Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004/11/17 - Agenda Packet
I:: CITY OF I~NCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 AGENDAS · Redevelopment Agency · Fire Protection District · City Council REGULAR MEETINGS Ist and 3rd Wednesdays ~ 7:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 17, 2004 AGENCY~ BOARD & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS William J. Alexander .................... Mayor Diane Williams ............... Mayor Pro Tem Rex Gutierrez ............................ Member Robert J. Howdyshell ............... Member Donald J. Kurth, M.D ................ Member Jack Lam ......................... City Manager James L. Markman ............. City Attorney Debra J. Adams ..................... City Clerk ORDER OF BUSINESS 5:30 p.m~ Closed Session .................... Tapia Conference Room 7:00 p.m. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting... Counc# Chambers Regular Fire Protection District Meeting ... Council Chambers Regular City Council Meeting ............. Council Chambers INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC cR C.O 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 (OSL/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:#www, 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 NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEE'nNG TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CiTY cRANcHO HALL, 10500 CIwc CENTER DRIVE UCAMONeA IIA. c~,~,~.o o~. 1. Roll Call: Alexander__, Gutierrez__, Howdyshell__, Kurth__, and Williams__. [I B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of a Certificate to Jane Park in recognition of her winning the 104th U.S. Women's Amateur Championship. 2. Presentation of a Proclamation to Boy Scouts of America Troop 650, Old Baldy Council in recognition of organizing a relief effort to assist the hurricane victims in Florida. 3. Presentation of a Proclamation to Pam Chambers, a volunteer at the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Shelter, who has donated over 5,000 hours of time towards helping the homeless animals. Il C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. IIo. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for reports to be made by members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda. IIE, CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: October 6, 2004 2. Approval of Warrants, Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 and Payroll ending 11/8/2004, for the total amount of $4,594,555.65. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD In THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 2 (~RANctto HALL, 10500 C~vlc CENTER DRIVE UCA~ION'GA 3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of October 30 31,2004. 4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for 36 the Construction of Solar Powered Flashing Beacons at Hermosa Avenue and Feron Boulevard, Safe Route to School Program, Federal Aid Project STPLHSR-5420 (011), to be funded from Acct. No. 12343035650-1419234-0. RESOLUTION NO. 04-338 39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420 (011)" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 5. Approval of a change order to increase the award to the Steiny and Company, Inc. contract (CO 03-078) in an amount not to exceed 44 $200,000.00, for reconciliation of a previously approved contract per Council action August 6, 2003, and approval to appropriate $200,000.00 to Acct. No. 11243036650/1443124-0 from Fund 124 fund balance. 6. Approval of emergency expenditures of $60,000 for storm related, 47 emergency recovery effort work performed by various contractors (Laird Construction, Babco Construction, A.W. Davies Construction, and JDC) to be funded from Acct. No. 10250015300, approval authorizing the City Manager or his duly appointed representative to authorize additional contract services by any combination of the four pre-established contractors named above in a combined amount up to $45,000 for future emergency work as future needs arise, to be funded from Acct. No. 10250015300, and approval of an appropriation of $105,000 to Acct. No. 10250015300 from Fund 25 (Capital Reserve) fund balance. 7. Approval of recommendation from the Park and Recreation 51 Commission to close pedestrian access from Arabian Drive to Heritage Park due to little league vehicle parking on Arabian Drive. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER$~ CITY 3 RANCHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE 8. Approval of a change order in an amount of $838,176, for the 57 installation of street light, trail light, and median lighting systems for Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard and Victoria Gardens, approval to increase the award to the Pouk & Steinle Contract (CO 03-127) by an amount of $838,176, approval to appropriate $922,000 (increased contract award amount of $838,176 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $83,824) to Acct. No. 17053035650/1382705-0 from Fund 705 fund balance, and authorization to reimburse Fund 705 from Fund 612 (Community Facilities District 2001-01) and Fund 614 (Community Facilities District 2003-01 fund balance for all CFD related lighting systems costs, such reimbursement to be made following the completion of all work and upon demand for payment. 9. Approval of Elected Officials Event Attendance Policy. 59 10. Approval of a Resolution stating that Caltrans Excess Property, 62 located north of the 210 Freeway and south of Highland Avenue between Amethyst Street and Archibald Avenue, will be used for public purposes, more specifically a public park. RESOLUTION NO. 04-339 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, THAT THE EXCESS PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FROM CALTRANS, LOCATED NORTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN AMETHYST STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, MORE SPECIFICALLY A PUBLIC PARK 11. Approval of completion of Reimbursement Agreement (CO 04-185) for 68 Bell Court Development I, LLC (APN: 0209-491-86-0000). RESOLUTION NO. 04-340 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COMPLETION OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR BELL COURT DEVELOPMENT I, LLC 12. Approval of a Resolution and a Preliminary Engineering Cooperative 71 Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California (CO 04-186) for the improvement of Base Line Road at the 1-15 Freeway Intemhange. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004- 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 4 (~,R,~NCHO HALL, 10500 ClWC CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-341 74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DESIGN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13. Approval of an agreement with Architerra Design Group (CO 04-187) 75 to provide development plan checking services. RESOLUTION NO. 04-342 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKING SERVICES 14. Approval to award designated contracts to the specified sub- contractors for the Construction of the Rancho Cucamonga Cultural 79 Center Project, totaling $1,297,295, and authorize the expenditure of a 5% contingency for each contract totaling $64,865, to be funded from the following sources: RDA 2004 Tax Allocation Bonds Acct. No. 2660801-5650/1357660-6314 ($635,026); State Library Grant Funds Acct. No. 1310602-5650/1357310-6314 ($396,324); County Community Development Block Grant Funds Acct. No. 1205301- 5650/1357206-6314 ($6,486); and Forest City Participation Funds Acct. No. 1615303-5650/1357615-6314 ($324,324); and authorize the appropriation of $635,026 into RDA Acct. No. 2660801- 5650/1357660-6314. 15. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to landscape Maintenance District No. 3B 81 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DRC2001- 00572, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard on the south side of Foothill, east of Archibald Avenue, submitted by McDonald's Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 04-343 84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRC2001-00572 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ~,~ HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-344 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DRC2001-00572 16. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 93 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map No. 16038, located on the west side of Klusman Avenue north of Diamond Avenue, submitted by Klusman LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 04-345 96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 16038, iMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 04-346 97 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 16038 17. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with DMJM + Harris, Inc. (CO 04-188) to provide project report and environmental 106 document for improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange in the amount of $513,887 and authorization of 10% contingency, to be funded from Acct. No. 11243035650/1361124-0. 18. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of CompLetion for 109 improvements for Parcel Map 16071, located on the west side of Utica Avenue, south of Arrow Route, submitted by Utica, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-347 112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 16071 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004- 7:00 P.M. THE ME.~..O XO .E HE.e,. T.E COU.C.L C.AM.E.S, C"" · HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE 19. Approval to release Faithful Performance Bond No. CD7736 in the 113 amount of $487,239.00 for the Beryl Park Irrigation Renovation Project, Contract No. 02-041. II ~. CONSENT ORDINANCES I 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. II G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN 115 AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26 Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 115 DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site; establish a Master Plan Overlay District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly consistent with the land use designation change, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209- 092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004- 7:00 P.M. THE MEE'F1NG TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS~ CITY 7 ....RANcHo HALL, 10500 C~wc CENTER DRIVE __l ~UGAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-348 288 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRES, AND WITH A MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TM STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0209-092-04 RESOLUTION NO. 04-349 290 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRES, AND WITH A MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TM STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0209-092-04 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 8 HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 04-350 294 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 REQUESTING TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT'S MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 6) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRE SITE, ESTABLISHING A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT PURSUANT TO RCMC 17.20.030 FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, AND ADJUSTING THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET EASTERLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TM STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-092-04 ORDINANCE NO. 737(first reading) 297 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA 5) DISTRICTS TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF A TOTAL 37.78 ACRE SITE; ESTABLISH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT PURSUANT TO RCMC 17.20.030 FOR THE ENTIRE SITE; AND ADJUST THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET EASTERLY CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TM STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS iN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-092-04 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ~RANcHO HALL, 10500 C~WC CENTER DRIVE UC/~MONG^ 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN 303 AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC 303 PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda Spec[ftc Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227- 061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 04-351 346 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, AND 81 AND 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, AND 46 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 10 ~RANcHO HALL, 10500 Civic CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-352 349 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004- 00402, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, AND 81 AND 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, AND 46 I .. 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. III. CITY 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. ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO 352 CUCAMONGA - A request to approve the Tax Revenue Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCO No. 2965) between the County of San Bemardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, for approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162. [ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY 11 (~RANcHO HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE UCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 04-353 352-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFCO NO. 2965 II J. COUNCIL BUSINESS I The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 353 UPDATE 2. DISCUSSION ON 210 FREEWAY (Oral) 3. DISCUSSION OF DOG BREEDING ISSUE (STEVE KNECHT) (Oral) 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. II L. ¢O CATIONS II 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. THE MEET. NG *O BE HELD IN THE COUNC.L CHAMBERS, CITY 12 cg~J'qCHO HALL, 10500 ClWC CENTER DRIVE ~ONGA 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 November 10, 2004, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. October 6, 2004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES II A. CALL TO ORDER II The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, October 6, 2004, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Aisc present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager; and Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. II B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) II Mayor Alexander announced the closed session items. B1. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER; PAMELA EASTER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER; AND LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS - CITY B2. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 12401 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, APN: 0229- 021-58; 1-15 RANCHO PACIFIC LLC AND BILL ANGEL, NEGOTIATING PARTIES, REGARDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT - CITY B3. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR APN 227-131-54 AND 61, MOHSEN GHANEIAN AND ORCUTT CORPORATION; WILLIAM J. O'NEIL, CITY ENGINEER, NEGOTIATING PARTY, REGARDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT. - CITY B4. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 REGARDING REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY 80 VGL, LLC AND 20 VGL, LLC AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 227-211-40 AND 42. NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOSEPH O'NEIL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, 80 VGL, LLC AND 20 VGL, LLC. - CITY II c. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) II No communication was made on the closed session items. City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 2 [] D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION The closed session began at 5:35 p.m. Il E. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS The closed session recessed at 6:49 p.m. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetinq A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, October 6, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor William J. Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robed J. Howdyshell, Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Lorraine Phong, Information Systems Analyst; Shelly Munson, Information Systems Specialist; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Michelle Perera, Reference Services Coordinator; Captain Pete Ortiz, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Peter Bryan, Acting Deputy Chief Mike Bell, Fire Prevention Specialist Kelly Larson, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst II; Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. I[ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS [ B1. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of the 10-year Anniversary of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. Mayor Alexander and the City Council presented the Proclamation to Deborah Clark, Library Director. City Council Minutes October6, 2004 Page 3 Proclamations were also presented by Assemblyman Dutton and Tim Johnson from Supervisor Biane's office. A power point presentation was given by Michelle Perera, Reference Services Coordinator, regarding the 10 years the Library has been in service. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation in recognition of"Fire Prevention Week" October 3-9, 2004. Mayor Alexander and the City Council presented the Proclamation to Fire Chief Peter Bryan and Fire Prevention Specialist Kelly Larson. Kelly Larson, Fire Prevention Specialist, stated there would be an open house at Station 174 located on Jersey this Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She added there would also be representatives from the Police Department, Water District and others that will participate in this event. Chief Bryan told how important fire safety is to the residents. Mayor Alexander added that the Fire Department will assure everyone a smoke detector, even if they cannot afford it. B3. Presentation to the City of the "Hope's Founder's Award" from the Hope Through Housing Foundation (HOPE). The "Hope's Founder's Award" was presented to the City Council by Welton Smith, Senior Director of Development; Linda Gomes, Senior Program Officer- HOPE Through Housing Foundation; and Olen Jones, Community Outreach/Internal Advocacy - HOPE Through Housing Foundation. Olen Jones, Community Outreach/Internal Advocacy - HOPE Through Housing Foundation, informed the Council about the award. I[ C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I C1. Dennis Cisneros stated many residents oppose the proposed Cingular Wireless or any other company's proposal for cellular antenna and transmission generator facilities within one-quarter mile of a residential community. He felt it was up to local government to protect residents from the danger of fire, vandalism and terrorist attack. He also presented information, which is on file in the City Clerk's office. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated this has not gone before the Planning Commission, but there has been a neighborhood meeting and also notice to the neighbors about this. He stated they have received petitions and the applicant is aware of the residents' concerns. Mr. Cisneros added he did not feel all of the surround neighbors received the notice for the community meeting. C2. John Lyons, Etiwanda area, stated it is great to have Bob Dutton here at this meeting and informed everyone that Mr. Dutton is running for the State Senate. He stated Rancho Recall had a booth at the Grape Harvest Festival and that Sam Spagnolo came by their booth on Sunday and met some of the residents. He talked about a flyer he got from Councilmember Kurth in the mail. He continued to talk about what he felt were secret meetings to appoint Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshe]l in 2002. He stated he is opposing Kurth and Howdyshell in the upcoming election. He stated Councilmember Kurth has taken in $130,000 in campaign contributions, and most of it is from developer money. He stated they want there to be local control again. He encouraged everyone not to vote for Kurth. City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 4 C3. John Guerrera with Petco talked about a program they are working on with HOPE. He told about the various events they have done in the community and that he has been working with Nicole Myerchin and Margaret Kaufman on a program called "Animeals" which can help elderly or disabled people get food for their pets. He asked the Council to spread the word about this wonderful program. C4. Melanie Ingrain talked about an OES conference she had gone to in Sacramento. She complimented the Chamber of Commerce on the Grape Harvest Festival event, and mentioned the booth that Rancho Recall had there. She stated they received responses from people about the information that was presented at the last meeting, and that they are unhappy about what they are hearing. She stated people can contact Rancho Recall at www.ranchorecall.net or at P.O. Box 2641, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729. She stated Code Enforcement had to apologize to Sam Spagnolo for his billboard and then stated that Dennis Michael had put up his signs last Friday, which is a violation. She also stated that Councilmember Kurth had put up a sign in City properly. She asked Councilmember Gutierrez if he was going to withdraw his vote from Dennis Michael and Councilmember Kurth since they are the two lawbreakers. She felt first amendment freedom of speech issues are being tied into our Ordinance and felt this needed to be fixed. C5. David Dykstra thanked Mayor Alexander and Councilmember Howdyshell for meeting with some of their staff and for returning phone calls. He wanted to talk about the Animal Shelter and commented on various days there were open cages at the animal shelter. He stated Rancho Cucamonga does not have a 30-day hold for animals and asked the Council to approve a 30-day hold. C6. Pat Dunaway talked about the cat that was euthanized and stated it had scratched two officers. C7. Kelly Heilig stated she had seen the cat before it was euthanized and that it was not aggressive or nasty. C8. Leslie Grimes stated because it is getting close to the election. She wanted to mention that in December 2002, people were denied the right to vote and that two City Councilmembers were appointed. She stated Ontario is about to do the same thing. She stated Kurth had run for City Council two times and lost, but now two Councilmembers have voted to appoint him. The people did not vote him in. She felt all of this is a matter of trust. She stated she really likes Councilmember Howdyshell, but felt people should have had the right to hear their views before they were appointed. She felt Councilmember Gutierrez makes too many emotional responses and did not agree with this. She stated she does not like irresponsible development. C9. Nicole Myerchin thanked the Mayor for returning phone calls to the community. She also thanked Councilmember Howdyshell for meeting with residents when asked. She talked about the cat that was euthanized and did not agree with how that was done. She brought up the Hayden Law and stated it was not met with the cat that was euthanized. She brought up the veterinary care for the animals stating they are not getting any at the City's Animal Shelter. C10. Jim Frost commented that Lions Park Community Center West was the old Library. He commented on all of the volunteer hours put in at the Library. He mentioned City employee Karen Matcham dieing of breast cancer and commented what a wonderful person she was. II Cou c. Co ,.,CA ,O S I D1. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he and Councilmember Williams attended Upland Christian School's groundbreaking ceremony. He recognized Josephine Spagnolo, who previously worked for the Fire District, and Brent LeCount from the Planning Department that recently passed away. He expressed his condolences to their families. He stated he has been to the dog park and felt it should be improved. He stated he is concerned about the freeway wall that is needed between Rochester and Milliken. He asked if the Council would help him push for this wall because the residents do not City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 5 feel they should have to pay for it. He felt when money is available, this should be looked at and considered. He stated he is working on approximately 30 constituent cases at the present time. He talked about the various projects he is working on. He stated sometimes he does get emotional, but did not think it affected the way he does his job. He stated he does support the 30-day minimum hold on animals at the Animal Shelter. He stated he vouches for the integrity of Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell and also Dennis Michael stating they are good men. He felt the mistakes previously made by Councilmember Kurth should be forgotten so the Council could move on. He hoped the people could look beyond these bad intentions. D2. Councilmember Howdyshell stated he and Councilmember Gutierrez have asked the staff to look at micro-chipping for the animals at the Animal Shelter and that there will be a micro-chip clinic on October 16 for $25.00. He commented that staff is moving forward with this. He stated he is glad that Councilmember Williams has been elected to the League of California Cities Board. He congratulated her. D3. Councilmember Kurth stated people have the right to make whatever allegations they want, but stated they are untrue. He stated he met with some people regarding a freeway wall along Highland as Councilmember Gutierrez had mentioned. He felt the Grape Harvest Festival was great. He stated he attended the "celebrating seniors day" in San Bernardino and added it was a great event. He thanked the Upland Police for busting the tagger that was doing damage in Rancho Cucamonga. He felt the "0" tolerance on graffiti should continue to be enforced. He stated he was appointed to a community Board of Evaluation Committee. He congratulated the Library. He also mentioned the second branch of the Library that will open at the new mall site. He stated he went to the Rotary Club meeting this week to hear his wife's presentation about the project she was involved in to get books for kids in Kenya. He continued to talk about all of the great things in the City. He felt the Council was doing a great job and that he is proud to be a part of it. D4. Councilmember Williams also commented on the passing of Karen Matcham due to her fight with cancer. She also commented on the passing of Brent LeCount stating he was a true gentleman. She stated there was no secret meeting when Councilmembers Kurth and Howdyshell were appointed. She stated they did not meet to discuss the appointments. She stated there was no reason for a secret'meeting and no need to hide anything. She stated since the Ordinance for a special election did not pass, she had no choice but to appoint. She stated it is very disappointing that any candidate would falsely claim they have an endorsement by Congressman Dreier and that anyone claiming this is being deceitful. She felt the Sign Ordinance needs to be rewritten after the election. She stated a political sign cannot be m~)re than 32 square feet which does not include a billboard. She felt the billboard that was put up was a political sign. She stated there were also signs by Sam Spagnolo and David Grossberg on City property. She stated the Library was and still is a passion of hers. She commented on the people that have for many years volunteered at the Library Bookstore. She commented on the Literacy Program. She congratulated Upland Christian High School for their groundbreaking of their new facility. D5. Mayor Alexander stated tomorrow between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. there will be a ride share on Highland between Archibald and Amethyst. He stated KFRG will be there for "Ride Share Thursday." El. Approval of Minutes: September 1,2004 (Closed Session) September 1, 2004 September 2, 2004 September 15, 2004 City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 6 E2. Approval of Warrants, Register September 8 through September 27, 2004, and Payroll ending September 27, 2004, for the total amount of $7,050,619.09. E3. Approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity - DRC2004-00911 - Sears Grand, LLC - A request to make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcoholic Beverage License (Type 20 - off-sale beer and wine) for a store under construction, within the Regional Related Office/Commercial district of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-63. RESOLUTION NO. 04-300 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY DRC2004-00911 FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR SEARS GRAND, LLC IN THE FOOTHILL CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARDS, WITHIN THE REGIONAL RELATED OFFICE/COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0229-021-62, 63, AND 64 E4. Approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity - DRC2004-00833 - Sunset Wings, LP - A request to make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcoholic Beverage License (Type 47 - on sale general) for a 5,500 square foot Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar on Pad 3 of the Foothill Crossing shopping center, in the Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 0229-021-62, 63, and 64. RESOLUTION NO. 04-301 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY DRC2004-00833 FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TYPE 47 (ON SALE GENERAL) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT BUFFALO WILD WINGS GRILL & BAR ON PAD 3 OF THE FOOTHILL CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, In the REGIONAL RELATED OFFICE/COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-021-62, 63, AND 64 E5. Approval to transfer City title of City vehicles, two (2) 2004 GEM E4 NEV cars to the County of San Bernardino for police services in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. E6. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy. E7. Approval of a request from Valley Baseball Club Inc. (dba Quakes) for a Waiver of Rental Fees for use of the Epicenter Stadium on Tuesday, October 26, 2004, for a Season Ticket Holder World Series Activity. E8. Approval of drainage reimbursements for the Etiwanda Area Master Plan for FY 2003/2004 and appropriation of $265,882.00 to Acct. No. 1116303-5650/1026116-0. E9. Approval of drainage reimbursements for the General City Area Master Plan and SANBAG Contract No. 03-038 for FY 2003/2004 and appropriation of $2,137,234.00 to Acct. No. 1112303-5650/1026112-0. City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 7 El0. Approval to appropriate $700,000 to Fund 612 CFD 2001-01 (NC 16123035650/1442612-0) and increase the award to the Sully-Miller contract (CO 03-073) in an amount not to exceed $700,000. Ell. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract No. 16237, located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of Haven Avenue, submitted by Stonebridge Rancho Cucamonga, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-302 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 16237 E12. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 16372 located on the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Church Street, submitted by Standard PacificNictoria Arbors, LLC, and Greystone Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 04-303 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACT 16372 E13. Approval for the purchase of computer hardware, software and related items for the Emergency Operations Center in the amount of $60,247.96 to CompUSA and $3,212.68 to GTSI, for a total of $63,460.64, to be funded from 1382105-5605 (Capital Outlay - Computers) for $45,370.59; 1382105- 5152 (Computer Software) for $8,857.48; 1382105-5200 (O&M) for $2,901.82; and 1382105-5300 (Contract Services) for $6,330.75. E14. Approval for the purchase of four (4) three-pound ISG K1000 Elite Lite Handheld Thermal Imagers from AIIstar Fire Equipment, Inc. of Arcadia in the amount of $42,302.65, to be funded by Acct. No. 2505801-5603 (Fire Protection-RDA Fund) in the amount of $28,983.65 and Acct. No. 1380501-5603 (Homeland Security Grant Fund) in the amount of $13,319.00, and authorize an appropriation of $11,000.00 into Acct. No. 2505801-5603 and an appropriation of $13,319.00 in Acct. No. 1380501-5603. E15. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 10 and Street Lighting District Nos. 1 and 7 for Tract 14493, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street, submitted by Young California Cucamonga, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 04-304 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 14493, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 04-305 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 10 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT NO. 14493 City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 8 E16. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 16118, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue and south of San Marino Drive, submitted by RSCS, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 04-306 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 16118, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 04-307 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 18118 E17. Approval to accept the bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $87,342.50 to the apparent Iow bidder, America West Landscape, Inc. (CO 04-160), and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $8,734.25 for the Highland Avenue Landscape Improvements East of Day Creek Boulevard, to be funded from Beautification Funds, Acct. No. 11103165650~1454110-0. E18. Approval to accept bids received and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $39,285.00 to the apparent Iow bidder, Advantec Consulting Engineer (CO 04-161)1 and authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $3,928.00 for the design of traffic signal coordination timing plans for nine (9) intersections in the vicinity of the Victoria Gardens Mall, to be funded from Acct. No. 1124-303-5300 (Transportation Fee Program Funds). E19. Approval for award and authorization of the execution of a Professional Services Agreement in the Amount of $20,000.00 to D7 Consulting, Inc. (CO 04-162) for the inspection of waterproofing, built-up roofing, standing seam metal roofing and associated sheet metal flashing application services for the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center; and authorization of the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $2,000.00 and approval of a budget appropriation of $9,400 into Account Number 1310602- 565011357310-6314 and $12,600 into Account Number 2660801-5650/1357660-6314. E20. Approval for the award of a contract for the purchase of Community Services basketball and fla9 football program uniforms to Hot Shots (CO 04-163) in an annual amount not to exceed $38,000.00 for fiscal year 04/05, with an option to renew for additional one (1) year periods upon review of contract and mutual consent, up to a total of three (3) years, from Fund 1250401-5200. E21. Approval of Supplemental Maintenance Agreement (CO 04-164) for monitoring the storm water quality equipment located south of Church Street, west of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard and east of Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by the developer, Victoria Gardens Mall, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. E22. Approval to accept improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bonds, accept Maintenance Bonds, and file Notices of Completion for improvements for Tract 14495 and Tract 14523, located on the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue, submitted by MBK Homes, Ltd. RESOLUTION NO. 04-308 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14523 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes October6, 2004 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 04-309 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14495 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Kur[h to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Fl. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE FORMATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 735. ORDINANCE NO. 735 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 735. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. [I G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS I No Items Submitted. ][ H. PUBLIC HEARINGS ] H1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THE WIDENING OF FOOTHILl BOULEVARD AT APN: 229-021-58 AS PART OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01B) WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting far public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 04-310 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 B) WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Kurth to approve Resolution No. 04-310. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. II I. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I I1. WEST NILE VIRUS UPDATE (Oral) An update was given by Trang Huynh, Building Official. He stated there are 685 cases in California and that it is spreading north. He stated there will be a video about this shown on RCTV3. He stated there will also be a presentation to the seniors about this information, which will be done by the West Valley Vector Control District. He reported there will be training for City staff on October 20 and that other cities are welcome to attend. Councilmember Williams asked if the West Valley Vector Control District will be at the Fire Open House because she felt they could provide information about this to the residents that attend this event. Trang Huynh, Building Official, stated he would pass this suggestion on to them. Councilmember Howdyshell asked if the meeting on October 20 can include the public if they want to attend. Trang Huynh, Building Official, stated yes. [I J. COUNCIL BUSINESS ] J1. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTINC PROPOSITION lA ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT Councilmember Williams stated people should have received the mailer regarding Measure I and that it informed people exactly how important this is to our City and what it has done in the past. She stated it is vital this is approved by the voters. She mentioned she was elected to the League of California Cities Board and will do what she can to protect revenues for the City. She told people to vote "yes" for Proposition lA. A video from the League of California Cities regarding this proposition was shown at this time. Councilmember Williams complimented the Governor for his help with this Proposition. She stated if this does not pass, it wi~l send a message that the citizens do not care. She encouraged everyone to vote for lA. City Council Minutes October6, 2004 Page 11 RESOLUTION NO. 04-311 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION lA MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kudh to approve Resolution No. 04-311. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. J2. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE'~ RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Councilmember Kurth stated it is recommended by he and Councilmember Gutierrez to appoint Steve Wysocki and reappoint Patricia Carlson. MOTION: Moved by Kurth, seconded by Williams to appoint Steve Wysocki and Pafricia Carlson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. J3. REPORT FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL REGARDINC, ANIMAL SHELTER ISSUES (Oral) Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst III, gave background information on the cat that was recently euthanized. She introduced Dan Avera, County Public Health. Dan Avera, County Public Health apologized for the cat that was euthanized by mistake. He talked about the policy for animals being euthanized, and stated the employees that made this mistake did not follow the policy. He stated corrective actions have been taken with these employees. He thanked the Council and staff for supporting the Animal Shelter. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. Addressing the City Council were: David Dykstra talked about the euthanasia incident and stated there are laws dictating that the animals are to be treated correctly. He felt forward thinking vision was very important. He felt we should do more. Pat Dunaway, Pet Assistance Foundation, stated these accusations have been investigated and that Animal Control is compliant with the Hayden Act. Leslie Grimes asked that the County and City investigate the Animal Shelter to see how the animals are being treated. She stated she did not have all of the information about this, but felt it should be looked into. Nicole Myerchin stated she would like to see the law on the veterinary care. She stated she would like to know why Mr. Avera is against the micro chipping. She stated if the shelter staff would help out with the micro chipping, it would only cost $5.00. She stated Upland will microchip for $20.00, which is $5.00 less than what the City is offering. She felt animals should be getting medical care. She asked that the Council make sure the animals are getting the proper care. Councilmember Gutierre:;' stated he and Councilmember Howdyshell did serve on the subcommittee and that he does not want to bash anyone. He felt things are being accomplished at the animal care facility, but that there is work to do. He appreciate the apology from the County. Councilmember Howdyshell stated he appreciated the County coming to this meeting and that he looks forward to working with them. He hoped that the euthanasia rate will decrease. City Council Minutes October 6, 2004 Page 12 Councilmember Kurth thanked the County for coming in and accepting the responsibility of what happened. He hoped to see these issues resolved. Mayor Alexander felt there should be some standards set by the subcommittee for micro chipping and some goals set as well. He stated he appreciated the economics, but felt some changes need to be made to improve there or look for a different place for animal care. ]1 K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING I No items were identified for the next meeting. L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS No communication was made from the public. Il M. ADJOURNMENT I MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Kurth to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216287 10/27/2004 80 VGL LLC AND 20 VGL LLC 684,560.00 AP- 00216288 ' 10/27/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 133.44 AP-00216289 10/27/2004 ABLAC 16.39 AP - 00216290 10/27/2004 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 331.14 AP - 00216291 10/27/2004 AGUILERA, ROBIN 500.00 AP - 00216293 10/27/2004 ALLREADY FIRE SPRINKLER 39.08 AP - 00216296 10/27/2004 ALTA FIRE EQUIPMENT CO 36.28 AP - 00216297 10/27/2004 ALVARE, KATRINA 40.00 AP 00216298 10/27/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 473.25 AP 00216298 10/27/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 69.70 AP 00216298 10/27/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 155.40 AP 00216299 10/27/2004 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 184.68 AP 00216299 10/27/2004 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 201.00 AP 00216300 10/27/2004 APGCOMPANY 630.00 AP 00216301 10/27/2004 ARBOR NURSERY INC 679.90 AP 00216302 10/27/2004 ARROW FLOORS INC. 108.00 AP 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 117.91 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 216.70 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 118.24 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 594.84 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 83.36 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 45.85 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 89.17 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 59.31 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 224.71 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 49.45 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 43.99 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 500.09 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 26.37 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 190.00 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 37.10 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 12.91 AP- 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 219.99 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 120.00 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 541.94 AP- 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 142.08 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 30.76 AP - 00216303 10/27/2004 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 290.59 AP- 00216304 10/27/2004 ASCAP 1,041.00 AP- 00216305 10/27/2004 ASSI SECURITY 105.00 AP- 00216306 10/27/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 1,023.80 AP - 00216307 10/27/2004 AUTO RESTORATORS INC 290.57 AP- 00216307 10/27/2004 AUTO RESTORATORS INC 498.88 AP- 00216308 10/27/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE -71.88 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 143.49 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 135.12 AP - 00216309 t0/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 73.22 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 198.42 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 348.11 AP - 00216309 10/27/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 98.76 AP- 00216310 10/27/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 6,030.00 AP - 00216311 10/27/2004 BELALRE-WEST LANDSCAPE INC 94,368.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 1 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:.~ 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216311 10/27/2004 BELAIRE-WEST LANDSCAPE INC -9,436.80 AP - 00216312 10/27/2004 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 287.91 AP - 00216313 10/27/2004 BRAKER, TIFFANY 129.90 AP- 00216315 10/27/2004 BRODART BOOKS 10. i7 AP - 00216315 10/27/2004 BRODART BOOKS 6.84 AP- 00216315 10/27/2004 BRODART BOOKS 161.69 AP- 00216317 10/27/2004 BUBALO CONSTRUCTION CO,STEVE 236,295.03 AP- 00216318 10/27/2004 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 345.54 AP - 00216318 10/27/2004 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 332.09 AP - 00216319 10/27/2004 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 315.92 AP - 00216320 10/27/2004 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 71,775.87 AP- 00216321 10/27/2004 CANNON, JOHN 100.00 AP - 00216322 I0/27/2004 CANZONERI, FRANK 100.00 AP - 00216324 10/27/2004 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 228.43 AP - 00216324 10/27/2004 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIAL[ES 190.71 AP - 00216325 10/27/2004 CHRISTOPHER GROUP INC, RUSSELL 500.00 AP- 00216326 10/27/2004 CITY RENTALS 298.71 AP - 00216327 10/27/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 11,640.00 AP - 00216327 10/27/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 12,404.50 AP - 00216327 10/27/2004 CIVIC SOLI. JTIONS INC 820.00 AP - 00216327 10/27/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 2,295.00 AP- 00216327 10/27/2004 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 1,315.50 AP - 00216328 10/27/2004 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00 AP - 00216329 10/27/2004 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC. 380.68 AP - 00216330 10/27/2004 CLOUT 60.00 AP - 00216330 10/27/2004 CLOUT 40.00 AP 00216332 10/27/2004 COMSERCOINC 471.41 AP 00216332 10/27/2004 COMSERCOINC 471.41 AP 00216333 10/27/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 465.00 AP 00216334 10/27/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 39.87 AP 00216335 10/27/2004 CPRS 40.00 AP 00216336 10/27/2004 CPRS 40.00 AP 00216337 10/27/2004 CPRS 40.00 AP- 00216338 10/27/2004 CPRS 40.00 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.68 AP ~ 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 22.48 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 172.48 AP ~ 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 46.33 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.33 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 293.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 35.13 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 243.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 139.09 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 781.88 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 324.18 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 162.13 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.79 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.79 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 330.61 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 330.62 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 423,08 AP ~ 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 499.08 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 118.33 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 2 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 2. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 607.08 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 225.28 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 121.08 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 879.63 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 155.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 195.38 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 139.09 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 371.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 473.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 339.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 335.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 325.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.16 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.17 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 217.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 563.38 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 300.03 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 233.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 579.58 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 771.98 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 506.33 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 125.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 449.98 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 219.63 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 226.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 203.88 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 178.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,231.53 AP ~ 00216342 10/27/2004- CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,290.18 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 929.08 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,064.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 849.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 361.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 404.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 194.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 180.53 AP - 00216342 1012712004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 121.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 91.I8 AP - 00216342 I0/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 183.98 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 120.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 204.58 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 189.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 187.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 180.03 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.93 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 998.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 500.83 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 567.53 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 263.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 64.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 53.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 139.48 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 274.17 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 3 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 242.53 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 231.03 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 879.58 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 294.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 836.38 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 264,38 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 40.58 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 165.48 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56.68 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.88 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 199.28 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 228.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 240.68 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 141.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 41.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 151.68 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 139.03 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 228.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 229.88 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 160.98 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 109.13 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,018.78 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 835.93 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 617.43 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 435.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 792.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 835.93 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 619.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 355.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 64.73 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,474.18 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,082.48 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 404.33 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 298.98 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 409.38' AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 502.53 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 261.03 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 194.23 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 235.63 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 107.28 AP - 00216342 10/27/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 319.68 AP - 00216343 10/27/2004 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 16,518.04 AP - 00216344 10/27/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 20,910.00 AP - 00216345 10/27/2004 DANIELS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING O 500.00 AP- 00216346 10/27/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 956.81 AP - 00216346 10/27/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 52.62 AP- 00216346 10/27/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 263.12 AP- 00216346 10/27/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 89.17 AP - 00216347 10/27/2004 DAY TIMERS INC 216.50 AP - 00216348 10/27/2004 DE LEISE, JENAE 519.24 AP - 00216349 10/27/2004 DEER CREEK CAR CARE CENTER 238.50 AP - 00216350 10/27/2004 DEL MECHANICAL 140.27 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 4 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:,! 08:28:2 q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A~enda Check Re~ister 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount. AP - 00216351 10/27/2004 DEPARTMENT ISSUE INCORPORATED 360.96 AP - 00216351 10/27/2004 DEPARTMENT ISSUE INCORPORATED 346.35 AP - 00216352 10/27/2004 DICK, ERIC 324.33 AP- 00216353 10/27/2004 DOMINGUEZ, ROBERTO 5,610.00 AP- 00216355 10/27/2004 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 37.62 AP - 00216356 10/27/2004 EDWARD GOMEZ 250.00 AP - 00216357 10/27/2004 EMCOR SERVICE 8,325.00 AP - 00216358 10/27/2004 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 712.50 AP - 00216359 10/27/2004 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 153.88 AP - 00216359 10/27/2004 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 207.75 AP - 00216360 10/27/2004 EWING I1GRIGATION PRODUCTS 44.64 AP- 00216361 10/27/2004 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 48.49 AP- 00216361 10/27/2004 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 34.48 AP - 00216363 10/27/2004 FARM STORE AT KELLOGG RANCH 500.00 AP - 00216364 10/27/2004 FEQUIERE, SH]RLEE 20.00 AP - 00216365 10/27/2004 FINAU, ANITI 250.00 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 840.00 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 840.00 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 759.50 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 658.75 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 667.25 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 184.17 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 720.00 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 301.83 AP - 00216366 10/27/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 720.00 AP - 00216367 10/27/2004 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 499.17 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 480.30 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 78.31 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC -15.41 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 387.40 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 16.94 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 31.42 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 106.74 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 111.33 AP - 00216370 10/27/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 902.05 AP - 00216371 10/27/2004 GARCIA, VIVIAN 27.00 AP - 00216372 10/27/2004 GARNER, CATHLEEN 43.87 AP- 00216373 10/27/2004 GIBBS, THOMAS 100.00 AP - 00216374 10/27/2004 GOLD'N WEST SURPLUS 593.00 AP- 00216375 10/27/2004 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING 133.86 AP- 00216376 10/27/2004 GORDON, DAKIA 32.00 AP - 00216377 10/27/2004 GOTHIC MOON PRODUCTIONS INC. 1,547.28 AP- 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 67.89 AP- 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 67.89 AP - 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 135.77 AP- 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 67.89 AP- 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 67.89 AP- 00216378 10/27/2004 GRAINGER, WW 135.77 AP - 00216379 10/27/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 114.01 AP - 00216379 10/27/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 188.06 AP- 00216380 10/27/2004 GUTIERREZ, CECILIA 100.00 AP- 00216381 10/27/2004 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 2,489.75 AP- 00216382 10/27/2004 HARVEY, DEBRA 50.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 5 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~, 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216383 10/27/2004 HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH 2,400.00 AP - 00216384 10/27/2004 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 60.50 AP - 00216385 10/27/2004 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 12,102.41 AP - 00216386 10/27/2004 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC INC 452.55 AP - 00216387 10/27/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 120.79 AP - 00216388 10/27/2004 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 11.62 AP - 00216388 10/27/2004 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 145.85 AP- 00216388 10/27/2004 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 298.60 AP- 00216388 10/27/2004 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC -19.59 AP- 00216389 10/27/2004 IAAM 300.00 AP - 00216390 10/27/2004 INLAND CALIFORNIA TELEVISION NETWORK 75.00 AP - 00216391 10/27/2004 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 2,730.00 AP - 00216392 10/27/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 172.80 AP - 00216393 10/27/2004 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 86.37 AP - 00216394 10/27/2004 IRRIGATOR TECH TRAINING SCHOOL 200.00 AP - 00216395 10/27/2004 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 41.29 AP - 00216396 10/27/2004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 562.50 AP - 00216396 10/27/2004 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 1,813.75 AP - 00216397 10/27/2004 KLAUS AND S(~NS 900.00 AP - 00216398 10/27/2004 KNOWLTON, TIFFANY 52.00 AP - 00216399 10/27/2004 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION 1,006.50 AP - 00216400 10/27/2004 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO 1,000.00 AP - 00216402 10/27/2004 LILBURN CORPORATION 715.00 AP - 00216403 10/27/2004 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 25.00 AP - 00216405 10/27/2004 LOMEN, CHRISTINE 34.00 AP - 00216406 10/27/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY 539.08 AP - 00216406 10/27/2004 M & M BOYS SUPPLY -367.14 AP - 00216407 10/27/2004 MACLAY, WILLIAM 100.00 AP - 00216408 10/27/2004 MARK CHRIS INC 284.22 AP - 00216409 10/27/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 133.00 AP - 00216409 10/27/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 85.00 AP - 00216409 10/27/2004 MARSHALL PLUMBING 228.97 AP- 00216410 10/27/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP- 00216410 10/27/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00216411 10/27/2004 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR 777.22 AP - 00216412 10/27/2004 MULBERRY EARLY LEARNING 200.00 AP - 00216413 10/27/2004 MULICK, SHARON 35.00 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 164.03 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 8.65 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 207.28 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 197.16 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 7.23 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 40.41 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 46.64 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 68.02 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 32.31 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 400.79 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 61.41 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 97.35 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 32.12 AP - 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 656.42 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 49.30 AP- 00216414 10/27/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 44.53 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 6 Current Date: 11/09/20(; Report:CK AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: .t 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216415 10/27/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 12,971.25 AP- 00216416 10/27/2004 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 1,852.50 AP - 00216416 10/27/2004 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 1,309.00 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 2,067.08 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 40.27 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 9.58 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 106.50 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 32.99 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 10.24 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 17.50 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 7.22 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 110.13 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 182.49 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 23.08 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 31.16 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 18.02 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 21.25 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 79.40 AP- 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 191.98 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 28.63 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 31.12 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 38.20 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 78.55 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 46.88 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 857.38 AP - 00216417 10/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 150.23 AP - 00216418 10/27/2004 ONTARIO, CITY OF 85.00 AP - 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,560.00 AP- 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 22.88 AP- 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 471.32 AP- 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 37.17 AP- 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 69.26 AP- 00216419 10/27/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 968.89 AP - 00216420 10/27/2004 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 54,880.89 AP - 00216420 10/27/2004 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 1,990.08 AP - 00216422 10/27/2004 PEP BOYS 15.23 AP - 00216422 10/27/2004 PEP BOYS 14.58 AP - 00216422 10/27/2004 PEP BOYS 36.61 AP - 00216423 10/27/2004 PERFORMANCE AUTO BODY 3,602.16 AP - 00216424 10/27/2004 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 24.00 AP - 00216425 10/27/2004 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 1,814.50 AP - 00216425 10/27/2004 POMA DISTRIBUTING C© 1,610.13 AP- 00216426 10/27/2004 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 168.75 AP - 00216427 10/27/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 6.81 AP - 00216428 10/27/2004 PRINCIPAL LIFE 1,700.85 AP - 00216429 10/27/2004 PRINCIPAL LIFE 15,968.24 AP - 00216430 10/27/2004 PROJECT SISTER 2,088.48 AP - 00216431 10/27/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00216431 10/27/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP- 00216432 10/27/2004 PSOMAS 12,585.89 AP - 00216433 10/27/2004 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 1,300.00 AP - 00216434 10/27/2004 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 52.87 AP ~ 00216437 10/27/2004 RAZZLE BAM BOOM 650.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 7 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timely, 08:28:2 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216438 10/27/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 92.23 AP - 00216438 10/27/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 2.16 AP - 00216438 10/27/2004 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 75.43 AP - 00216439 10/27/2004 RC HOMES 6,750.00 AP - 00216439 10/27/2004 RC HOMES 7,500.00 AP - 00216439 10/27/2004 RC HOMES 7,200.00 AP - 00216440 10/27/2004 RCPFA 6,276.27 AP - 00216441 10/27/2004 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY 272.54 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 41,837.26 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 4,186.00 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 2,074.68 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 966.58 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 12,371.94 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 9,474.34 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 318.00 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 124.80 AP - 00216442 10/27/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 919.14 AP - 00216443 10/27/2004 RIDGELINE ROOFING 400.00 AP - 00216~.~.~. 10/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00 AP - 00216n. h.n. 10/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00 AP - 00216~.~.~. 10/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 60.00 AP - 00216444 I0/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00 AP - 00216444 10/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 63.00 AP - 00216444 10/27/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 135.00 AP - 00216445 10/27/2004 RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN THEATRE LIBR 10.00 AP - 00216446 10/27/2004 S AND K ENGINEERS 3,605.00 AP - 00216447 10/27/2004 SADIE CONSTRUCTION INC 21,271.00 AP - 00216448 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CO FIRE DEPT 28,525.50 AP - 00216450 1012712004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 151.80 AP - 00216451 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARD1NO COUNTY 25.00 AP - 00216452 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 32,350.00 AP - 00216453 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 1,139,408.00 AP - 00216453 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 24,281.00 AP - 00216453 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 12,680.00 AP - 00216454 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 144.00 AP - 00216455 10/27/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 192.69 AP - 00216456 10/27/2004 SBC LONG DISTANCE 2.73 AP- 00216457 10/27/2004 SCHRADER, LOIS 52.38 AP - 00216458 10/27/2004 SCMAF - INLAND VALLEYS 200.00 AP- 00216459 10/27/2004 SCMAP 455.00 AP - 00216460 10/27/2004 SCMAF 100.00 AP - 00216461 10/27/2004 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 75.00 AP - 00216462 10/27/2004 SHIPLEY, BONNIE 35.29 AP - 00210464 10/27/2004 SKYLINE PRODUCTIONS 500.00 AP - 00216466 10/27/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 86.89 AP - 00216466 10/27/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 30.15 AP- 00216467 10/27/2004 SOUTH COAST AQMD 122.88 AP - 00216467 10/27/2004 SOUTH COAST AQMD 77.25 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4,855.33 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.72 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.21 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.90 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 8 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. ,Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.75 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTI-IERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 15.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.72 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.97 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 107.30 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 52.92 AP - 002t6471 i0/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.77 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.56 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 207.07 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 244.39 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 244.08 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.22 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.76 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.41 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.78 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.72 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.31 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.54 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIEORNIA EDISON 16.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.88 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.62 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.40 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.69 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 53.09 AP - 002t6471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 29.65 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.80 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.40 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDtSON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.89 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.58 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 132.14 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 129.82 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.58 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 89.32 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.78 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.24 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 9 Current Date: 11/09/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:/,ng 08:28:2 ¥ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 0021647] 10/27/2004 SOUTH3ERN CALIFORNIA ED]SON 80.24 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.11 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 582.76 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.32 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 480.54 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.75 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 44.93 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.56 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.41 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 148.26 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.85 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.53 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 178.73 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.63 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.75 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.97 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.72 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.03 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.41 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHIERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.88 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.69 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.88 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.48 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 99.71 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.09 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.20 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.56 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.79 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 32.87 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.82 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.35 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 116.53 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.33 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 10 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Timte:~ 08:28:2 //., CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.97 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.98 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP- 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.88 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.00 AP - 00216471 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.06 AP - 00216472 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 43.56 AP - 00216472 10/27/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 50.34 AP - 00216473 10/27/2004 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS 664.00 AP - 00216474 10/27/2004 SPARKLETTS 45.00 AP - 00216475 - 10/27/2004 SPEEDWAY MUFFLER 1NC 20.00 AP - 00216476 10/27/2004 STAGE DIRECTIONS 26.00 AP - 00216477 10/27/2004 STARBUCKS COFFEE 120.00 AP - 00216478 10/27/2004 STEENKAMP, JOHN 165.00 AP - 00216479 10/27/2004 SUNRISE FORD 17.13 AP - 00216480 10/27/2004 SUNSHINE WINDOWS 1,790.00 AP - 00216481 10/27/2004 T AND D INSTALLATIONS 332.37 AP - 00216482 10/27/2004 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 108.95 AP - 00216483 10/27/2004 TAVERNIER, SHERIE 500.00 AP - 00216484 10/27/2004 TETRA TECH ISG I 666.03 AP- 00216485 10/27/2004 TOXGUARD 330.15 AP - 00216486 10/27/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 5,862.48 AP - 00216486 10/27/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 13,650.00 AP - 00216486 10/27/2004 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 3,482.96 AP- 00216487 10/27/2004 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 3,243.00 AP - 00216488 10/27/2004 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 187.60 AP - 00216488 10/27/2004 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 163.80 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 585.63 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UN1FORM SERVICE 37.30 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 189.79 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFiRST UNIFORM SERVICE 23.56 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 69.26 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UN/FIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 281.69 AP- 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 25.92 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UN1FIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 41.11 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 59.94 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UN/FIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 654.27 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 LrNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 23.56 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 37.30 AP- 00216489 10/27/2004 UNtemST UNIFORM SERVICE 147.76 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 97.41 AP - 00216489 t0/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 665.00 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UN/FIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 37.30 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIF1RST UNIFORM SERVICE 23.56 AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UN1FIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 57.11 AP- 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 125.61 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 11 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: m / 08:28:2 / / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216489 10/27/2004 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 585.59 AP - 00216491 10/27/2004 UNITED WAY 49.00 AP- 00216492 10/27/2004 UPS 24.76 AP- 00216492 10/27/2004 UPS 19.45 AP- 00216492 10/27/2004 UPS 37.19 AP-00216492 i0/27/2004 UPS 60.46 AP- 00216492 10/27/2004 UPS 26.90 AP - 00216493 10/27/2004 US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL 88.48 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 28.65 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 56.44 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 64.59 AP- 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 30.21 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 56.84 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 112.86 AP-00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 21.19 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 112.86 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 58.85 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 29.97 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 0.77 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 28.62 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 41.32 AP - 00216494 10/27/2004 VERIZON 20.99 AP - 00216495 10/27/2004 VIDEO GUYS, THE 48.32 AP - 00216495 10/27/2004 VIDEO GUYS, THE 62.93 AP - 00216495 10/27/2004 VIDEO GUYS, THE 100.00 AP - 00216496 10/27/2004 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 475.00 AP - 00216497 10/27/2004 VISTA PAINT 31.75 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 61.16 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 30.71 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 143.65 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 241.21 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 83.43 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 981.20 AP - 00216498 10/27/2004 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 162.45 AP - 00216499 10/27/2004 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 106.88 AP - 00216500 10/27/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 352.34 AP - 00216500 10/27/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 29.55 AP - 00216500 10/27/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 312.58 AP - 00216502 10/27/2004 WEST GROUP 208.32 AP- 00216503 10/27/2004 WILSON AND BELL 440.41 AP - 00216504 10/27/2004 WRIGHT, MANNICHA 67.33 AP ~ 00216505 10/27/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP - 00216505 10/27/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 1,794.04 AP - 00216505 10/27/2004 XEROX CORPORATION t50.53 AP- 00216507 10/28/2004 CALBO 1,410.00 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.21 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.40 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.04 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.87 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 30.20 AP ~ 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.78 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 12 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 /2. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,077.51 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.59 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.29 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.17 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.29 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.08 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.35 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.73 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.30 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.08 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.46 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.64 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.71 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.65 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 140.28 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.57 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.03 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 189.96 AP 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.01 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 74.04 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.64 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.17 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.56 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.97 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.11 AP - 002165 t0 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.71 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 66.33 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.29 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 17.22 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.72 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 93.66 AP- 00216510 i0/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.79 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 002165 I0 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.05 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.46 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.71 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.56 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.14 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP- 00216510 I0/28/2004 SOUTI~RN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 118.06 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 13 Current Date: 11/09/20£ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 /3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 839.20 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.83 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 188.03 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.50 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 82.77 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 63.71 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 86.47 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.12 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.02 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 75.27 AP - 002165 l0 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.22 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.29 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31.14 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 185.33 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 317.45 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 15.64 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 15.15 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS ON 39.55 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.03 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 41.46 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.29 AP - 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 119.33 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.61 AP- 00216510 10/28/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 146.03 AP - 00216511 11/2/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,475.38 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 74.86 AP ~ 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 56.64 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 229.25 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 114.63 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 56.88 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 360.79 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 262.78 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 112.06 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 261.92 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 29.66 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 155.18 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 1,143.12 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 930.04 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 56.64 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 805.68 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 299.87 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 177.47 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 1,020.80 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON ' 246.97 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 92.12 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 56.88 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 104.48 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 87.86 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 87.60 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 59.00 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 14 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time:. ,t 08:28:2 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 20.99 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 293.95 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 132.44 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 57.36 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 60.24 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 68.30 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 59.31 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 78.55 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 159.58 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 78.55 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 28.66 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP 00216513 11/2/201M VERIZON 91.60 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 64.02 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 181.75 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP- 00216513 i1/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 91.60 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 58.96 AP- 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 58.86 AP - 00216513 11/2/2004 VERIZON 29.55 AP - 00216514 11/3/2004 A AND A AUTOMOTIVE 162.41 AP - 00216514 11/3/2004 A AND A AUTOMOTIVE 60.00 AP- 00216515 11/3/2004 AA EQUIPMENT 387.90 AP- 00216515 11/3/2004 AA EQUIPMENT 72.39 AP- 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 189.51 AP- 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 36.64 AP- 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 217.20 AP- 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 11.41 AP - 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 86.74 AP- 00216516 11/3/2004 ABC LOCKSMITHS 9.69 AP - 00216517 1 i/3/2004 ABLAC 273.17 AP - 00216519 11/3/2004 ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC 331.14 AP - 00216520 11/3/2004 ADVANCO FIRE PROTECTION INC 1,000.00 AP - 00216521 11/3/2004 AIM ALL STORAGE 210 LLC 500.00 AP - 00216522 11/3/2004 ALL AIR APPLIANCE MASTERS 60.00 AP - 00216525 11/3/2004 ALPERT PRINTING 750.37 AP- 00216527 11/3/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 213.45 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 15 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 /5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216527 11/3/2004 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION 179.11 AP - 00216528 11/3/2004 AMERICAN PLUMBING PARTSMASTER INC 512.89 AP - 00216529 1 t/3/2004 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 146.31 AP - 00216529 11/3/2004 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 191.99 AP - 00216530 11/3/2004 APPLIED METERING TECHNOLOGIES INC 31,898.34 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 3,185.00 AP - 00216531 l 1/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 1,620.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 576.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 4,160.00 AP- 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 216.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 4,752.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 426.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 192.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 2,600.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 1,152.00 AP - 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 2,376.00 AP- 00216531 11/3/2004 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 168.00 AP- 00216532 11/3/2004 ASSI SECURITY 167.50 AP - 00216533 11/3/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 1,011.00 AP - 00216533 11/3/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 15,282.00 AP - 00216533 11/3/2004 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 14,664.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 11,923.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 13,124.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 13,328.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 336.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 9,792.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 336.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 15,836.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 9,745.00 AP- 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 3,353.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 11,965.80 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 11,248.00 AP - 00216534 11/3/2004 AUFBAU CORPORATION 14,060.00 AP- 00216535 11/3/2004 AUTO RESTORATORS INC 709.28 AP - 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 436.40 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 86.10 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95 AP - 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 125.00 AP- 00216536 11/3/2004 AUTO SPECIALISTS 449.50 . AP - 00216537 t 1/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 292.86 AP - 00216537 1 i/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 18.06 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 36.41 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 148.62 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 8.66 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND KELECTRIC WHOLESALE 519.46 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 203.79 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND KELECTRIC WHOLESALE 183.44 AP 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 384.67 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 43.13 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 370.98 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 16 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: ~ 08:28:2 ! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 193.95 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 164.11 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 103.33 AP - 00216537 11/3/2004 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 97.80 AP - 00216538 11/3/2004 BAKER, SHARI 600.00 AP - 00216540 11/3/2004 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 17,653.00 AP- 00216542 11/3/2004 BEST BEST AND KRIEGER 4,188.00 AP - 00216542 11/3/2004 BEST BEST AND KRIEGER 2,227.50 AP - 00216543 11/3/2004 BISHOP COMPANY 389.24 AP- 00216544 11/3/2004 BRANCATI, JONATHAN 25.14 AP - 00216545 11/3/2004 BRODART BOOKS 1,203.47 AP- 00216545 11/3/2004 BRODART BOOKS 4,256.74 AP - 00216546 11/3/2004 BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAIl 28,367.79 AP - 00216547 11/3/2004 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 619.76 AP - 00216548 11/3/2004 BIYRRES MD, KENNETH P 465.00 AP - 00216549 11/3/2004 BUSINESS AND LEGAL REPORTS INC 320.00 AP - 00216551 11/3/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 16,049.88 AP - 00216551 11/3/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 814.75 AP - 00216551 11/3/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 14,110.25 AP - 00216551 11/3/2004 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 10,249.88 AP - 00216552 11/3/2004 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 315.92 AP - 00216553 11/3/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 25.00 AP - 00216554 11/3/2004 CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 22.50 AP - 00216555 11/3/2004 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATIO~ 506.62 AP - 00216556 11/3/2004 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 3,604.99 AP - 00216557 11/3/2004 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY 17.92 AP - 00216558 11/3/2004 CARRAIGE ESTATES III LLC 1,000.00 AP ~ 00216559 11/3/2004 CCPOA 30.00 AP - 00216560 11/3/2004 CENTEX HOMES 58,706.93 AP- 00216560 11/3/2004 CENTEX HOMES 7,000.00 AP- 00216561 11/3/2004 CERTIFIED AUTO CARE 1,014.41 AP- 00216562 11/3/2004 CHEN, BETTY 64.73 AP- 00216563 11/3/2004 CITY RENTALS 300.30 AP- 00216563 11/3/2004 CITY RENTALS 342.08 AP- 00216563 11/3/2004 CITY RENTALS 185.90 AP- 00216563 11/3/2004 CITY RENTALS 292.50 AP - 00216564 11/3/2004 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC. 294.48 AP - 00216565 11/3/2004 COAST RECREATION INC 301.84 AP - 00216565 11/3/2004 COAST RECREATION INC 1,649.43 AP - 00216565 11/3/2004 COAST RECREATION INC 824.90 AP - 00216566 11/3/2004 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 50.01 AP- 00216566 11/3/2004 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 50.01 AP - 00216568 11/3/2004 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 2,980.92 AP - 00216569 11/3/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 380.70 AP ~ 00216569 11/3/2004 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS ] 688.09 AP - 00216570 11/3/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50 AP - 00216571 11/3/2004 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00 AP- 00216573 11/3/2004 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 875.00 AP - 00216573 11/3/2004 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 3,675.00 AP - 00216574 11/3/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 9,630.00 AP - 00216574 11/3/2004 DAN GUERRA AND ASSOCIATES 19,275.00 AP - 00216575 11/3/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 365.05 AP - 00216575 11/3/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 447.45 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 17 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_KEG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 /7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216575 11/3/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 86.99 AP - 00216575 11/3/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 692.79 AP q 00216575 11/3/2004 DAPPER TIRE CO 517.67 AP- 00216577 11/3/2004 DAVIS ELECTRIC INC 500.00 AP- 00216578 11/3/2004 DAWSON SURVEYING INC. 255.00 AP- 00216579 11/3/2004 DEALERS AUTO TRIM 110.00 AP - 00216580 11/3/2004 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 82.80 AP - 00216581 11/3/2004 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION 230.00 AP - 00216582 11/3/2004 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 134.48 AP - 00216582 11/3/2004 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 414.79 AP - 00216582 11/3/2004 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 1.70 AP- 00216582 11/3/2004 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 5.13 AP - 00216583 11/3/2004 DIKECTV 29.99 AP - 00216584 11/3/2004 DR HORTON, INC 73.13 AP - 00216584 11/3/2004 DR HORTON, INC 500.00 AP- 00216584 11/3/2004 DR HORTON, INC 97.50 AP - 00216585 11/3/2004 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 362.95 AP - 00216585 11/3/2004 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 164.16 AP - 00216585 11/3/2004 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 148.87 AP - 00216586 11/3/2004 EFTYCHIOU, AUDREY 150.00 AP - 00216587 11/3/2004 EMPIRE ECONOMICS 8,250.00 AP - 00216588 11/3/2004 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 13,996.00 AP - 00216589 11/3/2004 ESPINO'S COP SHOP INC 259.55 AP - 00216589 11/3/2004 ESPINO'S COP SHOP INC 196.16 AP - 00216590 11/3/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 312.52 AP - 00216590 11/3/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 294.34 AP - 00216590 11/3/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 466.77 AP - 00216590 11/3/2004 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 109.91 AP- 00216591 11/3/2004 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 147.62 AP - 00216592 11/3/2004 EXPERIAN 50.00 AP - 00216593 11/3/2004 FAVELA, RICARDO 295.00 AP - 00216594 11/3/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 12.55 AP - 00216594 11/3/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 17.32 AP - 00216594 11/3/2004 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 12.76 AP - 00216595 11/3/2004 FELIX, ADRIAN 40.00 AP - 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 840.00 AP - 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP- 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 680.00 AP - 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 578.00 AP - 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 892.50 AP - 00216596 1 I/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 840.00 AP - 00216596 11/3/2004 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 868.00 AP - 00216599 11/3/2004 FLIPSIDE CHURCH 136.00 AP- 00216600 11/3/2004 FLUORESCO LIGHTING 737.25 AP- 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 741.53 AP- 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 754.15 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 111.50 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC -106.74 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 887.88 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 33.88 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 27.08 AP - 00216601 11/3/2004 FORD OF UPLAND INC 39.03 AP - 00216602 11/3/2004 FRAZIER, EUGENE 200.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 18 Current Date: 11/09/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216604 11/3/2004 GALLAHER, STEWART 33.61 AP - 00216606 11/3/2004 GIBBYS FENCING MATERIALS 1,745.00 AP - 00216607 11/3/2004 GIRARD, LAURA 32.00 AP- 00216608 11/3/2004 GLENN, WILLIE 285.00 AP - 00216609 11/3/2004 GLOBAL PRESENTER 1,282.23 AP- 00216610 11/3/2004 GOLD'N WEST SURPLUS 554.00 AP - 00216610 11/3/2004 GOLD'N WEST SURPLUS 941.00 AP- 00216612 11/3/2004 GONZALES, CARLOS 100.00 AP- 00216613 11/3/2004 GOTHIC MOON PRODUCTIONS INC. 1,547.29 AP- 00216614 11/3/2004 GRAINGER, WW 250.78 AP- 00216614 11/3/2004 GRAINGER, WW 34.38 AP - 00216615 11/3/2004 GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT 45.72 AP- 00216616 11/3/2004 GUARDIAN 2,742.30 AP- 00216617 11/3/2004 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 1,453.14 AP - 00216617 11/3/2004 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 279.95 AP- 00216617 11/3/2004 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 913.31 AP - 00216617 11/3/2004 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 674.91 AP - 00216618 11/3/2004 HARDY, BRADLEY 260.50 AP - 00216620 1 i/3/2004 HO, CHRIS 700.00 AP - 00216621 11/3/2004 HOIVI~ DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 193.99 AP - 00216621 11/3/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 238.61 AP - 00216621 11/3/2004 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7.23 AP - 00216622 11/3/2004 HORTON INC, D R 5,000.00 AP - 00216623 11/3/2004 HOSE MAN INC 11.17 AP - 00216623 11/3/2004 HOSE MAN INC 45.78 AP - 00216624 11/3/2004 HUNTER, TASHA 32.28 AP- 00216625 11/3/2004 HURST, CHERYL 288.50 AP - 00216626 11/3/2004 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS 346.71 AP - 00216630 11/3/2004 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 179.48 AP - 00216633 11/3/2004 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 196.48 AP - 00216634 ! 1/3/2004 JACKSON, CHRISTOPHER 250.00 AP- 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 12,503.50 AP- 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,723.09 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 5,542.91 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 11,766.39 AP - 00216635 ! 1/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 1,554.69 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 8,504.96 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 3,181.35 AP- 00216635 1t/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 1,929.57 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 4,472.45 AP- 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 2,960.02 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 15,154.41 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 8,662.52 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 2,804.96 AP - 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 1,863.61 AP- 00216635 11/3/2004 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS 12,574.17 AP- 00216636 11/3/2004 JONES, BOB 1,280.00 AP - 00216637 11/3/2004 KUMARI, SHEELA 50.00 AP - 00216638 11/3/2004 LAIDLAW TRANSIT INC 675.69 AP - 00216639 11/3/2004 LASER TECHNOLOGY INC 112.36 AP - 00216640 11/3/2004 LASTING IMPRESSIONS PRINTING CO 892.47 AP - 00216641 11/3/2004 LATTIMORE, MARSHA 67.00 AP - 00216642 11/3/2004 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE COMPANY 75.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 19 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time~ ~ 08:28:2 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216643 11/3/2004 LENZ, FRANK 100.00 AP - 00216646 11/3/2004 LOHRE, KIM 100.00 AP - 00216647 11/3/2004 LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER 163.28 AP- 00216648 11/3/2004 LOS ANGELES TIMES 32.56 AP- 00216649 11/3/2004 LOWER, DARLENE 251.00 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MAR1POSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 482.42 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,379.46 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 370.05 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,237.86 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,696.38 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 517.36 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MAR1POSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,039.00 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,661.42 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,454.31 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTLrRAL ENT INC 1,040.66 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 766.73 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 14,086.77 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 420.45 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,696.38 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 517.36 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,039.00 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT [NC 2,661.42 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,454.31 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,040.66 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 766.73 AP - 00216652 11/3/2004 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 14,086.77 AP - 00216653 11/3/2004 MARK CHRIS INC 36.66 AP - 00216653 11/3/2004 MARK CHRIS INC 25.57 AP - 00216654 11/3/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00216654 11/3/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 45.00 AP - 00216654 11/3/2004 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE 100.00 AP - 00216655 11/3/2004 MCDONALD, CHARISSA 50.00 AP - 00216656 11/3/2004 MCMASTER CARP, SUPPLY COMPANY 117.38 AP- 00216657 11/3/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 483.60 AP - 00216657 11/3/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 420.00 AP - 00216657 1 i/3/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 829.20 AP - 00216657 11/3/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 483.84 AP - 00216657 11/3/2004 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 624.00 AP - 00216658 11/3/2004 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEIvlENT CORP 312.48 AP- 00216658 ' 11/3/2004 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT CORP 312.48 AP - 00216659 . 11/3/2004 MOORE, GLEM R 500.00 AP - 00216661 11/3/2004 MURRAY & ASSOCIATES, BOB 8,919.22 AP - 00216662 11/3/2004 MUSIC THEATRE INTERNATIONAL 2,044.25 AP - 00216662 11/3/2004 MUSIC THEATRE INTERNATIONAL 30.00 AP ~ 00216664 11/3/2004 N M A DUES C/O NAOMI ROBERTS 8.31 AP - 00216667 11/3/2004 NATIONAL DEFERRED 26,407.24 AP- 00216668 11/3/2004 NATIONAL EVENT SERVICES 671.33 AP - 00216669 11/3/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 100.00 AP - 00216669 11/3/2004 NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 150.00 AP- 00216670 11/3/2004 NESTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 33,840.00 AP- 00216671 11/3/2004 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS 83.88 AP - 00216672 11/3/2004 NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES 864.00 AP - 00216673 11/3/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1,074.17 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 20 Current Date: 11/09/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216674 11/3/2004 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 218.00 AP - 00216675 11/3/2004 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 304.08 AP - 00216675 11/3/2004 O C B REPROGRAPHICS INC 45.78 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 10.37 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 34.39 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 58.80 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 14.44 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 2,067.08 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 23.40 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 12.63 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 152.24 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT -12.63 AP- 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 58.21 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 34.59 AP - 00216676 11/3/2004 OFFICE DEPOT 58.24 AP - 00216677 11/3/2004 OMNITRANS 60.00 AP - 00216678 11/3/2004 OMNITRANS 637.00 AP - 00216679 11/3/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 117.89 AP - 00216679 11/3/2004 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 82.86 AP - 00216680 ! 1/3/2004 OWEN ELECTRIC 1,348.96 AP - 00216681 11/3/2004 P A P A 350.00 AP - 00216682 11/3/2004 PACIFIC PLUMBING SPECIALTIES 228.59 AP - 00216683 11/3/2004 PACIFIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 6,465.00 AP - 00216684 11/3/2004 PAIZ, RONALDO 60.00 AP - 00216687 11/3/2004 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 428.23 AP - 00216689 11/3/2004 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 248.77 AP - 00216690 11/3/2004 PITTENGER, CHRISTINA 37.64 AP - 00216691 11/3/2004 PORAC 220.00 AP - 00216692 11/3/2004 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES 1NC 143.01 AP - 00216693 11/3/2004 PRECISION DYNAMICS CORPORATION 160.88 AP - 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC 33,659.66 AP - 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC -3,365.97 AP - 00216695 ! 1/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC 22,162.49 AP - 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC -2,216.25 AP- 00216695 i1/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC 5,508.94 AP- 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC -550.89 AP - 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC 13,548.00 AP- 00216695 11/3/2004 PRIZIO CONSTRUCTION INC -1,354.80 AP - 00216696 11/3/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00216696 11/3/2004 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00 AP - 00216697 11/3/2004 QUICK WRAP BAGS 457.30 AP- 00216698 11/3/2004 QUINTANA, ZITA 193.00 AP- 00216699 11/3/2004 QWEST 8.67 AP - 00216701 11/3/2004 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMEI 2,500.00 AP - 00216703 11/3/2004 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY 272.54 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 87.00 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SI-IOE STORE 96.96 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 141.95 AP- 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 128.21 AP - 00216704 1 I/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 137.37 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 21 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 2/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 141.95 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 145.02 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 137.37 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 149.99 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 123.63 AP- 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00 AP- 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 137.37 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE · 149.99 AP - 00216704 11/3/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00 AP - 00216705 11/3/2004 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50 AP - 00216706 11/3/2004 REYES, PEDRO 170.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 14,192.21 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 5,030.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 3,135.60 AP q 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,973.20 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 408.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 489.60 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 17.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 1,207.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 364.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 17.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 487.00 AP - 00216707 1 i/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 117.60 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 698.54 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 108.80 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 8,986.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 15,766.59 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 282.40 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 300.00 AP - 00216707 11/3/2004 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 289.00 AP - 00216708 11/3/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 2,443.77 AP - 00216708 11/3/2004 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 81.98 AP - 00216709 11/3/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 226.00 · AP - 00216710 11/3/2004 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 250.00 AP - 00216711 11/3/2004 RMA GROUP 7,246.25 AP- 00216711 11/3/2004 RMA GROUP 60.00 AP - 002167 t2 11/3/2004 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 108.00 AP- 00216713 11/3/2004 RUST, DAWN 50.00 AP - 00216714 11/3/2004 S B AND O INC 900.00 AP - 00216714 11/3/2004 S B AND O INC 4,400.00 AP - 00216715 11/3/2004 SAFARILAND LTD INC 348.00 AP - 00216716 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 547.40 AP - 00216717 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTR( 294.00 AP - 00216717 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTR( 294.00 AP - 00216717 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTR( 392.00 AP - 00216718 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PAY1M 213.50 AP - 00216719 11/3/2004 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 5,666.15 AP - 00216720 11/3/2004 SAN DIEGO LEATHER 569.75 AP - 00216721 11/3/2004 SBC 55.32 AP- 00216722 11/3/2004 SCACEO 250.00 AP- 00216723 11/3/2004 SCCCA 30.00 AP- 00216724 11/3/2004 SCOTT, DIANA 250.00 AP - 00216725 11/3/2004 S/IEA INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMEN3 897.40 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 22 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216726 11/3/2004 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 42.84 AP - 00216727 11/3/2004 SHOETERIA 113.13 AP - 00216729 11/3/2004 SIGN SHOP, THE 83.40 AP- 00216729 11/3/2004 SIGN SHOP, THE 103.44 AP - 00216729 11/3/2004 SIGN SHOP, THE 33.89 AP - 00216730 11/3/2004 SIGNET TESTING LABS INC 6,870.50 AP- 00216730 11/3/2004 SIGNET TESTING LABS INC 5,679.50 AP - 00216732 11/3/2004 SIR SPEEDY 22.63 AP- 00216732 11/3/2004 SIR SPEEDY 22.63 AP - 00216733 l 1/3/2004 SMART AND FINAL 85.87 AP - 00216733 11/3/2004 SMART AND FINAL -157.70 AP - 00216733 11/3/2004 SMART AND FINAL 96.23 AP - 00216734 11/3/2004 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 707.39 AP- 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 200.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 400.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,012.50 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,087.50 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 200.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 400.00 AP- 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,012.50 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,087.50 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00 AP - 00216735 11/3/2004 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29,363.90 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 0.82 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.24 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 317.77 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.64 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.90 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.82 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.15 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.82 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.73 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 83.49 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.33 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.84 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.74 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 119.97 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.29 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.65 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.66 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.40 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16,791.10 AP - 00216737 l 1/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 118.17 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 81.94 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 120.94 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 106.74 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 139.50 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 49.00 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 115.82 User: AI-LA_WORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 23 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.79 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.67 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.67 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.73 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.64 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.09 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.01 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 65.29 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 197.34 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.64 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.64 AP - 00216737 1 I/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 488.43 AP - 002I 6737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON i6.64 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 134.49 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 38.50 AP - 00216737 11/3/20~- SOUTI-[ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,364.01 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 186.81 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.07 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 218.90 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.42 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 153.87 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 596.15 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.94 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 125.26 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.07 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.14 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 45.64 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 148.83 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 105.10 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 186.23 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 794.96 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.53 AP- 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 193.89 AP - 00216737 11/3/2004 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 118.07 AP - 00216739 11/3/2004 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 282.89 AP - 00216740 1 i/3/2004 STANDARD PACIFIC 570.00 AP - 00216742 11/3/2004 STERLING COkkEE SERVICE 207.96 AP - 00216742 11/3/2004 STERLING COkkEE SERVICE 113.00 AP - 00216743 11/3/2004 STOFA, JOSEPH 15.00 AP - 00216744 11/3/2004 SUNRISE FORD 406.25 AP - 00216744 11/3/2004 SUNRISE FORD 158.54 AP- 00216746 11/3/2004 T AND D INSTALLATIONS 271.49 AP - 00216748 11/3/2004 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY, O C 420.82 AP- 00216749 11/3/2004 TARGET 105.00 AP- 00216749 11/3/2004 TARGET 60.09 AP- 00216750 1 i/3/2004 TARGET 32.22 AP - 00216751 11/3/2004 TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC, DAVID 3,633.26 AP - 00216751 11/3/2004 TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC, DAVID 6,635.74 AP- 00216754 11/3/2004 TILLMAN, MATT 31.00 AP - 00216755 11/3/2004 TIME WARNER TELECOM 1.40 AP- 00216756 11/3/2004 TOMARK SPORTS INC 391.03 AP - 002t6757 11/3/2004 TOMMY AUSTINS FLORIST 66.g0 AP - 00216758 11/3/2004 ULTIMATE TAE KWON DO 250.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 24 Current Date: 11/09/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216759 11/3/2004 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 210.00 AP - 00216759 11/3/2004 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 190.40 AP - 00216761 11/3/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P, 3,259.79 AP - 00216761 11/3/2004 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR P~ 27,708.25 AP - 00216762 11/3/2004 UNION ENGINEERING COMPANY INC 1,536.00 AP - 00216763 11/3/2004 UNITED TRAFFIC 1,831.21 AP- 00216764 11/3/2004 UNITED WAY 585.32 AP- 00216766 11/3/2004 UPS 24.81 AP- 00216768 11/3/2004 US POSTMASTER 7,500.00 AP- 00216769 11/3/2004 VCC 22.00 AP - 00216770 11/3/2004 VEND U CO 151.67 AP - 00216771 11/3/2004 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS 32.45 AP - 00216772 11/3/2004 VIDEO GUYS, THE 16.21 AP - 00216773 11/3/2004 VIGILANCE, TERRENCE 475.00 AP - 00216774 11/3/2004 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC 500.00 AP - 00216775 11/3/2004 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 7,678.80 AP- 00216776 11/3/2004 VISTA PAINT 578.61 AP - 00216776 11/3/2004 VISTA PAINT 57.86 AP-'00216777 11/3/2004 VOLM, L1ZA 112.50 AP - 00216778 11/3/2004 WARD, DESIREE 452.50 AP - 00216779 11/3/2004 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 176.32 AP - 00216779 11/3/2004 WARREN & CO INC, CARL 659.36 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 618.84 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 476.90 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 75.95 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,043.00 AP- 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 419.88 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,420.75 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 168.20 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 89.81 AP- 00216780 1 i/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 925.88 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 679.54 AP- 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 225.22 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 234.50 AP- 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 239.18 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 350.28 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 350.28 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 163.44 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,000.00 AP- 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 13.25 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAX1E SANITARY SUPPLY 414.63 AP- 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 41.91 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 322.64 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 211.92 AP - 00216780 11/3/2004 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 267.12 AP - 00216781 11/3/2004 WEST VALLEY SENIOR CONCERN 3,000.00 AP- 00216783 11/3/2004 WHITTLER FERTILIZER 431.00 AP- 00216784 11/3/2004 WlLBERTON, DENISE 264.00 AP- 00216785 11/3/2004 WILSON AND BELL 372.98 AP- 00216785 11/3/2004 WILSON AND BELL 760.31 AP- 00216786 11/3/2004 WILSON, DOLSHUNE 48.00 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 2,806.01 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 2,346.00 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 25 Current Date: 11/09/20~ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 5,747.32 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 1,308.24 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 2,852.00 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 2,484.00 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 5,744.49 AP - 00216787 11/3/2004 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 1,526.76 AP - 00216788 11/3/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 1,794.04 AP- 00216788 1 I/3/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP - 00216788 11/3/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 150.53 AP- 00216788 11/3/2004 XEROX CORPORATION 11,338.06 AP - 00216789 11/3/2004 YEE, LARRY 16.00 AP - 00216790 11/3/2004 ZAILO, ROBERT 50.40 AP- 00216791 11/4/2004 ALLEN, SYLVESTER R 79.59 AP - 00216792 11/4/2004 HAKIMI, SUSAN 227.40 AP- 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC 218,958.13 AP - 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC -21,895.46 AP - 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC 317,344.89 AP - 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC 63,828.00 AP - 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC -6,382.80 AP - 00216793 11/4/2004 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC -31,734.49 AP - 00216794 11/4/2004 STEINY AND COMPANY INC 13,586.45 AP - 00216794 11/4/2004 STEINY AND COMPANY INC -6,975.00 AP - 00216795 11/4/2004 TEMECULA MECHANICAL [NC 11,346.26 AP - 00216795 11/4/2004 TEMECULA MECHANICAL INC 8,775.73 AP - 00216795 11/4/2004 TEMECULA MECHANICAL INC -1,134.63 AP - 00216795 11/4/2004 TEMECULA MECHANICAL INC -877.57 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.08 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 182.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 393.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 60.13 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 144.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 152.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 4,287.13 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,282.10 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 129.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMO151GA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 53.23 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 212.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 167.08 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 128.68 AP - 00216799 ! 1/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 241.38 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 523.23 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 125.33 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 39.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 105.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 677.23 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,747.23 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,458.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 715.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,257.33 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 361.08 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,948.48 AP- 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,146.43 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 26 Current Date: 11/09/20C Report:CK_AGENDA REG PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,412.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,280.22 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 71.63 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,042.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 420.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 111.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 342.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 70.48 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,227.43 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,485.34 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,959.37 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,678.88 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 662.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,355.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 766.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 748.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 344.98 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,848.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,082.03 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,279.13 AP - 002 ! 6799 11/4/201M CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 297.03 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 459.18 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 438.48 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,230.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,289.48 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 931.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,767.81 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 72.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,675.43 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,575.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 466.08 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 35.13 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 25.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 27.08 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 16.10 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 36.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 513.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 19.55 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 186.18 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 140.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 143.63 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68.98 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 64.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 130.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 94.63 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 134.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 283.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 256.43 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 987.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 129.13 AP- 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 53.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 390.18 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 59.28 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 27 Current Date: 11/09/20¢ Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date yendor Name Amount AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 107.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 150.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 92.25 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 127.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 53.23 AP- 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 190.88 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 251.03 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 196.89 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 124.18 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 113.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 56.68 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 722.99 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 9,670.13 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 547.72 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 131.11 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,972.74 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,756.43 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 612.93 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 580.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 402.48 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 602.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 36.80 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 714.13 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 200.43 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 119.48 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3,343.73 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.68 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 619.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 761.28 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 427.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 29.38 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,024.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 587.98 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 372.58 AP - 00216799 1 I/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 32.83 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 18.40 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 740.58 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 240.33 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 403.53 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 220.78 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 413.18 AP - 00216799 11/4/2004 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 294.28 AP- 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 167.49 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 20.66 AP- 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 29.36 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 20.81 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 20.66 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 20.87 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 29.46 AP- 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 20.84 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 22.76 AP- 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 29.20 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 28 Current Date: 11/09/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda Check Register 10/26/2004 through 11/8/2004 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount AP- 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 28.22 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 22.24 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 42.07 AP - 00216800 11/4/2004 VERIZON 28.22 Total for Check ID AP: 4,594,555.65 Total for Entity: 4,594,555.65 User: AHAWORTH - Ann Haworth Page: 29 Current Date: 11/09/20G Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 08:28:2 City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31, 2004 Par Market Book % of Days to YI'M Y'I'M Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Local Agency Investment Fund 11,580,174.89 11,580,174.89 11,580,174.89 7.18 1 I 1 ~864 1.890 Certificates of Deposit/Ne[], - Bank 1,515,000.00 1,510,414.55 1,515,000.00 0.94 733 301 2.150 2.180 F~deral Agency Issues - Coupon 127,750,000.00 127,195,452.86 127,689,200.00 79.13 1,492 1,124 3,140 3.184 Treasury Securities - Coupon 5,000,000.00 5,050,000.00 4,985,546.88 3.09 1,070 925 3.184 3.229 Investment Agreements 15,600,000.00 15,600,000.00 15,600,000.00 9.67 1,826 1,815 5.918 6.000 Investments 161,445,174.89 160,936,042.30 161,369,921.77 100.00% 1,397 1,096 3.309 3.355 Cash and Accrued Interest Passbook/Checking 948,362.86 948,362.86 948,362.86 1 I 0.493 0.500 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase 10,614.61 lO,614.81 Subtotal 958,977.67 958,977.67 Total Cash and Investments 162,393,537.75 161,895,019.97 162,328,899.44 1,397 1,096 3.309 3.355 Total Earnings October 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year TO Date Current Year 447,582.54 1,775,903.56 Average Dally Balance 166,285,384.92 173,647,740.05 Effective Rate of Return 3.17% 3.03% I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comfolmify with the investment policy adopted October 6, 2004. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Pmgrarn herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated ex~)enditures. The month-end market values were obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporation pdcing 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 Jar~t, Traa~Xur. e.rJ Portfolio CITY CP Ra mR.~n Date: 11/~9/2004 - 16:21 PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V6.21 Report Var. 5.00 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2004 Local Agency Investment Fund Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank Federal Agency Issues - Coupon CP City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2004 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Treasury Securities - Coupon Portfolio CITY CP City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Paoe 4 Portfolio Details - Cash October 31, 2004 A~mrage Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment · Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts SYS00180 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 948,362,86 948,362.86 948,362.86 0.500 0.493 1 Average Balance 0.00 Accrued Interest at Purchase 10,614.81 10,614.81 1 Subtotal 958,977.67 958,977.67 Total Cash and Investmentss 166~85,384.92 162,393,537.75 161,895,019.97 162,328,899.44 3.309 1,0~ ~ Portfolio CITY ~ cP Run Date: 11/09/2C~4 - 16:21 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRep~ V6.21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Activity By Type October 1, 2004 through October 31, 2004 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment · Issuer Balance Rate Data or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance Local Agency Investment Fund (Monthly Summary) SYS00005 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 1.890 8,800,124.67 18,900,000.00 Subtotal 21,680,~ ~ 8,800,124.67 18,g00,000.00 11,580,174.89 Savlngs/Mlscellanenus Accounts (Monthly Summary) SYS00180 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 0.500 538,698.60 0.00 Subtotal 409,664.26 538,69~.60 0.00 948,362.86 Certificates of DeposiUNeg. - Bank Subtotal 1,515,~)0.00 1,515.000.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331TGV7 1236 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 3.010 10/27/2004 0.00 3,000,000.00 31331TV57 1274 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 4.220 10/07/2004 0.(X) 1,499,531.25 3133X3E25 1248 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 3.320 10/29/2004 0.00 2,0~0,000.00 3128X12K2 1239 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 4.010 10/22/2004 0.00 3,983.125.00 Subtotal 138,171.Aru~ ~ 0.00 10,482,656.25 127,689,200.00 Treasury Securities - Coupon Investment Agreements Portfolio CITY CP R~ ate: 11/09~2004 - 16:21 (PRF_PM3) SymRept PM City of Rancho Cueamonga Summary of Cash and Investments v~th Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended September 30, 2004 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue Pavln¢; Anent Account Name InveStment Dat~ DelR Yield Value Assessment District No 93ol US Bank Imprvmnt Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A* 1.07% $ 257,311.78 Masi Plaza Imprvmnt Fund Cash NIA N/A NIA Reserve Fund First American Trsasury Obligation 814/1997 N/A* 1.07% 242,691.28 Reserve Fund N/A N/A N/A Redemp. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/1997 N/A 1.00% 599.86 Redsmp. Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 500,602.92 PFA RFDG Rev Bonds series US Bank E~pense Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 0.00% $ Cash N/A N/A N/A 1999 A (Sr) & 1999 B (Subord) Sub Resrv, Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/1999 N/A* 1.07% 580,527.50 Cash N/A N/A NIA Sr. Rasrv. Fund First American Trsesury Obligation 7/I/1999 N/A* 1.07% 1,090,591.26 Cash N/A N/A N/A Redemption Fund First American Treasury Obligation 711/1999 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 Amedcan Treasury Obligation 1/16/2001 NIA* 1.07% 55,807.84 Cash N/A N/A N/A $ 11726~926.60 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WtTH FISCAL AGENTS $ 2r227t629,52 * Note: These investments are n'mney market accounts which have no stated maturity date as they may be liguidaisd upon demand. k~nancetCash with Fiscal Agents.xls 11,~/'2004 2:07 PM R A N H © C U C A M O N G A ]~ N G1 N E E 1~1 N G DE P^ ~ TH E N T Staff Report DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer,,~v~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT STPLHSR-5420(011) TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 12343035650-1419234-0 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Construction of Solar Powered Flashing Beacons at Hermosa Avenue and Feron Boulevard, Safe Route To School Program, Federal Aid Project STPLHSR-5420(011), and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In early 2001, applications were requested for grants for construction of school related safety projects under the second cycle of the Safe Route to School (SR2S) Program. Staff submitted an application to install solar powered flashing beacons adjacent to Rancho Cucamonga Middle School in May, 2001 and was notified on December 4, 2001 as having been listed as eligible for funding. Due to construction work adjacent to the project location involving the grade crossing at Hermosa Avenue at 8th Street, design was delayed for completion of that work. Under the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion determination of September 7, 1990, Caltrans issued a categorical exclusion environmental clearance for the project on April 15, 2002. Plans, specifications and required federal funding forms including PS&E Certification, Finance Letter and Data Sheets were submitted to Caltrans in CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD (FEDERAL AID PROJECT STPLHSR-5420(~)11 ) November 17, 2004 Page 2 August 2004 with the Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction. Staffing changes in the Caltrans District 8 Office of Local Assistance delayed approval of the request. While this Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction has not yet been granted, exigencies of funding and construction require City Council approval to advertise at this time. An extension in time has been requested. The project plans and specifications were completed in-house by City staff and are approved by the City Engineer. The Engineer's estimate is $18,700, including a 10% contingency. Legal advertising is scheduled for November 22 and November 29, 2004; a pre-bid meeting is scheduled for November 30, 2004 for DBE purposes and with a bid opening at 2:00 PM on Monday, December 6, 2004, unless extended by Addenda. Res~pec~fully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer W JO: JTH Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution -~ ..--~', MCKINI_,EYST PROPOSED SOLAR POWERED ~" FLASHING BEACON FERON BLVD PROPOSED SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACON -- CRO~OSF:D RESO,UT,ON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420 (011 )" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the construction of "SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420 (011 )". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6, 2004, sealed bids or proposals for the construction of "SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420(011 )" in said City. · A pre-bid meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at 10500 Civic Center Drive. This meeting is to inform DBE's of subcontracting and material supply opportunities. Bidders' attendance at this meeting is a prerequisite for demonstrating reasonable efforts to obtain DBE participation. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. RESOLUTION NO. November 17, 2004 · Page 2 Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420(011 )." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code· Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate Will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or RESOLUTION NO. November 17, 2004 Page 3 C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. 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 hou rs as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which' said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of RESOLUTION NO. November 17, 2004 Page 4 the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the Iow bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done 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. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Con'~ractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, RESOLUTION NO. November 17, 2004 Page 5 Engineering Counter, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non-refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non-reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. Questions regarding this Notice Inviting Bids for the construction of "SOLAR POWERED FLASHING BEACONS AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD, SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, FEDI:RAL AID PROJECT NO. STPLHSR-5420(011 )" may be directed to: JAMES T. HARRIS, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER AND PROJECT MANAGER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750, EXT. 4052 By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 17th day of November, 2004. Publish Dates: November 22 and November 29, 2004 R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPART~IENT Staff Report DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: James T. Harris, Associate Engineer, Project Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER TO INCREASE THE AWARD TO THE STEINY AND COMPANY, INC. CONTRACT (CO 03-078) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00, FOR RECONCILIATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONTRACT PER COUNCIL ACTION AUGUST 6, 2003, AND APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $200,000.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 11243035650/1443124-0 FROM FUND 124 FUND BALANCE RECOMMENDATION Approve a change order to increase the award to the Steiny and Company, Inc. contract (CO 03-078) in an amount not to exceed $200,000.00, for reconciliation of the previously approved contract per Council Action August 6, 2003, and approve the appropriation of $200,000.00 to Account No. 11243035650/1443124-0 from Fund 124 fund balance. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 4, 2003, City Council approved a resolution authorizing the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" and approving plans and specifications for the Construction of Traffic Signal Intemonnect System for Base Line Road from Alta Cuesta to Etiwanda Avenue (Federal Aid Project CML-5420(009)). Bids were solicited, received and opened on July 1, 2003. The contract was awarded to Steiny and Company, Inc. of Baldwin Park, California. The first scheduled working day was December 15, 2003. During the course of construction previously undetermined items came to light causing project costs to exceed the contract award. Items such as the addition of manhole rings for access, additional conduit installation due to unavailable Charter Communications previously available conduit, surface installation of conduits over two drainage channel bridges, installation of additional CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Steiny and Company Appropriation November 17, 2004 Page 2 conduit for City fiber optic system and relocations due to conflicts with underground structures. Respectfully submitted, Willia~m'3. O'Neil City Engineer WJO/JTH/jth Attachments: Vicinity Map BASE L/NE Project ~ Signalized Intemecfion 0 Future Central Park Signal TraffiC Signal Interconnect N~ Svstem for Base Line Road ,-00,--0---0,- I~ A C H O C U C A M O N G A E NCINI~I~I~INC DI~PADT]qI~NT Staff Report DATE: November 17, 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 EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES OF $60,000 FOR STORM RELATED, EMERGENCY RECOVERY EFFORT WORK PERFORMED BY VARIOUS CONTRACTORS (LAIRD CONSTRUCTION, BABCO CONSTRUCTION, A.W. DAVIES CONSTRUCTION, AND JDC) TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 10250015300, APPROVAL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DULY APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES BY ANY COMBINATION OF THE FOUR PRE-ESTABLISHED CONTRACTORS NAMED ABOVE IN A COMBINED AMOUNT UP TO $45,000 FOR FUTURE EMERGENCY WORK AS FUTURE NEEDS ARISE, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 10250015300, AND APPROVAL OF AN APPROPRIATION OF $105,000 TO ACCOUNT NO. 10250015300 FROM FUND 25 (CAPITAL RESERVE) FUND BALANCE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended Council approve emergency expenditures of $60,000 for storm related, emergency recovery effort work performed by various contractors (Laird Construction, Babco Construction, A.W. Davies Construction, and JDC) to be funded from Account No. 10250015300, authorize the city manager or his duly appointed representative to authorize additional contract services by any combination of the four pre-established contractors named above in a combined amount up to $45,000 for future emergency work as future needs arise, to be funded from Account No. 10250015300, and approve an appropriation of $105,000 to Account No. 10250015300 from Fund 25 (Capital Reserve) fund balance. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: During the early rain storms that occurred beginning on October 19, 2004 through October 28, 2004, several locations were heavily impacted. City crews as well as three contractors began the task of clearing roads and protecting homes and property from the mud, rocks and debris flow q? City Council Staff Report - Request for Emergency Funding for October 2004 Storm Clean Up November 17, 2004 Page 2 from the burned hillsides. As a result of previous placement of k-rail, sandbags and straw bales, damaged was limited in hot spots previously identified during the storm preparations occurring since last year's Grand Prix fire. However, all the precautions did not prevent damage to the city's infrastructure; some roads had to be closed for a week but have since been re-opened, and repairs are ongoing at some locations. Etiwanda Creek caused most of the storm damage problems on the east side of the city and the 24th Street Channel west of the Etiwanda Creek crossing caused extensive damage as well. These channels are the only remaining channels that are free flowing, no retention or debris basins are used. The following is a summary of damage sustained and where emergency repairs are ongoing: Location Cost of Estimate of Work Completed Work Yet To Be Done Intersection of Etiwanda and Fourth This intersection was closed for four days because of mud and debris flow. This is the termination of the Etiwanda and 24~ Street channels. No damage was sustained to the infrastructure; however, clean up of this intersection was very labor intensive and Laird Construction assisted city crews on the City of Rancho Cucamonga portion of the roadway. This roadway is shared with Ontario, Fontana, and San Bernardino County Road Department. $1,500 (Est.) $0 Etiwanda Creek crossing at Whittram Ave. This section of roadway was closed for five days due to flooding and debris. No damage was sustained to the infrastructure. Laird Construction assisted city crews in the emergency clean up of the roadway $750 (Est.) $0 Etiwanda Creek crossing at Arrow Rte. This section of roadway was closed for four days due to pavement damage and debris. Emergency clean up of the roadway was done by city crews and Laird Construction completed repairs. Laird imported 1,200 cubic yards (200 truck loads) of material to fill the wash out. Material was imported from the Hillside Basin, owned by San Bernardino County Flood Control. This material was permitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga from San Bernardino County Flood Control at no cost. Repairs are continuing. $34,511.73 $5,000 Etiwanda Creek Crossing at Banyan Ave. This section of roadway was closed for four days and sustained minor infrastructure damage and two 42" Corrugated Metal Pip.es (CMPs) ate impacted with cobble. Laird Construction and Babco Construction provided emergency clean up of roadway. JDC Construction will be clearing the CMPs. Repairs will be completed by city crews. $7,395 (Est.) $7,000 24m Street Drainage crossing west of Etiwanda Creek on Banyan $6,500 (Est.) $0 City Council Staff Report - Request for Emergency Funding for October 2004 Storm Clean Up November 17, 2004 Page 3 ' Location Cost of Estimate of Work Completed Work Yet To Be Done This section of roadway was closed for four days and sustained infrastructure damage to the head wall protecting 33" CMPs. This is a San Bernardino County Flood Control Facility; however, to facilitate the opening of Banyan between East Avenue and Wilson Avenue, Laird Construction did this emergency work and materials were imported from Hillside Basin. Hermosa Avenue at Almond and Sun Valley This location sustained infrastructure damage to the 40" drainage inlet/invert. Laird Construction assisted city crews at the height of rainfall providing emergency labor and equipment for clean up at this location $1,443.25 $0 Barrett Basin North of Almond East of Archibald Substantial damage was incurred due to run off from private property north of the basin whereby city crews removed debris accumulations from private property and into basin. City crews provided emergency labor and equipment for clean up on private property to allow homeowners access. More extensive work is needed at this location to reduce potential damage to basin and properties downstream. $0 $17,000 Almond East of Sapphire This location did not sustain any infrastructure damage; however, A. W. Davies Construction provided emergency clean up. $ 7,500 (Est.) $0 In addition to emergency repairs already completed and on-going at the above locations, the following additional emergency protective measures to city infrastructure need to be done: Import and placement of rip rap material at Arrow and Etiwanda Creek on the northeast bank and the southeast bank. $0 $10,000 The southwest corner of Arrow and Etiwanda Creek infrastructure repair to bank. $0 $1,500 Import and placement of rip rap material to south side of Almond at Gooseneck (Demens Channel) $0 $ 4,500 Total Estimated Costs Incurred to-date for Emergency Clean up by City Contractors: $60,000 , , Total Cost Estimate for Ongoing Clean up and Emergency Repairs: $45,000 Considering the city-recorded eleven inches of rain in the San Sevaine Settling Grounds north of Wilson and west of Wardman Bullock Road, the amount of damage sustained was minimal as a result of preparations taken over the last year. Prior to this storm, Public Works contacted four local contractors (Laid Construction, Babco Construction, A.W. Davies Construction and JDC), who had the manpower, knowledge of the city and resources required to assist crews during and after storms. Three of these contractors City Council Staff Report - Request for Emergency Funding for October 2004 Storm Clean Up November 17, 2004 Page 4 placed loaders at strategic points in the city to provide timely removal of debris from roadways. In addition, all contractors provided labor/equipment rates and emergency contact information so operators could respond quickly to calls for service. By all indications from weather forecasts, this early storm is just the beginning of an exceptionally wet winter and staff will continue storm preparations as needed to minimize road closures and infrastructure damage. It is recommended Council approve emergency expenditures of $60,000 for storm related, emergency recovery effort work performed by various contractors (Laird Construction, Babco Construction, A.W. Davies Construction, and JDC) to be funded from Account No. 10250015300, authorize the city manager or his duly a~ppointed representative to authorize additional contract services by any combination of the four preestablished contractors named above in a combined amount up to $45,000 for future emergency work as future needs arise, to be funded from Account No. 10250015300, and approve an appropriation of $105,000 to Account No. 10250015300 from Fund 25 (Capital Reserve) fund balance. Respectfully submitted, Willia~ J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:GV:JU R A N C H O C U C a M O N G A COMMUNITY SERVICES Staff Rel: rt DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Dire~r(/,, BY: Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent ~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND OPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VEHICULAR PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NEAR HERITAGE COMMUNITY PARK ' RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the installation of a fifty foot long chain link fence to block pedestrian traffic from Arabian Drive to Heritage Park during Little League games and practices. The purpose of the fence is to prevent Little League parking on Arabian Drive and to encourage Little League parents to park in the designated parking lots and streets. BACKGROUND/ANALYSI~ Residents of Arabian Drive have expressed concern to the City during the last two years that Little League parents have been parking on their street during Little League games and creating the following issues: Little League parking in front of residential driveways and mailboxes preventing them access to their house or mail delivery; residents haven't been able to put out their trash the night before due to cars in front of their house; residents with large vehicles or RV's haven't been able to pull out of their driveways at night due to parked cars on both sides of the street; residents haven't been able to park in front of their own houses or allow guests to park in front of their homes; and finally, they report several near misses of children almost being hit by cars when parents are dropping off other children for their Little League games. Staff had originally met with Arabian Drive residents two years ago and reviewed their concerns. Residents also shared pictures depicting somewhere between 50-100 cars parked on both sides of Arabian Drive. It was suggested by the residents that a fence be installed and close off access to Heritage Park from Arabian Drive's cul-de-sac. Since this cul-de-sac accesses the south west side of Heritage Park, the residents had argued that if it is closed off entirely by a fence then little league parking on Arabian CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 17, 2004 Page 2 Drive will cease to exist. Staff mailed out a survey to the residents on Arabian Drive and some on Mustang Road that might be affected by such a closure. Survey results returned with almost a 50/50 split with half in favor of a closure and half against. Those results weren't enough to enable staff to take any action concerning the installation of a fence. However, in an effort to assist the residents, staff met with Alta Loma Little League and reminded them to use only the parking lots within Heritage Park or Hillside and Beryl streets, which have much more room for parking, or the league may risk losing the field closest to Arabian Drive. Little League had cooperated to some extent but their efforts had minimal impact. This year residents on Arabian Drive contacted the Mayor and staff again met with about 15 residents concerning the same issues. Some of the residents said they misunderstood last year's survey and thought that by closing the end of the street to Heritage Park that the equestrian trails would also be closed. In addition, residents said that the problem had not improved and they would like to see a fence installed even if it were at their own cost. Staff explored all other available parking options including restricted parking supported by signage but the residents were opposed to those options because it would restrict them as well. It was suggested that another survey be conducted concerning a possible closure to the access of Heritage Park from Arabian Drive. Some of the residents then proceeded to conduct a door-to-door survey (survey text was pre-approved by staff) to see who was in favor of closing off the street access to the Park. Survey results showed 100% of Arabian Drive residents in favor of the closure while majority of Mustang Road residents (the adjoining street just south of Arabian) were opposed to the closure. Staff received some calls from Mustang Road residents concerned that the little league parking problems might transfer to Mustang Road if the Arabian Drive access is fenced. Due to the complex nature of this issue and the various concerns by both residents of Arabian Drive and Mustang Road, staff invited residents to the August 18th Park and Recreation Commission Meeting to comment on the proposed solutions. Although, residents of Arabian Drive gave their support for staff's recommendations, those who reside on Mustang Road voiced their concerns and did not concur with the recommendations. The Commission then directed staff to further research this issue and return to the Commission for further review. Since that meeting, staff have met with residents of both Arabian Drive (15 residents) and Mustang Road (20 residents) and discussed the issue at greater length. In addition, staff have also met with Bill Mofitt, President of Alta Loma Little League and Doug Morris, Little League District Representative to discuss ways that the league can assist the City in deterring Little League parking on either street (Arabian Drive or Mustang Road). Staff, with the help of the residents of Arabian Drive and Mustang Road, has addressed a number of methods to control the parking issue on Arabian Drive. All residents of both streets concur with the following recommendations and have all signed a signature list stating as much. Those proposed solutions are as follows and were approved by the Park and Recreation Commission on October 19, 2004: CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 17, 2004 Page 3 1. Fence off Arabian Drive with a temporary fence on a trial basis. This would not close off the equestrian trail that leads from Mustang Road and into the park. 2. Include a Iockable gate with the fence (Arabian Drive) so that those Mustang Road residents who are closer to the Arabian Drive inlet can access it with a key. Those few residents would be given a key plus those Arabian Drive residents closest to the gate so that they can make sure it is kept locked if leaving it unlocked becomes an issue. The gate would be locked by City Maintenance staff prior to games and unlocked the following morning. The gate would only be kept locked during games and practices but otherwise be kept open for general access. 3. Staff will personally speak to the Alta Loma Little League Board, the coaches at their coaches meeting and to the parents at the parents' meeting. 4. Staff will require that the Alta Loma Little League or any other youth organization using the park, pass out or mail flyers or letters to every player/parent scheduled to use Heritage Community Park ball fields. These flyers or letters would be distributed which will state that the parents are not to park on Arabian Drive or Mustang Road and that failure to comply will result in a forfeited game (agreed upon by Bill Mofitt). Moreover, continued failure to comply would result in loss of the field the following season. 5. City will install signage at the beginning of the trail (Mustang Road) and on the trail itself reminding Little League and all youth sports groups' users that league parking on Mustang Road is prohibited and may cause them to forfeit the game they are walking to in addition to future use of that field. 6. Alta Loma Little League is supportive of handing out forfeits to teams who have individuals who don't comply. Staff will have to work with AYSO and other groups who request the use of Heritage Park and will require some sort of league incentive to deter parents from parking on Arabian Drive or Mustang Road. 7. Staff is considering moving Deer Canyon Little League's games from Heritage Community Park. Deer Canyon Little League did not use this facility as an effective game site since the development of Day Creek Park. This would hopefully allow Alta Loma Little League to spread out their games a little so that all three fields are not always being used at the same time. 8. Section off some of the Equestrian Facility's dirt parking lot so that it could be used at nights more regularly for additional parking. The Little League is already using this. This dirt lot is unlined and can park up to 60 vehicles (equestrian and Little League) if lined properly and sectioned off for both equestrian weeknight drop-in use and Little League games. Note: this parking lot is almost full on many a Saturday when equestrian events and shows take place. CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 17, 2004 Page 4 9. Provide the Mustang Road residents the City cell-phone number of the park monitors so that if a parking problem arises during the weeknights or weekends then they may contact the park monitor to come out to their street. The park monitor would call the Alta Loma Little League or other youth sports user representative and they would go have the cars removed and assess the team a forfeit (sometime after the game is concluded). Other options discussed included the loss of the field for one night per infraction. 10. To get this started on a positive note, City would assign staff at the entrance to the trail on Mustang Road the first two or three nights. If there becomes a need to do it again, Alta Loma Little League will then be charged for staff time. 11. Once the season is over, staff will then meet with the residents of Arabian Drive and Mustang Road and review whether these recommendations had worked to their satisfaction. 12. If for some reason Alta Loma Little League or any other youth sports group user does not attempt to comply or extreme difficulty is experienced by the City and residents, then City staff will consider not allocating the field closest to Arabian Drive the next season. 13. Staff will then report to the Park and Recreation Commission and review with them whether the measures used were effective and conducive to the two neighborhoods. Staff will also review the issue with City Council. irector Attachments: Map and aerial photo of Heritage Park and effected access trails near Arabian Drive and Mustang Road I:COMMSE RV~Council&Boards\CityCouncil~StaffReport~OO4~Oarking IssuesHedtage ParkArabian D dye. 11.17.04 RANCHO ST Hedtage Park BE E C H'eI,' O OD DR AFFECTED PROPERTIES PRIVATE MAINTAINED TRAIL LPLANNINGj HENDERsoNDIVISION- ~ ~ PUBLIC MAINTAINED (REGIONAL) TRAILSTRAILS COORDINATOR PUBLIC MAINTAINED (COMMUNITY)TRAILS JUNE~4.20r~ h\COMMSERV~PARKS\Park Pics~rabian Drive,doc R A N H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPAR T~IENT Staff DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael TenEyck, Administrative Resources Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER, IN AN AMOUNT OF $838,176, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT, TRAIL LIGHT, AND MEDIAN LIGHTING SYSTEMS FOR DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, & VICTORIA GARDENS LANE, APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE AWARD TO THE POUK & STEINLE CONTRACT (CO 03-127) BY AN AMOUNT OF $838,176, APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $922,000 (INCREASED CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNT OF $838,176 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,824) TO ACCOUNT NO. 17053035650/1382705-0 FROM FUND 705 (MUNICIPAL UTILITY) FUND BALANCE, AND AUTHORIZATION TO REIMBURSE FUND 705 FROM FUND 612 (COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01) AND FUND 614 (COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01) FUND BALANCES FOR ALL CFD RELATED LIGHTING SYSTEMS COSTS, SUCH REIMBURSEMENT TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF ALL WORK AND UPON DEMAND FOR PAYMENT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve a change order, in an amount of $838,176, for the installation of street lighting, trail lighting, and median lighting systems for Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, & Victoria Gardens Lane, approve an increase to the award of the Pouk & Steinle Contract (CO 03-127) by an amount of $838,176, approve an appropriation of $922,000 (increased contract award amount of $838,176 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $83,824) to Account No. 17053035650/1382705-0 from Fund 705 Fund Balance, and authorize reimbursement to Fund 705 from Fund 612 (Community Facilities District 2001-01) and Fund 614 (Community Facilities District 2003-01) fund balances for all CFD related lighting systems costs, such reimbursement to be made following the completion of all work and upon demand for payment. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Increase Award to Pouk & Steinle Contracting November 17, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 19, 2003, City Council approved an award and authorized the execution of a construction contract for the Electric Distribution System Cabling, Connections, and Equipment Project. The installation of street lighting, trail lighting, and median lighting systems for Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, & Victoria Gardens Lane were to be installed under a separate contract by the Community Facilities District (CFD). To allow for the minimization of potential construction and scheduling conflicts between the proposed street lighting, trail lighting, and median lighting systems and the simultaneous construction of the electrical distribution system along the same stretch of roadway, staff negotiated separately with Pouk & Steinle, the contractor for Municipal Utility improvements within Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, & Victoria Gardens Lane to construct the street lighting, trail lighting, and median lighting within Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, & Victoria Gardens Lane as a change order to the Municipal Utility contract. The CFD will reimburse the Municipal Utility for all costs incurred. It is recommended that Council approve a change order, in an amount of $838,176, for the installation of street lighting, trail lighting, and median lighting systems for Day Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, & Victoria Gardens Lane, approve an increase to the award of the Pouk & Steinle Contract (CO 03-127) by an amount of $838,176, approve an appropriation of $922,000 (increased contract award amount of $838,175 plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $83,824) to Account No. 17053035650/1382705-0 from Fund 705 Fund Balance, and authorize reimbursement to Fund 705 from Fund 612 (Community Facilities District 2001-01) and Fund 614 (Community Facilities District 2003-01) fund balances for all CFD related lighting systems costs, such reimbursement to be made following the completion of all work and upon demand for payment. Respectfully submitted, Will~i~m O. 0 Neil City Engineer WJO:MLT R A N C H O C U C A M 0 N G A CITY [VIA N AG E R' S O F FI C E SlaffReport DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jack Lam, City Manager SUBJECT: Elected Officials Attendance Policy --- Supplement to City's Travel and Meeting Expense Policy At the request of the City Council, the attached Elected Officials Attendance Policy provides further guidelines for the City's elected officials and is a supplement to the City's existing City Travel and Meeting Expense Policy. It provides a purpose and scope, attendance policy, and responsibilities for filing expense reports and sharing information learned at the meeting that was attended. It is recommended that the City Council approve this Policy. Cc: Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director Tamara Layne, Finance Officer ELECTED OFFICIALS EVENT ATTENDANCE POLICY (SUPPLEMENT TO CITY'S TRAVEL AND MEETING EXPENSE POLICY) I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE To establish a policy and standard procedure regarding the attendance of elected officials at conferences, conventions, seminars, workshops or meetings that provide a job-related benefit to the City Council and that have been funded by the City. For purposes of this policy, elected official is defined as follows: Mayor, Council members, City Treasurer and City Clerk. The reference to Council members in this policy shall denote the Mayor and Council members. II. ATTENDANCE POLICY 1. Applies only to those functions, events, meetings, etc., for which a budget appropriation has been made. The City's Annual Budget includes appropriations for specific conferences, seminars, and meetings as well as to fund miscellaneous local, state and federal government related meetings, as needed. In the event that there is no budget appropriation, any request for attendance must be approved in advance by a majority of the City Council at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 2. Spouses or others accompanying the attendee to an event must pay for all of their own costs. The City will not reimburse an attendee for these costs and an attendee must not include these costs with the City- paid costs. III. RESPONSIBILITIES A. Fiscal responsibilities 1. Follow the guidelines included in the City's Travel & Meeting Expense Policy, which provide general policies as well as guidelines for expense reimbursements, cash advances, definitions of eligible expenses, etc. 2. In the event an elected official must cancel a previously made reservation paid for by the City, the elected official shall reimburse the City for any unrecoverable related costs incurred, including airfare, lodging, meal, travel costs, conference registration, etc., within 30 days. November 17, 2004 ELECTED OFFICIALS EVENT ATTENDANCE POLICY (SUPPLEMENT TO CITY'S TRAVEL AND MEETING EXPENSE POLICY) B. Event responsibilities 1. Attend scheduled event. 2. Upon return from an event, share with colleagues all information that might be of value to the City through briefing sessions, a written report, or appropriate Council meeting communications. November 17, 2004 2 l~ A N C H O C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SlaffR ort DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION STATING THE CALTRANS EXCESS PROPERTY, LOCATED NORTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN AMETHYST STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, MORE SPECIFICALLY A PUBLIC PARK RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution stating the Caltrans excess property, located north of the 210 Freeway and south of Highland Avenue between Amethyst Street and Archibald Avenue, will be used for public purposes, more specifically a public park. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS For the Route 210 Freeway, Caltrans acquired property for its construction and future maintenance; however, in some areas there remain parcels not needed for construction and maintenance of the freeway. These are considered to be "excess" pamels by Caltrans. The "excess" parcels, located north of the 210 Freeway and south of Highland Avenue between Amethyst Street and Highland Avenue, are desired by the City for a passive public park. In July of 2002, the Council approved a resolution to accept from Caltrans the above- mentioned property. Consequently, Caltrans has offered to sell the property to the City. Negotiations for the property are ongoing. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Re: Caltrans Excess Property November 17, 2004 Page 2 As pad of the acquisition of the property, Caltrans has requested the local agency's City Council pass a resolution stating that the property will be used for public purposes, more specifically a public park. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer W JO:MO:Is Attachments ~,J i ,-,. 'I ..~ · .., ',~.. RIGHT OF ............. MAP .... ; ".. ~ ~1 SECTION a4 - _ .~-- :_ ~. ,./., ,, ~.. :,~ .:r.'~ < ~ .... ~ ~.l '-.. ~-,~,. ~i ~.u-~.-~ ~,~ .-.~.~ .~:, RIOHT OF WAY. ACCESS PROHIBITED i ~ i~ ~' ~ SECTION ~ ~ ~ IMP~R~ 30 ~ /' L~ ~ .,~,, ~ - ~:..~;.. ,.._.~._ . ...... : = A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, THAT THE EXCESS PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FROM CALTRANS, LOCATED NORTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN AMETHYST STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, MORE SPECIFICALLY A PUBLIC PARK WHEREAS, STATE has acquired property for the construction of Route 210; and WHEREAS, STATE holds title to excess property that is not needed for usage and/or operation and maintenance of said Route 210; and WHEREAS, STATE desires to dispose of excess property that is not required for construction or maintenance of Route 210; and WHEREAS, CITY desires those excess parcels lying north of the freeway and south of Highland Avenue between Amethyst Street and Archibald Avenue for construction of a City linear park, and construction of a garden wall separating Route 210 right-of-way and City property; and WHEREAS, CITY intends to use said excess property for public purposes, more specifically a public park; and WHEREAS, CITY agrees to maintain said wall and park. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approve by resolution acceptance from the State of California, property lying north of the freeway and south of Highland Avenue between Amethyst Street and Archibald Avenue, and that said excess property will be used for public purposes, more specifically a public park. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign said Resolution and direct the City Clerk to attest the same. ~ A N C H 0 C U C A M O N G A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S ffReport DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. Ne~l, Cty Engineer BY: Vicki Chilicki, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A COMPLETION OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR BELL COURT DEVELOPMENT I, LLC (APN: 0209-491-86-0000) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving a Completion of Reimbursement Agreement, requested by Bell Court Development I, LLC, authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. BAC KGRO U ND/ANALYSIS The City Council approved Resolution No. 85-328 for a reimbursement agreement requested by the Daon Corporation December 5, 1985. The Agreement recorded December 18, 1985 as Document No. 85- 322765, for the reimbursement of the offsite public improvements installed on Arrow Route as a condition of Parcel Map 6206. Subsequent subdivisions have occurred and as a condition of approval for Parcel Map 10237, the developer paid off the remaining outstanding reimbursement fees. Payment was received March 6, 1990, also the reimbursement agreement was valid for 15 years and has expired. Bell Court Development I, LLC, (owners of APN: 209-491-86-0000) are requesting acknowledgement from the City that the Reimbursement Agreement has been completed. Bell Court Development will officially remove the reimbursement agreement from their current title report. ' Respectfully submitted WflhamjJ. 0 Nell City Engineer WJO:VC:dlw Attachments N CITY OF rr~:~r-,~T¥ ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ ,~,=,v,~r ~o~-~r,~ I~NGII~'k~RING DIVISION gXtiIB1T: _ ' "~" RESOLUT O..O. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COMPLETION OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR BELL COURT DEVELOPMENT I, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California adopted Resolution No. 85-328 on December 5, 1985 accepting a Reimbursement Agreement for the Daon Corporation's installation of off-site public improvements along the Arrow Route south side frontage for Parcel Map 6206. WHEREAS, said Reimbursement Agreement was recorded in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California on December 18, 1985 as Document No. 85-322765; and WHEREAS, the reimbursements for the installation of improvements has been fulfilled and the reimbursement agreement time has expired and is no longer required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby approve the Completion of Reimbursement Agreement, authorize the Mayor to execute same, as requested by Bell Court Development I, LLC, to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. R ^ N C H O C U C ^ M O N G A ENGI~NEERING DE PARTI~ENT SlaffR port DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jon Gillespie, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AND A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BASE LINE ROAD AT THE 1-15 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached 'resolution approving the Preliminary Engineering Cooperative Agreement between the City and the State of California, and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign the agreement, for the improvement of Base Line Road at the I-15 Freeway Interchange. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Traffic congestion regularly occurs dudng the AM and PM peak periods at the Base Line Road and 1-15 Freeway Interchange. New residential and commercial development, including the new Victoria Gardens Shopping Mall, continues to add more and more traffic to this already congested interchange. Traffic projections indicate that this interchange will not operate at an acceptable level of service unless loop ramps are constructed for westbound Base Line Road to southbound 1-15 Freeway and for eastbound Base Line Road to northbound 1-15 Freeway. (The proposed ultimate configuration of this interchange will look very similar to the existing freeway interchange at Foothill Boulevard and the 1-15 Freeway.) ?/ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RESOLUTION AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT November 17, 2004 On July 7, 2004, City staff was notified that we were eligible to receive $800,000 in Federal Interstate Discretionary Maintenance (IMD) Funds for preliminary engineering for the improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange. These funds had been included in the Federal Interstate Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) by US Congressman David Drier, and are earmarked for the improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway. In the City's approved 2004/2005 budget, $800,000 in Transportation Development Fee funds were budgeted for this project. City staff will use Transportation Development Fee funds to pay for this project, and then we will request reimbursement from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The preparation of a Project Report/Environmental Document (PR/ED) is the second step that needs to be completed. The first step was the preparation of a Project Study Report/Preliminary Design Study (PRS/PDS). The PSR/PDS was approved by Caltrans on February 13, 2002. It is anticipated that it will require 24 months to complete the PR/ED. The PR/ED must be completed before we can begin design. Design will require at least 2 years to complete. Therefore, City staff estimates the start of construction to be in July of 2008. The approval of a resolution, and the execution of a Preliminary Engineering Cooperative Agreement with the State of Califomia is necessary for the City to receive reimbursement from the FHWA. The Preliminary Engineering Cooperative agreement has been reviewed by and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Respectfully submitted, ~ William hi. O Neil City En~neer W JO:JAG: Attachments: Vicinity Map Resolution Agreement ..., CITY OF RANCHO (jU(JAML~IN~ AVE. ¢~j~_~lO) HIGN%,AN§ AVr. II II ~ ~ l] v~ il II Vicinity Map' 73 RESOLUTION NO. ~)/~/- 3 ~ / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DESIGN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its consideration a Preliminary Engineering Cooperative Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California for the improvement of Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is eligible to receive Federal funding for certain transportation projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, a Preliminary Design Cooperative Agreement needs to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to delegate authorization to execute this agreement and any amendments thereto to the Mayor. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby resolves that said Preliminary Engineering Cooperative Agreement be hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Preliminary Engineering Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. ?¢ 1' H E C I T Y 0 F I~AN CH 0 C U C A H 0 N GA Staff Reporl: DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECK SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve amending Plan Check Consultant contract of Architerra Design Group to increase the hourly rate for fee supported plan check, due to cost of living expenses, and authorize the Mayor to sign the Resolution approving same. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Plan Check Consultant Architerra Design Group is requesting amending their existing contract to increase the hourly rate due to cost of living expenses. This contract has been in place for six years with only one change to their hourly rate. The cost of living increase affects the hourly rate only. The cost of plan checking will not be increased. This adjustment applies to special projects and work over and above the usual plan check costs. The contracted per sheet 'not to exceed' plan check amount will not increase. Contract 98-021 for Architerra Design Group is required to modify their existing contract in writing if a change is desired. This written request is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and incorporated herein by this reference. 75 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECK SERVICES November 17, 2004 Page 2 The following is the requested amendment: Architerra Design Group contract hourly rates will change from: Current New Principal $100.00 $125.00 hourly Sr. Project Manager $75.00 $95.00 hourly Project Manager $65.00 $85.00 hourly City Design Technician (new position category) $75.00 hourly CAD Operator $55.00 $55.00 hourly Clerical $35.00 $35.00 hourly The new hourly rates will go into effect January 1, 2005. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SH:tch Attachments September 21, 2004 5~!i~ ~:' ': ~00/~ Mr. Dan James City of Rancho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Architerra Design Group - Contract 98-021 Dear Mr. James: / A N D $ G A P E Our original contact with the City for plan check services was established ARGHITEGTURE May 6,1998. During the first four years of our association with the City we SITE PLA[',IN~NG kept the initial contracted rates. On February 20, 2002, this contract was renewed and at that time we did request a slight increase. On September 13, 2004 we received an E-mail from Shelley Hayes asking if we would be willing to continue providing services at the hourly rates, terms, and conditions established in our existing agreement. We did agree to keep these rates through fiscal year 2004. During the past two years it has been necessary for Architerra to increase our rates on two separate occasions. For fiscal year 2005 we are asking that the City please renew our contract at our new rates. They are as follows: Plan Checking Charges Landscape Plans $240/sheet Regular Rate Landscape Plans $360/sheet Rush Rate Hourly Rates Principal $125 hourly Sr. Project Manager $ 95 hourly Project Manager $ 85 hourly f~i~ ,~ loan T c ' i n hot~rty CAD Operator $ 65 hourly Clerical $ 35 hourly Architerra is aware of the need for the City to maintain a tight grip on its budget, but as stated by the City Attorney, we have maintained our rates significantly below the average market rate for a significant period of time. Please be advised that we do wish to continue our working relationship with 10221-A the City, and I do hope that you will consider this request for fiscal year 2005. Trademark Street Rancho Cucarnon§a CA 91730 ~oncerns, please call. (909) 484-2800 Fax /909) 484-2802 Richard W Krurnwiede AZ Lic. #29115 NV Lic. #446 77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKING SERVICES WHEREAS, Architerra Design Group, contract 98-021 was approved by City Council; and WHEREAS, Architerra Design Group has requested approval of amendment to their contract to increase the hourly rate, starting January 1, 2005, for fee supported plan check, due to cost of living expenses; and WHEREAS, said request is hereby approved and by this resolution the contract is hereby amended as follows: Contract 98-021 with Architerra Design Group new hourly rates effective January 1, 2005, are Principal $125.00 hourly, Sr. Project Mgr. $95.00 hourly, Project Mgr.$85.00 hourly, City Design Technician $75.00 hourly, CAD Operator $65.00 hourly, and Clerical $35.00 hourly. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that the contract is hereby amended to increase the hourly rate for fee supported plan check, due to cost of living expenses, and the Mayor is authorized to sign this resolution. THE CITY OF i~ANC H 0 C U CAH ON C.A Staff Report DATE: November 17, 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 SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AWARD DESIGNATED CONTRACTS TO THE SPECIFIED SUB- CONTRACTORS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CULTURAL CENTER PROJECT, TOTALING $1,297,295 AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A 5% CONTINGENCY FOR EACH CONTRACT TOTALING $64,865, TO BE FUNDED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: RDA 2004 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS ACCOUNT NO. 2660801-5650/1357660-6314 ($635,026); STATE LIBRARY GRANT FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 1310602-5650/1357310-6314 ($396,324); COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 1205301-5650/1357205-6314 ($6,486); AND FOREST CITY PARTICIPATION FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 1615303-5650/1357615-6314 ($324,324); AND AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF $635,026 INTO RDA ACCOUNT NO. 2660801-5650/1357660-6314 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize the execution of contracts totaling $1,297,295 to the listed sub-contractors, and authorize the expenditure of a 5% contingency in the amount of $64,865, to be funded from the accounts listed above, and authorize the appropriation of $635,026 into Account No. 2660801-5650/1357660-6314, for the construction of the Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Center Project. All other funds for the project have been previously appropriated. BID A WARD CULTURAL CENTER SUB-CONTRACTORS November 3, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On October 5, 2004, 11 bid packages (Priority 3 bids) were received and opened for the Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Center Project. 5 of the 11 bid packages were awarded at the City Council meeting on November 3, and the balance of the bid packages were rejected to be re-evaluated for value engineering cost savings. After carefully analyzing the bids received for Painting/Wall Coverings and the Sound, Video and Communications Systems, it was determined that there would most likely be no cost savings to the City by re-bidding these items. Due to the costs associated with advertising and re-printing of plans for the bid process, along with the likelihood of increasing construction costs in the near future, staff and the Construction Management Team all feel that it is a more cost effective solution to award these two packages at this time. Based on this analysis, staff is recommending the following actions: BID PACKAGE TO BE AWARD~B 9-5 Paintinq and Wall Coverinqs - Award to Shapiro Ben Basat in the amount of $907,604. BID PACKAGE TO BE PARTIALLY AWARDFn 11-1 Bid Item 11135 Sound/Video/Communications Systems -Award to SECOA in the amount of $389,691. The Construction Manager's estimate for these items was $980,598. Funds for construction of the project are from a variety of sources including a state library grant, financial participation by the mall developer, Forest City, and RDA funds generated through the sale of Tax Allocation bonds, as well as City and County Community Development Block Grant Funds. No City General Funds will be used for construction of the Cultural Center. Community Services Director R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E N O I N E E R I N G D E P A R TM E N T Staff Report DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ,Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mark Brawthen, Contract Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DRC2001-00572, LOCATED AT 9649 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL, EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY MCDONALD'S CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR02001-00572, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIR DRC2001-00572, located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard on the south side of Foothill, east of Archibald Avenue, in the Specialty Commercial (Subarea 3) Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2002 for the demolition and rebuilding of a fast food restaurant. The Developer, McDonald's Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $33,000.00 Labor and Material Bond $16,500.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRC2001-00572 - MCDONALD'S CORPORATION November 17, 2004 Page 2 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. Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION Williat~/J. O'Neil ' City Engineer WJO:MB:tch Attachments I VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE -- ' I ~ ~ ' ........ ~ _ . ~ i Arrow Rte City of Item: DRC2001-00572 Rancho Cucamonga Title: VICINITY ~AP ENGINEERING EXHIBIT: 1 DIVISION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DRC2001-00572 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by McDonald's Corporation as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 9649 Foothill Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as DRC 2001-00572; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Secudty is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DRC2001-00572 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 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 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 DRC2001-00572 - McDonald's Corporation November 17, 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 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: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION The legal description of the Property is: THE WEST 185 OF THE EAST 500 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE NORTH ~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PLAT THEREOF, AND AS RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 9, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE, OF THE PORTION DEEDED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN A DEED RECORDED MAY 2, 1930 IN BOOK 611, PAGE 233, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 10 FEET. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE WEST 165 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE EAST 660 FEET OF THE NORTH ~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP I SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 27, 1998, INSTRUMENT NO. 19980203514, OFFICIAL RECORDS. The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. EXHIBIT "A" ASsessMeNT mACe~,v~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 313 STREET LIGHTINO MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 6 _ · I I o~'" FOOTHILL. B~(~ 66) { J~ ~8' ~cuRB ~NE EASEMENT LINE I ' ~' N~ ~/4 S~O 'T~S RYW ~BM /~AP DF CUcA~ON~A LANDS _ 185' LEGEND · ~}~o~ L HP3~ A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NORTil COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ?~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DRC~OOI"OO~q' Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTR/AL): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (LMD #3B) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those pamels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments, the landscaping within the Metrolink Station and 22.87 acres associated with the Adult Sports Park (not including the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building). STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 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. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. This sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2004~2005) For Project: DRC2001-00572 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLMD # I --- SLMD # 6 ...... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # 3B --- *Existing items installed with original project (DRC2001-00572) Assessment Units by District Parcel Acres SLMD1 SLMD6 LMD3B N/A 1.10 2.20 1.10 1.10 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2004~2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $352.80 for the fiscal year 2004/05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial/Ind ustrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment ' Land Use Unit Type Uni'ts Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Comm/Ind Acre 2186.85 1.0 2186.85 $352.80 $771,520.68 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRC2001-00572) is: 1.10 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $352.80 Rate PerA.U. = $388.08 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 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 (DRC2001-00572) is: 1.10 Acres x 2 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate PerA. U. = $39.09 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $51.40 for the Fiscal Year 2004~05. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial): # of # of Rate Per Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Comrn/Ind Acre 2,065.67 1.00 2,090.72 $51.40 $107,463.01 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (DRC2001-00572) is: 1.10 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $51.40 Rate PerA.U. = $56.54 Annual Assessment R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E N G I N E E F~ I N G D E P A I~ T M E N T DATE: November 17,2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mark Brawthen, Contract Engineer SUBJECT': APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 16038, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF KLUSMAN AVENUE NORTH OF DIAMOND AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY KLUSMAN LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 16038, accepting the subject agreement and security, 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 Engineer to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tentative Parcel Map 16038, located on the west side of Klusman Avenue north of Diamond Avenue in the Low Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 2003 for the division of 0.83 acres into 4 parcels. The Developer, Klusman LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $25,500.00 Labor and Material Bond $12,750.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PM 16038 - KLUSMAN LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION November 17,2004 Page 2 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. Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION William ~. O Neil City Engineer WJO:MB:tch Attachments Vicinity Map City of Rancho Cucamonga Item: Parcel Map No. 16038 Title: Vicinity Map EXHIBIT: 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 16038, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map, submitted by, Klusman LLC, and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the west side of Klusman Avenue north of Diamond Avenue being division of 0.83 acres of land was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on November 23, 2003, and is in compliance witht the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map 16038 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 entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Klusman, LLC, as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon and the easements dedicated thereon for storm drain, sidewalk, street tree and landscape purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and 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 Parcel Map No. 16038 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION ~) ~'7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 FOR PARCEL MAP 16038 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 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (referred to collectively as the amtenance D~stncts ); 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 PARCEL MAP - Klusman LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation November 17,2004 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 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 assessmer~ts 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: KLUSMAN LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION The legal description of the Property is: Real property in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: THAT PROTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3, TRACT NO. 2051, AS PER MAP RECORDED 1N BOOK 22, PAGE 36 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDED OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, DISTANT NORTH 89° 44' EAST, 473.2 FEET FROM THE NORTItV~EST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 89° 44' EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 3 AND 2, 364.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 29' WEST, ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE LINE DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN THE DEED FROM LOUIS J. CABLE, ET UX., TO JOHN C.PRICE, ET UX, RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1953 IN BOOK 3263 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE(S) 597; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID LINE 421.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 44' WEST 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESS1ViENT DI~G~ LANDSCAPE MAIIVTENA~ICE DIST~JCT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 2 IZ095.26 sq. fl, 0.278 7949.10 DIAMOND A~NUE CIT~ OF ~NCHO CUCA~0~A NOaTI~ county " Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 200412005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I (GENERAL CITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (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 tr~es, 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. 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. Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2004/2005) For Project: PM 16038 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD # 1 ...... SLD # 2 2 ...... Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA LMD # I --. *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel DU or Acres S 1 S 2 L 1 1 0.182 1 1 1 2 0.185 1 1 1 3 0.181 1 1 1 4 0.278 1 1 1 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2004/2005 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (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 Family Parcel 757 1.0 7951 $92.21 $733,161.71 Multi-Family Units 7091 0.5 3570 $92.21 $329,189.70 Comm/Ind. Acre 2 1.0 2 $92.21 $184.42 TOTAL $1,062,535.83 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 16038) is: Parcel 1: 0.182 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $92.2 IRate Per A.U. = $16.78 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:0.185 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $17.06 Annual Assessment Parcel 3:0.181 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $16.69 Annual Assessment Parcel 4:0.278 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $25.63 Annual Assessment C-1 PM 16038 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 FamiJy Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27 MuJti-Family Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80 Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99 TOTAL $612,207.06 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 16038) is: Parcel 1:0.182 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.771Rate Per A.U. = $3.23 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:0.185 Acres x ! A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $3.29 Annual Assessment Parcel 3:0.181 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $3.22 Annual Assessment Parcel 4:0.278 Acres x I A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $4.94 Annual Assessment C-2 P 6038 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 Family Parcel 6050 1.00 6050 $39.97 $241,818.50 Multi Family Unit 24 1.00 919 $39.97 $36,732.43 Commercial Acre 19.05 2.00 19.05 $39.97 $1,522.86 Total $280,073.79 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (PM 16038) is: Parcel 1:0.182 Acres x I A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.D. = $7.27 Annual Assessment Parcel 2:0.185 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $7.39 Annual Assessment Parcel 3:0.181 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. -- $7.23 Annual Assessment Parcel 4:0.278 Acres x 1 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. -- $11.11 Annual Assessment T H E C I T Y O F I~ANCfl 0 C U CAH 0 N C,A Staff Report DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Mombers of tho Ci~ Council Jack kam, AIC~, Gi~ Manager ~: William J. O'~eil, Gi~ [n~ineer BY: Jori A. Gillespie, Traffic Engineer SU~E~: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DMJM+HARRIS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE BASE LINE ROAD AT 1-15 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $513,887 AND AUTHORI~TION OF 10% CONTINGENCY TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 11243035650/1361124-0. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve, award and execute the Professional Services Agreement with DMJM+HARRIS, INC. to provide Project Report and Environmental Document for improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange in the amount of $513,887 and authorization of 10% contingency to be funded from Account No. 11243035650/1361124-0. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Traffic congestion regularly occurs during the AM and PM peak periods at the Base Line Road and 1-15 Freeway Interchange. New residential and commercial development, including the new Victoria Gardens Shopping Mall, continues to add more and more traffic to this already congested interchange. Traffic projections indicate that this interchange will not operate at an acceptable level of service unless loop ramps are constructed for westbound Base Line Road to southbound 1-15 Freeway and for eastbound Base Line Road to northbound 1-15 Freeway. (The proposed ultimate configuration of this interchange will look very similar to the existing freeway interchange at Foothill Boulevard and the 1-15 Freeway.) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DMJM+HARRIS, INC. November 17, 2004 Page 2 On July 7, 2004, City staff was notified that we were eligible to receive $800,000 in Federal Interstate Discretionary Maintenance (IMD) Funds for preliminary engineering for the improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange. These funds had been included in the Federal Interstate Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) by US Congressman David Drier, and are earmarked for the improvement of the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway. In the City's approved 2004/2005 budget, $800,000 in Transportation Development Fee funds were budgeted for this project. City staff will use Transportation Development Fee funds from Account No. 11243035650/1361124-0 to pay for this project, and then we will request reimbursement from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The preparation of a Project ReportJEnvironmental Document (PR/ED) is the second step that needs to be completed. The first step was the preparation of a Project Study ReportJPreliminary Design Study (PRS/PDS). The PSR/PDS was approved by Caltrans on February 13, 2002. It is anticipated that it will require 24 months to complete the PR/ED. The PR/ED must be completed before we can begin design. Design will require at least 2 years to complete. Therefore, City staff estimates the start of construction to be in July of 2008. On August 2, 2004, City staff advertised for proposals for this project per FHWA requirements. Proposals were received from three (3) consultants. A Consultant Selection Committee reviewed the proposals, and recommended DMJM+Harris, Inc. as the most qualified and responsible firm. The Professional Services Agreement has been reviewed by and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Respectfully Submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachment: Vicinity Map CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA H[I~HLAND AVF-- ""' "'--' (SR3D~ HIJ~,ILANII Arr.. 'nASE P_ZN~: RI]AD Il ~ Zl~ AVl: ~ ~ = Location Vicinity Map R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A E N O I N E E R t N O D E PA R TM E N T SlaffReport DATE: September 15, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 16071, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF UTICA AVENUE, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, SUBMITTED BY UTICA, LLC RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Parcel Map 16071 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: As a condition of approval of completion of Parcel Map 16071, located on the west side of Utica Avenue, south of Arrow Route, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the existing FaithfuJ Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond. Developer: Utica, LLC Release: Faithful Performance Bond: No. 2123307 $11,900.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond: No. 2123307-M $1,190.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PM 16071 - November 17, 2004 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil Ci~Engineer t /" W~:WV tch ^ttachmonts lip · P'OOTH I. !,.I,: ~l,,VO j d~l~Y I 0 PWY V IG'INI 'rY MAP RANCHO CUCAMONGA gN*~a DIV'I6/O~ RX]~I~I'~': :/ /// 0 ¥' $ ¥ 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 16071 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Parcel Map 16071 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. 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 llZ. Staff Report DALE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. CD7736 IN THE AMOUNT OF $487,239.00, FOR THE BERYL PARK RENOVATION PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 02-041 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance Bond No. CD7736 in the amount of $487,239.00 for the Beryl Park Renovation Project, Contract No. 02-041. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the park improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Contractor: Thomsen Landscape P.O. Box 371087 Reseda, CA 91337-1087 Re~spectfully submitted , Illi~ J. O Nell ' City Engineer WJO:KME/RO:Is Attachments //3 THE CITY OF ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA DALE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ,Jack Lam, ^IGP, City Manager FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site; establish a Master Plan Oveday District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay Distdct Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly consistent with the land use designation change, on properly generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. RECOMMENDATION: Denial as unanimously recommended by the Planning 'Commission on November 17, 2004. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendments are supported when it is determined that they are consistent with other goals within the current General Plan and when there is new information that was not known during the last revision (2001) that justifies the requested amendment. In June, at the applicant's request, the City Council held a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss the Haven Avenue Overlay District and the possibility of housing adjacent to, but outside, the overlay district. The majority of the City Council expressed openness to considering a change of land use for the pot'[ion of the property requested by ~he applicant. There was a unanimous position of the City Council and the Planning Commission that any project proposed should be upscale. There was also strong support for retaining the use and character of the Haven Avenue Overlay District. The joint workshop concluded that the City should have an open mind to the applicant's proposal. //5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEVVIS INVESTMENT C~)MPANY November 17, 2004 Page 2 If residential uses are to be considered for this project site, the type and intensity of residential is important to both the existing and future surrounding uses. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on September 19, 2004, and those present, were concerned with any change that would negatively effect their current home values and their opportunity to review any new proposal. There was also a request that some affordable housing be included with the project. No affordable housing is being considered at this time. A detailed background and analysis is provided in the attached copy of the Planning Commission, Staff Report, Minutes, and Resolutions dated October 27, 2004. In summary, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested land use amendments based on the following: 1. The applicant's justification based on market demand for single-family residential versus industrial office was insufficient and contradicted by other market data. 2. The General Plan was intended to be a long-range policy document, and to achieve the overall development vision, the requested amendment would weaken future jobs/housing balance and thereby not support the goals of the City. 3. The Amendment would build in a future land use incompatibility factor of single-family residential adjacent to Office (Overlay) Industrial Park. Adequate buffering of incompatible land uses would place an undue hardship on effective land use development. 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 an extended notification area beyond the standard 300-foot radius of the project site. One letter of opposition to the proposal was received on November 9, 2004. CONCLUSION: Based on the discussions that took place during the joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop, staff is prepared to follow the possible change in land use policy direction accordingly. Therefore, in addition to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has included for City Council consideration a resolution and ordinance for the approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment. C~ty Planner BB:LH\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 27, 2004 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes from October 27, 2004 Exhibit"C"-Written materials submitted by Planning Commissioners Stewart and Fletcher from the October 27, 2004 meeting. Exhibit "D" - Letter of opposition dated November 8, 2004 Draft City Council Resolution of Denial for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 Draft City Council Resolution of Approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 Draft City Council Resolution of Denial for Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273 Draft City Council Ordinance Approving Development District Amendn~nt DRC2004-00273 THE CITY OF I~ANCHO C[ICAMONGA Staff Report DATE: October 27, 2004 T~. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROIVt Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Lawrence J. Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site; establish a Master Plan Overlay District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly consistent with the land use designation change, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: The proposal would allow for Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unit per acre) for approximately 20.55 acres. There is no development application or master plan proposed at this time. B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: North - Apartments; Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) South - Single-family residences; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Vacant land; Industrial Park and Haven Office Overlay District West Single-family detached homes; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) l t"l PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 2 C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Industrial Park; Haven Avenue Office Overlay District over the easterly half. North Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Industrial Park West Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and was previously used as the"'"La Mancha" Golf Course, which was abandoned over two decades ago (Exhibit "A"). The property is a relatively flat site with many trees in a state of decline. ANALYSIS: A. General: General Plan Amendments are supported when it is determined that they are consistent with other goals within the current General Plan and when there is new information that was not known during the last revision that justifies the requested amendment. In June, at the applicant's request, the City Council held a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss the Haven Avenue Overlay District and the possibility of housing adjacent to, but outside, the overlay district. The majority of the City Council expressed an openness to housing as requested by the applicant. There was a unanimous position of the City Council and the Planning Commission that any project proposed should be upscale. There was also strong support for retaining the use and character of the Haven Overlay District. The joint workshop concluded that the City should have an open mind to the applicant's proposal. In light of the comments from the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2004, the applicant has prepared documents justifying the proposed change. The Justification for a Zone Change outlines changes in the current real estate market place (Exhibit"B"). The Fiscal Impact Analysis demonstrates a positive revenue projection for residential over office use (Exhibit "C"). Staff has reviewed the reports and agrees with the applicant that changes have and will continue to occur that would cause us to consider a mix of uses on this property. This property is one of the last large, single ownership parcels of its kind in the heart of the City's industrial area. It has always been designated with a Master Plan requirement. Building the block as a Master Plan is critical. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a Master Plan requirement should always remain with the property even if a change of use is considered. In changing land uses from Industrial/Commercial Office to Residential, a critical goal is the desired jobs-housing balance that we envision for our City. A truly balanced goal would be to have an equal number of jobs available for the number of workers that reside in the City. Our current projection under the existing General Plan is about .7 jobs per person. The City's first General Plan envisioned a .8 jobs per person goal. This reduction is the result of land use changes over the last 15 years that changed approximately 542 acres of Industrial/Commercia~ land to residential. This is an average of 36 acres of land per year. It is estimated that on average, 13 jobs are created per acre of Industrial/Commercial land Citywide. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 3 Cumulative impact in the conversion of Industrial Park/Office to Residential is a concern from a loss of jobs. As the City moves to build-out in approximately 2008, each land use request must be carefully considered. In addition to the jobs-housing balance, and the change of land use from Industrial to Residential, there are several concerns, most notably, land use compatibility with neighboring uses of both an existing and planned nature and possible impacts to municipal and school district services of both a project and cumulative nature. The applicant has submitted a project justification statement referenced earlier that states the lard use change is warranted from a land real estate market analysis standpoint (Exhibit "B"). In summary, the applicant's information indicates a strong demand for residential and a Iow demand for Industrial Park, especially Office. If residential uses are to be considered for this project site, the type and intensity of residential is important to both the existing and future surrounding uses. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on September 19, 2004, and those present were concerned with any change that would negatively effect their current home values and that they would have a chance to review any new proposal. There was also a request that some affordable housing be included with the project. No affordable housing is being considered at this time. In response to concerns to increased service demands in comparison to new development revenue for Residential versus Industrial Park and Office, the applicant prepared a Fiscal impact Analysis dated September 7, 2004 (Exhibit "C"). This report indicates there will still be a positive outcome of revenue to service costs for the proposed project. The residential amendment request is reasonably compatible with the existing residential uses and designations to the west, north, and south. The concern regarding land use compatibility is primarily related to the remaining 17.23 acres of Industrial Park, Haven Boulevard Office Overlay area to the east of the subject amendment area. If approved, the amendment would place future single-family residential use immediately adjacent to the Haven Boulevard Office Overlay zone, which is not currently experienced anywhere else along this major thoroughfare. The primary incompatible factor would be the loss of privacy for the future residential use adjacent to future multi-story office development. The requirement for a Master Plan overlay as part of the amendment will allow the City to place controls on both the residential project and the office project to address issues of buffering techniques such as building setbacks, height, and landscape setbacks and access issues between the two projects. Because it is typically not a good land use transition to go from a high-rise office zone to a single-family detached housing zone, buffering techniques through the master plan review will be critical. Applicable General Plan policies, which may have a bearing on the requested amendment, are provided as follows: 2.6.1.5.4 Development design should capitalize on clustering techniques to facilitate efficient use of land and provide for open space and other neighborhood amenities. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 4 Discussion: We particularly seek this approach for residential uses in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density categories, although it can apply to any land use, including commercial, office, industrial, and civic uses. Our extensive use of master planning and specific planning techniques has resulted in excellent examples of this approach. We want to see more of that approach used wherever the size and configuration of development projects will allow. 2.6.1.5.5 Development for properties of sufficient size should be designed through some form of master planning device. Discussion: Some of our best developments have used community plan, specific plan, or some other form of master planning to create a coherent and livable environment. We support that approach wherever it can be applied. Our General Plan and zoning maps designate such areas, but others may be subsequently added for application of this approach as well. 6.4.1.6 The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, extending south to 4th Street, should form the central business hub of the City with higher intensity office, commercial, and public/quasi-public uses. Discussion: This intersection and corridor have long been identified as the central business spine at build-out within our community. Business sites fronting onto Haven Avenue are reserved for multiple story office and other commercial business uses pursuant to an overlay district established in connection with our extensive Industrial Area Specific Plan. This General Plan further provides policy direction for a 3f-acre mixed-use development at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. This intersection is now comprised of a strong and vibrant mix of public service, commercial, and historic uses at three of the four corners. Future development at the remaining comer will anchor the Haven Avenue office corridor, as well as strengthen the role of this intersection as a "town center" complex with complementary community-oriented uses. 7.2 Economic Development Issues. Issue: How does the City maintain a strong and diversified industrial/business park economy? Discussion: The industrial/business park pattern for the City is already well established and should be maintained to provide economic balance and diversification. There are a number of Iocational attributes including rail service, freeway access, and a good network of arterial roads. Also, the opening of the 1-210 Freeway in the near future will further enhance the Iocational desirability of the City. The long-term capital budgeting program needs to maintain the existing public facilities and ' expand the system as appropriate. Issue: How does the City continue to maintain a fiscally healthy City in order to continue to provide a high quality of public services? Discussion: A hallmark of Rancho Cucamonga has been the high quality of public services that are provided which attract both residents and businesses. Land uses that are proposed to become part of the General Plan need to be evaluated as to their ability to continue to generate sufficient public PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 5 revenues to offset future public costs and provide for adequate reserves. The General Plan fiscal model needs to be applied and updated on a regular basis. 7.4.11 Enhance Haven Avenue Overlay District. Discussion: Currently, the City has an oveday zone along Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. The issue is whether the over/ay, which regulates the height of office buildings in the district, should be retained. That is, will the. demand for h/gher density office space over the General Plan build-out period make this the highest' and best use? The growth of the business sector in Rancho Cucamonga and the expansion of the Ontario Airport will continue to influence this demand. Will the demand be strong enough to retain the overlay or should lower density business park and R&D uses be allowed with an eventual recycling of those land uses when the office demand becomes stronger? The City should continue to maintain this overlay district to encourage higher density office development, but also evaluate development proposals on a case-by-case basis as the office market evolves in Inland Empire. 7,4.18 Maintain a Strong and Diversified Industrial Economy. Discussion: The Industrial belt along the southern edge of the City should be protected from intrusions of other uses that would weaken the competitive value of this area for industrial uses. It is well served by rail, arterial highway, and freeway access. The employment and revenue value of the industrial sector to the City, including strong non-retail taxable sales, is too great to let it erode away through piecemeal conversions to other uses. In selected cases, there may be compelling reasons to shift from traditional industrial uses, such as those adjacent to the Ontario Mills along 4th Street and along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. The industrial/business park pattern for this area is already well established and should be maintained to provide economic balance, labor force, income, and taxable sales benefits. B. Joint City Council / Planninq Commission Workshop: A joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop was held on June 15, 2004. Minutes of the workshop are attached for reference (Exhibit "D"). C. Technical Review Committee: Since the applicant withdrew the Tentative Tract Map and Master Plan documents on July 15, 2004, there are no technical review comments. In addition, a Land Use Amendment may not be conditioned under state law. D. Neiqhborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on September 19, 2004. Several residents from the neighborhood attended with most questions related to the future Development aspects. A copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet is attached (Exhibit "E"). E. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore are attached to this report. The mitigations noted in the Initial Study will be imposed on any future development. /2! PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00272 AND DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 6 FACTS FOR FINDING: Facts for finding are contained in the attached resolutions for each application. 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 an extended notification area beyond the standard 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the discussions that took place during the joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop, staff is prepared to follow the possible change in land use policy direction accordingly. Therefore, draft Resolutions of Approval have been attached for Planning Commission consideration. However, because some of the Planning Commissioners had expressed concerns with the proposed amendment, and in the interest of not delaying the applicant's ability to proceed to the City Council, Resolutions recommending denial have also been included for consideration. The Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. City Planner BB:LH\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map Exhibit "B" - Justification for a Zone Change Exhibit "C" - Fiscal Impact Analysis Exhibit "D" - Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 2004 Exhibit "E" - Neighborhood Meeting Notes and Sign In Sheet Exhibit"F" - Initial Study Draft Resolution of Approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 Draft Resolution of Denial for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273 Draft Resolution of Denial for Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273 EXHIBIT "A" SITE LOCATION MAP ~C ['~ I 7.--/DRC2004_00272 iow (GPA) ~ DRC2004-00273 (DDA) ..~ Lewis Operating Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P. O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 Telephone: (909) 985-0971 FAX: (909) 949-6700 Justification for Zone Change: Haven and Arrow Site Thc following report illustrates the justification for changing a portion of the Haven and Arrow site from office use to residential use. National Office Demand Drivers Subsequent to the approval of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the office market in the United States was reasonably robust in most metropolitan areas. Shortly after 2000, many U.S. corporations began to recognize the benefits of using the labor forces of emerging markets to assist them in driving costs downward and quality upward. At the same time, many emerging market countries began marketing their highly educated English speaking labor force. Specifically, countries like the Philippines and India began providing services to consulting, medical, and consumer finance companies. At the same time, long distance telephone companies became de-regulated, experienced major financial restructudngs (including the failure of WorldCom)., and implemented new technology and constructed new infzastmcture that, combined, led to rapid downward pressure on long distance telephone rates. The result of the reduced long distance rates and the organization of highly skilled low cost Off-shore labor pools was a decrease in demand for domestic office space and an exportation of millions of jobs to overseas employers. The exportation of jobs has led to the decreased demand for office space in the United States. In Downtown Los Angeles, for example, office buildings that once prepared by: DKL housed finance and consulting employers are being converted to residential dwelling units. Moreover, subsequent to the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the consulting industry began relying on the practice of"hoteling," a concept that involves multiple employees sharing the same work space at different times; generally, this phenomenon has reduced the average space per worker by more than 15% since the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (Nationa!, Association of Office and Industrial Properties-2003). The shift in national office demand has caused a downward shift in the demand for local office space, which is justification for the re-designation ora portion of the Arrow and Haven site from the industrial park designation to residential. State Office Demand Drivers The State of California has experienced an exodus of jobs as a result of high costs of workers compensation and the relatively unfriendly business environment in California. The result of the job exodus is a shift in corporate demands for office space in California as corporations find more business friendly environments and less expensive labor costs in Nevada and Arizona. The shift in corporate demand for office space as a result of California public policy is additional justification for the re-designation of a portion of the Haven and Arrow site from industrial park to residential. Local Office Supply Prior to the adoption of the general plan, the Ontario Center (approximately 200 acres) was not expected to be developed in the near term due to the known existence of asbestos containing material on the site and the City of Ontario's announce plans for a major sports arena (including a proposed NFL arena) and the City of Ontario's plans for an Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 purpose: To provide justification for the rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use. extension of the Ontario Mill's retail operation to include a lifestyle retail component. Subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan the City of Ontario scrapped its plans for a major sports arena. Moreover, the realization of the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall has virtually eliminated any of Ontario's hopes for a lifestyle retail center. As a result of the elimination of a major sports component and a lifestyle retail component to the Ontario Center, the City of Ontario has indicated that it expects the Ontario Center to become a destination for major high rise corporate offices. The change in land uses in the Ontario Center will result in the addition of approximately 500,000 square feet of potential office space that clearly out-positions the Haven and Arrow site. Moreover, the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall office component, surrounded by services desired by office users, coupled with excellent freeway access, will easily out-position the Haven and Arrow site. In addition to the Ontario Center and Victoria Gardens build out, Carol Plowman of Lee and Associates and Taylor Ing of CB Richard Ellis, the regions most knowledgeable experts of the office market in the Inland Empire, forecast approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office land that is currently in the supply pipeline. In 2003 about 300,000 square feet of office space was net-absorbed in the area. Based on the addition of new office space in the next 18 months, it is anticipated that office vacancy will increase and that potential office users will have a wide variety of office product to choose from. The fact that the office market is on the verge of being over-built, and the fact that there are a multitude of sites that corporate office users will choose over the Haven and Arrow site provides a compelling justification for the re-designation of this relatively small portion of the Haven and Arrow site. Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 Purpose: To prov/de justificalion for Uhe rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use. Perception of Haven Corridor Prior to the adoption of the General plan, the City's leaders believed that Haven Avenue would be the "next MacArthur Blvd." Subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan, the owner occupied office market, fueled by low long term interest rates and available financing, caused an abnormally high level of "for-sale" office and condominium office development. A large portion of this development has occurred on Haven Avenue. The replacement of corporate office with Owner occupied service-type office along Haven has re-set the office user's perception of Haven asa corporate office destination. With the exception of Haven Avenue in Ontario, corporate offices will not locate on Haven Avenue south of Arrow Avenue. Since corporate offices will not locate on Haven Avenue, the Haven Avenue office demand will be limited to service office and owner- occupied or small scale rental office product; this type of product does not require the depth or parking that mid-rise and high rise office does. Based on the fact that the most l~kely office users will only want Haven Avenue frontage, and these office users do not have parking fields that require significant depth, there is justification for the re- designation of a portion of the Haven and Arrow site for residential development to reflect realistic future demand. Cues from Milliken Avenue Milliken Avenue has many similar characteristics to Haven Avenue. Prior to the Adoption of the General Plan, office industry experts expected the comer of 4t~ and Milliken to become a major office and retail hub. Subsequent to the approval of the General Plan, the City approved a mixed use project that included apmhnents and strip retail; upon approval of the 4th and Milliken project, industry experts began to agree that Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 Purpose: To provide justification for the rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site t° residential use' /27 corporate office users will generally not locate north of 4th Street to Arrow Avenue; to be sure, some office users will continue to locate north of Arrow adjacent to City and County buildings and near Foothill Boulevard. Most industry experts, including Carol Plowman and Taylor Ing, regard the Milliken and 6th Street office project as a failure. The Milliken and 7th street office complex was vacant for nearly 18 months after completion and has currently been leased at extremely discounted rates. Industry experts have regarded the Milliken and 7t~ street project as a predictor of furore corporate office success north of 4t~ Street. The fact that Milliken Avenue, subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan, has proven to be increasingly less desirable for office tenants provides a cue and justification for the re-zoning of a portion of Haven Avenue and Arrow to reflect current market demands. Cues from the Past The Barton Plaza at Foothill and Arrow was one of Rancho Cucamonga's first major modem corporate office locations. The Barton plaza has been hugely unsuccessful and has been in foreclosure three times since its opening in the late 1980's. Currently, Barton Plaza houses the University of La Veme and Century 21-Beachside; these tenants are hardly corporate office users and, in fact, could have located in low-rise office space anywhere in the City. The fact that corporate office has not been sustainable at one of the City's major intersections is justification for the re-designation of a portion of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use from office use. Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 Propose: To provide justification for the rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use. /28 Community Stabilization Prior to the General Plan Adoption, the portion of Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to 26th Street was undeveloped and it was uncertain what the future land uses would be in the City. Subsequent to the approval of the General Plan, Foothill and Haven was vacant; the site is currently under construction with more than 400 apartment homes. The fact that there will ultimately be a large section of the F~oothill to 26~ Street area that will house rental tenants means that there is a greater chance for instability in the area as there will be a large group of non-stakeholder residents. The addition of for-sale detached housing will provide community stabilization in the area and therefore provides additional justification for the re-designafion of a.portion of the Haven and Arrow site as a means of stabilizing the current housing stock and the community itself. Stimulation of Retail Development The Arrow and Haven site is 37 acres; the site is larger than needed for commercial and ~etail users. The change of a portion of the site to a residential designation will stimulate retail and office use as the site will transfer hands from investors to developers. The fact that retail and commercial development will occur as a result of the change in land use for the westerly portion of the site provides additional justification for the change in land use fxom office to residential. Land Use Context The Haven and Arrow site has a greater depth than the industrial park designated parcels to the north and south of it. The site is flanked by medium high, low medium and low density residential designated areas to the north, west and south. The site is zoned Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 purpose: To provide j~tification for the rezoning of the Haven and Arr°w site t° resideatial use' industrial park; however the half of the site fronting Haven Avenue is designated with the Haven Avenue Overlay. The Haven Avenue Overlay indicates that this major travel route for the City has the potential for high-end office development in a "campus-like" setting with high prestige value. The character is intended to be intensive and high quality. The proposed development for this site carries forward the intent of this Overlay designation on the portion of the site fronting Haven, while proposing residential development at the rear of the site which is more compatible with the residential development already surrounding the site on three sides. Further, because a relatively intense, mixed use development project, with a high density residential component, as well as live/work units, is on the ground to the north of the site at Haven and Foothill Blvd., the mixed office/commercial/residential nature of this corridor is already being reinforced with current development. Finally, given the housing demand in southern California today, and the demographic shifts in our population requiring the diversification of the housing product available to serve the market, an additional for sale housing product developed directly adjacent to, and within walking distance of, office, commercial, civic and open space uses in the City will provide convenient living opportunities for Rancho Cucamonga's residents. Fiscal Context In light of the State of California's current fiscal crisis, it is also important to bear in mind changes which may occur in the near future to state and local financing structures. The "fiscalization of land use" has traditionally colored municipalities land use decision making in favor of non-residential uses. The so called "triple flip", part of the March 2 passage of Proposition 57, suspends one-quarter of the Bradley-Bums sales and use tax Prepared by: DRL 3/15?201M purpose: To prox4de justification for the rezoning of the Haven and Pm-ow site to residential use. which went to local municipalities, replaces the lost revenues on a dollar-for-dollar basis with funds set aside from the countywide property tax revenues (primarily ERAF), and increases the State's sales and use tax by one-quarter percent with the State increase dedicated to repayment of the bond measure. Though a lawsuit has been filed challenging the reduction in the Bradley-Bums sales tax, the triple flip is set to go into effect on July 1, 2004. Fundamentally, this "triple flip" ma? start local governments on a new path and decision-making process with regard to approval of residential land uses, as property tax revenues regain some importance in the overall municipal finance picture. Conclusion Given the existing land use context in the area of this site, and based on the fact that, subsequent to the approval of the General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga office sub- market, the California office market, and the national office market have experienced a substantial downward shift in demand is ample justification for the change in land use designation for a portion of the Haven and Arrow site from office to residential use. Moreover, the change.in office demand is not a lull, but in fact a long term fundamental shift, the housing demand in southern California is well documented and long-term in nature, and cities may soon receive a greater benefit from property tax revenue than in the past. Based on the fact that, subsequent to the adoption of the general plan, the office product under construction and currently approved is significantly different than the stock anticipated by the authors and creators of the general plan prior to its approval, there is ample justification for changes in the land use designation for a portion of the Haven and Arrow site. Finally, based on more focused study and office performance analysis subsequent to the approval of the general plan, industry experts have drastically changed Prepared by: DRL 3/15/2004 Purpose: To provide justification for the rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use. their forecasts for the area, causing justification for the re-designation of the office designated parcels in the City. Prepared by: DP, I. 3/15/2004 Purpose: To provide justificalion for the rezoning of the Haven and Arrow site to residential use. ~.~x..~',,. CITy QF RANoi~-IO CI]OAMoN&~ Lewis/%anment Communities 1156 Nozth Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 (909) 946-7514 / Fax (909) 931-5518 FIEO£11/eO"- ' PLA N~l~ j ohn.young~lewlsop.-eom (909) 946-7514 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL September 7, 2004 Hand Delivered To: Mr. Larry Henderson Project Planner / City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 909-47%2700, x4303 From: Janis M. Seiler/John R. Young Re: Fiscal Impact Analysis Arrow and Haven - Tract Number 16909 DPFG - Development Planning and Financing Group, Inc. ITEMS BEING TRANSMITTED I copy - Fiscal Impact Analysis Arrow and Haven - Tract Number 16909 REMARKS Enclosed is the above referenced document for your review and use. ACTION Please call mc after you have reviewed this document. ! can bc reached at (909) 946- 7514. Thank you. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 TEL (949} 388-9269 DEVEtOPMENT PLANNING & FINANCING GROUP, INC. FAX (949) 388-9272 September 2, 2004 ~vw. dpfg.com Tom Ashcrofl Lewis Operating Corporation 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91785 RE: Fiscal Impact Analysis Arrow & Haven - Tract 16909 Dear Tom: I am sending you fl~is Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA') for your review and consideration. The FIA was prepared to be consistent with a February I I, 2004 City of Rancho Cucamonga Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared hy Stanley R. Hoffman Associates for the Henderson Creek States Project (the "Henderson Creek FIA') and the General Update Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Iuc., dated October 2, 2000. We have prepared three Runs as summarized below: Run No. Land Use Fiscal Impact Revenue/Cost Ratio Revenue/Cost Ratio Analysis - No MVLF Impact - 66% MVLF Result Reduetlon 1 Residential Only - 82 Units Positive 1.19 1.00 (lowest density) 2 Residential Only - 164 Units Positive 1.39 1.16 (highest density) 3 Non-Residential Only Negative 0.30 0.30 - 275,000 SF Office As with the Henderson Creek FIA presentation, we have prepared each Run to show revenues from Motor Vehicle License Fees ("MVLF') under two scenarios: (i) No cuts in MVLFi and (ii) 66% MVLF reduction due to potential California State budget cuts. Runs 1 to 3 are also based on the 2003-04 fiscal year City budget. For Run 3, we used the office valuation of $140 per sq. ft. (i.e., $120 per sq. ft. for total secured valuation and $20 per sq. ft. for unsecured valuation) to be consistent with the General Update Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by .Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc., dated October 2, 2000. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not. hesitate to contact myself, or Maik Aagaard at (949) 218-6030. Sincerely, RUN 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 4 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE I - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 NO MVLF Impact Impact on MVLF After Percent After IPercent TABLE Buildout of Total Bu dout of Total Annual Recurrinq Revenues Property Tax 2 $ 18,815 29.0% $ 18,815 34.5% Property Transfer Tax 2 1,421 ,/ 2.2% 1,421 2.6% Off-site sales and use tax 4 ,,, 16,347 25.2% 16,347 30.0% Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu 3 15,115 23.3% 5,038 9.2% Proposition 172 Sales Tax 4 335 0.5% Franchise Fees: Utility 3 3,228 5.0% 3,228 5.9% Franchise Fees: Refuse 3 2,066 3.2% 2,066 3.8% Franchise Fees: Cable 3 1,556 2.4% 1,556 2.9% Fines & Foreitures 3 1,409 2.2% 1,409 2.6% Charges for Services 3 160 0.2% 160 0.3% Other Revenue 3 132 0.2% 132 0.2% Library Revenue 3 387 0.6% 387 0.7% Gasoline Tax 3 3,967 6.1% 3,967 7.3% Interest Earnings 3 0.0% 0.0% $ 64,939 100.0% $ 54,527 100.0% Annual Recurring Costs Police Protection 5 $ 19,861 41.9% $ 19,861 41.9% Animal Control 5 687 1.4% 687 1.4% Public Work: Engineering 5 3,065 6.5% 3,065 6.5% Public Work: Maintenance 5 6,509 13.7% 6,509 13.7% Public Work: Facilities 5 601 1.3% 601 1.3% Planning 5 1,420 3.0% 1,420 3.0% Library Service 5 3,332 7.0% 3,332 7.0% Community Services 5 4,117 8.7% 4,117 8.7% Fire Disr~ct Transfer 5 1,514 3.2% 1,514 3.2% General Govemment 5 6,289 13.3% 6,289 13.3% Direct Recurring Costs $ 47,393 100.0% $ 47,393 100.0% plus Estimated Contingency cost (15% of Direct Recurring costs) $ 7,109 $ 7,109 Total Recurring Costs $ 54,502 $ 54,502 Net Annual Surplus $ 10,436 $ 25 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.19 1.00 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCuca monga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:23 PM Page 1 o~ RUN 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 4 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 2 - LAND USE INFORMATION AND PROPERTY TAX CALCULATIONS ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 812712005 Plan Plan Type Base Price Total Pdce Total Valuation @ Type Product Sq. Ft. Quantity Per Unit Per Unit Total Pdce Residential All Plan Types 45 x 90 2270 82 450,000 450,000 36,900,000 82 ~,,$ 36,900,000 Non-Residential Building Assessed Value Sc~. Ft. Per Sq. Ft. Building A $ 75.00 Building B 75.00 Building C 75.00 ' Building D 75.00 Building E Building F Building G Building H Total $ 36,900,000 Property Tax Basic Rate 1.000% Basic Tax Paid $ 369,000 City Share of Basic Tax 5.10% City Tax Share $ 18,815 City Tax Share-Rounded $ 18,815 Residents per HH 3.1500 Total Residents 258 Square Feet per Employee 250 Total Employees Transfer Parameters Turnover Rate 7% Average Value Taxed Percent 100% Assessed Valuation 36,900,000 Amount $ 2,583,000 Transfer Tax Rate 0.0550% Amount $ 1,421 Amount-Rounded $ 1,421 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:23 PM Page 1 of 4 RUN 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 4 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 3 - GENERAL FUND REVENUE INFORMATION ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/2712005 IRevenue Source IRevenues(03/04) I Factor IRevenue <03,0 11 Msesure I E uivalentunits CITY GENERAL FUND Franchise Fees: Utility $ 2,423,180 12.50 per capita & employee 258 $ 3,228 Franchise Fees: Refuse $ 1,173,379 8.00 per capita ,/ 258 $ 2,066 $ 1,309,000 27.73' per employee Total $ 2,066 Franchise Fees: Cable $ 889,260 18.87 per unit 82 $ 1,556 .. Fines & Foreitures $ 1,057,180 5.45 per capita 258 $ 1,409 5.45 per employee Total $ 1,409 MotorVehicleLicense $ 8,582,310 58.52 percapita 258 $ 15,115 Cha~gesforServices $ 120,460 0.62 percapita 258 $ 160 $ 0.62 per employee Total $ 160 Rental/Leases/Sales of Fixed Assets $ 98,830 $ 0.51 percapita 258 $ 132 Interest Earnings not used $ Library Fund Library Finesand Fees $ 0.80 258 $ 207 Library Rentals/Sales $ 0.70 258 181 $ 387 Intererst Earnings $ 258 Gas and Tax Fund State Gas Tax Section 2105 $ 5.03 258 $ 1,299 Section 2106 $ 3.18 258 82I Section 2107 $ 7.15 258 1,847 $ 3,967 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT Property Tax 12.46% of Assessed Value $ 369,000 $ 45,977 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:23 PM Page 2 of 4 t37 RUN 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 4 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 5 - GENERAL FUND COST INFORMATION ARROW 8, HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 Ioost IBud e:Udget%0 o% lFactar 0 04,1 Measure I Un,t IOost CITY GENERAL FUND Police Protection $ 15,280,650 $14,906,050 76.89 per capita & empl. 258.30 $ 19,861 AnirnalControl 452,250 390,490 2.66 percapita 258.30 $ 687 Public Work: Engineedn9 3,201,920 1,942,240 149.52 perdevelopedacre 20.50 $ 3,065 Public Work: Maintenance 4,551.630 4,124,260 317.49 per developed acre 20.50 $ 6,509 Public Work: Facilities 1,903,950 380,790 29.31 per developed acre 20.50 $ 601 Planning 1,749,700 899,700 69.26 per developed acre 20.50 $ 1.420 Building & Safety 4,142,290 per developed acre 20.50 $ CommunityService 2,337.520 2,337,520 15.94 percapita 258.30 $ 4,117 Library Service 1,891,680 1,891,680 12.90 percapita 258.30 $ 3,332 Fire Disdct Transfer 1,136.770 1,136,770 5.86 per capita & empL 258.30 $ 1,514 General Government 10,483,060 10,483,060 15.3% of direct line costs 41,104.19 $ 6,289 Contingency 15.0% of General Fund Costs (1) Marginal allocation to new development per city fisca] impact analysis for Henderson Creek Estates. F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:23 PM Page 3 of 4 RUN 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 4 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 4 - SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 Assessed Valuation $ 36,900,000 Household Income (@25% of valuation) 25.0% $ 9,225,000 Retail Taxable Sales (@32% of household income) / 32.0% $ 2,952,000 Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in City (@50% of valuation) 50.0% $ 1,476,000 Prelect Indirect Sales and Use Tax to City Sales Tax (@1% of taxable sales) 1.00% $ 14,760 Use Tax (@11% of sales tax) 10.75% $ 1,587 $ 16,347 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax per 1,000 sales and use tax 20.48 $ 335 F:~jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven VI.5 9/1/2004 12;23 PM Page 4 of 4 RUN 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 1 - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 NO MVLF Impact I Impact on MVLF After Percent After Percent Annual Recurrinq Revenues Property Tax 2 $ 37,631 29.0% $ 37,631 34.5% Property Transfer Tax 2 2,841 2.2% 2,841 2.6% Off-site sales and use tax 4 32,693 25.2% 32,693 30.0% Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu 3 30,229 23.3% 10,076 9.2% Proposition 172 Sales Tax 4 670 0.5% Franchise Fees: Utility 3 6,457 5.0% 6,457 5.9% Franchise Fees: Refuse 3 4,133 3.2% 4,133 3.8% Franchise Fees: Cable 3 3,112 2.4% 3,112 2.9% Fines & Foreitures 3 2,817 2.2% 2,817 2.6% Charges for Services 3 321 0.2% 321 0.3% Other Revenue 3 263 0.2% 263 0.2% Library Revenue 3 775 0.6% 775 0.7% Gasoline Tax 3 7,935 6.1% 7,935 7.3% Interest Earnings 3 0.0% 0.0% $ 129,877 100.0% $ 109,055 100.0% Annual RecurrlnR Costs Police Protection 5 $ 39,721 48.8% $ 39,721 48.8% Animal Control 5 1,374 1.7% 1,374 1.7% Public Work: Engineering 5 3,065 3.8% 3,065 3.8% Public Work: Maintenance 5 6,509 8.0% 6,509 8.0% Public Wor~: Faci~iSes 5 601 0.7% 601 0.7% Planning 5 1,420 1.7% 1,420 1.7% Library Service 5 6,663 8.2% 6,663 8.2% Community Services 5 8,233 10.1% 8,233 10.1% Fire Disdct Transfer 5 3,027 3.7% 3,027 3.7% General Government 5 10,804 13.3% 10,804 13.3% Direct Recurring Costs $ 81,418 100.0% $ 81,418 100.0% plus Estimated Contingency cost (15% of Direct Recurring costs) $ 12,213 $ 12,213 Total Recurring Costs $ 93,630 $ 93,630 Net Annual Surplus $ 36,247 $ 15,424 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.39 1.1 § F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~Ar~owHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:22 PM Page 1 of 1 RUN 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 2 - LAND USE INFORMATION AND PROPERTY TAX CALCULATIONS ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8127/2005 Plan Plan Type Base Pdce Total Pdce Total Valuation @ Type Product Sq. Ft. Quantity Per Unit Per Unit Total Pdce Residential All Plan Types 45 x 90 2270 164 450,000 450,000 73,800,000 164 ~$ 73,800,000 Non-Residential Building Assessed Value Sq. Ft. Per ScI. Ft. Building A $ 75.00 Building B 75.00 Building C 75.00 BuiJding D 75.00 Building E Building F Building G Building H Total $ 73,800,000 Property Tax Basic Rate 1.000% Basic Tax Paid $ 738,000 City Share of Basic Tax 5.10% City Tax Share $ 37,631 City Tax Share-Rounded $ 37,631 Residents per HH 3.1500 Total Residents 517 Square Feet per Employee 250 Total Employees Transfer Parameters Turnover Rate Average Value Taxed Percent 100% Assessed Valuation 73,800,000 Amount $ 5,166.000 Trensfer Tax Rate 0.0550% Amount $ 2,841 Amount-Rounded $ 2,~41 F:\jkz\Lewis~RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:22 PM Page 1 of 4 RUN 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 3 - GENERAL FUND REVENUE INFORMATION ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 I.eve.ua Sour~ IRevenues(03/04) [ Factor JRevenue I Cl~ GENE~L FUND FranchiseF~s:Utili~ $ 2,423,180 12.50 per~p[ta&employee 517 $ 6,457 Fmnchi~ F~s: Refu~ $ 1,173,379 8.00 per~pita 517 $ 4,133 $ 1,309,000 27.73 per employee Total $ 4,133 Fmnchi~ Fees: Cable $ 889.260 18.97 per unit 1~ $ 3,112 Fin~&Fomitures $ 1,057,180 5.45 per~pita 517 $ 2,817 5.45 per employee Toml $ 2,817 Motor Vehicle Li~nse $ 8,582,310 58.52 per~p~a 517 $ 30,229 Cha~esfor~i~s $ 120,460 0.62 per~pi~ 517 $ 321 $ 0.62 per employee mo~l $ 321 Ren~VLease~les of Fixed A~ets $ 98,830 $ 0.51 per ~pita 517 $ 263 Interest ~mings not u~d $ Llbm~ Fund Libm~ Fines and Fees $ 0.80 517 $ 413 Libm~ Ren~]~l~ $ 0.70 517 362 $ 775 Interemt Earnings $ 517 Gas and Tax Fund S~te GasT~ Se~ion 2105 $ 5.03 517 $ 2,598 ~tion 21~ $ 3.18 517 1.~3 Section 2107 $ 7.15 517 3,6~ $ 7,935 ~NCHO CUCAMONGA FiRE DISTRICT Pro~T~ 12.46% of~ses~dVa~ue $ 738,000 $ 91,955 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:22 PM Page 2 of 4 RUN 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 5 - GENERAL FUND COST INFORMATION ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/2712005 Icost IB d e Udget e°t°o% IF or<08 ,l M sure I I C~ GENE~L FUND Poli~Protection $ 15,280,650 $14,9~,050 76.89 per~pi~&empl. 516.60 $ 39,721 Ani~l Control 452,250 390,490 2.66 per ~p[ta 516.60 $ 1,374 Public Work: Engin~ring 3,201,920 1,942,240 149.52 ~rdevelop~ acm 20.50 $ 3,~5 Public Work: Maintenen~ 4,551,630 4,124,260 317.49 perdevelop~acre 20.50 $ 6,509 Public Work: Fecilities 1,903.~0 380,790 29.31 per develop~ acm 20.50 $ 601 Planning 1,749,700 899,700 69.26 per develop~ acre 20.50 $ 1.420 Building & ~fe~ 4,142,290 per develop~ acm 20.50 $ Communi~Se~i~ 2,337,520 2,337,520 15.~ per~pi~ 516.60 $ 8,233 Libm~Se~ice .1,891,680 1.891,680 12.90 ~r~pi~ 516.60 $ 6,663 Fire DisdM Transfer 1,136,770 1,1~,770 5,86 per ~pita & empL 516.60 $ 3,027 GeneralGovemment 10,483,060 10,483,060 15.3% ofdim~line~sts 70,613.83 $ 10,~ Contingency 15.0% of General Fund Cos~ (1) Marginal allocation to new development per city fiscal impact analysis for Henderson Creek Estates. F:~jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven Vl.5 9/1/2004 12:22 PM Page 3 of 4 RUN 2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 8 UNITS PER ACRE TABLE 4 - SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 Assessed Valuation $ 73,800.000 Household Inseme (@25% of valuation) 25.0% $ 18,450,000 Retail Taxable Sales (@32% of household income) 32.0% $ 5,904,000 Projected Off-Sita Taxable Sales Captured in City (@50% of valuation) 50.0% $ 2,952,000 Project Indirect Sales and Use Tax to City Sales Tax (@1% of taxable sales) 1.00% $ 29,520 Use Tax (@11% of sales tax) 10.75% $ 3,173 $ 32,693 proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax per 1,000 sales and use tax 20.48 $ 670 F:~jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:22 PM Page 4 of 4 RUN 3 NON-RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE 1 - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 NO MVLF Impact I Impact on MVLF After Percent After Percent TABLE Buildout of Tota Buildout of Tota Annual Recurrinq Revenues property Tax 2 $ 19,631 47.7% $ 19,631 47.7% property Transfer Tax 2 1,059 2.6% 1,059 2.6% Off-site sales and use tax 4 0.0% 0.0% Motor Vehicle License in-Lieu 3 0.0% 0.0% Proposition 172 Sales Tax 4 0.0% Franchise Fees: Utility 3 13,749 33.4% 13,749 33.4% Franchise Fees: Refuse 3 0.0% 0.0% Franchise Fees: Cable 3 0.0% 0.0% Fines & Foreitures 3 5,998 14.6% 5,998 14.6% Charges for Services 3 683 1.7% 683 1.7% Other Revenue 3 0.0% 0.0% Library Revenue 3 0.0% 0.0% Gasoline Tax 3 0.0% 0.0% interest Earnings 3 0.0% 0.0% $ 41,121 100.0% $ 41,121 100.0% Annual Recurrin¢l Costs Police Protection 5 $ 84,579 71.5% $ 84,579 71.5% Animal ControJ 5 0.0% 0.0% Public Work: Engineering 5 3,065 2.6% 3,065 2.6% Public Work: Maintenance 5 6,509 5.5% 6,509 5.5% Public Work: Facilities 5 601 0.5% 601 0.5% PLannin9 5 1,420 1.2% 1,420 1 Library Service 5 0.0% 0.0% Community Services 5 0.0% 0.0% Fire Disdct Transfer 5 6,446 5.4% 6,446 5.4% General Government 5 15,701 13.3% 15,701 13.3% Direct Recurbng Costs $ 118,320 100.0% $ 118,320 100.0% plus Estimated Contingency cost (15% of Direct Recurring costs) $ 17,748 $ 17,748 Total Recurring Costs $ 136,068 $ 136,068 Net Annual Surplus $ (94,948) $ (94,948) Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.30 0.30 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~.rrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:21 PM Page 1 of 1 RUN 3 NON-RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE 2 - LAND USE INFORMATION AND PROPERTY TAX CALCULATIONS ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 Plan Plan Type Base Price Total Price Total Valuation @ Type Product Sq. Ft. Quantity Per Unit Per Unit Total Price Residential $ Non-Residential Building Assessed Value Sq. Ft. / Per Sq. Ft. Office Buildings 275,000 140.00 38,500,000 Total $ 38,500,000 Property Tax Basic Rate 1.000% Basic Tax Paid $ 385,000 City Share of Basic Tax 5.10% City Tax Share $ 19,631 City Tax Share-Rounded $ 19,631 Residents per HH 3.1500 Total Residents Square Feet per Employee 250 Total Employees 1,100 Transfer Parameters Turnover Rate 5% Average Value Taxed Percent 100% Assessed Valuation 38,500,000 Amount $ 1,925,000 Tran~er Tax Rate 0.0550% Amount $ 1,059 Amount-Rounded $ 1,059 F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:20 PM Page 1 of 4 RUN 3 NON-RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE 3 - GENERAL FUND REVENUE INFORMATION ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8/27/2005 IRevenueSourc IRew"ues<0 0 > I Faelor CiTY GENERAL FUND Franchise F~es: Utility $ 2,423,180 12.50 per capita & employee 1,100 ~.$ 13,749 Franchise Fees: Refuse $ 1,173,379 8.00 percapita $ $ 1,309,000 27.73 per employee 1,100 30,503 Total $ 30,503 Franchise Fees: Cable $ 889,260 18.97 per unit $ Fines & Foreitures $ 1,057,180 5.45 percapita $ 5.45 per employee 1,100 5,998 Total $ 5,998 MotorVehicleLicense $ 8,582,310 58.52 percapita $ Charges for Services $ 120,460 0.62 per capita $ 0.62 per employee 1,100 683 Total $ 683 Rental/Leases/Sales of Fixed Assets $ 98,830 $ 0.51 percapita $ Interest Earnings not used $ Library Fund Library Fines and Fees $ 0.80 $ Library RentalslSales $ 0.70 $ Intererst Earnings $ Gas and Tax Fund State Gas Tax Section 2105 $ 5.03 $ Section 2106 $ 3.18 Section 2107 $ 7.15 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT Properb/Tax 12.46% of Assessed Value $ 385,000 $ 47,971 F:\jkz\Lewis,RanchoCucamonga~crowHaven V1.5 91112004 12:20 PM Page 2 of) RUN 3 NON-RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE 5 - GENERAL FUND COST INFORMATION ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT 16909 8~27~2005 Budget Net Cost (1) Measure Units CITY GENERAL FUND Police Protection $ 15,280,650 $14,906,050 76.89 percapita&empL 1,100.00 $ 84,579 Animal Control 452,250 390,490 2.66 percapita $ Public Work: Engineering 3,201,920 1,942,240 149.52 per developed acre 20.50 $ 3,065 Public Work: Maintenance 4,551,630 4,124,260 317.49 per developed acre 20.50 $ 6,509 Public Work: Facilities 1,903,950 380,790 29.31 per developed acre 20.50 $ 601 Planning 1,749,700 899,700 69.26 per developed acre 20.50 $ 1,420 Building & Safety 4,142,290 per developed acre 20.50 $ Community Service 2,337,520 2,337,520 15.94 per capita Library Service 1,891,680 1,891,680 12.90 per capita Fire Disdct Transfer 1,136,770 1.136,770 5.86 percapita&empL 1,100.00 $ 6,446 GeneralGovernment 10,483,060 10,483,060 15.3% ofdirectlineceets 102,619.56 $ 15,701 Contingency 15.0% of General Fund Costs (1) Marginal allocation to new development per city fiscal impac~ analysis for Henderson Creek Estates. F:\jkz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:20 PM Page 3 of 4 RUN 3 NON-RESIDENTIAL ONLY TABLE 4 - SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES ARROW & HAVEN - TRACT '16909 8/27/2005 Assessed Valuation Household income (@25% of valuation) 25.0% Retail Taxable Sales (@32% of household income) 32.0% Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in City (@50% of valuation) 50.0% Proiect Indirect Sales and Use Tax to Cih, Sales Tax (~1% of taxable sales) 1.00% Use Tax (@11% of sales tax) 10.75% Proposition 172 o Half Cent Sales Tax per 1,000 sales and use tax 20.48 F:\j kz\Lewis\RanchoCucamonga~ArrowHaven V1.5 9/1/2004 12:20 PM Page 4 of 4 June 15, 2004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CiTY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Joint Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A special joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:44 p.m. "" Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, Robert J. Howdyshell, Dr. Donald J. Kurth, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Planning Commissioners: Richard Fletcher, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart, and Chairman Rich Macias. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM OF BUSINESS C1. DISCUSSION OF HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT Brad Buller, City Planner, referred to a drawing on the wall that was provided by Lewis Homes and gave some background information on the Haven Overlay District (HOD). He indicated the City's center point was intended to be Haven and Foothill. He stated Haven Avenue was referred to as the "premier street." Mr. Bullet also referred to information distributed to the Council and Commission, which is on file in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Buller reported the highest demand of construction in the City is for housing units. He atso felt a meeting of this type is productive so it can be discussed the possibility for mom housing units in the City. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he is not opposed to housing as long as it is not overdone, but also felt them should be a good mixed use. He also indicated he felt Haven Avenue was beginning to be the stepchild. Councilmember Gutierrez asked what happens when a developer comes in and indicates they want to build something in a certain area. Brad Buller, City Planner, advised they can test the water, and that there is a process for doing that. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he hopes the applicants are encouraged and not shot down. He stated the Council likes to know and cares what is going on. He felt a lot of attention has been put on Foothi{l. He stated Haven is a very interesting street with a lot going on. He hoped the City will keep an open mind. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner McNiel stated in the early years, the Planning Commission got a reputation of being tough in its standards. He felt things do not have to happen immediately, and that the City and Haven do not have to be maxed out. He also indicated he did not think the mall would be a downtown area. He felt the housing on Haven, if approved, should be upper class and treated like the housing around the golf course. Councilmember Williams felt the old KMART Center should be developed and did not feel housing should come right up to Haven Avenue. She felt the overlay of Haven should include the original plan with office buildings along there. Mayor Alexander suggested there be mixed uses along Haven and felt they should be upscale. Chairman Macias stated they use the General Plan as a'guiding do~cument. He stated as a group they are open to innovative planning. Mayor Alexander felt the City should be open to ideas and listen to what developers are proposing. Councilmember Gutierrez also felt the KMART Cente~ should have something done to it. Councilmember Kurth felt there should be a way to have it al~ and have it look nice and be upscale. Commissioner Fletcher stated he has always thought of Haven as upscale. He felt there should be a place for residents to go to work. He felt there were better areas, other than Haven Avenue, for mixed uses. He thought Haven should be preserved as office. Commissioner McPhail stated the Planning Commission does welcome innovative designs. She stated sometimes the market hinders the design that is presented to them. She felt the Planning Commission should encourage the finest of design, the best of materials and innovation, and that they should not settle for less. Commissioner Stewart stated she is not going to give up on Haven Avenue as office, but felt she is willing to listen to other ideas as well. She expressed the City needs senior housing, and felt there could be a high-end senior project on Haven. Mayor Alexander felt the Planning Commission needs to think about Iow and moderate housing as well because of State mandates. Addressing the Council and Commission was: David Lewis, Lewis Homes, stated they have envisioned first class office facilities for Haven Avenue just as the Council has mentioned. He stated what they are proposing is to have housing next to the existing housing on the west side of their property. He indicated this would be of the highest standards as they have done in the past for other projects. Councilmember Kurth felt the proposed plan portrays the goals he has in mind. Councilmember Williams added she did not feel any of this property should be retail. Councilmember Kurth left the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Stewart suggested the whole thing needs to be master planned. 15l Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 3 D, ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Sincerely, ~-~ City Clerk Approved by Planning Commission: July 14, 2004 Approved by City Council: August 4, 2004 1£2 Lewis Investment Company A Member of the Lewis Group of Companies Memo To: Larry Henderson, City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Planner From: John Young / Date:. September 21,2004 Re:. DRC2004-272 and DRC2004-273 We held a community meeting on Thursday, September 16, 2004 at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center regarding the above referenced zone change and General Plan amendment. The items of concern that were addressed at the meeting were: 1. Neighbors were concemed that apartments and condos may affect property values. This included discussions on whether the buildings would be attached or detached housing and the maximum density allowed. 2. Neighbors were concerned that this was the last time that they would be able to review the project. 3. One neighbor (Nacho Gamia) wanted some affordable housing to be included in the approvals. 4. Termite mitigation - The site currently has termites (per local residents) that could be displaced if built on. 5. Rodent mitigation - The site currently has rodents (per local residents) that could be displaced if built on. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 909-946-7514. Thank you. 1156NorthMountainAvenue/POBox670/Ul~and, CA91785-0670 Direct: 909-946-7514 Fax: 909-931-5518 Planning Divfsion (909) 477-2750 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the lime of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. ApplicationNumberfortheprojecttowhichlhisformpertains: DRC 2004-O0272, DRC 2004-00273 Project T~e: THE OASIS Name & Address of project owner(s): Haven and An-ow Partnership, A California Limited Partnership, c/o Frank Tierney Ko 461 S 7th Ave City of*lndust~J, CA 91746-3119 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor. Lewis Investment Company PO Box 670 Upland, CA 91785 Contact Person &Address: (t) John Young, Lewis investment Company;, Telephone (909) 946-7514 PO Box 670; Upland, CA 91785; or (2) Mark E, ertone, Madole & Associates, Inc.; Telephone (909) 937-9151 760-A South Rochester Avenue; Ontario, CA 91764 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): John Young, Lewis Investment Company (see address above) Mark Bertone, Mado[e & Associates inc. (see address above) Telephone Number:. John Young (909) 946-7514; Mark Bertone (909) 937-9151 PC. to 'T" InfonnafJon indicated by an astedsk (*) is not required of non-const[uction CUP's unless otherwise requested by sfaff. '1) Pr~vide a fu~~ sca~e (8-1/2 x11) c~py ~f the USGS Quadrent Shest(s) which inc~udes the preject stte~ and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of cclor photographs that show representative views,into the site from the north, south, east and we~' views into and from the site from the primary access points thai serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): Located on the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and ~Arrow Route, Bounded on the north by Arrow Route, on the east by Haven Avenue, on the south by 26m Street, and on the west by Center Street. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 209-092-04 *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. fl.): 42.46 ac / 1,849,558 sf *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 37.77 ac / 1,645,396 sf 7) Descdbe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which WOuld affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): The proposed residential use on the western 20.55 acres of the site requires a zoning change from "Industrial Park" to "Low-Medium Residential," and a ~leneral plan amendment to permit residential use. The anticipated future use of the site's eastern 17.23 acres is consistent with zoning and general plan designations and no genera[ plan or zoning change is necessar~ for the eastern half of the site. 8)Include a description of all permits which wifi be necescary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: tentative tract map (City); design review(City); NPDES permit (L.A. RWQCB); rough grading permit (Cit~); public streets and sewers permit (City); private streets and sewers permit (City); precise grading and draina!~e permit (City); public street improvement permit (City); building permit (City) 9) Describe the phystca~ se~ng ~f the si~e ~s it ex~sts bef~re the pr~jec~ inctuding inf~rmati~n ~n t~p~graphy~ s~i~ stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeolegical surveys, baffic studies): The subject site was previously used as a golf course prior to 1983 and is currently vacant with no existing buildings or structures. 'Fnere are no defined drainage courses, t~ails, or roads traversing the site, which slopes from nod. h' to south at approximately 2%. The site's surface is generally level without any apparent swales or depressions where water might collect. IS - Rancho Cucarnonga modified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM The site is vegetated with non-native grasses and scattered ornamental bees, many of which appear to be dead or dying. The site does not contain suitable habitat for any state or federally listed (threatened or endangered) species. One state species of special concern (Cooper's hawk) has been observed at the site, and the site is believed to have potentially suitable habitat for one other state and federal species of speciaiconcem (loggerhead shrike). (The above information is based on site reconnaissance and a Draft Biolgical Survey of the Haven and Arrow Properb./dated March 12, 2004, provded to the applicant by Glenn Lukos Associates, nc.) 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): The applicant is not aware of an}, cultural, historical, or archaeological resources at the site** Given the prior use of the site as a golf course, such resources are untikely to be present. (Applicant consulted the Draft EIR for the City's General Plan, Cit~ Planning Department's Historic Sites List, and the website for the Chaffe¥ Communit~ Cultural Center at http://V/ww.cutiuralcenter.org.) I1) Descdbe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will .affect proposed uses: Noise around the site is primarily generated by traffic on Haven Avenue and Arrow Route. A perimeter wall will mitigate traffic noise. Reference should be made to the detailed Noise Impact Analysis report submitted alon~l with this application. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate descrfption of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the e~tent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) ifneceseery: The proposed project will re-zone the westar[y 20.55 net acres of the site to the LM zone designation. in the futura, a submittal will be made for the approval of a residential development consistent with the LM zone designation with a range of dwelling units ranging from 82 to 164. (cont'd on next page) The eastem 17.23 acres will be developed in a manner consistent with existing zoning and general ptan designations as shown on master plan graphics submitted with this application. IS - Rancho Cucamonga modified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM For informational purposes it shall be noted that along with the initial submittal of this project, the application included a tentative tract map for 143 lots and a design review submittal fo[ a detached residential product. The applicant has acted to rescind the application for the tentative tract map and design review in order to achieve a design best suited for the property and surrounding neighbors. The tentative tract map and design review will be resubmitted to the City under separate application and will not be a part of this application. 13) Describe the surrounding properb'es, including informa#on on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): North of the site, across Arrow Route, on the west side there is a 2-story apartment complex set back approximately 25 feet from the street and on the east side, along Haven Avenue, the land is vacant. West of the site, across Center Street, is a gated community of one- and two-story single-family homes. South , of the site, across 26m Street, there are single-story detached homes and a single-story industrial park. East of the site, across Haven Avenue, there is an office park and vacant land. f 4) Will the proposed project change the paftem, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The futura residential project will have a Iow-medium density (4 - 8 du/ac), consistent with the medium-high density north of the site, and the Iow-medium and Iow density west, and south of the site. The futura commemial center will not differ from the pattern, scale or character of the SUrrounding area. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Future development will generate temporary construction noise, construction will comply with all applicable state and local noise regulations and ordinances. Reference should be made to detailed Noise Impact Anal}sis submitted along with this applications. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: The future development of this site will require the removal of existing trees. Reference should be made to the detailed Arborist Report submitted along with this applications. '17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: The site currently sur[ace drains to existing street improvements, primarily on 26th Street. The project will ultimately drain to a proposed system in 26th Street, which empties into the Deer Creek drainage system ,S - Rancho Cucarnonga mod,,ed 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM / 5~ 660 feet west of the project. '18) Indicate expected amount of watar usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further cladfication, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-259'I. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commemtal/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/rain/ac) '19) indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. [] Septic Tank [] Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). Por further ctari£1cation, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-259 I. / a. Residential (gal/day) '.. b. Commercial/Indust~al (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: O_ Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: A~ached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): rea 21) Anticipated range of sale prices end/or rents: Sale Price(s) $0.00 to $0.00 Rent (permonth) $ to $. 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: rEa 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: n/a IS - Rancho Cucarnonga modified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropdate School Districts as shown in A~tachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describetype~fuse(s)andmaj~rfuncti~n(s)~fc~mmemia~~industda~~rinstitutjooa~uses: The applicant anticipates that the future use of the eastern 18.29 acres of the site will be commemial, consistent with General Plan and zoning designations. (See answer to Question 12.) 26) Totalfloorareaofcommercial, industrial, orinstitutionalusesbytype: To be determined 27) Indicate hours of operatioo: To be determined 28) Numberofemployeee: Total'. Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Pr~vide breakd~wn ~f anticipatad j~b c~assificati~ns~ inc~uding wage and sa~ary ranges~ as we~ as an indicatioo ~f the rate of hire for each classificafion (a~tach additional sheet ff necessary): Pla~s for the future commercial use on the eastern side of the site have not yet been developed. Ail information concerning employment at the commercial development -.including job classifications, wage and salary ranges, number of employees, maximum shift, time of the maximum shift, and the number of city residents to be hired at the development - are to be determined. 30) Estimatiooofthenumberofworkerstobehiredthatcurrentlyresideinthe City: '31) F~r c~mmercia~ and industria~ uses oo~y~ indicata the s~urce~ type and am~unt ~f airp~~~ufi~n emissi~ns~ (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): Plans for the future commercial use on the eastern side of the site have not yet been developed. IS - Rancho Cucamonga modified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM / ~ ~ ALL PRO,JECT$ 32) Have the water, sewer, §re, and flood control agencies serving the pro. leer been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, p/ease indicate their response. The Cucarnonga County Water District will review project plans during the tentative stage and provide infor- mation about water and sewer service. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District will review project plans during the tentative stage and provide information about fire protection service. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department will review proiect plans during the tentative stage and provide information about flood control service. 33) In the known history of this properly, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/ortoxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; redioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, so/vents, and otherllammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the properly, as well as the dates of use, if known. In the known histor,/of the site, there has been no storage or dischar~le of hazardous and/or toxic materials. Based on the site's use, more than twenty years ago, as a golf course, the applicant believes pesticides or herbicides may have been used at the site. The applicant plans to undertake further investigation of the site's environmental histor'b 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or Iong4erm use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? ff yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposeL The focafion of such uses, along w/th the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled .on the application plans. No long-term or temporar,/use, storage, or discharge of hazardous end/or toxic materials is planned for the site. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are b"ue and correct tot he best of my know/edge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucarnonga. ,/~"~.~--~'~ ATTACHMENT A Water UsaRe Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial 3,000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1,500 gal/day/ac General Industrial 2,500 gal/day/ac Industrial Park 3,000 gal/day/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day Apt/Condos 200 gal/day Commercial/Industrial General Commercial 2,000 gal/day/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1,000 gal/day/ac General Industrial 1,500 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3,000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 6/00 IS- Rancho Cucarnonga modified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1',58 PM /~--~2 ATTACHMENT B contact the school distdct for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 Nigh School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontado, CA 91762 (909) 988-851 t IS - P~arlcho Cucamoriga ~odified 091404 Created on 9/14/2004 1:58 PM/~ ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 and Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273 2. Related Files: None 3. De.scription of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004~00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6), to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, establish a Master Plan Overlay District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly, consistent with the land use designation change, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Investment Company 1156 North Mountain Avenue/PO Box 670 Upland CA 91785-0670 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park 6. Zoning: Industrial Park/Haven Office Overlay District (Easterly Half of Pamel) 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing land uses are; Residential Condominiums to the west, Apartment and vineyards to the north, Office and vacant land to the east, and vacant, industrial and single family residential to the south. The site is vacant and was previously used as the "La Mancha" Golf Course that was abandoned over two decades ago. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 2 9, Contact Person and Phone Number: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner (909) 477-2750 10, Other agencies whose approval is required (e,g,, permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. GLOSSARY - The following abbreviations are used in this report: EIR - Environmental Impact Report FEIR - Final Environmental Impact Report NOx - Nitrogen Oxides ROG - Reactive Organic Gases PM~o - Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District URBEMIS7G - Urban Emissions Model ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (./) Aesthetics (v') Agricultural Resources (v') Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources (,,') Cultural Resources (v') Geology & Soils ) Hazards & Waste Materials (v') Hydrology & Water Quality ( ) Land Use & Planning ) Mineral Resoumes (,,') Noise ( ) Population & Housing ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( ) Transportation/Traffic ) Utilities & Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (./) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, thera will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared ~ "3~~ Date: ~/'1~ /(2¥ Reviewed By: ~///~ ~ ~ie: .~//~.~".~ ~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 3 Less "man Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyW~h Than EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Substantially damage scenic resoumes, including, but ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ( ) · ( ) ( ) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within 'a view corridor according to General Plan Exhibit 111-15. b) The project site contains no scenic resoumes and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue and is characterized by residential condominiums to the west, apartment and vineyards to the north, offices and vacant land to the east, and vacant, industrial and single-family residential to the south. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. Design review is required prior to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on the site plans, which require review for consistency with the City standards that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmrand, or ( ) ( ) (,/) ( ) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Williamson Act contract? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyW~h Than I C) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland or Farmland.of Statewide Importance. The site is genera y bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue and is characterized by residential condominiums to the west, apartments and vineyards to the north, offices and vacant land to the east, and vacant, industrial and single-family residential to the south. There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further, two-thirds of the designated farmlands pamels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are ne Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) The site is generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue and is characterized by residential condominiums to the west, apartments and vineyards to the north, offices and vacant land to the east, and vacant, industrial and single-family residential to the south. The nearest agricultural use is north across Arrow Route from the project site. Therefore, no adveme impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ( ) (,/) ( ) ( ) substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') number of people? 7 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiaJlyWith lq3an Comments; a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore, the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and they would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that Iow emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high volume, Iow-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: · Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. · Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith I~an · Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. · Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. · Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. · Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent .public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. · Suspend grading' operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. · Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) 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. 7) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, short-term construction air quality emissions would remain significant as noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6). Based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR, Nox, ROG, and PM~0 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less than significant. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMISTG model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less than significant. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/Iow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith lnan After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6) continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities: According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within 1/4 mile of a sensitive receptor: residences to the north, west and south. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. e) Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ~ocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrhption, or other means? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than d) Intedere substantially with the movement of any native, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) protecting biological resources, such ,as a tree / preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a/b) The project site is located in an area developed with Residential Condominiums to the west, Apartment and vineyards to the north, Office and vacant land to the east, and vacant, industrial and single-family residential to the south. The site has been previously disrupted during construction of a previous Golf Course use, infrastructure and surrounding developments and annual disking for weed abatement). According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, a portion of the project site is within the Delhi Soils area of sensitive biological resources for the Delhi Sands flower loving-fly; however, studies by LSA Associates Inc. have determined that, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project site does not have sensitive soil or habitat previously thought to exist and the site is surrounded primarily by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. c) No wetland habitat is present on site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resoumes. d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed, thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are numerous heritage trees on the project site; and an arborist report has been prepared. At this time, there is no development application, so there is no way to determine the impacts, if any, therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. f) The project site is not located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. 171 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With TI3an 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.57 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) significance of an archeolog!cal reso~'ce pursuant to/ § 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including' those interred ( ) ( ) ( ) (-./) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). However, the site has been recognized by both, the County (1975), and the City (1979), as a point of Historical Interest, as the site of the Milliken Ranch House was built in 1891 by Newell Milliken. The House burned down many years ago, so the Historic Point of Interest is for information purposes only. There will be no impact. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential amhaeological resoumes. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: · Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. · Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. · Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. · Propose mitigation measures and recoremend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. · Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological information Center for permanent archiving. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With 'than C) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the sphere-of-influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which w~puld have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quatemary alluvium per General Plan Exhibit V-2; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2) 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 be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: · Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. · Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. · Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by (construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments/annual disking for weed abatement). No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No adveme impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) liquefaction? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 11 Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,,) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction / or collapse? ,, d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Exhibit V-l, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 1.5 miles north of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies appreximately 3 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is 4.9 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 7.2 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less than significant. b) The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off- site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM~0 emissions. /Tq Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiaity With C) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types onsite consist of TvB Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil associg~ion according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types onsite consist of TvB Tujunga Loamy Sand Soil association according to General Plan Exhibit V-3 and General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. These soils are typically stable. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?' b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically intertere with an ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed wifh wildlands? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 13 Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Comments: a) The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a f~ll service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and hahdling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less than significant. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less than significant. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is located within .5 miles of the nearest existing or proposed school. Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Project site is located a~proximately 2 to 3 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 1/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the Urban Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, the proposed project site is not located within a high fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 14 Issues and Supporting Informat on Sources: Potentially With Than 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater suppties or interfere ( ) ( ) ~,.. ( ) (,/) substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ( ) ( ) ( ) . (v') the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional soumes of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) (./) ( ) ( ) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from ground water in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it intedere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit /77 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith Than IV'2. The development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however, CVWD has plans to meet this increased need through the construction of future water facilities. / c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in sudace flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in sudace water quality impacts. The site is more than 1 acre; therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-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 in June 2004. 2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith *Chart 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 Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. g) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5.] Ne adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. j) There are no oceans, lakes or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees norlh of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located on east side of Center, between Arrow and 26th Street and is characterized by Low-medium residential development to the west, high density apartments to the north, single-family and industrial to the south, industrial to the east. This project will be of similar design and size to neighboring development to the west. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 17 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially WithThan b) The project site current land use designation is Industrial Park. The proposed project would be consistent upon amendment with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is within an area of sensitive biological resources (DSF) however, studies have determined the site does not contain t6e Delhi soils or habitat necessary to the existence of the Delhi Sands flower loving fly; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ~ ( ) (v') (.) ( ) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ( ) (,,') ( ) ( ) ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ( ) ( ) ( ) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 18 Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poter~tia~ly With Than f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out. A noise study was prepared (LSA, July 9, 2004) with additional study required at the time of a development proposal. The Mitigations proposed in the Noise Study witl mitigate for adverse traffic noise impacts and will include: 1) For all residences along Center Avenue and Arrow Route, provide air- conditioning units to allow windows to remain closed, thereby reducing noise. 2) Provide a free-standing noise wall for all 'residences along Arrow Route approximately 12 feet in height. The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 3) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 4) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; howevers 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. 5) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts due to the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 6) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 dally trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 19 Less T~an Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith Than traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. b) Future industrial buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby commercial +uses is expected. However, at the time of occupancy the Planning Department will review each Business License for eaqh tenant to d~termine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses.and elementary schools. The proposed residential uses associated with this type application normally do not induce ground borne vibrations. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) See a) response above. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Located approximately 3.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 21/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of reads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce substpntial population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PolentiallyWith Than 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: a) The site, located on east side of Center, between Arrow and 26th Street, would be served by a fire station located approximately 2 miles from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Substantial additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not significantly change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The Central School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the project area. Both school districts have been notified regarding the proposed development. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park (Old Towne Park) is located .3 miles from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004~00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 21 Less Than ' Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially W~th Ran adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborl~0od and ( ) ( ) ( ) (,~') regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park (Old Towne Park) is located .3 miles from the project site. This project is not proposing any substantial new housing or large employment generator that would cause a significant increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ( ) ( ) (v') ( ) service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads er highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEVVIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyW,h Tilan g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a) A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by, LSA Asssociates, and is attached for reference. The Study determined that because the total new trips are relatively minor, and provided the mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed Project will have less than significant impact on traffic. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. The City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic cimulation. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) The Project shall pay the "fair share" contribution for traffic impacts estimated in a study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2) The mitigation measures specified in the TIA are hereby incorporated by reference. 3) Mitigation Measure TC-9 from the GP EIR, permiting certain key intersects (including Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard) to operate at level of service E or better, is hereby incorporated into the Project. b) A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by, LSA Asssociates, and is attached for reference. The Study determined that because the total new trips are relatively minor, and provided the mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed Project will have less than significant impact on traffic. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Same as 15a, shown above. c) Located approximately 3.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyWith Than C) Located approximately 3.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The projept will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and will therefore not create an inadequate parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 24 Less Th~n Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than located within Rancho Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga Valley Water Dist~t sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho.Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 25 Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mifigafion Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major period~ of California history or prehistery? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, a portion of the project site is within the Delhi Soils area of sensitive biological resources for the Delhi Sands flower loving-fly; however, studies by LSA Associates Inc. have determined that, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because the project site does not have sensitive soil or habitat previously thought to exist and the site is surrounded primarily by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and Sphere of Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to aggregate resoumes, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustica~ environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General P~an Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impa~ts is required. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 26 c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. MifJgation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less than significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eartier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analysis were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (/) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (/)Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) SPECIAL STUDIES The following special studies have been submitted and made part of the record of the Initial Study and are available for review at the Planning Division Offices during regular working hours: 1. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, by LOR Geotechnical Group Inc., dated March 2, 2004. 2. Air Quality Impact Analysis, by LSA, dated July 12, 2004, and clarification letter dated August 24, 2004. 3. Habitat Assessment by MBA, dated May 25, 2004. 4. Surface Soil Evaluation by RMA Group, dated May 21, 2004. 5. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 2, 2004. 6. Noise Impact Analysis by LSA, dated July 9, 2004, and clarification letter dated August 24, 2004. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis by LSA, dated June 11, 2004, and clarification letter dated August 24, 2004. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY Page 27 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to,a point wh~t~._~/~/environmental effects would occur. Applicant s Signet ure.~ _/~,~___~./ '"~ ...- Date: ~(/~-----//~)4-~ Print Name and Title: ~.~0 F~k-3 ~ © 0 ~,.}~"~ (,,,.) '~J [:::::> I_~tA (~., LSA August 24, 2004 Mr. John Young Lewis Operating Corporation 1156 North Mountain Avenue P. O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 Subject: Noise and Air Quality Impact Study for the Proposed Haven/Arrow Project (DRC2004- 00272 and DRC2004-00273), in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Young: At your request, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has reviewed the potential noise and air quality impacts from the proposed changes to the Haven/Arrow Project (DRC2004-00272 and DRC2004-00273): Based on our telephone conversation earlier today, it is anticipated that the maximum number of dwelling units would change from 143 to 164, an increase of 21 dwelling units. In addition, the square footage for the proposed on-site commercial uses would be reduced from 250,000 sq.ft, to 230,000 sq.ft. Based on the daily trip generation data provided by LSA's traffic staff (Mr. Steven Green, LSA Riverside Office), these changes would result in a reduction of 28 trips a day the project's total daily trips (from 4,224 to 4,196). This is a less than one percent change in total daily trips. LSA prepared both the Noise Impact Analysis (LSA, July 9, 2004) and the Air Quality Impact Analysis (July 12, 2004)for this project. Based on the above discussion on the potential small reduction in project daily trips, it is our opinion that no substantial changes would occur on the findings included in the noise and air quality impact analyses. The findings would remain the same as identified in the above-mentioned reports. Please contact me at (949) 553-0666 if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Tung-chen Chung, Ph.D. Principal August 24, 2004 John Young Lewis Operating Corp. Post Office Box 670 Upland, California 91785-0670 Subject: DRC 2004-00272 DRC 2004-00273 Dear Mr. Young: On June 11, 2004, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for "The Haven/Arrow Mixed-Use Project" (now called "The Oasis"). The project analyzed in the TIA included an office park of approximately 250,000 square feet, as well as 143 single-family residential units. It is our understanding that Lewis Operating Corp. has withdrawn its application for the tentative tract map resulting in the 143 residential units, and is now applying for a zone change for the same area that would permit up to 164 single-family residential units. In addition, the area devoted to office uses has decreased by 20,000 square feet, resulting in 230,000 square feet of office space. The purpose of this letter is to compare the traffic impact of the currently proposed project (164 residential units and 230,000 square feet of office space) to that of the previously analyzed project. The attached Table A shows the trip generation of the currently proposed project. The a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, and daily trip generation are slightly less than that analyzed in the T1A. LSA has prepared revised analyses of traffic operations for the currently proposed project. Year 2005 and year 2025 intersection level of service (LOS) tables at the study intersections included in the TIA are shown in the attached Tables B and C, respectively. Detailed LOS calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A. Comparison of Tables B and C with the corresponding tables in the TIA show that no LOS letter grades change as a result o£the modifications to the project. Because the changes in traffic operations resulting from the modifications to the project are so small, the mitigation measures identified in the TIA are also sufficient for the present project. The attached Tables D and E show year 2005 and year 2025 intersection levels of service after implementation of the mitigation measures included in the TIA. As shown in these tables, the City of Rancho Cucamonga's LOS standard old is maintained at all study intersections. Finally, because of the slight increase in residential trip generation and the slight decrease in office trip generation, the project's fair share con~xibution to the identified mitigation measures will change slightly. The attached table F shows the current project's contribution towards these mitigation Foeasures. 8/24/04(R:LLEW43 t~Trafli¢~Zone Change Letter.wpd) If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (951) 781-9310 or via e-mail at steven.greene@lsa-assoc.com. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Greene Associate Encl: Table A - Project Trip Generation Table B - Year 2005 With Project Intersection Levels of Service Table C - Year 2025 With Project Intersection Levels of Service Table D - Year 2005 With Project With Improvements Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service Table E - Year 2025 With Project With Improvements Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service Table F - Project Contribution to Year 2025 Circulation Improvement Costs Appendix A - Level of Service Calculation Worksheets 8/24/0ZI(R:LLEW431 \Traffic',Zon¢ Change LctIcr x~.'pd) 2 Table A - Project Trip Generation A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Residential 164 D.U. TripsFUnit~ 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.65 0.36 1.01 9.57 Trip Generation 31 92 123 107 59 166 1,569 Office Park 230 TSF TripsFOnit2 1.55 0.19 1.74 0.21 1.29 1.50 I 1.42 Trip Generation 357 44 401 48 297 345 2,627 Total Trip Generation 388 136 524 155 356 511 4,196 Rates based on Land Use 210 - Single Family Detached Housing from Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition. Rates based on Land Use 750 - Office Park from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition. R:~LE\V43 l\Traffic~Trip Gen\Tnp Gen (8!24/2004) Table B - Opening Year With Project Intersection Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Intersection Control V/C (sec.) LOS V/C (sec.) LOS 1 . Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.67 29.8 C 0.69 31.3 C 2. Center Avenue/Arrow Route TWSC 254.0 F * >300 F 3 . Residential Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.5 B 13.0 B 4 . Office park Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.5 B 17.4 C 5 . Haven Avenue/Base Line Road Signal 0.64 30.0 ,/ C 0.74 32.6 C 6. Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Signal ' 0.71 32.6 C 0.82 36.8 D 7 . Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.66 29.9 C 0.84 36.2 D 8 . Haven Avenue/Office park Access TWSC 13.3 B 12.6 B 9. Haven Avenue/26th Street TWSC 13.9 B 14.0 B 10. Haven Avenue/6th Street Signal 0.65 22.1 C 0.70 22.2 C 11 . Haven Avenue/4th Street Signal 0.73 25.1 C 0.89 33.4 C 12. Haven Avenue/l- 10 WB Ramps Signal 0.74 18.8 B 0.56 12.2 B · Exceeds level of service standard Notes: For two way stop controlled intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach. V/C = Volume/Capaciiy Ratio. V/C not applicable to TWSC intersections. LOS = Level of Service TWSC = Two Way Stop Control R:\LEW431\Traffic'~.OS~005 P (8/24/2004) Table C - Year 2025 With Project Intersection Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Intersection Control V/C (sec.) LOS V/C (sec.) LOS I . Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.63 24.9 C 0.80 30.4 C 2 . Center Avenue/Arrow Route TWSC >300 F * >300 F * 3 · Residential Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.9 B 16~ C 4. Office Park Access/Arrow Route TWSC 13.0 B 28.6 D 5 . Haven Avenue/Base Line Road Signal 0.79 32.6 C 0.89 39.7 D 6 . Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Signal 0.78 33.4 C 1.02 52.1 F * 7 . Haven Avenue/An-ow Route Signal 0.79 32.1 C 0.94 42.5 D 8 . Haven Avenue/Office Park Access TWSC 15. l C 14.9 B 9 . Haven Avenue/26th S~'eet TWSC 14.8 B 15.4 C 10 . Haven Avenue/6th Street Signal 0.67 23.8 C 0.92 30.8 C 11 . Haven Avenue/4th Street Signal 1.03 52.0 F * lA9 95.1 F * 12 . Haven Avenue/I-10 WB Ramps Si~nal 0.85 21.3 C 0.66 9.6 A · Exceeds levelofservice standard Notes: For two way stop controlled intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach. V/C = Volume/Capacity Ratio. V/C not applicable to TWSC intersections. LOS = Level of Service TWSC = Two Way Stop Control Table D - Year 2005 With Project With Improvements Intersection Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Intersection Control V/C (sec.) LOS V/C (sec.) LOS I . Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.67 29.8 C 0.69 31.3 C 2 . Center Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.42 9.9 A 0.46 10.5 B 3 . Residential Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.5 B 13.0 B 4. Office Park Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.5 B 17.4 C 5 . Haven Avenue/Base Line Road ' Signal 0:64 30.0 ,/ C 0.74 32.6 C 6. Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Signal , 0.71 32.6 C 0.82 36.8 D 7. Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.66 29.9 C 0.84 36.2 D 8 . Haven Avenue/Office Park Access TWSC 13.3 B 12.6 B 9. Haven Avenue/26th Street TWSC 13.9 B 14.0 B 10 . Haven Avenue/6th Street Signal .. 0.65 22.1 C 0.70 22.2 C 11 . Haven Avenue/4th Street Signal 0.73 25.1 C 0.89 33,4 C 12 . Haven Avenue/l-10 WB Ramps Signal 0.74 18.8 B 0.56 12.2 B For iwo'way stop controlled intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach. V/C = Volume/Capacity Ratio. V/C not applicable to TWSC intersections. LOS = Level of Service TWSC = Two Way Stop Control R:\LEW431 \Tra fficXLOS~2005 MIT (8/24/2004) 177 Table E- Year 2025 With Project With Improvements Intersection Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay Intersection Control V/C (sec.) LOS V/C (sec.) LOS 1 . Hermosa Avenue/An-ow Route Signal 0.63 24.9 C 0.80 30.4 C 2. Center Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.41 8.4 A 0.59 8.9 A 3 . Residential Access/Arrow Route TWSC 12.9 B 16.~ C 4 . Office Park Access/Arrow Route TWSC 13,0 B 28.6 D 5 . Haven Avenue/Base Line Road Signal 0.79 32.6 C 0.89 39.7 D 6 . Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Signal 0.70 32~2 C 0.94 41.6 D 7 . Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Signal 0.79 32.1 C 0.94 42.5 D 8. Haven Avenue/Office Park Access TWSC 15.1 C 14.9 B 9 . Haven Avenue/26th S~reet TWSC 14.8 B 15.4 C 10 . Haven Avenue/6th Street Signal 0.67 23.8 C 0.92 30.8 C I I . Haven Avenue/4th Street Signal 0.93 40.7 D 0.97 47.2 D 12 . Haven Avenue/I-10 WB Ramps Signal 0.85 21.3 C 0.66 9.6 A For two way stop controlled intersections, reported delay is for worst-case approach. V/C = Volume/Capacity Ratio. V/C not applicable to TWSC intersections. LOS = Level of Service TWSC = Two Way Stop Control R:\LEW431 \Tra ffic/LOS~2025 MIT (8/24/2004) Table F - Project Contribution to Year 2025 Circulation Improvements'Costs Total Project Project Improvement Fair Share Fair Share Intersection Cost Percent. Cost Center Avenue/Arrow Route $130,500 15.3% $20,014 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard $145,730 / 6.5% $9,505 Haven Avenue/4th Street $256,650 5.3% $13,672 Total Off-Site Improvements $532,880 $43,191 R:~LEW43 l\Traffic\anedal cost (8/24/2004) APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 8/24/04(R:\LEW43 l\Traffic~Zone Change Leuer.wpd) YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT 8/24/04(R:\LEWtg3 l\Trafllc~.one Change Letler.wpd) Openin9 Year-with project-ATue AuG 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Openin9 Year With Project Conditions ~ AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0,670 Loss Time (sec): 8 {Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.8 Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10110 10101 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 47 163 133 131 440 92 56 660 86 147 648 62 Growth Adj: 1.o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 ~.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 47 163 133 131 440 92 56 660 86 147 848 62 User Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 51 178 145 143 479 100 61 719 94 160 706 68 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 178 145 143 479 100 61 719 94 160 706 68 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 51 178 145 143 479 100 61 719 94 160 706 68 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1,00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.10 0.90 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.77 0.23 1~00 1,83 0,17 Final Sat.: 1700 1982 1618 1700 1800 1800 1700 3185 415 1700 3286 314 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.27 0.06 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.21. Green Time: 4.5 22.8 22.8 21.4 39.7 39.7 6.8 33.7 33.7 14.1 40.9 40.9 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.67 0.14 0.53 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.53 0.53 Delay/Veh: 67.7 33.0 33.0 34,4 27.2 19.3 49.4 29,9 29.9 47.9 22.6 22.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67.7 33.0 33.0 34.4 27.2 19.3 49.4 29.9 29.9 47.9 22.6 22.6 HCM2kAvg: 3 4 4 4 13 2 3 12 12 6 9 9 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 3-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[254.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 940 19 44 731 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 940 19 44 731 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 68 1 51 58 2 41 16 1050 21 49 817 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 68 1 51 58 2 41 16 1050 21 49 817 11 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 xxx~ x~_wocx 4.1 )ucxx x3~wDcx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 MDCXX YOCX3CX 2.2 X~X3( X~XX~CX Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1600 2018 536 1478 2023 414 828 )Lx~x~xyJ~w~x 1072 x~cw-x xx,xxx Potent Cap.: 72 59 494 89 59 593 812 yoocx x3cxy, x 658 ~ocx3~Lw, xr~x Move Cap.: ~ 61 54 494 73 53 593 812 xyo~x ~mc~J-x 658 r~x~cx~xx~_x Volume/Cap: 1.13 0.02 0.10 0.79 0.04 0.07 0.02 x0cx~x ~ 0.07 x~J~x ~ Level Of Service Module: Queue: x3ocxx x3ocx x~ocxx x3cxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxxxxxxx gtopped Del:x~ucxx xxxx yocmx~x x~cxxx x3ocx )ooo~x 9.5 xrocx xrcc~x 10.9 x~xx~mc~xx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * B * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT ~ LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT SharedQueue:~ 8.4 xxxxxxxx3cx 5.6 xxmocxx~J~x xx~x~x ~xxxx ~ooc~x ~Jo~xmx~cxx Shared LOS: F F ApproachDel: 254.0 132.3 x~oocw_x x3cx~o~x ApproachLOS: F F * * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 4-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardlno County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Residential Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.5] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R .L T ~ R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 10200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1038 8 0 785 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1038 8 0 785 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1038 8 0 785 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1038 8 0 785 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x-~33{xyJ-xx 6.9 y-x3oLxxx~cx xx~ucx xx~ocx y. xx~x x~cx_xx xxxxxxxxx x3uocx FollowUpTim:Ymnxxx xxxx 3.3 ~ xm~w~xx~Lxm~x )ooo~x xmccx x3~xxx xxxxx x~c~-xx3cx_xx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xy. xxxxxx 523 x3~xx xx~cxyocxxx yoccx ~ xy-xy-x x3c{xxJcx.x x3cx~cx Volume/Cap: y~xxx~ucx 0.05 x3ccx x_x3cx x3cxx y~ccx xxxx xxy. x xyo~x xrocx x3cx_x Level Of Service Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-A~e Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 5-1 ~aven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Openin~ Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report '2000 HCM Unsi~nalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~4 Commercial Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: BI 12.5] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 967 68 0 809 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 967 68 0 809 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P~F Volume: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 967 68 0 809 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 967 68 0 809 0 Critical Gap Module: FollowUpTim:x3c~,~-x x~cx~ 3.3 x3cx,x~ ~ ~ ~x3c:cx x~cx3~ ~ x3cx3~x ~ :cx,x3{x Capacity Module: Level Of Service Module: Shared LOS: ApproachDel: 12.5 ~ ~ ~ ApproachLOS: B * * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 6-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Haven Avenue/Baseline Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.638 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.0 ~timal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,., East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 t t 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 86 527 82 137 1198 141 169 399 183 200 602 194 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I~itial Bse: 86 527 82 137 1198 141 169 399 183 200 602 194 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 93 571 89 148 1298 153 183 432 198 217 652 210 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 93 571 89 148 1298 153 183 432 198 217 652 210 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 93 571 89 148 1298 153 183 432 198 217 652 210 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 6.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 5400 1800 3200 4831 569 1700 3600 1800 1700 3600 1800 Capacity ]knalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.1t 0.05 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.12 Green Time: 4.6 32.5 32.5 14.2 42.1 42.1 16.9 22.0 22.0 23.3 28.4 28.4 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.33 0.15 0.33 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.55 0~50 0.55 0.64 0.41 Delay/Veh: 55.9 25.6 24.1 39.0 23.5 23.5 43~4 35.4 35.2 35.3 32.6 29.6 User DetAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.9 25.6 24.1 39.0 23.5 23.5 43.4 35.4 35.2 35.3 32.6 29.6 HCM2 k~vg: 3 4 2 2 12 12 6 6 6 6 10 5 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin9 ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Pa~e 7-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.709 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32~6 Opti~l Cycle: 49 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 I 0 2 0 3 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 220 567 104 236 1353 107 233 510 187 351 569 95 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 220 567 104 236 1353 107 233 510 187 351 569 95 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96 PHF Volume: 230 594 109 247 1417 112 244 534 196 368 596 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 230 594 109 247 1417 112 244 534 196 368 596 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 230 594 109 247 1417 112 244 534 196 368 596 99 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0,89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.38 0.62 2.00 3.00 1,00 2.00 1.46 0.54 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 6084 1116 3200 5400 1800 3200 2634 966 3200 5400 1800 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.26 0.06 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.06 Green Time: 10.2 26.3 26,3 20.8 37.0 37.0 18.3 28.6 28.6 16.2 26.5 26.5 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.71 0.17 0.42 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.42 0.21 Delay/Veh: 50.5 30.2 30.2 34.3 28.1 21.3 36.6 34.3 34.3 44.2 30,6 28.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.5 30.2 30.2 34.3 28.1 21.3 36.6 34.3 34.3 44.2 30.6 28.8 HCM2kAvg: 5 5 5 4 13 2 4 11 11 7 5 2 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-A~ue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 8-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.656 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.9 Opti~l Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound Sou~h Bound"~ East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L ? R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 241 933 191 146 1187 113 219 597 175 205 595 55 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 241 933 191 146 1187 113 219 597 175 205 595 55 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 257 997 204 186 1268 121 234 638 187 219 636 59 Reduc~ Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 257 997 204 156 1268 121 334 638 187 219 636 59 PCE Adj: 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 257 997 204 156 1268 121 234 638 187 219 636 59 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.83 0~17 Final Sat.: 3200 5400 1800 3200 4931 469 3200 3600 1800 3200 3295 305 Capacity ~nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.19 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 12.3 40.7 40.7 10.8 39.2 39.2 11.1 29.2 29.2 11.3 29.4 29.4 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.36 0.61 0.66 0.66 Delay/Veh: 45.9 21.7 20~0 42.8 25.6 25.6 47.0 31.4 28.3 45.2 32.4 32.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.9 21.7 20.0 42.8 25.6 25.6 47.0 31.4 28.3 45.2 32.4 32.4 HCM2kAvg: 5 8 4 3 12 12 5 9 5 4 10 10 Traffix 7.6.0715 {c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Openin§ Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 9-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Se~ice Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Haven Avenue/Commercial Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B{ 13.3] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Si~n Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1362 0 0 1486 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1362 0 0 1486 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1362 0 0 1486 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1362 0 0 1486 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxxx~c~x~-w3~xx x3cx3cx xx3c~ocw.xxxxxxx x~ccx 6.9 ~ xx~x xxx3cx FollowUpTim:x3~c~x x3c~x xx3~xx x3u~c~ xx3~x x~cw_%x xx~cxx ~ 3.3 ~ x3cxx xxx~x Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xx~x x~c~x3cxxx x3ccx x3c~x x~J~3c~ ~ rJcxx 606 x3ucx X3Q~XX~QC~X ApproachDel: xx3oc~x xz3uc~x 13.3 x3~x3o~x ApproachLOS: B * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 10-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Haven Avenue/26th Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: BI 13.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T ~ R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1628 0 0 1496 83 0 0 54 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1628 0 0 1496 83 0 0 54 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 0 1756 0 0 1614 90 0 0 58 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1756 0 0 1614 90 0 0 58 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x3ocxxTJocx yocxocx ~3~x~xxxxx xx~xx ~ x~ocx 6.9 xx3oLx xxxx x~oc~x Capacity Module: Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xro~xx~oo~xxxrocx xooocxxmocx xToo~xxx~ucx xxxx 13.9 xoocxx xocxx xrocxx LOS by Move: * * * * B Shrd StpDel:xroc~x xx~,x rooocx xxxxx~uocx xruocx yuoocx xxxx xxrJ~ xo~xxx x~ucx yucx3cx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: x3cxm~w~x x3cxmucx 13.9 x3~xocxx ApproachLOS: B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 11-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Openin9 Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~10 Haven Avenue/6th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.646 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 2~,~ Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10210 20210 001!00 10101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 123 1583 82 139 1212 47 93 189 71 114 206 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 123 1583 82 139 1212 47 93 189 71 114 206 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 136 1755 91 154 1344 52 103 210 79 126 228 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 136 1755 91 154 1344 52 103 210 79 126 228 48 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 136 1755 91 154 1344 52 103 210 79 126 228 48 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.85 0.15 2.00 2.89 0.11 0.26 0.54 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1300 5134 266 3200 5198 202 474 964 362 1700 1800 1800 Capacity A/~alysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.13 0.03 Green Time: 14.3 52.9 52.9 7.5 46.1 46.1 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.22 0.38 0.08 Delay/Veh: 42.9 17.4 17.4 51.0 19.9 19.9 30.6 30.6 30.6 24.0 25.6 22.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.9 17.4 17.4 51.0 19.9 19.9 30.6 30~6 30.6 24.0 25.6 22.7 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. L~censed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA 2// Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 12-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~11 Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.726 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.1 Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,~, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20210 20210 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 141 1749 212 62 1251 52 84 223 146 184 394 140 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 141 1749 212 62 1251 52 84 223 146 184 394 140 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 159 1970 239 70 1409 59 95 251 164 287 444 158 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 189 1970 239 70 1409 59 '95 251 164 207 444 158 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 159 1970 239 70 1409 59 95 251 164 207 444 158 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 AdjUstment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.68 0.32 2.00 2.88 0.12 1.00 1.21 0.79 1.00 1.48 0.52 Final Sat.: 3200 4816 584 3200 5184 216 1700 2176 1424 1700 2656 944 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 Green Time: 9.2 56.3 56.3 3.0 50.2 50.2 8.2 15.9 15.9 16.8 24.5 24.5 Volume/Cap: 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.54 0.68 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.68 Delay/Veh: 45.5 17.0 17.0 72.1 17.3 17.3 57.6 44.6 44.6 48.4 36.4 36.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.5 17.0 17.0 72.1 17.3 17.3 57.6 44.6 44.6 48.4 36.4 36.4 HCM2kAvg: 3 18 18 2 10 10 4 8 8 8 9 10 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowllng Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA 2/2 Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:23:35 Page 13-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~12 Haven Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramps Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol~/Cap. (X): 0.741 Loss Time (sec): 4 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 18~8 Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T 'R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase R~ghts: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00401 00311 00000 10002 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2554 289 0 1405 468 0 0 0 456 0 892 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2554 289 0 1405 468 0 0 0 456 0 892 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 0 2916 0 0 1604 534 0 0 0 521 0 1018 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 2916 0 0 1604 534 0 0 0 521 0 1018 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 2916 0 0 1604 534 0 0 0 521 0 1018 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.00 4~00 1.00 0.00 3.75 1.25 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 7200 1800 0 6751 2249 0 0 0 1700 0 3400 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0,00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0,0 54.7 0.0 0.0 54.7 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 0.0 41.3 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.74 0,00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.72 Dela¥/veh: 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 26.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 26.5 HCM2kAvg: 0 18 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 15 0 14 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.690 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 31.3 Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound .,, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10110 10101 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 121 464 173 119 224 54 144 875 80 128 839 125 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 121 464 173 119 224 54 i44 875 80 128 839 125 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 f.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 128 492 183 126 237 57 153 927 85 136 889 132 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 128 492 183 126 237 57 153 927 85 136 889 132 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 128 492 183 126 237 57 153 927 85 136 889 132 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1,00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.46 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.74 0.26 Final Sat.: 1700 2622 878 1700 1800 1800 1700 3298 302 1700 3133 467 Capacity Anatysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.8 27.2 27.2 10.7 24.1 24.1 13.0 42.1 42.1 12.0 41.1 41.1 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.55 0.13 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 42.9 34.8 34.8 53.7 34.6 29.9 50.5 24.4 24.4 50.3 25.6 25.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.9 34.8 34.8 53.7 34.6 29.9 50.5 24.4 24.4 50.3 25.6 25.6 HCM2kAvg: 4 10 10 5 7 1 6 13 13 5 14 14 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 3-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 36.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[726.7] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 i 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1049 53 109 1053 41 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1049 53 109 1053 41 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 67 0 37 34 0 18 41 1069 54 111 1073 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 67 0 37 34 0 18 41 1069 54 111 1073 42 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 xxxx 6.9 7.5 x3c~x 6.9 4.1 x3c~x x3c~3~x 4.1 x~cx~yo~x~x FollowUpTim: 3.5 x~o~x 3.3 3.5 ~cw3cx 3.3 2.2 yoc~x ~ 2.2 x~bx,x x3cx~cx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1937 xxm~x 562 1933 ~ 558 1115 MJo~x xx3~xx 1123 ~ ~cw~cx Potent Cap.: 40 r~x3c~ 476 41 xxxx 479 634 xoocx x~cxxx 629 x3~cx xroo~x Move Cap.: 32 x3cxx 476 31 ~cxx 479 634 x3~xx x3~x3cx 629 xDcxx x3ooc~ Volume/Cap: 2.10 x~u~x 0.08 1.09 xxm~x 0.04 0.06 xyocx x, x3cx 0.18 x~mcx x3ocx Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxx3cx xxxxxxx~x xxxxxxx~cx ~oocxx 0.2 ~ccx xrocxx 0.6 xx3~x x3o~xx Stopped Del:xmoccxx3cxx ~ xxxxx ~ccxxx3cx~cx 11.1 mxxx yooc~x 11.9 x~cxx xx3c~x LOS by Move: * * * * * * B * * B * Movement: LT - LTR ~ RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: x~cxx 48 x~mcxx x3c~x 46 x~u~x xxxx xxxxx~ucxx x3cxx xJo~x xxxxx SharedQueue:xmcx~x 10.7 zmmc~xxx3ocx 4.8 xxxmcx xx~o~x x~x xx~cxx xx3c~x ~ xxmo~x Shrd StpDel:r~cxx.x 727 roo~ux xxxmbx 312 xx~ucx xmoo~xroc~x mx3cxx xx3c~x F. wm~x xm~xmcx Shared LOS: * F F ApproachDel: 726.7 312.5 x3cx3ocx Mmccy~x ApproachLOS: F F * * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-P~ue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 4-1 Haven/;Lrrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 BCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Residential Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R .L T r R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Si~n Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 10200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1117 27 0 1203 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1117 27 0 1203 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1117 27 0 1203 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1117 27 0 1203 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x~cx~xxx3cx 6.9 x3uocx zoocxxx3o~x x3cx~_x xxxx x3cx~cx xrocxx xx~xx x3cx~cx Volume/Cap: )oc~xx~cxx 0.03 x3cxx xJJ~x xoccx ~ovo~x x, wo~x xr, xx ~ocxx xo~xx xocmx Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 5-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 BCM Unsignalized Method (Sase Volume Alternative) Intersection ~4 Commercial Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.4] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 00200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1147 9 0 1246 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1147 9 0 1246 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1147 9 0 1246 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1147 9 0 1246 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x~cxxx xxxx 6.9 yucx3~x xmo~x yocyo~x yJmccx xuc~x x3cx3~x ymcxxx xx~-x xx~ocx Capacity Module: Volume/Cap: xxxxxro~x 0.38 )~ucxxr~cx xxxx x~o~x xy_xx xx~x x3~xx xy~xx yu~xx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxx3cxxx3cx 17.4 yJoocx x~_xx xxxxx xxxxx x~cmx yo~xxx x3oocx x3cxx xx~ocx LOS by Move: * * C * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shrd StpDel:xx3ocx yocxx yocxx~x x3cxxx x3cxx y-x3ocx yoocxx xxxx yo~xxx yJJ~XX xx-xx ~cxx,x Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: 17.4 xx~oo~x ~ccx3ocx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: C * * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA .217 Opening Year-wish project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 6-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~5 Haven Avenue/Baseline Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. {X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.6 Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East BoUnd West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20301 20210 10201 10201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 276 1584 171 175 962 93 279 609 187 158 511 216 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 276 1584 171 175 962 93 279 609 187 158 511 216 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 287 1648 178 182 1001 97 290 634 195 164 532 225 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1648 178 182 '1001 87 290 634 195 164 532 225 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 287 1648 178 182 1001 97 290 634 195 164 532 225 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 5400 1800 3200 4924 476 1700 3600 1800 1700 3600 1800 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.31 0.10 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.0 41.3 41.3 7.7 34.0 34.0 23.1 27.8 27.8 15.3 20.0 20.0 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.74 0.24 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.74 0.63 0.39 0.83 0.74 0.63 Delay/Veh: 41.8 26.2 19.3 56.5 27.9 27.9 43.0 33.0 29.7 44.8 41.7 40.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.8 26.2 19.3 56.5 27.9 27.9 43.0 33.0 29.7 44.8 41.7 40.0 HCM2kAvg: 5 15 4 4 10 10 10 9 5 6 9 7 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Openin~ Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Pa~e 7-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 MCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Maven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.823 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) AYera~e Delay (sec/veh): 36~8 Optimal Cycle: 71 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20310 20301 20110 20301 Volume Module: Base Vol: 399 1577 251 232 750 80 493 902 131 362 758 287 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 399 1577 251 232 750 80 493 902 131 362 758 287 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 416 1644 262 242 782 83 514 941 137 377 790 299 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 416 1644 262 242 782 83 514 941 137 377 790 299 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 416 1644 262 242 782 83 514 941 137 377 790 299 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.45 0.55 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.75 0.25 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 6211 989 3200 5400 1800 3200 3143 457 3200 5400 1800 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.15 0.17 Green Time: 19.6 32.2 32.2 9.2 21.8 21.8 24.9 36.3 36.3 14.3 25.8 25.8 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.66 0.21 0.65 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.57 0.65 Delay/Veh: 39.9 33.8 33.8 61.5 37.2 32.4 35.4 33.3 33.3 53.1 32.8 36.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.9 33.8 33.8 61.5 37.2 32.4 35.4 33.3 33.3 53.1 32.8 36.2 HCM2kAvg: 7 16 ,16 6 8 2 8 17 18 8 8 9 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 8-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.839 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 36.2 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East BoUnd West Bound Movement: L T R L T R' L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20301 20210 20201 20110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 333 1665 327 91 1000 189 373 834 115 316 743 171 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 333 1665 327 91 1000 189 373 834 115 316 743 171 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.52 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 364 1818 357 99 1092 206 407 910 126 345 811 187 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 364 1818 357 99 1092 206 407 910 126 345 811 187 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 364 1818 357 99 1092 206 407 910 126 345 811 187 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.52 0~48 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.63 0.37 Final Sat.: 3200 5400 1800 3200 4542 858 3200 3600 1800 3200 2926 674 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.34 0.20 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.25 0.07 0.11 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 14.1 40.1 40.1 3.7 29.7 29.7 15.2 33.8 33.8 14.4 33.0 33.0 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.84 0.49 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.75 0.21 0.75 0.84 0.84 Delay/Veh: 52.1 30.1 22.9 86.3 35.6 35.6 53.5 32.0 23.7 47.7 36.5 36.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.1 30.1 22.9 86.3 35.6 35.6 53.5 32.0 23.7 47,7 36.5 36.5 HCM2kAv~: 8 19 8 3 14 14 9 14 3 7 17 17 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 9-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~8 Haven Avenue/Commercial Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 0,2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Bights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2309 0 0 1420 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2309 0 0 1420 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2309 0 0 1420 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2309 0 0 1420 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x3cxmcx x~ucx x~cx3cx ~3cxm{xxxxx~ucx~.x ~x3ccx x.xx-x 6.9 xm~xmc< xm~xx x~o~xx FollowUpTim:x~ x~cx~{ xmc~-x3( ~cx3{x~< ~3u~x xxxxx ~ ~3LX~( 3.3 ~3~Xr~< X~CX3{ ~ Capacity Module: Volume/Cap: 7J~cxx~mcx ~ x3cxx )ocx3~ x~<xx 7ocxx )occx 0.11 xx-xx ~ ~ Level Of Service Module: LOS by Move: B ApproachLO$: B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project~PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 10 1 Maven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~9 Haven Avenue/26th Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R .L T ~4 R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2265 0 0 1460 20 0 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2265 0 0 1460 20 0 0 72 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PMF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Q.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P~F Volume: 0 2531 0 0 1631 22 0 0 80 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2531 0 0 1631 22 0 0 80 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:yocxxxxy~xxyo~xxx yocx0cxx3o~xx3o~xx x3cxxx ~3o~x 6.9 xx3o~xx3o~x yooo~x Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xx~-xxxxxxxxxx xxxx x3ocxx~ocx xx3cx x~o~x 555 xx~x xx0cx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:Yooo~x ~ xx~cxx x3cxxxxx~x x3oocx x3ocxx xx3cx 14.0 xx3o~x yoocx x3oocx Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared LOS: * * * * * * ApprcachDel: xooccxx yoooc~x 14.0 x3~xx3cx ApproachLOS: * B * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA 227_ Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 11-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino Counsy Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ~Intersection #10 Haven Avenue/6th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.703 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22,2 Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10210 20210 001!00 10101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 108 1821 143 123 1588 81 90 225 102 182 282 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 108 1821 143 123 1588 81 90 225 102 182 282 83 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 PHF Volume: 113 1899 149 128 1656 84 94 235 106 190 294 87 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 113 1899 149 128 1656 84 94 235 106 190 294 87 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 113 1899 149 128 1656 84 94 235 106 190 294 87 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 0.22 2.00 2.85 0.15 0.22 0.54 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 5007 393 3200 5138 262 388 971 440 1700 1800 1800 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.16 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 10.2 53,9 53.9 5.7 49.5 49.5 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.32 0.48 0.14 Delay/Veh: 51.7 17.9 17.9 58.0 19.4 19.4 32.1 32.1 32.1 24.6 26.3 22.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.7 17.9 17.9 58.0 19.4 19.4 32.1 32.1 32.1 24.6 26.3 22.7 HCM2k3%vg: 5 16 16 3 14 13 12 13 13 4 7 2 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 12-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Co~utation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.885 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.4 Opti~l Cycle: 93 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound.., East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20210 20210 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 147 1906 231 176 1652 90 98 530 160 220 422 119 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 147 1906 231 176 1652 90 98 530 160 220 422 119 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 PHF Volume: 155 2011 244 186 1743 95 103 559 169 232 445 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 2011 244 186 1743 95 103 559 169 232 445 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 155 2011 244 186 1743 95 103 559 169 232 445 126 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.68 0.32 2.00 2.85 0.15 1.00 1.54 0.46 1.00 1.56 0.44 Final Sat.: 3200 4816 584 3200 5121 279 1700 2765 835 1700 2808 792 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.06 0~20 0.20 0.14 0,16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** ~*** **** Green Time: 6.7 47.2 47.2 6.6 47.0 47.0 10.6 22.8 22.8 15.4 27.7 27.7 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.57 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.57 0.57 Delay/Veh: 57.3 28.1 28.1 79.3 22.3 22.3 47.0 48.6 48.6 69.4 31.9 31.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.3 28.1 28.1 79.3 22.3 22.3 47.0 48.6 48.6 69.4 31.9 31.9 HCM2k3%vg: 4 24 25 5 16 17 4 14 14 10 8 8 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:24:40 Page 13-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino Coungy Openin9 Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 Haven Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ran~ps Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.561 Loss Time (sec): 4 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.2 Opgimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound~ East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R' L T R L T R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00401 00311 00000 10002 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2436 487 0 1889 985 0 0 0 274 0 528 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2436 487 0 1889 985 0 0 0 274 0 528 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 0 2628 0 0 2038 1063 0 0 0 296 0 570 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 2628 0 0 2038 1063 0 0 0 296 0 570 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 2628 0 0 2038 1063 0 0 0 296 0 570 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Lanes: 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 3.29 1.?1 0.00 0~00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 7200 1800 0 5915 3085 0 0 0 1700 0 3400 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.36 0.00 0,00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.54 Delay/veh: 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 29,2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 29.2 HCM2kAv§: 0 11 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 8 0 8 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT 8/24/04(R:~LEW43 l\Traffic~Zone Change Letter wpd) 5 Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.625 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.8 Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound ,,, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10110 10101 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 77 131 184 70 226 40 39 816 146 236 955 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 131 104 70 226 40 39 816 146 236 955 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 138 194 74 238 42 41 859 154 248 1005 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 138 194 74 238 42 21 859 154 248 1005 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 81 138 194 74 238 42 41 859 154 248 1005 47 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 1800 1900 1900 1800 1900 1900 1800 3223 577 1800 3629 171 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.28 0.28 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.2 19.4 19.4 7.8 20.0 20.0 4.8 42.7 42.7 22.1 59.8 59.8 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.62 0.11 0.46 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.46 0.46 Delay/Veh: 54.3 35.3 36.9 47.9 39.8 32.8 50.0 23.2 23.2 38.3 11.3 11.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 54.3 35.3 36.9 47.9 39.8 32.8 50.0 23,2 23.2 38.3 11.3 11.3 HCM2k3%vg: 4 4 6 3 8 1 2 13 13 8 9 9 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA 227 Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 3-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - A34 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[494.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 1030 19 44 1136 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 1030 19 44 1136 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 64 I 48 55 2 39 15 1084 20 46 1196 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 64 1 48 55 2 39 15 1084 20 46 1196 11 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 ~occx M3c~x~x 4.1 xx~cx y~cx~xx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 ~ ~ 2.2 :cwmc< ~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1815 2423 552 1868 2427 603 1206 ~cx3cx ~ 1104 yJ~y~x Xy~Xy~x Potent Cap.: 50 33 482 46 33 447 585 ~ x3Lx~ 640 x3cxx ~ Move Cap.: 40 30 482 37 29 447 585 x3o~x~ooocx 640 x3ucx )ooccx Volume/Cap: 1.61 0.04 0.10 1.48 0.07 0.09 0.03 xx3~x x3o~x 0.07 x~cxx xx3cx Level Of Service Module: SharedQueue:x~Jocx 10.2 x3~x,xx ~ocx3cx 8.8 x3cxxx ~ucccx x,xxxrooccx x~ocxx xx3cx x3oo~x Shrd StpDel:x3cx3cx 495 yJ_xxx )L~ocxx 465 ~Lxmccx x3oo~x ~D~xx x_x3ccxxmccxx x3cxx xmmccx ApproachDel: 494.6 465.2 xmcwmo~ ~ucxx~x ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- Aq~e Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Pa~e 4-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsi~nalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Residential Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: BI 12.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R .L T ~ R L T R Control: Stop Sign StopSign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 10200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1039 8 0 1190 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1039 8 0 1190 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 1094 8 0 1253 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 1094 8 0 1253 Critical Gap Module: Capacity Module: Cnflic~ Vol: x3uc~ xx3~ 551 ~ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ~ xxxx xxxxx ApproachLOS: B * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 5-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Commercial Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.0] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 996 68 0 1184 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial ~se: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 996 68 0 1184 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 1048 72 0 1246 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 1048 72 0 1246 Critical Gap Module: Capacity Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin~ Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Au9 24, 2004 17:25:11 Pa~e 6-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Haven Avenue/Baseline Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.787 LOSS Time (sec): 8 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.6 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of'Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,,, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Ri~hts: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 i 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 153 694 87 128 1464 219 230 407 251 197 836 213 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 153 694 87 128 1464 219 '230 407 251 197 836 213 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 161 731 92 135 154i 231 242 428 264 207 880 224 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 161 731 92 135 1541 231 242 428 264 207 880 224 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 161 731 92 135 1541 231 242 428 264 207 '880 224 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 5700 1900 3400 4958 742 1800 3800 1900 1800 3800 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.23 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 6.0 34.8 34.8 10.7 39.5 39.5 17.1 25.4 25.4 21.1 29.4 29.4 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0,37 0.14 0.37 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.44 0.55 0.55 0.79 0.40 Delay/Veh: 84.5 24.5 22.5 42.1 28.5 28.5 52.4 31.7 33.6 36.9 36.2 28.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.5 24.5 22.5 42.1 28.5 28.5 52~4 31.7 33.6 36.9 36.2 28.7 HCM2kAvg: 4 6 2 2 18 18 9 6 8 6 14 6 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 7-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.777 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33~4 Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 Volume Module: Base Vol: 293 754 131 275 1523 174 230 598 263 - 338 971 122 Growt~ Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 293 754 131 275 1523 174 230 598 263 338 971 122 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.41 0.59 2.00 3.00 1.00 2,00 1.39 0.61 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 6475 1125 3400 5700 1900 3400 2639 1161 3400 5700 1900 Capacity ~natysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.28 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.18 0.07 Green Time: 11.7 28.2 28.2 19.6 36.2 36.2 12.5 30.7 30.7 13.5 31.6 31.6 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.78 0.27 0.57 0.78 0.78 0.78 0,57 0.21 Delay/veh: 52.3 29.5 29.5 35.8 30.3 22.7 43.0 34.9 34.9 50.0 28.9 25.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.3 29.5 29.5 35.8 30.3 22.7 43.0 34.9 34.9 50.0 28.9 25.3 HCM2kAvg: 7 6 6 4 16 4 4 14 14 7 9 3 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 8-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.785 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.1 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20301 20210 20201 20110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 310 1106 194 148 1411 172 286 .632 217 217 841 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 310 1106 194 148 1411 172 '286 632 217 217 841 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 326 1164 204 156 1485 181 301 665 228 228 885 48 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 326 1164 204 156 1485 181 301 665 228 228 885 48 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 326 1164 204 156 1485 181 301 665 228 228 885 48 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.67 0.33 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 3400 5700 1900 3400 5081 619 3400 3800 1900 3400 3603 197 Capacity A~nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.18 0.12 0.07 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 12.2 40.4 40.4 9.1 37.2 37.2 11.3 30.8 30.8 11.8 31.3 31.3 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.51 0.27 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.39 0.57 0.79 0.79 Delay/Veh: 52.1 22.5 20.1 44.7 29.9 29.9 53.4 29.7 27.7 43.6 34.8 34.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.1 22.5 20.1 44.7 29.9 29.9 53.4 29.7 27.7 43.6 34.8 34.8 HCM2kAvg: 7 9 4 3 17 17 7 9 6 4 15 15 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin9 Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 9-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Raven Avenue/Co~ercial Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.1] Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 002.10 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1608 0 0 1764 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1608 0 0 1764 221 0 0 9 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1693 0 0 1857 233 0 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1693 0 0 1857 233 0 0 9 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x~Lxx xxxxx3cxr~x x3uc~-xx3~xx xx3ccx x3cocx 7JJ-x 6.9 X3CX3CX )tWJ~XX3OCW_X FollowUpTim:~ccxxx roocx xxxncx xxx~cx~ocxxxroccx x3oucx xxxx 3.3 xJoc~x xxxx xnu~xx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: x3Tcx y~x3cx ~cc7o~x ~c~cxx3c~x x3cw3c~ 7J-xx xmocx 735 3c~ :~x~xxx~,x~cx Volume/Cap: xmocxx~ocx xxxx x3cxxxxxx xxxx xxxx x~ocx 0.03 ~o~xx yocxx yoo~x ApproachDel: xxrcocx x3cx~c~x 15.1 x~ucx_x ApproachLOS: * C * Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Au9 24, 2004 17:25:11 Pa~e 10-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Haven Avenue/26th Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T ~ R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1608 0 0 1690 83 0 0 54 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1608 0 0 1690 83 0 0 54 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0..95 0.95 0~95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1693 0 0 1779 87 0 0 57 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1693 0 0 1779 87 0 0 57 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xx3cxxx~xx x3oocx x3cxxx xxxxx3oc~x xncxxx zoocx 6.9 yocw-w.x zoocx xx3ocx Capacity Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin9 ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 11-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Haven Avenue/6th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.669 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23~8 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 189 1828 101 135 1372 54 110 213 93 218 394 71 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 189 i828 101 135 1372 54 110 213 93 218 394 71 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 199 1924 106 142 1444 57 116 224 98 229 415 75 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 199 1924 106 142 1444 57 116 224 98 229 415 75 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1,00 1.00 Final Vol.: 199 1924 106 142 1444 57 116 224 98 229 415 75 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.84 0.16 2.00 2.89 0.1t 0.26 0.52 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1800 5402 298 3400 5484 216 502 973 425 1800 1900 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.04 Green Time: 17.6 53.3 53.3 6.3 41.9 41.9 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.37 0.63 0,11 Delay/Veh: 42.1 17.5 17.5 53.8 23.4 23.4 30.6 30.6 30.6 25.0 29.5 22.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.1 17.5 17.5 53.8 23.4 23.4 30.6 30,6 30.6 25.0 29,5 22.4 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 12-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.028 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 52.0 Opti~l Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound..~ East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20210 20210 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 238 1932 283 118 1362 152 117 398 106 192 1306 252 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 238 1932 283 118 1362 152 117 398 106 192 1306 252 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 251 2034 298 124 1434 160 123 419 112 202 1375 265 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 251 2034 298 124 1434 180 523 419 112 202 1375 265 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 251 2034 298 124 1434 160 123 419 112 202 1375 265 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.62 0.38 2.00 2.70 0.30 1.00 1.58 0.42 1.00 1.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 3400 4972 728 3400 5128 572 1800 3001 799 1800 3185 615 Capacity A~alysls Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.43 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 9.0 39.8 39.8 3.6 34.3 34.3 6.7 27.0 27.0 21.7 42.0 42.0 Volume/Cap: 0.81 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.81 0.81 1.03 0.52 0.52 0.52 1.03 1.03 Delay/Veh: 60.0 56.5 56.5 137.7 32.7 32.7 136.5 31.5 31.5 35.8 58.9 58.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 60.0 56.5 56.5 137.7 32.7 32.7 136.5 31.5 31.5 35.8 58.9 58.9 HCM2k3kvg: 6 33 33 5 17 t7 8 7 7 6 34 35 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA 237 Year 2025 - with project- A~e Aug 24, 2004 17:25:11 Page 13-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 Maven Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramps Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.848 Loss Time (sec): 4 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21~~ Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 Lanes: 00401 00311 00000 10002 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 3143 283 0 2128 347 0 0 0 648 0 738 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 3143 283 0 2128 347 0 0 0 648 0 738 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 3308 0 0 2240 365 0 0 0 682 0 777 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 3308 0 0 2240 365 0 0 0 682 0 777 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 3308 0 0 2240 365 0 0 0 682 0 777 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 7600 1900 0 7600 1900 0 0 0 1800 0 3600 Capacity D~nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 51.3 0.0 0.0 51.3 51.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.7 0.0 44.7 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.97 0~37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.48 Delay/Veh: 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 17.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 19.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 17.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 19.7 HCM2k~v9: 0 24 0 0 12 7 0 0 0 21 0 9 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 ~ with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 PaGe 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Hermosa Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.803 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.4 Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound., East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10110 10101 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 153 348 296 91 174 30 85 1232 114 229 1134 101 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 153 348 296 91 174 30 85 1232 114 229 1134 101 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 161 366 312 96 183 32 89 1297 120 241 1194 106 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 161 366 312 96 183 32 89 1297 120 241 1194 106 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 161 366 312 96 183 32 89 1297 120 241 1194 106 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.08 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1800 2053 1747 1800 1900 1900 1800 3478 322 1800 3489 311 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.34 0.34 Green Time: 13.9 22.2 22.2 6.6 15.0 15.0 8.0 46.5 46.5 16.7 55.1 55.1 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.11 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.62 0.62 Delay/Veh: 46.4 42.4 42.4 77.1 45.0 36.9 52.6 25.6 25.6 54.4 15.9 15.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.4 42.4 42.4 77.1 45.0 36.9 52.6 25.6 25.6 54.4 15.9 15.9 BCM2k~vg: 6 12 12 5 6 t 4 20 20 9 14 14 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 3-1 Raven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 186.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: P[4826.1] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R I L T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1500 53 109 1513 41 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1500 53 109 1513 41 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PRF Volume: 69 0 38 35 0 19 42 1579 56 115 1593 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 69 0 38 35 0 19 42 1579 56 115 1593 43 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.5 ~ccx,x 6.9 7.5 ;ucxx 6.9 4.1 rocxx x~mo~x 4.1 xy~x,x x3cxmc( FollowUpTim: 3.5 x3ocx 3.3 3.5 xx3cx 3.3 2.2 xx3cx )~x~cxx 2.2 ~Jcxx x~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2717 x3ocx 817 2717 xxxx 818 1636 yoocx x~ 1635 x3cxx ~ Potent Cap.: 10 x~ 324 10 xxx~x 323 402 xmcxx xx3cx~ 402 y~w3cx ~3cx~cx Move Cap.: 7 x3cxx 324 6 x3~xx 323 402 xmocx 7ocxxx 402 ~ocx x~ Volume/Cap: 10.06 )ux3cx 0.12 5.37 x~ocx 0.06 0.10 ~c~cx xoccx 0.29 ;c~xx ~ocx,x Level Of Service Module: Shared Cap.: x3ocx 11 x~xo~x x~ucx 10 xxx~cx x~ccx x3ocx ~ xxxx xxxx xxxxx ApproachDel: 4826.1 2737.2 )cx~ ~3cx3o~x ApproachLOS: F F Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA · Year 2025 - with project- PTue AU~ 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 4-1 Haven/Arrqw City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 03 Residential Access/Arrow Route Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.51 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T ~ R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Si~n Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 10200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1506 27 0 1662 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1·00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1506 27 0 1662 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1585 28 0 1749 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1585 28 0 1749 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x3cxxx ~ 6.9 ~3cxxx xxxx :cx~o~x x~ocxx xxx-x x~ocxx x~oocx x3cxx xx~ocx Capacity Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 5-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~4 Cor~mercial Access/Arrow Route Average Delay {sec/veh): 1.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 28.6] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00001 00000 00110 00200 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1513 9 0 1627 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 1513 9 0 1627 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 184 0 0 0 0 1593 9 0 1713 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 184 0 0 0 0 1593 9 0 1713 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:x~cy_xxn~xx 6.9 xx3o~xx~3cx x~xxx ~3cw, xx x3cxx;ooo~x )uocxx xxxx x~oc~x FollowUpTim:xnc~3~x3~ 3.3 xn~x~cx ~3cy~x ~ x_xncxx x3cy~xx3ax3~x ~ x3~y-x xy~cx3~ Capacity Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 6-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 Haven Avenue/Baseline Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.899 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Avera§e Delay (sec/veh): 39.7 Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20301 20210 10201 10201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 406 1809 144 221 1121 165 449 853 266 133 586 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 406 1809 144 221 1121 165 449 853 266 133 586 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 427 1904 152 233 1180 174 473 898 280 140 617 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 427 1904 152 233 1180 174 473 898 280 140 617 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 427 1904 152 233 1180 174 473 898 280 140 617 208 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1~00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.62 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 5700 1900 3400 4969 731 1800 3800 1900 1800 3800 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.33 0.08 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15,5 37.1 37.1 7.6 29.3 29.3 29.2 35.5 35.5 11.7 18.0 18.0 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.90 0.21 0.90 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.66 0.41 0.66 0.90 0.61 Delay/Veh: 50.1 35.3 21.6 76.8 35.9 35.9 52.3 28.5 24.8 50.1 54.9 40.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 50.1 35,3 21.6 76.8 35,9 35.9 52.3 28.5 24.8 50.1 54.9 40.9 HCM2kAvg: 9 22 3 6 15 15 18 12 7 5 13 7 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowting Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 7-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 ~CM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.018 LOSS Time (sec): 8 (Y~R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 529t Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20310 20301 20110 20301 Volume Module: Base Vol: 384 1848 295 271 879 95 556 1319 259 384 992 352 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 384 1848 295 271 879 95 556 1319 259 384 992 352 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 8.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0~95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 404 1945 311 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 404 1945 311 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 404 1945 311 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.45 0.55 2~00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.67 0.33 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 6554 1046 3400 5700 1900 3400 3176 624 3400 5700 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.16 0.05 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.12 0.18 0.20 Green Time: 15.8 29.2 29.2 8.2 21.6 21.6 25.6 42.9 42.9 11.7 29.0 29.0 Volume/Cap: 0.75 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.75 0.24 0.67 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.63 0.67 Delay/Veh: 46.1 59.2 59.2 104.4 39.4 32.8 35.5 55,5 55.5 94.0 31.7 34.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.1 59.2 59.2 104.4 39.4 32.8 35.5 55.5 55.5 94.0 31.7 34.6 RCM2kAvg: 8 25 25 8 11 3 9 34 34 11 10 11 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 8-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 07 Haven Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X}: 0.936 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.5 Optimal Cycle: 123 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound'. East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L ? R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20301 20210 20201 20110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 489 1870 375 87 1261 271 453 1136 182 331 885 148 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initiai Bse: 489 1870 375 87 1261 271 453 1136 182 331 885 148 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 515 1968 395 92 1327 285 477 1196 192 348 932 156 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 515 1968 395 92 1327 285 477 1196 192 348 932 156 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 515 1968 395 92 1327 285 477 1196 192 348 932 156 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.47 0.53 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.71 0.29 Final Sat.: 3400 8700 1900 3400 4692 1008 3400 3800 1900 3400 3256 544 Capacity A/lalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.35 0.21 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 16.2 43.1 43.1 3.4 30.2 30.2 15.0 34.4 34.4 11.2 30.6 30.6 Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.80 0.48 0.80 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.29 0.92 0.94 0.94 Detay/Veh: 64.9 26.7 20.9 80.0 44.0 44.0 66.8 41.6 24.2 70.1 47.4 47.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.9 26.7 20.9 80.0 44.0 44.0 66.8 41.6 24.2 70.1 47.4 47.4 HCM2kAvg: 12 19 9 3 21 21 tl 22 4 9 21 21 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 9-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~8 Haven Avenue/Commercial Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2719 0 0 1763 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2719 0 0 1763 30 0 0 59 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 2862 0 0 1856 32 0 0 62 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2862 0 0 1856 32 0 0 62 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin~ Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDR, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 10-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 Wi~h Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Haven Avenue/26th Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.4] Approach: North Bound SouZh Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R ~ T ~ R L T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 00300 00210 00001 00000 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2719 0 0 1802 20 0 0 72 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2719 0 0 1802 20 0 0 72 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Q.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 P~F Volume: 0 2862 0 0 1897 2t 0 0 76 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2862 0 0 1897 21 0 0 76 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xx~ccxxx3~xxx3ocx xxxxx xno~x~3cxxx ~J-w~cx xmcxx 6.9 xxxxxx~cxx ~wmocx FollowUpTim:xmocx~x xxxx~3~xxx ~ ~ ~c~x~ x~cx3( 3.3 ~ x~-xx ~ Capacity Module: Level Of Service Module: Shrd StpDel:x~cx3~xxym~x x~oucx x3cmxx x3ocx ~w-~xx xmucxx x~cxx x~Lx~xxx3c~3cx x~ccx xx3cxx ApproachDel: ~ xmcxm~x~ 15.4 ~ Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 11-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Haven Avenue/6th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.924 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30~8 Opti~l Cycle: 109 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10210 20210 001!00 10101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 105 2139 309 229 1796 75 89 426 108 262 321 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 105 2139 309 229 1796 75 89 426 108 262 321 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: ill 2252 325 241 1891 79 94 448 114 276 338 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 2252 325 241 1891 79 94 448 114 276 338 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 111 2252 325 241 1891 79 94 448 114 276 338 119 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.62 0.38 2.00 2.88 0.12 0.14 0.69 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1800 4981 719 3400 5472 228 271 1299 329 1800 1900 1900 Capacity ~alysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.18 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 8.5 49.0 49.0 7.7 48.1 48.1 37.4 3?.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 37.4 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.41 0.48 0.17 Delay/Veh: 89.7 29.6 29.6 81.7 21.5 21.5 47.7 47.7 47.7 23.6 24.4 21.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDet/Veh: 59.7 29.6 29.6 81.7 21.5 21.5 47.7 47.7 47.7 23.6 24.4 21.0 HCM2k3%v~: 5 29 29 7 17 17 24 24 24 6 8 2 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 n with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 12-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1t Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.191 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 95.1 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound ~, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20210 20210 10110 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 2094 198 266 1753 177 313 1397 266 221 885 194 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 170 2094 198 266 1753 177 313 1397 266 221 885 194 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 179 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 179 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 379 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.72 0.28 1.00 1.68 0.32 1.00 1.64 0.36 Final Sat.: 3400 5208 492 3400 5177 523 1800 3192 608 1800 3117 683 Capacity A-nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 5.5 35.5 35.5 6.9 37.0 37.0 18.8 38.7 38.7 10.9 30.7 30.7 Volume/Cap: 0.96 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.96 0.96 0.97 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.97 0.97 Delay/Veh: 102.3 123 123.3 166.6 43.0 43.0 81.8 124 123.6 169.8 54.2 54.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 f.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 102.3 123 123.3 166.6 43.0 43.0 81.8 124 123.6 169.8 54.2 54.2 HCM2kAv~: 6 43 43 10 26 26 15 47 47 15 23 23 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin9 Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:27:21 Page 13-1 Maven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #12 Haven Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramps Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 4 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.6 Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound ~, East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00401 00311 00000 10002 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 3408 477 0 2483 1038 0 0 0 275. 0 354 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 3408 477 0 2483 1038 0 0 0 275 0 354 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 PHF Volume: 0 3587 0 0 2614 1093 0 0 0 289 0 373 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 3587 0 0 2614 1093 0 0 0 289 0 373 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 3587 0 0 2614 1093 0 0 0 289 0 373 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Lanes: 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 3.53 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 7600 1900 0 6699 2801 0 0 0 1800 0 3600 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 71.6 0.0 0.0 71.6 71.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 24.4 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.42 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.9 0.0 0,0 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 0.0 32.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 6,7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 0.0 32.2 HCM2kAvg: 0 15 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 9 0 5 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin~ Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS 8/24/04(R:%EW431\Traffic~one Change Letter.~pd) 6 Opening Year-with project-ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:08 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.419 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.9 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound,., East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 940 19 44 731 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 940 19 44 731' 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 68 1 51 58 2 41 16 1050 21 49 817 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 68 i 51 58 2 41 18 1050 21 49 817 11 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 68 1 51 58 2 41 16 1050 21 49 817 11 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.56 0.01 0.43 0.57 0.02 0.41 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 1017 17 767 1029 40 732 1700 3529 71 1700 3551 49 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: t6.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 3.0 71.1 71.1 6.9 75.0 75.0 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.31 0.31 Delay/Veh: 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.1 38.1 38.1 50.9 6.1 6.1 47.0 4.1 4.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.1 38.1 38.1 50.9 6.1 6.1 47.0 4.1 4.1 HcM2kAvg: 4 3 4 3 3 3 1 7 7 2 4 4 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Opening Year-with project-PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:07 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamon~a, San Bernardino County Opening Year With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.463 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10~5 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1049 53 109 1053 41 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 0 36 33' 0 18 40 1049 53 109 1053 41 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 PHF Volume: 67 0 37 34 0 18 41 1069 54 111 1073 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 67 0 37 34 0 18 41 1069 54 1tl 1073 42 PCE Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 67 0 37 34 0 18 41 1069 54 111 1073 42 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 ~,00 0.94 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.65 0,00 0.35 0.65 0.00 0.35 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 1165 0 635 1165 0 635 1700 3427 173 1700 3465 135 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0,06 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 12.5 0.0 12.5 12,5 0.0 12.5 5.9 67.4 67.4 14.1 75.7 75.7 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.23 0.00 0.23 0,41 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.41 Detay/Veh: 42.2 0.0 42.2 40.0 0~0 40.0 48.1 7.9 7.9 40.9 4.4 4.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.2 0.0 42.2 40.0 0.0 40.0 48.1 7.9 7.9 40.9 4.4 4.4 HCM2k-Avg: 3 0 4 2 0 2 2 8 8 4 8 7 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS 8/24/04(R:\LEW431 \Traffic~Zon¢ Change Lettcr.wpd) 7 Year 2025 - with project~ ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:50 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection ~2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.410 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8~4 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 1030 19 44 1136 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 61 1 46 52 2 37 14 1030 19 44 1136 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 64 1 48 55 2 39 15 1084 20 46 1196 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 64 1 48 55 2 39 15 1084 20 46 1196 11 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 64 1 48 55 2 39 15 1084 20 46 1196 11 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.56 0.01 0.43 0.57 0.02 0.41 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1073 18 809 1086 42 773 1800 3731 69 1800 3767 33 Capacity A~alysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.32 0.32 Green Time: 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 2.0 72.9 72.9 6.5 77.4 77.4 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 Delay/Veh: 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.2 39.2 39.2 55.9 5.3 5.3 47.1 3.8 3.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.2 39.2 39.2 55.9 5.3 5.3 47.1 3.8 3.8 HCM2kAvg: 4 3 4 3 3 3 1 7 6 2 6 6 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc~ Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:50 Page 3-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 BCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. {X): 0.698 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.2 Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound,~ East B~und West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20310 20301 20201 20301 Volume Module: Base Vol: 293 754 131 275 1523 174 230 598 263 338 971 122 Growth Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Initial Bse: 293 754 131 275 1523 174 230 598 263 338 971 122 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 PBF Volume: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Final Vol.: 308 794 138 289 1603 183 242 629 277 356 1022 128 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.41 0.59 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3400 6475 1125 3400 5700 1900 3400 3800 1900 3400 5700 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.28 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 13.0 31.4 31,4 21.8 40.3 40.3 11.0 23.7 23.7 15.0 27.7 27.7 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.70 0.24 0.65 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.24 Delay/Veh: 46.5 26.9 26.9 33.7 25.8 19.9 46.6 37.3 36.6 44.6 32.8 28.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.5 26.9 26.9 33.7 25.8 19.9 46.6 37.3 36.6 44.6 32.8 28.3 BCM2k~vg: 6 6 6 4 14 4 5 t0 8 7 10 3 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- ATue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:50 Pa§e 4-1 ~aven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - AM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.927 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40~J Optimal Cycle: 117 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L - T - R Control:~ Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 238 1932 283 118 1362 152 117 398 106 192 1306 252 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 238 1932 283 118 1362 152 117 398 106 192 1306 252 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 251 2034 298 124 1434 160 123 419 112 202 1375 265 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 251 2034 298 124 1434 160 123 419 112 202 1375 265 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 251 2034 298 124 1434 160 123 419 112 202 1375 265 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0~89 1.00' 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.49 0.51 2.00 2.70 0.30 1.00 2.37 0.63 1.00 1.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 3400 6629 971 3400 5128 572 1800 4501 1199 1800 3185 615 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.43 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.9 34.0 34.0 4.1 30.1 30.1 7.4 24.4 24.4 29.5 46.5 46.5 Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.93 0.93 Delay/Veh: 81.6 36.2 36.2 96.0 43.1 43.1 102.3 31.7 31.7 28.5 34.2 34.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.6 36.2 36.2 96.0 43.1 43.1 102.3 31.7 31.7 28.5 34.2 34.2 HCM2kAvg: 7 21 21 4 20 20 7 5 5 5 28 29 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowlin~ Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:48 Page 2-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Center Avenue/Arrow Route Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.586 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.9 Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of 'Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound,.~ East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R [ L T R II L T R [; L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1500 53 109 1513 41 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 0 36 33 0 18 40 1500 53 109 1513 41 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 69 0 38 35 0 19 42 1579 56 115 1593 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 69 0 38 35 0 19 '42 1579 56 115 1593 43 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 69 0 38 35 0 19 42 1579 56 115 1593 43 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.65 0.00 0.35 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1229 0 671 1229 0 671 1800 3670 130 1800 3700 100 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.43 0.43 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 9.7 0.0 9.7 9.7 0.0 9.7 4.3 73.5 73.5 10.9 80.0 80.0 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.54 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.54 Delay/Veh: 48.1 0.0 48.1 42.9 0.0 42.9 54.1 6.5 6.5 46.9 3.7 3.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.1 0.0 48.1 42.9 0.0 42.9 54.1 6.5 6.5 46.9 3.7 3.7 HCM2k. Avg: 4 0 4 2 0 2 2 12 12 4 9 10 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:48 Page 3-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Haven Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.940 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 41~6 Optiraal Cycle: 127 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20310 20301 20201 20301 Volume Module: Base Vol: 384 1848 295 271 879 95 556 1319 259 384 992 352 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 384 1848 295 271 879 95 556 1319 259 384 992 352 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 404 1945 311 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 404 1945 311 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 404 1945 31t 285 925 100 585 1388 273 404 1044 371 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.45 0.55 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1~00 Final Sat.: 3400 6554 1046 3400 5700 1900 3400 3800 1900 3400 5700 1900 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.37 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 17.1 31.6 31.6 8.9 23.4 23.4 24.1 38.9 38.9 12.6 27.4 27.4 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.69 0.23 0.71 0.94 0.37 0.94 0.67 0.71 Delay/Veh: 42.6 41.5 41.5 81.3 36.7 31.2 37.7 41.4 22.1 72.1 33.4 37.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.6 41.5 41.5 81.3 36.7 31.2 37.7 41.4 22.1 72.1 33.4 37.4 HCM2kAvg: 7 22 22 8 10 3 10 26 6 10 10 12 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA Year 2025 - with project- PTue Aug 24, 2004 17:29:48 Page 4-1 Haven/Arrow City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County Year 2025 With Project Conditions - PM Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #11 Haven Avenue/4th Street Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.968 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 47.2 Optimal Cycle: 158 Level Of'Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound.., East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R II L T - R II L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 20310 20210 10210 10110 Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 2094 198 266 1753 177 313 1397 266 221 885 194 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 170 2094 198 266 1753 177 313 1397 266 221 885 194 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 179 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 179 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 179 2204 208 280 1845 186 329 1471 280 233 932 204 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.65 0.35 2.00 2.72 0.28 1.00 2.52 0.48 1.00 1.64 0.36 Final Sat.: 3400 6943 657 3400 5177 523 1800 4788 912 1800 3117 683 Capacity A~alysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 5.4 33.5 33.5 8.7 36.8 36.8 18.9 35.0 35.0 14.7 30.9 30.9 Volume/Cap: 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.97 Delay/Veh: 104.0 40.8 40.8 83.5 44.1 44.1 80.5 35.2 35.2 68.0 53.2 53.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 104.0 40.8 40.8 83.5 44.1 44.1 80.5 35.2 35.2 68.0 53.2 53.2 HCM2kAvg: 6 23 23 8 26 26 15 20 20 10 23 23 Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA, RIVERSIDE, CA ~~MA ~l/O~p GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10851 EDISON CT., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: 909~989-1751: FAX 909-989-4287 May 21, 2004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lewis Operating Corp 1156 N Mountain Ave JUN 2 8 2004 P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 RECEIVED - PLANNING Attention: Mr. Dave Lewis Subject: Surface Soil Evaluation Delhi Sand Flower-Loving Fly La Mancha Golf Course SW Haven & Arrow Rancho Cucamonga, CA Reference: Unites States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Bemardino County, Southwestern Part, CA, January 1980. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed an evaluation of the surficial soils at the subject site with respect to their USDA Soil Conservation Service classification. Based on the results of our Study it is our opinion that the surficial soils at the subject site do not meet the referenced USDA Soil Conservation Service's gradation criteria for Delhi sand. ,Clc~n,~ of tht~ lnwxtigatt~on' The general scope of this investigation was to evaluate the surficial soils at the site with respect to their USDA Soils Conservation Service classification of Delhi Sand Flower-Loving Fly. Our investigation consisted of reviewing the referenced reports and maps, performing a visual reconnaissance of the site, obtaining samples of the near surface soils within the upper 18 inches from existing grades, laboratory testing to determine the grain size distribution of the surficial soils, and preparation of this report. Our investigation has been preformed in a manner consistent with generally accepted engineering and geologic principles and practices, and has incorporated codes, ordinances, regulations and laws that, in our professional opinion, are applicable. Definitions of technical terms and symbols used in this report are those of the American Society for Testing and Materials, the Uniform Building Code, and standard geologic references. ~~l ~l~O~p GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lewis ~erafing Co~orafion La M~cha Golf Co~sc R~cho Cuc~ong~ CA May 21, 2004 La~orat~ ~nalyxL~' S~ples of the su~cial soils were obtained during our field reco~ss~ce and re--ed to o~ laborato~ for testing. ~e ~ain size distribution of each of the s~ples obtained w~ detained in accord~ce with ASTM D422. ~e results oft~ese tests are plotted along wi~ ~e USDA Soil Cons~ation Se~ice upper ~d ~low~ bound~es for Delhi fine s~d, ~d ~e presented in App~dix A. ~e USDA upper ~d lower limits for Delhi fine s~d 18" below existing ~ades ~e as follows: Percentage Less ~ 3 in. Passing Sieve Delhi S~d No. 4 Sieve No. 10 Sieve No. 40 Sieve No. 200 Sieve Bound~es (4.7 ~) (2.0 ~) (0.42 ~) (0.074 ~) Upper Limits 100 100 85 25 ~w~ Limits 100 90 60 15 ~ese tests indicate ~at ~e su~cifl soils at ~e site are classified ~ SM by the Unified Soils Classification Syst~. ~e Delhi fine s~d is defined as a fine sand classified as SM by the Unified Soils Cl~sification Syst~, howev~ as indicat~ in the results of o~ laborato~ ~alysis, ~e soils at the subject site contain portions of matefifls that fall outside the Upp~ ~d ~w~ ~adation limits for ~e Delhi s~d. General ~ncluxi~n' Based on ~e results of our field ~d laborato~ tests it is o~ professional opinion ~at the sufficial soils at the subject site ~ not me~t the USDA Soil Co~ation S~ice's cfit~a for Delhi s~d. Delhi s~d is defined as loose, fine silW s~d, which is aeoli~ in ofi~n. ~e results of our ~ain size distribution tests indicate that the su~cifl soils at the site generally contain si~fic~t qu~tities of mat~al which fall outside ~e upper ~d lower bounds established for · e Delhi fine s~d. RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page 2 RMA Group Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May21, 2004 Cloxur~,' This report comprises a statement of professional opinion. That opinion is based on information and data obtained from the referenced report and a geotechnical evaluation orthO'Compiled data. This report does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of any type and none should be inf~'red. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully, RMA Group ~ No, 59431 Isaac Chun, PE Exp: 12/31/05 Project Engineer RC£ 59431 Vice President No. 2362 GE 2362 Exp: 3-31 ~~MA ~JlO~/p GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-1)96-01 Sample Id: T-1 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (gms): 6417 Fraction B: D~y Net Weight (gms): 513.6 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 6417 100 1-1/2" 0 6417 100 3/4" 36 6381 99 3/8" 133 6284 98 #4 216 6201 97 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weil~ht (gms) % Passing Fraction B: #8 5.5 508.1 96 #16 16.7 496.9 93 #30 45.9 467.7 88 #50 135.3 378.3 71 # 100 299.2 214.4 40 #200 432.3 81.3 15 100 I I I / I I J I ' I I l~J, I I Delhi Sand __j_~. 80 4O ~ 30' 20 10 0 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A1 5 ~A GrOUp ~EOTEC~C~ CO~SWT~TS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-096-01 San~ole Id: T-2 , Fraction A: DB' Net Weight (grin): 6664 Fraction B: DB' Net Weight (gms): 513.2 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 6664 100 1-1/2" 0 6664 100 3/4" 0 6664 100 3/8" 59 6605 99 #4 157 6507 98 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction B: #8 8.2 505.0 96 #16 18.9 494.3 94 #30 43.3 469.9 89 #50 123.1 390.1 74 #100 267.5 245.7 47 #200 418.1 95.1 18 100 -, I i nd 8o illlII. Ilill 'ii / 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A2 G "O /p CONSULXx xS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04~096-01 Sample ld: T-3 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (gms): 5586 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gna): 522.4 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 5586 100 1-1/2" 0 5586 100 3/4" 42 5544 99 3/8" 102 5484 98 #4 155 5431 97 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gna) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction B: #8 6.8 515.6 96 #16 16.0 506.4 94 #30 49.5 472.9 88 #50 146.5 375.9 70 # 100 316.0 206.4 38 #200 443.1 79.3 15 lOO 70 60 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (m rn ) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A3 ~~1 ~ll~OUP GEOTECHINICAL CONSULTANTS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho CXtcamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-096-01 Sample Id: T-4 / Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 5021 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms): 523 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 5021 100 1-1/2" 0 5021 100 3/4" 0 5021 100 3/8" 30 4991 99 #4 68 4953 99 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction B: #8 1.5 521.5 98 #16 5.9 517.1 98 #30 23.9 499.1 94 #50 110.5 412.5 78 #100 300.6 222.4 42 #200 440.0 83.0 16 lO0 -' I I I,W".L i,;, II 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (m m) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A4 ~~MJ~ ~Jl/O~P GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-096-01 4.. Sample Id: T-5 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 4458 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms): 483.2 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (grr~) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 4458 100 1-1/2" 0 4458 100 3/4" 0 4458 100 3/8" 4 4454 100 #4 13 4445 100 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (i~rm) % Passing Fraction B: /t8 1.8 481.4 99 # 16 6.4 476.8 98 #30 19.7 463.5 96 #50 78.5 404.7 84 # 1 O0 221.0 262.2 54 #200 361.0 122.2 25 100 / Ill I',x, Illll / 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A5 ~~MA Group GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04--096-01 Sample Id: T-6 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 4054 , Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms):.503.3 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (grin) Weight ($rns) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 4054 100 1-1/2" 0 4054 100 3/4" 0 4054 100 3/8" 60 3994 99 #4 100 3954 98 Net Retained Net Pass ing Screen Size Weight (gn~) Weight (gms) %Passing Fraction B: #8 3.0 500.3 97 ti 16 7.6 495.7 96 #30 18.2 485.1 94 #50 80.5 422.8 82 # 100 309.9 193.4 37 #200 464.3 39.0 8 lOO / Illl ,L III/11 l1 40 ¢ 20 f0 Grain 8izo RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A6 R MA G'/'OU EOTEC ]CA CO.StinT.TS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-096-01 ~,, Sample Id: T-7 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 4333 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms): 523.4 Net Retained Net Passing Semen Size Weil~ht (l~tm) Weil~ht (gms) % Passinl~ Fraction A; 3" 0 4333 100 1-1/2" 0 4333 100 3/4" 74 4259 98 3/8" 93 4240 98 #4 118 4215 97 Net Retained Net Passing Semen Size Weight (gms) Weight (grin) %Passinl~ Fraction B: # 8 4.9 518.5 96 # 16 15.8 507.6 94 #30 32.3 491.1 91 #50 99.6 423.8 79 # 100 226.7 296.7 55 #200 361.4 162.0 30 lO0 50 ~. 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A7 MMA 1'0111 CEOTECU ,C CONSVVr TS Lewis Operating Corporation ~ M~cha Golf Co~e R~cho ~c~onga, CA May 21, 2004 P~TICLE SIZE ~YSIS ~ D422 P~ject No: ~1 Sample ld: T-8 Fraction A: D~ Net Weight (g~): 54~ , F~ction B: D~ Net Weight (g~):'5~.6 Net Reta~ed Net Pass~g Sc~en S~ Weight (~) Weight (~) % P~s~ Fraction A: 3" 0 5423 100 1-1/2" 0 5423 100 3/4" 1~ 52~ 97 3/8" 315 5108 ~ g4 4~ 5~ 92 Net Reta~ed Net Pass~g Scion S~ Weight (~) Weight (~) % P~s~ Fraction B: ~8 9.5 5~.1 ~ ~ 16 27.4 482.2 87 g30 68.8 ~.8 80 ~50 1~.0 365.6 ~ g 100 2~.2 210.4 38 ~200 ~8.0 61.6 11 lOO I II IIII IL 'Lx4',so I II ; Delhi Sand II I I [ 1'5 ' 40 1o 10o lO 1 o.1 O.Ol Grain Size (mm} RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A~ 7~' RMA 1'0111 CEOTECUS C CONSUi T, :S Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 044396-01 ~,. Sample Id: T-9 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 5988 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (gms): 519.3 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 5988 100 1-1/2" 0 5988 100 3/4" 0 5988 100 3/8" 5 5983 100 #4 7 5981 100 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gms) Weight (gms) % Passing Fraction B: #8 1.2 518.1 100 #16 4.4 514.9 99 #30 19.1 500.2 96 #50 105.9 413.4 80 #100 307.3 212.0 41 #200 462.8 56.5 11 , , I Li: 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page A9 ~l~O~p GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lewis Operating Corporation La Mancha Golf Course Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 21, 2004 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D422 Project No: 04-096-01 Sample Id: T-10 Fraction A: Dry Net Weight (grin): 3897 Fraction B: Dry Net Weight (grin): 502.8 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (grin) Weight (grin) % Passing Fraction A: 3" 0 3897 100 1-1/2" 0 3897 100 3/4" 0 3897 100 3/8" 3 3894 100 #4 12 3885 100 Net Retained Net Passing Screen Size Weight (gtm) Weight (gms) %Passing Fraction B: #8 0.7 502.1 100 #16 4.5 498.3 99 #30 30.6 472.2 94 #50 129.7 373.1 74 # 100 324.3 178.5 35 #200 460.0 42.8 8 lOO 6o x 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (m m) RMA Job N°: 04-096-01 Page AI~. 7¢ DRAFT McNeil said it is a very fin(~ home. Motion: by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to approve DRC2004-00122 by adoption of the Resolution of ~1 with conditions. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded F. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW - ANDREWS & CHAPMAN - A request to construct a two story, sing ',e on .69 acre in the Very Low Residential Distdct (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre), off Reales Street, west of Beryl Street- APN: 1061-801-15. Emily Wimer, Associate Planner, presented the Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Leon Jones, Andrews and Chapman Architects, 420 South San Street #217, Los Angeles, said he is available for questions. Headng no further comment, Chairman Macias closed the public headng. Commissioner McNeil said it is a very nice place. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that it is a very challenging lot and the design is nice. Motion: Moved by McPahill Motion carded by the following vote: FLETCHER, MAClAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES:NONE ABSENT:NONE - carried DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westedy 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY - A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westedy 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site; establish a Master Plan Oveday District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 27, 2004 DRAFT approximately 60 feet eastedy consistent with the land use designation change, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue - APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. Staffhas prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner presented the staff report noting that two pages 164-A and 170-A of the proposed resolutions 04-114 and 04-115, respectively, were inadvertently left out of the agenda packet and that they are before the Commissioners. He reported the applicant had also received the pages for their review prior to the meeting. Chairman Macias opened the public headng .... David Lewis of Lewis Investment Companies, P. O. Box 670, Upland, California, reported that he is joined by John Young, Stacy Lin, and Mark Petrone who is an engineer of Madole and Associates. He stated that anything brought before the Commission has the stamp of his family on it and that he offers the pledge of his family to give the highest quality development like Terra Vista and Victoria Gardens Mall and that with the Commission's approval will uphold the quality his family has given in the past to the community. John Young then introduced and presented a DVD on the history of the proposed project. Seeing no comment or questions from the public, Chairman Macias closed the public headng and opened the floor to comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner McNiel commented that they have met on the project on two previous occasions and at both a proposed master plan for development had been presented and now that has been withdrawn and that now they are only considering the land use amendmentJGeneral Plan Amendment. He remarked that after analyzing the proposal, nothing has been presented to change his view. He noted that he was not supportive initially and he is still not supportive. He commented that in light of our rapid growth which will lead to 'build out', properties like this one are becoming more rare and that if this is adopted, we will never be in a position to have it returned to us. He commented that the justification for the zone change submitted by the applicant has made some good points, but that they are based upon faulty assumptions. He said based upon the justification letter, the trends are going towards more housing but that in actuality; the housing market is slowing down. He stated that it is possible that we could end up with more housing on the market than what we can sell. He noted that Haven Avenue is a rare opportunity to develop a nice City boulevard and that he believes this area could be our future downtown. He remarked the document refers to outsouroing jobs because of the need for office space. He responded by noting that we have in- sourced more jobs than what we have out-sourced. He said there is an advantage of keeping jobs here at home. He said he did not see the long-term benefit of this project and that there is no need to rush into this, it needs more time. Commissioner Stewart said she would echo some of Commissioner McNiel's comments. She noted that the land use is not compatible with the General Plan and that this area was studied when the General Plan Update was done and it was not considered a problematic area like some others that were considered for change. She commented that she is opposed to proceeding on the change without a master plan or development application and that the General Plan should be able to stand on its own. She said she took the time to research the market trends on the Intemet and she discovered that the professionals (Real Estate JournalANall Street Journal guide to Property, October 12, 2004) indicate that frem a national perspective, the US market looks bdght for 2005 and even brighter for 2006. She commented that a survey taken recently indicated all the numbers are gaining strength for commercial properties. She then read selected quotes from the article, which Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 27, 2004 DRAFT highlighted strong trends in the office market, a jump in the absorption of real estate, employers leasing more space because they are adding more workers, and signs of recovery are taking hold nationwide with reports of more space being occupied. The article reported that the amount of office space built this year, projected to be about 29 million square feet, will be the lowest in eight years and that 2005 will see about 34 million square feet of new space become available along with a projected vacancy rate that will fall to 15.7% by the end of next year with rents rising 1.1%. She added that we are currently being driven by a housing market but the articles do not indicate that industrial or office uses will not survive economically. She noted that Commissioner McNiel eluded to the fact that our General Plan which indicates Haven Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard to 4th Street as a cultural business distdct of the City with high intensity office/commercial/public and quasi public uses. She said that we have some of that started now at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. She remarked that she sees no reason to re-zone the property and that it just has not come into its time and that it should be held to see how these indicators work out. She added that if we give it up now, we may never get it back. She 'said it is in opposition of everything we have tried to do with our General Plan and it is also in opposition to what some of the Council is saying about what they want for density and the things we want to see happen in our City. Commissioner Fletcher said it is a unique, special property and he believes what is being presented to the Commission is contrary to the General Plan. He then read a prepared wdtten statement for the record. His comments reflected his admiration and appreciation to the Lewis family for their contributions to Rancho Cucamonga and Southem California. He stated he is in disagreement for the need to amend the General Plan for this property. He noted the information provided by the applicant is based on the current marketJdemand data in regard to housing. He noted the need for housing was taken into account when the General Plan was reviewed during the update process. He said there is still plenty of land within the city that is designated residential and that some industrial/commercial property has already been converted to residential and more will probably be converted for affordable and senior housing. He pointed out the significance of the "La Mancha" property as it relates to the vision for the Haven Avenue Overlay District and that it is for upscale, sophisticated office buildings or office parks that attract regional or national headquarters to a city. He remarked that once you take away this type of land, "you have forever eliminated the possibility for office development of the scale we envision." He reported that this is the last parcel of this size and that is important because it allows more flexibility in developing a high-rise office building or office park. He noted the article points out that we need to show corporate America that "it is poised and ready to take on businesses that want to put their national headquarters here." He remarked that, "if in ten years or twenty years the vision is not fulfilled we can always build the houses, but it doesn't work the other way around." He added that according to the Business Press article, (The Next Wave is Office Development), office space typically follows commercial and residential growth. He reported that the justification submitted by the applicant is based upon "current market" conditions and demands and that is good if you want to sell something fast but it is not best for good planning. He pointed out that decisions as a Planning Commissioner"should not be made based on 'immediate market pressures' but on what we feel is best for the community, balanced against the rights of property owners." He commented that "good planning" takes time to fulfill and it doesn't happen overnight and sometimes it doesn't happen for years. He added that we are planning for the future, not necessarily what can be built and sold today. He remarked that what he has read lately is in opposition of what is indicated in the justification letter, that the "Inland Empire is both economically and demographically poised to support office development." He added that our General Plan Update is an award-winning plan and it's review started with the question "How do you get better if you are already doing well? The answer was to insist on nothing but the best in a contemporary, finely tuned General Plan and that is what the City got. One of the objectives of the update to the plan was to reposition the City to achieve the right amount, type, and location of commercial, recreation, and office development." He concluded and said that to "consider a Plan Amendment and zone change without a development application or master plan of the area would Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 27, 2004 DRAFT not be good planning procedure. I think it would be wrong to consider a plan amendment at this time. It is simply the wrong time and the wrong property to change. This piece of land is extremely important to the City as it is planned and zoned, but it will take time to fulfill its purpose." He noted a quote he read that said: '~/Ve must make some disciplined decisions about where to build, and where not to build, and not let the pressures of the moment overwhelm us." He said a change at this time would be a mistake and detrimental to Rancho's business community and it's residents. Commissioner McPhail said she has read the General Plan and she was told that her job as a commissioner is to understand the General Plan, to uphold it, support it, or if it needs it, change it with wisdom. She said the plan tells us where we can have residential and where we can have commercial. She noted that this is done so that the City maintains a good balar,,~e. She reported that if we allow th is project to go through, it will allow more people to live here and it would take away jobs from our community and she could not support that. She said the other part of her job as a Commissioner is to give her opinion honestly. She said that she respects the Lewis family and they have done marvelous things in the community but if we cannot support the project then we must be honest and she echoes her fellow commissioners in that this is not the right project or in the right place. She added that she would like to set things straight regarding smart growth. She said in planning, the terms smart growth/new urbanism/neo traditionalism/ have to do with living and working with a high quality of life. She said that it is current thinking to develop vertical mixed-use with commemial uses on the first floor, offices on the second floor and living spaces on the third floor. She noted that the DVD presentation given by the applicants suggested a 1970s example of smart growth and mixed-use development. She added the proposal would include small lots, small single-family detached homes. She said this proposal is a 1970s version of that concept and you cannot in good conscience place 1800 square foot homes on tiny lots and expect us to have a future. She remarked that without a master plan that tells us exactly what you plan to put on that property and we cannot allow obsolete development there. She noted that the market is changing and that perhaps residential is hot on the market now, and that if these 1800 square foot homes were built they would sell for about $455,000 and that is not affordable to most of us. She said she believes the Lewis family has had the community at heart but that she could not support this proposal. Chairman Macias stated he echoed his sentiments at the joint meeting with City Council in June. He remarked that this is a particularly difficult project to consider because Lewis Development has a stellar record of achievement in the City and the Inland Empire. He said he is tom between the notion of knowing whatever Lewis does would be a quality project and the fact that they (the Commission) would be compromising a process that they had made a large investment in; the General Plan that he had been a part of; the General Plan Task Force. He said looking at the '"big picture," by 2030, this region will have 6 million new residents which would be the same size as two cities the size of Chicago, and the majodty will live here in the Inland Empire. He said Ontado Airport currently handles 6 million passengers per year and by 2030 they project they will handle 30 million passengers per year and will have international service by 2015. He commented that Rancho is in a nationally significant transportation corridor because the 1-15 freeway handles all cargo out of Long Beach and a significant portion of non-perishable cargo out of LAX. He noted that airports and harbors are significant economic generators; they produce commerce, commerce produces business and business produces jobs. He mentioned that his colleagues talked about the balance between housing and jobs. He noted that what they are doing is very simple, they are taking land that is designated for office/industrial use and trading it away, probably forever to housing. He commented that if you look at the "big picture" and if we do this, there is a potential for other developers who are watching this action to want the same thing. He said that we could potentially open the floodgates for other developers to exchange their property's land use designation for residential use. He noted that if we continue to do that, we will never have a satisfactory job/housing balance, we will always end up being somebody else's bedroom community Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 27, 2004 DRAFT and our commuters will continue to get on the freeway to work somewhere else, like Orange County. He said in addition that, Orange County's economic engine is running faster and is more successful than the Inland Empire's. He said if we aren't careful and don't look at the big picture, we will continue to lose a lot of jobs to them. He said we made a lot of investment in our General Plan and action is asking us to change that. He said we asked for a master plan and we don't have that, so we are also talking about the integrity of our process and this Commission has traditionally felt strongly about maintaining the integrity of our process. He summarized the fundamental concerns as the integrity of the process, the investment already made in the General Plan and the land use designations inherent in the General Plan, the eventual quality of our life. He said that if you want to continue living here you would think you would want to be able to get a decent paying job close to home and not have to spend 20 years waking up at 4 in the morning to get to work. He concluded that he concurs with the other commissioners an? does not support the proposal. He then called for a motion. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 and Distdct Development Amendment DRC2004-00273. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded PUBLIC COMI Commissioner McNiel praised the students of Rancho Cucamonga Higl decorum during the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission had no further business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Mc carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 27, 2004 R~'~lEstate~ournal I Office Page 1 of 3 RealEstateJournal THE WU,l, ~TR]~? JOURI[AI, c;;,,i,/e to Prot, ert~, ~ . _home > oropertv reeort > office Office october ~2, 2004 Market Shows More Improvement ~ advanced search By RYAN CHIl'rUM APRRTMEBT Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal INDUSTRIAL From The Wall Street Journal Online · OFFICE RESlBENTIAL The U.S. office market showed further signs of RETAIL improvement in the third ARC#ITECTURE quarter as companies took up more space than in any #IWW & Tn[NOs quarter in nearly four years, according to a new survey. The increase pushed the vacancy rate down to 16.6% in the quarter from 16.8% in the second quarter. ~ Asking rents were unchanged in the third quarter at $24.09 IN THZS STORY per square foot per year, ending more than three years of quarterly declines, according to the survey of the top 64 U.S. office markets by Reis Inc., a New York-based The Wall Street ~oumal commercial-real-estate CareerJournal research firm. Actual rents fell CollegeJoumal just two cents, or 0.1%, to Opinion Journal $20, ! 1. StartupJournal wsJbooks So-called absorption -- the Career)ournalAsla net amount of occupied real CareerJournalEurope estate --jumped to 11.2 million square feet in the third quarter, up from 7,6 million square feet in the second quarter and the most since ** ~=~-- ea..- 1,~ ~ the fourth quarter of 2000. Re'klEstateJoumal Office Page 2 of 3 That is a good sign for the U.S. economy as a whole, because employers lease more space when they are Vacancy tale andayemge adding workers and dump fool i~r year in the top 84 U.S. matl~m. space when they are laying them off. i 17,0% 820,6 The numbers are also good . news for landlords, who have been battered by the 204 economy's downturn -- which caused vacancies to more than double from a Iow of 16~ _ i~l~e~,~ ~ 202 7.7% four years ago and ... (~ghl scsle) rents to plummet by more than 20% from a high of ,!,6A ~ ~ ~ , ~0.0 $25.34 per square foot in the first quarter of 2001. Landlords have come through ,, ,,,,r ,, ~ ,,,, ,,, what has been one of the worst periods ever in the office market, and did so without the rash of bankruptcies and foreclosures Commercial Real Estate Leans that plagued the market in Black's Guido: National the late 1980s and eady And Featured Companies 1.990S, helping to send the U.S. economy into recession. Innovative Znvesting Tools This time, despite a record Znt'l Council of Shopping stretch where 10 of 11 Center8 quarters saw negative absorption, landlords have gotten by because of Iow interest rates and more discipline by developers. "We're looking forward to a brighter picture in 2005 and a very bright picture in 2006," said Hichael Silver, president of Equis Corp., commercial-real-estate services firm based in Chicago. Hr. Silver, whose company represents tenants in lease deals, said he is advising his clients to lock in rents now before they start rising. Washington continued to be the tightest market in the country in the third quarter, with a vacancy rate of 7.7%. The nation's capital and San Bernardino, Calif., are the only two markets in the U.S. with single-digit vacancies. Dallas's vacancy rate went down to 26.1.% in the third quarter from 26.5% in the second, but it was still the highest in the country. But in a sign that the recovery is taking hold nationwide, 46 of the 64 markets Reis surveyed saw more space occupied. "The evidence of stabilization is becoming more apparent, but that doesn't mean that happy days are here again," said Lloyd Lynford, chief executive of Reis. Investors' appetite for top-notch, well-leased buildings and their willingness to take a lower return a~cer the stock-market bust has driven investment sales to record prices. Despite that, developers so far have remained disciplined. About eight million square feet of new construction became available in the third quarter, the most in five quarters, but the pace is still well below historical averages. ThD~i./ RcalEstateJoumal I Office Page 3 of 3 amount of new office space built this year, projected to be about 29 million square feet, will be the lowest in eight years. Reis projects 2005 will see about 34 million square feet of new space become available. Reis projects that the vacancy rate will fall to 15.7% by the end of next year, with rents rising 1.1%. Home E-mall to a Friend Print-Friendly Format Write to the Editor TOD of Paoe Subscribe to The Wall Street Journal Online or take a tour I Easy Home Financing High.Tech Degrees... J Fast Auto Financing... Bad credit? Bankruptcy? Interested in eaming your J Pre-qualify for a bad credit Homeowners... high-tech degree?.., auto fir~ancing... www.e-lends.co~/l www,~iuonline-de~ree.., www.fundinawav.com Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Polfcv. RSS To: Planning Commissioners and City Council Members From: Richard Fletcher, Planning Commission Re: General Assessment and General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 Environmental Assessment and Development Dislrict Amendment DRC2004-00273 Lewis Investment Company I would like to start by saying that I have the greatest admiration and respect for the Lewis Family and the Lewis Group of Companies, both for what they have done for the commlmity of Rancho Cucamonga and for Southern Californ/a. Ihey have been instmmanta! for a large part in the development and cultural enhancements for our commun/~, and I'm am thankful for that. I do, however, res~pectfigly disagree in this instance about the need for a General Plan .M:nendment for the "La Mancha Golf Course" propem.'. The "new information" pro~'ided to justif.y the amendment, the "Fiscal impact Analysis", is based on current market data a~d the demand for housing. We all know that the demand for housing currently exceeds the supply and that the migration to the Inland Empire is driven in large pan by the low cost of land and houses. We have taken the housing element into account when the Master Plan was first developed and ~ain wl:en it was last revie,a ed. There is plen~~ of land left available MthLn the Civ:' as designated in the General Plan for residential development. In fact, as the staffreport s'aggesu, we have already converted a good deal of acreage from Industrial/Commercial to residential and I have no doubt that in the future we will convert other properties to resident/ai as we look at infills and redevelopments, especially in regards to affordable and sen/or housing. The La Mancha property is sigrfificant to om' %i. 'sion" for the Havan Avenue Overlay District. That 'Msion" is for "upscale sophisticated" office buildings or office parks, Something suitable to attract regional or national headquarters to the city. Why is this importam? Because it provides places for our residents to work ';~Sthout having to commute on congested freexvays. This property was specifically designated within the General Plan to fulfill a balance of places to work per residents h~Sng here. It was part of the Economic Development considerations and quality of Life considerations that went into Ge General Plan. 'l-iris type oflaad is severely limited xxithln our'cit~' and once you take it away you have forever elirn/nated the possibility for office development of the scale we emision. This is the last parcel of this size. The importance of the size is that it alJows more fle~biliu, in developing a high rise office building or office park. If in ten years or nventy years the vision is not fulfilled we can always bu/ld the houses. But it doesn't work the other way around. The Applicants justification for a Plan and Zone change are based on "current market" conditions and demands. That's good if you want to develop and sell something fast, but it is not best for good planning. Shortly after becoming a Planning Commissioner I was informed and learned that our decisions should not be made based on "immediate market pressures" but on what we feel is best for the Commullity, balanced agalngt the rio~hts of prope~' oamers. Often this takes a lot of time to get it right. Even the courts have recognized that "good planning" lakes time to fulfill. It doesn't happen overnight and sometimes it doesn't happen for years. The applicant makes the argument that there isn't the demand for the type of office development that we desire. They state that the office market is overbu/lt and corporate office users will choose available sites other than the La Mancha property.. This may very well be true for the present time, but we are planning for what can be in the future, not necessarily ,~hat can be built and sold today. Besides, much of what I've been reading lately indicates just the opposite; That the Inland Empire is both economically and demographically poised to support office development. In a recent supplement to the Business Press there was an article rifled "The Next Wave i~ Office Development". It indicated that office space typically follows commercial and residential grow'th. To quote, "The Inland Empire is seeing the kind of office" development that is going to set records for the area", said Iota Pierik, senior vice president for Lee & Associates. "Real estate and public officials are keeping a watchful eye on how office space develops in their regions, but absorption doesn't seem to be a problem, even Mth more than one million square feet of office space under conslrucfion and another two million planned." Mark Piscitelli, executive vice president and managing director for the Ontario office of Grubb and Ellis made a reference to Ontario, San Bernardino, and Riverside stating "These cities have seen hea~? residential, commercial and industrial developments that have already attracted residents and businesses to the region. It only makes sense for office developments to follow." Real estate officials predict kigh office space growth in those markets, at least until the land runs out or the price goes up. Next tier cities like Rancho Cucamonga, Fontan~. and Corona ex~pect to get the heaL~' growxh. Headquarters are Needed. Wh/le local officials respect the need for small businesses, they know that it's the presence of major corporations that really grow a commun/ty. The Inland Empire is home to only 20 publicly traded compenles, and only a handful are nationally reco~iTed names. Several major national companies have branches or dk4sions in the region that help attract other businesses. "That's what we need to focus on nob:" said John Husing, x4ce president of Redlands-based Economics and Politics Inc. "The area is now used for backend offices or smaller divisions. The area needs to show corporate America that it is poised and ready to take on businesses that want to put their national headquarters here. We need to show them that we have the wh/te and blue collar work force, the office since and the comm~mi~' that x~l support them. And that happens thxo,gh marketing." The Inland Empire Economic Partnership has started a new three year marketing campaign pointing out the s~eng~.hs of the Inland Empire. Its new President and CEO. Mark Hiller. states, "We're going to be aggressive in our public relations campai~e~. There is no question in my mind that the Inland Empire is ready to take this major step. We have seen ~m'owth in all areas, including office space. It's an exciting time". This is what the business community, envisions and what x~ envisioned in our General Plan. It can be a reali~~. In regards to our General Plan, I believe we have a very good one. It doesn't mean we can't or won't review it as changes occur, but we have to give it time to work. My opinion of our General Plan was reinforced recently at the CCAPA convention in Palm Springs this month. I had an opportunity to meet some employees of the consulting firm that helped with the last revision to our plan. They had some brochures from Builder/Architect tiffed "Rancho Cueamonga: Where Quality is the Rule". I helped myself to a handful and they art enclosed for review. I understand many of you may have already seen this, but it makes for a good reminder of the process the ci~ went through with thc last plan review. It is an award winning plan and it's review started with the question "How do vou get better if you are already doing well". The answer was to insist on nothin~ but the best in a contemporary, freely tuned General Plan and that is what the cie' got. One of the objectives of the update to the plan was to reposition the cie' to achieve the right mount...type, and location of commercial, recreation, and office development. The time frame for this was 20 years, to 2020. The article ended with the comment that the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga can look forward to an even greaser focus on the excellence ~ has made this one of the most desirable communities in the re,on. : / I happen to strongly agjee with that but if we are to get there we have to maintain our vigilance in good planning. To consider a Plan Amendment and zone change without a development application or master plan of the area would not be good planning procedure. I think it would be ~xong to consider a plan amendment at this time. It is simply the xwong t~e and the ~xong property to change.~.-12ds_p~c, ce.of land is extr_ emely ijnpq~nant to the City as it is planned and zoned~, but it will tak~-'ui~e t~-~~l recently read a ouote in another article re~ardin~ hill~ide planning, but it applie-sto-al! ~ 1X.opemes. It said "We must make some disciplined decisions about where to build, and where not to build, and not let the pressures of the moment overwhelm us". I feel an3' change at this time would be a misuake and I feel it would be detrimental to Rancho's business commurfity and it's residents. I wo~d not be supportive of this requested plan amendment. To : Palanninh Division, City of R~ncho Cuc~mong~ P.O.Bo× 807, *" ~*mcho Guc~monga, Ga. 9i729 Re : EN~rI~OMEN= L ~9'~ME.~,M~T IN~ DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AM~,NDMMNT DRC2004-00773 LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPAk~f I ~ VotinE against to the develonm~nt on change the land use designation from indnstria~ oark to Low-Mesium Residential housing develooement. Bec,use, permittioM it will decrease in property values for ~e home owners. I am strongly opposing it. Thank you very much for consideration. Sincerly, os m o Lundy Reside~t~ol CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $ ...$% NOV 0 9 200~ CC t J- / 7 - o V REOIEIVFD ~ PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: General Plan Amendment DRC2004o00272 and Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273 Public Review Period Closes: October 27, 2004 ./ Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Investment Company Project Location (also see attached map): The Property generally bounded by Center Avenue, Arrow Route, 26th Street, and Haven Avenue -APN: 029-092-04. Project Description: A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park and the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, establish a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly, Consistent with the land use designation change. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following findin~l: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By Lewis Operating Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P. O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 (909) 985-0971 FAX: (909) 949-6700 Legal Department FAX: (909) 949-6725 NOV HAVFN AND ARROW RECEIVSO - PLANNING Request for Zone Change OFFICE MARKET AND HAVEN OVERLAY Lewis Companies and the City of Rancho Cucamonga have shared a long term vision of Haven Corridor being a vibrant southerly entry gate into the heart of the City. In comparison to '"{he Bumett office development on southwest corner of Haven and Foothill, the proposed master plan on Haven and Arrow has a much greater depth (591') which is also greater than 70% of the other office designations within Haven Overlay. The master plan will provide over 17 acres of land designated for office ~se with sufficient planning depth, parking requirements, and a professional business office element. The reduced size office site will also appeal to the market as a more manageable site and attract a far sooner development solution. CONTEXTUAL LAND USES The current Haven and Arrow site is designated Industrial Park; however, it is surrounded by industrial parcels much less in depth both to the north and south. Surrounding the westerly portion of the property, there are existing residential communities with medium high, Iow medium, and Iow density to the north, west, and south of the property. The proposed master plan development of the site will carry forward the intent of the Haven Overlay designation on the portion of the site fronting Haven with commercial/office development, while proposing residential development at the westerly portion of the site which is more compatible with the existing residential communities. From the result of the community meeting held on September 16, 2004, the neighboring communities would also prefer to see a more cempatibte use going into the site which will enhance the neighborhood property value. CONCLUSION With the long term vision of Haven Overlay in mind, the proposed master plan development on Haven and Arrow will provide adequate land use designation for office at a scale that has already been established on Haven frontage; it will also provide a more compatible land use plan than the current Industrial Park for the residential community surrounding the westerJy portion of the property. Lewis, being the owner of the property, will be dedicated to create a vibrant project inline of the vision of Haven Corridor we all share. 04 11-02 Zone Change Request Letter.doc Prepared By: SL RESOLUTION NO. 04- ~'~ Zi( ~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRES, AND WITH A MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TH STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THERI~OF - APN: 0209-092-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 04-114 recommending the subject application be denied. 3. On November 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. 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 City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the westerly 20.55 acres of the total 37.78 acres, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the east side of Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as industrial Park; and b. The properly to the north of the subject site is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with apartments. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY November 17, 2004 Page 2 c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and will not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties,. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby recommends denial of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. RESO'UT,ON NO. ¢ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRES, AND WITH A MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TH STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPI~QRT THEREOF - APN: 0209-092-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of'the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 04-114 recommending the subject application be denied. 3. On November 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. 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 dudng the above- referenced public hearing November 17, 2004, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the westedy 20.55 acres of the total 37.78 acres, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the east side of Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as industrial Park; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with apartments. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with - single-family detached units. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY November 17, 2004 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impa~t on the .environment nor the surrounding properties. ... 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council dudng the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY November 17, 2004 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 and directs the Land Use Map be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto for reference. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 GENERAL PLAN ~--~ LOW '~' Master Plan ~ LOW MEDIUM Required ~ MEDIUM HIGH ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ~ FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR 300 0 300 600 Feet , I RESOLUTION NO. ~) Y"' ~'~'~'~ a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 REQUESTING TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 6) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 37.78 ACRE SITE, ESTABLISHING A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT PURSUANT TO RCMC 17.20.030 FOR THE E~TIRE SITE, AND ADJUSTING THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET EASTERLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TH STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-092-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Distdct Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the associated General Plan Amendment, DRC2004-00272 and issued Resolution No. 04-114 recommending to the City Council that the application be denied. At that same hearing, the above referenced Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273 was reviewed, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No. 04-115, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny said Development District Amendment. 3. On November 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273. 4. 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 dudng the above~ referenced public headng on November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 20.55 acres of land of the total 37.78 acres, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the east side of Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Park, and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 2 b. The properly to the north of the subject site is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with apartments. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in ~ manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and ,, d. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the'surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are shown in the Initial Study and will be imposed on any future development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRC2004-00273 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY October 27, 2004 Page 3 c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council dudng the public headng, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse eff.e, ct as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-cl) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273. AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA 6) DISTRICTS TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ON THE WESTERLY 20.55 ACRES OF A TOTAL 37.78 ACRE SITE; ESTABLISH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT PURSUANT TO RCMC 17.20.030 FOR THE ENTIRE SITE; AND ADJUST THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET EASTERLY CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLy BOUNDED BY CENTER AVENUE, ARROW ROUTE, 26TH STREET, AND HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0209-092-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the associated General Plan Amendment, DRC2004-00272 and issued Resolution No. 04-114 recommending to the City Council that the application be denied. At that same hearing, the above referenced Development Distdct Amendment DRC2004-00273 was reviewed, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No. 04-115, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny said Development Distdct Amendment. 3. On November 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on DRC2004-00273. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does 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 substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 20.55 acres of land of the total 37.78 acres, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the east side of Center Avenue, between Arrow Route and 26th Street, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Park, and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 November 17, 2004 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with apartments. The property to the west is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The properly to the south is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and is developed with single-family detached units, and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. f. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: i. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. ii. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. iii. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, is hereby amended to change the Development Districts Map, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A." CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 November 17, 2004 Page 3 SECTION 4: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Sections Section 17.30.080 Overlay Districts and Subarea Development Standards, is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in Exhibit "B" FIGURE 17.30.080-A (Haven Office Overlay Map), and Exhibit "C" FIGURE 17.30.080-H (Sub Area 6 Map). 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 Rancho Cucamonga, California. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00273 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP 2oo 0 200 400 600 Feet DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ~ LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH GENERAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FLOOD CONTROL / UTILITY CORRIDOR FIGURE 17.30.080-A HAVEN AVENUE ~ FOOTHILL OVERLAY DISTRICT REVISED 11/17/04 HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT ~ URBAN CENTER ~ ~20' Row ARROW 88' ROW ~ ..... RAIL SERVICE EXIST. · · PEDESTRIAN JERSEY ' ' ' ~' BICYCLE a===~= REGIONAL MULTI-USE SPECIAL STREET LANDSCAPING ] BRIDGE ~ ~VE. OVERLAYD~ST. 7'TH 6TH (~ 900 0 900 1800 Feet I TH ,,~ EXHIBIT "B" 'r" FIGURE 17.30.080-H Revised 11/17/04 SUBAREA 6 SUBAREA6 MAP 120' ROW ~oo' ROW ~, JERSEY Z 88'OR LESS ROW ...... RAIL SERVICE EXIST. SPECIAL STREET LANDSCAPING BIKE ROUTE 7TH PEDESTRIAN ROUTE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT 6TH 600 0 600 1200 Feet EXHIBIT "C" THE CITY OF I~ANCHO C1JCAHONCA DATE: November 17, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The proposed amendments were initiated in response to a letter and petition sent to Mayor William Alexander. The subject neighborhood was concerned that one lot owner would attempt to divide their 30,000 square foot lot into two or more lots. The Planning Commission formally approved the application, on May 12, 2004. Because of the existing lot dimensions, it would not be possible to subdivide the lots and meet current Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan basic development standards without making 9 of the 12 lots flag lots. Amending the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) would make the zoning of these lots consistent with the already existing lot sizes and conditions. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 17, 2004 Page 2 The Planning Commission, after conducting a public hearing on July 14, 2004, recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402 to the City Council. A copy of the Planning Commission staff report and minutes is attached to provide further details. 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. CONCLUSION: Approval of the attached resolutions will amend the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan to a Very Low Residential density that is more consistent with the existing neighborhood density and thereby assure the continued rural character of the area. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2004 Exhibit "B"- Planning Commission Minutes dated July 14, 2004 Resolution of Approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 Resolution of Approval for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402 T H E C I T Y O F I~ANCItO CIJCAMONG^ DATE: July 14, 2004 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: .Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue- APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest comers of Victoria Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81, and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. BACKGROUND: There are 12 subject lots, 10 with existing homes and 2 that have been issued building permits. The smallest of these lots is approximately 19,500 square feet and the remainder of the lots range in size from approximately 21,000 square feet to 52,000 square feet. The current zoning of'Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), requires that lots be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The current lot sizes far exceed the minimum lot sizes and in most cases, exceed the minimum lot sizes required for Very Low Residential (. 1-2 dwelling units per acre). These amendments were initiated in response to a letter and petition sent to Mayor Alexander. The subject neighborhood was concerned that one lot owner would attempt to divide their 30,000 square foot lot into 2 or more lots. A copy of the letter and petition are attached (Exhibits "B" and "C"). Exhibit "A" 0 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA DRC2004-00371 & ESPA DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 14, 2004 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q - Etiwanda Specific Plan: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Proposed - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) ~..,~. North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site- Low Residential (2.4 dwelling units per acre) Proposed - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2.4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The site is located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue in the southeast quadrant of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Ten single-family houses exist on 10 of the lots, and building permits have been issued for the remaining 2 lots. There are two schools, a middle school to the west and a high school to the east, within 1/2 mile of the project site. The site is relatively level with no unique features. ANALYSIS: A. General: Because of the existing lot dimensions, it would not be possible to subdivide the lots and meet current Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan basic development standards without making 9 of the 12 lots flag lots. Amending the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) would make the zoning of these lots consistent with the already existing lot sizes and conditions. B. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was completed and the project was found to propose no new negative environmental impacts on the project site or the surrounding area. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and the California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review is required and no further action to the Environmental Assessment is required at this time. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA DRC2004-00371 & ESPA DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 14, 2004 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402 to the City Council through the adoption of the attached Draft Resolutions Recommending Approval. City Planner BB:CM:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Letter Requesting Redesignation Dated February 26, 2004 Exhibit "C" - Petition Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Draft Resolution Recommending Approval for DRC2004-00371 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval for DRC2004-00402 GPA DRC2004-00371 ESPA DRC2004-00402 I VICTORIA ST VICTORIA AVENUE GENERAL PLAN AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN ~ VL Exhibit "A" FROM LOW TO VERY LOW 10788 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 980-0677 February 26, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO TEMPORARY RECEPTION DESK Bill Alexander, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Victoria Street, West of East ~4venue, Etiwanda Dear Brad: There are nine houses and two vacant lots on the portion of Victoria Street running f¥om East Avenue westward approximately 1,500 leet. Eight of those houses are in the Low residential'planning area and one is in Very Low. All of the houses are on lots in excess of the VL minimum and the average is not only greater than the required VL average, but probably higher than the Estate Residential average. The neighborhood was recently concerned that one lot owner would attempt to divide their 30,000 square foot lot into two or more lots. As a result of those concerns, a petition was circulated in the neighborhood, asking that the land use map for the neighborhood be adjusted to change the Low designations to a Very Low designation. I have enclosed the original, signed petition which consists of three pages with the same text, but different signatures. The signatures represent eight of the nine houses. The ninth house is vacant. The former owner died and the new owner has not moved in yet. I am confident that the ninth homeowner will be willing to sign when the petition is presented to him. I have not discussed this with the owner of the two lots, but one of the. neighbors told me that he does not plan to subdivide. Bill Alexander, Mayor February 26, 2004 Page 2 The homeowners who live in the area west of East Avenue on Victoria request that the City initiate a land use density change on the planning maps and a zoning change on the zoning maps, making the entire neighborhood (except lots facing East Avenue) VL instead of L. S._incerely, ~ -~~Jr. JBJ:paa Encl.: original petition, three pages cc: Brad Buller, City Planner REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND ZONING CHANGES January 31, 2004 TO: Richard Macias, Chairman of the Planning Commission Richard Fletcher; Para Stewart; Christine McPhail; Larry McNiel. Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner ,. FROM: homeowners on Victoria Street east of East Avenue We, the undersigned, are the owners of all of the homes east of the Efiwanda Intermediate School on the soUth side of Victoria and all the homes east of the recently sold Rodriguez property on the north side of Victoria, west of East Avenue. All of our homes are on lots which are 30,000 square feet or more, with the average being closer to 45,000 square feet. Most of our homes are currently in a Low Denisity area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. We have been informed that in a Low Density area the lots are expected to average 15,000 square feet but they may be as small as 10,000 square feet. We have also been informed that in the Very Low Density area the lots are expected to average 25,000 square feet but they may be as small as 20,000 'square feet. We believe that the current planning and zoning maps for our neighborhood are in error. We believe that the planning and zoning designations for our neighborhood should be Very Low. We respectfully request that you initiate a planning and zoning change for our neighborhood, excluding parcels which face East Avenue. Exhibit "C" :'~ REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND ZONING CHANGES January 31, 2004 TO: Richard Macias, Chairman of the Planning Commission Richard Fletcher; Pam Stewart; Christine McPhail; Larry McNiel. Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner ,/ FROM: homeowners on Victoria Street east of East Avenue We, the undersigned, are the owners of all of the homes east of the Etiwanda · Intermediate School on the south side of Victoria and all the homes east of the recently sold Rodriguez property on the north side of Victoria, west of East Avenue. All of our homes are on lots which are 30,000 square feet or more, with the average being closer to 45}000 square feet. Most of our homes are currently in a Low Denisity area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. We have been informed that in a Low Density area the lots are expected to average 15,000 square feet but they may be as small as 10,000 square feet. We have also been informed that in the Very Low Density area the lots are expected to average 25,000 square feet but they may be as small as 20,000 ~quare feet. We believe that the current planning and zoning maps for our neighborhood are in error. We believe that the planning and zoning designations for our neighborhood should be Very Low. We respectfully request that you initiate a planning and zoning change for our neighborhood, excluding parcels which face East Avenue. REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND ZONING CHANGES January 31, 2004 TO: Richard Macias, Chairman of the Planning Commission Richard Fletcher; Pam Stewart; Christine McPhail; Larry McNiel. ' ........ Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner FROM: homeowners on Victoria Street east of East Avenue We, the undersigned, are the owners of all of the homes east of the Etiwanda Intermediate School on the south side of Victoria and all the homes east of the recently sold Rodriguez property on the north side of Victoria, west of East Avenue. All of our homes are on lots which are 30,000 square feet or more, with the average being closer to 45,000 square feet. Most of our homes are currently in a Low Denisity area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. We have been informed that in a Low Density area the lots are expected to average 15,000 square feet but they may be as small as 10,000 square feet. We have also been informed that in the Very Low Density area the lots are expected to average 25,000 square feet but they may be as small as 20,000 square feet. We believe that the current planning and zoning maps for our neighborhood are in error. We believe that the planning and zoning designations for our neighborhood should be Very Low. We respectfully request that you initiate a planning and zoning change for our neighborhood, excluding parcels which face East Avenue. ', ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) City of Rancho Cucarnonga (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) Planning Division (909) 477-2750 · Thb purpose of-this form is to inform the City of the basic componentsof the proposed pr0jectso that the C~ity may review the project pursuant to City Policies, Ordinances, and ' C~lifornia Environmental (~UalJty Act; and the City'S:Rules ~nd and: COB Jred-byCEQA. In.addition to the :?~ng fee; {he to pay or reimb[i~se the City~ its agent~, offibe~ a~d/Or · if0'r'all ~oS(s for the preparation; review, analysis, recommendations, INCOMPLETE APPLICA TIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submi~al; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: DRC2004-00371 and DRC2004-00402 Pr°Ject Title: General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment Name & Address of project owner(s): Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: City of Rancho Cucamon~]a 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 I:~PLANNING\CATHY~InitiaJ Study Part1 drc2.004-O0371 .doc Page 1 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04~/~' Contact Person & Address: Cathy Morris, Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Telephone Number: (909/ 477-2750, Ext. 4306 Information indicated by an asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's un/ess otherwise requested by staff. 'I) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundades. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east, and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): Northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78I "a~d~81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 45 and 46 *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. fl.): 8.93 acres Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 7) Describe any pr~p~sed genera~ p~an amendment ~r z~ne change which w~u~d affect the pr~ject site (attach additional sheet if necessary): Proposed project is a land use amendment which would lower density from Residential Low (2-4 dwe~lin~l units per acre) to Residential Ver~ Low (1-2 dwelling units per acre), h\PLANNING\CATHY~Initial Study Part1 drc2004-00371.doc Page 2 of 10 Rev. S/17/0~/~ 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: No building permits will be required until new development occurs. Descdbe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, a~ scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the usf~ of the structures: Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources of information (i. e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The proiect site does not fall within a sensitive biological area. The soil consists of older alluvial fan deposits and the soil consists mainly of Soboba Stony Loam)/sand with 2 to 9 percent slopes. The property is not within a known fault hazard zone, nor a flood hazard area. East of the subject property, thero is flood control/utility corridor. 10) Describe the known cultural and/or htstodcal aspects of the site. Cite all sources of inforrnation (bcoks, published reports and oral history): An historic landmark, the Hippard Ranch, built in 1916, is located adjacent to the subject site on the south side of Victoria, west of the project site. [:\PLANNING\CATHY~Initial Study Part1 drc2004-00371.doc Page 3 of 10 Rev. 3/17/0.,~/~1~ -, 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: There is currently road noise from Victoria Avenue the 210 Freeway and the 15 Freeway. i A zoning change, from Low Residential to Very Low Residential, will not create a new noise soume. 12) Descdbe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: There are 12 ~ within this re-zone ama. The lot sizes range in size from a Iow of 21,162 square feet to a high of 65,000 square feet. Them are 10 single family homes on 10 of the lots that rankle in age from 100 years old to just completing construction in 2004. The remaining 2 lots are currently vacant, however, both vacant lots are in review for the development of a single family residence on each of the lots. The property directly north of the project is vacant with ~esidential Low zoning (2-4 ~u/ac). The property on the north side of Victoria to the west of the project is vacant with residential Very Low zoning (1-2 du/ac). The property on the south side of Victoria to the west of the project is zoned Residential Very Low (1-2 du/ac). This same lot contains a Historic Landmark, known as the Hippard Ranch. 13) Descdbe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): A historic landmark, the Hippard Ranch, is located west of the project on the south side of Victoria. The subiect property is not within any environmentally sensitive zones, either plants or animals. 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? Lower zoning should result in fewer impacts, both noise and traffic, than the current zoning The lower zoning will not change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area in a negative manner. h\PLANNING\CATHY~Initia~ Study Part1 drc2004-00371.doc Page 4 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04~/7 15) ~ndicate the type ~f sh~~t-term and ~~ng~term n~ise t~ be generated~ inc~uding s~urce and am~unt~ How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? The zone change will not generate an)/new shod-term or long-term noise levels as no new development is being proposed with this zone change. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: Not applicable. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: Not applicable 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For fu/lher clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/Day) b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indidate proposed method of sewage disposal. [] Septic Tank [] Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water Distdct at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. CommerciaNndustdal (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: N/A Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A I:\PLANNING~CATHY~InitiaISIudyParil drc2004-00371.doc PageSof 10 Rev, 3/17/0.~/~ 2 I) Anticipated range of sate prices and/or rents: Sate Pdce(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $. to $ 22) Specify number of bed/ooms by unit type: N/A 25) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: N/A 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERClAL~ INDUSTRIALt AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Totalfloorareaofcommercial, industrial, orinstitutionalusesbytype: 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: .o 29) Providebreakd~wn~~anticipatedj~bc~assi~cati~ns~inc~udingwageandsa~aryranges~aswe~~asan~ndicati~n~ftherate~~ hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the CIO/: *$1) For commercial and industdal uses only, indicate the source, type, and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be vedfied through the South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct, at (818)~5T2-6283): ALL PROJECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Existing infrastructure is in place and no new development is proposed alon~ with this land use amendment. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matedals ? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic maten~ls include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides anO herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the matedals and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the prope~y, as well as the dates of use, il known. None known. k\PLANNING\CATHY~initial Study Part I drc2004-00371.doc Page 7 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04~ ~ 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matedals, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposedmethodofdisposal. Thelocationofsuchuses, alongwiththestorageandshipmentareas, shallbeshownand labeled on the application plans. No. I hereby certi~ that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data an~qformation required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation_ can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.~.~,//~ Date: .~////~/,,~ ~ h\PLANNING\OATHY~Initial Study Pad1 drc2004-00371.doc Page 8 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04~/ ATfACHMENT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Water Usage Single-Family 705 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 256 gallons per EDU per day Neighborhood Commercial 1000 gal/day/briit (tenant) General'Commercial ~082 gal/day/unit (tenant) Office Professional ' ' 973 gal/day/unit (tenant) Institutional/Government 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) · Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant) Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/unit (tenant) Sewer Flows Single-Family 270 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 190 gallons per EDU per day General Commercial 1900 gal/day/acre Office Professional 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/acre Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/acre Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water Distdct Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 I:\pLANNING\OATHY~Initial Study Part1 drc2004-00371.doc Page 9 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04~7~, ATTACHMENT B Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central ...... 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 6061 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 h\PLANNING\CATHY~Initial Study Part1 drc2004-00371 .docPage 10 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DRC2004-00371 and DRC2004-00402 2. Related Files: .... / / 3. Description of Project: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2*4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78 and 81; and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45 and 46. . . Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2*4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest comers of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78 and 81; and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45 and 46. Related file; General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive . Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential 6. Zoning: Low Residential 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single-family homes with several undeveloped vacant parcels, zoned Low Residential and Very Low Residential. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist (909) 477-2750, Ext. 4306 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 2 GLOSSARY- The following abbreviations are used in this report: EIR - Environmental Impact Report FEIR- Final Environmental Impact Report NOx- Nitrogen Oxides ROG - Reactive Organic Gases PM~o - Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District URBEMIS7G - Urban Emissions Model Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 ~ Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Agricultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Geology & Soils ( ) Hazards & Waste Materials ( ) Hydro ogy & Water Quality ././ ( ) Land Use & Planning ( ) Mineral Resources ( ) Noise "'.- ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( ) Transpodation/'rraffic ( ) Utilities & Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (,/) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could.have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () ~1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant'Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially si[~nificant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Rewewe Date: Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ( ) ( ) .....( ) (¢') or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Exhibit II1-15. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue and is characterized by residential development and vacant pamels to the north, south, east, and west. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. Design review is not required prior to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project will create new light and glare because the site is currently vacant. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered sigi~ificant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () ( ) () ("') Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (.,") a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, I ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') which, due to their location or nature, could result in I conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Impodance. The site is located northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue and is characterized by residential development and vacant parcels to the $2? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-0037'1 AND DRC2004-00402 ~ Page 5 north, south, east, and west. There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further, two-thirds of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FEIR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project'is consistent~ with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impact~ evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) The site is located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue and is characterized by residential development and vacant parcels to the north, south, east, and west. The nearest agricultural use (vineyards) is within a quarter mile of the property; however the agricultural use is an in-fill project until the property is developed. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () 0 () ('") substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial () () () (~') poilu!ant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ( ) ( ) ( ) (,") substantial number of people? Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The Generar Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 6 on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore, the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and they would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6) continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed ~:ederal and State standards. 'The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated e) Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the p~oject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish i and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ripanan () () () (v') habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () () () (v') protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 7 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () () (~/) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the pmvis~ons of an adopted Habitat ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The project site is located in an area developed with~ residential uses. The site has been previously disrupted during (construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments/annual discing for. weed abatement). According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. c) No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed, thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are no heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. · .f) The project site is not located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () ('/) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (v') significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) paleontological resoume or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those () () () (,,') interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). There will be no impact. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 8 c) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by (construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments/annual discing for weed abatement). No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () ('/) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known faulty Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ( ) ( ) ( ) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is () () () (,/') unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- er off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone,.nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Exhibit V-l, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within approximately 2 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies appreximately 7 miles northwest. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes ,is approximately 15 to 17 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 15 to 17 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong groundshaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less-th an-significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 9 b) The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types on-site consist of alluvial soil deposits,... Soil association according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated, d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist of alluvial soil deposits. Soil association according to General Plan Exhibit V-3 and General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5,1-3, These soils are typically Alluvial soil deposits. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7, HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS, Would the project: ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an a~rport land use plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (-/) or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 10 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofI () I () I () I ('/) loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, I I I I including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resdences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a ful['~ervice Hazardous Materials DiviSion that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fUels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a fUll service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the state. The City has adopted a Standardized Emergency Management System Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to respond to chemical emergencies, Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) There are no schools located within ¼-mile of the project site. The project site is located within Y~-mile of the nearest existing or proposed school. Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials, No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 7 to 8 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 % miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the Urban Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, the proposed project site is not located within a high fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 '. Page 11 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ( ) ( ) ( ) (v' ) interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existiqg nearby wells would drop.to a lev,e! which would'nbt support existing land u~es or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ( ) ( ) ( ) (~') the site or area, including through.the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,z') the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/') g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area () () () (,,') structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVVVD) and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. Because no new development is being proposed, no new impacts are anticipated. b) According to CVVVD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from groundwater in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit IV-2. The Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 12 development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground surface. Because no new development is being proposed, no new impacts are anticipated. c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-ha~dscape areas to p~event erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project wilt not alter the course of any stream or river. Ail runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site, No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site witl not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. g) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes severel debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5, No adverse impacts are expected. i) There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore, impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significenca within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 ' . Page 13 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ~:onservatio, n ( ) ( ) ( ) (*,,') plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue and is characterized by residential development to the north, south, east, and west. This project will be of similar design and size to surrounding residential development to the north, south, east and west. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is Low Residential. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals due to the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Resutt in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/i resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally () () () (,/) important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments,[ a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l; therefore, there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-l, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there is no impact. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 14 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise () () () (v') levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) levels in the project vicinity abov~ levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase m () ()' () ( ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?'. e) For a project located within an airPort land use plan ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinJty of a private airstrip, ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out. b) The uses associated with this type of project normally do not induce ground borne vibrations. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) See a) response above. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Located approximately 7 to 8 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 % miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004o00402 Page 15 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ( ) ( ) ( ) ("") either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers ..of peo~e, ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') necessitating the cohstruction", of replacement housing elsewhere? .CommentS: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) ('") e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') .Comments: a) The site, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue, would be served by a fire station located approximately 2 miles from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay School Fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 16 d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located approximately 1-mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the evels of service which could cause the need to ~;onstruct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in librap¢ space under the General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations 'was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City has planned a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and () ( ) () (,/) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or l ( ) ( ) () (v') require the construction or expansion of ! recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. Because no new development is being proposed for this project area, no new impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 17 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,') feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ).... ( ) (v') f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (.,') g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? .Comments: a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.5), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. C) Located approximately 7 to 8 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and will, therefore, not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and will, therefore, not create an inadequate parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 18 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ( ) ( ) ( ) a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stor~ ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) water drainage facilities or expaqsion of existidg facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ( ) ( ) ( ) (./) the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢') treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider*s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) capacity to accommodate the I~roject's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) (,,~) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: · a) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project is served by the CVWD water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 Page 19 f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfil~ with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does th~ project have the potential to degrade the ( ) ( ) ( ) ('/) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) ' Does the project have impacts that are individually ( ) ( ) ( ) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Exhibit IV-3. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered er rare species would inhabit the site. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build- out in the City and Sphere of Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to aggregate resources, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DRC2004-00371 AND DRC2004-00402 , . Page 20 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this.project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic center Drive (check all that apply): (v') General Plan FEIR ' . / ,! (SCH#2000061027, Certified october' 17, 200'1,) (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) ,... ; four custom homes to the west or if they will stand out and not blend in. He noted he was but he was concerned about compatibility and his proposed loss of privacya two-story house further back on the property. Brad Bulle~ the applicant was present and he thought he might wish to indicate his intentions. He noted ' in will go through the City process but thought the applicant may wish to get the neighbor's ~ number. Mr. Say stated they propose a single story north. He stated they are proposing to build the same home as they just built in an 18-1o Malvern Court, just south of Base Line Road behind the Albertson's store. He suggested Mr. Jld go see the homes. Headng no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the pu~ ~- Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution ng Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16481. Motion carried bythe following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MAClAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McP J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 - CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoda Street and East Avenue - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71,72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoda Street and East Avenue -APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Cathy Morris, Planning Specialist, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. There was no testimony and he closed the hearing. Commissioner Stewart believed it is a positive move responding to people in the community. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "B" July 14, 2004,,~,~/~. C.~' //-/?- o,t City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: DRC2004-00371 and DRC2004-00402 Public Review Period Closes: July 14, 2004 Project Name: ~ Project .Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location (also see attached map)~ Located at the northwest and southwest corners of Victoria Street and East Avenue- APN: 0227-061-38, 70,'71, 72, 78 and 81 and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, and 46. Project Description: A request to change the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designations from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 9 acres of land. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and · (2) Them is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By R SO[Ut O NO. *' fi' E/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CItY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, AND 81 AND 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, AND 46. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed a request for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of July 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued Resolution No. 04-90, recommending approval. 3. On the 17th day of November 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. 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 November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the land use concept and density provisions of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ~*** DRC2004-00371 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 17, 2004 Page 2 a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the General Plan and with related development; and b. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and. further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. The Negative Declaration identifies no significant environmental effect will result if this amendment is approved. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 as shown in the attached Exhibit "A," Site Plan. 6. The Clerk of this City Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. GPA DRC2004-00371 ESPA DRC2004-00402 I VICTORIA ST I VICTORIA AVENUE GENERAL PLAN AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN ~ VL ~L .... MAP AMENDMENT AREA Exhibit "A" FROM LOW TO VERY LOW T H E C I T Y O F ]~AN CH 0 C U CAI~I 0 N GA Memorandum DATE: November 17, 2004 ~.. TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council .~~AICP, City Manager FROM~.~/',~ry Henderson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2004-00402 Item G-2 shown on pages 9 and 10 of the agenda packet reflects Resolution 04-352 to approve Etiwanda Specific Plan DRC2004-00402. The amendment requires an ordinance. Therefore, Ordinance No. 738 has been provided to replace the resolution noted. LH/Is ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI~ COUNCIL OF THE CI'I~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE - APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, AND 81 AND 0227-!/2!-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, AND 46.. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, filed an application for'Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of July 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date and adopted Resolution No.04-91, recommending approval of the application. 3. On the 17th day of November 2004, the Ci{y Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows; 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 substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ESPA DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 17, 2004 Page 2 a. The proposed amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. The proposed amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the publi~ health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, this Council finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated there under; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of this Council; and, further, this Council. has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the facts associated with the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, this Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to this Council during the public hearing, the Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402 by the adoption of the attached Exhibit "A".. SECTION 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. ***' ~) ~1/' '~'~/~' a RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0227-061-38, 70, 71, 72, 78, AND 81 AND 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45, AND 46. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed a request for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of July 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 04-91, recommending approval. 3. On the 17th day of November 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. 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 November 17, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the land use concept and density provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 04- DRC2004-00402 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 17, 2004 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Specific Plan with related development; and b. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and c. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. The Negative Declaration identifies no significant environmental effect will result if this amendment is approved. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402 as shown in the attached Exhibit "A," Site Plan. 6. The Clerk to this City Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. GPA DRC2004-00371 ESPA DRC2004-00402 ,/ VICTORIA ST I I ,,, VICTORIA AVENUE GENERAL PLAN AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN L .... ~P ^MENDMENT ^R~ .~5 Exhibit "A"FROM LOW TO VERY LOW THE CITY OF ~ANCIiO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: November 17, 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: ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to approve the Tax Revenue Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCO No. 2965) between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, for approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DR02003-01163 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162. REcoMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 04-353 re- initiating the annexation application and agreeing to the proposed Tax Revenue Exchange between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND: At the June 16, 2004, City Council Meeting the following actions were taken: A. Approved the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and - Wardman Bullock Road; B. Approved 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) for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per aci'e) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land; C. Approved the Resolution allowing an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan changing the district designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 80 acres and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land. $52. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA CREEK ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164 November 17, 2004 Page 2 Following the City Council certification of the Negative Declaration and approval of the applications, an annexation application and all associated documentation was submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, LAFCO provided the City with the Distribution of Auditor-Controller's Response and Estimated Tax Revenue for the Etiwanda Creek annexation (Exhibit "B"). Pursuant to the negotiation process and prior to the annexation, both the City and County of San Bernardino must adopt a resolution approving the Property Tax Revenue Exchange within a 60 day time period, ending on October 19, 2004. The County adopted its Resolution No. 2004-328 within this time period; however, the City did not. Therefore, in order to proceed with this reorganization, the City will need to include the re-initiation of the application as an element of the property tax resolution. As outlined in Section 99(b) (5), the County of San Bernardino shall negotiate the exchange of revenues on behalf of all affected special districts. The County of San Bernardino Economic Development Department utilized the amended formula to determine property tax allocation for the Etiwanda Creek annexation, which provides for a minimum distribution of 7 pement of the property tax revenues along with the distribution of the library revenues. The formula for the distribution of the tax is consistent with prior tax rate exchanges previously agreed to and adopted by the City Council. The estimated property tax revenue to be received by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Etiwanda Creek property is 8.4 percent. CONCLUSION: Adoption of the attached Resolution is required for LAFCO to proceed with the Etiwanda Creek annexation. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:LH\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Annexation Map Exhibit "B"- Auditor-Controller's Response and Estimated Tax Revenue for the Etiwanda Creek annexation Exhibit "C" - County of San Bernardino Resolution No. 2004-328 Resolution Determining the Amount of' Property Tax Revenue to be exchanged between the City and the County Annexation Map 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet ETIWANDA CREEKANNEXATION (~ ClTY BOUNDARY LAFCO 2965 EXHIBIT "A" DRC2003-01164 Z~'Z- 2.. 1853 INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE August 3, 2004 PHONE 386-8831 FROM KAREN KLEIN, Fiscal Clerk IIcount-j of San Bernardino Office of the Auditor/Controller-Recorder TO KATHY ROLLINGS-MC DONALD LAFCO #O49O SUBJECT ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE SUBJECT TO A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE Pursuant to the provisions outlined in senate bill 180 amending section 99 of the revenue and taxation code, the attached information is provided for the LAFCO #2965, Reorganization including annexations to City of Rancho Cucamonga and West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District. Please note the following agencies: WY19 Metropolitan Water Dist Debt Service PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND PROPORTIONS BY AGENCY AS ESTIMATED BY THE AUDITOR/CONTROLLER PER SENATE BILL 180, SECTION 99(B) 1-3 LAFCO# 2965 ANNEXATION TO: CC24-City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation DRC2003-00753 City of Rancho Cucamonga - CC24 REVENUE % IN MAJOR TRA: 5.203987% ./ TRA # 70007 ASSESSED VALUE $6,638,002 TAX REVENUE $66,380 FY 2003-04 ESTIMATED CURRENT COUNTY AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE Al~Ol-~eneral (Jperat~ons 15.035820% 9,981 BF01-FIood Zone I 2.636147% 1,750 BF07-Flood Admin l& 2 0.18708'1% 124 i BL01-County Free Library 1.455794% 966 COUNTY REVENUE TOTAL $12,82'1 FY 2003-04 ESTIMATED CURRENT OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE c;~z4-1~ancno uucamonga I-~re 12.582618% 8,352 UD50-CSA 70, County Wide 2.699766% '1,792 VR02- Inland Empire West RCD 0.'166287% '1 '10 WU08-1nland Empire Utilities-Mid Vly t.555'138% 1,032 WU08-1nland Empire Utilities-Imp C 2.949263% 1,958 0 OTHER AGENCIES TOTAL $'13,244 REVENUE GRAND TOTAL $26,065 PREPARED BY: Karen Klein DATE: 7/3012004~ C.ECKED BY= BOBWR'G"T M~v 10 04 11:04~ LRFCO 909 38'7-58~1 p, 1 REPOP' 'R~COMMENOATION TO THE BOARD C 'UPERV!$ORS OF SAN BERNARDINO ~.~1 II~'rv t"Ai .- P~t-~ F~ Note 7671 FROM: NORM~ ~ K~ tp~,,o" j E~nomicDevelot - co,o. , THE Ci~ OF ....... v ~m~.~;,;~- Aiqll ~EST ~"ALI.EY MOSQUITO AND~CTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (ETIWANDA CREEK, CI~ NO. DRC 200~011~) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution 200~328 determining ~e fallowing as ']~e prope~ ~x revenue amoun~ to be transfe~d as a result of pending annexation re~a".e~ to LAFC'D NO. - Reo~ani~fion to include ~nexatio~ to ~e Ci~ of ~ncho Cu~m,~nga and Wes~ Vol'ay Mosquito and Ve~or Control Dis~ (Etiwanda Creek, Ci~ No. DRC 2003-)11 ~4~': I ~' Agency Transfer To ~Tite, nsfa, .... From J ~u~'Free Libm~. ' [ ~ ~g~ J [ ~ounw Gene~l Fu~d-- ~ -- ] BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Local Agen~ Formation CommissJor (i~FCO) No. 2955 pe~ains to an annexation, which en~mpas~s approximately 300 acres. The area :s generally located wi~in potions of Sections 21 and 22. Township I Noffh, Range 6 West, San Bernardi3o Meridian. The annexation site is gene~l~ bowered by pamel lines or' th~ no~h Wardm~n ,ullock Read (existing Ci~ of Rancho Cu~monga bounda~) on the ,~a~i[ Wils3n AvenJe (exist ~ C ~ of ~ncho Cu~monga boundaw) on the sou~, and the naR,raj ~ension of E~=st Avenue on the west. ~e ama includes ~e territo~ identified by th~ C ty as Etiv~rtde. Creex," wi~in the noAhern sphere ~ influen~ of the Ci~ of ~ncho Cu~mcnga. The transfer amounts in ~e past have been histori~lly determined ~,sing ~ folmu a agreed to '~y the Coun~ and a Commi~ee of Ci~ Managem and formally adopt~ by the Board of Supe~iscm on May 19, 1980. However, on September 30, 2003, the Board ,:)f Sup~:sor3 approved an amendment to ~un~ policy on pmpe~y tax tmnsfem for annexations tc p~vide that f~r future annexations to all incorporated c~ies, cities shall re~ive n minimum of 7% of the pmpeAy t;~x revenue ~llected from the annexed areas. At this time, there are six in~rpomted cities wi~in San Bemardino Count/that hgve a proper~ tax sharing rote of less than 7%, which includes the Ci~ of Rancho Cuc~onga. The City's share of the m~mmended prope~ ~x transfer amount is bas~ upon ~his 7% minimum, in addition to the Coun~ Libm~ share (1.46%) in a~ance with the "Agreement For Wkhdrawal From ~un~ Libm~ System" dated De.tuber 21, 1993. The Ci~ concum wilh tNs prol)e~;l tax transfer and is ex~ected to ndoot a sim nc resolution at i~ next sched~ed ~9~ci~ m.gel~ Re~d of Action of the ~ar $ o~ S~3ewiscrs cc: ~/PSG-Kanold APPROVEO(~r~a~) Filc~ED~SG MOTION OCT 2 P.' . DATED: 909 38'?-58~ 1 F'. 2 M~v 10 0'$ ll,'O~a LRFCO LAFCO NO. 2965 - RE,.~RGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXA lIONS 73 'rile Cl'.rY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (ETIWANDA CREEK, CITY NO. DRC 2003.01164) October 5, 2004 Page 2 of 2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY OTHERS: This item was reviewed by the C¢~ur~ty AdminL~.tra:.ive Office (Wayne Thies, Administrative Analyst, 387-5409) on Septem[~er 2T. 200z., and ty LAF~O (Kathieen Rollings-McDonald, Executive Officer, 387-5866) on SeF,tembo' 27, ~00 ._ Thi=s item has also been coordinated with the agencies impacted by the pending ann.'-xaticn. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This property tax transfer shall only be el'-~ecl:i~, Ul;,or the sztisfact3ry completion of the annexation proceedings. Once. this anne~tion h~:s beeit f;~aliz=.d, ~h~, prop~',rty tax revenue transfer will occur. ... As a related matter, the San Bemar~iino County Consolidated Fire 7istr (;i (County l-'in~, ~;hroL'gh CSA 70) provides for fire protection administrative services to this u~incor:;om~t(;~J ama wi[bin ~he City of Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence, while fire protecti¢,:3 is p--ovids.d by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. If the proposed annexation i:~ app'oved b~./LAFCO, 1:hat action would transfer the tax revenue from County Fire to the City .:,f Ra~(~hc Cucamonga. '[he net financial impact to County Fire would be an annual reduction ol~ $1.7c~;.' ir~ co~respo3dir~g ':ax revenue. SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT(S): 2n~. PRESENTER; Norman A. Kanold, Assistant County Administrator. 387-4532. Mov 10 04 11:04~ LRFCO SOS 387-5871 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-328 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN 8ERNARDINO, STATE OF C,ZtLIFO~',NIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN AND THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RESULTING FROM T~E JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE DESCRIBED BY I~:~FCO NO, 2965 On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, on motion of Supervisor Young, duly ~econ:led b~' Supervisor Biane, and carried, the following resolution is adopted: SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County o1: San 13e'nardino finds and determines that: A. Pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Oode, pdor to th(; issuance of a Certificate of Filing by the Local Agency Formation Commission Executiv(~ Officer, the governing bodies of all local agencies whose se,rvice are~ or servic~ responsibilities will be altered by a proposed jurisdictional chan~e sh~ll n~gotiat~ and determine by resolution the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between an¢ among such local agencies. B. Except as provided in Section 99.1 of the Revenue and Ta;<~ion Code, in event that a jurisdictional change would affect the servide area or ser,'ice re:spor~sibili!¥ of c,n~ or more special districts, the Board of Supervisors shall, on behalf ¢,'~ the disl:rict or di:~t~cts, negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues. C. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernard~l~ and th(; Cf~.y Rancho Cucamonga have determined the amount of property tax rev~ue.~ to be sxch~r~ged as a result of the following jurisdictional change(s): LAFCO NO. 2965 - Reorganization to include Annexation.~ to City of Rancho Cucamonga and west Valley Mosquito and ~ector Control District (Eflwanda Creek, City No. DRC 2003~:!1164] ~ov 10 O~ 11:04a LRFCO 909 387-58~! SECTION 2. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bem~rdino heml:y resolves and orders that: A. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue be~veer~ th,~ Cour.ty of ,San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, attached hereto ~.; I--xhibit "A" an:i incorporated herein by reference, resulting from the above-described iuris~ictional change(si~, is approved and accepted. B. The annual tax increment genbrat~d in the area subject t} thc jurisd:c;:ion~l change and attributable to the local agencies whose service area or servic~ respoasibilities wiil be altered by the proposed jurisdictional change shall be allocated in futura years puts,]ant the provisions of Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 3. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby/direct, ed to certil? the passage of this resolution and to cause a certified copy to be sent to th~? Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bemerdin:,. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of San Bema~dinc (:ount¥, State of California, by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS: Young, Biane, .l~,guia:l, F'o.~:m';s NOES: SUPERVISORS: None ABSENT: SUPERVISORS: Hansberger STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) I, J. RENEE BASTIAN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ct San Bern;~rdino County, California, hereby certif~ the foregoing to be a full, true and cc, rte.: (:opy of the ~cord of the action as the same appears in the Official Minutes of said Board at its meeting of October 5, 2004. t:JUr:::l ~l:lY-bt:j',~ 1 p, b Ho'd 1U U~' lltUb,a LHI-L;U LAFCO NO. 2965 - Reorg. to incl. Annexations to the City of Rancho C uc:a~non(~a and West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (Etiwanda Creek, Cit'/No. ~JRC 01164) EXHIBIT A City of Rancho Cucamonga Percent of New TRA 13.46% TRA / 7O0O7 A~SE$SED VALUE $' 6,638,0:12 TAX REVENUE $ 66,3,B0 CHANGE BASE YEAJ~ _2oo3-o4 TRANSFER FROM County: General Operations $ Flood Control Zone #1 $ Flood Control Administration1 $ Librmy $ Tota co,..ty Other Affected Agencies: CSA 70 - Countywido $ (1,79;-~) $ Total Other Affected Agencies $ (1,792)_ 'rOTAL TRANSFER FROM ~ TRANSFE._R TO City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 5,613 TOTAL TRANSFER TO $ "' 5~'61 :~- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFCO NO. 2965. SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds an~determines that: a. Pursuant to Section 99 of the Tax Revenue and Taxation Code, prior to the issuance of a certificate of filing by the Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer, the governing bodies of all local agencies whose service area or service responsibilities will.be altered by a proposed jurisdictional change shall negotiate and determine, by resolution, the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such local agencies. b. Except as provided in Section 99.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, in the event that a jurisdictional change would affect the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino shall, on behalf of the district(s), negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues. c. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino have determined the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged as a result of the following jurisdictional change: LAFCo No. 2965 - REORGANIZATIONTO INCLUDE ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE WEST VALLEY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Etiwanda Creek (DRC2003-01164) d. The final date for receipt of the resolutions of the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga was October 19, 2004 pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 99(b)(4) of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The County Board of Supervisors has adopted its Resolution No. 2004-328 on October 5 2004; however, the City Council has not. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves and orders that: a. The proposal identified as LAFCO 2965 - Reorganization to include Annexations to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (Etiwanda Creek DRC2003-01164) is hereby re-initated by the City, as outlined in the City's Resolution 04-151. b. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, resulting from the above-described jurisdictional change(s), is approved and accepted. c. The annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdictional change and attributable to the local agencies, whose service area or service responsibilities will be altered by the proposed jurisdictional change, shall be allocated in future years pursuant to the provisions of Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the passage of this Resolution and to cause a certified copy to be sent to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino. LAFCO 2965 City of Rancho Cucamonga (Etiwanda Creek - DRC2003-01164) EXHIBIT A City of Rancho Cucamonga Percent of New TRA 8.45% TRA 70007 ASSESSED VALUE $ 6,638,002 '~' TAX REVENUE $ 66,380 CHANGE IN BASE YEAR 2004-05 TRANSFER FROM County: General Operations $ (2,855) Flood Control Zone #1 $ Flood Control Administration $ Library $ (966) Total County $ (3821) Other Affected Agencies: CSA 70 - Countywide $ (1,792) $ Total Other Affected Agencies $ (1,792) TOTAL TRANSFER FROM $ (5,613) TRANSFER TO City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 5,613 West Valley Mosquito and Vector $ 0- Control District TOTALTRANSFER $ 5,613 R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A COHHU NITY (~E RVICES DATE: November 17, 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 Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Dan Coleman, Principal 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 and in the Planning Division. A, PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Central Park; · Weather related damage to the interior of the center that the contractor is responsible for remediating, are causing delays in the project. Storefront windows are installed. Site flat work and lighting is almost complete. Base Line and Milliken Street improvements have experienced weather related delays. It is anticipated that they will be completed by late November. Central Park Landscape and Irrigation Project: · Palm Trees have been planted. Remaining trees have been tagged and are being installed. Irrigation installation is continuing. Rancho Cucamonga Cultural Center Project: · Footings have been formed and poured for the Theater basement and Event area. Underground plumbing and electrical rough in has been completed for the Library. City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 · Six bids of the 11 remaining bid packages, which were received on October 5, were awarded on November 3. Staff is continuing to conduct value engineering on the remaining bid packages. Etiwanda Train Depot: · Installed 3 security cameras that were supplied by the Sheriffs Dept. They will routinely check on the cameras. Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail: · Caltrans has given the City comments on the revised environmental documents submitted in July. Caltrans is asking for more revisions because they have changed their forms; hence, the City will incur additional expense and delay. · SANBAG has informed staff that they have set aside approximately $1 million in funding from TEA (federal transportation funds) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's portion of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. This is significant because only $4.5 million was available for all cities in region. · Master Plan was completed and adopted by City Council on December 6, 2000. $4,000,000 in federal and state grant funds have been obtained. Phase I between Haven and 1200' east of Etiwanda is still in federal environmental review. Plan check in progress on engineering construction design plans for Phase II between Amethyst and Archibald. · REI retail store, which will be celebrating their grand opening November 19-21, is partnering with the City in support of the trail project. REI is known for its community programs, such as funding environmentally sensitive projects (such as bike trails) and trail clean-up days. The Friends of the Pacific Electric Trail and City staff will be manning a booth at their grand opening. The Rancho Cucemonga Community Foundation approved use of their non-profit organization to become a donation collector for this important trail project. Etiwanda Railway Station Property · Bids have been received for clean up of the property. Staff is negotiating shared cost with SANBAG (the property owner). · Master Plan was completed and adopted by City Council on December 6, 2000 that identified the station as a "signature trailhead" high priority for the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. · The Engineering Department has begun using the station property for public works maintenance activities. Burglar alarms have been installed in the station building; however, there are no fire sprinklers in the building. Engineering Department has estimated it would cost approximately $253,000, including fire sprinklers, to bring station up to code for occupancy by Public Works staff. $50,000 in CDBG construction funds approved in FY2004- 05, mostly for demolition of accessory structures on property. Conceptual site plan and City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 community garden plan are complete. Architerra agreed to donate their services to prepare community garden construction plans. · Mayor and staff met with restaurateur who is interested in leasing Station building for an upscale steakhouse; however, before going any further, City Council policy discussion needed regarding desired uses for property. If City wishes to sublease Station, or a portion thereof, to a commercial business, then a Request for Proposals should be issued. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Senior Services: · A very special Veterans Day Tribute was held at the Senior Center on Thursday, November 4, at 9:30 a.m. The event was attended by 125 community members and featured as tribute to the USO, entertainer Frank Lenz and the Rancho Cucamonga High School Air Force Jr. ROTC. · The Crafty Seniors' Craft Sale will be held at the Senior Center on Thursday, November 18, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This annual event is a special opportunity to purchase beautiful and creative crafts made by our seniors. · Senior Advisor,/Committee will hold their next regular scheduled meeting on Monday, November 22, at 9:00 a.m. · The Senior Center will offer a free full ThanksqivinR Dinner on Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 25, at 11:00 a.m. for seniors on a reservation basis only. Seating will be limited to 75. Trips and Tours: · Hearst Castle Holiday, December 12-13, 2004. Join us for a deluxe motor coach ride along picturesque Highway 1 to beautiful Cambria where you'll enjoy one night at the cozy 'Inn by the Sea' near Moonstone Beach. On the way, enjoy breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean along Highway 1. Upon arrival in Cambria, relax and enjoy dinner on your own before departing for an evening tour of Hearst Castle, decorated for Christmas reminiscent of the 1920's and 30's. In the morning, enjoy a continental breakfast before the return trip including a stop for lunch (included) at the Apple Farm restaurant in San Luis Obispo. Cost: $170.00 per person (double), $230.00 (single). · Boat Parade of Liqhts and Dinner at the Five Crowns, December 17, 2003. We'll start with a ride to the legendary Five Crowns Restaurant in Corona Del Mar where the executive chef will prepare a traditional English holiday dinner. Five Crowns is a beautiful replica of one of England's oldest country inns, warmed by candlelight and cozy fireplaces. After dinner we'll take the short ride to the Balboa Pavilion where we set sail on the calm water's of the harbor for the spectacular boat parade. Lights, lights and more lights! This year's parade is sure to be full of lighted holiday cheer. As Newport Beach's Christmas card to the world, the boat parade will set the harbor ablaze. Beautiful multi-million dollar yachts, kayaks, canoes and other small boats will light up City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 the harbor as a dazzling array of holiday lights and music fill the air. Many of the boats will be richly decorated with animated Christmas scenes. Cost: $60.00 per person. · 116th Annual Tournament of Roses Parade, January 1, 2005. Join us for our annual trip to the parade of all parades. Cost: $103.00 per person. Human Services: · The Doctor Is In, Dr. Harvey D. Cohen, M.D., presented the following lectures at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center in November: ~' Insulin Pump Therapy: Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 12:00 -noon. ~ Diabetes Type I & Ih Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 7:00 p.m. · USDA Food Commodities, Surplus food commodities will be distributed on the first Monday of each month to eligible Iow-income residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Distribution begins at 1:30pm at the Senior Center. Distribution is on a first come, first served basis. There is a limited homebound program for physically disabled individuals and seniors. Proof of residency and income are required. Volunteer Services: · The table below summarizes the Community Services Department's volunteer usaqe for the month of September 2004 and year-to-date: Month: September 2004 Year to Date # Of # Of Volunteers # Of Hours $ Value Volunteers # Of Hours $ Value ~,dmin. 5 1 [ 210 25 75 1,05(; Sports 73 36~ 5,152 758 6,243 87,402 .~r. & Human 70 76(; 10,64C 320 2,623 36,722 Services Special 7 14 196 66 317 4,43~ Events Y'outh 48 119 1,666 332 886 12,40Z Programs Totals I 2031 1,2761 17,8641 1,5011 10,1441 142,016 Based on $14.00/hour Teens: · The table on the next page summarizes teen proqram participation for the month of October 2004: City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 Program Attendance/Participation - October 2004 Teen Center 613 Homework Room 26 TRAC - Babysitting 74 participants/13 volunteers TRAC - Snack Bars 8 TRAC - Monthly Meetings 22 Spruce Skate Facility 611 Teen Connection 23 · The Teen Center has been active this month with great fall time activities. Rentals for the Center have become quite popular and several bookings are confirmed for the month of November. · The Teen Center Homework Room is awaiting installation of cable; once this is complete we will be able to offer Intemet service for the teens. · Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) kicked off the fall season with some fun and festive activities. Teen made caramel apples and sold some ghoulish snacks at the Monster Bash dance. The youngsters also helped out at the City's Harvest Festival. · Spruce Park Skate Facility continues to be a hub of activity. Beginning last month staff will be meeting with local skaters on the 2nd Tuesday of each month. At this meeting skaters are updated on the latest safety laws, upcoming major events and discuss any facility issues that may be occurring. School safety awareness assemblies are in the process of being scheduled. · Teen Connection - This valuable program provides volunteer opportunities for high school students in need of community service projects for graduation. · The "REAL" Action Committee continues to meet monthly to plan and develop new programming for high school students. Their first REAL high school dance will take place on Saturday, November 20t~, · Teen Workshops - On November 6th a Teen Girls Self-Defense Workshop was held. Eleven teens learned how their awareness and attitude can help prevent assault. Project Sister, who provided trainers for this workshop, also spoke on prevention tips and physical self- defense techniques. Youth Activities: · On Saturday, October 30m, youth in the community enjoyed a Harvest Carnival that was sponsored by both the City and Lewis Apartment Communities. The event included carnival rides, pumpkin carving, game booths, pony rides, petting zoo, craft stations, a costume contest and food vendors. An estimated 3,000 community members participated in this year's event. · Enrollment in our Playschool program is currently at 756 students (ages 1-5) in 48-classes Waiting list exist for many of our classes. October's attendance in our playschool classes was an astounding 15,253 youngsters. · During the fall, the schedule for Mobile Recreation program, Fun on the Run, is as follows: City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 Weekday Park Location Timeframe Monday Bear Gulch 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm Tuesday Hermosa Park 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm Wednesday Old Town Park 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm Thursday Elena Park 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm Friday Windrows Park 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm · During the month of October, 415 children enjoyed free, drop-in activities at selected parks in the community through our Mobile Recreation Program. They participated in fun harvest games and kooky crafts. Fun on the Run was also invited to attend a carnival at Golden Elementary School, where students played games and made Halloween photo frames. Fun on the Run was also on hand at the City's Harvest Carnival and serviced 500 youngsters. Participants at the Harvest Carnival made Halloween bags, entered in a coloring contest and made a spooky ghost. Lewis Partnership: · Our partnership to p~'ovide youth activities in the Terra Vista area is going strong and attendance at both the Teen Center program at the Sycamore Apartments and the Kids Club at Montecito, Carmel, Evergreen and/or Terre Vista Apartments continues to grow. · The Lewis Communities held a Haunted House on Friday, October 29th and invited the Kids Club and Lewis Teen Center participants to join in the spooky fun. Over 350 youngsters participated in games, contests and prizes. Youth Sports: · The Sports Advisory Committee will next meet on November 10th. At this meeting the Committee will review Jr. Ali-American Football's request to receive permanent field allocation. The field allocation proposal for the 2005 spring/summer will also be discussed. · The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting period: Activity # Participants Age/Gender # Teams Pee Wee Soccer 419 3-5/boys & girls 44 Youth Flag Football 210 8-14/boys & girls 20 Cucamonga Middle School - 35 6-13/boys & girls N/A Youth Sports Camp Cucamonga Middle School 20 8-adult N/A (CMS) Judo Cucamonga Middle School 35 8-14/boys & girls 4 (CMS) Youth Basketball Practice RC Family Sports Center: · The table below and on the next page provides drop-in/open play participation at the Center for the reporting period: Activity # Participants I Adult Basketball 365 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 Activity # Participants Youth Basketball 264 Adult Racquetball 20 Youth Racquetball 581 , Adult Volleyball 81 Youth Volleyball 266 Jazzercise 1,231 · 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-four (34) adults are participating in our tennis leaques. · There are 4 adult softball tournaments scheduled at the Epicenter and Adult Sports Park during the month of NovembeF · The table below summarizes adult sports activities at the Epicenter for the reporting period: Activity # Participants # Teams Gender Softball 2,400 150 Males/Females Non-Profit Sports Organizations: · Bi-annually, the Community Services Department, through the Sports Advisory Committee allocates sport fields for non-profit or.qanized youth sport leaques. For the reporting 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: · Harvest Carnival - The Community Services Department in collaboration with Lewis Apartment Communities are planning a family Halloween event for families who would like to enjoy some safe Halloween fun! The event will take place on Saturday, October 30, 2004, starting at 5:00 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Special Event Area. Residents will enjoy an evening of entertainment, pumpkin carving workshops, costume contests, carnival rides and much more. Cost: $5.00 per person - advance ticket sales; $8.00 per person on the day of the event. · Victoria Gardens "Act One - The Journey Be.qins" Celebration - On Saturday, November 6, 2004, in Town Square at the mall, the Community Services Department, along the Library and Victoria Gardens Mall celebrated Act 1, the first in a series of milestones events celebrating the groundbreaking and construction of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. This event started at 8:30 a.m. with an invited guest and PAL Donor breakfast. This pre- event will provide Promoting Arts and Literacy (PAL) Campaign donors with an update on City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 the Campaign and the project as well as provide the opportunity to entice prospects to join our fundraising efforts by sharing recognition opportunities that are still available. At 9:30 a.m., the public event in Town Square included remarks by Mayor Alexander, Forest City and our two Diamond Level PAL donors. Through the late morning and early afternoon the stage included performances by entertainers likely to perform in the Cultural Center when it opens in 2006. These included a master storyteller, community theatre performances, family entertainment and a musical jazz band. · Tree Li.qhtinq & Holiday Celebration - The Community Services Department in collaboration with Lewis Retail Centers ara planning a holiday tree lighting ceremony for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga that will take place on Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in the Terra Vista Towne Center- Food Court. Please mark your calendars and join us for an evening of entertainment, a visit from Santa and Mrs. Claus and much more holiday excitement. After visits with Santa, you can enjoy a free holiday movie courtesy of Ultra Star Cinema. · Winter Wonderland & Craft Boutique - The Community Services Department in collaboration with Lewis Apartment Communities is planning a family winter holiday event for families who would like to embark on some safe SNOW fun! More than 30-tons of snow will line the park providing youth and families with two snow areas and a sledding zone. The event will take place on Saturday, December 11, 2004, starting at 12:00 p.m. at Ralph M. Lewis Park. Residents will enjoy a day of entertainment, arts and crafts, inflatables games/rides and snow right here in Rancho Cucamonga and much more. · Central Park Grand Openinq Celebration - Staff is in the process of planning the Grand Opening Celebration for Phase I of the much-anticipated Central Park project. The exact date of this event has not yet been scheduled as rain has delayed the project slightly. Once set, residents of Rancho Cucamonga will be able attend and witness the ribbon cutting on this much awaited facility and tour the facility and see the programs and activities that have been planned to take place in this 57,000 square foot building. Cultural and Performing Arts: · Plans ara underway for the City's next production which will be a vibrant musical revue featuring a number of songs from several popular Broadway musicals. "The World Goes Round" represents the music and lyrics of Kander and Ebb, most notably known for the musicals "Cabaret," "Chicago," "Funny Lady," "Kiss of the Spider Woman," "New York, New York" and many others. Audition dates are set for January 27t~ and 29th and will be open to teens and adults, ages 14 and up. John LaLonde will direct the show with musical direction by Keely Milliken, and choreography by Alison Hooper. LaLonde has served as assistant director for five of the City's past musicals and is an accomplished, working actor in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. Milliken and Hooper co-directed the City's wildly popular musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" this past spring and also operate their own performing arts studio in Monrovia. The production is scheduled to run for three weeks from April 1st through April 16th and will serve as the kick-off event for the opening of the upcoming RC Theatre Arts Center (the former RC Senior Center). City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 · The City is currently recruitinq instructors to conduct a variety of theatre and performing arts classes, programs and performance groups. Programs are slated to begin in April concurrent with the City's spring class session. Instruction in acting, musical theatre, improvisation, auditioning, vocal performance, stagecraft, theatrical make-up and costuming will be offered. Programs ara expected to be confirmed by January 1st and will be detailed in the Spring 2005 Grapevine. Park and Facilities: · The table below provides usage information for park picnic shelters and special use facilities for the month of October 2004. Location/Facility Attendance Number of Number Hours of Use Applications of Processed Rentals Red Hill Community Park Picnic 2,1686 38 45 182 Shelters Heritage Community 835 15 17 75 Park Picnic Shelters Hermosa Park Picnic Shelter 290 12 12 44 Milliken Park Picnic Shelter 395 15 16 64 Coyote Canyon Picnic Shelter 100 4 5 15 Civic Center Courtyard* 0 0 0 0 Amphitheater 140 2 2 17 Equestrian 658 6 15 32 · The Civic Centeris not available forpublic rental due to the Ci "s construction project, Heritage Park Equestrian Center: Equestrian Center usaqe for the month of November 2004 is shown in the table below: Group Date Event/Time Frame Alta Loma Riding Club November 4'" Board Meeting/7:00 pm-8:30 pm Equestrian Patrol November 11t~ Meeting/6:00 pm-9:00 pm Equestrian Patrol November 14'n Training/8:00 am-2:00 pm Alta Loma Riding Club November 21st Home Show/9:00 am-3:00 pm 4-H Club November 29th General Meeting/7:00 pm-9:00 pm Facilities: · The table below displays buildin.q rentals and recreation contract class attendance numbers for the month of October 2004. Activity Program Numbers October Attendance Lions East Rentals 83 bookings 1,020 Lions East Building 645 facility hours 6,292 Lions West Rentals 278 bookings 3,369 Lions West Building 390 facility hours 6,312 City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 · Three hundred (300) recreation classes were offered during the spring session. Attendance at these classes was 20,707. · 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. Epicenter: The following activities/rentals took place at the Epicenter during the reporting period: > Active Ride - Skate Demonstration and Conce~t- October 23, 2004 - Epicenter Special Event Area. > City/Community Services Department - Harvest Carnival - October 30, 2004 - Epicenter Special Event Area. > La Mesa RV - RV Show- November 4-8, 2004 - Epicenter Special Event Area. · City staff is working with the following applicants for future bookinqs at the Epicenter: > Active Ride - SkAte Demonstration - November 27, 2004 - Epicenter Special Event Area. > Christian Okoye Foundation - Youth Holiday Event - December 11, 2004 - Epicenter sport fields. Park and Recreation Commission: · The next meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission is scheduled for November 18, 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. Consideration of spring/summer 2005 field allocation for youth sports groups. Review of Sports Advisory Committee Sub-Committee's recommendation regarding field allocation policy. Review and status of CDBG funding requests. Consideration and recommendation from the Sports Advisory Committee regarding Pony Baseball's request for allocation of fields and membership in the Sports Advisory Committee. > Consideration of waiver of December 16, 2004, regular Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: The next meeting of the Executive Committee of the Foundation will be on December 8, 2004: At this meeting the following items are scheduled to be discussed: City Council Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update November 17, 2004 Foundation Members update and discussion on accomplishment of goals for the PAL Campaign. Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center project. Update on Board subcommittees. Consideration of additional appointments to the Foundation Board of Directors. · The next meetinq of the Board of Directors will be on the 2nd Wednesday in February 2005. At this meeting the following items are currently scheduled to be discussed/acted upon: Foundation Member update and discussion on accomplishment of goals for the PAL Campaign. Update on Victoria Gardens Cultural Center project. Update on Fund Development Plan. Guest speaker to be announced. Respe, ~ully su 'tted, Community Services Director City Planner htCOMMSERV~Council&Boards~CityCouncil~StaffReports~2OO4tupdate 10.20,04.doc