrian trails to the City's planned trail network. This will encourage non- vehicular circulation, and provide passive recreation areas. In addition, preservation of the adjacent Edison utility corridors, which are planned for trail alignments in the future, will expand non-vehicular cimulation. (Final EIR, p. 213.) · Development of the Project will help improve overall fire safety in the area by permanently removing brush and trees from the Project site, and adding water service to improve fire- fighting capabilities. The danger for fire in this urbanizing area was aptly demonstrated by the recent Grand Prix area. The Project site will also be design to have two access points for emergency services, and improve access generally to the area by providing new roads and · additional signalization of existing roads. (Final EIR, p. 155.) · Development of the Project will improve the flood control programs of the County Flood Control District because of the additional off-site facilities that are proposed as mitigation for the Project's development. (Final EIR, pp. 177-180.) The construction of these facilities, with funds coming in part from the Project's developer, will likely exceed the Project's impact because the Project's hydrolic studies indicate that a 100-year flood event will be contained within the existing Etiwanda Channel even without mitigation. (Final EIR, p. 78.) · The Project will provide a positive economic benefit to public services. That is, the Project is likely to generate more revenues than expected costs for County services through sales taxes, subventions and other taxes which help fund government services. (Final EIR, p. 182-183; see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR) The City Council or Planning Commission hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation'measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council or Planning Commission has determined that the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the identified overriding considerations: XI. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City Council or Planning Commission finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the County's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council or Planning Commission. The City Council or P!anning Commission declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that requires recirculation. All of the information added to the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b). The City hereby certifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings: The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in this document but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality, biological resources and aesthetics. B. Conclusions: 1. All potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section IV above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project have been considered but these alternatives have been rejected because they fail to meet the basic objectives of the Project and/or are infeasible. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the Project override the Project's significant environmental impacts. XII. CUSTODIAN OF RECORD .775 The documents and materials that constitute the records of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at. The custodian for these records is the City. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. 82 = "C, MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Project File No.: SCH# 2003081085 Tract Development Project Applicant: Tracy Development Prepared by= Kent Norton - Michael Brandman Associates Date: April 28~ 2004 1.0 Land Use and Planning 1-1 Priortorecordationofeachphase, orissuanceofgreding CP Priorto ' Recordation or C,D 1,2 )ermits for each phase, the applicant shall submit and obtain recordation grading permit approval of a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance or issuance issuance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Neighborhood Theme of grading Plan in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, to the satisfacfion of permits for the City Planning Department. each phase 2.0 Population and Housing None Required ........ 3.0 Earth Resources 3.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer BO B Prior to building C 2 shall demonstrate that each lot is buildable & complies with permit issuance the recommendations and general earthwork and grading specifications found in the RMA Group Geotechnical Investigation (DEIR Appendix C). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or BO B Prior to grading C 1,2 recordation of each phase, a detailed geologic and permit issuance geotechnical investigation shall be prepared and approved for and/or recordation the residential building areas and all roads. The report shall of each phase demonstrate that each lot is buildable and identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants. This report shall also examine the drainage area adjacent to East Etiwanda Creek to identi~ 3otential landslide, erosion, or other slopes that could affect the residential area. Subsequent foundation and other design guidelines in these studies shall be consistent with the standards established in the RMA Group Geotechnical Investigation (DEIR Appendix C). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. i 3.0 Earth Resources ' ' ',~ ' ': · ** ~ * 3-3 Prior to the issuance of grading ,permits and/or BO B Prior to grading C 1,2 recordation, construction measures recommended by the permit issuance detailed geological investigation identified in Measure 3-2 and/or recordation shall be identified on grading plans and implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 3-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase, BO B C Prior to grading A, C 2, 4 the developer shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan to permit issuance the City that meets all applicable requirements of the for each phase SCAQMD, The Plan must be approved by the City Building and Safety Department, prior to issuance, of the grading permit and demonstrate that methods are in place to assure the following: , a)Areas disturbed by construction activities and/or used to store backfill materials, will be sprayed with water at least twice a day, in the morning and afternoon, or more often if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site. b)Storage piles, which are to be left in place for more than three working days shall either be sprayed with a non-toxic soil binder or covered with plastic or revegetated until placed in use. c)Tires of vehicles will be washed before the vehicle leaves the project site and enters a paved road. d)Dirt on paved surfaces shall be removed daily to minimize generation of fugitive dust. 3-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, where cut and CP B Prior to building A 2 fill slopes are created higher than three feet, a detailed permit issuance Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submit[ed to the City Planning Department prior to grading plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover shrubs, and trees, and sha~l be consistent with the Neighborhood Theme Plan of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, graded, but BO B, C Prior to building A, C 2, 3 undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted permit issuance with interim landscaping within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. 2 OF 21 3.0 Earth Resources 3-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, planting CE B, C Prior to A, C 3 developed land shall comply with the National Pollutant occupancy permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management issuance Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits, all grading shall BO B, C Prior to building A, C 2 De conducted in conformance with the recommendations permit issuance contained within the Geotechnical Report included as DEIR Appendix B. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4.0 Water Resources 4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer CE B Prior to grading A, C 2 shall obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for permit issuance water quality certification for dredge and fill operations), if necessary, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Copies of the same shall be provided to City Building and Safety. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4-2 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CE B Prior to issuance B 3 planned revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent of first occupancy to the project site shall be installed, subject to approval by the permit San Bernardino County Flood Control District and receipt of that approval to the City Engineer. 4-3 Prior to the recordation of each phase or approval of a CE B Prior to the A, B, C 1, 2 grading permit, the project proponent will implement the on- recordation of and off-site drainage system improvements as outlined in the each phase or project Drainage Study (DEIR Appendix D). This includes approval of a detention facilities proposed at 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) grading permit and Etiwanda Creek or onsite, participation in the County's Etiwanda Creek fee program, and participation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy program, including appropriate fair share fees. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3 OF 21 4.0 Water Resources 4-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall CE B Prior to building D 2 submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality permit issuance Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMps) that will be used on-site 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 June 2000. 4-5 Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant CE B Pdor to grading or D 2 shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent (NOI) to paving permits comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant 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. 4-6 Pdor to the issuance of building permits, drainage and CE B Prier to building A, C 2 flood control facilities and improvements shall be designed permit issuance and constructed in accordance with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District requirements, as applicable. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the City Engineer. 4-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer will CE B Prior to grading C 2 pay the required drainage fee related to the San Bemardino permit issuance County Flood Control District Etiwanda Creek watershed. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the City Engineer. 4 OF 21 5.0 Transportation and Circulation 5-1 Prior totheissuanceofthefirstoccupancypermitforthe CE D Prior tofirst B, D 3 project, the following intersections are projected to be occupancy permit warranted for traffic signals by opening year: · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) issuance · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 West Bound Ramp (EW) · Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 East Bound Ramp (EW) · Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) · Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW) · East Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW) The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, as identified in the project traffic report, to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or City of Rancho Cucamonga, as appropriate. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE C Prior to building A, B, C 2 the project shall incorporate bus turn-outs and/or shelters if permit issuance required by Omni-Trans and/or the Transportation for each phase Commission. The project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from these agencies to assure compliance with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans. Confirmation of contact and compliance with their requirements shall be provided to the City Engineer. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE B Prior to building C 2 the applicant shall pay a fair share basis for off-site permit issuance improvements as identified in the project traffic report. This for each phase measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including but not limited to the following: · 24~ Avenue (Wilson Avenue) from Etiwanda Avenue to Day Creek; · Day Creek Boulevard from 24th (Wilson) to Highland Avenue; · 24~h (Wilson) between Etiwanda Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and · East Avenue from south of the project limit to 23rd Street. 5 OF 21 5.0 Transportation and Circulation 5-4 Pdor to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE B Prior to building C 2 the applicant shall pay a "fair share" contribution towards off- permit issuance site impacts to linked roadways and intersections, as outlined for each phase in the project traffic report. The project share of the cost has been calculated based on the proportion of the project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to the total new peak hour Year 2015 traffic volume. The project's fair share of identified intersection and roadway link cost is $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Engineer, including any changes in the project's fair share contribution due to changes in the Consumer Price Index or similar public works measures. 5~5 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first CE D Prior to first A 3 residential unit, the developer shall construct East Avenue occupancy permit and Etiwanda Avenue to City standards, as outlined in the issuance project traffic report. These improvements will be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer CE B Prior to grading A, D 2 shall coordinate all construction-related activities to minimize permit issuance congestion and delay on local roadways, to the satisfaction of City Engineer. 6 OF 21 5.0 Transportation and Circulation ~ ' 5-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer BO B Prior to grading D 2 shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City Building permit issuance and Safety Department consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. The DCP shall include activities to reduce on-site and on-site dust production. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. Such activities shall include, but are not limited to, the following: a)Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil shall be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. b)Street sweeping shall be conducted, when visible soil accumulations occur along site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday. c)AII trucks hauling dirt away from the site shall be covered to 3revent the generation of fugitive dust. d)During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, and activities on unpaved surfaces shall be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. . . 6.0 Air Quality 6-1 During construction, all construction equipment shall be BO C City Inspectors to A 4 maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce monitor during operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 6-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer CP B Developer to C, D 2 submit shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction documentation of contractors shall provide evidence that Iow emission mobile compliance 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 City Inspectors to A 4 monitor imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as we I as City Planning Staff. compliance 7 OF 21 6.0 Air Quality 6-3 During construction, all paints and coatings shall meet or BO C City Inspectors to A 4 exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. monitor Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high compliance volume, iow-pressure spray, to the satisfaction of the City during paintiog inspectors. 6-4 During construction, all asphalt shall meet or exceed BO C City Inspectors to A 4 'monitor 3erformance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108, to the compliance satisfaction of the City Inspectors. during paving 6-5 During grading and construction, the prime contractor BO C City Inspectors to A 4 shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for monitor )rolonged periods (i.e., in excess of lO minutes), compliance during construction 6-6 During construction, all construction equipment shall BO C City Inspectors to A 4 comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to the satisfaction monitor of the City Inspectors. Additionally, contractors shall include compliance the following provisions: during · Reestablish ground cover on the construction site construction through seeding and watering; · Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads; · 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; and · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 8 Of 21 6.0 Air Quality 6-7 During grading, the site shall be treated with water or BO B City Inspectors to A, D 4 other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by'SCAQMD and monitor Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCBJ) daily to compliance reduce PM~0 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule during grading 403. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. 6-8 Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C City inspectors to A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas monitor that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 compliance emissions. This measure shall be implemented to the dudng satisfaction of the City Inspectors. construction 6-9 During construction, contractors shall utilize electric or BO C City inspectors to A 4 clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible, monitor This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the compliance City Inspectors. 6-10 During construction, contractors shall ensure that BO C City Inspectors to A 4 construction and grading plans include a statement that work monitor :rews will shut off equipment when notin use. This measure compliance shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. during construction 6-11 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall BO B Developer C 2 demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated submits plans for high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, approval appliances and water heaters. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official 6-12 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall BO B Developer C 2 demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated submits plans for thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. This measure approval ;hall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. 6-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer CP B Developer C, D 2 shall submit and obtain approval of a plan for the provision of submits plans for adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities for project residents approval throughout the project. The plan shall detail the construction timing for bike racks at the two parks, sidewalks, and trails based upon completion prior to occupancy of the first unit of the subject phase. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.  9 OF 21 6.0 Air Quality 6-14 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CE B Developer C, D 2 applicant shall make a fair share contribution to a park and submits proof of ride facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 Freeways that would serve fee payment )roject residents. The fair share calculation shall be determined to the satisfaction of City Engineer. The applicant shall place the appropriate funds in a special account for such purposes. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6-15 Pdor to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CE E Developer shall B, D 3 construct bus applicant shall provide a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park to OmniTrans standards if so directed by OmniTrans, and to stop/shelter if needed the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7.0 Biological Resources 2 7-1 If necessanJ, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate CP B Developer shall B, D obtain federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the determination U.S, Army Corps of Engineers. If a permit is required, the from USACOE if applicant will mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land or wetland areas at a minimum 1:1 ratio, which is consistent with the permit is needed )roject delineation report. This measure shall be -developer shall implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning obtain if needed Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. 2 7-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant CP B Developer shall B, D shall obtain a CWA Section 401 Certification from the obtain Regional Water Quality Control Board, if necessary. This determination from RWQCB if measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits, permit is needed - developer shall obtain if needed 7-3' If necessary, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed CP B Developer shall B, D 2 obtain ~,lteration Agreement (SAA) from the California Department of determination :ish and Game. If an SAA is required, the applicant will from CDF&G if mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land at a minimum 1:1 ratio permit is needed as recommended by the project biology report. This measure - developer shall shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning obtain if needed Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. 10 OF 21 7.0 Biological Resources 7-4 Pdor to the issuance of occupancy permits, all CP D Developer shall A 3 manufactured slopes on the periphe~J of the development install required shall be landscaped as approved by Planning staff. This landsf;aping measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the first unit in each phase. Prior to recordation of each phase, the phase map shall contain a note requiring this measure. 7-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicator shall CP B Developer shall B, D 2 acquire and convey to the County Special District OS-1 or provide proof of CSD other appropriate conservation organization 164 acres of land within or near the NEOSHPP area that supports alluvial fan establishment sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub. This measure is proposed to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive )lant and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. This offsite mitigation land (OML) shall be of equal or greater habitat value than that of the project site. The identification and transfer of OML will be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department, in accordance with the guidelines of the NEOSHPP. All reasonable efforts will be made to locate the OML within or near the NEOSHPP area. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 2 7-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a protocol CP B Biologist sha~l D gnatcatcher survey shall be conducted. If any individuals or conduct protocol nesting pairs of birds are found onsite, the developer shall surveys before obtain appropriate take authorization and additional mitigation grading land shall be added to the amount of Offsite Mitigation Land (OML) described in Measure 7-5 according to the following minimum ratios: individual = 15 acres, nested pair = 30 acres. If gnatcatchers are found onsite, an Incidental Take Permit would be required from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service either by a Section 10(a) permit or through a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 11 OF 21 ?.0 Biological Resources 2 7-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer CP B Biologist shall D shall conduct a protocol survey for the San Bernardino conduct protocol kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana wooly star within surveys before those areas of East Etiwanda Creek within 50 feet of the grading "punch through" connection of the new northern drainage channel to the creek channel. This survey is to verify that these species do not occupy area to be disturbed by construction. If SBKR and/or Santa Ana wooly star are found to be present, the developer shall comply with applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requirements, which may include obtaining a federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit or a Section 7 Consultation through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SBKR or wooly star habitat disturbed by construction will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 subject to any subsequent USF&WS permit conditions and receipt or notification to the City Planning Department. 2 7-8 If grading of the site has not occurred before February 15 CP B Biologist shall D of 2005, protocol surveys for SBKR and gnatcatchers will be conduct protocol performed over the entire site, and each spring thereafter surveys before until grading is completed. Any occupied habitat found during grading those surveys for either species will be added to the amount of offsite mitigation land required under the Draft EIR (164 acres). 2 7-9 The developer to provide an appropriate contribution for CP B Developer shall B the project toward funding a local brown-headed cowbird demonstrate proo trapping program to further benefit gnatcatchers in this area. of payment The amount of this contribution, and the location of the trapping program, shall be determined by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, The contribution shall be made prior to grading, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, 2 7-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist CP B Biologist shall D shall conduct a survey for nesting birds on the site. Any conduct protocol occupied nest shall be avoided and separated by at least 200 surveys before feet from ground-disturbing activities. Nesting areas are to be grading marked by orange construction fencing. The biologist shall verify a nest has been abandoned prior to removing the fencing and commencing ground-disturbing activities in any of these areas. 12 OF 21 8.0 Enei-~y and Mineral Resources ': ...... None Required 9.0 14aza~,s 9-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer CE B Developer shall B. D 2 shall submit a plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection submit plan for District (RCFPD) for each phase for the proper clean up of review and any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or approval by released during construction. The plan will require the RCFPD developer to properly clean-up and remove any contaminated soil or other material; restore the affected area to background conditions or to regulatory threshold levels for the contaminant(s) accidentally released or discovered; and deliver the contaminated material to an appropriate treatment, recycling, or landfill facility in accordance with the regulations for the type of contaminant accidentally released and collected for management. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the RCFPD. 9-2 Each individual lot owner will be required to maintain their BO E RCFPD to A Notice/Fine for ide and back yards with 30 feet of irrigated "firewise" Zone t conduct annual RCFPD to perform landscaping or equivalent. No buildings are to be built within inspections requiredneededwork if this setback area. Swimming pools and non-combustible deck coverings are permissible. Any remaining portion ofthe backyard lot will be maintained to either Zone 1 or Zone 2 criteria depending on the lot depth. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Notice/Fine for 9-3 Landscape and maintenance for the manufactured BO E RCFPD to A conduct annual RCFPD to perform slopes common areas will be to Zone 2 critada. These areas required work if may be irrigated, ornamental firewise landscaping, or planted inspections needed with native fire resistant plants and trees. Access points every 500 feet shall be available to perform annual maintenance. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Pmtacfion District. I 130F21 9.0 Hazards * 9-4 A special fuel modification zone easement shall be BO E RCFPD to A Notice/Fine for located outside and adjacent to the northern project boundary conduct annual RCFPD to perform within the electric utility corridor and on flood control district inspections requiredneededWOrk if land where all native and exotic vegetation will be treated to Zone 2 cdteria on a strip of land 50 feet in width. Also, a Fuel Modification Zone Easement of 75 feet in width will be created and maintained by the maintenance authority adjacent to the east side of Lot 46, Phase 4. Alternatively, the tentative tract map may be modified to allow an appropriate onsite Fuel Modification Zone along the northern boundary if the electric corridor cannot be used. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 3 9-5 All residential structures within the Tract 14749 BO D RCFPD or City to A development will be built with a Class A Roof Assembly, conduct including a Class A roof covering and attic or foundation inspections ventilation louvers or ventilation openings in vertical walls shall not exceed 144 square inches per opening. These opening shall be covered with '/, inch mesh corrosion- resistant metal screening or other approved material that offers equivalent protection. Attic ventilation shall also comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.). Ventilation louvers and openings may be incorporated as part of access assemblies. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. 3 9-6 A six-foot high solid non-combustible wall shall be CP D Developer to A construct constructed along the entire length of the north, east and west perimeter walls 3reperty lines to minimize fire danger. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 3 9-7 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CP D Developer to A applicant shall provide signs along the community trails, prepare and install signs per including the west bank of East Etiwanda Creek, that warn City direction residents of the potential risk of wildlife/human interacflons. The wording, design, number, and placement of the signs shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. -4~ ' 14 OF 21 9.0 Hazards 9-8 The applicant shall provide wildlife resistant trash CP D Developer shal{ A 3 receptacles at the parks and other public facilities to prevent provide required foraging by local wildlife. The design and placement of the facilities receptacles shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 10.0 Noise 10-1 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed CP C Developer shall A 4 the standards specified in Development Code Section retain noise 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer consultant to shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level perform required monitoring as specified in Development Code Section monitoring 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times maybe required bythe 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 excee~l the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 4 10-2 During construction, haul truck deliveries shall not take BO C City Inspectors to A place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on monitor weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a compliance during national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling construction 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. 15 OF 21 10.0 Noise 10-3 Pdor to the issuance of grading and building permits for BO B Developer to D 2 each phase, the developer shall confirm'to Building and submit Safety in writing that all construction equipment, fixed or documentation of mobile, sha~l use properly operating muffiem. No combustion compliance to equipment, such as pumps or generators, shall be allowed to City operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 6:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. Stationary equipment shall be placed in such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors. Additionally, stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors as well. The developer shall include ~ this provision and adherence to all conditions of approval as a requirement of all construction contracts for this site. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 10-4 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, CP B Developer C 2 all construction staging shall be performed at least 500 feet submits plan to from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas, as City for review indicated on the grading plan, will be subject to review and C City Inspectors A 4 approval by the City Planning Department. monitor 10-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer shall C, D 2 the developer will document that exterior residential areas will submit proof of have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, to the compliance satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. 10-6 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each BO D Developer shall D 3 phase, the developer shall document that interior living areas submi,t proof of have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of compliance the Building and Safety Department. 2 10-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO D City Inspectors to A, D the developer shall incorporate site designs and measures to verify compliance help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. Residential lots with rear yards or side yards adjacent to collector streets (i.e, Lower Crest) shall be constructed with a 6-foot block wall along the perimeter or demonstrate with an additional noise study that ultimate traffic volumes onsite will not exceed the noise performance standards in the City Development Code to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department. ~ 16 OF 21 11.0 Public Services 11-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer to D 2 the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall pay all submit proof of legally established public service fees, including police, fire, fee payments schools, parks, and libraries to the affected public agencies as stipulated in the Development Agreement. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. 2 11-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CP B Developer to C the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall comply submit plans to with all design requirements of affected public agencies such agencies for as police, fire, health, etc. This measure shall be review and implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning approval Department. 2 11-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, FC B Developer to C the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Department with submit plans to RCFD for review regard to determination of adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire resistant structural materials in project and approval buildings. 3 11-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each BO D Developer shall B submit proof of phase, the applicant shall pay all legally established impact fees to the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joi~t )ayment of schoo fees Union High School District in accordance with state law. Proof of such payment shall be submitted to City Building and Safety Department. 1 11-5 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer shall CE B Developer shall D )ost a bond in an amount to be determined by the City demonstrate Engineering Department to ensure installation and payment of bond maintenance of all public and private roads and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project. This measure shal~ be implemented to the satisfaction of the City ~ Engineer ..... - . ~ ~ Utilities .... ~ ~ ~ 2 12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer shall B the applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County demonstrate Water District for sewer service. Additionally, the Cucamonga payment County Water District will be required to provide funds to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency for treatment of the pro'ect s wastewater, Proof of such payment shall be submitted to the City Building and Safety Department. ~ 17 OF 21 12.0 Utilities 12-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, development CE B Developer shall B 2 plans shall be provided to Southern California Edison, the submit proof of Gas Company, and Verizon, as they become available in review and rder to facilitate engineering, design and construction of approval by other improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, agencies and telephone service to the project site. This shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2 12-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant CE B Developer shall B submit service shall apply for and obtain will-serve letters from SCE, SCGC, letters from other and Verizon and place them on file with the City Engineer· agencies 12-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant CE B Developer shall B, C 2 shall comply with the guidelines provided by SCE, SCGC, and submit proof of Verizon in regard to easement restrictions, construction review and guidelines, protection of pipeline easements, and potential approval by other amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing agencies easements of these companies. This shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13.0 Aes[he~cs 13-1 All outdoor lighting shall be submitted to the Planning CP B Developer shall C 2 Department for plan check and shall comply with the submit lighting y for requirements of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design review and guidelines and the City General Plan. This measure shall be approval implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2 13-2 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall CE B Developer shall C submit signage submit construction plans for any signage associated with the plans to City for site, including entrance monuments (but excluding street review and signs and traffic signs), primarily of natural appearing approval materials (i.e. wood and rock), consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines. If signs are lighted, light must be directed toward the sign rather than backlighting. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 3 13-3 Prior to final inspection or occupancy of each phase, the CP D · Ci~ Planners to A City will evaluate the site lighting, including entrance lighting, inspect lighting The lighting will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize on- and offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. ~ 18 OF 21 13.0 Aesthetics 13-4 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer will BO B Developer to D 1 provide the telephone numbers of persons to contact if there )revide numbers are complaints about noise, odors, night-lighting, etc, from to City activities on the project site. This information should be displayed on a sign visible from the entrance to the development. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. 13-5 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer will CP B Developer to C 2 ~repare a detailed ~andscaping and wall treatment plan for the submit landscape Phase 1 area along the "Lower West Collector," to the plansto City for satisfaction of the City Planning Department. Special attention review and shall be given to the landscape treatments along Etiwaoda approval Avenue and East Avenue and at entrances to the project. 14.0 Cultural Resources 14-1 A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a CP B Developer to A, B, D 2 )reconstruction field survey of the project site. The retain paleD to )aleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also survey site ~rovide 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: · Ass gn 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; and Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bemardino County Museum. 19 OF 21 14.0 Cultural Resources 14-2 If any prehistoric archaeological resources sre CP C Developer will A 4 encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain archaeo retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction monitor 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 intedm 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 adver, se project effects on significant, important, and umque 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; and · If artifacts of Native American (NA) origin are discovered, official representatives of the NA group will be consulted to determine the most appropriate disposition of the artifacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in agreement with County Museum and the NA group, 15.0 Agricultural Resources __ --: *--**------------ None Required ~ ~ ~ ~ 16.0 Recreation ~ 2 ~ The applicant will submit conceptual park design and CP B ~submit park plans C landscaping plans to the City subject to the approval of the to City for review City Planning Department. , and approval 20 OF 21 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person I~lonltorlng Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map CP - City Planner or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City E~ngineer or c~esignee C - Throughout Construction C - P}an Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Officia~ or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports / Studies / Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP ~ ' 21 OF 21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUB'I-r14749 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICANT: TRAIGH PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: NORTH OF THE SCE CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT16324 is granted subject to the approval of __/ / annexation. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No.04-60, Standard / / Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Amhitect. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning / /.__ Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include /__ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. EXHIBIT"H" Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions ~/ / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/ / State Fire Marshat regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/ / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /_._/ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all /.__/ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with / / all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single- family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /__/__ adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed / / control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and-recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing-and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced __/ / with two-rail, 4-inch Iodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as ~ / veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Locat Feeder Trait grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a __/ / distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the _street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official d. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at / / least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 12. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the Project No, SUB'I-r14749 Completion Date name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever ! said information changes. 13. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all / lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall __J / condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 16. Construct btock wails between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than / / wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood / / gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 18. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / 19. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and ___/ ./ _ enhance views. 20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The __/ ../ 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner 'review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping includin~ trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall §e maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the city Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / / products. D. Building Design 1. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the __/_--/ street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / tl~e case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1___/../ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater/ / slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously / / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required. This requirement ~/ / shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in /_ / the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / / perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. AIl walls shall be previded with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the /__./ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles o' / / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall previde each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock ~ / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special / / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and 1-15 Freeways / / in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $1,000.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for fodeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location / / of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. project No. SUB'I-r14749 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e.Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., SUB'iT #, SUBTPM#, DRC #) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / / Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to / ./ the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. --/ / 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can / / contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements. I. Site Development 1. Ptans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be __/__./ marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT16324). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant ~ / shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safe.ty Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tractJparcel map /_ / recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / /--- through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" in'structiens. __/ / Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date · "A" / / 2. Roohng mater als shall be Class . -- K, Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading __/ · Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to '/__/ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted_at the / /~ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, / / submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: --/ / a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site __/ / drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over /__/ adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided / /- properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division ~/ / for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits (this may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or /..__/ planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for//.__ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, /_._/ community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Project No. SUB'I-F14749 Completion Date 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from _~/ / street centertine): 4~4 feet total feet on Etiwanda Avenue -'--/ /-- 3._~3 feet total feet on East Avenue /--/ 33, feet total feet on Lower Crest / / 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. /__/ 4. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. /--/ 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / /__ final map. 6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be / / dedicated to the City. 7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests __/ / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer s cos. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue across SCE. M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseo~, landscaped . _/ / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, streettights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connecti°ns fr°m a s°ume --/ · of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. 3. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be / / constructed for all half-section streets. 4. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: ~-/ / Curb & A.C. Side-. Dr ve Street Street Comm Median I Bike Street Name IGutter I Pvmt ] walk I Appr. I Lights I Trees [ Trail I Island I Trail [ Other I EtiwandaAvenue X X X X I X / XI / X / East Avenue X X X X X X Lower Crest X X X X X Project NO. SUBTT14749 Completion Date 5. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights / / on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / / construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / / interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction / / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City __ Standards or as'directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City reads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with __ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. __ __/__ 6. Provide a minimum of 3-inch conduit for future fiber optic use on all streets with connection / / through the parkway to each lot or parcel (fiber-to-the curb, I- I ! C). The size, placerhent, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 7. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review / / and appreval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 8. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date 9. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows, The completed ~ / legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1 (typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. I Size Qty. Grow Street Name i Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing East Avenue Within the ENSP Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 3 ft. // 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. N/o Wilson Avenue Pinus canadensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ff. o.c. 15-gal. Flilnl- Etiwanda Avenue Within the ENSP Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. ~ N/o Wilson Avenue Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ft. o.c 15-ga. ~ Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1 ) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may Cequire backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Division. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with / /__ adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines_of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / / be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Etiwanda Avenue, East Avenue, and the south side of Lower Crest Collector. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas ~.~.O/o) of mortared cobble or / / other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first.' Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the __ developer until accepted by the City. 5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the ~'esults of the respective / Beautification Master Plan Etiwanda North Specific Plan Landscape Theme, Etiwanda Avenue (Section M-1 ), East Avenue (Section B-1 ), Lower Crest (Section B-2}. O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone 'D' designation removed /..~ from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an unshaded "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to fina map approval or issuance of ! building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 2. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map /___./ approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of sudace drainage entering the /._~/ property !rom adjacent areas. 4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its /__._/ right-of-way. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, / / electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the retocation of existing .utilities as necessary. / / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential - projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from air utilities and other interested agencies involved. __/ / Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage /._._/ FeEs shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of-way. SCE and / / San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities /~/ District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 4. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all / / new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed / / ~b(~yond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. Project No. SUB'I-r14749 Completion Date 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall /_ / be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE A'I'I'ACHED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE SAFETY DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS FD PLAN REVIEW#: FD-03-0905 PROJECT #: SUB']-r14749, DRC2003-00410 PROJECT NAME: Tract 14749 DATE: May 12, 2003 PLAN TYPE: SFR High Hazard Area APPLICANT NAME: Traigh Pacific OCCUPANCY CLASS: Group R-3 FLOOR AREA (S): Unknown TYPE CONSTRUCTION: Type V FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM REQUIRED: None LOCATION: North end of Etiwanda Ave FD REVIEW BY: Tim Fejeran, Fire Inspector PLANNER: Debra Meier ALL OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2770, TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT- STANDARD CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS - General, Procedural, Technical, or Operational Information that shall be Included, Corrected, or Completed as noted below. The following is applicable to the above project. FSC-1 General Requirements for Public and Private Water Supply 1, General Guidance for Fire Hydrants: The following provides general guidance for the spacing and location of fire hydrants. Remember these are the maximum permitted distances between fire hydrants: a. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area the maximum distance between fire hydrants is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150 ft. b. Fire hydrants are to be located: 1. At the entrance(s) to a project from the existing public roadways. This includes subdivisions and industrial parks. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs. 5. The location of fire hydrants is based upon the operational needs of the Fire District to control a fire. 6. Fire hydrants shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet from any building. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Minimum Fire Flow: The required fire flow for this project is 1750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. Please see "Water Availability" attachment for required verification of fire flow availability for the proposed project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 3. Hazardous Fire Area: The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire area shall be not less than 1750 gpm at 20 p.s.i, residual. For structures in excess of 3600 square feet use Table A-Ill-A-1. This flow may be reduced when the structure is protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Single-family Residential Plans: For single-family residential and accessory structures show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-4 Fire District Site Access- Technical Comments 1. Access Roadways Defined: Fire District access roadways include public reads, streets, and highways, as well as private roads, streets, drive aisles and designated fire lanes. 2. Location of Access: All portions of the structure or facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shal~ be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates, and fences are an obstruction. 3. Private Roadways end Fire Lanes: The minimum specifications for private fire district access roadways are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b. The inside turn radius shall be 20-feet. c. The outside turn radius shall be not less than 50-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9 degrees or 20 pement. h. The maximum grade dt the driving surtace shall not exceed 12%. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). 4. Restricted Residential Access: Gated or access for all residential development shall comply with the following: a. All automatic gates shall be provided with a Fire District approved, compatible traffic pre-emption device. Approved devices are available from Opticom (3M), Fire Strobe 2000 (Access Products Inc.), and Tomar Electronics. Devices shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer'~ instructions and specifications. b. A Knox Rapid Entry System Key Box is required to be installed adjacent to each gate in a Fire District approved location. The box shall be mounted where it is clearly visible and access is unobstructed. c. Vehicle access gates shall be provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. d.The key switch shall be located immediately adjacent to the Knox Box for use in the event that the traffic pre-emption device fails to operate. e.The gate shall remain in the open position for not less than 20-minutes and shall automatically reset. Contact Building and Safety/Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713 for inspection. 5. Vegetation: Trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire vehicles. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 FSC-5 Hazardous Fire Area 1. Designated Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the "State Responsibility AreE' (SRA), the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone' (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District," or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as Hiqh Probability-Hiqh Consequence for Fire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. This determination is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans statinq -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted bythe Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies, b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans, c. Approved Fire District access roadways, d. One.hour fire-resistive construction with protected openings may be required, e. Fire sprinkler system may be required, f. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from an on-site water supply. g. Visit www~c~san-bernardin~ca~us/~anduseservices/DevC~de/8~5-~verlaY%2~Distrlcts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Oveda¥ District. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 3. Construction Standards: Summary of construction requirements for the Hazardous Fire Area: a. The roof shall be a Class A fire-resistive assembly approved by Building and Safety. Fire- retardant Class A wood shakes and shingles shall have completed a 10-year "natural" weathering test. Class A roof assemblies shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions. b. The space between rafts at exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks at one and one-half (1-1/2) inches thick. May be "boxed." c. The exposed surface of exterior wall must be listed as one-hour fire-resistive construction. d. All exterior doors must be solid core or wood portions shall be solid core wood. e. All windows, sliding glass doors or glass insets in does shall be constructed of approved dual- pane glass. f. Cantilevered or standard type desks shall be constructed of 1.) A minimum of at least one and one-half (1-1/2) inch wood deck; and/or 2.) Protected on the underside by materials approved for one (one) hour fire-resistive construction; and/or 3.) Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in the Building Code. g. Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall be constructed of materials not less than one-half (1/2) inch. Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass, or wood-lattice less than one-half (1/2) inch are not permitted. h. All required fences adjacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas as conditions of approval for a project shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Any fence within 10-feet of the fuel modification area or wildland area shall be non-combustible. Beyond 10 feet the may be constructed of any approved material. All other fences, including those on the interior of the project are not subject to this requirement. i. Visit www~c~~san-bernardin~~ca~us/~anduseservices/Dev~~de/8~5~~ver~aY%2~Districts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District. Review the County Fire Safety Overlay District standard for complete requirements. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4 Perimeter Roadway Required: A roadway shall be provided along the project perimeter exposed to a fire hazard or fuel modified area. The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadway shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet in width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen percent (14%), and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles. Contact the Fire Safety Division at (909) 477-2770, Extension 3009, for specific requirements. Correct North Access road to reflect minimum of 20 feet. 5. Power-operated Equipment Use in a Hazardous Fire Area: Submit a "Fire Prevention and Control Plan" to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fire Safety Division for review and approval. The plan shall include job location, specific fire tools to be maintained on-site, person(s) responsible for supervising the project (on-site), method of reporting a fire (cell phone, etc.), City or County Permit Number, contractors license number, address, telephone number, etc. Fire District Approval Required for Equipment Use: No power-operated equipnlent, including mobile, stationary, or portable, shall be used without Fire Safety Division written approval. 6. Combustible Vegetation: During the declared 'lire season" or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation will sustain combustion permitting the spread of fire, contact the Fire Protection District during normal business hours to determine if "special fire protection measures" are required to operate power equipment. Call (909) 477-2770, Monday through Thursday, between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The purpose of the call is to determine if extreme fire weather conditions are present or expected to occur. 7. Special Fire Protection Required: "Special fire protection measures" include, but ara not limited to; a. A stand-by water tender with operating pump; tested and maintained fire hose and nozzles. b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks, i.e., contact between blades or tracks and rocks, etc. c. The Fire District requires the contractor to maintain a firewatch for a minimum of one-hour following cessation of operations each day. d. For welding, cutting or grinding clear away all flammable material from the area around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet. A "hot-work" permit will be required. e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 FSC-6 Fuel Modification/Hazard Reduction Plan (Required Notes for All Maps and Plans) 1. Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" based on proximity to or exposure urban-wildland interface. Mitigation measures ara raquired. The building(s) shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District- Area FR-1 or Area FR-2. '- .5/$ i. Provide an appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder showing continued maintenance responsibility in the event of property transfer, change in membership of directors, change in CC&R's. j. Maintenance responsibility requirements and appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder 5. Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 6. Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modificatior~/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. 7. Phased or Temporary Plans: Phased projects or temporary fuel modification plans must meet the requirements for permanent plans and be approved by the Fire District. 8. Single-family In-fill Projects: For a single-family dwelling project located in the Hazardous Fire Area, a simplified landscaping~uel modification plan may be acceptable. The plan shall detail the defensible space. Provide a minimum thirty (30) foot space for slopes less than 15% arid a minimum one hundred (`100) feet space for slopes of '15% or more. Show proposed and/or existing vegetation. Refer to the following web si~e for further information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm. The Fire District can provide a single page sheet of standardized notes for inclusion on the construction plans. Carl (909) 477-2770 to obtain a copy, and to determine if your project is eligible. FSC-12 Plan Submittal Required Notice Required plans shall be submitted an~d approved prior to construction in accordance with 2000/200'1 Building, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes; `1999 Electrical Cede; Health and Safety Code; Public Resources Code; and RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD39, Guidelines and Standards. NOTE: In addition to the fees due at this time please note that separate plan check fees for tenant improvements, fire protection systems and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed at time of submittal of plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Complete the following: Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and the Water District. On the plan show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Public Installation: All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit a copy of the Water District inspection report to the Fire Safety Division. Contact Water District to schedule testing. 3. Hazardous Fire Area Construction: The building or project is located within the designated Hazardous Fire Area. All buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of County Fire Safety Review Area (One or Two) [FR-'i/FR-2] standards. In the Hazardous Fire Area the applicant shall provide a modified one-hour fire-resistive wall for the following exterior wall(s) based on exposure to unmodified native vegetation or potential exposure to embers or debris from a wind-driven fire: a. North Side- b. South Side- 2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All greundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I- Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm for additional information. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. 3. Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a preliminary grading the applicant shall obtain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s) shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning. a. Show all property lines, contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures, b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more (Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure. c. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and inter/ace thinning). d. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans. e. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density; and relationship to grade. f. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. g. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. State on the plan who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. 4.. Final Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire District approval of a final fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable.level of risk to the structures by vegetation. a. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interlace thinning). Indicate locations of permanent zone identification markers. b. include irrigation plans and specifications. c. Attach a landscape plan. The landscape plan must i~entify the location and type of supplemental plantings. The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botanical names of new and existing plants within the fuel modificatioh area. Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation. d. The landscape plan shall include any special or specific maintenance intended for the site such as pruning, "limbing" up, mowing, etc. e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, reads, parks, green space, etc. g. State on the plan who will ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. h. Include on the title sheet any tracFproject conditions of approval, CC&R's, and/or deed restrictions related to the site or final fuel modification area. include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this submittal. c. East Side- d. West Side- No vent openings are permitted on or in building components or surlaces that are parallel to any wall required to be constructed of modified one-hour fire-resistive construction. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans statinq -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes previsions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies; b. Fuel modification/hazard reduction plans; c. Approved Fire District access roadways; d. One-hour fire-resistive construction for exterior walls may be required; e. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from the public water system or an on-site water supply. 5. Architectural Plans- Single-family Residential Hazardous Fire Area: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit amhitectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division review is intended to ensure that conditions established during the development review have been included in the design of the project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 6. Fuel Modification Plan- Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION- Complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Contact Building and Safety/Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713. 2. Address Single-family: New single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be intemally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 3. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with at least three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site for additional information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Fuel Modification Plan- Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 Items or Issues Not Identified Elsewhere 1. Perimeter wall construction on the North, West, and East of the development shall be block construction unless mitigated through other means of fuel modification and management. Fire District Forms and Letters Note: If these conditions are part of the final Standard Conditions issued by the Planning Division referenced Fire District forms and letters are not included. Contact the Fire Safety Division for copies of forms or letters. The forms and letter are also found in previously issued Fire District comments. Fire District Review Letter (P&E)- Template SL 10/31/02 Revision CRAIG A. SHERMAN A']WORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN D&EGO, CA 92101-2311 FACSIMILE TELEPHONE (619) 702-9291 (619) 702-7892 July 20, 2004 Via Facsimile (909) 477-2846 Followed by Hand Delivery City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Comments Recommending Denial of the Tentative Tract and Other Project Approvals for the Proposed Traigh Pacific (aka Tracy) Development (DRC2003-0409 through DRC2003-0411 and SUBTT 014749) State Clearinghouse Number 2003081085 Dear Mayor and City Council: This office represents The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. and Spirit of the Sage Council (collectively, Sage Council) is a 501(c)(3), two non-profit projects and a corporation, consisting of Native Americans, scientists, citizens and members dedicated to protecting and conserving America's natural and cultural heritage, including endangered species, natural habitats. Both of these groups have members and supporters that reside in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and San Bemardino County (County) who recreate, enjoy and find spiritual renewal in the regions natural open spaces, including that area that is subject to the referenced proposed development. These comments are provided by Sage Council and other interested community groups and/or persons in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the western area of the County of San Bernardino ("County"). The Sage Council provides this comment letter in response to the Final Environmental Impact Report CFEIR'') for the above-referenced Traigh Pacific residential development subdivision and related/associated City and LAFCO administrative and legislative actions (collectively, "Project"). Page Two City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigh Pacific) Sage Council incorporates all verbal and written comments it has made on this Project, including the prior permutation of the Tracy project back in 2001, and the objections this office made on June 9, 2004 regarding defects in the City's proposed Project, Tract Map, GPA/SPA, Annexation, and Development Agreement. Prior Proiect and Environmental Documentation Thc pending Project was first proposed and processed as an application in the County. Prior environmental documentation for the Project and adjacent areas demonstrate the presence of additional significant resources, along with impact reducing alternatives/configurations for reducing Project impacts. For some reason, City and the Project applicant have omitted all acknowledgment and reference to this earlier project and its CEQA review documents, but which Sage Council incorporates by reference here as being part of thc City's record and files on this Project. It is especially ironic and relevant here that City had many objections to the pr/or related project which are being voiced here by Sage Council. But for some reason, City has turned the other cheek in its effort to obtain additional tax revenue at the expense of the environment. While choosing money and housing over the environment is one thing, however, being accountable and honest about anticipated Project impacts (and attempting all possible mitigation) is another mandated to be done by CEQA. Phased Development - Bifurcation of Proiect and Associated/Required Construction Impacts The Project's Development Agreement, conditions of approval, and chest-pounding by County Supervisor Paul Bland (ltr. 6/9/04) clearly indicate the development of an equestrian center, substantial equestrian trails, and park and trailhead facilities uses that are required to be built in association with the Project. Conditions of approval require two parks to be included in first phase. Despite inclusion of these parks, including the equestrian park/facility, City is now only beginning to admit that these developments are going to create additional impacts requiring additional environmental review. City staff's new assertion that later and further environmental review will analyze and mitigate these impacts is improper and unlawful under CEQA which requires all project impacts be analyzed and mitigated at the earliest possible time. One reason for this is the ability to mitigate, configure the project, or eliminate such project elements which might otherwise foreclose. Additionally, the true impacts of City's action are knowingly understated. Page Three City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigh Pacific) Equestrian trails and specific travel routes along streams or creekbeds, and into and through the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve and other deed-restricted habitat preserve lands of the ENSP, need to be analyzed now in association with the City's current proposed action. The problems arising from the unknown and unstated extent of the required equestrian center and trail program are exacerbated by City's wholesale reliance on the outdated ENSP which calls for widespread equestrian development, despite changes in land use, urban development, and substantial nature preserve and habitat conservation. (See below discussion) The assertion that City will conduct future and subsequent studies to determine the equestrian caused soil erosion and habitat destruction is an unlawful deferral of Project impacts, as well as an artificial bifurcation of the Project and its associated (required) project elements. City's alludes and references that it will require and provide erosion and offsetting mitigation according to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan ("regulations" and "policies"). But, these "policies" do not amount to mitigation measures for this Project, nor does the City identify the location, extent or types of impacts, nor the mitigation proposed therefore. Also, there are no provisions or funding or mechanism in said Plan to offset the impact from this Project's (and its ancillary facilities') developments. Amendments to Etiwanda North Specific Plan are Inconsistent~ Incomplete~ and Rely on Outdated and Stale Information The City refuses to acknowledge the outdated and staleness of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, but yet continues to amend it to allow additional housing, without updating the Plan to current and known existing conditions. Despite City claiming the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is only a "planning guide," as admitted by City, the date of the NOP for the Project should recognize and reflect these changes, and compare today's baseline versus what is set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The failure to do this impedes the City's ability to compare and evaluate consistency as its "guiding" document becomes hardened with developments and annexations. Contrary to City's assertion, landowners do not control "revisions" to the City's general and specific plans. It is City's duty and obligation under California planning law to update its adopted plans so as to ensure and enable consistency. It is irrelevant whether or not individual landowners request such updates or amendments. Rather, it is only City's knowledgeable planning staff that proposes the backwards approach that individual project applicants will drive any change or update to City's long-range Page Four City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigh Pacific) planning. Even elementary planning principles tell us this seems ludicrous. To the extent that a landowner needs to request the removal of an inconsistent, destructive and incompatible equestrian trail development program across and through nature preserves, The Habitat Trust For Wildlife, Inc. a local landowner and land trust with obligations to oversee in excess of 300 acres of land, hereby expressly requests that equestrian overlays be removed from its and other nature preserves in the Project area. It is given that the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, in conjunction with the amendments and the equestrian Project elements being required by City, needs to be amended and updated with these current realities of land uses and ownership. For instance, the Project's substantial introduction of equestrian uses into the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve, State Significant Natural Area, and surrounding areas is not addressed by City, but is instead deferred and remains a significant conflicted issue due to the recent developmenffestablishment of the Habitat Preserves, after the time that City contemplated an equestrian overlay for the area. Additionally, according to terms and conditions of Route 30/Interstate 210 expansion projects and the federal ESA Section 7 consultation and mitigation program related thereto, the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve is not to be used for equestrian development, but is rather slated for ecological conservation uses. The action of government agencies restricting these lands included intent to eliminate roads, access, and/or human induced impacts that would diminish habitat qualities. By City's action, it makes little sense to develop, promote and require an active/destructive recreational activity in the Nature Preserve, and then mitigate for losses of habitat and values (in a nature preserve). City's approach of requiring such development, and then assessing the impacts later by studies is not only backwards planning, but is forbidden by CEQA and the consistency doctrine for general/specific plans. In addition to the warranted denial of this Project, should City proceed on this course of action, Sage Council demands and will take all steps necessary to require City reinitiate consultation with the agencies that committed to preserve said land areas in perpetuity. Required Water Studies is Required for City's 800-acre Annexation Proiect There is no information in the record about the ability of thc contemplated water purveyor (Cucamonga Valley Water District) to provide long-term water service. In fact, there is only admitted doubt. The water purveyor instead admits that without expanded facilities it will be unable to meet the Project's and other adjacent projects' needs - "as growth continues in thc Project area." Page Five City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigh Pacific) It is further undeniable that this Project is admittedly a part of City's larger 800-acre annexation effort. The "project" here - for the purposes of SB 221 and the previously demanded water surveys required by California Water Code §§ 10910-10915 and CEQA Guidelines § 15083.5, subd. (d) - is City's bifurcated, knowingly segmented, collective and concurrent annexation projects. In accordance with the spirit and intent of said laws, City is required to conduct a water supply assessment of the public water supply system relating to the Project and overall regional (potential and/or contemplated) water supply purveyor, including 20 year projections and analysis of the most recently adopted urban water management plan. City's deliberate effort to segregate and create incremental annexation projects is not what the legislature intended when seeking to assure that City's growth has ample supplies of water now, and in the future. Conversion and Development of Floodplain Lands City's rationale for eliminating and de-designating County flood control lands are unsupported, impacts from such conversion are unanalyzed, and such action is inconsistent with both City and County planning documents for thc Project area. First, them are no upstream improvements. The fact that a former San Sevaine Project is on the books, does not amount to evidence that there are changes in thc flood patterns or designations. Second, this land is still designated floodplain and neither the ACOE and/or FEMA have taken action to dc-designate it or remove it from a floodplain. Third, the City misses the point because both City and the County have policies to conserve such designated lands as open space and not develop them due to the multiple resource values they possess. The City admits that this Project is taking place in a floodplain, but then it seeks to rely on future construction of new waterways so that the land won't need to be conserved. This is backwards planning and is inconsistent with both County and City policies which strive to maintain open space areas designated as flood control lands, and especially prevent conversion of such lands for residential developments. Required Infrastructure Development Will Cause Both Unanalyzed/Unmitigated Direct Impacts and Will be Growth Inducing One or more required Project elements require the applicant to directly build or fund offsite water storage facilities and sewer mains. For example, additional offsite water storage facilities and pipelines will be required to serve water to the Project, and thc Page Six City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigb Pacific) Project's developer will be required, as a condition of approval, to participate in getting this facility built, and in order to provide sewer service, the developer will construct an approximately 13,600 feet of offsite sewer main to the southeast comer of the Project. The E1R and Project documents before the City do not identify the impacts arising from these required constructions, nor does the City or applicant identify or propose the measures they will take to mitigate the same. Substantial air pollution, habitat destruction, noise, traffic and yet other unidentified impacts will likely result from such substantial off-site Project-related construction. Additionally, a sewer main almost 3 miles in length will enable other and further development in the other open space lands in and near the Project area. These impacts must also be estimated and analyzed based upon, for example, the location, capacity, size, depth and other factors regarding the new sewer main which may open new areas up for development due to new sewer infrastructure. Direct Proiect Impacts from Fuel Modification Program Fuel modifications activities will cause substantial impacts to lands areas due to requirements of plant removal, substantial thinning, and planting of fire resistant non- native "ornamental firewise landscaping"(whatever the heck that is!). The City's characterization of these impacts as "edge effects" are incorrect. These are direct and required impacts. The "edge effects" relates to how the newly introduced plantings and removal of natural vegetation will impact further areas beyond the immediate impact area. There have been no studies or attempts to avoid or mitigate effects caused by these direct and required actions. The City's accounting of only 2 acres of fuel modification is understated and not supported by the record, especially when considering more expensive edge effect losses. Mitigation of Indirect Invasive Impacts to Proiect Open Space and Adiacent Flood Control Lands There is no evidence in the record as to how City is to "protect" or enforce open space lands in the Project area. It is equally true that there is no evidence that City has the personnel to conduct such efforts. The City's argument that it will have the Project open space areas maintained by an "appropriate conservation group" is not supported by (1) any Project required mitigation measures, (2) no group has been identified, and (3) few if any such groups have funding for such intensive and repetitive activities. The record and Page Seven City Council Mtg. 07/21/04 (Re Traigh Pacific) City's decision makes it clear that there is no funding set aside for any of this. This a totally speculative, unsupported, and unfunded claim of mitigation. City Did Not Consider All Feasible Mitigation Measures Which Could Reduce Proiect Impacts; City's Immediate Reliance on a Statement of Overriding Considerations is Unlawful City has omitted, misidentified and/or miscounted impacts so as to artificially minimize the severity of the Project, and these resulting defects have caused City to incorrectly find that impacts to said resources are being sufficiently mitigated. In many instances, such as with offsite impacts and indirect project impacts (caused by required project features and off-site human interference), City does not identify or attempt to mitigate, but instead merely concludes significant effects will result. City has not properly adopted a statement of overriding considerations (SOC) to override said impacts, because (1) such adoption and/or findings of SOC are not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) City cannot legally claim the SOC cures the defects where City has failed to adequately identify and first attempt mitigation prior to balancing such overriding considerations Final Remarks and Request for further Written Notification The issues and questions presented herein arc essential for a complete and informative decision by the City. In advance, this office thanks you for considering the issues presented in this letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the points raised herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Please notify this office of any administrative or legislative hearings, circulation of documents, or any other action or hearing related to the Project, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092.2. ~~..a......_L..~S' ?erely Craig A. Sherman cc: clients CRAIG h. SHERMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2322 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE (619) 702-7892 (619) 702-9291 Pdcsimile from the Law Office of Craig A. Sherman To: City Clerk From: Craig Sherman, Esq. Fax: (909) 477-2846 Pages (including cover): 8 Phone:. (909) 477-2700 Date: July 21,2004 Re: Comments For City Council Mtg 07-21-04 CC: [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle a Comments: Dear Deputy Clerk: Please distribute to the City Council for tonight's City Council Meeting. ** If for any reason the City Clerk has cannot forward this document to the appropriate City department, please notify this sender immediately. Thank you very much. Re: City Council - July 21, 2004 Noticed Public Hearing Traigh Pacific (aka Tracy) Development (DRC2003-0409 through DRC2003-0411 and SUBTT 014749) Tentative Tract and Other Project Approvals for the Proposed HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA HAND DELIVERY THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IP YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF [T TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEWED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMAN AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Nail Derry [FD SON® Re,ion Manager Public Affairs Department An EDISOn',' INTERNATIONAL~ Company ,-,11 Y OF/':L~b,-.., '-ILJ ' ', July 21, 2004 CITy cLE~'/~~' ..... Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Resolution No. 04-240: Environmental Impact Report for Traigh Pacific Project North of SCE Corridor Dear Mayor and Council: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Traigh Pacific Project in North Rancho Cucamonga. After careful review of this document, Southern California Edison (SCE) opposes the utilization of SCE fee-owned and easement property for the purpose of Fuel Modification mitigation as proposed in the EIR as this could interfere with the operation and maintenance of our facilities and/or future expansion of utility service necessary to serve current and future customers. In the event the proposed development impacts SCE's transmission/pipeline/communications facilities, property, or exclusive easements, please send five sets of development plans delineating the conflict/impact to 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 for processing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Neil Derry Region Manager, Public Affairs 4 Ontario District Office 1551 East Francis Street Ontario. CA 91761-5715 909-930-8501/PAX 16501 Fax 909-950-8407 Neil. Derry@sce.com Jul 21 04 03:41p p.1 Land Protection Partners P.O. Box 24020, Les Angeles, CA 90024-0020 Telephone: (310) 247-9719 July 21, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE {909} 477-2846 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 Re: City Council - July 21, 2004 Traigh Pacific Development (DRC20034)409 through DRC2003-0411 and SUBTT 014749) Dear Mayor and City Council: It has come to my attention that the City has mischaracterized the intent and substance of the comments that I presented on June 9, 2004 regarding thc above referenced project. While my cormnents were clearly stated and focused on the City's failure to properly assess, identify, and attempt to mitigate substantial on- and oft-site impacts caused by fuel modification, human interface, and other edge effects, it is not accurate to say that I have "concluded" that impacts cannot be avoided or reduced. My conclusion that significant impacts may remain after imposing all feasible mitigation measures is not the same as concluding that the City has done all it can to reduce those impacts (or, indeed that the City has discharged its obligations to minimize impacts under CEQA). The point made by my June 9, 2004 testimony and letter was that the City has made an effort even to identify, let alone mitigate, the full range of environmental impacts that would result fxom the proposed project. The City cannot meet its duties under CEQA if it omits discussion of an entire class of impacts and falls to explore and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Should significant impacts still result at, er all such eftbrts, then perhaps the City has carried its CEQA legal burden. The City, however, has omitted, misidentified, or miscounted discussion of impacts such that the resulting defects have caused the City to find incorrectly either that no such adverse impacts exist or that adverse impacts to biological resources are being sutticiently mitigated, in many instances, such as with off-site impacts and indirect project impacts (caused by required project features and off-sile human interference), the City does not identify or attempt to mitigate, but instead merely concludes that an adopted statement of overriding considerations will solve and end its inquiry and mitigation duties. A statement of overriding considerations may indeed be appropriateafter all feasible mitigation measures are implemented, but tlxis conclusion is not an 2ul 21 O~ 03:42p appropriate replacement for disclosing, analyzing, and imposing mitigation measures for all foreseeable project impacts. To in essence "throw up one's hands" and declare that nothing can be done ignores the many feasible mitigation measures that could reduce the impacts of the proposed project, especially in the area of edge effects. As discussed in detail in my prior letter and the scientific studies submitted with it, numerous impacts need to be addressed based on the proposed project elements before the City Council for approval. 1 regret that 1 will be unable to attend tonight's hearing in person, but if you sh, ould you have any questions x~egarding the above, please do not hesitate to call. ~ Sincerely, Travis Longcore, Ph.D. RESOLUTION NO. 04-**,,~'~/'~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TRACY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE -APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02. A.' Recitals. 1. Traigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of approximately 168.77 acres with 269 single-family housing units (99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto. 4. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines. The Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources, including air quality and biological resources. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 2 5. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081. The City prepared and issued a Notice of Preparation of the EIR on August 11,2003. 6. The City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other interested agencies and groups in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a). 7. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on October 22, 2003, to provide an introduction to the Project and CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR. 8. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices")was completed on December 4, 2003 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081065). 9. The City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested-persons for a 45-day public review and comment period from · December 5, 2003, through January 28, 2004. 10. The City received seven written comments in response to the DEIR. 11. - The City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the DEIR in response to the comments. 12. The City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary revisions to the DEIR in April 2004, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and to the public. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"), as have the appendices to the DEIR. Those documents together compdse the FEIR. The FEIR was distributed in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21092.5, and at least ten (10) days pdor to any Planning Commission consideration of the FEIR. 13. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions: (a) Resolution No. 04-75 certifying the FEIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749; (b) Resolution No. 04-76 requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate the annexation; (c) Resolution No. 04-77, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410; (d) Resolution No. 04-78, recommending City Council approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409; (e) Resolution No. 04-79, approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749; and (f) Resolution No. 04-80, recommending that the City Council enter into Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 3 14. On June 12, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749. 15. On July 21,2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the FEIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the FEIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: -1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2. Each finding herein is based upon the substantial evidence in the administrative record of proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, including testimony at the City Council's public hearing on July 21, 2004, the FEIR, and wdtten and oral staff reports. 3. The City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines. 4. The City Council certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the FEIR prior to approving the Project. The City Council has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve each of the various applications comprising the Project. 5. The City Council certifies that the FEIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 6. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. 7. The City Council finds that the additional information provided in the staff report, in attachments to the staff report, in the comments to the DEIR, and presented at the Planning Commission and City Council's public hearings, does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the FEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. 8. The City Council hereby certifies the FEIR as the environmental document for the Project and for the City Council's action in approving Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04-** CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 4 9. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which include, but are not limited to, the staff reports for the Project, as well as all of the materials that comprise and support the FEIR and all of the materials that support the staff reports for the Project, are located in the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The custodian of these documents is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2004. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETVVEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "B," AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "C," THE PLAN OF SERVICES. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California; that WHEREAS, a Final EIR has been certified by the City Council by way of Resolution No. as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the City Counc'l s cons deration of the proposed annexation described in the title of this Resolution and that such document has been presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the above-described properties, are located within and consistent with the established Sphere of Influence of the City, and contiguous to current City limits; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited (as defined under LAFCO), and-a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the annexation of the property will represent a logical extension of the City's boundaries and urban services; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intention to provide the usual and necessary urban services to the area upon annexation, as outlined in the Plan of Services set forth in Exhibit"C" attached hereto and by this ~eference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the annexation of the properties would be beneficial to the public purposes of the City, in that the properties will provide for development within the City in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and with related development; and WHEREAS, the City Council as goveming body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to initiate proceedings for a Change of Organization (Annexation) for the subject properties pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of the California Govemment Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The property owner has requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiate annexation. The City is, therefore, requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposal with the waiver of further conducting authority proceedings as authorized by Govt. Code Section 56663(c). 322-. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 2 b. The proposed annexation shall be subject to all standard conditions required by the Local Agency Formation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council as the governing body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does hereby adopt, approve, resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. Traigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development 107.28 acres of the 168.77-acre site with 269 single-family housing units (99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density Of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bemardino County Flood Control District. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." b: Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. c. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081085). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 5, 2003, through January 28,'2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR. Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, compdse the Final EIR. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04-__, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. e. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 3 f. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. g. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact repod has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. h. The City Council finds, based upon the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of: Earth Resources, Water Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Earth Resources. The Final EIR finds that development of the Project would expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking produced by numerous regional faults. Additionally, development of the project would require removal of vegetation to prepare for grading; this would create a short-term increased potential for topsoil erosion. Potential erosion in the long-term would result from increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. Mitigation measures are imposed which require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. Specifically, the developer must: demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with recommendations and specifications found in the geotechnical investigation report included in Appendix C of the Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 3-1 ); identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants (Mitigation Measure 3-2); and identify these construction measures on applicable grading plans, and implement them to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, mitigation measures are imposed on the project that require preparation and approval of a Dust Control Plan and a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of erosion (Mitigation Measures 3.4 and 3-5). Based on these mitigation measures, and the additional ones contained in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures and the possibility of erosion will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 4 ii. Water Resources. The Final EIR identifies that conversion of the Project site to urban uses would increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.) that would reach the local drainage system due to run-off caused by grading or by being washed off streets during storm events or street-sweeping activities. Mitigation measures imposed on the applicant would require the Project developer to apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, if necessary, to obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations); additionally, the developer will be required to implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface and ground waters. The City Council finds that implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts on water quality to a level of less than insignificant. Additionally, the Final EIR identifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the Project site as within a flood zone designated "Flood Zone D." Mitigation measures will require the developer to install a revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site, and implement on- and off- site drainage system improvements outlined in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D of the draft EIR). The City Council finds that the revetment and drainage improvements will reduce flood impacts associated with t_he Project to a level of less than significant. iii. Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project would increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections; specifically, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Further, it is assumed that at build-out 68 percent of the Project traffic would enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32 percent would use East Avenue; this distribution would cause some roads to be more intensely affected than others. Additionally, the Final EIR found that the level of service at the intersection of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues could be reduced to a "D" level during the morning peak hour at full build-out. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to contribute a fair share to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the construction of traffic signals at the intersections of: Day Creek Boulevard/Banyan Avenue; Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 West- bound ramp; Day Creek Boulevard/SR 210 East-bound ramp; Etiwanda Avenue/Banyan Avenue; Etiwanda AvenueNVilson Avenue; and East Avenue/Banyan Avenue. Further, the developer will be required to pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections as outlined in the Project traffic report; this "fair share" amount is approximately $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, traffic at the study intersections will be reduced to operate at a level of service of D or better (with all but one intersection operating at level of service C or better) and that the impacts of the Project on Traffic and Circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction-related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These impacts are short-term and can - cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust produced by grading of the site. In addition, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to produce significant levels of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. Comprehensive mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 - 6-10) are imposed on the Project which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures, and off-site actions. Included in those CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 5 measures are requirements to ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained and that trucks are not left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes), reestablishment of ground cover through seeding and watering, phased grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, suspension of grading operations during periods of high wind (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), and regular washing and sweeping of the site. The Final EIR also indicates that the Project would produce long-term impacts on Air Quality as a result of the additional external vehicle trips that will be generated, and their attendant production of NO× and PM~o in excess of SCAQMD standards. Further, secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption by on-site residential heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similar consumptive appliances. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project to reduce long-term impacts include requiring the developer to demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/Iow-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters (Mitigation Measure 6-11), and that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping (Mitigation Measure 6-12). Further, thedeveloperwill be required to make a fair share contribution to a "park and ride" facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 freeways, as well as construct a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park, if directed by OmniTrans. The City Council finds that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures directed at both shod- and long-term impacts, emissions will be reduced and the Project's contribution to regional emission of cdterial pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all of these comprehensive mitigation requirements, the Project ~vill produce significant short- and lo,g-term impacts on Air Quality due to emissions, and that these ~mpacts will remain significant after mitigation. v. Biolo,qical Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, pdor to the Grand Pdx fire in October 2003, the Project site contained approximately 109 acres of sage scrub (including white sage), along with California buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phecelia; the Project will eliminate this vegetation through development of the area. Further, the Project will impact sensitive plant species present on the site (as determined before the 2003 wildfire) including Plummer's madposa lily, Pious daisy, and four separate types of spineflowers (Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's). Development of the site will also impact wildlife corridors and will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including the sharp-shinned hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, San Diego homed lizarri, and orange-throated whiptail. The Final EIR indicated that the California gnatcatcher (a federally listed threatened species) has not been observed on-site and has a Iow probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. Aisc, the Final EIR found that while a portion of the Project site (the Etiwanda Creek channel) is within the historical range fo the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), since the creek channel is not proposed for development, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. The Final E IR further found that development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in four small drainages that are under Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction, but that none of these areas is considered a wetland. The Final EIR found that the Project is not consistent with the goals of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) since it does not include any on-site preservation of open space lands. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County approximately 164 acres of land as off-site mitigation land. This 164-acre area is intended to accomplish a 1:5 to I ratio to mitigate for the loss of the approximately 109 acres of sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species. The City finds that the recommended mitigation measures will help reduce potentially significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat, but that the impacts will remain significant after mitigation. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 6 vi. Hazards. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazardous materials spills on nearby state highways, and due to the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses. Additionally, the Project would expose more people and structures to potential wildfire hazards, and would expose more people to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. Mitigation measures imposed will require submission of a plan detailing proper clean-up efforts for any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released dudng construction (Mitigation Measure 9-1 ); development of fuel modification zones, and the requirement of"firewise" landscaping and the use of fire-resistant building materials to reduce fire hazards (Mitigation Measures 9-2 - 9-4); and the posting of signs warning of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions on the site (Mitigation Measure 9-8). The City Council finds that after implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts relating to Hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. vii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities; earth-moving equipment is anticipated to create noise up to 90-dB. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure 10-2).' Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the short term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels would increase in the long-term due to additional motor vehicle noise and from general human activity. In the opening year (2005), noise levels ,~t fifty feet from the centerline of area roadways would range from a Iow of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to document that exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-5), and that interior living area noise levels are less than 45 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-6). Further, the developer will be required to incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. viii. Public Services. The Final EIR identifies that due to population increases associated with the Project, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the need for public services in the areas of fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, medical services, and roads. A mitigation measure is imposed to require the developer to pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire, schools, parks, and library fees (Mitigation Measure 11-1 ). Additionally, in order to reduce the number of fire incidents requiring response by the City's Fire Department, the project developer would be required to obtain approval from the Fire Department with regard to adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire-resistant structural materials in project buildings (Mitigation Measure 11-3). Additionally, the developer will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure installation and maintenance of public and private roads, and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project (Mitigation Measure 11-5). The City Council finds that the imposition and implementation of these mitigation measures will mitigate the Project's impacts on Public Services to a level of less than significant. ix. Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would create potentially significant impacts as a result of new residential water requirements of approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day; this water would be provided from an existing two million gallon water CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 7 reservoir via an existing water main, however, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities would be required. Further, the Final EIR indicates that based on an estimate of 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day being produced, the Project would require construction of a sewer main to transport the wastewater to an existing sewage treatment plant. Additionally, the Project would generate the need for increased electricity, natural gas, and telephone and television cables, and would increase the amount of solid waste produced. A mitigation measure imposed requires the contribution of funds for sewer service (Mitigation Measure 12-1). Further mitigation measures require submission of development plans to Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, and Verizon in order to facilitate engineering design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the Project; these companies must also provide "will-serve" letters in order for building permits to issue. The City Council finds that imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the Project on Utilities to a level of less than significant. x. Aesthetics. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. In the short-term, the landscape would be altered by grading and clearing, and views of the Project site would include the heavy construction equipment and machinery used to prepare the Project site for construction of new homes. Long-term impacts would occur due to a fundamental change in the visual and aesthetic character of the area, and would transform the existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community. Additionally, the presence of homes would mean more lighting at night, as well as increased glare due to additional windows in the community. Mitigation measures will require that outdoor lighting comply with the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design g~idelines and the City's General Plan (Mitigation Measure 13-1 ), and that a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan be prepared (Mitigation Measure 13-5). Even with the imposition and implementation of these and other mitigation measures, the City Council-finds that the impact of the Project on Aesthetics will remain significant after mitigation. xi. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR identifies that while the existence of paleontological resources is unlikely on the Project site, such resources may be discovered during construction of the Project. Also, one historic archeological site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H. This prior survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by {he Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880s; the structure consisted of rock walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. Mitigation measures imposed require that a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site and submit a report of findings and specific recommendations for further mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 14-1). Should any prehistoric archaeological resources be found before or during grading, a qualified archaeologist would be retained to monitor construction activities, and-take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. The City Council finds that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. xii. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Biolo,qical Resources, and Aesthetic. s. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of other development projects in the vicinity, would create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality due to additional vehicle emissions adding incremental pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to biological resources, the Final EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts with loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area due to encroachment of human structures and activities. With respect to aesthetics, the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 8 proposed project will contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to the visual character of the area going from largely vacant, rural terrain to Iow density suburban development. i. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (shod-term impacts, and shod and long-term cumulative impacts), biological resources related to the loss of habitat, and aesthetics related to shod-term views (i.e. construction activities and dust) and long-term views related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a residential community. j. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Rural Density Alterative," development under the existing land use designation. Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals-of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan; City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) Annexation of approximately 240 acres, including the 168.77 Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors, into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project witt~ the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide cimulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 9 ii) Under the "No Project-No Development Alternative" the project site would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iii) Under the "No Project - Open Space Alternative" the site would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iv) Under the "Reduced Intensity Alternative" almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when needed. However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reas(3nable return on investment. Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents.- v) The "Modified Site Plan Alternative" would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. It would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the site and would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project-related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. vi) The "Rural Density Alterative" would development the site under the City's currently designated of Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on 37 acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open space and biological habitat. This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of two parks. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of CItY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 10 developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives k. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality related to vehicle emissions; impacts to biological resources related to removal of habitat; and short-term impacts to aesthetics (i.e. construction dust obscuring views) and long-term impacts to aesthetics (changes to the natural terrain). Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts to short-term and long-term impacts on air quality and aesthetics, and project related and cumulative impacts to biological resources, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: (i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; (ii) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; (iv) Establishment of a Project-wide cimulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; (v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; (vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; (vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; (viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 11 (ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; (x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and (xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. I. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the July 21, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. m. Pursuant to provisions of the Califomia Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this I~esolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 2: Application and proposal is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino for Change of Organization (Annexation) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the property described in Exhibit "A" and as shown in Exhibit "B" and as outlined in the Plan of Services as shown in Exhibit"C," which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in accordance to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Govemment Reorganization Act of 2000. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bemardino. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2004 BY: ATTEST: Ol~'Fr', OF RANCHO CUOAMO~GA JUt~ 0 3 2004 RECEIVED ' PLANNIN6 Exhibit "A' Annexation' to the City of Rancho Cucamonga LAFCO No. ~ That parcel of land in an unincorporated area of Rancho Cucamonga, being all of the NW Quarter, and the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Townshipl North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bemardino, State of California, more particularly describes as follows: BEGINNING at a northeast comer of the existing boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as established on "LAFCO No. 2879", said point also being the Northwest Comer of said Section 21; Thence leaving said existing city.boundary line and continuing easterly along the northerly line of said Section 21 the following courses: 1. North 89°14'16"East, 1325.26 feet; -2. North 89° 14'56" East, 1325.25 feet; 3. North 89° 14' 48" West, 1324.89 feet to the northeast comer of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21; 4. Thence southerly along the east line of said west half, South 00° 00'55" West, 2641.71 feet to the Southeast comer of said west half; Thence continuing westerly along the southerly line of the North Half of said Section 21 the following courses: 5. South 89° 16'39" West, 1324.88 feet; 6. South 89° 17'08" West, 1325.19 feet; 7. South 89° 14' 13" West, 1324.98 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 21, being also a point on the existing boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as established by said LAFCO No. 2879; 8. Thence continuing northerly along the existing city boundary line and said section line, North 00° 00'30" East, 2640.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 1 of 2 ~35 This proposed annexation contains 240.97 acres, more or less. Th/s legal description was prepared by me or under my direction. By: Robert D. Vasquez, L.S. 7300 Date Deputy County Surveyor lJob No. Prepared by RDV Page 2 of 2 3~q EXHIBIT 'B' NW 1/4, AND W 1/2, NE 1/4 OF SECTION 21 T 1 N, R 6 W, S.B.M. LEGEND: 25TH ~ ~ I ~ BE~NA~DINO COUNTY SU~VEYO~ -- ~ , ~1 I } I ~ c~ OF R~C.O CU~O~A ' ' HOYE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VICINI~ ~AP PLAN FOR SERVICES City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Contact: Brad Bullet, City Planner Debra Meier, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared for: Annexation of 240 Acres to the City of Rancho Cucamonga - Tentative Tract 14749 and adjacent lands Prepared By: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729- 909-477-2750 March 9, 2004 Plan for Services ~ Table of Contents Section Page I. Introduction 5 A. Introduction 5 B. Background 5 II. Planning and Statutory Considerations 8 A. Planning Consideration 8 B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan 8 C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan 8 D. Applicable Laws 9 III. Service Considerations 10 A. Roadways and Transportation Services 10 B. Electricity 10 C. Natural Gas l0 D. Telephone 10 E. Drainage Services 11 F. Water Services 11 G. Sewer Services 12 H. Police Services 12 I. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services 12 d. Libraries 13 K. Street Lighting 13 L. Solid Waste Services 13 M. School Services 14 N. Parks & Recreation Services 14 IV. Fiscal Analysis 15 2 Plan for Services ~7 EXHIBITS Figure Page 1. Vicinity Map 4 2. Annexation Map 7 3 PlanforServices ~ I. Introduction A. Introduction This document has been prepared to provide the San Bemardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and other interested individuals and agencies with pertinent information relating to governmental functions, facilities, services and costs and revenues applicable to proposed Annexation No. 04-XX to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. This annexation proposal has been initiated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This document supports the City's petition by addressing all of the service related considerations applicable to the property, thereby permitting the LAFCO Staff and Board Members to fully understand, evaluate and approve the annexation request. This plan of services addresses the basic level of public services that are required to support the future development of the Henderson Creek Properties Annexation and the associated populatibn growth and the manner in which urban and municipal services will be provided. The proposed annexation area is located between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue north of the lower SCE power line corridor, in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. The area has been pre-zoned by virtue of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which was approved by the City Council in 1992. The proposed annexation includes a total of 240-acres. Within the 240-acres, 107 acres is proposed for residential development (Tract 14749), 93-acres is owned and controlled by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for the Etiwanda Creek basin and drainage system, and approximately 40-acres are within two SCE powerline corridors. The proposed project is a residential development of 269 single family residential lots encompassing approximately 107 acres of the total annexation area, with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and a maximum lot size of 28,251 square feet. B. Project Background The Etiwanda North Specific Plan comprises approximately 6,840 acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga find its Sphere of Influence. The project site is located within the unincorporated portion of San Bemardino County. The project includes the annexation of 240-acres from San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the approval process, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared a full scope environmental impact report (EIR) for the project (SCH No. 2003081085). 4 Plan for Services The existing land uses within the annexation are presently comprised of Flood Control facilities (the Etiwanda Creek basin and drainage system), powerline corridors, and vacant land. The surrounding area is a combination of Flood Control lands, and vacant land (much of which is being entitled for single-family residential development). The existing land uses and land use designations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Etiwanda North Specific Plan Land Use ON-SITE Vacant land, Etiwanda Very Low Residential, Open Very Low Residential, Creek drainage system Space/Conservation, and Flood ControVResource (SBCFCD), SCE corridors Utility Corridor Conservation, Utility Corridor NORTH LADWP powerline corridor Utility Corridor and Open Utility Corridor Space/Conservation SOUTH Vacant land/proposed Very Low Residential Very Low Residential TT 16072 -Richland EAST Etiwanda Creek drainage Open Space/Conservation Flood Control/Resource area (SBCFCD) Conservation WEST Vacant land/apprbved Low Residential Low Residential TT16226 and TT16227- Rancho Etiwanda Estates Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan The-City of Rancho Cucamonga is in the process of submitting four separate annexations to the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO totaling approximately 800 acres. Each of the proposed annexations is under separate environmental reviews. 5 Plan for Services II. Planning and Statutory Consideration A. Planning Considerations The proposed annexation area is contained within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence. The City's General Plan current land use designations within the proposed annexation area is Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre), Utility Corridor and Open Space/Conservation. The project is also included in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1992. The residential project, as proposed, would require amendments to both the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to ensure consistency with adopted land use designations. B. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan The City of R~ancho Cucamonga General Plan designation for the 240-acre annexation_ area is Very Low Residential, Utility Corridor and Open Space/Conservation. The Very Low land use designation covers approximately 107- acres, along with 40-acres designated Utility Corridor and 93-acres-designated Flood Control and Open Space Conservation. The Very Low Residential District is intended as an area for single family residential uses with a maximum density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the project site is within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District. The Overlay District extends generally north of Banyan Street between the western City limits and Milliken Avenue, and then north of 1-210 Freeway between Milliken Avenue and eastern City limits. The District allows the keeping of horses and other farm animals. The proposed Tentative Tract 14749 includes a General Plan Amendment that would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 Dwelling Units per Acre) to Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) for approximately 107 acres of the 240-acre annexation area. The remainder of the annexation area will remain within the existing land use designations of Flood Control and Utility Corridor. C. Etiwanda North Specific Plan The proposed Tentative Tract 14749 is subject to the policies set forth in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan is a specific area acknowledged in the City's General Plan subject to land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted on April 1, 1992 (Ordinance 493) and comprises of a 6,840 acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of Influence. The project is located in Sub Area 3.3 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood. '6 Plan for Services The Etiwanda North Specific Plan designates the site as Very Low Residential. Very Low Residential permits a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and an average lot size of 25,000 square feet. The proposed Tentative Tract Map includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would change the current designation of Very Low Residential (.1-2 Dwelling Unit per Acre) to Low Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) for 107-acres of the 240-acre annexation area. The remainder of the annexation area will remain within the existing land use designations of Flood Control and Utility Corridor. D. Applicable Laws LAFCO is authorized and mandated by State law as the agency responsible for evaluating and approving annexations to an incorporated city. Subsequent to the initial consideration of an annexation request by the City, a public hearing is held before {he LAFCO Board where the annexation proposal is approved, denied, or modified. The following Protest Procedures for LAFCO proceedings are outlined in California Government Code (within Section 57000) and summarized in the LAFCO Procedures and Guidelines. 1. Following a LAFCO Commission action to approve an annexation, a resolution of that action is forwarded to affected agencies and individuals. Thirty days following the LAFCO Commission action the Protest Period is announced though a combination of publication of a legal advertisement in the local newspaper and through mailing of individual notices to anyone who has previously request such -notices. The protest period can be no less than 15 days nor more than 60 days, from the date of the announcement. All protests must follow strict LAFCO requirements, but generally they must be in writing and be received during the protest period. The protest must also indicate whether the letter is from a landowner and/or a registered voter from within the annexation area; only those that are either a landowner and/or a registered voter form within the annexation area are eligible to submit a valid protest. 2. At the conclusion of the protest period, LAFCO staff will make a finding of the results of any protests received for adoption by the LAFCO Commission. The Commission must t~ke one of the following actions based on the result of the protest findings: a. For uninhabited annexations (<12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the assessed value of land owners (improvement values are not counted) within the annexation area; or 7 Plan for Services ~,~ ~2- · approve the annexation if written protest is submitted by landowners who own less than 50% of the assessed value of the annexation area. b. For inhabited annexations (>12 registered voters within the annexation area) the Commission must either: · terminate the annexation if protest is received from 50% or more of the registered voters in the annexation area; · call an election if protest is received from at least 25% and less than 50% of the registered voters, or if 25% to 100% of the number of landowners -who own at least 25% of the total annexation land value - submit a written protest [The voters (whether they own land or not) would then decide the issue by majority vote in a special election]; or · approve the annexation without an election if written protest is received from less than 25% of the voters and less than 25% of the landowners (owning less than 25% of the land value). The above referenced requirements also'require the submittal of a plan for services for areas to be annexed. This document satisfies this statutory requirement. Plan for Services III. Service Considerations A. Roadways and Transportation Services The proposed development is not located within any Transit Service Corridor. Primary access will be provided via Etiwanda and East Avenues, which will be connected by development of the Upper Crest Collector Road, which is essentially an easterly extension of Day Creek Boulevard. The annexation area is located between Etiwanda Avenue on the west and East Avenue on the east, the site lies north of the lower SCE powerline corridor. The proposed project includes improvements to Etiwanda Avenue, East Avenue and the Lower Crest Collector Road to accommodate vehicles traveling to and from the site. The proposed project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site and within the project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will assume responsibility for street maintenance of public arterial roadways within the annexation area. B. Electricity The proposed annexation area lies within the service boundaries of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE has indicated that the demands associated with the project are accommodated within their master planning efforts and service can be extended to the site. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to annexation. Assuming buildout of the 269 lots, electrical consumption for the site, based on SCE designated criteria, is estimated as follows: 269 dwellings X 7 kw/unit = 1,883 kw per month; or 22,596 kw annually. C. Natural Gas Natural Gas is provided by The Gas Company. The Gas Company maintains natural gas pipelines in Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. Natural gas service will be provided via extensions of these existing transmission pipelines. The Gas Company anticipates no problems in extending service to the site and has included the project in its master planning efforts. The costs and rate structure to the property owners for these services are controlled by the Public Utilities Commission. As these services are provided by private 9 Plan for Services companies on a user-pays-all fees basis, no additional costs to the City would be incurred due to armexation. Annual gas consumption upon development of the site is estimated to be about 85 therms per unit per average month, for a total of 22,865 therms per month or 274,380 therms per year. D. Telephone Services. The telephone service to the project site is provided by Verizon Conmaunications. The facilities will be extended from either Etiwanda Avenue and/or East Avenue into the project site. Verizon anticipates no problems in providing communication services to the project site. E. Drainage Services The majority of the drainage from the annexation area will be collected into onsite underground storm drains and then conveyed to Efiwanda Creek. All streets will be designed to accommodate storm waters that could exceed the top of curbs in the event of a 25-year storm as well as the right-of- way for a 100-year storm. All necessary facilities will be localized in nature and will be inspected and maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division. The County of San Bernardino Flood Control District is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the Etiwanda Creek channel, which lies east of the project site. The improvements to the Creek have been designed to capture all flows entering the creek and convey the flows southerly toward the Santa Ana River. These improvements are scheduled to occur prior to or concurrently with the development o f the project. F. Water Services The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) cover approximately 50 square miles, and provides water treatment, storage, and distribution of domestic water to all of Rancho Cucamonga, adjacent unincorporated County areas, and portions of the Cities of Ontario, Fontana and one tract in Upland. CVWD derives water from three sources - groundwater (43%), surface water (12%) and imported water (45%). Groundwater is derived primarily from the Cucamonga basin. Groundwater may also be pumped from the Chino basin, but must be replenished through purchases of State Water Project (imported) water. Canyon water is derived from surface and subsurface water form Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and East Etiwanda Canyons. CVWD also purchases water from northern California via the State Water Project. The current daily usage in the CVWD service area is approximately 42 million gallons per day. 10 for Services Plan Residential water use amounts to 60 percent of the total water consumed, followed by landscaping at 20 percent. CVWD's master plan estimates demand needs through the year 2030; with residential water demand is expected to continue to be the greatest sources of water demand. CVWD anticipates growth by ensuring that adequate facilities are available to meet the water demand as it arises. CVWD is also one of seven member agencies that operate under the umbrella of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The IEUA had adopted a 10-year growth or capital improvement program that is based upon growth projections provided by the member agencies. CVWD is responsible for collecting developer fees for the construction and operation of water facilities. The CVWD will supply domestic water to the site. The site is currently undeveloped and does not consume any domestic water. Water is currently provided to the area by a 12-inch main located along Etiwanda Avenue, located along the western edge of the proposed annexation area. The proposed project includes the future connection of 269 single-family residential units to the CV~VD domestic water system. Single-family residential units have a daily water demand of 640 gallons per day (GPD). Thus, the project will result in an increased water demand of the CVWD system of 172,160 GPD. This represents a less than one percent increase of.the CVWD service area. The CVWD has constructed Reservoir 5C, which is located to the northwest of the project site and will meet 100% of the project water needs. Reservoir 6C, located northwest of Reservoir 5C, will be constructed concurrently with the project. Additional service pressure enhancement for the northwester portion of the project will be provided by Reservoir 6C. G. Sewer Services The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) currently covers over 240 square miles and operates four wastewater treatment facilities that serve the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino, and Chino Hills. An additional treatment facility is currently planned. Two of the exisisitng treatment plants, Regional Plants 1 and 4, serve development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CVWD provides conveyance facilities to the treatment plants. The project site is with the service area of treatment plant number 4 (RP-4). RP-4 is located on 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue in the City of Rancho Cueamonga. The plant treats approximately 37.9 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has a capacity of 44 MGD. The water treatment facilities cleanse the treated water to a tertiary level and is then used for irrigation proposed. Development fees are collected by member agencies for wastewater treatment facilities and passed on to the IEUA to use for new treatment plant construction. With tl~e exception of extending pipelines to the project site, there will be no requirement for the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or 11 Plan for Services expansion of existing facilities. The project will connect to the existing 10"-15" sewer from East Avenue. Based on the CVWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the project area is approximately 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day. Therefore, the 269 residential units proposed will generate approximately 72,630 gallons of sewage per day. This represents less than one percent of current wastewater treated at RP-4, and will not exceed capacity of the plant. In addition, the proposed project will comply with all regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain required NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems) and SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) permits prior to project construction. H. Police Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga has contracted with the San Bemardino County Sherift~s Department for police service since 1978. Currently the City contract includes 93 uniformed officers - including 11 sergeants, 2 lieutenants and one captain. With a population of 146,700 (January 2003 Department of Finance estimate) the current ratio of officers to residents is approximately 0.63 officers for every 1,000 residents. The projected average response time to an emergency call for serviced within the vicinity of the project site is at five minutes. The City's Police Department is temporarily located at 8340 Utica Avenue in thc City of Rancho Cucamonga, the permanent facility at 10510 Civic Center Drive, adjacent to City Hall, is currently being expanded and remodeled. Police service calls will incrementally increase as result of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase population by approximately 845 residents thus creating the need for approximately 0.53 additional officers if the current officer/resident ratio is maintained. The funds for additional police officers are provided as part of the City General Fund. Each year the City's annual budget negotiation with the Sheriffs department results in additional officers to be added to the Police force. I. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Response The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response to approximately 50 square miles, which includes the City Sphere of influence and the project site. Six fire stations are located within the City; and the RCFPD currently maintains a personnel ratio of 0.18 firefighter per 1,000 residents. The goal of RCFPD is to provide a five-minute response time for 90 12 Plan for Services pement of emergency calls placed within the City. Currently the City is providing five-minute service for 85 percent'of the emergency calls. Existing fire stations 173, 175 and 176 will serve the project area. Station 173 - 12158 Base Line Road (3 fire fighters) Station 175 - 11108 Banyan Avenue (6 firefighters) Station 176 - East Avenue at 23rd Street - (3 firefighters) The proposed project will incrementally increase the population in the vicinity by 845 residents thus creating the need for 0.15 additional firefighter personnel in order to maintain the current firefighter personnel/resident ratio. With the recent opening of Station 176, located approximately one-mile from the site, the current response times will continue to be less than five-minutes to the project site. The RCFPD also participates in an automatic response agreement, known as West End Joint Power Authority (West End), with neighboring fire departments to send the closest fire engine to a reported structure fire without regard to the city boundaries. ~The American Medical Response (AMR), a private ambulance service, provides ambulance servi~e for the residents in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. AMR is located at 7925 Center Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. J. Libraries The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library system will serve the project area upon annexation. The Rancho Cucamonga Library is located in a 2,200 square foot building in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on Archibald Avenue, north of Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Interstate 15 Freeway. The Library contains approximately 115,000 books (novels, magazines, references, etc,) and serves a full-time population of over 146,000 residents. In addition, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 'square feet, which serve the projected need at build-out of the City. Library funding is derived form a pementage of the property tax. allocation and disbursement with the County of San Bemardino (refer to the Fiscal Impact Analysis). K. Street Lighting The project presently does not contain any streetlights, however, will be required to install streetlights with development. The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. Plan for Services ~:~ L. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste Industries will collect refuse from the project area under franchise agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burrtec takes all refuse collected to the Transfer Station of Napa Street, at which point approximately 60% to diverted to the Mid-Valley land fill in Rialto, the remaining refuse is transported out of the county landfill system. The City has implemented recycling programs, as required by state law, local Source Reduction and Recycling Element. M. School Services The anfiexation area will be served by the Etiwanda School District (grades K through 8) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (grades 9 through 12). Based on the generation factors used by the Etiwanda School District, the area will generate approximately 169 K-8 students and 40 high school students from the 269 new homes. Approximately 113 of these students would be would be elementary level (K-5) and 56 would be intermediate level (grades 6-8). The total students generated would be approximately 209. Historical enrollments in bQth Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School District have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the project could generate an addition of approximately 209 students at build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household. At present enrollments at all schools serving the project are at or over their capacities. However, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state- mandated developer impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools. lq. Parks and Recreation Services The City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department serves the surrounding parks and recreation facilities. The recreational amenities and programs include - Community Center at Lions East and Lions West, Senior Center, Family Sports Center, Epicenter/Sports Complex, and 20 park sites throughout the City. All programs and facilities are funded through a combination of user fees and City general fund. 14 Plan for Services ~qt~t IV. Fiscal Analysis The project will be annexed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 for perimeter street landscape maintence, the City-wide Arterial Street lighting District, and the Etiwanda North Street Light District. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared on behalf of the City addressing the general costs and revenue anticipated as a result of the armexation. The report "Tentative Tract 14749/Tract Development - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga" by Stanley Hoffman Associates, Inc. forms a part of the Plan of Services as an exhibit. By its inclusion into Plan of Services, the City certifies to the report's accuracy. 15 Plan for Services Etiwanda Heights Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga March 25, 2004 SRHA Job #1039 TANLEY R~. H ?FF, M;AI 11661 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306 S~; ¥ ¥ - - Los Angeles, CA 90049 310-820-2680, 310-820-8341, fax www.stanleyrhoffman.com CONTENTS ii Tables .............................................................................................................................. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 Introduction .......... 1.1 Background ........................................................... 1.2 Approach .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Overview .................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 Project Description .............................. 4 2.1 Development Description After Buildout ..................................................... 4 2.2 Public infrastructure ................................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 Projected Fiscal mpacts ................................................ 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund ............................................................ 9 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ............................................ 12 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District .............................................................. 12 Chapter 4 Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................ 14 4.1 General information ................................................................................. 14 4.2 Revenue Assumptions ............................................................................. 15 4.3 Cost Assumptions .................................................................................... 22 Appendix A Persons and Agencies Contacted ........................................................ 34 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. i Etiwanda Heigh~,~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLES A Summary of Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts After Buildout ........................... iv 2-1 Buildout Development Description ....................................................................... 5 2-2 Housing Valuation ................................................................................................. 6 2-3 Street Lane Miles .................................................................................................. 7 3-1 City General Fund Fiscal Impacts After Buildout ................................. ~ .............. 10 3-2 Ranch Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fiscal Impacts After Buildout .......... 13 4-1 General Assumptions .......................................................................................... 15 4-2 Estimation of Existing City Developed Acres ...................................................... 16 4-3 Summary of Revenue Assumptions .................................................................... 17 4-4 Estimated Taxable Sales Capture ....................................................................... 19 4-5 Summary of C~)st Assumptions ........................................................................... 23 4-6 Police Cost Estimation ........................................................................................ 24 4-7 Estimation of Public Works Costs ....................................................................... 26 4-8 Estimation of Planning and Building and Safety Costs ....................................... 28 4-9 Estimation of General Government Costs ........................................................... 30 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. ii Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ETIWANDA HEIGHTS The following is a summary of the projected fiscal impacts of Etiwanda Heights at full buildout assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Annually recurring fiscal impacts are projected for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Project Description The Etiwanda Heights project area is located in unincorporated San Bernardino County, north of 24th Street and the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, generally between Etiwanda and East Avenues. This area is in the northeast portion of the City's sphere of influence. Etiwanda Heights is a proposed residential development of 269 homes on about 62 gross residential acres. The population for Etiwanda Heights is projected at 847, assuming 3.15 persons per unit. Assessed valuation is projected at $156.5 million based on an average housing valuation of $581,933 per unit. Fiscal Impacts Table A presents the projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City's Geheral Fund and the projected recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a full range of public services, including: police protection; other related emergency/non-emergency services; public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance; community services; planning services; library services and general government. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District provides fire protection to the proposed project as a subsidiary district. In addition, a landscape maintenance district (LMD) is a separate entity that covers the maintenance of storm drains, slopes, detention basins, trails or a combination thereof. The LMD has no effect on the revenues and costs presented under the City General Fund. Fiscal impacts are presented in constant 2004 dollars, with no adjustment for future inflation. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iii Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004' City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE A ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROJECTED RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) No MVLF Impact Impact of MVLF~ A. City General Fund Recurring Revenue~ $315,786 $282,761 Direct Recurring Costs 181,762 181,762 Plus Contingency @ 15% of Direct Costs 27,264 27,264 Total Recurring Costs 209,026 209,026 Net Recurring Surplus 106,760 73,736 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.51 1.35 B. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Revenues $195,101 $195,101 Notes: 1. This assumes that revenues from MVLF will be reduced by about two-thirds due to State budget cuts. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County-of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of California's budget adjustments over time, a hypothetical decrease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used in this analysis to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. City General Fund - No MVLF Reduction An annual recurring surplus of $106.8 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Etiwanda Heights. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $315.8 thousand, and costs of $209.0 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.51. The major recurring revenues projected for the City General Fund are property tax; off-site retail sales and use tax; and motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues. Projected major recurring costs for the project are police protection and public works maintenance of public arterial and local roadways in the annexation area. A landscape maintenance district will maintain landscaping, slope areas, trails and landscaped parkways and medians. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. iv Etiwanda Height~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis City General Fund - With MVLF Reduction Under this scenario it is assumed that revenues from the State for motor vehicle license fees will be reduced by about two-thirds due to budget cuts at the State level. An annual recurring surplus of $73.7 thousand is projected for the City General Fund after full buildout of Etiwanda Heights. The projected surplus is based on revenues of $282.8 thousand, and costs of $209.0 thousand, including a 15 percent contingency costs estimate. The revenue/cost ratio for the City General Fund is estimated 1.35. Potential Impacts of Recent Passa.qe of Proposition 57 According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience a % cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the earlier ¼ cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the residents of the project by about $17.3 thousand, the project would still be estimated to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $56.4 thousand to $89.4 thousand. Rancho CucamonRa Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) service area currently includes the incorporated City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City's Sphere of influence; therefore the proposed Etiwanda Heights development is currently located within the RCFPD jurisdictional boundaries. Based on the information provided by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundaries. The Etiwanda Heights development will contribute annual property tax and earned interest revenues projected at $195.1 thousand to the RCPFD. Landscape Maintenance District The proposed storm drain, landscaped slopes, detention basins and trails are to be maintained by a landscape maintenance district. At this time it has not been determined if the project facilities will be included in a new LMD to be formed or if it will be annexed to an existing LMD. Under either scenario the maintenance of the common area landscaping, slopes, and trails will not impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. v Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the fiscal impact analysis for Etiwanda Heights assuming annexation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The fiscal impact analysis projects recurring public revenues and costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District assuming full development of the project. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is a subsidiary district with its own budget separate from the City's General Fund. Additionally, an LMD will be used for the operations and maintenance of common areas, but it has not been determined if Etiwanda Heights will annex into an existing LMD or if a new one will be created. '1 .'1 Background The property comprising Etiwanda Heights is located in the northeast portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the City's Sphere of Influence in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. The project is located north of 24th Street and the SCE easement, between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. Upon annexation, the entire project would be within the City limits of Rancho Cucamonga. Etiwanda Heights is a community of about 168.8 gross acres in size, of which some 107.8 acres are proposed for residential development. Proposed development within the project will include 269 residential dwelling units for an overall density of about 2.5 units per residential acre. Home sizes are estimated to range from 3,000 to 3,900 square feet and the buildout population of the area is estimated at 847 based on a factor of 3.15 persons per unit. The focus of the fiscal analysis is the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as provided through the General Fund revenues plus the Fire Protection District revenues and costs. General Fund revenues include property, sales and use taxes and other taxes; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; licenses and permits; charges for current services; revenues from other agencies; use of money and property; Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis and other miscellaneous revenues. The Gas Tax Fund receives revenues primarily from gasoline taxes collected by the Federal and State governments and are restricted for road related capital and operations and maintenance costs. The ongoing range of services that the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides includes: · Police protection · Planning · Public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance · Community services · Library services · General government The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, as a subsidiary district governed by the City Council, provides fire protection services to the City and the Sphere of Influence area. 1.2 Approach The fiscal analysis presents the projected recurring impacts of the proposed development associated with Etiwanda Heights. Fiscal impacts are projected for the City General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The fiscal analysis is based on data and assumptions from the following sources: · City of Rancho Cucamonga revenue and cost factors are estimated based on the General Fund Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2003/2004 and discussions with key City staff. · The fiscal methodology is based on the Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, October 2, 2000. · Some project information was obtained from the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services, Annexation No. 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga, prepared by the City, November 5, 2001. · Residential valuation estimates are based on sales data provided by the project proponent. · Estimated population is based on 3.15 persons per household, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Cost and revenue factors are projected in constant 2004 dollars, i.e., not adjusted for inflation. · Existing land uses are provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 2 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~?~__~ · Property tax rates for the project area are based on information provided by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, the County of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller's office and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. · Aisc, there is uncertainty in the full impact of the ongoing State of California's budget adjustments over time. For this analysis, a hypothetical decrease in the Motor Vehicle License Fee has been used to test potential changes. However, it is recognized that the actual changes may manifest themselves in different ways. '1.3 Overview Chapter 2 presents the detailed project description for Etiwanda Heights assuming full buildout of the project area. Chapter 3 presents the fiscal analysis for the City's General Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Chapter 4 presents the assumptions for the fiscal analysis and Appendix A includes a list of persons and agencies contacted in the preparation of this report. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 3 Etiwanda Heights City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~ March 25, 2004 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter presents the detailed development description for Etiwanda Heights assuming full buildout of the area. 2.1 Development Description After Buildout Acres, Units and Population. Etiwanda Heights is planned as a 168.8 acre residential community consisting of 269 single family detached homes ranging from 3,000 to 3,900 square feet. As shown in Table 2-1, there are approximately 102.0 gross acres of residential uses. Other acreage associated with the development includes 5.8 acres of equestrian related facilities and 61.0 acres of open space areas including flood control facilities. Buildout population for the Etiwanda Heights development is estimated at 847 persons based on .an average of 3.15 persons per housing unit. Population per housing unit is based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Proiect Valuation. As shown in Table 2-2, total residential valuation for the Etiwanda Heights is estimated at $156.5 million after buildout, based on an average value of $581,933 per unit. Housing valuation is based on ~ecent sales information as derived from the project proponent. As presented in Table 2-2, four plan types are proposed with the base pricing estimated to range from $520,000 to $620,000 per unit. The estimated square footages range from 3,000 to 3,900 square feet. 2.2 Public Infrastructure Streets. Primary access to Etiwanda Heights will be provided via Wardman and Bullock Road. As shown in Table 2-3, there is an estimated 7.18 local street lane miles to be developed as a part of the project; including some 1.5 lane miles of public local streets and 5.68 lane miles of private local streets. The 1.5 lane miles of public streets are assumed to be maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, once annexed by the City. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 4 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fisca~ Analysis TABLE 2-1 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUILDOUT DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Acres at I Percent BuildoutI of Total A. Land Use Acreage Residential Acreage 102.0 60.4% Equestrian Acreage (Lots E and F) 5.8 3.4% Flood Control/Open Space Acreage 61.0 36.1% Total Project Acres 168.8 100.0% B: Other Project Information Residenfiai Units - Single-family 269 Population (@ 3.15 persons per unit)2 847 Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $581,933 per unit)3 $156,540,000 Note: 2. Population is estimated at 3.15 persons per unit, per the City of Rancho Cucamonga 3. Assessed valuation is projected at an average value of $581,933 per unit based on information provided by the project proponent. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R..offman Associates, Inc. 5 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 2-2 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOUSING VALUATION (in Constant 2004 Dollars) Plan Base Price Total Plan Type Square Feet Quantity Per Unit Valuation 1 3,000 54 $520,000 $28,080,000 2 3,300 54 560,000 30,240,000 3 3,600 80 600,000 48,000,000 4 3,900 8__[1620,000 50,220,000 Total 269 $581,933 $156,540,000 Sdurce: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. C.A. Page Company Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6 Etiwanda Heights ,~1.~ March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 2-3 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LANE MILES Number Length I Length T°talI Street Type of Lanes in Feet in Miles Lane Miles Public local 2 3,950 0.75 1.50 Private local 2 15,000 2.84 5.68 Total Lane Miles 7.18 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, inc. C. A. Page Company Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 7 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis Equestrian Facilities. An estimated 5.$ acres of the proposed development are allocated for equestrian uses. This includes Lot F with some 3.1 acres which will include a trail head and bathroom. Lot E is some 2.71 acres and is to include an equestrian building. Maintenance of the trail head and bathroom ara ~o become the responsibility of the City Public Works department. The equestrian building is to be leased by the City to an equestrian operator who will perform the maintenance. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 8 Etiwanda Heights of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis March 25, 2OO4 City CHAPTER 3 PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS This chapter presents the fiscal analysis of Etiwanda Heights to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This analysis first focuses on the recurring revenues and costs that impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Fund, described in Section 3.1. This is followed by a projection of recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District presented in Section 3.2. All projections are presented in constant 2004 dollars with no adjustment for future inflation and assume full buildout. 3.1 Rancho Cucamonga General Fund The fiscal impacts presented assume that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive 7.0 percent of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy for the General Fund and 1.7 percent of the basic levy for the Library Fund. Iml~acts are also presented assuming: 1) no impact on MVLF fees; and 2) a two-thirds reduction in MVLF fees due to proposed Stat~ budget adjustments. No Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming that there is no reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues are projected at $315.8 thousand. Annual direct recurring costs are projected at $181.8 thousand. Added to the projected direct costs is a contingency cost, calculated at 15 percent of direct costs, or $27.3 thousand. Adjusted total recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $209.0 thousand. A recurring surplus of $106.8 thousand is projected for Etiwanda Heights, as shown in Table 3-1. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.51. Projected Revenues. Projected recurring revenues to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include Property tax; property transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; motor vehicle license in-lieu revenues; Proposition 172 sales tax; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; charges for services; other revenue; library revenue; and state gasoline tax. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 9 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-1 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT' (In Constant 2004 Dollars) No MVLFi Impact ] Impact in MVLFz After I Percent After Percent Buildout of Total Builclout of Total Annual Recurrina Revenues Property tax - general fund $1091578 34.7% $109,578 38.8% Property tax - library fund 26,612 8.4% 26,612 9.4% Property transfer tax 6,027 1.9% 6,027 2.1% Off-site sales and use tax 69,347 22.0% 69,347 24.5% Motor vehicle license in-lieu 49,536 15.7% 16,512 5.8% ProposiSon 172 sales tax 1,420 0.4% 1,420 0.5% Franchise fees: utility 10,581 3.4% 10,581 3.7% Franchise fees: refuse 6,773 2.1% 6,773 2.4% Franchise fees: cable 16,061 5.1% 16,061 5.7% Fines and forfeitures 4,616 1.5% 4,616 1.6% Charges for services 526 0.2% 526 0.2% Other revenue 432 0.1% 432 0.2% Library revenue 1,273 0.4% 1,273 0,5% State gasoline tax3 13,004 4.1% 13,004 4.6% Total Recurring Revenues $315,786 100.0% $282,761 100.0% Annual Recurrtha Costs Police protection $65,088 35.8% $65,088 35,8% Animal control 2,254 1.2% 2,254 1.2% Engineering 16,118 8.9% 16,118 8.9% Public works maictena ncc 34,226 18.8% 34,226 18.8% Facilities maintenance 3,160 1.7% 3,160 1.7% Planning 7,466 4.1% 7,466 4.1% Library 10,919 6.0% 10,919 6.0% Community services 13,492 7.4% 13,492 7.4% Contribution to Fire District 4,964 2.7% 4,964 2.7% General government 24.075 ! 3,2% _24.075 13.2% Direct Recurring Costs $181,762 100.0% $181,762 100.0% plus Estimated Contingency costs (@ 15% of direct recurring costs) $27,264 $27,264 Total Recurring Costs $209,026 $209,026 Net Annual Surplus $106,760 $73,736 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.51 1.35 Note; 1. Revenues and costs for fire protection services and common area landsCaping are coverd in sepal'ate districts and are not included as a Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 10 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis The largest projected revenue source is property tax at $109.6 thousand, representing approximately 34.7 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $69.3 thousand and 22.0 percent of the total revenues. Motor vehicl.e license in-lieu revenues are projected at $49.5 thousand and 15.7 percent, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 72.4 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Projected Costs. Table 3-1 also presents projected recurring costs to the City General Fund for Etiwanda Heights at buildout. Recurring direct costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund include police protection; animal control, engineering; public works maintenance; facilities maintenance; planning; library; community services; contribution to the Fire District; and general government costs. Police protection costs are projected at about $65.1 thousand and account for 35.8 percent of the total recurring annual costs. Public works maintenance for public reads is projected at $34.2 thousand and 18.8 percent of the total recurring costs. General govemment costs (administrative functions) are projected as the third largest recurring cost at $24.1 thousand or 13.2 percent of total projected costs. These three projected costs of police protection, pubic works maintenance and general government represent approximately 67.8 percent of total recurring costs. Impact on MVLF Table 3-1 also presents the projected fiscal impacts for the City's General Fund assuming it is impacted with a reduction in revenues received from the State in the category of motor vehicle license fees. Recurring revenues under this scenario are projected at $282.8 . thousand. Adjusted total annual recurring costs, including estimated direct costs and contingency costs, are projected at $209.0 thousand. A recurring surplus of $73.7 thousand is projected for Etiwanda Heights under these conditions. The revenue/cost ratio is calculated at 1.35. Projected Revenues. The largest projected revenue source is property tax at $109.6 thousand, representing approximately 38.8 percent of total projected recurring revenues. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 11 Etiwanda Heights of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Anelysis Merch 25, 2004 City Off-site sales and use tax is the second largest projected revenue source at $69.3 thousand and 24.5 percent of the total revenues. Library fund property tax revenues are projected at $26.6 thousand, the third largest recurring revenue. These three revenue sources represent approximately 72.7 percent of total projected recurring revenues. 3.2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection to both the corporate City and the Sphere of Influence areas. Etiwanda Heights is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the RCFPD. Table 3-2 presents t.he projected recurring revenues to the Fire Protection District from the full buildout of Etiwanda Heights. Annual recurring property tax revenues are projected to total $195.1 thousand after buildout. Annual recurring fire ' protection costs are not projected for the Etiwanda Heights development. Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RI~FPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within its jurisdictional boundaries. 3.3 Landscape Maintenance District For Etiwanda Heights, an LMD will be used to fund the ongoing operations and maintenance costs related to any storm drains, slopes and trails within the project area. It has not been determined at this time whether or not Etiwanda Heights will. be annexed to an existing LMD of if a new LMD will be created. Under either condition, the costs related to this function are entirely separate from the City's General Fund and there will be no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 12 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-2 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FISCAL IMPACTS AFTER BUILDOUT (In Constant 2004 Dollars) After I Percent Buildout of Total Annual RecurrinR Revenues Property tax $195,101 100.0% Total Recurring Revenues $195,101 100.0% Annual Recurrin.q Costs n/a~ Note: 1, The proposed development lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire ~'rotectJon District (RC FPD). Based on the Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection services within its jurisdictional boundades. Source: Stanley R, Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 13 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis CHAPTER 4 FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS Chapter 4 presents the recurring revenue and cost assumptions used in preparing the fiscal analysis for Etiwanda Heights in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4.1 General Information Table 4-1 presents the general City information used to calculate fiscal factors. Population. The City population of 146,666 is based on the California State Department of Finance estimate as of January 1, 2003. The population estimate is used to project per capita revenue and cost factors. Housin.q Units. For calculating per housing unit factors, the City housing unit estimate of 46,870 from the State Department of Finance (DOF) for January 1, 2003 is used. Employment. Based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City's. current employment estimate is 47,205. This estimate is used to calculate revenues and costs based on employment. Population/Employment Ratio. New population and employment generate some revenues and costs, which are calculated based on the split of population and employment and the ratio of each to the sum of the two. The sum of population and employment is 193,871. Population represents 76 percent of the total and employment represents 24 percent of the total. The projected City revenues or costs are split based on this ratio. That is, the share of projected revenues or costs allocated to population is divided by the Citypopulation of 146,666 while the employment share of the projected revenues or costs is divided by the City employment estimate of 47,205. Estimated Total City Developed Acres. Some costs, such as public works and planning, are p_rojected on a per-developed acre basis. The number of developed acres within the City is estimated from City's Geographic Information System (GIS) and CoStar databases, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 14 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis /~, TABLE 4-1 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS I Factor r Explanation General Factors. 146,666 Rancho Cucamonga total population, January 1,2003, DOF 46,870 Rancho Cucamonga total housing units, January 1, 2003, DOF 47,205 Rancho Cucamonga total employment, City Community and Economic Profile 193,871 Population plus employment 76% Population as a share of population plus employment 24% Employment as a share of population plus employment 3.13 Persons per Household, January 1,2003, DOF 3.15 Persons per Household, City of Rancho Cucamonga 12,990 Estimated total City developed acres Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget City of Rancho Cucamonga State of California, Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2003 as shown in Table 4-2. There are an estimated total of 9,544 developed residential acres in the City; and a total of 3,446 developed non-residential acres within the City. in total, 12,990 developed acres are within the City. ' 4.2 Revenue Assumptions The revenue assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 also summarizes the revenue assumptions for the Fire Protection District. Projected recurring revenues to the City General Fund include property tax; document transfer tax; off-site sales and use tax; Proposition 172 sales tax revenue; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; moto¢ vehicle license in-lieu revenues; charges for services; other revenues such as rental/leases/and sales of fixed assets; library revenues and state gasoline tax funds. Interest revenues are not projected in this analysis. Taxes Property Tax. Property tax revenues are projected by multiplying the tax allocation percentage for the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund, Library Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District by the projected assessed value within the tax Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 15 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ,~ // TABLE 4-2 ETIWAN DA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF EXISTING CITY DEVELOPED ACRES~ Residential Acres Residential- Non RDA 8.261 Residential - RDA 1,283 Subtotal Residential Acres 9,544 Non-Residential Acres Non-Residential - Non RDA 747 Non-Residential - RDA 2,699 Subtotal Non-Residential Acres 3,446 Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 Note: 1. Esitmated City right of way and other public/quasi public acres are not included as developable acres. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Geographic In fon~ation System Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga . October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 16 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~ "~ ~ /~..~ TABLE 4-3 ETIWAN DA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Revenues Basis I I Annual · and/or Assumptions Projection Factors r CITY GENERAL FUND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRS DISTRICT Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 17 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis rate area (TRA) in which the project is located. As shown in Table 4-3, the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund allocation is shown at 7.0 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy. Document Transfer Tax. Real property sales are taxed at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of transferred property value. The'property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City receiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property value. As presented in Table 4-3, it is assumed that residential development will change ownership at an average rate of about 7.0 percent per year, or that each home changes hands on the average of about once every 14 years. Off-Site Sales Tax. The City receives sales tax revenue from the State Board of Equalization equal to one percent of all taxable sales generated within the City. The Etiwanda Heights development does not include on-site retail uses that would generate direct taxable sales and use tax to the City upon annexation. However, indirect sales and use tax revenues will be generated from purchases made by the residents of the proposed project estimated to be captured within the City. It is assumed the City of Rancho Cucamonga will capture 50 percent of the taxable purchases made by the future residents of Etiwanda Heights. The 50 percent capture assumption is based on the access to existing and planned retail within the City boundaries, including the future Victoria Gardens Regional Mall due to open in 2004. Residential Sales and Use Tax. Residents of Etiwanda Heights will generate sales and use tax to the City of Rancho Cucamonga through retail purchases in the City. As shown in Table 4-4, taxable sales from Etiwanda Heights residents are projected at $12.52 million. Taxable sales are projected based on the assumption that the average household income of project residents represents about 25 percent of the total assessed valuation and that 32 percent of household income is spent on taxable retail sales. The fiscal analysis assumes the City will capture 50 percent of total taxable retail sales or about $6.26 million in taxable retail sales. Based on sales tax of 1 percent, potential sales tax to the City is projected at $62.6 thousand after buildout. At 10.75 percent of sales tax, use tax is projected at $6.7 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 18 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~l /,-/ TABLE 4-4 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES CAPTURE (in Constant 2004 Dollars) J Description Amount Residential Assessed Valuation (@ $581,933 per unit)~ $156,540,000 Household Income (@ 25% of valuation) $39,135,000 Retail Taxable Sales (@ 32% of household income) $12,523,200 Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in Rancho Cucamonga (@ 50% capture) $6,261,600 Preiected Sales and UseTax to Rancho Cucamonga: Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $62,616 Use Tax (@ 10.75% of sales tax) 6,731 Total Projected Sales and Use Tax $69,347 Note: 1. Assessed .valuation is projected at an average of $581,933 per unit based on information provided by the project proponer]t. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 19 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis _~ thousand after buildout. Use tax is non-situs taxable sales allocated back to jurisdictions by the State. Total sales and use tax is projected at $69.3 thousand after buildout. According to the March 16, 2004 City Budget Update memorandum from City Manager, Jack Lam, one outcome of the recent passage of Proposition 57 is that the City will experience a % cent sales tax shift to the State instead of the earlier ¼ cent shift proposal. While this would reduce the sales tax generated by the project residents by about $17.3 thousand, ~he project would still be projected to have an annual recurring surplus of approximately $56.4 thousand to $89.4 thousand. Use Tax. In addition to sales tax, the City also receives a use tax allocation equal to approximately) 10.75 percent of the one percent sales tax allocation. The use tax factor is derived from two major sources: · A use tax rather than a sales tax is paid on construction materials from residential and non-residential development. This tax is counted in the county in which construction takes place, not at the point of sale of materials. · A use tax is levied on purchases from out-of-state sellers of goods for use in California. The State Board of Equalization assembles the use tax collections into a number of pools. County pbols for each county are based on tax proceeds assigned to a county level. A statewide pool is developed for tax proceeds, which cannot be assigned to individual counties. These pools .of use tax proceeds are then distributed to individual cities and counties on a quarterly basis. The distribution percentages to local jurisdictions for the county pool are calculated on the basis of each city's and county's share of total countywide non-situs based sales tax as a percentage of total point-of-sale, sales tax. A similar proqedure is used in the allocation of the statewide pool. Proposition 172 Sales Tax (Public Safety AuRmentation). The State's allocation formula for public safety augmentation revenues from Proposition 172 is generally tied to each city's.sales tax effort. Therefore, based on Proposition 172 revenues of $299,500 and City sales tax revenues of $14,626,000, these revenues are projected at $20.48 per $1,000 of additional sales tax generated. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 20 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis Franchise Fees The City of Rancho Cucamonga receives a franchise fee for the use of exclusive rights-of- way within the City for gas and electric, refuse and cable television. Gas and Electric Franchise Fees. As shown in Table 4-3, gas and electric franchise fees are estimated at $12.50 per capita and per employee based on the City budget fees of $2,423,180 and the City population plus City employment estimate of 193,871. Refuse Franchise Fees. Franchise fees for rubbish services are projected at $8.00 per capita, based on residential refuse costs of $1,173,379 and the population estimate of 146,666. Commercial (non-residential) refuse franchise fees are projected at $27.73 per employee based on commercial refuse costs of $1,309,000 and employment of 47,205. Cable Television Franchise Fees. Cable television franchise fees are projected at $18.97 per housing unit based on budget figures of $889,260 for this type of franchise and estimated housing units of 46,870. Fines and Forfeitures. These revenues are projected at $5.45 per capita and per employee, based on total revenues of $1,057,180 and the population plus employment estimate of 193,871. MotQr Vehicle In-Lieu Fees. These State allocated revenues, as shown in Table 4-3, are projected at $58.52 per capita based on information from the City of Rancho Cucamonga budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and a population of 146,666 as of January 1, 2003. Char.ties for Services. Charges for services are shown in Table 4-3 and include revenues such as printing fees and sale of printed materials. This revenue source is projected at $0.62 per capita and per employee, based on annual revenues of $120,460 and the City population plus employment of 193,871. Other Revenues. These other miscellaneous revenues include rentals, leases and sales of fix-ed assets. Other revenues are projected at $0.51 per capita and employee based on the City preliminary b[Jdget revenues of $98,830 and the City population plus employment estimate of 193,871. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 21 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ..~ / / Interest Income. Interest earnings to the General Fund are not projected as a part of this analysis. Library Fund. As shown in Table 4-3, the City is projected to receive from property tax revenues, 1.7 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy for the Library Fund. In addition, library revenues of $0.80 per capita are projected based on a total of $118,000 from fines and fees and a population of 146,666. Library revenues of $0.70 per capita are projected based on total media rentals and sales of $102,500 and population of 146,666. Interest earnings are not projected as a significant revenue source. State Gasoline Tax. State gasoline tax revenues are determined based on data provided by the City's budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and the City population of 146,666. These revenues are projected based on the following: State Gasoline Tax Total Amount Per Capita Amount Section 2105 $738,000 $5.03 Section 2106 $465,770 $3.18 Section 2107 $1,049,230 $7.15 No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. Gas Tax Fund revenues are earmarked for public works road related maintenance costs. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) receives an estimated 12.46 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy for the Etiwanda Heights development. No interest earnings are projected as a part of this analysis. 4.3 Cost AssumptiOns The cost assumptions for the City's General Fund are summarized in Table 4-5. Recurring costs include police protection, animal control, public works, planning, building and safety, community services, library, fire district and general government activities. Police Protection. The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts police protection services with the County Sheriff. Table 4-6 presents the police cost estimation. Total annual costs from the City's budget for 2003-2004 are $15,280,650. Based on discussion with the City Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 22 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-5 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF COST ASSUMPTIONS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Budget FY 2003~04 I CostCategory I Budget ,NetCostI Projection Projection Method Annual Basis and/or AnsumpUons Projection Factors CITY GENERAL FUND Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 23 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-6 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE COST ESTIMATION~ (In Constant 2003 Dollars) 1. POLICE COSTS Total 2003~04 Budget $15,280,650 minus County Administrative Fee $374,600 equals Net Police Costs $14,906,050 2. PER CAPITA/EMPLOYEE COSTS City Population Estimate 146,666 City Employment Estimate 47,205 Popuiation plus Employment 193,871 Per Capita/Per Employee Cost $76.89 Note: 1. Police cost estimation is based on the methodology used in the General Plan fiscal analysis. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucemonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga, October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 24 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis Finance Officer during preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update, a County Administrative Fee of $374,600 is subtracted from the total cost. The total net police cost is $14,906,500, which is allocated to population and employment in their relative proportions, yielding projected costs of $76.89 per capita and per employee. Animal Control. Animal control costs are projected at $2.66 per capita, based on total net costs of $390,490 and a population of 146,666, as shown in Table 4-5. Public Works Estimated public works costs are presented in Table 4-7. Enaineerin~. Based on City budget information, 2003-2004 engineering costs are estimated to total $3,201,920, while engineering fee revenues are estimated at $1,259,680. Net engineering costs of $1,942,240 are allocated on a per-developed acre basis. Developed acres total 12,990 and net engineering costs are projected at $149.52 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Public Works Maintenance. Public works services include street maintenance and sweeping, maintenance of parks and trees, city facilities, and storm drains. The City public works budget totals $4,124,260. Public works costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. With an estimated 12,990 developed acres in the City, maintenance costs are projected at $317.49 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-7. Facilities Maintenance. Total facilities maintenance costs in 2003-2004 are $1,903,950. Based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update, it is assumed that the proposed project would incur a marginal increase in facilities maintenance costs of 20 percent, or an increase of $380,790. This marginal increase of $380,790 is divided by the total 12,990 estimated developed acres, for projected facilities maintenance costs of $29.31 per developed acre, also shown in Table 4-7. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 25 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4-7 ETIWAN DA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PUBLIC WORKS COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) 1. ENGINEERING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Engineering-Administration $332,760 Engineering-Construction Management 825,700 Engineering-Development Management 1,186,290 Engineering-NPDES Program 492,720 Engineering-Project Management 144,280 Engineering-Traffic Management 220,170 Total Engineering Costs $3,201,920 minus Engineering Fees $1,209,680 Engineering Special Services Fees 50,000 Engineering Revenues $1,259,680 equals Net Engineering Costs $1,942,240 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Engineering Costs Per Developed Acre $149.52 2. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance $854,740 times Marginal Increase in Mafntenance Vehicles & Equipment @t 50% equals Adjusted Maintenance Vehicles & Equipment $427,370 plus Maintenance Public Works 3,696,890 Total Public Works Maintenance Costs $4,'124,260 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12.990 equals Public Works Costs Per Developed Acre $317.49 3. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Facilities Maintenance $1,903,950 times Marginal Increase in Facilities Maintenance @~ 20% equals Adjusted Facilities Maintenance $380,790 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Facilities Maintenance Costs per Developed Acre $29.31 Note: 1. Marginal increase assumptions are based on the fiscal methodology used for the General P~an Update. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hot/man Associates, Fiscal Analy$is, General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucarnonga, October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 26 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis Planning Department Table 4-8 presents the estimation of both the Planning Department costs and the Building and Safety Department costs. These costs are projected on a per-developed acre basis. Planning. As shown in Table 4-8, Planning Department functions total $1,749,700, according to the budget for fiscal year 2003-2004. Planning fee and special program fee revenues for the same period total $850,000, for estimated net planning costs of $899,700. Using estimated developed acres of 12,990; planning costs are projected at $69.26 per developed acre. Building and Safety. Table 4-8 also presents the estimation of the Building and Safety Department costs. As shown, Building and Safety costs total $4,142,290, according to the 2003-2004 budget. Building permit and plan check fee revenues for the same period total $4,316,200, for estimated surplus of $173,910. The fiscal analysis assumes that building and safety costs breakeven with building permit and plan check fee revenues, thus balancing building and safety costs in the long term. The line item of building and safety costs is not projected in the fiscal analysis. Community Services. As shown in Table 4-5, City Community Services costs are estimated to total $2,337,520 in 2003-2004. On a per capita basis, this cost is projected at $15.94. Library. As shown in Table 4-5, the Rancho Cucamonga library costs are projected at $12.90 per capita, based on a library annual budget of $1,891,680 and population of 146,666. Fire District Transfer. Based on the proposed fiscal year 2003-2004 budget the General Fund is transferring $1,136,770 to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to supplement the District's other funding sources. Based on the total population and employment estimate of 193,871, the General Fund transfer cost to the Fire Protection District is projected at $5.86 per capita and employee. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 27 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Fiscal Analy$is TABLE 4-8 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) 1. PLANNING COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Planning $1,749,700 minus Planning Fees $800,000 Planning - Special Services Fee 50,000 Planning Revenues $850,000 equals Net Planning Costs $899,700 divided by Estimated Total Developed Acres 12,990 equals Net Planning Costs per Developed Acre $69.26 2. BUILDING AND SAFETY COSTS PER DEVELOPED ACRE Building and Safety $4,142,290 minus Building Perm[ts $2,676,200 Plan Check Fees 1,640,000 Building and Safety Revenues $4,316,200 equals Net Building and Safety Costs~ -$173,910 Note: 1. The fiscal analysis assumes that costs forBuildlngandSafe~for Henderson Creek Estates will breakeven with Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Fiscal Analysis. General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga . October 2, 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 28 Etiwanda Heights March25,2004 CityofRanchoCucamongaFiscalAnalysis ~;~ General Government Costs. Table 4-9 presents the estimation of general government costs. All City costs are categorized as either general government costs or non-general government costs. General'Government costs are related to City administration and are generally not associated with direct line department services to City residents or employees. Non-general government functions provide direct services, such as animal control, police, or community services. As shown in Table 4-9, general government costs are estimated at $10,483,060. Non- general government costs are estimated to total $34,330,390. The general government as a percent of non-general government costs is equal to 30.5 percent. Due to economies of scale, it is estimated that the marginal increase in general government costs would be one half of this amount, or 15.3 percent. The 50 percent marginal increase in general government costs is based on the fiscal methodology for the General Plan Update. Contin.qency Costs. City General Fund contingency costs of 15 percent are applied to projected costs to account for budget and economic uncertainties. The contingency cost factor of 15 percent is based on discussion with City Finance Department staff during . preparation of the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Update. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Annual recurring fire protection costs are not projected for the Etiwanda Heights project. Based on the Plan forthe Provision of Municipal Services Annexation No. 01-01 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared by the City, the RCFPD currently has adequate funding to provide fire protection within it jurisdictional boundaries. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 29 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ,~ TABLE 4-9 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS (In Constant 2004 Dollars) Total Government Government Non-Departmental General $3.278.500 $3.278.500 Non-Oepar[mental Personnel 218.030 218.030 City Council 90,850 90.850 City Manager 801.140 801.140 City Clerk 371.430 371.430 Animal Control Services 452.250 452.250 Emergency Preparedness 122.090 122.090 Administrative Services - Administration 377.170 377.170 Business Licensing 209.380 209.380 City Facilities 1,485.860 1.485.860 Finance 604.650 604.650 Geographic Information Systems 304,890 304.890 Management Information Systems 1.938,140 1.938.140 Personnel 291,270 291.270 Purchasing 340,890 340.890 Risk Management 167,220 167.220 Treasury Management 3.640 3.640 Community Development Administration 0 0 Building & Safety 4.142.290 4.142.290 Engineering - Administration 332.760 332.760 Engineed ng-Construction Management 825.700 825.700 Eogineedng-Development Management 1.186.290 1.186.290 Engineedng-NPDES 492.720 492.720 Engineering-Project Management 144.280 144.280 Engineering-Traffic Management 220.710 220.710 Facilities Maintenance 1.903.950 1.903.950 Integrated Waste Management 624.310 624.310 Planning 1.749,700 1.749.700 Planning Commission 9,570 9,570 Street and Park Maintenance 3,648,130 3,648,130 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 854,740 854,740 Community Services - Administration 2,337,520 2,337,520 Park and Recreation Commission 2,730 2,730 Fire Administration 0 0 Police Administration 15,280,650 15,280,650 Redevelopment Agency Administration 0 _0_ GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $44,813,450 $10,483,060 $34,330,390 Estimated General Government Expenditures $10.483,060 divided by Estimated Non-General Government Expenditures $34.330.390 equals Genenal Government as percent of Non-General Government Costs 30.5% Marginal Increase in General Government Costs ~ 50%~ 15.3% Note: 1. Margina~ increase assumptions ere based on the fiscal methodology used for the General Plan Update. Source; Stanley R. Hoffmen Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Fiscal Year 2003/04, Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. Fiscal Analysis. General Plan Update. City of Rancho Cucamonga , October 2. 2000 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 30 Etiwanda Heights March25,2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~ ~ APPENDIX A PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED City of Rancho Cucamonga Debra Meier, AICP 909-477-2700 County of San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission Deputy Executive Officer 909-387-5869 County of San Bernardino Auditor Controller's Office 909-386-8831 C.A. Page Company Craig Page 949-723-4177 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 31 Etiwanda Heights March 25, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Analysis ~O "J / RESOLUT,ON NO. a ¥- Z YZ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LQW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND CONSERVATION FOR 168.77 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02. A. Recitals. 1. Traigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks appraval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincarporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of approximately 168.77 acres with 269 single-family housing units (99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The propos_ed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San · Bemardino County Flood Control District. These series of actions and appravals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The Applicant's request for General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 is as described in the title of this Resolution and depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. 4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) and is the site of the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The propertyto the east is designated Conservation and Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324 - Henderson Creek. The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised ofa SCE power line corridor, and the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area. 5. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-77, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 along with other associated applications. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 2 6. On July 21,2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environment_al Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081085).-The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 5, 2003 through January 28, 2004. Comments were received dudng that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR. Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, compdse the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed enviror~mental impact report. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 3 ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact repod. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Earth Resources, Water Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report) and are 'incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Earth Resources. The Final EIR finds that development of the Project would expose people and structures to dsks associated with seismic ground shaking produced by numerous regional faults. Additionally, development of the prbject would require removal of vegetation to prepare for grading; this would create a short-term increased potential for topsoil erosion. Potential erosion in the long-term would result from increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. Mitigation measures are imposed which require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. _Specifically, the developer must: demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with recommendations and specifications found in the geotechnical investigation report included in Appendix C of the Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 3-1 ); identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants (Mitigation Measure 3-2); and identify these construction measures on applicable grading plans, and implem(~nt them to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, mitigation measures are imposed on the project that require preparation and approval of a Dust Control Plan and a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of erosion (Mitigation Measures 3-4 and 3-5). Based on these mitigation measures, and the additional ones contained in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures and the possibility of erosion will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Water Resources. The Final EIR identifies that conversion of the Project site to urban uses would increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.) that would reach the local drainage system due to run-off caused by grading or by being washed off streets during storm events or street- sweeping activities. Mitigation measures imposed on the applicant would require the Project developer to apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, if necessary, to obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations); additionally, the developer will be required to implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface and ground waters. The City Council finds that implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts on water quality to a level of less than insignificant. Additionally, the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 4 Final EIR identifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the Project site as within a flood zone designated "Flood Zone D." Mitigation measures will require the developer to install a revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site, and implement on- and off-site drainage system improvements outlined in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D of the draft EIR). The City Council finds that the revetment and drainage improvements will reduce flood impacts associated with the Project to a level of less than significant. iii. Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project would increase vehicle tdps and impact the level of service along artedal streets and intersections; specifically, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Further, it is assumed that at build-out 68 percent of the Project traffic would enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32 percent would use East Avenue; this distribution would cause some roads to be more intensely affected than others. Additionally, the Final EIR found that the level of service at the intersection of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues could be reduced to a "D" level during the morning peak hour at full build-out. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to contribute a fair share to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the construction of traffic signals at the intersections of: Day Creek Boulevard/Banyan Avenue; Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 West-bound ramp; Day Creek Boulevard/SR 210 East-bound ramp; Etiwanda Avenue/Banyan Avenue; Etiwanda Avenue/VVilson Avenue; and East Avenue/Banyan Avenue. Further, the developer will be required to pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections as outlined in the Project traffic report; this "fair share" amount is approximately $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, traffic at the study intersections will be reduced to operate at a level of service of D or better (with all but one intersection operating at level of service C or better) and that the impacts of the Project on Traffic and Circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissiohs from construction-related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of s gn ficance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct (_SCAQMD). These impacts are shod- term and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust produced by grading of the site. In addition, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to produce significant levels of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NO×) that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. Comprehensive mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 - 6-10) are imposed on the Project which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures, and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to ensure that all construction equipment is propedy serviced and maintained and that trucks are not left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes), reestablishment of ground cover through seeding and watering, phased grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, suspension of grading operations during periods of high wind (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), and regular washing and sweeping of the site. The Final EIR also indicates that the Project would produce long-term impacts on Air Quality as a result of the additional external vehicle trips that will be generated, and their attendant production of NOx and PM~0 in excess of SCAQMD standards. Further, secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption by on-site residential heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similar consumptive appliances. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project to reduce long-term impacts include requiring the developer to demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/Iow-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 5 water heaters (Mitigation Measure 6-11), and that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping (Mitigation Measure 6-12). Further, the developer will be required to make a fair share contribution to a "park and ride" facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 freeways, as well as construct a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park, if directed by OmniTrans. The City Council finds that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures directed at both shod- and long-term impacts, emissions will be reduced and the Project's contribution to regional emission of criterial pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all of these comprehensive mitigation requirements, the Project will produce significant short- and long-term impacts on Air Quality due to emissions, and that these impacts will remain significant after mitigation. v. Bioloqical Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, pdor to the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, the Project site contained approximately 109 acres of sage scrub (including white sage), along with California buckwheat, California fllago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia; the Project will eliminate this vegetation through development of the area. Further, the Project will impact sensitive plant species present on the site (as determined before-the 2003 w!ldfire) including Plummer's mariposa lily, Pious daisy, and four separate types of spineflowers (Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's). Development of the site will also impact wildlife corridors and will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including the sharp-shinned hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, northem harder, Cooper's hawk, San Diego horned lizard, and orange-throated whiptail. The Final EIR indicated that the California gnatcatcher (a federally listed threatened species) has not been observed on-site and has a Iow probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. Also, the Final EIR found that while a portion of the Project site (the Etiwanda Creek channel) is within the historical range of the endangered San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), since the creek channel is not proposed for development, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. The Final EIR further found that development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in four small drainages that are under Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction, but that none of these areas is considered a wetland. The Final EIR found that the Project is not consistent with the goals of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) since it does not include any on-site preservation of open space lands. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County approximately 164 acres of land as off-site mitigation land. This 164-acre area is intended to accomplish a 1.5 to 1 ratio to mitigate for the loss of the approximately 109 acres of sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species. The City finds that the recommended mitigation measures will help reduce potentially significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat, but that the impacts will remain significant after mitigation. vi. Hazards. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazardous materials spills on nearby state highways, and due to the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses. Additionally, the Project would expose more people and structures to potential wildfire hazards, and would expose more people to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. Mitigation measures imposed will require submission of a plan detailing proper clean-up efforts for any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released during construction (Mitigation Measure 9-1 ); development of fuel modification zones, and the requirement of"firewise" landsceping and the use of fire-resistant building materials to reduce fire hazards (Mitigation Measures 9-2 - 9-4); and the posting of signs warning of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions on the site CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 6 (Mitigation Measure 9-8). The City Council finds that after implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts relating to Hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. vii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities; earth-moving equipment is anticipated to create noise up to 90-dB. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure 10-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the short term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels would increase in the long-term due to additional motor vehicle noise and from general human activity. In the opening year (2005), noise levels at fifty feet from the centedine of area roadways would range from a Iow of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to document that exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-5), and that interior living area noise levels are less than45 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-6). Further, the developer will be required to incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. viii. Public Services. The Final EIR identifies that due to population increases associated with the Project, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the need for public services in the areas of fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, medical services, and roads. A mitigation measure is imposed to require the developer to pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire, schools, parks, and library fees (Mitigation Measure 11-1 ). Additionally, in order to reduce the number of fire incidents requiring response by the City's Fire Department, the project developer would be required to obtain approval from the Fire Department with regard to adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire-resistant structural materials in project buildings (Mitigation Measure 11-3). Additionally, the developer will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure installation and maintenance of public and pdvate roads, and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project (Mitigation Measure 11-5). The City Council finds that the imposition and implementation of these mitigation measures will mitigate the Project's impacts on Public Services to a level of less than significant. ix. Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would create potentially significant impacts as a result of new residential water requirements of approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day; this water would be provided from an existing two million gallon water reservoir via an existing water main, however, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water stol'age facilities would be required. Further, the Final EIR indicates that based on an estimate of 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day being produced, the Project would require construction of a sewer main to transport the wastewater to an existing sewage treatment plant. Additionally, the Project would generate the need for increased electricity, natural gas, and telephone and television cables, and would increase the amount of solid waste produced. A mitigation measure imposed requires the contribution of funds for sewer service (Mitigation Measure 12-1). Further mitigation measures require submission of development plansto Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, and Vedzon in order to facilitate engineering design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 7 the Project; these companies must also provide "will-serve" letters in order for building permits to issue. The City Council finds that imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the Project on Utilities to a level of less than significant. x. Aesthetics. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. In the short-term, the landscape would be altered by grading and clearing, and views of the Project site would include the heavy construction equipment and machinery used to prepare the Project site for construction of new homes. Long- term impacts would occur due to a fundamental change in the visual and aesthetic character of the area, and would transform the existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community. Additionally, the presence of homes would mean more lighting at night, as well as increased glare due to additional windows in the community. Mitigation measures will require that outdoor lighting comply with the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines and the City's General Plan (Mitigation Measure 13-1 ), and that a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan be prepared (Mitigation Measure 13-5). Even with the imposition and implementation of these and other mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impact of the Project on Aesthetics will remain significant after mitigation. xi. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR identifies that while the existence of paleontological resources is unlikely on the Project site, such resources may be discovered dudng construction of the Project. Also, one historic archeologicai site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H. This prior survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880s; the structure consisted of rock walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. Mitigation measures imposed require that a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site and submit a report of findings and specific recommendations for further mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 14-1). Should any prehistoric archaeological resources be found before or during grading, a qualified archaeologist would be retained to monitor construction activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. The City Council finds that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. xii. Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Biolo,qical Resources, and Aesthetics. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of other development projects in the vicinity, would create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality due to additional vehicle emissions adding incremental pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to biological resources, the Final EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts with loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area due to encroachment of human structures and activities. With respect to aesthetics, the proposed project will contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to the visual character of the area going from largely vacant, rural terrain to Iow density suburban development. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts, and short and long-term cumulative impacts), biological resources related to the loss of habitat, and aesthetics related to short-term views (i.e. construction activities and dust) and long-term views related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a residential community. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 8 h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Rural Density Alterative," development under the existing land use designation. Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set fodh below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) _ Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77- acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated_growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) Under the "No Project-No Development Alternative" the project site would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior altemative. This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iii) Under the "No Project - Open Space Alternative" the site would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 9 of the NEOSHPP plan. This altemative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iv) Under the "Reduced Intensity Alternative" almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when needed. However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal ~)f providing adequate park facilities for City residents. _ v) The "Modified Site Plan Alternative" would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. It would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the site and would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project-related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This altemative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. vi) The "Rural Density Alterative" would development the site under the City's currently designated of Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a max[mum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on 37 acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open space'and biological habitat. This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of two parks. 'Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 10 from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality related to vehicle emissions; impacts to biological resources related to removal of habitat; and short-term impacts to aesthetics (i.e. construction dust obscuring views) and long-term impacts to aesthetics (changes to the natural terrain). Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts to short-term and long-term impacts on air quality and aesthetics, and project related and cumulative impacts to biological resources, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Cdde, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results ih logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned develppment that responds to market demands; ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the July 21, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA DRC2003-00410 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 11 Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 21,2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. b. The proposed change in land use designation Will promote housing oppbrtunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjaCent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large I.ots and opportunities foran equestrian lifestyle. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1,2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410. - 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. i000 0 i000 2000 Feet ~ PROPOSED LOW ~ PROPOSED RESOURCE CONSERVATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT "~_" DRC2003-00410 ORDINANCE NO. 7~,~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409, TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND FLOOD CONTROL/RESOURCE CONSERVATION FOR 168.77 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDAAVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02. A. Recitals. 1. Traigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development 107.28 acres of the 168.77-acre site with 269 single-family housing units (99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southem California Edison and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. These sedes of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Ordinance as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The Applicant's request for Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 is for the amendment to the District Designation for 168.77 acres of land from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control/Resource Conservation, for that portion of land depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. 4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and is the site ofthe previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The preperb/to the east is designated Conservation and Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324 - Henderson Creek. The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised of a SCE power line corridor, and the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control bas~ns and conservation area. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 2 5. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-78, recommending approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 along with other associated applications. 6. On July 21,2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the hearing. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFOI~E, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 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. SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081085). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 5, 2003 through January 28, 2004. Comments were received dudng that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting commehts. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR. Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, compdse the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04-__, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 3 d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alte .matives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas Earth Resoumes, Water Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, and Cdltural Resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a bdef explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i) Earth Resources. The Final EIR finds that development of the Project would expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking produced by numerous regional faults. Additionally, development of the project would require removal of vegetation to prepare for grading; this would create a short-term increased potential for topsoil erosion. Potential erosion in the long-term would result from increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. Mitigation measures are imposed which require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. Specifically, the developer must: demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with recommendations and specifications found in the geotechnical investigation report included in Appendix C of the Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 3-1 ); identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants (Mitigation Measure 3-2); and identify these construction measures on applicable grading plans, and implement them to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, mitigation measures are imposed on the project that require preparation and approval of a Dust Control Plan and a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of erosion (Mitigation Measures 3-4 and 3-5). Based on these mitigation measures, and the additional ones contained in the Final EIR, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 4 the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures and the possibility of erosion will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii) Water Resources. The Final EIR identifies that conversion of the Project site to urban uses would increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.) that would reach the local drainage system due to run-off caused by grading or by being washed off streets during storm events or street- sweeping activities. Mitigation measures imposed on the applicant would require the Project developer to apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, if necessary, to obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations); additionally, the developer will be required to implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface and ground waters. The City Council finds that implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts on water quality to a level of less than insignificant. Additionally, the Final EIR identifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the Project'site as within a fioqd zone designated "Flood Zone D." Mitigation measures will require the developer to install a revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site, and implement on- and off-site drainage system improvements outlined in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D of the draft EIR). The City Council finds that the revetment and drainage improvements will reduce flood impacts associated with the Project to a level of less than significant. iii) Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR iddicates that the proposed Project would increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections; specifically, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Further, it is assumed that at build-out 68 percent of the Project traffic would enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32 percent would use East Avenue; this distribution would cause some roads to be more intensely affected than others. Additionally, the Final EIR found that the level of service at the intersection of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues could be reduced to a "D" level during the morning peak hour at full build-out. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to contribute a fair share to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the construction of traffic signals at the intersections of: Day Creek Boulevard/Banyan Avenue; Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 West-bound ramp; Day Creek Boulevard/SR 210 E~st-bound ramp; Etiwanda Avenue/Banyan Avenue; Etiwanda Avenue/Wilson Avenue; and East Avenue/Banyan Avenue. Further, the developer will be required to pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections as outlined in the Project traffic report; this "fair share" amount is approximately $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, traffic at the study intersections will be reduced to operate at a level of service of D or better (with all but one intersection operating at level of service C or better) and that the impacts of the Project on Traffic and Circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv) Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction-related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct (SCAQMD). These impacts are short- term and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area byway of fugitive dust produced by grading of the site. In addition, construction-related emissions, particularly from CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 5 architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to produce significant levels of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. Comprehensive mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 - 6-10) are imposed on the Project which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures, and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained and that trucks are not left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes), reestablishment of ground cover through seeding and watering, phased grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, suspension of grading operations during periods of high wind (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), and regular washing and sweeping of the site. The Final EIR also indicates that the Project would produce long-term impacts on Air Quality as a result of the additional external vehicle trips that will be generated, and their attendant production of NOx and PM~0 in excess of SCAQMD standards. Further, secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption by on-site residential heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similar consumptive appliances. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project to reduce long-term impacts include requiring the developer to demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/Iow-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters (Mitigation Measure 6-11), and that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping (Mitigation Measure 6-12). Further, the developerwill be required to make a fair share contribution to a "park and ride" facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 freeways, as well as construct a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park, if directed by OmniTrans. The City Council finds that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures directed at both short- and long-term impacts, emissions will be reduced and the Project's contribution to regional emission of criterial pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all of these comprehensive mitigation requirements, the Project will producesignificant short- and long-term impacts on Air Quality due to emissions, and that these impacts will remain significant after mitigation. v) Biolo,qical Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, _the Project site contained approximately 109 acres of sage scrub (including white sage), along with California buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia; the Project will eliminate this vegetation through development of the area. Further, the Project will impact sensitive plant species present on the site (as determined before the 2003 wildfire) including Plummer's mariposa lily, Pious daisy, and four separate types of spineflowers (Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's). Development of the site will also impact wildlife corridors and will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including the sharp-shinned hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, San Diego horned lizard, and orange-throated whiptail. The Final EIR indicated that the California gnatcatcher (a federally listed threatened species) has not been observed on-site and has a Iow probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. Also, the Final EIR found that while a portion of the Project site (the Etiwanda Creek channel) is within the historical range fo the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), since the creek channel is not proposed for development, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. The Final EIR further found that development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in four small drainages that are under Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction, but that none of these areas is considered a wetland. The Final EIR found that the Project is not consistent with the goals of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) since it CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 6 does not include any on-site preservation of open space lands. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County approximately 164 acres of land as off-site mitigation land. This 164-acre area is intended to accomplish a 1:5 to I ratio to mitigate for the loss of the approximately 109'acres of sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species. The City finds that the recommended mitigation measures will help reduce potentially significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat, but that the impacts will remain significant after mitigation. vi) Hazards. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazardous materials spills on nearby state highways, and due to the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses. Additionally, the Project would expose more people and structures to potential wildfire hazards, and would expose more people to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. Mitigation measures imposed will require submission of a plan detailing proper clean-up effor[s for any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released during construction (Mitigation Measure 9-1 ); development of fuel modification zones, and the requirement of"firewise" landscaping and the use of fire-resistant building materials to reduce fire hazards (Mitigation Measures 9-2 - 9-4); and the posting of signs warning of the potential dsk of wildlife/human interactions on the site (Mitigation Measure 9-8). The City Council finds that after implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts relating to Hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. vii) Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavyequipment associated with construction activities; earth-moving equipment is anticipated to create noise up to 90-dB. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction-to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure 10-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the short term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels would increase in the Iong-terr~_ due to additional motor vehicle noise and from general human activity. In the opening year (2005), noise levels at fifty feet from the centedine of area roadways would range from a Iow of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to document that exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-5), and that interior living area noise levels are less than 45 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-6). Further, the developer will be required to incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. viii) Public Services. The Final EIR identifies that due to population increases associated with the Project, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the need for public services in the areas of fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, medical services, and roads. A mitigation measure is imposed to require the developer to pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire, schools, parks, and library fees (Mitigation Measure 11-1). Additionally, in order to reduce the number of fire incidents requiring response by the City's Fire Department, the project developer would be required to obtain approval from the Fire CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 7 Department with regard to adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire-resistant structural materials in project buildings (Mitigation Measure 11-3). Additionally, the developer will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure installation and maintenance of public and private roads, and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project (Mitigation Measure 11-5). The City Council finds that the imposition and implementation of these mitigation measures will mitigate the Project's impacts on Public Services to a level of less than significant. ix) Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would create potentially significant impacts as a result of new residential water requirements of approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day; this water would be provided from an existing two million gallon water reservoir via an existing water main, however, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities would be required. Further, the Final EIR indicates that based on an estimate of 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day being produced, the Project would require construction of a sewer main to transport the wastewater to an existing sewage treatment plant. Additionally, the Project would generate the need for increased electricity, natural gas, and telephone and television cables, and would increase the amount of solid waste produced. A mitigation measure imposed requires the contribution of funds for sewer service (Mitigation Measure 12-1 ). Fudher mitigation measures require submission of development plans to Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, and Verizon in order to facilitate engineering design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the Project; these companies must also provide "will-serve" letters in order for building permits to issue. The City Council finds that imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the Project on Utilities to a level of less than significant. x) Aesthetics. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. In the short-term, the landscape would be altered by grading and clearing, and views of the Project site would include the heavy construction equipment and machinery used to prepare the Project site for construction of new homes. Long- term impacts would occur due to a fundamental change in the visual and aesthetic character of the area, and would transform the existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community. Additionally, the presence of homes would mean more lighting at night, as well as increased glare due to additional windows in the community. Mitigation measures will require that outdoor lighting comply with the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines and the City's General Plan (Mitigation Measure 13-1 ), and that a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan be prepared (Mitigation Measure 13-5). Even with the imposition and implementation of these and other mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impact of the Project on Aesthetics will remain significant after mitigation. xi) Cultural Resources. The Final EIR identifies that while the existence of paleontological resources is unlikely on the Project site, such resources may be discovered dudng construction of the Project. Also, one historic archeological site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H. This pdor survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880s; the structure consisted of rock walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. Mitigation measures imposed require that a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site and submit a report of findings and specific recommendations for further mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 14-1). Should any prehistoric archaeological resources be found before or during grading, a qualified archaeologist would be retained to monitor construction CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 8 activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. The City Council finds that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. xii) Cumulative Impacts - Air Quality, Bioloqical Resources, and Aesthetics. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of other development projects in the vicinity, would create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality dudng construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality due to additional vehicle emissions adding incremental pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to biological resources, the Final EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts with loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area due to encroachment of human structures and activities. With respect to aesthetics, the proposed project will contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to the visual character of the area going from largely vacant, rural terrain to Iow density suburban development g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts, and short and long-term cumulative impacts), biological resources related to the loss of habitat, and aesthetics related to short-term views (i.e. construction activities and dust) and long-term views related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a residential community h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Rural Density AIterative," development under the existing land use designation. Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the altemative location alternative and the alternative land use altemafive. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the altematives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) Annexation of 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 9 d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and hi To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) Under the "No Project-No Development Alternative" the project site would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. This altemative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iii) Under the "No Project - Open Space Alternative" the site would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iv) Under the "Reduced Intensity Alternative" almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when needed. However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's - economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents. v) The "Modified Site Plan Alternative" would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. It would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 10 site and would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project-related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. vi) The "Rural Density Alterative" would development the site under the City's currently designated of Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on 37 acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open space and biological habitat. This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of two parks. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that_has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring _Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit"F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality related to vehicle emissions; impacts to biological resources related to removal of habitat; and short-term impacts to aesthetics (i.e. construction dust obscuring views) and long-term impacts to aesthetics (changes to the natural terrain). Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts to short-term and long-term impacts on air quality and aesthetics, and project related and cumulative impacts to biological resources, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 11 iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, vadous public service agencies; viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that ~'esponds to market demands; ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "G" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will .be used to monitor compliance with' the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Ordinance and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Ordinance shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 21,2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the. Project site is consistent with neighboring properties, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2 which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ENSPA DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 12 b. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 to establish a Low Residential District on that portion of land described in this Ordinance and depicted on- Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,-or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Ran~;ho Cucamonga, California. qll 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet ~PROPOSED LOW ~PROPOSED RESOURCE CONSERVATION ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT "A" DRC2003-00409 RESOLUTION NO. 04-**~, Z/(~,~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749 FORA RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SCE CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02. A. Recitals. 1. T~aigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bemardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of approximately 168.77 acres with 269 single-family housing units (99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre, and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. TJ~e proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bemardino County Flood Control District. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project, which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and is the site of the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The property to the east is designated Conservation and Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324 - Henderson Creek. The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised of a SCE power line corridor, and the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area. 4. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heating on the Project, and after receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 2 04-77, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 along with other associated applications. 5. On June 12, 2004, Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spidt of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., flied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749. 6. On July 21,2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project, the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081085). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 5, 2003 through Januar,/ 28, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR. Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04- , the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the project approvals. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 3 e. Public Resoumes Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpora_ted into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. Th~ City Council finds, based upon the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Earth Resources, Water Resoumes, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required, and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings," the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: i. Earth Resources. The Final EIR finds that development of the Project would expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking produced by numerous regional faults. Additionally, development of the project would require removal of vegetation to prepare for grading; this would create a short-term increased potential for topsoil erosion. Potential erosion in the long-term would result from increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. Mitigation measures are imposed which require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. Specifically, the developer must: demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with recommendations and specifications found in the geotechnical investigation report included in Appendix C of the Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 3-1 ); identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants (Mitigation Measure 3-2); and identify these construction measures on applicable grading plans, and implement them to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, mitigation _ measures are imposed on the project that require preparation and approval of a Dust Control Plan and a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of erosion (Mitigation Measures 3-4 and 3-5). Based on these mitigation measures, and the additional ones contained in the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures and the possibility of erosion will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Water Resources. The Final EIR identifies that conversion of the Project site to urban uses would increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 4 automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.) that would reach the local drainage system due to run-off caused by grading or.by being washed off streets during storm events or street- sweeping activities. Mitigation measures imposed on the applicant would require the Project developer to apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, if necessary, to obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations); additionally, the developer will be required to implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface and ground waters. The City Council finds that implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts on water quality to a level of less than insignificant. Additionally, the Final EIR identifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the Project site as within a flood zone designated "Flood Zone D." Mitigation measures will require the developer to install a revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site, and implement on- and off-site drainage system improvements outlined in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D of the draft EIR). The City Council finds that the revetment and drainage improvements will reduce flood impacts associated with the Project to a level of less than significant. iii. Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project would increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections; specifically, the P_roject is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Further, it is assumed that at build-out 68 percent of the Project traffic would entedexit the'site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32 percent would use East Avenue; this distribution would cause some roads to be more intensely affected than others. Additionally, the Final EIR found that the level of service at the intersection of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues could be reduced to a "D" level during the morning peak hour at full build-out. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to contribute a fair share to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the construction of traffic signals at the intersections of: Day Creek Boulevard/Banyan Avenue; Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 West-bound ramp; Day Creek Boulevard/SR 210 East-bound ramp; Etiwanda Avenue/Banyan Avenue; Etiwanda AvenueNVilson Avenue; and East Avenue/Banyan Avenue. Further, the developer will be required to pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections as outlined in the Project traffic report; this "fair share" amount is approximately $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, traffic at the study intersections will be reduced to operate at a level of service of D or better (with all but one intersection operating at level of service C or better) and that the impacts of the Project on Traffic and Circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. Specifically, the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction-related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct (SCAQMD). These impacts are short- term and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust produced by grading of the site. In addition, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to produce significant levels of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. Comprehensive mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 - 6-10) are imposed on the Project which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures, and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained and that trucks are not left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes), CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 5 reestablishment of ground cover through seeding and watering, phased grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, suspension of grading operations during periods of high wind (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), and regular washing and sweeping of the site. The Final EIR also indicates that the Project would produce long-term impacts on Air Quality as a result of the additional external vehicle trips that will be generated, and their attendant production of NO× and PM~0 in excess of SCAQMD standards. Further, secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption by on-site residential heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similar consumptive appliances. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project to reduce long-term impacts include requiring the developer to demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/Iow-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters (Mitigation Measure 6-11), and that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and.weather-stripping (Mitigation Measure 6-12). Further, the developer will be required to make a fair share contribution to a "park and ride" facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 freeways, as well as construct a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park, if directed by OmniTrans. The City Council finds that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures directed at both short- and long-term impacts, emissions will be reduced and the Project's contribution to regional emission of cdterial pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the impo§ition of all of these comprehensive mitigation requirements, the Project will produce significa_nt short- and long-term impacts on Air Quality due to emissions, and that these impacts will remain significant after mitigation. v. Biological Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, the Project site contained approximately 109 acres of sage scrub (including white sage), along with California buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia; the Project will eliminate this vegetation through development of the area. Further, the Project will impact sensitive plant species present on the site (as determined before the 2003 wildfire) including Plummer's madposa lily, Pious daisy, and four separate types of spineflowers (Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's). Development of the site will also impact wildlife corridors and will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including the sharp-shinned hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, northem harrier, Cooper's hawk, San Diego homed lizard, and orange-throated whiptail. 'The Final EIR indicated that the California gnatcatcher (a federally listed threatened species) has not been observed on-site and has a Iow probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. Also, the Final EIR found that while a portion of the Project site (the Etiwanda Creek channel) is within the historical range of the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), since the creek channel is not proposed for development, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. The Final EIR further found that development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in four small drainages that are under Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction, but that none of these areas is considered a wetland. The Final EIR found that the Project is not consistent with the goals of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) since it does not include any on-site preservation of open space lands. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County approximately 164 acres of land as off-site mitigation land. This 164-acre area is intended to accomplish a 1:5 to I ratio to mitigate for the loss of the approximately 109 acres of sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species. The City finds that the recommended mitigation measures will help reduce potentially significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat, but that the impacts will remain significant after mitigation. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 6 vi. Hazards. The Final EIR identifies that the Projectwould expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazardous materials spills on nearby state highways, and due to the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses. Additionally, the Project would expose more people and structures to potential wildfire hazards, and would expose more people to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. Mitigation measures imposed will require submission of a plan detailing proper clean-up efforts for any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released dudng construction (Mitigation Measure 9-1 ); development of fuel modification zones, and the requirement of"firewise" landscaping and the use of fire-resistant building materials to reduce fire hazards (Mitigation Measures 9-2 - 9-4); and the posting of signs warning of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions on the site (Mitigation Measure 9-8). The City Council finds that after implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts relating to Hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. vii. Noise.. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities; earth-moving equ~ment is anticipated to crbate noise up to 90-dB. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity- 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure 10-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the short term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels would increase in the long-term due to additional motor vehicle noise and from general human activity. In the opening year (2005), noise levels at fifty feet from the centeriine of area roadways would ra0ge from a Iow of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue. A mitigation m_easure will be imposed to require the developer to document that extedor residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-5), and that interior living area noise levels are less than 45 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-6). Further, the developer will be required to incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts ofth~ Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. viii. Public Services. The Final EIR identifies that due to population increases associated with the Project, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the need for public services in the areas of fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, medical services, and ['oads. A mitigation measure is imposed to require the developer to pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire, schools, parks, and library fees (Mitigation Measure 11-1 ). Additionally, in order to reduce the number of fire incidents requiring response by the City's Fire Department, the project developer would be required to obtain approval from the Fire Department with regard to adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire-resistant structural materials in project buildings (Mitigation Measure 11-3). Additionally, the developer will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure installation and maintenance of public and pdvate roads, and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project (Mitigation Measure 11-5). The City Council finds that the imposition and implementation of these mitigation measures will mitigate the Project's impacts on Public Services to a level of less than significant. ix. Utilities. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would create potentially significant impacts as a result of new residential water requirements of approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day; this water would be provided from an existing two million gallon water CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 7 reservoir via an existing water main, however, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities would be required. Further, the Final EIR indicates that based on an estimate of 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day being produced, the Project would require construction of a sewer main to transport the wastewater to an existing sewage treatment plant. Additionally, the Project would generate the need for increased electricity, natural gas, and telephone and television cables, and would increase the amount of solid waste produced. A mitigation measure imposed requires the contribution of funds for sewer service (Mitigation Measure 12-1). Further mitigation measures require submission of development plans to Southern California Edison, the Gas Company, and Verizon in order to facilitate engineering design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the Project; these companies must also provide "will-serve" letters in order for building permits to issue. The City Council finds that imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the Project on Utilities to a level of less than significant. x. Aesthetics. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. In the shod-term, the landscape would be altered by grading and clearing, and views of the Project site would include the heavy construction equipment and machinery used to prepare the Project site for construction of new homes. Long- term impacts would occur due to a fundamental change in the visual and aesthetic character of the area, and would transform the existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community. Additionally, the presence of homes would mean more lighting at night, as well as increased glare due to additional windows in the community. Mitigation measures will require that outdoor lighting comply with the requirements of the Etiwanda Nodh Specific Plan design guidelines and the City's Gene~'al Plan (Mitigation Measure 13-1 ), and that a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan be prepared (Mitigation Measure 13-5). Even with the imposition and implementation of these and other mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impact of the Project on Aesthetics will remain significant after mitigation. xi. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR identifies that while the existence of paleontological resources is unlikely on the Project site, such resources may be discovered during construction of the Project. Also, one historic archeological-site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H. This pdor survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company~in the 1880s; the structure consisted of rock walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. Mitigation measures imposed require that a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site and submit a report of findings and specific recommendations for further mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 14-1). Should any prehistoric archaeological resources be found before or during grading, a qualified archaeologist would be retained to monitor construction activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. The City Council finds that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. xii. Cumulative Impacts- Air Quality, Bioloqical Resources, and Aesthetic,~ The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of other development projects in the vicinity, would create cumulative shod-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality due to additional vehicle emissions adding incremental pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to biological resources, the Final EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts with loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area due to encroachment of human structures and activities. With respect- to aesthetics, the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 8 proposed project will contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to the visual character of the area going from largely vacant, rural terrain to Iow density suburban development. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: air quality (short-term impacts, and 'shod and long-term cumulative impacts), biological resources related to the loss of habitat, and aesthetics related to short-term views (i.e. construction activities and dust) and long-term views related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a residential community. h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development" alternative, and the "Rural Density Alterative," development under the existing land use designation. Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows: i) .The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77- acre Project site and adjacen~t utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; . c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUB']-]'14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 9 h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) Under the "No Project-No Development Alternative" the project site would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iii) Under the "No Project- Open Space Alternative" the site would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iv) Under the "Reduced Intensity Alternative" almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or moro whero only building pads are graded when needed. However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents. v) The "Modified Site Plan Alternative" would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. It would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the site and would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project-related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive costJbenefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. vi) The "Rural Density Alterative" would development the site under the City's currently designated of Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on 37 acres in the southem portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres Would be set aside as open space and biological habitat. This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial ¥2/ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 10 fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of two parks. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project obje_ctives. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21,2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality related to vehicle emissions; impacts to biological resources related to removal of habitat; and short-term impacts to aesthetics (i.e. constructio_n dust obscuring views) and long-term impacts to aesthetics (changes to the natural terrain). Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the altematives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts to short-term and long-term impacts on air quality and aesthetics, and project related and cumulative impacts to biological resoumes, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceeding: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 11 viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds, to market demands. ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs. x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter. xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the July 21, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to'provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. 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 Sections 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and the Development Code. The density, design and development standards of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended by DRC2003-00410, and with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, as amended by DRC2003-00409. The Tentative Tract Map is also consistent with the General Plan's intention of extending the Iow density image of Old Etiwanda into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2.4.4.5. b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and the Development Code. The proposed development is designed to comply with the design theme imposed for North Etiwanda as specified in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Specifically, the project will provide two equestrian-oriented parks and horse trails, and the design standards for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and community entries comply with the overall thematic design for the North Etiwanda area of the City. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is located in proximity to existing roadways and infrastructure. The tract is designed to address existing topographical and geological conditions and to achieve compliance with existing legal, biological and geological limitations of the site. Based on the whole record, the City Council finds that the site is physically suitable for the proposed residential housing development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project will have an average density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre for the entire project and will CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 12 comply with the density restrictions imposed by the existing General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The lots would range from 14,024 square feet to 45,755 square feet. These sizes are compatible with the surrounding developed areas and with the physical conditions and limitations on the site. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. Based on extensive mitigation measures relating to native plants, sensitive species and wildlife, the impact of the project on biological resources is determined to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Further, the mitigation measures related to seismic shaking, fires, wind and other conditions are deemed to be sufficient to avoid substantial injury to humans. f. The Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause sedous public health problems. As specified in prior sections of this Resolution, conditions and mitigation measures have been imposed that will reduce risks from seismic activities, fires, winds and other hazards and, based on these conditions and restrictions, the City Council finds that the project will not cause serious public health problems. g. The design of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Based on the evidence in the record of this matter, the Project has been designed to recognize and protect existing conservation areas and open space resources maintained by public entities as well as utility easements and other existing private and public easements and restrictions imposed on the Project site. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1,2 and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 and hereby approves the application (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749) subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) All future applications for development review shall be reviewed for consistency with the approved tentative tract map and provisions of the associated development agreement, along with the design guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, including standards for parkways and streetscape design, slope planting, and neighborhood monumentation and wall designs. 2) The construction of the community trail through the project shall incorporate all standard trail improvements in accordance with City Standard Drawings, including gates, access, signage, and fencing as applicable. 3) The width of the Community Trail along Etiwanda Creek should be the City standard 20-foot width. In the final design of the trail, an emergency Fire Department access point shall be provided from the north end of Street "Q" onto the trail for access to the Fire access road along the north -project boundary. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 13 4) The access road along the north boundary of the project shall be 20 feet to double as a Fire access and Flood Control maintenance road. 5) Construction of the community trail shall include drive approaches at the entry from the local streets, along with gates and step- through posts in accordance with City standards. 6) All corner turns shall receive a comer-cutoff as necessary to allow through traffic. 7) The effective date of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749 shall be the last to occur of all of the following events: (i) the date that General Plan Amendment DRC2003- 00410 takes effect, (ii) the date that Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 takes effect, (iii) the date that Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 takes effect~ and (iv) the date that the annexation of the preperty into the City has occurred. Enqineerinq Division 1) This development shall construct two (2) fully improved points of access prior to any_ occupancy. Lower Crest Collector and both Etiwanda and East 'Avenues shall be fully improved from the south project boundary to the nearest existing public street to the south. In addition, no intedor street shall extend more than 600 feet without a second access completed. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements in conformance with City policy.- 2) Etiwanda Avenue shall be improved as follows a) Install full width "Secondary Arterial" street improvements (64 feet curb-to-curb) from the nodh tract boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector." This includes curb and gutter, sidewalk, 5800 Lumen HPSV street lights, a parkway Community Trail on the east side, sidewalk with LMD landscaping on the west side, traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) posted for the entire length of Etiwanda Avenue frontage. b) Provide for bike lanes on both sides of Etiwanda Avenue. c) The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements south of Lower Crest Collector, including the middle 38 feet of pavement, in conformance with City Policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent off site CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 14 improvements other than the backbone portion from future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. d) Etiwanda Avenue cul-de-sac north of "Lower Crest" shall be posted "No Parking 10 pm to 5 am." e) Proposed drive aisle north of the Etiwanda Avenue terminus shall be for emergencyaccess only. Provide a gate and postsigns for "No Motor Driven Cycles." f) Emergency access shall be constructed in existing 40-foot Etiwanda Avenue right-of-way with 26-foot pavement width (or to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief) and balance as a Community Trail. g) Provide all-way stop sign and markings at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Lower Crest. 3) If there are developable properties to the north of this tract that are not included in the Etiwanda Preserve, public street access shall be provided to these areas by one of the following options: a) Construct a minimum 26-fo(~t "half street" section within the existing 40-foot right-of-way for Etiwanda Avenue, with a 12-foot parkway Community Trail on the east side, and negotiate with adjacent developer to the west for additional rights-of-way to complete a full-width local street (36 feet curb-to-curb). This shall be in lieu of a cul-de-sac on the north side of Lower Crest Collector. b) Stub out an interior street to the north tract boundary, including a culvert crossing of the channel, and provide an access easement in favor of the applicable properties. Developer may process a vacation of the existing street right-of-way along the west tract boundary, after determining whom the land would revert to and the extent of easements needing to remain. Retain or dedicate sufficient right-of-way for a 20-foot Community Trail. 4) East Avenue shall be improved as follows: a) Install full width "Collector" street improvements (44 feet curb-to- curb) from the north tract boundary of Tract 16072 to "Lower Crest Collector". This includes curb and gutter, sidewalk, 5800 Lumen HPSV street lights, a parkway Community Trail on the west side, sidewalk LMD landscaping on the east side, traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) posted for the entire length of East Avenue frontage. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 15 b) Since access to the gated community and the park on Lot C will require drive approaches, a City standard knuckle should be installed at the intersection of East Avenue and "Lower Crest Collector." c)There shall be no "Stop" signs at the intersection of East Avenue and Lower Crest. d) The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements south of Lower Crest Collector in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 5) Improvements to East Avenue shall conform to Etiwanda North Specific Plan Landscape Theme Section B-I. Use Section B-2 for the "Lower Crest Collector" and M-1 for Etiwanda Avenue. South side of "Lower Crest Collector" shall include 5-foot parkway, non-irrigated 2:1 slope adjacent to the SCE corridor and a toe ditch. 6) Lower Crest shall be improved as follows: a) Install full width "Collector" street improvements (44 feet curb-to- curb), including curb and gutter, 6 ~foot sidewalk on north side only, 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights, a 5-foot parkway with LMD landscaping on the south side, , traffic striping and signage, including R26(s) posted for the entire length of Lower Crest frontage. b) There shall be no driveways directly accessing Lower Crest. c) Lower Crest shall have a tangent of 140 feet in length between 600-foot radius reversing curves. d) The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of costs in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for backbone improvements in conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 7) Streets "H" and "Q" shall be improved as follows: a) Install full width "Local Residential" street improvements (36 feet curb-to-curb; 60-foot R/W)), including curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees and 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights in accordance with City standards. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21, 2004 Page 16 b) All intersections shall comply with City sight line criteria. c) There shall be no driveways to Street "H," except from Lots 64- 69. d) There shall be no driveways to Street "Q" between Street"M" and Lower Crest. 8) All internal street frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Local Residential" standards, including but not limited to the following: a) Street widths shall be 50 feet of right-of-way, 36 feet curb-to-curb. b) Provide curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees and 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights in accordance with City Standard. c) All intersections shall comply with City sight line criteria. 9) All aboveground facilities on the interior local streets shall be located behind the curb-adjacent sidewalk, including streetlights. On intedor local streets within a 50-foot right-of-way, an easement shall be provided behind the sidewalk for said facilities. 10) Drive approaches for Street"K" and the proposed equestrian trail north of the Etiwanda Avenue cul-de-sac shall be per City Standard Drawing No. 101, Type R-1. 11) Construct a 20-foot wide Community Trail along the Etiwanda Creek levee. 12) Proposed gated entrances shall be designed and constructed per the City gated entrance design guide. 13) Install local storm drains to convey development drainage to the Master Plan Storm Drain. Extend the local storm drain system as far on site as needed to contain Q25 within tops of curbs, Q100 within rights-of- way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in Q10. The cost of local storm drains shall be borne by this development with no fee credit. 14) Where sump catch basins are used, provide two and intercept Q100 in both sump catch basins and their laterals. 15) Development shall provide adequate easements and construct local and Master Plan System 3 drainage facilities extending from the site to the Etiwanda Regional Spreading Grounds. System 3 includes the projection of the existing open channel on the north boundary of Tract 14139, east of East Avenue to the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds. a) Development shall participate in construction of Intedm Master Plan Basin No. 2 and either the Etiwanda/Summit or CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 17 Etiwanda/Armw Intedm Regional Basin, as directed by San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). b) Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover over sizing costs, in excess of fees, from future development. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 16) Proposed north tract channel amounts to portions of Master Plan System 2 needed to protect the site from upstream flows. Channel shall be designed to be extended west along the Rancho Etiwanda Estates property. Developer may also be required to install Interim Master ~lan Basin No. 1, within the project limits, to the satisfaction of the SBCFCD. a)Flood protection facilities shall be completed prior to occupancy release. b) Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover over sizing costs, in excess of fees, from future development. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 17) If required by the San Bemardino County Flood Control District, construct Etiwanda/San Sevaine Interim Master Basin Nos. 1 and/or 2 as follows, justified by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer. a) Provide an ultimate design for each basin to serve the entire developed tributary area. b) Install sufficient capacity to mitigate the increased runoff from this development, with an outlet system capable of handling the ultimate basin design (entire tributary area) with a minimum amount of modification as incremental development occurs. c) Provide an easement to the City over any lots containing the initial basin and an irrevocable offer of dedication for the remainder of the ultimate basin design. d) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention basin or a maintenance agreement shall be executed to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 18 the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer. Said agreement shall include a cash deposit as secudty for any maintenance costs the City may incur. Said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property. e) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. f) Interim basins shall have secondary overflow routes without impacting adjacent lots. 18) Obtain off site easements, for grading and improvements in the SCE and SBCFCD easements adjacent to the project, prior to grading permit issuance. 19) If any of the above-mentioned facilities (street, storm drain, etc.) are constructed by others, this developer will be responsible for reimbursing their fair share. 20) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top of curb to one foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 21) The City Attorney shall approve CC&Rs for the private streets and drainage facilities. a) Address Homeowners Association (HOA) maintenance of interior streets, streetlights, lettered lots and parkways, both interior and along perimeter streets and Community Trails, private storm drains, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) measures and intedm basins (if applicable). 22) Maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be addressed in the project CC&Rs. 23) A portion of the required Equestrian Mitigation Fee shall be set aside as an endowment for capital replacement and maintenance purposes, in the event of pdvate maintenance default by the tenant organization. The amount to be set aside shall be based on studies by the developer, subject to approval of the City Planner and City Engineer. The endowment shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, 04- SUBTT14749 - TRAIGH PACIFIC July 21,2004 Page 19 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBTT14749 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICANT: TRAIGH PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: NOBTH OF THE SCE CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Completion Date A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its ./ / agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT16324 is granted subject to the approval of ___./_._/ annexation. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No.04-60, Standard /.~/ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning / / Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include / / site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. project No. SUB'I-F14749 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions ___/ / of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __/ / State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /_--/--- submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /_._J consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all / / other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with ~/ / all receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be .~J / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single- ' family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. - Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the /.__/ adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed /..~/ _ 'control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval o~ street improvement and grading plans. Developer'shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street ir~provements. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced / / with two-rail, 4-inch Iodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an aifemate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shalt also provide access for service vehicles, such as ___/ / veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a __/ / distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official d. For single family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at /_._/ least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine / / animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 12. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the// Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the Project No, SUBTT14749 Completion Date name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. , 13. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property .__./ / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all /___/ lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, houm of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / /.__ condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 16. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than .~/ / wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood .__/ ./ gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and. PVC. 18. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. /_--/ 19. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron to maintain an open feeling and /___/ enhance views. 20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between wails/fences and sidewalk. The / ~ 5-foot wail/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pr_ior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 21. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured / ../ products. D, Building Design 1. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the ___/ / street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping 1. A detaited landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / / the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 / / slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior tO occupancy. Project No. SUB'I-F14749 Completion Date 3. A~i private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously ./ / maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and comer side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required. This requirement .__./ / shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in / / the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the / /.__ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock .__/ / Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special / / Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and 1-15 Freeways /__/ in a standard format as determined bythe City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of / / implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $1,000.00 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the Cityto retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. G. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location ____/ / of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner reView and approvar prior to the issuance of building permits. 4 Project No. SUBTT14749 Comoletion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: --/----/ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e.Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Division Project Number (i.e., SUBTT #, SUBTPM#, DRC #) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. _/ Architect s/Engineer s stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to ./ / the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / / 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can ~ / contact the Building and Safety Division staff for information and submittal requirements. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/ / marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT16324). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the building and Safety Division for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant ./ ./ shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Division prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/pamel map ~_/ / recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday/ __/ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays, J. New Structures 1. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. -/ / Project No. SUBTT14749 Completion Date 2. Roofing materials shall be Class "A." /~/ K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance w~th Califomia Building Code, City Grading /__/ Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /__ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the __/ / time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, __/ /__ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: /----/ a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site /.__/ drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over / / adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to the~ssuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided / /__- properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. ~inal grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division ~/ / for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits (this may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or /___/ planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. 6. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for /___/ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets .__// community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 6 Project No. SUBTr14749. Complet on Dat~ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from __/ /__ street centerline): 4--4 feet total feet on Etiwanda Avenue --/ / 3._.~3 feet total feet on East Avenue /----/ 3._~3 feet total feet on Lower Crest /--/--- 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. / / 4. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. /----/ 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the / /__ final map. 6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be / / dedicated to the City. 7. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests __/ / necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Secu-rity for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained bythe City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been appr~)ved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue across SCE. M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped / / areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement drive approaches, sidewalks, streetlights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a soume / / of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. 3. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be / / constructed for all half-section streets. 4. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / / Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm ;~eG;&n I Bike StreetName iGutterl.vmt I ,. lk l opr. ILight lTr.,I T.,i, IT,a,,Io,'o.I East Avenue X X X X X X Lower Crest X X X X X 7 Project No. SUB'I-]'14749 Como[etion Date 5. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights./ / on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved bythe City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a ./ / construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and / ./ interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction .___/ / project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Note.s: 1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets_, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City / _/ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / / adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be pro~,ided to c-over the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cress sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / / installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /__/ 6. Provide a minimum of 3-inch conduit for future fiber optic use on all streets with connection / / through the parkway to each lot or pamel (fiber-to-the curb, FTTC). The size, placement, and location of the conduit shall be shown on the Street Improvement Plans and subject to City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 7. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review / / and appr(~val by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 8. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / / accordance with the City's street tree program. Project No. SUBTr14749 Completion Date 9. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed / legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1_ (typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. GrowMin' i Size Qty. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing East Avenue Within the ENSP Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. N/OEtiwandaWilsOnAvenueAVenuePinus canadensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ft. o.c, 15-gal Fi~. Within the ENSP Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. N/o Wilson Avenue Pinus canadensis Canary Island Pine 8 ft. 25 ft. o.c I 15-gal. ~ Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1 ) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Division. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 10. - Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with /.___/ adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project i~3tersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or -industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotled as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall / / b~ submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed'into the Landscape Maintenance District: Etiwanda Avenue, East Avenue, and the south side of Lower Crest Collector. 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substar;tial areas 4(~%) of mortared cobble or / / other acceptable non-irrigated sudaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting / / Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the / / developer until accepted by the City. 5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective _._/ / B~autification Master Plan Etiwanda North Specific Plan Landscape Theme, Etiwanda Avenue (Section M-l), East Avenue (Section B-l), Lower Crest (Section B-2). O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone 'D' designation removed / /_._ from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain an unshaded "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map 9 Project No. SUB'1~14749.. Completion Date Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 2. A final drainage study shell be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map / / approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of sudace drainage entering the / / property from adjacent areas. 4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its / / right-of-way. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, / /___ electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / /~ 3. ~Nater and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / CucamongaCounty Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first~ Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. ~ / Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from · them. Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage ___J /___ Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of-way: SCE and .~/ / San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities /_._./ District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 4. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all /_ / new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed /___/ beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 10 Project No. SUBTT14749 ComPletion Date 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall / /___ be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE A3-rACHED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE SAFETY DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS FD PLAN REVIEW#: FD-03-0905 PROJECT #: SUBTT14749, DRC2003-00410 PROJECT NAME: Tract 14749 DATE: May 12, 2003 PLAN TYPE: SFR High Hazard Area APPLICANT NAME: Traigh Pacific OCCUPANCY CLASS: Group R-3 FLOOR AREA (S): Unknown TYPE CONSTRUCTION: Type V FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM REQUIRED: None LOCATION: North end of Etiwanda Ave FD REVIEW BY: Tim Fejeran, Fire Inspector PLANNER: Debra Meier ALL OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2770, TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT- STANDARD CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS - General, Procedural, Technical, or Operational Information that shall be Included, Corrected, or Completed as noted below. The following is applicable to the above project. FSC-1 General Requirements for Public and Private Water Supply 1. General Guidance for Fire Hydrants: The following provides general guidance for the spacing and location of fire hydrants. Remember these are the maximum permitted distances between fire hydrants: a. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area the maximum distance between fire hydrants is 400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 200-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs the distance shall not exceed 150 ft. b. Fire hydrants are to be located: 1. At the entrance(s) to a project from the existing public roadways. This includes subdivisions and industrial parks. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs. 5. The location of fire hydrants is based upon the operational needs of the Fire District to control a fire. 6. Fire hydrants shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet from any building. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Minimum Fire Flow: The required fire flow for this project is 1750 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix Ill-A, as amended. Please see '"Water Availability" attachment for required verification of fire flow availability for the proposed project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 3. Hazardous Fire Area: The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire area shall be not less than 1750 gpm at 20 p.s.L residual. For structures in excess of 3600 square feet use Table A-Ill-A-1. This flow may be reduced when the structure is protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Single-family Residential Plans: For single-family residential and accessory structures show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-4 Fire District Site Access- Technical Comments 1. Access Roadways Defined: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets, and highways, as well as private roads, streets, drive aisles and designated fire lanes. 2. Location of Access: All portions of the structure or facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured by an unobstructed approved mute around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates, and fences are an obstruction. 3. Private Roadways and Fire Lanes: The minimum specifications for private fire district access roadways are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b. The inside turn radius shall be 20-feet. c. The outside rum radius shall be not less than 50-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14 feet, 6 inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9 degrees or 20 pement. h. The maximum grede of the driving sudace shall not exceed 12%. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GWV). 4. Restricted Residential Access: Gated or access for all residential development shall comply with the following: a. All automatic gates shall be provided with a Fire District approved, compatible traffic pre-emption device. Approved devices are available from Opticom (3M), Fire Strobe 2000 (Access Products Inc.), and Tomar Electronics. Devices shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and specifications. b. A Knox Rapid Entry System Key Box is required to be installed adjacent to each gate in a Fire District approved location. The box shall be mounted where it is clearly visible and access is unobstructed. c. Vehicle access gates shall be provided with an approved Fire District Knox Key Switch. d. The key switch shall be located immediately adjacent to the Knox Box for use in the event that the traffic pre-emption device fails to operate. e. The gate shall remain in the open position for not less than 20-minutes and shall automatically reset. Contact Building and Safety/Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713 for inspection. 5. Vegetation: Trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire vehicles. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 FSC-5 Hazardous Fire Area 1. Designated Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the "State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District; or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as Hiqh Probability-Hiqh Consequence forFire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. This determination is based on maps produced by the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans statinq -Pdor to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted bythe Fire Distdct and the CH of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies, b. Fuel medification/hazard reduction plans, c. Approved Fire District access roadways, d. One-hour fire-resistive construction with protected openings may be required, e. Fire sprinkler system may be required, 1. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from an on-site water supply. g. Visit www~c~~san-bernardin~~ca~us/~anduseservices/DevC~de/8~5-~ver~aY%2~Districts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- Hazard Protection, Article 2- Fire Safety (FR) Overlay District. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 3. Construction Standards: Summary of construction requirements for the Hazardous .Fire Area: a. The roof shall be a Class A fire-resistive assembly approved by Building and Safety. Fire- retardant Class A wood shakes and shingles shall have completed a 10-year "natural" weathering test. Class A roof assemblies shall be installed in accordance with their listing and manufacturer's instructions. b. The space between rafts at exterior walls shall be solidly filled with tight-fitting wood blocks at one and one-half (1-1/2) inches thick. May be "boxed." c. The exposed sudace of exterior wall must be listed as one-hour fire-resistive construction. d. All exterior doors must be solid core or wood portions shall be solid core wood. e. All windows, sliding glass doors or glass insets in does shall be constructed of approved dual- pane glass. f. Cantilevered or standard type desks shall be constructed of 1.) A minimum of at least one and one-half (1-1/2) inch wood deck; and/or 2.) Protected on the underside by materials approved for one (one) hour fire-resistive constructio_n; and/or 3.) Be of non-combustible materials, as defined in th~ Building Code. g. Patio covers attached or within 10-feet of a residential structure shall be constructed of materials not less than one-half (1/2) inch. Plastic, bamboo, straw, fiberglass, or wood-lattice less than one-half (1/2) inch are not permitted. h. All required fences adjacent to fuel modification areas or wildland areas as conditions of approval for a project shall be of non-combustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Any fence within 10-feet of the fuel modification area or wildland area shall be non-combustible. Beyond 10 feet the may be constructed of any approved material. All other fences, including those on the interior of the project are not subject to this requirement. i. Visit www~c~-san-bernardin~~ca~us/~anduseservices/DevC~de/8~5-~veriaY%2~Districts~pdf~ for an Adobe copy. The regulations are contained in Chapter 2- .Hazard Protection, Adicle 2- Fi~u Safety (FR) Oveday District. ~Review the County Fire Safety Overlay District standard for complete requirements. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4 Perimeter Roadway Required: A roadway shall be provided along the project perimeter exposed to a fire hazard or fuel modified area. The roadway is to allow fire district vehicle access. Such roadway shall be a minimum twenty (20) feet in width, with a grade not to exceed fourteen pement (14%), and capable of supporting fire fighting vehicles. Contact the Fire Safety Division at (909) 477-2770, Extension 3009, for specific requirements. Correct North Access road to reflect minimum of 20 feet. _5. Power-operated Equipment Use in a Hazardous Fire Area: Submit a "Fir_e Prevention and Control Plan" to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Fire Safety Division for review and approval. The plan shall include job location, specific fire tools to be maintained on-site, person(s) responsible for supervising the project (on-site), method of reporting a fire (cell phone, etc.), City or County Permit Number, contractors license number, address, telephone number, etc. Fire District Approval Required for Equipment Use: No power-operated equipment, including mobile, stationary, or portable, shall be used without Fire Safety Division written approval. 6. Combustible Vegetation: During the declared "fire season" or at any other time when ground litter and vegetation will sustain combustion ~ermitting the spread of fire, contact the Fire Protection District during normal business hours to determine if "special fire protection measures" are required to operate power equipment. Call (909) 477-2770, Monday through Thursday, between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The purpose of the call is to determine if extreme fire weather conditions are present or expected to occur. 7. Special Fire Protection Required: "Special fire protection measures" include, but are not limited to; a. A stand-by water tar{der with operating pump; tested and maintained fire hose and nozzles. b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks, i.e., contact between blades or tracks and rocks, etc. c. The Fire District requires the contractor to maintain a firewatch for a minimum of one-hour following cessation of operations each day. d.For welding, cutting or grinding clear away all flammable material from the area around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet. A "hot-work" permit will be required. e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 FSC-6 Fuel Modification/Hazard Reduction Plan (Required Notes for All Maps and Plans) 1. Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" based on proximity to or exposure urban-wildland interface. Mitigation measures are required. The building(s) shall be constructed in accordance with the standards contained in the San Bernardino County Fire Safety Overlay District- Area FR-1 or Area FR-2. . i. Provide an appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder showing continued maintenance responsibility in the event of property transfer, change in membership of directors, change in CC&R's. j. Maintenance responsibility requirements and appropriate recorded document filed with the County Recorder 5. Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District, before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. 6. Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. 7. Phased or Temporary Plans: Phased projects or temporary fuel modification plans must meet the requirements for permanent plans and be approved by the Fire District. 8. Single-family In-fill Projects: For a single-family dwelling project located in the Hazardous Fire Area, a simplified landscaping/fuel modification plan may be acceptable. The plan shall detail the defensible space. Provide a minimum thirty (30) foot space for slopes less than 15% and a minimum one hundred (100) feet space for slopes of 15% or more. Show proposed and/or existing vegetation. Refer to the following web site for further information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm. The Fire District can provide a single page sheet of standardized notes for inclusion on the construction plans. Call (909) 477-2770 to obtain a copy, and to determine if your project is eligible. FSC-12 Plan Submittal Required Notice _Required plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 2000/2001 Building, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes; 1999 Electrical Code; Health and Safety Code; Public Resoumes Code; and RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD39, Guidelines and Standards. NOTE: In addition to the fees due at this time please note that separate plan check fees for tenant im. provements, fire protection systems and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed at time of submittal of plans. ~RIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS- Complete the following: 1. Public Fire Hydrants: Prior to issuance of any build!ng permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and apprevai by the Fire District and the Water District. On the plan show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 2. Public Installation: All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivering any combustible building materials on-site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Water District personnel shall inspect the installation and witness hydrant flushing. The builder/developer shall submit a copy of the Water District inspection report to the Fire Safety Division. Contact Water District to schedule testing. 3. Hazardous Fire Area Construction: The building or project is located within the designated Hazardous Fire Area. All buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of County Fire Safety Review Area (One or Two) [FR-1/FR-2] standards. In the Hazardous Fire Area the applicant shall provide a modified one-hour fire-resistive wall for the following exterior wall(s) based on exposure to unmodified native vegetation or potential exposure to embers or debris from a wind-driven fire: a. North Side- b. South Side- 2. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I- Zone/XIVh/eqetati.htm for additional information. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. 3. Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of a preliminary grading the applicant shall obtain the Fire District approval of a preliminary fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan(s) shall be prepared by an individual or firm qualified and experienced in wildfire hazard mitigation planning. a. Show all property lines, contour lines, locations of proposed buildings or structures, b. Show the 30-foot minimum defensible space for slopes less than 15% and 100-feet for slope 15% or more (Zone 1- Setback Zone) around the perimeter of each building or structure. c. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). d. Show existing vegetation impacted by the required fuel modification and, if available, proposed vegetation to be planted in the fuel modification area. The preliminary plans should be sensitive to rare, threatened, or endangered species and the applicant must be prepared to address their disposition in the final plans. e. Include photographs of the area that show the type of vegetation currently existing; include height and density; and relationship to grade. f. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate,, i.e., mechanical or manual. g. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. State on the plan who will have ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. 4. Final Fuel Modification Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire Distdct approval of a final fuel modification/hazard reduction plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable level of risk to the structures by vegetation. a. Show each fuel modification zone (setback, irrigated, thinning, and interface thinning). Indicate locations of permanent zone identification markers. b. Include irrigation plans and specifications. c. Attach a landscape plan. The landscape plan must identify the location and type of supplemental plantings. The plans and specifications shall include both the common and botanical names of new and existing plants within the fuel modification area. Clearly indicate on the plans the disposition of impacted existing vegetation. d. The landscape plan shall include any special or specific maintenance intended for the site such as pruning, ~limbing" up, mowing, etc. e. Describe the fuel modification methods to be used for vegetation removal, if appropriate, i.e., mechanical or manual. f. Describe on the plan what exists up to not less than 600-feet beyond the site or development property line in all directions, i.e., built-up area, natural vegetation, roads, parks, green space, etc. g. State on the plan who will ultimate responsibility for maintenance of fuel modification zones. h. Include on the title sheet any tract/project conditions of approval, CC&R's, and/or deed restrictions related to the site or final fuel modification area. Include a copy of the approved preliminary fuel modification plans with this submittal c. East Side- d. West Side- No vent openings are permitted on or in building components or surfaces that are parallel to any wall required to be constructed of modified one-hour fire-resistive construction. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Hazardous Fire Area Development: Hazardous Fire Area Development: Place a note on the plans statin.q -Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall meet all requirements for development and construction within the designated "Hazardous Fire Area." The minimum standard adopted by the Fire District and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is contained in the County Fire Safety Overlay District Standards. This standard includes provisions for the following: a. Class A roof assemblies; b. Fuel moditication/hazard reduction plans; c. Approved Fire District access roadways; d. One.hour fire.resistive construction for exterior wails may be required; e. The required fire flow of minimum duration shall be provided from the public water system or an on-site water supply. 5. Architectural Plans- Single-family Residential Hazardous Fire Area: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division review is intended to ensure that conditions established during the development review have been included in the design of the project. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 6. Fuel Modification Plan- Initial Inspection: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, in cooperation with the Fire District, that portion of the approved fuel modification/hazard reduction plan determined to be necessary by the Fire District before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval is subject to final on-site inspection. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION- Complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers." On private property these markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Contact Building and Safety/Fire Construction Services (909) 477-2713. 2. Address Single-family: New single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbem on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be intemally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 3. Required Landscaping Plans: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Fire Safety Division for review of proposed vegetation. All groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees are required to be fire-resistive in accordance with at least three (3) published references. Refer to the following web site for additional information- http://www.ucfpl.ucop.edu/I-Zone/XIV/veqetati.htm. The plant palette shall include the common name for all vegetation. The landscaping plan shall identify all native species proposed for retention. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 4. Fuel Modification Plan- Final Inspection and Documentation: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the remainder of the fuel modification/hazard reduction plan shall be installed. The Fire District shall inspect and approve the completed fuel modification areas. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire District. The CC&R's shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of alt dead and dying vegetation subject to (annual) triennial inspections. Contact the Fire Safety Division (909) 477-2770 Items or Issues Not Identified Elsewhere *1. Perimeter wa]l construction on the North, West, and East of the development shall be block construction uniess mJtigatec] through other means of fuet modification and management. Fire District Forms and Letters Note: If these conditions are part of the final Standard Conditions issued by the Planning Division referenced Fire District forms and letters are not included. Contact the Fire Safety Division for copies of forms or letters. The forms and letter are also found in previously issued Fire District comments. Fire District Review Letter (P&E)- Template S/'i0/31/02 Revision AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND TRAIGH PACIFIC, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATE 168.7'/' ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 269 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26 AND 0225-084-02. A. Recitals. 1. California Government Code Section 65864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that: a. The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other developments to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." 2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this article..." 3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..." 4. "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is proposed Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, concerning that property generally located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, and z-IS'I CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 04-** DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 - TRAIGH PACIFIC. June 16,2004 Page 2 legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." 5. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution No. 04-**. 6. On June 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 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. SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as legally sufficient for the Henderson Creek Properties development project. SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearing on June 9, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The location, design, and proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity. b. This Development Agreement shall not become effective until General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 have been reviewed and approved by the City Council. SECTION 4: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement. SECTION 5.: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION 6; The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND TRAIGH PACIFIC PROPERTIES (dba TRACY DEVELOPMENT) CONCERNING THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 14749 This Agreement (the "Development Agreement") is made and entered into this 21st day of July, 2004, by and between Tra~qh Pacific Properties (dba Tracy Development) and Parkwest Landscape, California corporations; and San Bernardino Flood Control District, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (the "CITY") pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code. Tra~qh Pacific Properties, Parkwest Landscape, and San Bemardino Flood Control District, and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Property Owner". The CITY and TraLqh Pacific Properties et. al. are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". RECITALS: A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted Sections 65864, et seq. of the California Government Code, thus authorizing the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property, in order to establish development rights with respect thereto. B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to enter into a binding development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within the CITY's sphere of influence, provided that the effectiveness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the annexation of such real property to the CITY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the Development Agreement. C. Property Owner owns fee title to approximately 168.8-acres of real property located entirely within the County of San Bernardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto (the "Project Site"). D. ' On April 24, 2003 the City received an application for Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT14749), a General Plan Amendment (DRC2003-00410), an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2003-00409), along with this Development Agreement (DRC2003-00411) and a request for Annexation (DRC2003-01051) of the Proposed Project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environment impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions anticipated by the CITY and the Local Agency Formation Commission. E. As set forth in Ordinance No. adopted by the City Council on __ (the "Enacting Ordinance"), the execution of this Development Agreement and performance of and compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein by the Development Agreement 1 Traigh Pacific Properties Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii) will promote the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) will promote preservation of land values; (iv) will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to the Properly Owner; and (v) will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the CITY's General Plan. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which us hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effectiveness of Development Aqreement Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only become effective, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise, upon the date that the last of the following have occurred: 1. The project site has been annexed to the CITY and said annexation is final as to any and all administrative actions, and is not subject to judicial challenge; and 2. The Project and the Final EIR have been approved by the CITY and all (~ntitlements have been issued for completion by Property Owner. B. Term The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend for a period of 10 years thereaffer, unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended,by cimumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extensions attributable to "force majeure" cimumstances described in Section 2.D.4 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties. Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from the project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the structures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those structures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for land use purposes, that those structures continue to be legal conforming structures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses. C.. Assi.qnment Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall have the right to convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer (for purposes of this Development Agreement, "Transfer") the Project Site, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation or other Development Agreement 2 T raigh Pacific Properties entity at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, and to the extent of each such Transfer, the transferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the time of the Transfer, except to the extent Property Owner is in default, as defined in Section 3.C hereof, of any of the terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs. If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee owner with respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of the Project Site not sold or Transferred, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that transferee or transferor, as applicable, but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then owning or holding any interest in any portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach under this Development Agreement. Any alleged breach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3.C hereof. In no event shall the reservation or dedication of a portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a transfer of duties and obligations unless specifically stated to be the case in this Development Agreement, any of the exhibits attached to this Development Agreement, the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public agency. Concurrently, with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within ten business days thereafter, the Property Owner shall notify the CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide the CITY with an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the Property Owner under this agreement. D. Amendment of ARreement This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending this Development Agreement. Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Property Owner and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the Project Site, it may be necessar~ to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Parties' respective performance and obligations, and to otherwise effectuate the purposes of this Development Agreement and the intent of the Parties. If and when, from time to time, the Parties find that it is necessary or appropriate to clarify the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, the Parties may do so through one or more implementing agreements (the "implementing Agreement"), which shall be executed by the City Planner and by an authorized representative of Property Owner. After execution, each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendum and become a part of this Development Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such Implementing Development Agreement 3 Traigh Pacific Properties ~S ,~' Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the City Planner (on Behalf of the CITY), if the City Planner has made a reasonable determination that such implementing agreements are not materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the applicable Project Entitlements, shall be considered "material" and shall require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT A. Land Use and Proiect Entitlements The Project Entitlements are depicted on the Tentative Tract Map, Conceptual Grading Plan, and Conceptual Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibits lA - 1C. Project Entitlements refers to the following material related to the approval of the Development Agreement (DRC2003-00411) and the Tentative Tract Map (SUB'Cr14749): all plans that constitute the approved project, all Planning Commission and City Council Resolutions of Approval including the associated conditions of approval, and all mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. The Parties acknowledge that, without being obligated to do so, Property Owner plans to develop the Project Site in substantial conformity with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. During the Term of this agreement, the permitted uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, building and yard setback requirements, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, design and performance standards and other terms and conditions of development of the Project constitute the Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Project Entitlements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tract totals 269 lots, and that lots may be shifted between phased tracts without increasing the overall number of lots and be in substantial conformity with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement. The CITY Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion to review transfers of lots between tracts and make the determination of substantial compliance. Other cedain specific modifications of the Project Entitlements to which the Parties agree are set forth below. All Exhibits attached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development Agreement, and are incorporated herein. B. Rules and Requlations Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, (1) the ordinance, rules and Development Agreement .4 Traigh Pacific Properties regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project and in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement, and (2) and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, rules, regulations and official policies in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Project Entitlements, as modified and/or amended by this .Development Agreement (collectively the "Existing Laws"), except that the CITY's street ~mprovement, lighting, storm drain, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") standards shall be followed, and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement or if none are so specified, the CITY's Standards. In the event of any conflict between the Existing Laws and the other CITY ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules regulations, and policies in effect ("Future Policies") to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to occur if, without limitation, such Future Policies: 1. Modify the permitted types of land uses, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height or size of proposed buildings on the property, building and yard setback requirements, or impose requirements for the construction or provisions of on- site or offsite improvements or the reservation or dedication of land for public use, or the payment of fees or the imposition of extractions, other than as are in each case specifically provided for in this Development Agreement; 2. Prevent the Property Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owner would otherwise be entitled under this Development Agreement; 3. Render any conforming use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on the Project Site a non-conforming structure. C. Desi,cln and Infrastructure Issues 1. Gated Community The Proposed Project is approved as a private gated community, which shall include formation of a Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association must be formed to assume responsibility and maintenance of the gates, common area streets, drainage facilities, interim detention basins, utility easements, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping (including the north side of 'Lower Crest Collector') and walls throughout the project. The terms and conditions of the CC&Rs establishing the Homeowners Association shall be subject to City approval prior to recordation. 2. Homeowners Association and Private In-tract Slopes In-tract streetscape plans depicting slopes on the Homeowners Association and private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by CITY. Slopes of a ratio 2H:IV may be permitted up to 30-feet in height upon review and approval of the City Planner with retaining walls as approved by the City Planner. Proposed specific slope treatments, which shall be applied are depicted on Exhibit 2. Development Agreement 5 Traigh Pacific Properties 3. Dry Utilities The Project Entitlements do not require that Burd vaults be installed and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Burd vaults will be required throughout the Project Site. 4. Community Trail The Property Owner shall design and construct improvements to the CITY Community Trail network along the Etiwanda Creek levee, and parallel to the northerly extension of Etiwanda Avenue along the west project boundary, in accordance with CITY Standards. 5. Gradinq The Grading Plan, included in the Project Entitlements, shall conform to the Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. However, with an average slope across the site less than 8%, the Project is exempt from the CITY Hillside Development Regulations of the Development Code. 6. Street Sections The CITY desires that the design of East Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue and "Lower Crest Collector", be designed as depicted in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 13(D)/with community trail, and Exhibit 13(E), respectively. The following deviations from the standard CITY Enginegring Division street standards or policies are acceptable as depicted on the approved plans included as part of'the Project Entitlements: a. The straight sections on interior streets (Street W) may be greater than 800-feet due to the fact that the project is a private gated community, thereby limiting the project from traffic impacts form any other development through the project. b. All interior streets that have driveway access to single-family residential lots may be designed with a 50-foot right-of-way utilizing a rolled curb; all other streets within the tract shall have a 60-foot right-of-way with a City standard 6-inch curb face. 7. Circulation Issues and Fees a. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impact Analysis The Property Owner shall construct all circulation improvements necessary to serve the area in and around the Project Site, as generally depicted on Exhibits 3A - 6A. In addition, the Property Owner shall comply with Transportation Development Fees In accordance with CITY ordinance. Upon formation of a Community Facilities District ("CFD") Property Owner may include the cost of the improvement specified in this Section 2.C.7.b as part of the CFD financing. The Property Owner shall receive credit against, or reimbursement of costs, in excess of the Transportation Development Fee for the following "backbone" improvements as described herein, in Development Agreement 6 Traigh Pacific Properties conformance with City Policy: East Avenue, Lower Crest Collector and middle 38 feet of Etiwanda Avenue (full width across Southern California Edison corridor) b. Other Circulation Improvements The Property Owner shall design and construct the following improvements: (i) Etiwanda Avenue: Improve as a Secondary Arterial from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to Lower Crest Collector, as depicted in Exhibit 4A. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Properly Owner may request reimbursement agreement to recover the cost for non-backbone improvements west of the centerline from future development as it occurs on adjacent properties in the City limits. If the Property Owner fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6-months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the Property Owner to reimbursement shall terminate. (ii) East Avenue: Construct Collector Street improvements from the north boundary of Tract 16072 to Lower Crest Collector, as depicted in Exhibit 3A. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. .(iii) Lower Crest Collector: Construct Collector Street improvements along the entire length of the Project Site, as depictec~ in Exhibit 6A. These improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Storm Drains The Property Owner shall design and construct the following improvements based on the criteria in the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy: a. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan Storm Drain (i) The Property Owner shall provide adequate 'easements and construct local and Master Plan System 3 drainage facilities extending from the Project Site to the Etiwanda Regional Spreading Grounds. System 3 includes the projection of the existing open channel on the north boundary of Tentative Tract 14139, east of East Avenue to the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds. Standard drainage fees for the project shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City Policy. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement within 6 months of public improvements being accepted by the CITY, or all rights of the development to reimbursement shall terminate. (ii) The Property Owner shall participate in construction of Interim Master Plan Basin No. 2 and either the Etiwanda/Summit or the Etiwanda/Arrow Interim Regional Basin, to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Development Agreement 7 Traigh Pacific Properties b. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 2 Master Plan Storm Drain (i) The channel along the north tract boundary constitutes a portion of the Master Plan System 2, which is required to protect the site from upstream flows. The channel shall be designed to be extended westerly along the Rancho Etiwanda Estates project. The Property Owner may also be required to install interim Master Plan Basin No.1, within the Project Site, to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. All flood protection improvements shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issued by FEMA. Standard drainage fees for the project shall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, in accordance with City Policy. The Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement within 6 months of public improvements being accepted by the CITY, or all rights of the development to reimbursement shall terminate. (ii) Property owner shall construct Interim Master Plan Basin No. 1 if so directed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. These improvemen!s shall be completed prior to the first release of occupancy, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c. Local Storm Drains The Property Owner shall construct local storm drains to convey development drainage to the Master Plan Storm Drain. Extend the local storm drain system as far on the Project Site as needed to contain Q25 within the tops of curbs, Q100 within rights-of-way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in Q10. The cost of the local storm drain system shall be borne by the Property Owner without Fee Credits. d. If interim basins are required by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, easements shall be provided to the City for any lots containing said basins. Also, a maintenance agreement shall be executed guaranteeing private maintenance of the facilities, but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facilities if private maintenance is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer, The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the proportionate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facilities (outlet, etc.) from future development using the basin. If the developer fails to submit said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. e. Development within the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Area is responsible for .t. he City's adopted regional drainage fee, which is not subject to fee credit/reimbursement like the master plan drainage fee. 9. Development of Park Sites Property owner agrees to construct the Parks in substantial conformity with the depiction and description of Exhibits 7A, 7B, and 7C in conformance with all applicable standards and permit requirements. The Parks improvements shall be completed substantially complete by the one-hundredth (100th) building permit issuance in the Project. The Property Owner will make a good faith effort to complete all actions necessary to secure and complete work necessary to include the off-site special event Development Agreement 8 Traigh Pacific Properties ~-7('~ ~) parking area as depicted in Exhibit 7A. The City agrees to promptly process ail applications and permits consistent with its usual and customary procedures. A portion of the required Equestrian Mitigation Fee shall be set aside as an endowment for capital replacement and maintenance purposes, in the event of private maintenance default by the tenant organization. The amount to be set aside shall be based on studies by the developer, subject to approval of the City Planner and City Engineer. The endowment shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility. 10. Park Fee/Equestrian Mitiqation Fee/Beautification Fc~ The Property Owner shall pay the following fees: a. Property Owner will pay CITY a sum totaling $269,000 (based upon $1,000 per unit) for equestrian purposes; however, the Property Owner shall receive Equestrian Mitigation Fee credit for development of the North Etiwanda Equestrian Center on Lot E as depicted on Exhibit 7A, which Equestrian Center development costs will be limited to the total amount of Equestrian Mitigation Fees paid by Tentative Tract 14749 and other contributing project. The current estimate of available Equestrian Mitigation Fees is $1.54 million. In addition, the Property Owner may request a reimbursement agreement from the City, for costs incurred in the development of the Equestrian Center that are over and above the obligation as noted above. The credit will be based on the actual cost of the improvements toward payment of the standard CITY Equestrian Mitigation Fee and the CITY Park Fee listed below in .Section 10 b. Reimbursement in excess of the CITY Equestrian Mitigation Fee reimbursement shall be in the form of Park Fee credits toward the payment of the City Park Fee listed below in Section 10 b. The North Etiwanda Equestrian Center shall be constructed with phase I of project development. b. The Property Owner shall pay the CITY a sum totaling $1,775,400 for park purposes (based upon a value of $6,600 per unit); however, the Property Owner shall receive Park Credit for the improvements to the N6rth Etiwanda Preserve Trailhead on Lot F as depicted on Exhibit 7C, and for the excess development cost of the Equestrian Center pursuant to Section 10 a. above. The credit will be based on the actual cost of the improvements toward payment of the standard CITY Park Fee. The North Etiwanda Preserve Trailhead shall be constructed with phase I of project development. c. In exchange for construction of landscaping improvements along the south side of Lower Crest Collector, the Property Owners shall not be required to pay CITY Beautification Fees for future residential construction. 11. Development Standards The project shall be developed in accordance with the following Development Standards. The Development Standards set the minimum requirements, however, the intent of the Project is to develop the project consistent with the goals of the CITY's Low-Density Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. a. Lot Area: 8,400 SF minimum b. Lot Width: 60-feet minimum as measured at building setback line. Development Agreement 9 Traigh Pacific Properties ~/~ / d. Lot Coveraqe: 40% maximum of lot area for building structures. Paving driveways patios or pools shall not be calculated as part of building coverage. e. Building Setbacks (i) Front Yard: Should be staggered with a minimum of 18- feet and an average of 20 feet throughout the tract as measured at the right-of-way line. (ii) Side Yard: 15-feet building separation is required with a minimum of 5-feet and 10-feet side yards measured form the property line. (iii) Rear Yard: 15-feet minimum useable (iv) Garaqe Placement: Where garages are entered from the local street and the garage doors do not face the street (side-entry garages) the setback shall be 10-feet minimum from the back of the sidewalk. (v) Buildinq Heiqht: 35-feet maximum f. Number of Housinq Units' The project entitlements include 269 housing units.' 12. Desi~ The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the CITY DevelopmentJDesign Review process. 13. Architectural Guidelines The Project, and all subsequent applications for residential development, shall be subject to the Architectural Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 14. ..Open Space Transfer Plan The Property Owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 other qualified conservation entity approved by the City, in fee, a minimum of 164-acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts (or other conservation entity), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off-site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the CITY Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the CITY Planner. The transfer and funding shall occur prior to recording of the first final map of the Project. D. Timinq of Development and Fees 1. Development of the Perimeter Landscapinq and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Neiqhborhood Monumentation All perimeter landscaping, including the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation, fencing, signage, and landscaping as depicted in the Etiwanda North Development Agreement 10 Traigh Pacific Properties /'7/'~ Z Specific Plan Exhibit 25A-C, shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of the 100th dwelling within the project. In addition, improvements to East Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue and Lower Crest Collector shall conform to the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Landscape theme as illustrated in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 21 (Landscape Street Sections B-l, M-l, and B-2, respectively). The landscape improvements shall be annexed to LMD No. 7, or other district as approved by the City Engineer. 2. Development of the Remainder of the Site Neither the property owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases of the project sha~l be developed, since such decisions depend on numerous factors which are not within the control of the Property Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, competition and other factors. The parties acknowledge and agree that Property Owner, subject to the restrictions and conditions in the Development Agreement, retains flexibility under this Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the exercise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owner may desire to market, sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site, prior to development, and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgment of subsequent owners of the Project Site. 3. CITY's Cooperation CITY shall use good faith efforts to promptly process and take final action on any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, (a) using good faith efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review in accordance with state regulations; and (b) promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section 2.1 below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agreement, any future regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent thereof, shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owner's vested rights to develop the Project under this Development Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project. Processing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in the Existing Laws. However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives, policies and specific development standards specified herein. 4. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Development Agreement, Property Owner and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods, Development Agreement 11 Traigh Pacific Properties earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the Property Owner, as applicable. The time of performance of such obligations as well as the term of this Development agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such delay hereunder. E. Future Entitlements With respect to any entitlements that Property Owner may require in the future, including, without limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and DevelopmentJDesign Review, the CITY shall retain its discretionary-review authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies. However, any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the CITY may only impose conditions upon such discretionary entitlements which are consistent with the Project Entitlements as approved by this Development Agreement, except as otherwise specifically required by state or federal law. F, Environmental Review Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the EIR and the Project Entitlements (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the EIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any further entitlement (as contemplated in Section 2.E above), which is subject to CEQA, the CITY shall promptly commence and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA, and to the extent permitted by CEQA, the CITY shall use the EIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately addressing the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may impose additional measures (or conditions) to mitigate, as permitted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of such future entitlements, which were not considered at the time of approval of the Project. G. CITY Fees and Mandates by State and Federal Laws The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions which may potentially be imposed by the CITY on the Project and Property Owner (collectively "fees") fall within one of three categories: (a) fees for processing land use and construction permit applications which are not otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code (but which are subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 66013, 66014, and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code) (collectively, the "Processing Fees"); (b) fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement and which purport to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public facilities, improvements and other amenities from the development projects, including any fees described in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (collectively, the "Existing Fee Categories") (the Existing Fee Categories include any increases, decreases, or other modifications to existing fees, so long as such modified fees relate to the same category of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and (c) fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed in the future by the CITY for purposes of defraying alt or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements, or amenities related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("other Fees"). The Property Owner's obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions: 1. Processinq Fees. 'The CITY may charge Planning and Engineering Plan Check and Permit Fees and Building Permit Fees, which are in force and effect on a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property Owner's application for a land use entitlement, or a construction permit. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, Government Code Sections 66013, 66014, and 66017-66018.5 (or any successor laws, as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by Property Owner and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Property Owner shall be the same as those imposed upon other development projects throughout the jurisdictional limits of the CITY. 2. Other Fees. In consideration of the Property Owner's Agreement to modify the Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above, no Other Fees shall be imposed upon the Property Owner or the Project during the term of this Development Agreement, except as may be specifically required to carny out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with 2.G above. 3. Fiscal Impact Analysis. CITY does not require Property Owner or the Proiect to complete a fiscal impact analysis for application or issuance of any approvals or permits that CITY might issue under this Development Agreement. H. Non-discretionary Permits The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Project, Property Owner will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses, consents, certificates, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading permits, construction permits, certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively the "Non-Discretionany Permits"). Property Owner shall have the right to apply for any such Non-Discretionary Permits in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2.B, above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owner, upon such applications, all required Non-Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the CITY's usual and customary fees and charges for such applications and Non-Discretionany Permits (subject to the provisions of Section H above) and the terms and conditions of the applicable permit application. The CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans, specifications, design drawings, maps, or other submittals of Property Owner in conjunction with such Non-Discretionany Permits (the "Approved Plans"), all further entitlements, approvals and consents required from the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further implement such Approved Plans, shall be expeditiously processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this Development Agreement. Development Agreement 13 Traigh Pacific Properties I. Cooperation 1. Cooperation with Other Public Aqencies. The CITY acknowledges that the Property Owner may apply from time to time for permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, in conjunction with the development of or provision of services to the Project, including, without limitation, approvals in connection with the developing and implementing a tertiary water system, potential transportation improvements and other on-site and off-site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with Property Owner in its efforts to obtain such.permits and approvals from such agencies (including without limitation, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Southern California Edison), and shall provide any documents or certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals. 2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements. To the extent that Property Owner is required to construct any off-site street improvements as a condition of developing the Project, the Property Owner shall make good faith efforts to acquire any off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do so, Property Owner shall, at least 120 days pdor to submittal of the first final subdivision map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements under Government Code Section 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the CITY decides to-acquire the property interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owner of all cqsts incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of those costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at Property Owner's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off-site improvements, or the construction of any substantial infrastructure on-site, substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of limits of the CITY, the CITY agrees to assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in obtaining reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefited property owners. Such assistance may include, without limitation, conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefited property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rata basis, to the construction cost of such improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CITY agrees with respect to the infrastructure improvements which are adjacent to and benefit other properties (whether such properties are undeveloped or developed), any further discretionary approvals sought by such property owners shall be conditioned to require fair share reimbursement to Property Owner for construction and related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible. 3. Public Financinq. The Parties hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be funded in order to contribute to the Park, Beautification, Equestrian and School Fees, and the remainder of the Project Site and that public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the Project. Subject to CiTY's ability to make all findings required by applicable law and complying with all applicable legal procedures and requirements, the Development Agreement 14 Traigh Pacific Properties ~1~_~ CITY agrees to cooperate with and assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in developing and implementing a public financing plan for the payment of public infrastructure fees and the construction of the public infrastructure improvements. The implementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the formation of one or more assessment districts, or Metlo-Roos community facilities districts, or the issuance of bonds, certificates of participation, or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. J. Creation of the Landscape and Street LiqhtinR Maintenance District The CITY agrees to promptly form the necessary Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq (the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972") for the Project development to encompass the Project Site as well as the area being annexed by the CITY. The Property Owner shall pay for the formation of the LMD. The Parties agree that the LMD must be established no later than recordation of the First final tract map and that the CITY may create an LMD, which allows annexation of other areas. In addition, if outside agencies, upon their review and approval of various components of the project, impose any non- standard improvements that require extraordinary maintenance responsibilities of the _ CITY, the CITY may impose the creation of additional maintenance-districts upon the proposed development. Upon acceptance of improvements, the CITY (throughout the LMD) shall assume full responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the improvements to be maintained by the LMD pursuant to the LMDs governing documents. The Parties also acknowledge that assessments for the LMDs are collected annually in June, and to the extent that assessments are collected through the LMD for the period ending June 2006, the~City may request, and the Property Owner agrees to provide, reasonable cash deposit to fund the LMD. The CITY shall promptly upon receipt of assessments the following June, reimburse Property Owner for any such cash advances to fund the LMD. Property Owner shall annex to the existing Street Lighting District for arterial streets citywide (SLD1).-Streetlights on local streets shall be privately maintained. Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW A. Good Faith Compliance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866.1, the CITY shall once every twelve (12) months during the term of this Development Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that it is intended that this review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole, as opposed to each individual property owner who may own a parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review, Property Owner shall provide such information as may reasonably be requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue concerning a Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the provisions of this Section 3 shall apply. Development Agreement 15 Traigh Pacific Properties B. Certificate of Compliance If Property Owner is found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual review, the City Planner shall, upon written request by Property Owner, issue a certificate of compliance ("Certificate of Compliance") to Property Owner stating that, based upon information known to the CITY, the Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owner is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart constructive record of notice of compliance. Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino. C. Findin.q of Default If, upon completion of the annual review, the City Planner intends to find that Property Owner has not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Agreement (a "Default"), he shall first give written notice of such effect to the Property Owner. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staff reports, staff recommendations and other information concerning Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owner's performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a point-by-point basis. Property Owner shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a written response with the City Planner. Within 10 days after the expiration of such 20-day ~esponse period, the City Planner shall notify Property Owner whether he has determined that Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement ("Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which the Property Owner has allegedly failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained~ The Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of the Notice of Default, and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. D. Riqht to Appeal Upon receipt of the Notice of Default, the Property Owner may appeal the City Planner's decision directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a wdtten notice of appeal with the City Clerk within the (10) calendar days following the Property Owner's receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY Development Code. At the hearing, Property Owner shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all the issues raised by the Notice of Default. If, after considering all the evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence the Property Owner is in Default, then the City Council shall specify in writing to Property Owner the instances in which the Property Owner has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. Development Agreement 16 Traigh Pacific Prope~ies E. Property Owner's Cure Ri.qhts If Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement, it shall have a reasonable period of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CITY to terminate this Development Agreement 0or to otherwise amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure period be less than the time set forth in the finding of Default made under Sections 3C or 3D above (as applicable) or less than the time reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by force majeure circumstances described in Section 2.D.4 above. Section 4. ENFORCEMENT A. Enforcement by Either Party Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the parties to this Agreement. B. Cumulative Remedies In addition to any other rights or remedies, any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default (to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, and relief in the nature of mandamus. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4B are not intended to modify other provisions of the Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise permitted by law. C. Attorney's Fees In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties' rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or equitable relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by either of the Parties in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agreement, shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in this judgment, and such attorneys' fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not be merged into any such judgment. Development Agreement 17 Traigh Pacific Properties Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Successors and Assi.qns Subject to the provisions of Section 1C above, the terms of this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development Agreement refers to Property Owner, as defined herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned, the term "Property Owner" shall refer to any such successor or assign. B. Project as a Private Undertakin.q It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Project is a private development, that neither pady is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this Development Agreement, and that each of the Parties is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and Property Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. C. Captions The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. D. Mortqa.qe Protection 1. Discretion to Encumber. This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property Owner, in any manner, at Property Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Project or any portion of the Project or any improvements on the Project, by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to all or any part of the Project or any improvements thereon (a "Mortgage"). 2. Effect of Default. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any mortgage subsequently placed upon the property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Developm. ent Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith for value. 3. Mort.qaqee Not Obliqated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to the con'~rary, (a) any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage ("Mortgagee") may acquire to or possession of all or any portion of the Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the remedies provided by its Mortgage, whether by judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise, and such Mortgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to construct, fund or otherwise perform any affirmative obligation or affirmative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to guarantee such performance, and Mortgagee may, after acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or otherwise Development Agreement 18 Traigh Pacific Properties transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the giving of notice of such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the Property Owner with respect to the Property Owner or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or portion thereof so assigned or transferred; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Property Owner with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue subsequent to the purchase date, but such purchaser shall not be responsible for any prior defaults of Property Owner; provided, however, that in either of the instances referred to in clauses (a) or (b) above, to the extent any obligation or covenant to be performed by Property Owner is a condition to granting of a specific benefit or to the performance of a specific covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder. 4. Notice-of Default to Mort,qaqee: Riqht of Mortqaqee to Cure. If a Mortgagee files with the CITY Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Property Owner under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof, the CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owner, any notice given to Property Owner with respect to any claim of the CITY that Property Owner has not complied with the terms of this Development Agreement or is otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of thirty (30) days after the expiration of any cure period given to Property Owner with respect to such Default, to cure such default; provided, however, that if any such Default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default such Mortgagee shall, within such thirty (30) day period, commences efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through implementation of foreclosure, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure or commence to remedy or Cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3.E above. 5. Bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above, if a Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by any reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner, Mortgagee shall for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate such prohibition. Development Agreement 19 Traigh Pacific Properties q 7 1 6. Amendment to Development Aqreement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to modify this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended in any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary, the CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner each agree to execute and deliver (acknowledge, if necessary for recording purposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect such request; provided, however, that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive provisions of this Development Agreement, the Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws. E. Consent Where the consent or approval of any of the Parties is required in or necessary under this Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. F. Entire Agreement This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development Agreement constitute the entire agreement between Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Development Agreement. G. Further Actions and Entitlements Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. H. Governinq Law This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Recording The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino no later than ten (10) days following the effective date of this Development Agreement. Development Agreement 20 Traigh Pacific Properties ~' ? 2,,, J. Time Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of this Development Agreement. K. Waiver The failure of any of the Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a breach of or default under this Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by all of the Parties. L. Partial Invalidity If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held' by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in- no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. M, Notices All notices between the CITY and Property Owner and any transferee under this Development Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delivery or facsimile shall be deemed effective upon delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case of a transferee in a written notice to the CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Parties' current addresses are as follows: To CITY: Mr. Jack Lam, AICP City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 With Copies to: Mr. James Markman City Attorney Richards, Watson, & Gershon One Civic Center Circle Brea CA 92821 Development Agreement 21 Traigh Pacific Properties To Property Owner: Mr. Tom Tracy Traigh Pacific/Parkwest Landscape Cio Tracy Development Company 26862 Paseo Cardero San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 Either Party may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other Parties in the manner provided above. N. Indemnification Property Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its Council members, representatives, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Developmen~ Agreement, the Project Entitlements or both. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RANCHO CU~;AMONGA TRAIGH PACIFIC PROPERTIES Dba TRACY DEVELOPMENT By: By: Mayor NAME/TITLE A'I-FESTED TO: PARKWEST LANDSCAPE City Clerk By: NAME/TITLE APPROVED AS TO FORM:' City Attorney Attorney for Traigh Pacific Properties (et.al.) Development Agreement 22 Traigh Pacific Properties ...,¢i ~ OF RANCH,.-, RECEIVED" PLANNIN6 Exhibit "A" Annexation to the CiW of Rancho Cucamonga LAFCO No. That parcel of land in an unincorporated area of Rancho Cucamonga, being all of the NW Quarter, and the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Townshipl North, Range 6 West, San Beraardino Meridian, in the County of San Bemardino, State of California, more particularly describes as follows: BEGINNING at a northeast comer of the existing boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as established on "LAFCO No. 2879", said point also being the Northwest Comer of said Section 21; Thence leaving said existing city boundary line and continuing easterly along the northerly line ~f said Section 21 the following courses: 1. North 89°14'16" East, 1325.26 feet; 2. North 89° 14'56"East, 1325.25 feet; 3. North 89° 14' 48" West, 1324.89 feet to the noFtheast comer of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21; 4. Thence southerly along the east line ofsuid west half, South 00° 00'55" West, 2641.71 feet to the Southe~t comer of said west half; Thence continuing westerly along the southerly line of the North Half of said Section 21 the following courses: 5. South 89° 16'39" West, 1324.88 feet; 6. South 89° 17'08" West, 1325.19 feet; 7. South 89° 14'13" West, 1324.98 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 21, being also a point on the existing boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as established by said LAFCO No. 2879; 8. Thence continuing northerly along the existing city boundary line and said section line, North 00° 00'30" East, 2640.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Pagel of 2 This proposed annexation contains 240.97 acres, more or less. This legal description was prepared by me or under my direction. By: Robert D. Vasquez, L.S. 7300 Date Deputy County Surveyor fJpOb No. ' repared ~Y RDV __ EXHIBIT 'B' I NW 1/4, AND W 1/2, NE 1/4 OF SEGTION 21 T 1 N, R 6 W, S.B.M. 240,97 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. ~ ~/4 sec 2~ 25TH STREET ~ segu?'o8~ ~.~o' ~ ~ ~ BERH~RD~HO COUHT~ SURVEYOR  > s~ ' ;, AFFEC~D AGENCIES 8e5 E. ThtPd StPeet San BernaPdtno, CA g24tS-OB35 ~J t~ &' ~J~ ANNEXATZON TO THE CITY '- J a,~ J ,~ ~ J~ .J NOYE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,, , :~ ~'"'""-~l, ~-: ~.'~ -- .. - -'~~~~11~ ..........,.2~ 4,'- TENTATIVE~ MAP ~ --O .-'~'" TRACT NO. 14749 '" ii """"- ~,.~ .... ~ ,_~-.~_,~ .....· . i T ; T _.~:~:2~ I ...... ~-- ~ .- gONCEPTUAL G~G PLAN ~ --~ .~-- TENTATIVE T~CT NO. 14749 ~ ~ .... . .... SLOPE TREES: ~ PROPERTY LINE SEE DETAIL ~ WALL/VIEWFENCE RANDOM MASSES ON SLOPE ~ ,' ..' "~,,~ LOW SHRUBS ~ ~,e LOT -- IRREGULAR VISUAL PLANE · 'v ,,, ALONG SLOPE WITH ,_,,. VARYING GROWTH HABITS TYPICAL SLOPE PLANTING SECTION NOT TO SCALE PARK '~'~~ LOT 'Z' ~ .,~ (R£MAIND£R PARC£L '~. ~sr sro.~ ~. ~r '~S. B. C. F. C. D. ~ ,~ [w~ / ~w~ Conat~ct Fe~t Ave. ~ffi~ct t~ 23~ Street or t0 connect to a street se~lon of at leaet that which is sh.wn on Exhibit 3B. whichever occum flint R/~ R/~ I 66' EAST AVENUE 57 LOT '~ PARK Construct ~anda Ave. ~r .20' E(~U£S'r./HIKIN¢ ~R~IL~ ~/w ~/w 88' I 12 32 d 32' ' ~.>, ~ E~T. ~ - '1~ I' '1- "~ ~"~' i EXIST. GRND. / , ~ ~  ETIWANDA AVENUE EX. 12" DO~, WA~R ~0~ LO~R CREST S'LY ~AIL ' ? 22 11' £SA4T. _~_.~-~_ . ' EAST AVENUE LOWER CREST COLLECTOR FROU £T1WANDA AVE. TO 900':t: £'LY S'LY PL R/W ~ VARIES (66' MIN.) VARIES 22' d 22' 11' S.C.E, CORRtDOR I $' LOWER CREST COLLECTOR FROM 900'4' £'LY OF F.'I]WANDA AVE TO EAST AVE. T H C I T Y 0 F I~AN C H 0 C U CA~I 0 N GA Staff Report DATE: July 2i, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: STATUS OF EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES At the Council meeting of July 7, 2004, several residents from the Bella Vista private street requested the Council provide information regarding the status of flood control measures in the Bella Vista area. Belia Vista was especially hard hit during the rain storm at Christmas time of 2003. The residents are most anxious that ,.something be done to help them weather the anticipated storms in the upcoming year. During the late 1970's, Tract 9619'located south of Beila Vista was developed. At that time a storm drain was installed to just south of Bella Vista.. It is our understanding the Bella Vista residents were offered the extension of the Bella Vista Channel. The channel would have traversed four lots fronting the north-and south sides of Bella Vista Drive and ended north of the Almond Trail. It has been suggested the four property owners on Bella Vista Street were given the opportunity to dedicate property for the channel. However, our records are unclear as to what actually happened at this time. We do know the property north of Bella Vista within the canyon did dedicate a drainage easement to the City. This suggests that they were approached and agreed with the extension of the storm drain. The logical conclusion is the properties on Bella Vista Street were also approached for dedication but one or more refused and the issue was dropped. Please note, the date of the dedication of the canyon as well as recording of the tract are within a month of the City's Page 2 July 21,2004 STATUS OF EMERGENCY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES incorporation. It may be during the change over from the County to the City this issue was lost. Mr. Earle Anderson at 8552 Bella Vista has indicated he was not approached but his neighbors on the south side of the street were and did not want to cooperate with the development of the channel. Mr. Anderson indicates he believes they had issues with the required equestrian trail or service road. In any event, the reality of the situation is the City does not have an easement on Bella Vista to continue the channel to the north. We have spoken to the four residents at that location and all, as of today, indicate they would be willing to grant an easement depending on the design and location of the channel. Immediately after the flooding at Christmas time, the City staff began working with FEMA Public Assistance and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to gain funding for various erosion control projects throughout the City. FEMA has completed the review of all the projects requested except one. The City identified 17 projects for erosion control measures. These projects total $1,594,099.50. Nine of the projects have been approved for funding. Three of the projects have been determined to be partially eligible for funding. One project remains in the review process. The remaining four projects were determined to be ineligible for Public Assistance funding (see attached chart). The Bella Vista Channel has been deemed ineligible for funding by both FEMA and NRCS. The Channel has been described by those agencies as a new and improved facility, which falls outside the funding parameters of those agencies. 'However, FEMA has agreed to reimburse the City for a debris rack in the ravine north of the Almond Trail, which has an estimated cost of $246,375. The City's share is 25% of this total. On May 19, 2004, the City Council authorized a contract with URS Corporation for the design of the Emergency Erosion Control Measures identified subsequent to the rain storms during the last raining season. The consultant is now in the preliminary stages of design. The design of the projects is expected to be completed by the first of October. Staff intends to have the projects out to bid by mid-October and under construction as soon as possible thereafter. While design of the Bella Vista Storm Drain Project has begun the City has not identified funding for this project. As the design process continues over the next Page 3 July 21, 2004 STATUS OF EMERGENCY EROS!ON CONTROL MEASURES several months, we will be working to identify a possible funding source for this project. Again, it would be our goal to have this project out to bid by mid-October, and construction possibly soon thereafter with the understanding that a funding source between now and then will be identified. The current estimate and Cost for this project is $658,535.00 ($246,375 debris rack, $262,160 for hard lined channel and $150,000 for spillway and berms to tie the two structures). Respectfully submitted, Williarr'~r. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MP:dlw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS RESULTING FROM GRAND PRIX FIRE --~ (9~ LOCATION DRAINAGE NAME Pr oject Status ASSETS PROTECTED PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE FUNDED BY FEMA 34.1653-117.6312 3RESI~IEWATNOF[THCITY Crest~4ewDr.,CrestviewCt& 406LFk-rail 300LF-3baghgh, sandbags removemudlsed~mer*t *IM~TS PW Filed adj residences behind le'~ee from x-mas storm $1 !.925.00 $11 ,§2500 34.1653-117,6309 3RESTVIEW AT NORTH CITY Cres~ew Dr., Cresb*iew Ct & _IMITS PW Filed adj residences IncreAse height of berm - 500 LF 34.1659-117628531GTREERDNORTHOF $10.00000 $10,00000 3~TY LIMITS =W Flied Skyline Df and adj residences 540 LF k-rail, remove mud/sedimenl ~rom pavement x-mas stom~ 34.1657-1176269~KYLINEDRATNORTHCIT~ $16.20000 $16,20000 .IMITS Skyline Dr and adj residences PlaCe k-rait, repair sb'eam beiJ, rock ammur at curve, place debris rac~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS RESULTING FROM GRAND PRIX FIRE ~u ~ ~ LOCATION ~ -- ~ DRAINAGE NAME Project Status ASSETS PROTECTED PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE FUNDED 8Y FEMA I TOT~I $~,S94,099.S0 I $ SS6,~2.S0 I I~ANCII 0 C U CAI*I ON GA Staff Report DATE: July 21, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Larry Henderson, Acting City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 - LYNN AND RENEE MASSEY - The appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a single-family residence in the Low Residential District, located at 8045 Camino Predera, Lot 12 of Tract 10035, as proposed by Mike and Wendy Stachowiak - APN: 0207-631-02. ACTION: If the Council concurs that the findings and conclusions contained in the resolution corresponds with the Council members' comments of the July 7, 2004, meeting, it would be appropriate to approve the subject appeal by the adoption of the attached resolution. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: At the July 7, 2004, meeting, the City Council determined that the Planning Commission approval of a two-story single-family house on Lot 12 of Tract 10035 along Camino Predera proposed under DRC2003-00961 did not satisfy all requirements of the Hillside Development Standards. The Council directed staff to draft a resolution approving the appeal, thus denying the project. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:AW\ma Attachments: Draft Resolution to Deny the Application for Hillside Design Review DRC2003-00961 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00961, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,628 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON LOT 12 OF TRACT 10035 IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8045 CAMINO PREDERA; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-631-02. A. Recitals. 1. Mike and Wendy Stachowiak filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2003-00961, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of May 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date bythe adoption of Resolution 04-69 approving the application. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a timely manner to this Council by Lynn and Renee Massey. 4. On July 7, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 7, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-69, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the southern slope of Red Hill at 8045 Camino Predera, with a street frontage of 82 feet and lot depth of 181 feet; and b. The subject property is on the downhill side of Camino Predera, with a slope gradient of approximately 20-30 percent, and is approximately 40 feet below street grade at the rear (south) property line; and c. The application proposes to construct a single-family house with the upper floor level approximately matching the street grade of Camino Predera; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ** DRC2003-00961 - STACHOWIAK July 7, 2004 Page 2 d. The properties to the northeast have been developed with single-family homes. The properties to the north, east, and west are presently vacant; and e. The site is vacant and contains no vegetation other than native shrubs and grasses with a row of mature Silk Oak trees along the south property line; and f. The applicants are proposing to develop a 3,628 square foot split level house on a lot that is Subject to the City's hillside development regulations. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Red Hill area exhibits the distinctive residential character of the early development of the community, and b. That the proposed design does not enhance, nor continue, the existing residential character of the Red Hill area, and c. That the proposed design does not fully address the hillside setting of the neighborhood, nor the standards and guidelines nor the hillside development ordinance. d. That the future development of Red Hill should present design features and scale that are in keeping with the historic character of the surrounding area. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3, above, this Council hereby reverses the action of the Planning Commission, and denies the application. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Lynn and Renee Massey, the appellants, and Mike and Wendy Stachowiak, the applicants, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mike and Wendy Stachowiak and to Lynn and Renee Massey at the addresses identified in City records. R A C H O C U C A M O N G A COMMIINITY SERVICES DATE: July 21, 2004 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 Council's 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 the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Central Park: · Wood framing is complete. Metal framing is continuing. Working on the in-wall and overhead mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Mason wall footings are almost complete and exterior plasterwork is continuing. On site grading and placement of berms is continuing as well as installation of the curb and islands in the parking lot. Central Park Landscape and Irrigation Project: · Work on the installation of the irrigation system and the sleeving is continuing. Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Center Parking Project: · Work has been proceeding very well. Items completed this month for the west structure include the completion of the fire, plumbing and electrical finishes for levels 2 and 3; plaster wall steel framing for the north elevation and glazing, scratch and brown coats for the west elevation. On the east structure, all deck pours have been completed, and work is beginning on the steel erection for elevator tower 1. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 Beryl Park: · The soccer fields are being fenced for annual renovation. They are scheduled to open at the beginning of September. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Senior Services: · Antique Road Show, Saturday, August 14, 2004, 10:00 a.m. We have our own version of the popular television show. Bring that old vase or childhood toy that's collecting dust and get it appraised by an antique expert. Registration taken at the door! · Senior Advisory Committee will hold its next regular meeting on Monday, September 27, 9:00 a.m. at the Senior Center. Due to senior vacations, there are not any meetings scheduled for the months of July and August. Human Services: · Homeowners and Renters Rebate, - Volunteers from AARP are preparing homeowners and renters rebate forms for all members of the community every Tuesday, from 12:00 - 3:00 p.m., through August 31. Appointments are not necessary; guests will be assisted on a first come, first served basis. · Free Eye Exams - Dr. Mike Yu, O.D. will conduct free eye examinations at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center on Tuesday, July 13, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon. Appointments are not necessary. Trips and Tours: · Downtown Disney, July 24, 2004. We'll get you there, then you're on your own! Downtown Disney, Uptown Fun! Come and enjoy one of Disney's newest creations at the Disneyland Resort. The open-air shopping district has something for all ages. Offering specialty stores for shopping, themed restaurants for dining, and entertainment around every corner, Downtown Disney is the place to be. You can shop (on your own) at a variety of stores including Build-A-Bear WorkshopTM, Compass Books and Cafe, Department 56, illuminations®, The LEGO® imagination Center and many more. You can eat (on your own) at one of many restaurants including ESPN Zone®, House of Blues®, Naples Ristorante' e Pizzeria, Rainforest Cafe, Ralph Brennan's Jazz Kitchen and more. After lunch take a break and see a movie at AMC® Theatres (on your own). Don't miss Disney's Grand Californian Hotel, gateway to Disney's California Adventure theme park. This spectacular hotel features an architectural design inspired by the romantic, turn of the century Arts Crafts movement. Don't miss this one-of-a-kind hotel. Cost: $17.00 per person. · Los Anqeles Dodqers vs. Philadelphia Phillies, August 7, 2004. Let us deal with the traffic and parking while you relax and enjoy the ride to a Dodger Stadium tradition! Join us as we watch some of Hollywood's biggest celebrities and soon-be-to celebrities play a six-inning game amongst themselv, es before the Dodgers vs. Phillies game; so you'll get two events for City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21,2004 the price of one. Some of Hollywood's biggest celebrities and always some memorable moments. Cost: $37.00 per person. Volunteer Services: The table below summarizes the Department's volunteer usaqe for the month of May 2004 and year-to-date: Month: May 2004 YEAR TO DATE ~ of ~of ~olunteers # of Hours ~Value Volunteers ¥ of Hours $ Value ~,dmin 0 0 0 20 60 840 Sports 53 472 6,608 738 6,347 88,858 Sr & Human 69 584 8,176 319 2,447 34,258 Services Special 29 150 2,1 O0 88 453 6,342 Events Youth 18 20.5 287 302 787.5 11,025 =rograms . I 169 I 4,127 1 17,174 I 4,467 I 10,095 I 141,323 I based on $14.00/hour Teens: · The table below summarizes teen pro.qram participation for the month of June 2004: Program Attendance/Participation - June 2004 Teen Center 883 Homework Room 57 TRAC - Babysitting 54 participants TRAC - Snack Bars 48 volunteers/87.5 volunteer hours Spruce Skate Facility 960 Summer Volunteen Connection 30 participants; 108.75 volunteer hours Teen Self Defense Workshop 6 participants · The Teen Center begins its summer hours of operation starting on June 21st through September 3, 2004. During this timeframe the Center will be open from 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. on Friday. The summer drop-in fee is $2.00 per day (non-residents pay an additional $5.00 non-resident fee per quarter). · TRAC teens with our summer snack bars have gotten off to a great start. Many of our volunteers are new and are highly motivated. TRAC teens will be working the snack bars at our Movies in the Park, Concerts in the Park and swim programs. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 · Spruce Park Skate Facility continues to be a hub of activity. Staff meets with the local skaters on the. first Thursday of each month and updates them on the latest safety awareness laws, upcoming events and discusses facility issues. Staff will be attending a Southern California Skate Park Coalition meeting in July. This meeting will cover a discussion of working with contractors for skateboarding lessons. · Summer Volunteen Connection participants have gone through an interview and training program before being planned in our summer camp, concerts in the park, movies in the park and general office programs. · Teen Trips begin the week of July 12th and will take place every Wednesday through August 11th, Pharaoh's Lost Kingdom is the first trip of the summer. Other trip locations include: Universal Studios, Knott's Berry Farm, Magic Mountain, Disneyland and our week long summer camping trip to Campland on the Bay in San Diego takes place at the end of August for youngsters in 6th through 12th grade. Youth Activities: · During the summer months (July 12th through August 13th) the schedule for our Mobile Recreation program, "Fun on the Run" will be as follows: Weekday Park Location Timeframe Monday Ellena Park 11:00 am- 3:00 pm Tuesday Old Town Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Wednesday Heritage Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Thursday Mountain View Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Friday Windrows Park 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Youth Enrichment Services Grant Program: [.IFIST 5 · The table below illustrates attendance/participation fiqures for programs/services provided through the YES Grant for the month of June 2004. Program Attendance/Participation FACTS Center Visits 492 Parent Education Classes 11 classes; 25 participants Car Seat Checks 23 Child Care 19 The YES grant expired at the end of June. The San Antonio Room at Lions East Community Center will remain open Mondays through Thursdays from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The room is un-staffed and will have parenting and child friendly books, toys and other resources, as well as computers for parents to use. The focus of the space is to provide parents of young children an opportunity to network and expose their children to social interaction opportunities. The effectiveness of the room will be evaluated after 6 months. Final close out of the YES grant will take place in September. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 Youth Sports: · The fall/winter field allocation for 200412005 (August 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005) was approved at the May 12~h Sports Advisory Committee meeting. An advisory sub-committee began meeting at the end of May to review the field allocation policies. The next Sports Advisory Committee meeting will take place on August 11th. · The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting period: Activity # Participants A~]e/Gender # Teams Pee Wee Baseball 620 3-5/boys & girls 62 Youth Basketball 935 6-16/boys & girls 104 Youth Volleyball 120 8-14/boys & girls 14 Cucamonga Middle School 80 8-adult N/A (CMS) Judo Cucamonga Middle School 140 8-14/boys & girls 14 (CMS) Youth Basketball Practice Northtown Youth Basketball 59 6-17/boys & girls 6 Northtown Pee Wee Baseball 13 3-5/boys & girls 2 Northtown Play Camp 23 6-13/boys & girls N/A Northtown Recreation Classes 26 6-15/boys & girls N/A Learn to Swim Aquatics 643 6months-adult N/A Pmgram RC Family Sports Center: · The table below provides drop-in/open play participation at the Center for the reporting period: Activity # Participants Adult Basketball 349 Youth Basketball 710 Adult Racquetball 382v ~ Youth Racquetball 85 Adult Volleyball 38 Youth Volleyball 28 Jazzercise 1,228 · The table below summarizes organized adult activity at the Sports Center during the reporting period: Activity # Participants Age/Gender # Teams Racquetball 24 Adult/Male & Females N/A Basketball (full court) 180 Adult/Males 18 Basketball (3~on-3) 60 Adult/Males 12 Adult Sports: · Thirty-six (36) adults are participating in our tennis leaques. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 · The table below summarizes adult sports activities at the Epicenter for the reporting period: Activity # Participants # Teams Gender Softball 2,640 165 Males/Females Soccer 672 42 Males/Females Flag Football 50 5 Males Non-Profit Sports Organizations: · Bi-annually, the Community Services Department, through the Sports Advisory Committee allocates sport fields for non-profit orqanized youth sport lea.ques. For the reporting period, 10 non-profit sport groups utilized 18 City parks and had 59,907 participants and spectators enjoying our parks during both practices and game times. Special Events: · Over 6,300 community members enjoyed the City's 2004 July 4th Fireworks Spectacular "Salute to Heroes" at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter this year. The event included a Fun Zone for the kids with interactive rides and games, live entertainment on the field and a spectacular fireworks show. · Our Concerts in the Park series began on July 7th. Concerts take place on Thursday evenings at Red Hill Park Amphitheater. All concerts starts at 7:00 p.m. The lineup for the remaining 6-weeks of entertainment includes: July 22nd Ronnie & the Classics (Oldies) July 29th 80'z All Stars (80's Rock) August 5th Reno Jones (Jazz/Blues) August 12~ Down with Three (Latin) August 19th The Fenians (Irish Rock) August 26th The Answer (Classic Rock) Food vendors, everything from BBQ, Mexican food to delicious deserts, (funnel cake and kettle corn) will be available starting at 6:00 p.m. · Our Movies in the Park series started up in July. Movies are shown at Milliken Park on Monday evenings, Windrows Park on Wednesday evenings and Red Hill Park on Friday evenings beginning July 12th through August 20t~. All movies start at dusk. The remainder of the summer's lineup for movies includes: Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas (PG) Holes (PG) Piglet's Big Movie (PG) Finding Nemo (G) Snack items will be available for purchase at our Movies in the Park courtesy of our TRAC program. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 ,, Staff is currently creating and programming our upcoming events for 2004/2005. These include: Central Park Grand Opening, Harvest Carnival, Snow Day, and the Holiday Tree Lighting. Performing and Cultural Arts: · The program instructors along with the 19 members of the 2003-2004 RC Performance Troupe concluded their 9-month program presenting a variety of songs and dances performed for an audience of just over 150 people at Chaffey College Theatre on Saturday, June 12th. Tickets were $8, of which all ticket revenues served to pay for the theatre rental. The program's focus is to teach the participating youth a variety of musical numbers in which to perform at City events and other community activities. The program participants are selected from an open audition and meet weekly throughout the year from September through June. · In the second year providing this arts-focused day camp program, we are filled to capacity for our July sessions of Creative Camp 4 Creative Kids with 25 youth enrolled for each of the week-long sessions. The program is a collaborative effort between the City's Cultural Arts Division and Charley College Wignall Museum/Gallery. The program offers attending youth instruction in visual arts during the morning hours and instruction and activities in performing arts in the afternoon hours, divided by an hour-long supervised lunch break. Days and hours for the program are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Staff is onsite from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The program fee is $150 per week, which includes all materials and supplies. The program concludes each week with a reception for parents and family featuring an art exhibit and performance by the day-campers. Artists from Chaffey College are selected as instructors for the visual arts portion and City Performing Arts program contractors are selected for the performing arts instruction. Proceeds remaining, after staff and supplies costs are deducted, are shared equally between the City and Chaffey College. · The Ali-American musical, "The Music Man" will be presented July 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18th at Los Osos High School Theatre. The casts of 85 members, consisting of local residents ages 8 to 67, have been rehearsing since the beginning of May preparing for the July production. Tickets are on sale at the Civic Center, Lions Center East and RC Senior Center, and are priced at $10 for general admission and $8 for seniors and youth. "The Music Man" marks the City's 7th community theatre production. Park and Facilities: · The table below and on the next page provides usage information for park picnic shelters and special use facilities for the month of June 2004. Location/Facility Attendance Number of Number Hours of Use Applications of Processed Rentals Red Hill Community Park Picnic 5,104 50 76 230 Shelters Heritage Community 2,325 28 40 128 Park Picnic Shelters Hermosa Park Picnic Shelter 485 19 20 80 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 Location/Facility Attendance Number of Number Hours of Use Applications of Processed Rentals Milliken Park Picnic Shelter 1,045 21 30 88 Coyote Canyon Picnic Shelter 395 10 18 48 Civic Center Courtyard* 0 0 0 0 Amphitheater 1,400 4 4 31 Equestrian 370 132 188 605 s not available for public rental due to the Cit "s construction projecL Heritage Park Equestrian Center: · Equestrian Center usa.qe for the month of July 2004 is shown in the table below. Group Date Event/Time Frame Alta Loma Riding Club July 1st Board Meeting/7:00 pm-8:30 pm Equestrian Patrol July 8t" Meeting/6:00 pm-9:00 pm Rising Stars of Equestrian July 11 ~ ICC/Dressage Show/7:00 am-4:00 pm Therapy Alta Loma Riding Club July 18t~ Horse Show/4:00 pm-10:00 pm Alta Loma Riding Club July 20t~ Membership Meeting/7:00 pm-8:30 pm Facilities: · The table below displays buildinq rentals and recreation contract class attendance numbem for the month of June 2004. Activity Program Numbers June Attendance Lions East Rentals 94 bookings 720 Lions East Building 535 facility hours 8,282 Lions West Rentals 226 bookings 4,186 Lions West Building 743 facility hours 7,541 · Staff is continuing to meet 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. Departmental / City Marketing: · The 4th of July Fireworks Spectacular utilized many communication avenues (The Grapevine, 30-second commercial spots on Charter Communication, RCTV-3, street banners, fliers, news releases, newspaper advertisements and community listings) to spread the word about the location change to the Epicenter for our 2004 event. · Marketing efforts continue being implemented for the promotion of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and the Promotinq Arts and Literacy (PAL) fundraising campaign. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 · June introduced the first in a series of 7 Central Park Bookmarks that will be created every other month visually showing the construction progress of the Central Park facility on one side and promoting city activities, events and RCpark.com website on the other. Barnhart Construction, the Central Park contractor provided a financial sponsorship in support of this project. July will continue the distribution of the 20,000 bookmarks being distributed through checkout desks at the Library, Community Centers and through a partnership with the local Barnes and Noble bookstore. · RCpark.com, the Community Services Department's website, has registered over 1 million successful hits for two of the past four months. At the time this report was prepared the June 2004 numbers were not yet available. Epicenter Marketing: · An Epicenter postcard is in final production phase at the printer's for a mailing to location scouts set for this month. · The Inland Empire Film Commission has published its 2004/2005 Production Guide that includes a half-page advertisement for the Epicenter Stadium as a location site. Park and Recreation Commission: · The next meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission is scheduled for July 15, 2004. At this meeting the following items are scheduled to be discussed/acted upon by the Commission: Update on Senior Advisory Committee. Update on Sports Advisory Committee. Update on Central Park Project. Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Project. Review of proposed agreement between the City and Rancho Cucamonga/Fontana Family YMCA for use of the Central Park facility. > Informational update on field assignments for Junior Ali-American Football. Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: · The Rancho Cucamonqa Community Foundation met on July 12, 2004 and discussed/acted upon the following agenda items: Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center project. Election of Officers for Community Foundation for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Foundation Member update and discussion on accomplishment of goals for the PAL Campaign. Consideration of an Amendment of the Community Foundation By-Laws. Discussion regarding dates/times for future Executive Committee and Board of Directors meetings. ~ Discussion regarding identification of potential Board Members. ~' Appointment to Board Committees. > Consideration of a sponsorship of volunteers for the Mark Christopher Charity Classic - Presented by Adelphia to be held September 26-October 3, 2004. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update July 21, 2004 · A joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonqa Community Foundation and Rancho Cucamonqa Public Library Foundation was also held on July 12, 2004. At this meeting the following items agenda items were discussed/acted upon: Update on the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Project. Approval of Promoting Arts and Literacy (PAL) Campaign Budget for fiscal year 2004-2005. > Approval of updated major donor recognition program for the Cultural Center. >' General discussion and idea sharing regarding potential PAL donor prospects. Kev~in M~rd~e~~Res/peTully submitt;/~//~ ~ ~t{~'~~O'Nei' Community Services Director I~ngi~eer hlCOMMSERV~Council&Boards~CityCounciAStaffRepod$~2004tupdate7.21.04, doc T H C I T Y 0 F Staff Report DATE: July 21,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Deborah Kaye Clark, Library Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LIBRARY SUB-COMMITI'EE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW BOARD MEMBER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the City Council Library Sub- Committee's recommendations for appointment of new Board member. BACKGROUND The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library Foundation currently has one vacancy on the Board due to the recent expiration of the term filled by Paula Pachon and her decision not to seek reappointment. The Library Sub-Committee, at their last meeting, considered the Library Foundation's request for appointment of Bruce Bowen and now formally recommends his appointment to the vacant seat. Deborah Kayo Clark Library Director a'c,7