Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999/06/02 - Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1 st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. June 2, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Bob Dutton, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECONVENE AT THIS TIME. 1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane Curatalo __, Dutton __ and Williams B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of the American Planning Association's National 1999 Public Education Award for the Kids Neighborhood Workshop. 2. Presentation from the American Public Works Association (Riverside/San Bernardino Branch) for the 1999 project of the year-Spruce Avenue Skate Park. 3. Presentation from the CAL/PEA, HHW/Used Oil Program for the 1999 Excellence Award, and the 1999 Picric Acid Award in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Theywill 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: April 21, 1999 May 5, 1999 City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 2 2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 5/12/99 and 5/19/99 and 1 Payroll ending 5/9/99 for the total amount of $1,561,090.78. 3. Approval to amend rates charged by Richards, Watson & Gershon 12 for legal services (CO 86-055). 4. Approval for Appropriation of $121,382.19 from Fund 72-4225- 26 7045, the Vehicle Replacement Fund, to Fund the Purchase of Capital Replacement Vehicles for Fiscal Year 1998-99. 5. Approval of a Resolution accepting an offer Lot "C" for street 27 purposes, offered to the County of San Bernardino (now City of Rancho Cucamonga) on Tract Map 6939, located north of Ruby Avenue, south of Base Line Road. RESOLUTION NO. 99-114 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING LOT "C" FOR STREET PURPOSES, DEDICATED ON TRACT MAP 6939 LOCATED NORTH OF RUBY AVENUE, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD 6. Approval of Resolution establishing an annual levy within the 33 Assessment District 93-01, Masi Plaza, at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin) without an increase to the current rate. RESOLUTION NO. 99-115 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 3 7. Approval of a Resolution to set annual benefit assessments for 38 Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin) RESOLUTION NO. 99-116 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENT 8. Approval of a recommendation from the Park and Recreation 50 Commission for a light variance request for an all-star tournament hosted by Alta Loma Little League and Citrus Little League on July 5-21, 1999, at Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks. 9. Approval of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement 52 Security for interior streets and storm drain improvements, from Base Line Road to Victoria Park Lane, related to Tentative Tract 15875, generally located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Kaufmann and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 99-117 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTAND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR INTERIOR STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15875 10. Approval to purchase Microsoft Client Access License and 55 Microsoft Upgrade Advantage License for annual renewal from Compusa through the State of California Multiple Award Schedule, Procurement Division, 1999 Contract, 3-97-00-0157a, in the amount of $83,200 from Account 01-4161-6028 and in the amount of $21,100 from Account No. 01-4161-3900 as approved in FY 1998/99 Amended Budget. 56 11. Approval to award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 99-059) for the construction of the Summit Avenue Improvements, from East Avenue to 1000' east of East Avenue, to Laird Construction in the amount of $145,697.75 ($132,452.50, plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Proposition 111, Account No. 10-4637-9805. ~ ~ "~ City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 4 12. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extensions for Tracts 12659- 59 2, -3 and -4, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street, submitted by Centex Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 99-118 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACTS 12659-2, -3 AND -4 13. Approval to accept Improvements, Release the Faithful 62 Performance Bond, Accept a Maintenance Bond, and File a "Notice of Completion" for Improvements for Parcel Map 14376, located at Rancheria and Red Hill Country Club Drive, submitted by Longwell Investments, Incorporated. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (L/C) $16,200.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond (L/C) $ 1,620.00 RESOLUTION NO. 99-119 64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 14376, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 14. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful 65 Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a "Notice of Completion" for improvements for Tract 14410, submitted by Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $256,000.00 #111 2732 4140 Accept: Maintenance Bond $ 25,600.00 #1111 2732 4140 RESOLUTION NO. 99-120 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14410, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK ~ ~i!~ City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 5 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 68 TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 or Parcel Map No. 14786, from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-042-88. RESOLUTION NO. 99-121 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, AMENDING THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USE MAP TO REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE DISTRICT FOR PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 14786 FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 TO 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 7889 EAST ELM AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077- 042-88 2. CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN 95 AMENDMENT 99-01 - CATELLUS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan definition of "Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements" to conditionally permit buildings over 25,000 square feet. City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 6 RESOLUTION NO. 99-122 108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DEFINITION OF SPECIALTY BUILDING SUPPLIES AND HOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT BUILDINGS OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF G. 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. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OFA RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK 111 AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A PROPOSED EXPANDED CUSTOMER SERVICE PROGRAM AT CITY FACILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PICNIC AREA RENTAL FEE POLICY 2. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS TO REASSESS THE 117 PROPERTIES WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 86-2 AND 89-1 AND APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER AND TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS AND APPROVING THE FORM OF THE BOND INDENTURE, REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1, AND THE APPROVAL OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO ALL BONDS RESOLUTION NO. 99-123 119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER AND CONFIRMING REASSESSMENTS WITHIN REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1 '~; ' '~ City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 7 RESOLUTION NO. 99-124 125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS AND DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS FOR PROPOSED REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1, AND ORDERING A REPORT THEREON RESOLUTION NO. 99-125 129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING FORM OF BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT, CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 3. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE 136 ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NOS. 84-1188-2, AND 93-3 RESOLUTION NO. 99-126 138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ~;'~ City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 8 RESOLUTION NO. 99-127 144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH RESOLUTION NO. 99-128 150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT POLICIES AND MORATORIUM 156 RECOMMENDATIONS 2. REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AT 8786 CENTER STREET 173 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. ;~'~~ City Council Agenda June 2, 1999 9 K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO ADJOURN TO THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1999, 5:30 P.M. FOR A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED 1999/2000 BUDGET, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE IN THE TRI- COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE ROOM. 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 May 27, 1999, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. April 21, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, RDA Director; Jan Reynolds, RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; Ingrid Blair, GIS/Special District Supervisor; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Lt. Dave Lau, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring the week of April 25 - May 1 as "Victim's Rights Week." Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to Rick Foss. Mayor Alexander announced that on April 29, 6:30 p.m. in front of City Hall, there would be a candlelight ceremony hosted by the City recognizing this matter. Rick Foss thanked the City for the proclamation stating it has been seven years in a row now that the City has invited him for this recognition. Mayor Alexander continued to talk about the program and the services they provide to the community. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation to Hugh MacEachern and American Cable Entertainment for their efforts on behalf of the community and assistant with the 3rd Annual Library Telethon. Mayor Alexander presented a proclamation to Bruce Armstrong of American Cable Entertainment. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 2 Bruce Armstrong thanked the Council for the proclamation. Lieutenant Lau thanked them for the coverage they provided with the DARE graduation, and Sergeant Hunt thanked them for their coverage on the police and fire games that occur every year and for their promotion of the event. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Dan Peters, Public Affairs Office for the Church of Latter Day Saints, wanted to thank American Cable for giving them free service on channel 53 to broadcast their church services on April 3 and 4. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 1999 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 3/31/99 and 4/7/99 and Payroll ending 3/14/99, for the total amount of $2,267,096.36. D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of March 31, 1999. D4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Summit Avenue Street Improvements located on the north side of Summit Avenue from East Avenue to 1000 feet of East Avenue, to be funded from Account No. 10-4637-9805. RESOLUTION NO. 99-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SUMMIT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D5. Approval of Amended Fiscal Year 1998/99 Appropriations. D6. Approval to purchase one (1) F350 Extended Cab Utility Body Truck with Utility Trailer from Fairview Ford of San Bernardino, California, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $53,616.40, funded from the Intergovernmental Services Account No. 72-4225-7045. D7. Approval to purchase one (1) International Model 4900 4X2 Aerial Tower with utility body from Altec Industries, Inc. of Dixon, California, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $123,073.13 funded from the Intergovernmental Services Account No. 72-4225-7045. D8. Approval of City co-sponsorship of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin All Star Game (CO 99-044) at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on June 9, 1999. D9. Approval of a Request to Summarily Vacate an Easement for ingress and egress and related purposes north of Highland Avenue west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-161-19-33-32. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99-086 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT FOR TEMPORARY ACCESS TO TRACT 13812 D10. Approval of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for CUP 98-17, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Arrow Highway, submitted by Mike Giuribino RESOLUTION NO. 99-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENTAGREEMENTAND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 98-17 D 11. Approval of Map and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 15207, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue at San Marino Drive, submitted by Jerald B. Laird. RESOLUTION NO. 99-088 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15207 RESOLUTION NO. 99-089 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 15207 D12. Approval to appropriate $200,000 from Fund 20 (20-4532-9844), approve the award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 99-045) for the installation of park and paseo walkway lighting in Windrows Park and adjoining paseos to be funded from Fund 20. D13. Approval of a Resolution approving the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (CO 99-046) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District establishing the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority to Facilitate the refinancing of various assessment districts and community facilities districts. RESOLUTION NO. 99-094 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENTWITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT TO FORM THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 4 D 14. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Brown, Diven& Brewer Bond Counsel (CO 99-047) for legal services as bond counsel for the refinancing of various assessment districts and community facilities districts. D15. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Associates (CO 99-048), assessment engineers, to prepare Engineer's Reports for the refinancing of various assessment districts and community facilities districts. D 16. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates (CO 99-049) for municipal financial consultant services for the refinancing of various assessment districts and community facilities districts. D 17. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with the Planning Center (CO 99-050) for the preparation of the General Plan Update 2000 and Environmental Impact Report not to exceed $473,351 (to be funded from Account No. 01-4333-6028) for General Plan Amendment 99-03. D18. Approval of Lease Amendment No. 13 between the City and Inland Valley Professional Baseball adjusting police security cost for the 1999 baseball season and to modify the security provision contained in Section 25 of the Lease. (Continued from April 7, 1999) D19. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract Map 15766, located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Victoria Park Lane. RESOLUTION NO. 99-090 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 15766 D20. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract Map 15926, located on the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Pepperidge Lane, submitted by Mr. Cecil Carney. RESOLUTION NO. 99-091 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT MAP 15926 D21. Approval to release the Maintenance Bonds for Tract Maps 13565-1 through -4, located north of Wilson Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road. D22. Approval to accept the 1997/98 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project, Contract No. 98-029, as complete, Release the Bonds, and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion" and approve the final contract amount of $235,746.63. RESOLUTION NO. 99-092 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1997/98 RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT, CONTRACT # 98- 029, & AUTHORIZING FILING OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 5 D23. Approval to accept the widening of the corner of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue, Contract No. 98-049, as complete, Release the Bonds, and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion" and approve the final contract amount of $235,746.63. RESOLUTION NO. 99-093 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WIDENING OF THE CORNER OF FOURTH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 98-049 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there is a revision to item 5 and item 12 with corrected staff reports that have been distributed to the Council. MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG^- An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues. APN: 201-272-17 and 18. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTAMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development District Zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues. APN: 201-272-17 and 18. Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. Councilmember Williams asked who owns the property. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, stated the Flood Control District. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 99-095 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99- 01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)TO LOW- MEDIUM (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 201-272-17 AND 18 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 99-095. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 600. ORDINANCE NO. 600 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY, FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-272-17 AND 18 MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and set second reading for May 5, 1999. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F2. CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 - A review of the Federally-required Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, including the final selection of projects for the Community Development Block Grant Application, based on a new grant allocation of $959,000 and approximately $125,856 in reprogrammed funds. Staff report presented by Tom Grahn, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Biane thanked staff for doing a great job this year. He felt the City should look at using some of these funds to improve infrastructure through possibly a policy change. Councilmember Williams suggested the subcommittee meet a little later in the year to come up with a policy to meet Councilmember Biane's suggestion. Mayor Alexander stated he agreed, but felt some of the agencies that do receive CDBG funds depend on this money to run their operation and felt they shouldn't be forgotten. Councilmember Williams asked if the CDBG allotment depended on the City's population. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 7 Jack Lam, City Manager, stated yes. Councilmember Williams asked everyone to please stand up and be counted on April 1,2000, when the census is taken so that the City can get more money for some of these types of programs. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the CDBG funding allocations. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. CONSIDERATION OF QUAKE'S REQUEST FOR CITY TO WAIVE FEES AND SUBSIDIZE A PROPOSED FOUR-DAY BASEBALL CLINIC (Continued from April 7, 1999) Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Pat Fillibone with the Quakes asked if this could be pulled from the agenda and that they would let the City know if and when it should come back on the agenda. H2. CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN CABLE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY (ACE) TO CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ENTERTAINMENT II, LLC (CO 99-051) Staff report by Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, who stated Bill Rudell, Cable Attorney for Richards, Watson & Gershon, was present to explain this. He indicated there were other cable representatives present as well. Bill Rudell, Cable Attorney, presented information from the staff report. Bruce Armstrong, ACE Cable, stated he is supporting the transfer to Charter. He felt Charter was a very resourceful company that the City needs in order to better serve the community with cable needs. He commended Jerry Fulwood, Jenny Haruyama and Bill Rudell for their work on this. He asked that the Council approve the transfer. Mel Matthews, Charter Cable, asked that the Council approve the transfer stating they are very anxious to be involved in this community. Councilmember Biane stated he and Councilmember Curatalo serve as the Cable Subcommittee, and met earlier with Charter and ACE. He stated they are going to work on a new tiered billing process over the next twelve months. He stated he and Councilmember Curatalo are in favor of this transfer. Councilmember Curatalo stated he wanted to assure the people in Rancho Cucamonga that a new tier is a reality, but that it will just take some time to implement it. Mel Matthews, Charter Cable, stated they will work up an agreement about the tier system. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 99-096 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BY ACEC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, TO CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ENTERTAINMENT II, LLC MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to approve Resolution No. 99-096. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE A. PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1. Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 2. Lions East and West Community Centers 3. Bear Gulch Park/Arbor Day 4. Central Park 5. City Hall B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1. Seniors 2. Teens 3. Youth Activities 4. Youth Sports 5. Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 6. Adult Sports 7. Senior Transportation Program 8. Trips and Tours 9. Human Services 10. Facilities 11. The Grapevine 12. Contract Classes 13. Community Wide Special Events 14. Park a Recreation Commission 15. Epicenter Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. City Council Minutes April 21, 1999 Page 9 K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. Councilmember Biane wanted to thank Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, and Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I, for their work on the cable issue. Councilmember Curatalo congratulated Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, on his appointment as City Manager for the City of LaCanada. Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, thanked the Council, staff and department heads for helping him to prepare for this opportunity. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to adjourn to executive session to discuss Property Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located at Rochester, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating party; regarding terms of payment. Executive session to adjourn in the memory of the children who lost their lives at Columbine High School. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: ** May 5, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Flavio Nunez, Assistant RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Wait Stickney, Associate Engineer; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; Ingrid Blair, GIS/Special District Supervisor; Sandy Ramirez, Management Analyst II; Kevin McArdle, Community ,Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Lt. Dave Lau, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation to Jerry Fulwood commending him for his years of service to Rancho Cucamonga and congratulating him as he takes on the challenges as the new City Manager in La Canada. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to Jerry Fulwood. Jerry Fulwood thanked the Council, Jack Lam and staff for their assistance since he has been with the City. Jack Lam, City Manager, also presented Jerry Fulwood with the traditional "City tile." B2. Presentation of a Proclamation proclaiming May 9 - 15, 1999, as Senior Center Awareness Week. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to Jeff Nimeshein. B3. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring May 10 - 16, 1999, as Business Appreciation Week in Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to Dan Richards of the Chamber of Commerce. City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 2 C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C 1. Donna Daugherty of the flower shop at the southwest corner of 19th and Carnelian did not feel they were getting fair treatment compared to the other centers at that intersection because of the freeway construction. She stated she has documentation, pictures, etc., to prove her point. She felt her business has taken a 30 - 50% cut because of the construction problems that have occurred at this intersection. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, can contact SAN BAG to make arrangements about the inconvenience that is occurring to try to work out these problems. Mayor Alexander asked Mr. O'Neil to contact Ms. Daugherty about what he finds out. C2. Jim Frost, City Treasurer, stated he wanted to make comments about Jerry Fulwood and felt he has done an excellent job with the City. He stated it is quite an accomplishment for Jerry to have been selected a City Manager. C3. Toni Rhodes, Arrow Rte., wanted to echo all that had been said about Jerry. She stated Jerry has a lot of integrity, has been a good friend and you could always count on him to help with a problem. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 4/14/99 AND 4/21/99 and Payroll ending 3/28/99, for the total amount of $1,329,599.40. D2. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the replacement of drinking fountains with ADA compliant units at various city parks, to be funded from various maintenance accounts. RESOLUTION NO. 99-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLAN AND MAKING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF DRINKING FOUNTAINS WITH ADA COMPLIANT UNITS AT VARIOUS CITY PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Local Street Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal - for various local streets and parks trails, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9113 and Account No. 90-4130-7043. RESOLUTION NO. 99-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUOAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STREET REHABILITATION - SLURRY SEAL - FOR VARIOUS LOCAL STREETS AND PARK TRAILS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 3 D4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for Window Cleaning Services to City facilities, to be funded from 01-4648-6036. RESOLUTION NO. 99-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOW CLEANING SERVICES FOR CITY, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D5. Approval of the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations on the selection and recruitment process for members of the Senior Advisory Committee. D6. Approval to purchase an IBM S7A AIX Server to replace the IBM RS/6000 Application Server from Pioneer Standard Electronics through the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, 1999 Contract 3-97-70-0430A, in the amount of $317,660 from Acct. 74-4225-7047, FY 98/99 budget. D7. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for CUP 97- 19, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, submitted by American Stores Properties, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENTAGREEMENTAND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 97-19 RESOLUTION NO. 99-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 97-19 D8. Approval to award and authorize the execution of the contract (CO 99-053) for the construction of FY 1998/99 ADA ramps on Archibald Avenue from Base Line Road south to Sixth Street and various locations, to the apparent low bidder, Perry Maness Industries, for the amount of $129,626.75 ($117,842.50 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from TDA Article 3, Account No. 16-4637-9106, in the amount of $4,000.00; Proposition 111 Fund, Account No. 10-4637-9804, in the amount of $80,000.00; and Measure I - Local- Account No. 32-4637-9106 in the amount of $45,626.75 (plus 10% contingency). D9. Approval to release the Maintenance Bond for DR 95-30, located on Beryl, south of Hillside. D10. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond held as a Maintenance Bond for Tract 14116, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west of Deer Creek Channel. MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 4 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- An application to change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues. APN: 201-272-17 and 18. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An application to change the Development District Zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential for 17.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues. APN: 201-272-17 and 18. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 600. ORDINANCE NO. 600 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 99-01, A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITH A MASTER PLAN OVERLAY, FOR 17.85 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND LEMON AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-272-17 AND 18 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 600. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-01 - A request to amend the regulations for wireless communication facilities. Staff report presented by Rebecca VanBuren, Associate Planner, who also stated there is a correction to Ordinance No. 601 , page 2, section 4 which had been distributed to the Council and made part of the record. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Joe Richards, Airtouch Cellular, stated they supported the Ordinance and felt it should be approved. There being no further response the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 601. City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 601 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 99-01, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.26 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, REGARDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Dutton to waive full reading and set 2"d reading of Ordinance No. 601 for May 19, 1999. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan to reduce the Village Commercial land area from approximately 23 acres to 16 acres, and to redesignate approximately 16 acres of land from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62.3 acres of land located southwest of Highland Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff report presented by Rebecca VanBuren, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Carl Mornaliedo, William Lyon Company in Newport Beach, stated they are in agreement with staff and asked for the Council to approve this. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 602. ORDINANCE NO. 602 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02, AMENDING THE VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN TO REDUCE THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL LAND AREA FROM APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES OF 16 ACRES, AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW -MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON A PROJECT SITE CONSISTING OF 62.3 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 227-021- 03 AND 13 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set 2"~ reading of Ordinance 602 for May 19, 1999. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85} FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 6 F3, F4, F5. Staff report presented by Wait Stickney, Associate Engineer. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 99-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECTASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PD-85 (HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS) F4. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED. RESOLUTION NO. 99-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVYAND COLLECTASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 F5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 99-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution Nos. 99-103, 99-104 and 99-105. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING TO BE VACATED PORTIONS OF TWO ALLEYS AND DISPOSITION OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, GENERALLY WITHIN THE NORTHTOWN AREA, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERON BOULEVARD,.WEST OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (V-161) Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 99-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO BE VACATED THOSE PORTIONS OF CITY STREETS (ALLEYS) GENERALLY WITHIN THE NORTHTOWN AREA, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERON BOULEVARD, WEST OF HERMOSA AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 99-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, TO BE SURPLUS AND A BURDEN ON THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THAT CERTAIN DEED, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "D" TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PERSON NAMED THEREIN MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Dutton to approve Resolution Nos. 99-106 and 99-107. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS No Items Submitted. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Mayor Alexander stated he would like a report to come back about the 19th and Carnelian construction problems for the next meeting. City Council Minutes May 5, 1999 Page 8 K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. UPDATE BY LEONARD PAULITZ ON AIR QUALITY IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (Oral) Item to be continued to June 16, 1999, at the request of Leonard Paulitz. K2. REQUEST FROM TONI RHODES TO ADDRESS BUSINESS APPRECIATION NIGHT AT THE EPICENTER (Oral) Toni Rhodes felt she has been discriminated against with respect to the Business Appreciate Baseball Game. She told about what had happened last year and that staff was glad to have her input about it. She stated the problem still has not been resolved this year. She continued to talk about the seating arrangements for the handicap because they would have to be segregated from the rest of the group because they could not climb the stairs to sit with the others. ACTION: Report received and filed. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to adjourn to executive session to discuss Property Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located at Rochester, between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route; Jack Lain, City Manager, and Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, negotiating parties; regarding terms of payment. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: *** C t I'~' III liANCHO CU(iANIif. I~A LISI I]F WARRANI$ RUN DATE: 05/12/9g PAOE: 1 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR AMT ** CHECK# OVERLAP 1075 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I38413- 4&O 73- .C~.ZC 138~14 -- 138414 339 LAM, JAC~ LEAGUE MEE~IN~ 138415* 100 00- 11408 STERLINC HOTEL CLOUT LEGISLATIVE TRIP RESERV 138757* 1~0 O0- CC'J 138758 - 1~9050 ~::.;~.]~ 49~0 BALLET F'OLKLORICO CULTURAL PRO~ESSIONAL SERVICES 139051 ~00 O0- C'J'J 13~052 - 139080 8~1 CAREER TRACK MS~ RECISTRA~ION 139081* 99.00- 1870 ~OMEZ, ~ICK REIMBURSEMENT # 139128 533. 7~- ,J,~,~ 139129 - 139171 3~1 LANDSCAPE WESt, INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 13~1Z~* 111,4~5. 04- ,~,:l,; 139173 - 13920~ 1~4 ORANCE COUNTY STRIPINC SERVICE, INC. STRIPIN~ SERVICES 139~03- 17 32- I0~8 5~N BE~N COUNTY OFFICE OF TAX COLE. TAX PAYMENT 139~4# 45.00 53~0 HAPPY C~OWD, THE RECREATION 139~95# 400 O0 4990 BALLET FOLKLORI¢O CULTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES l~9~9~* 200 O0 CCC 13~297 - 13~99 ~1~9 A & ~ RESOURCES, INC APPLICATION FEE REFUND 139300 1,555 O0 ~1~30 A-1 SHELL AUTO CARE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139301 46 00 ~78~ ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. P~OFESSIONAL SERVICES 1~930~ 1,~80 O0 18~ AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE BILLINGS . 139303 43.40 4~07 ALERT COMMUNICATIONS CO. INSTALLATION/SERVICE # 13930~ 1~7.50 ~1~3~ ALLISON'S PLACE BUSINESS LICENSE ~EFUND 139305 18.75 973 ALPHAGRAPHICS OFFICE SUPPLIES 139306 ~I~31 ALTA LOMA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139307 33 ~05~ AMERICAN CABLE ENTERTAINMENT ADVERTISINg FEE 139308 1,4~9 5658 AMERICAN FIRST AID & SAFETY SUPPLIES # 13~309 980.37 ~4 ARBO~ NURSERY INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # I39310 ~,~6~. 75 5807 ARCHITERRA DESIGN Q~OUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 13~311 3,600. O0 ~37 ASSOCIATED ~OUP, THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICE # 13931~ 1,878 ~5 ~115 AUFBAU CORPORATION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 139313 5,56~. 50 40~ AUTO RESTORATORS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 139314 410~ B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139315 33 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139316 460. 18 5933 BEELEY, ROSS CREATED WEB SITE 139317 7~0. 00 ~1~39 BENDER, LUCY RECREATION REFUND 139318 ~4. O0 ~1~38 BENNETT-REDDELL, SONYA RECREATION REFUND 139319 37.50 ~1~3~ BI~ FIVE CORPORATION RECREATION REFUND # 1393~0 500.00 1~47 BLA~E PAPER CO., INC. RECREATION SUPPLIES 1393~1 51.86 ~1~37 BRARA, HA~NEET RECREATION REFUND 1393~ 37 50 6~1~ BROWNELLS, INC. RECREATION REFUND 1393~3 47.49 5341 BUCKRAM & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANT SERVICES # 139324 5,05~. 57 580~ C P & D 8 SUBSCRIPTION 1393~5 ~17.00 1~3 CALSENSE OFFICE/MAINTENANCE E~UIPMENT 1393~6 360.80 38~8 CAPITOL ENQUIRY, INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1393~7 ~1~33 CARL'S LIQUOR MARKET BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 13~3~8 11.97 b8 CENTRAL CITIES SI~N SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~3~9 ~32.~7 I ~1~34 CIRCLE K # 5~3~ BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139330 40.37 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD 05-1~-99 RUN DATE: 05/12/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT ** CHECK# OVERLAP 73 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES # 139331 1,045. 81 74 CITY RENTALS EGUIPMENT RENTAL/SUPPLIES 13~332 49.~4 ~1~40 CLOUGH, REECE RECREATION REFUND 139333 24. O0 21236 COPPOLA, NOELLE RECREATION REFUND 13~334 24.00 5349 CREATIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13~335 680 00 85 CUCAMONCA CO WATER DIST MONTHLY WATER BILLINGS # 139338 6124 CUDA WEST BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND ]3~339 7,5~6. 34 21~41 CUDNEY, JOANNE RECREATION REFUND 13~340 1~. O0 ~3~ D & K CONCRETE CO STREET MAINTENANCE # 139341 509. 13 36676 D'S CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139342 14~ 17 36677 DAVIS ~ ASSOCIATES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139343 15.00 36678 DAVIS, ~IM RECREATION REFUND 139344 50.00 6145 DAVIS, SAM CONTRACT SERVICES 13~345 787.50 51~I DE VOO~HT, SCOTT J. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 13~346 360 O0 1~90 DEER CREEK CAR WASH VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 139347 105.00 107 DETCO OFFICE SUPPLIES 139348 25 32 5138 DIAMOND FENCE CO SUPPLIES/SERVICE 13934~ 350 00 454~ DIC~, ERIC EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 139350 100 00 5744 DIRECTV SUBSCRIPTION 13~351 24 36685 DOMINGUEZ, SANDRA RECREAF10N REFUND 13935~ 30.00 36679 DYE, CAROL RECREATION REFUND 139353 37.50 3661~ ECONOMICS PRESS, INC. , THE SUBSCRIPT[ON 13~354 5~16 ED BUILDING MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1~355 4, 180.00 31477 ELECFROLUXE BUSINESS I ICENS£ REFUND ~356 23 O0 118 EMPIRE CO INSi)RANC[~ PRFMIUMS 1~357 50 00 36~80 EMPIRE LASFR BUSINESS [ICENSE REFUND 113~358 2~ EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 13~35~ 1~. 43 36681 FLAMMANG, AMY RECREATION ~EFUND 1~3~0 45 O0 3~5~1 FOWLER, DEANNA RECREATION REFUND 13~361 48 O0 6074 FUKUSHIMA, JUD[TH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 139362 885.00 36~82 GAGNON MASONARY, JEFF REFUND 13~363 500 O0 36683 GARCIA, JOSE RECREATION REFUND 13~364 475 00 3388 GOLDEN BEAR ARI~ORISTS, INC PRO~E~SIONAL SERVICES # 13g3~ ~7,364 O0 5~55 GOLDEN WEST DISTRIBUTING RECREATION SUPPLIES 139366 47 1870 GOMEZ, RICK REIMBURSEMENT 139367 114 76 1~45 GONSALVES & SON, JOE A. LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 139368 2,300.00 137 GTE CALIFORNIA MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINGS ~ 139370 4,51~ 31480 HALDER, MARGARET RECREATION 13~371 27.00 31482 HARNETIAUX, ADRIENNE RECREATION 13937~ 25 00 31475 HARTFORD ESCROW, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 13~373 132.22 1244 HAVEN BUILDING MATERIALS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139374 17. 32 158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO , INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139375 1,090. 74 31476 HOMES AND LAND MAGAZINE BUSINESS LICENSE 13~376 18.60 161 HOYT LUMBER CO., S M. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139377 710. 10 1866 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13~378 ~. 85 31481 HUMPHREY, KENYON RECREATION 13~379 450.00 103 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEFERRED COMP 13~380 4188 I D BURR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~381 1, 145.88 5882 ICMA RETIREMENT ~RUST - 401 Ot # 13~38~ 6,063. 17 LIST OF WARRANTS RUN DATE: 05/12/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT ~* CHECA# OVERLAP 5682 INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES # 139383 ~,403.90 3BB5 INLAND LAWNMOWER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 139384 ~08 INLAND MEDIATION BOARD LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE RESOL. # ~39385 1,&~4. 38 9~ INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTIONS 13~38& 32 7~ ~315 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139387 81& 71 314~6 INTERNATIONAL BUS. MACHINE CORP. BUSINESS LICENSE 53~388 3,~05.48 31467 JAX DONUTS BUSINESS LICENSE 139389 2~ 70 31490 JONES & ASSOCIATES, DIANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 53~390 31470 ½ S L M 1510 A M. BUSINESS LICENSE 13~391 5790 AAMRANI, JOSEPH REIMBURSEMENT 1393~2 71 73 314&8 AELLIN T;)AN~CRIPTION SERVICE BUSINFSS I..[{}FN~ 53~393 ~9 15 &090 AON(), 5()PHAA BUSINESS LIC£NSE F(EFUND 1J~394 400.00 31483 KOYAMA, NA[;AO 8ECREAFION 53~395 45 00 47&4 AULI IMAGE INC RECREATION SUPPLIES 13~3~ 497 70 6155 AYPTA ASSOCIATES, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 139397 18,75~. 34 1075 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1393~8 533.50 195 LANCE, SOLL & LUN~HARD AUDIT SERVICES 13~3~9 7,383.25 321 LANDSCAPE WEST, INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 139400 1~1,445 04 ~79 LEWIS HOMES REFUND OF DEVELOPMENT FEES 139401 8.50 5884 LILBURN CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 13940~ ~,70& O0 5~74 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS ~RAPHIC DESIGNER 13~403 775 00 31471 LONgWELL INVESTMENTS, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 139404 15000 31484 LOPEZ, MARTHA RECREATION 139405 45.00 600 LYNCH, JANIE RECREATION SUPPLIES 139406 1062 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SERVICES # 139407 1,407 44 10~2 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SERVICES # 139408 193.~4 31469 M KLOEA ENTERPRISES BUSINESS LICENSE 13940~ ~4. 78 573~ M T ! COlLEgE M!SC # 139410 560.00 31458 MACRO PRO PNOFESSINAL SERVICE # 13~411 435.53 6143 MANNERINO~ JOHN RECREATION REFUND 13~412 &O. O0 31485 MARCHBAN~S, SHEILA RECREATION 13~413 ~4 O0 72 MAR~ CHRIS° INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~414 29000 2~0 MARTINEZ TOWINg AND AUTOMOTIVE TOWINg SERVICES # 13~415 135.00 3871 MATT'S HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13941& 31486 MCAILLOP, DOR£EN RECREATION 139417 88.00 ~1~8 MICHAELS STORES INC. #301~ RECREATION SUPPLIES # 139418 137.&9 6170 MICROAgE COMPUTERMART 1~4 CTE DUES 139419 3,715 ~3 ~5~7 MINNESOTA WESlERN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13~420 ~00.00 4374 MOBILE STORAGE gROUP, INC. EQUIPMENT RENTAL 1394~1 140. 13 31487 MONCAYO, TANYA RECREATION I39422 ~7 O0 31488 MORENO, RENE RECREATION 13~4~3 7~ O0 10~0 MOUNTAIN VIEW gLASS & MIRROR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1394~4 8&7. 3~ 84~ MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL EN~. REPAIR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ]394~5 17 19 31472 NANCY'S CAFE BUSINESS LICENSE 1394~6 2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 13~427 5~7 57 744 NATIONAL DEFERRED DEFERRED COMP 1394~8 ~, 151 O0 3148~ NATIVIDAD, DAN RECREATION 13~429 88.00 5473 NIgHTLINE SECURITY PATROL SECURIFY SERVICE 139430 740.00 "~[4 139431 - 139431 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFF1CE SUPPLIES # 139432 5403 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES # 13~433 387.77 CIIY Ot RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 05-12--9V RUN DATE: 09112/V~ PAGE VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR AM]' ** CHECk# OVERLAP 34~9 ON CALL COMPUTER SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~434 284.46 67 ON-CALL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICES 13~435 118 ~ c~2C 13~43& - 13~436 5461 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE MAINFENANCE SUPPLIES # 139437 5461 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~438 41 29~1 P A P A PESTICIDE APPLICATORS SEMINAR 13~439 4500 18~3 PAGENET PA~ING SERVICE 139440 231. 4~ 818 PARAGON BUILDING PRODUCTS INC CONCRETE SUPPLIES 139441 107 757 PEP BOYS VEHICI E MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13944~ 7 ~14~ PIRFIN, %IiAUN CONTRA(CT !;;t*RVICES 13~443 q(;);~ 50 608~ PI] I~;, L I!;A HI CIII-AI I[IN t~[iI:UND 1:]~444 ~55 POMA DIS~I~U~IN~ CO VEHICL~ MAINTENANCE ~ SUPPLIES # 13~445 ~,i~?O 3952 POMONA I Ni VALLEY CNCL OF CHURCHES WES] £ND tlUNOER PROGRAM 13~446 830 ~5 104~ POMONA VALLEY ½AWASA½I VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13~447 4~. 88 5776 PORAC DUFS 139448 340.00 758 PRAXA!R DISTRIBUTION, INC. MAINT/RECREAI10N SUPPLIES 13~449 31473 PRECISION MEDIA BUSINESS LICENSE 13~450 31478 PREMIER ~ROUP, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 13~451 3~7. O0 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 13~45~ 7 34 31479 PUL. VORAI. AK, N[CHARIN RECREATION 13~453 54 O0 4440 PUTMAN, ~[L[ WANG COMPUIER SERVICE ]39454 tD4 50 58~V GUALt'IY ONE ENGRAVERS OFFICE SUPPLIES # 13~455 1~1 80 31474 GUANCEO, INC BUSINESS LICENSE 13V456 V. 00 ~51 R & R AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE MAIN~,SUPPLIES&SERVICE # 139458 2,705. 75 3663 R ~, T SPECIALTY, INC D A R E SUPPLIES # 13~459 305 O0 2~8 RANCHO CUCA REDEVEI.OPMENT AGENCY REIMBURSE GRANT FUNDS 1394~0 ~,750 O0 11444 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENTA~ ASSOC BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 13~4~1 4& O0 11173 RANCHO CUCAMON~A EXPLORER POST REIMS RECHARTER FEES 1394~ 414 04 3016 RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPT REIMBURSEMENT 13~463 ~058 RANCHO SCi~EEN PRINT & EMBROIDERY RECREATION REFUND 1394~4 1~7 56 5~18 RICHARDS, WAFSON, ~, GERSHON LEGAl.. SERVICES # 13~46~ ~1,40~ 85 ~76 RIVERS[DE BLU[CP;~INF PRIN?5 # 1.3~4~ 8~0 ~4 11445 ROBERT'S tJI[~S INC BUSINESS lICENSE REFUNDS 13~467 3314 ROBINSON FERTILIZER LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES # 13V4~8 1,88~. l& 656 ROBLES, RAUL P , SR TIRE REPAIR # 13~46~ 35~. 50 6~13 RYDBFC~, WHITNEY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 13~470 300 O0 ~171 S ?, ~ ENGINEERS RECREATION REFUND 13~471 36 31 5538 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139475 161.81 14~2 SAN BERN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DEPT INSPECTION FEE 13~473 11,0~5 O0 1144~ SAN MARINO ROOF CO, INC BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 13~474 1105 SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES # 13~475 ~,697 ~0 5005 SHAFTON, INC. PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES 13947~ 161. 63 11454 SHERATON, FISHERMAN'S WARF CRRA CONFERENCE 13~477 4~2. 48 ~507 SIEBE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS SERVICE/SUPPLIES 13V478 8,500.00 11447 SMART START REDEMPTION CENTERS, INC BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 13~47~ 11448 SMITH, MARIE RECREATION REFUNDS 139480 317 SO CALIF EDISON CID, MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLINGS # 1~48~ 83,491 73 31~ SO CALIF GAS COMPANY MONTHLY GAS BILLS 13~483 ~81. 49 ~:~ ~C ~2 139484 ~ 13~485 ,i 1 ! Y 0~' RANCHO CUCAMONQA I. IST OF WA;~RANTS I- (][,~ PF~IOD 05-1 ;~-c/~ (98/99) VENDOR NAME ITEM DESC~IPIION WAR8 NO WAR~. AMT. ** CHECk8 OVERLAP 143~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS 8 139486 8, 463. ~3 1144~ STAR NAII.S II BUSINESS LICENSE fiEFUNDS 139487 15 O0 11450 SUWANDI, LUCIA RECREATION fiEFUNDS 139488 40 O0 5410 T & D INSTALl ATIONS SUPPLIES 139489 11 89 11451 TAIT ~, ASSOCIATES DEPOSIT fiEFUND 13~4~0 1,000. O0 394~ T[~MINIX INTi.~NATIONAL ~' MONI'HLY PEST CONT80L SERVICE 13~4~1 75 O0 1145~ ~81-MA~ FINANCIAL BOSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 1394~ 68. 09 4558 U S gUARDS CO , INC SECURITY ~UARD SERVICE ]39493 984 16 4~7~ U S PRIN~IN~ ~UIDELINE MANUALS 13~94 61. ~3 3437 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES ~ 13~495 475. 65 1~ UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE ~ 13949~ 56~ O0 ~8~ UNITED S~A]ES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE MEIER MONTHLY SERVICES 139~7 4~ 500 O0 47~ VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES ~ 139498 ~,045~ 54 5~85 VIKIN~ TIRE VEHICLE SUPPLIES ~ 13~4~9 2~0. O0 1103 VISTA PAINT MAIN~ SUPPLIES 13~500 147. 66 4002 WASTE MANAGEMEN~ WASTE MA~4AgEMENT 139501 911.64 ~13 WAXEE, ~LEEN~LINE COnaP MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 13~50~ 3, 118 83 4577 WEL~.S FARGO ~UA~D E~ERVICES SECU~I~Y QUARD SERVICES ~ 13~503 ~ 175~ 58 3~ WEST VAtA. EY VECTOR CONTROL DIS~RIC~ VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES 13~50~ 11~865 59 bO~ WHITAKER, RICHARD LEgISLAtIVE TRIP TO SACTO ~ 139505 170. O0 50~ XEROX CORPORATII)N COPY MACH~N~ SUPPLIES/SErVICE ~ 13~507 I8, ~40. 85 ~0~1 YOR~ INDUS~R~E5 ~RAFFI~I REMOVER 13950~ 1~1 53 ~ TOTAL 388, 472 13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF wARRANTS FOR PERiO0:05-19-99 (98/99) RUN DATE: 05/19/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ** CMECK~ OVERLAP 36675 RAO. VENKATESHA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 139111 7°90- (<( 139112 - 139125 6210 GLAVEZ. JAVIER CONTRACT SERVICES 139126 300°00- <<< 139127 - 139296 >>> 11453 TOWN & COUNTRY HOTEL RESERVATIONS 139297~ 186.00 <(< 139298 - 139365 )>> 5955 GOLOEN WEST DISTRIBUTING RECREATION SUPPLIES 139366 47.52- <<< 139367 - 139434 67 ON-CALL COWMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICES 139435~ 118.52- ((< 139436 - 139500 4002 WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT 139501~ 911.64- <(< 139502 - 139508 >>> 2209 BRUCE. INGRID SCAG MEETING 139509~ 75.00 11455 WESTIN HARBOR ISLAND HOTEL HOTEL RESERVATIONS 139510~ 209°86 ¢<< 139511 - 139512 >>> I A A EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO..INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES # 139513 234o07 211 A D T SECURITY SERVICES. INC. ALARM SERVICE 139514 282.00 2732 ABC LOCKSMITHS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139515 3.444.06 3544 ACOUSTICAL MATERIAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139516 318.77 13 ACTION aUSINESS MACHINES OFFICE SUPPLIES 139517 65o31 <<< 139518 - 139518 >)> 1826 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE BILLINGS # 139519 2.577.20 496 ALEXANDER. WILLIAM J. RgFUNO 139520 465.42 3448 ALL WELDING MAINTENANCE REPAIRS 139521 210.00 17 ALTA FIRE E~UIPNENT CO. SERV2CE/SUPPLIES I39522 I09o77 1430 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 139523 1m065o05 6052 AMERICAN CABLE ENTERTAINMENT ADVERTISING FEE 139524 39.48 21228 AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT 139525 2.725°00 2693 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES MONTHLY SERVICE # 139526 704°20 1288 APOLLO INDUSTRIES INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 139527 124.63 5321 APOLLO WOOD RECOVERY. INC. SUPPLIES g SERVICE # 139528 188.14 21244 APOSTLE GLASS ~ MIRROR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139529 27o00 2299 ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139530 129.19 ((< 139531 - 139532 >>> 667 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION VISA MONTHLY BILLINGS # 139533 4.624.51 26 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 139534 2,669.50 21105 ASST LEAGUE OF UPLAND THRIFT SHOP BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139535 1.200.00 1135 AUTO SPECIALISTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 139536 168.66 4IOZ B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139537 946°37 6222 BALLOONS TO GO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139538 193o95 6142 BASSETT-SMITH~ TERRI RECREATION REFUND 139539 65o41 6111 BEMIS, GARY CASH ADVANCE 139540 420.42 21027 ~ERN MARIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139541 1.118.62 21248 BERNAL. RUbY RECREATION REFUNO 139542 450.00 4441 BEST BUY CO.. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 239543 645.99 1247 BLAKE PAPER CO.. INC. RECREATION SUPPLIES e 139544 271o94 481 BLUE SHIELD/CARE AMERICA MEDICAL PREMIUM 139545 32.017o85 5693 BOB'$ SPEECE SPEEDOMETER SERVICE SPEEDOMETER SERVICE 139546 32.50 5757 BRIAR ROSE FLORIST VOLUNTEER PROGRAM SUPPLIES ~ 1395~7 ~85o96 ~369 BRODART BOOKS LIBRARY SUPPLIES $ 139548 356.06 21247 BRUNO~ dANICE RECREATION REFUND 139549 15o00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 05-19-99 C98/99) RUN DATE: 05/19/99 PAGE: 2 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. ANT. ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 21Z45 C P F RESERVATIONS [39550 420.00 20954 C P R S, DISTRICT X-MEMO-CONSORTIUM AWARD ENTRY FEE 139551 150.00 21005 CAFE JUSTICE REFRESHMENTS [39552 538.75 4989 CALIFORNIA TRANSMISSION VEHICLE MAINTENANCE [39553 21246 CAROENAS, EO RECREATION REFUND 139554 450.00 21249 CHAFFIN, CHUCK RECREATION REFUND 139555 450°00 488 CHEVRON U S A, INC GASOLINE CHARGES I39556 100o89 74 CITY RENTALS EQUIPMENT RENTAL/SUPPLIES e 139557 I62.38 212&Z CLAREMONT TATTOO STUDIO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139558 3006 CLASSE PARTY RENTALS E~U[PMENT RENTAL I39559 I69.4! 6022 CLAYTON CONTROLS CO. RECREATION REFUND 139560 72°04 6215 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY RECREATION REFUND [3956I 19o34 2470 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # [39562 207.52 633 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES [39563 385.2[ 6105 CORDURA, ALO0 RECREATION REFUND 139564 26°97 5349 CREATIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 139565 1,360o00 ((( 139566 - 139567 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST MONTHLY WATER BILLINGS # 139568 8,528.00 21243 CUCAMONGA TOOL CO. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139569 27o00 3922 CURATALO~ JAMES V. CASH ADVANCE [39570 420.42 239 D & K CONCRETE CO STREET MAINTENANCE 139571 1,820o20 284 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO, INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 139572 99.32 6145 OAVIS, SAM CONTRACT SERVICES 139573 603°75 105 DERBISH GUERRA ~ ASSOC. CONTRACT SERVICES 0 139574 3,942.00 107 OETCO OFFICE SUPPLIES 139575 29o09 454~ DICK# E~IC EHPLOYEE OF THE MONTH # 139576 75.00 839 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 139577 5809 DIETSRICH-POST COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES e 139578 662.92 3875 DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES $ 139579 200.75 ~205 DYNAMIC GRAPHICS, INC. OFFICE E~UIPMENT 139580 53.50 858 ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139581 15.00 36684 EDUCATION C~NTER, THE LIBRARY BOOKS 139582 34.90 3364 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS OFFICE SUPPLIES 139583 916o95 5767 ~LiTE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. PERSONNEL SERVICES · 139584 3,159o39 36688 ELWOOD, GAIL RECREATION REFUND 139585 39.00 6216 EMERGENCY SERVICE RESTORATION MAINTENANCE SERVICE 239586 474.00 5137 EMPIRE MO6ILE HOME SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 139587 2~290.00 5613 EMPIRE REPROGRAPHICS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES [39588 202°03 6178 EXTENSIS CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 139589 158.90 5917 FASTENAL COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139590 317o86 6161 FAXON ILLINOIS SERVICE CENTER LIBRARY SUBSCRIPTION 139591 860.96 ((( 139592 - 139595 123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP DELIVERY SERVICE # 139596 1,Z3&.Z5 36686 FERNANDEZ, JERRY RECREATION R~FUNO e 139597 ~55.00 36639 FIERI, DRE~OA RECREATION REFUND 139598 aO.00 2909 FILTER RECYCLING SERVICEm INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139599 82.50 4879 FLEET GLASS LABOR & SUPPLIES # 139600 204.99 5~51 FOOTHILL AUTO BODY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 139601 1,024.06 4762 FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER FAMILY SHELTER 139609 242.50 36687 FRASuRE, TRAVIS RECREATION 139603 45~0 GALE GROUP~ THE LIBRARY BOOKS # 139604 267.6~ CIT~ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 05-19-99 (98/99) RUN DATE: 05/19/99 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ~ARR NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 3356 GARCIA, VIVIAN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 139605 22.32 $501 GIDRDANO~ PARIANNA INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 139606 60°00 6210 GLAVEZt JAVIER CONTRACT SERVICES 139607 150o00 5955 GOLDEN WEST :ISTRiBUTING RECREATION SUPPLIES 139608 47.52 1870 GOMEZ, RICK REIMBURSEMENT 139609 63.80 b50 GRAINGEE, ¼o~. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139610 61.54 3827 GREEN ROCK POWER E~UIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139611 678°92 5387 GST TELECOM CALIFORNIA INTERNET SERVICES I39611 1,060o00 ((( 139613 - 139613 137 GTE CALIFORNIA MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINGS # 13961k 8+&65.55 3921 GUTIERREZ, REX CHAMBER RETREAT 139615 465o~2 31491 HAIGH, PEGGY REFUND CANDIOATES FILING FEES 139616 2855 HAVEN WINE [ LIQUOR CO. SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS A 139617 589.84 4498 HELMUTH, JOHN MAINTENANCE 139618 600.00 6223 HI TECH RENTALS, INC. RECREATION REFUND 139619 1,(00.00 ~?24 HI-WAY SAFETy, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139620 931.50 ~845 HILLSIDE C:MMUNITY CHURCH MONTHLY RENT 139621 1,000.00 158 HOLLiDAY ROCK CO., INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 139622 1,476.31 2255 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC ~AINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139623 161.63 ((( 139624 - 139624 4033 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES a 139625 3633 HOMELESS OUTREACH PRGMS ~ EDUCATION MONTHLy SERVICES 139616 1,~98.00 1234 HOSEMAN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES A 139627 244.80 161 HOVT LUMBER CO., S.Mo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139628 2,911.84 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PROOUCTS~ INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES A 139629 589.65 3g76 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES A 139630 213~33 1121 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE A 139631 598~45 46 INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 139632 31392 INLAND EMPIRE ~US[N~SS JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION 139633 907 INLAND MED[aTION &DARO LANDLORD/TENANT OISPUTE e 139634 20.00 ~718 INLAND TOP SOIL MIXES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139635 86.20 122 INLAND VALLEY DA[LY BULLETIN ADVERTISING 139636 37°50 1315 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139637 34.48 3452 INTRAVAIA ROCK & SAND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139638 31498 ISEC INC. BUSIN&SS LICENSE 139639 119.26 31~99 ITE/RS5TEA MEETING 139640 70.00 5782 JENDHAM, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139641 5011 JHTM ~ ASSOCIATES CONSULTING SERVICES 139642 ~128 KELLY E~U[P~ENT VEHICLE SUPPLIES A 139643 301.15 2220 KELLY PAPER COMPANY PAPER SUPPLIES 139644 3s.aB 5894 KELLY, KRISTY RECREATION 139645 60°00 5059 KINKO°S COP[ES RECREATION SUPPL[ES 139646 1218 KNOX MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES i 139647 111.69 6090 KONG, SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139648 480.00 4982 KORANOA CONSTRUCTION C.G.B.G. 139649 150o00 172 KOZLOVICH, ~EBBIE INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 139650 30~60 61¢7 LABEL MASTER OVER PAYMENT ON BID PACKET I 139651 611o06 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO PRCFE$SZONAL SERVICES 139652 3338 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS RECREATION SUPPLIES 139653 2~743.96 321 LANDSCAPE WESTt INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE I 139654 116t513.73 31495 LARAMXEt MARK RECREATION i 139655 455.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 05-19-99 (98/99) =V RUN DATE: 05/19/99 PAGE: ENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARRo AMT. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 849 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139656 118.22 2358 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING REGISTRATION 139657 175.00 20~8 LITTLE TIKES COMMERCIAL PLAY SYS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139658 982.49 5662 LOS ANGELES CDCA COLA aTL. CO. RECREATION SUPPLIES 139659 3156 LU'S LIGHTHOUSE, INC. OIL ANALYSIS e 139560 1~137.5! &00 LYNCH~ JAMIE RECREATION SUPPLIES 13966! 31.62 S49 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT.INC. LANOSCAPE MAINTENANCE e 139662 56~169oI6 72 MARK CHRIS, INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES A 139663 6z.aa 4727 MARSHALL PLUMBING REHAB. PROGRAM 139664 77.00 4701 MARSHALL~ SYLVIA RECREATION REFUND 139665 60°00 3907 MASTER-SORT, INC. PRESORT MAIL SERVICES 139666 117.33 5Z83 MAYER, COaLE & PALMER PRCFESSIONAL SERVICE 139667 1~261.73 6032 MCGRUFF SAFE KIDS RECREATION REFUND 139668 884.87 5587 METROLINK RECREATION 139669 30,400.00 5852 MIDWEST TAPE LIBRARY SUPPLIES 139670 119.96 749 MIJAC ALAR~ COMPANY ALARM SERVICES ~3967! 755o00 3149~ MUELLER, GAYLYNNE RECREATION 139672 2263 NATIONAL INFORMATION DATA CENTER ZIP CODE DIRECTORY 139673 236! NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES MAINTENANCE 239674 2,825°00 5719 NORCAL/SAN BERNARDINO MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139675 $221 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES MAINT EQUIP 139576 (<¢ 139677 - 139677 5Z3 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES A 139678 Z~39~.41 5~03 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 139679 ~26.67 365 OLD QUAKER PAINT COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139680 375o18 232 OMNITRANS BUS PASSES 13968! 336.50 3~29 ON CALL COMPUTER SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 139682 31493 OTT, SHIRLEY RECREATION 139683 24°00 338 PACIFIC EQUIPT & IRRIGATION, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13968~ 3~496 PACIFIC EVIO£NMENTAL TECH. INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 139685 276°75 1523 PAGENET PAGING SERVICE a 139686 825.49 5217 PAPER SHOWCASE SUPPLIES # 139687 85.80 6205 PETERMAN LUMBER EARTHQUAKE PREPAREONESS KIT t I39688 304.90 542 PIP PRINTING RECREATION SUPPLIES 139689 40.95 6148 PIRON, SHAUN CONTRACT SERVICES 139690 270°00 272 PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE METER RENTAL 139691 375.51 6089 PITTS~ LISA RECREATION REFUNO 139692 31497 POTOMAS MOTORS BUSINESS LICENSE 139693 29.50 693 POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO., INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 139694 1~133o62 758 PRAXAIR OISTR~BUTIDN, INC. MAINT/RECREATION SUPPLIES e 139695 Z69.9T 4~01 PRAXAIR OISTRIBUTION~ INC. EQUIPMENT RENTAL ~39696 128o07 4396 PRO-SHOT PRODUCTS POLICE MAINT SUPPLIES 139697 58.77 583 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES PROTECTION SERVICES-LIONS CNTR e 139698 90.10 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 139699 661.60 3~492 PUBLISHING MILLSe THE LIBRARY SUPPLIES 139700 251 R & R AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE MAINT~SUPPLIES:SERVICE e 139701 385.11 345 R D 0 EQUIPMENT CO MAINT SUPPLIES 139702 33.35 264 RaLPHS GROCERY COMPANY RECREATXON SUPPLIES e 139703 142.97 5816 RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIBRARY FOUNDATION TELETHON REIMBURSEMENTS ~39704 3,260°00 1~456 RANCHO MILLS ESCROW, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNOS 139~05 99.06 6058 RANCHO SCREEN PRINT E EMSROXOERY RECREATION REFUND 139706 47.57 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 05-19-99 C98/997 RUN DATE: 05/19/99 PAGE: 5 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMY. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 36675 RAO, VENKATESHA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 139707 7.90 5665 REGULATION COMPLIANCE, INC. TRAINING SERVICES t39708 2,836.90 6218 RESOURCE NETWORK, THE RECREATION REFUND 139709 440°00 5914 REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ~ 139710 233.26 11457 RHODES, TONI REFUND CANOIDATE'S FILING FEE 139711 4Z0o42 11459 RODRIGUEZ, DANNY RECREATION REFUNDS 139712 ~50.00 11458 ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHING CO LIBRARY SUBSCRIPTION 139713 44°65 4142 ROYAL PIPE & SUPPLY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS 139714 5°69 6171 S g K CNGINEERS RECREATION REFUND a 139715 1e216o95 303 SAN BERN COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 139716 200.00 581 SAN BERN COUNTY CAL-IO PROGRAM 139717 124o75 581 SAN BERN COUNTY CAL-ID PROGRAM 139718 6,860.00 5029 SAN BERN COUNTY FIRE DEPTo UNDERGROUND TANKS e 139719 612.58 132 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CD~ INC MAINT SUPPLIES e 139720 2,123o75 5925 SANOALWOOD CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE REMOVAL I 139721 7~010.00 11460 SCIORTINO, ANDREA RECREATION REFUNDS 139722 37.50 1105 SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 139723 14~37 Z507 SIEBE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS SERVICE/SUPPLIES 139724 2b66 SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS SIGNS e 139725 1,054.85 351 SIGN SHOP, THE MAINT SUPPLIES e 139726 1,799.97 692 SIR SPEEDY OFFICE SUPPLIES e 139727 72~2~ 1327 SMART & FINAL OAY CAMP SUPPLIES # 139728 400.61 319 SO CALI~ GAS COMPANY MONTHLY GAS BILLS e 139729 1~804.62 ((( 139730 - 139732 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC ~ILLS # 139733 5,79~o51 6~03 SOUTHLANC CAR COUNTERS DEPOSIT REFUND 13973~ 138.00 5722 SPECTRA COMPANY LA80R AND SUPPLIES ~ 139735 2847 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT., INC. SERVICE aND SUPPLIES # 139736 37~630.13 902 STATE OF CA,DEPARTMENT OF TRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 139737 5,407°06 3632 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNOATION OLdTIMERS FOUNDATION e 139738 1,969.95 5281 STERICYCLE, INC. SHARPS PROGRAM # 139739 4733 SUNRISE FORD AUTO SERVICE ~ SUPPLIES 139740 38.57 5730 SUTHERLAND, STEPHEN CERT INSTRUCTOR 139741 IO0.00 5730 SUTHERLANO, STEPHEN CERT INSTRUCTOR 139742 5410 T ~ O INSTALLATIONS SUPPLIES e 139743 I02.50 I1046 TAMRAMANIS, GENISE RECREATION REFUNDS 139744 39.00 2344 TARGET YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL 139745 8.07 836 TARGET SPECIALTY PR3DUCTS MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 139746 393.63 3942 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL P MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVICE ~ 139747 255°00 4351 TOBIN, RENEE RECREATION REIMSURSEMENT 139748 35.23 ~351 TOBIN, RENEE RECREATION REIMBURSEMENT e 139749 ~737 U C REGENTS POCKET GUIOE 139750 144.00 2737 U C REGENTS POCKET GUIDE 139751 432.00 4558 U S GUARDS CO., INC. SECURITY GUARD SERVICE ~ 139752 4276 U S PRINTING GUIDELINE MANUALS 139753 116.37 3437 UNIFXRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES 139754 396.10 3912 UNIQUE CREATIONS RECREATION SUPPLIES 139755 5601 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. MANAGEMENT SERVICES 139756 241.75 4726 UNISOURCE CORPORATION MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~39757 98.51 5233 UNISTRUT SUPPLIES 139758 178.26 3844 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL t 139759 383.66 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS PERI,D: 05-19-99 (98/99) = = RUN DATE: 05/I9/99 PAGE: 6 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO : ~ WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 489 UPLAND. CITY OF MONTHLY WATER BILLING 139760 3t786.00 314! VAN TECH MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES a 13976I 849°74 5870 VLSYSTEMSt INC. COMPUTER HARDWARE I39762 11461 WALDRONt NIKKI RECREATION REFUNDS # 139763 65°00 478 WARREN & CD.t CARL LIABILITY CLAIMS 139764 220°48 ~00Z WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT 139765 213 WAXIE. KLEEN-LINE CORP MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 139766 1t751.0g 4577 WELLS FARGO GUARD SERVICES SECURITY GUARD SERVICES # X39767 5526 WEST GROUP PUBLISHING 139768 157.00 6099 WHITAKERt RICHARD LEGISLATIVE TRIP TO SACTU # 139769 305.00 2681 WILLIAMSt DIANE CA LIBRARIES CONFERENCE 139770 4983 WILSON. COMPANYt H.Wo LIBRARY 139771 ~5.00 11462 WILTON MEOICaL BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 139772 50.90 6224 WOODt SUE RECREATION REFUND 139773 509 XEROX CORPORATION C0P¥ MACHINE SUPPLIES/SERVICE 139774 683.14 4377 ZDURt BRETT CERT INSTRUCTOR 139~75 ~oo.oo ** TOTAL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager BY: Diane O'Neal, Assistant To The City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AMEND RATES CHARGED BY RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON FOR LEGAL SERVICES Recommendation The City Council approve the recommended hourly rate adjustments for legal services provided by Richards, Watson & Gershon. Analysis The City Attorney's office is requesting the following rate adjustments: City RDA Fire Markman From $140 to $155 Remains $165 From $140 to $155 Partners From $140 to $155 From $130 to $155 From $140 to $155 Associates From $110 to $130 From $110 to $135 From $110 to $130 Paralegals From $60 to $75 From $60 to $75 From $60 to $75 The City's Administrative Services Department conducted a survey of legal rates for the western San Bernardino County and concluded the requested rates for Richards, Watson & Gershon were within the market rates surveyed. The survey is attached for your review. Also attached for your review is Mr. Markman's correspondence dated April 30, 1999 along with the actual Agreement with the amendments. No changes are Mayor and Members of the City Council Richards, Watson & Gershon Requested Rate Adjustments June 2, 1999 Page Two proposed in the general retainer rates. These rates only apply to non-retainer work. Staff recommends these rate increases be approved. Respectfully Submitted, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager cc: Attachment: Survey of Rates Agreement SUMMARY OF ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY SURVEY CITIES [.;11 · ,-, CITY: Claremont Corona Fontana Ontario Po,,u,,a Rancho Rialto U~and West Cu~ Covina AVERAGE Po~__ 34,000 117,000. 109,312 143,799 139,792 117~474 81,584 __ 66,000 1.__~01,906 Hourly Rate: City Attorney $ 150.00 $ 115.00 $ 150.00 $ 155.00 $ 75.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 160.56 ~ Monthly for general to flat rate* range: to $ 290,00 i:~-. ~:~ ~ 183,33 Partners $ 250.00 $ 150.00 (First 290 :~$;:i!?~;00 $ 135.00 $ 110.00 $ for other hours billed (outside of $ 120.00 at $75/hour; : normal srvcs) Associates $ 75.00 $ 110.00 $ 95.00 thereafter, $ 80.00 $ 60.00 $ 92.50 Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal $290/hour) ;i: "A~ Paralegal Law clerk Paralegal Bonds Monthly Retainer: $ 9,500.00 none n/a none $ 19,500.00 $ 6,~;~ none $ 5,000.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 6,325.00 plus extras AnnuaiFees: $ 400,000 $ 900,000 $ 506,300 $ 825,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 894,500 $ 1,249,600 $ 260,000 $ 278,000 average budget budget budget budget budget budget budget $ 1,200,000 (includes claims for 97/98 *CityAtty pays all outside atty fees out of the $34,000 5/25/99 5:15 PM '~ i:~financeimarkman.xls-sheet 2 SUMMARY OF ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY SURVEY CITIES RDA ~:~ -~ 81,584 66,000 101,906 Population: 34,000 109,312 143,799 139,792 ~?~ ~'-~'~"; ;;~-: $ 34,000.00 Hourly Rate: .......... -.-. ~,~ ~ ~; City Attorney $ 198.00 $ 155.00 $ 110.00 ~ ~i ~i~ Monthly $ 150.00 $ 189.00 $ 161.17 flat rate* '~ ~'~ $ 135.00 $ 120.00 $ 178.00 $ 152.60 Partners $ 175.00 ~ ~ (outside of normal srvcs) Associates $ 150.00 $ 110.00 $ 162.00 $ 139.25 Paralegal Parale~lal $ 85.00 $ 95.00 $ 80.00 $ 60.00 $ 103.00 $ 84.60 Monthly Retainer: none none none $ 5,850.00 · .~ ~,.,~,~, ......... :_~ :? none $ 2,000.00 1st 20 hrs @ $ 3,283.33 151.00 per hr AnnuaiFees: $ 36,000 $ 140,000 $ 396,000 $ 70,200 ~ ~ ~i $ 27,400 $ 37,000 $ 501,000 $160,325.00 budget budget ~~_.~ i~ budget budget budget * City Atty ?~ ~.~ pays all ~',ii outside atty ~ ~ fees out of ~ ........ the $34,000 5/26/99 3.'1o PM i:lfinance~markman.xls-sheet 2 SUMMARY OF ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY SURVEY CITIES FIRE DISTRICT COSTS CITY: Chino Valley San Bern O.C.Fire Diet Ontario ,~ Rancho Fon~ U~and AVERAGE Fire District Co. Fire Diet Authority ~,~,~,im0nga ... Population: 143,799 ~i :~? ~!7i474 109,312 66,000 Hourly Rate: City Attorney $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 140.00 $ 155.00 $ 150.00 $ 135.00 $ 137.14 per hr if > Private 12 hours Practice Partners $ 135.00 $ 150.00 $ 120.00 $ 140.00 County to 110.00 Counsel Associates ':~ $ 110.00 $ 60.00 $ 100.00 ~ law clerk Monthly Retainer: $ 1,100.00 none, hourly $ 6,000.00 none, hourly none none $ 2,616.67 'AnnuaiFees: $ 40,000 $ 26,100,000 $117,000,000 $ 12,000 $ 11,300,000 not available $ 25,743,500 covers all San covers 46 covers all of BernardinoCo. firestations central valleyFire ~ i:lfinancelmarkman.xls-sheet 2 5/25/99 5:15 PM RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEY8 AT (41~ 41 f-14i4 30, ] 999 Sack Lam City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucarnonga, California 91720-0g07 Rc: Pfopu~cd amendments to rates chazgcd ~or legal services -- City of Rancho Cucamonga. Rancho Cuearnonga Redevelopment Agency and Rancho Cucamoaga Fire Protection District Dear Jack: As we previously discussed, I have carefully reviewed the data in the survey conducted by your office in reference to £ecu. As you will recall, I made a request last November that the survey be conducted so that I could compare our hourly rates to those generally charged in the surveyed area and then seek to adjust the rates, if indicated, to reflect market rates. I have dnne so and am enclosing herewith proposed amendments to our legal services agreement which will cause ~he rates to be adjus',~l to market. The a(tj u~tmcnts ~cquc~t~d arc as follows: I. City of Rancho Cucamonga The hourly rate for my services is only requested to be adjustcd $15,00 per hour from $140.D0 to $155.00, Howevet, based on the fact ~hat the firm I am wi~ offers the services of other municipal ]awyer.~ nf equal experience, there would be an adju3tmcnt so lhat all shareholders (partners) of the firm are charged out at the same hourly rate. As to associates, wc exe requesting an increase from $I 10.00 to $130.00 an hour which is at market. As to lave clerks and paralegals, we are requesting an ~nerease from $60.00 per hour to $75.00 per hour which I also believe reflects the market. Final!)', we are /7 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Jack Lam City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga April 30, 1999 Page Two requesting that for litigation items which are out of the ordinary (litigation other than routine tort defense cases and eminent domain cases) we charge our then current hourly rates for the lawyers who work on the case discounted by 20%. These rates would be determined at any given time as a case came up and would be subject to the approval of the City Manager. Ihis provision is especially important since it would allow me to employ the services of the most experienced and talented litigators at Richards, Watson & Gershon at a 20% discount, always subject to discussion with you on a case-by-case basis. 2. Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency In regard to the Redevelopment Agency, I am not asking for an adjustment in my hourly rate. I am asking for an adjustment for work performed by other shareholders (partners) of the firm from $130.00 per hour to $155.00 per hour, an adjustment lbr associates from $110.00 per hour to $135.00 per hour, and an adjustment for paralegals from $60.00 per hour to $75.00 per hour, all in accordance with the market data. I am also requesting that Agency litigation (if any) other than tort defense or eminent domain work be charged at the firm's current rates discounted by 20% and subject to your approval. 3. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The requested adjustments for the Fire District are the same as those requested for the City as ~tiscussed above. Again, I believe that the adjustments reflected in the enclosed contract amendments do reflect market rates as disclosed by your survey work. CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, e~-~ AICP, City Manager ..... FROM: .William J. O'Neil, City Engin'~;;/ SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM D-6 The following item (Consent Calendar Item D-6) is being pulled from the June 16, 1999, City Council agenda because the proposal needs further clarification from the consultant. This item will be resubmitted at a later date. APPROVAL TO AWARD AND EXECUTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE, INC. FOR THE CITY-WIDE PAVEMENT SURVEY AND DIGITAL IMAGING PROJECT TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I (LOCAL) FUNDS (ACCOUNT NO. 32-4637-9845) FOR THE AMOUNT OF $111,110.00 WJO:sd RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Jack Lam City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga April 30, 1999 Page Three I would appreciate your support with respect to these rate increase requests and your processing the contract amendments at your earliest convenience. Of course, the amendments would not go into effect until July 1, 1999. Very truly yours, "James L. Markman City Attorney City of Rancho Cucamonga JLM:sjk S\RC\LLAM SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES That Agreement for Legal Services entered into on March 21, 1985, as heretofore amended ("the Agreement" hereinafter), by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, A Municipal Corporation ("CITY" hereinafter) and RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON, A Professional Corporation ("ATTORNEY" hereinafter) hereby is amended as of July 1, 1999, as follows: 1. Subparagraph 4.B. of the Agreement hereby is modified to read, in words and figures, as follows: "B. ATTORNEY shall additionally be compensated for all work performed in preparation for and in conducting tort defense and eminent domain litigation for CITY and for other services specified in paragraph 2 delivered by ATTORNEY other than basic services as follows: (i) At the rate of One Hundred Fifty-five Dollars ($155.00) per hour for the services of shareholders of the firm; (ii) At the rate of One Hundred Thirty Dollars ($130.00) per hour for the services of associate attorneys; (iii) At the rate of Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) per hour for the services of law clerks and paralegals; and (iv) For services rendered on litigation, other than tort defense or eminent domain, at ATTORNEY's then current hourly rates discounted by 20%, subject to the approval of the City Manager on a case-by-case basis." 2. Other than as expressly amended herein, the Agreement, and each and every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force and effect. S',RC\6AMDCIrY 1 C,~ ~ WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this Sixth Supplemental Agreement for Legal Services as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such party. Dated: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A Municipal Corporation By: Mayor By: City Clerk Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation By: William L. Strausz Chairman of the Board S\RC\6AMDCITY 2 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES That Agreement for Legal Services entered into on September 1, 1987, as heretofore amended ("the Agreement" hereinafter), by and between RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity ("AGENCY" hereinafter), and RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON, A Professional Corporation ("ATTORNEY" hereinafter), hereby is amended as of July 1, 1999 as follows: 1. Subparagraph 3.B. of the above-referenced Agreement hereby is modified to read, in words and figures, as follows: "B. ATTORNEY shall be compensated for work performed other than for basic services as follows: (i) At the rate of One Hundred Sixty-five Dollars ($165.00) per hour for the services of JAMES L. MARKMAN; (ii) At the rate of One Hundred Fifty-five Dollars ($155.00) per hour for the services of other shareholders; (iii) At the rate of One Hundred Thirty-five Dollars ($135.00) per hour for the services of associate attorneys; (iv) At the rate of Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) per hour for the services of law clerks and paralegals; and (v) For services rendered on litigation other than tort defense or eminent domain, at ATTORNEY's then current hourly rates discounted by 20%, subject to the approval of the Executive Director on a case- by-case basis." 2. Other than as expressly amended herein, the Agreement, and each and every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force and effect. S',RC\SAMDRA 1 ~:~O~ WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 5 to Agreement for Legal Services as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such party. Dated: RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Chairman By: Executive Director-Secretary Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation By: William L. Strausz Chairman of the Board FOURTH AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES That Agreement for Legal Services entered into on April 1, 1990, as heretofore amended (the "Agreement" hereinafter), by and between the RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ("DISTRICT" hereinafter) and RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON, A Professional Corporation ("ATTORNEY" hereinafter), hereby is amended effective July 1, 1999, as follows: 1. Paragraph 3 of the above-referenced Agreement hereby is amended to read as follows: "3. Fees and Expenses. A. ATTORNEY shall be compensated for the basic services described in paragraph 2 hereof to be performed by ATTORNEY in an amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) per month prorated tbr any partial month on a thirty-day month basis; and B. ATTORNEY shall additionally be compensated for all work performed in preparation for and in conducting litigation and/or personnel hearings for DISTRICT as follows: (i) At the rate of One Hundred Fifty-five Dollars ($155.00) per hour for the services of ATTORNEY's shareholders; (ii) At the rate of One Hundred Thirty Dollars ($130.00) per hou3, for associate lawyers; (iii) At the rate of Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) per hour for the services of law clerks and paralegals; and (iv) For services rendered on litigation, other than tort defense or eminent domain, at ATTORNEY's then current hourly rates discounted by 20%, subject to the approval of the Fire Chief on a case-by-case basis." 2. Other than as expressly amended herein, the Agreement, as S\RC\4AMDFPD I Ox~ ~ heretofore amended, and each and every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force and effect. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amended Agreement for Legal Services as of the date and year set forth below opposite the name of each such party. Dated: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: By: City Clerk Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation By: William L. Strausz Chairman of the Board S\RC\4AMDFPO 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council and Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF $121,382.19 FROM FUND 72-4225-7045 THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND, TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the appropriation of $121,382.19 from fund 72- 4225-7045 to fund the purchase of capital replacement vehicles for fiscal year 1998-99. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City Council approved the purchase of replacement vehicles as identified in the fiscal year 1998/99 budget document under account 72-4225-7045. Purchasing solicited proposals for twenty-one (21) replacement vehicles that had exceeded their service life. Due to increased vehicle costs, the dollar amount allocated in Fund 72 for replacement is not sufficient to cover the cost of all of the vehicles. Staff is requesting an additional $121,382.19 be appropriated by City Council to cover the cost of all replacement vehicles as approved in the City's budget. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:DB:ju CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF LOT "C" FOR STREET PURPOSES, OFFERED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (NOW CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA) ON TRACT MAP 6939, LOCATED NORTH OF RUBY AVENUE, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Lot "C" (1' x 60' strip) offered to dedicate as shown on Tract Map 6939 located north of Ruby Avenue, south &Base Line Road and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same and cause same to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The developer, Sunrise Development Inc., is currently processing Preliminary Review 98-22, a proposed retirement facility, located on the south side of Base Line Road and west of Archibald Avenue and the proposed development will be required to adequately drain his site to public right-of- way. Said developer has requested the City accept the dedication of Lot "C" as offered t for street purposes to the County of San Bernardino as shown on Tract Map 6939 recorded in said county on May 28, 1964. To facilitate the draining of the proposed development, it is necessary to accept this offer of dedication. Exhibits are attached showing the proposed development and location of the offer of dedication. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:dlw Attachments CITY OF ~: ~/C ~-22 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLF~ ~'/CII~U Tt' BASE LIN£ ~OA~ CITY OF RANCHO ENGIN'RRRH~G DIWlSlON ' KESOLUTION NO. q q'" ! / q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING LOT "C" FOR STREET PURPOSES DEDICATED ON TRACT MAP 6939 LOCATED NORTH OF RUBY AVENUE, SOUTH OF BASE LINE ROAD The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1' The offer to dedicate to the County of San Bernardino (now City of Rancho Cucamonga), State of California, the property herein described for street purposes, is hereby accepted. Said property is described and shown on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". Section 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino, State of California. EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for acceptance of public street dedication in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Lot "C" of Tract No. 6939, as recorded in Book 91 of Maps, pages 49-52, inclusive, in the office of the county recorder of San Bernardino County. As more particularly shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prepared by me or under my direction. WAGNER PACIFIC, INC. Date Robed N. Mim Mack, P.L.S. 5314 My license expires: 12/31/99 EXHIBIT "B" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SCALE' 1"= 20' N'LY LINE TRACT NO. 6939 ~ L,OT "C", --., ,,W~-"~/ ~1 X 60 STRIP) -.----- S89'5,~9 50 .368.15' 0.00' ~ N89'53'24"W ( 60.00' TRACT O. 6939 M.B. 91/ 49- 52 57 ~ 56 30' d 30' 60' m 7 58 ~ 55 0 Z ALDER ~., CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Ingrid Y. Brace, G.I.S./Special Districts Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL LEVY WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 93-1, MASI PLAZA, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing an annual levy of five dollars ($5.00) per parcel for the costs incurred in the collection of assessments within Assessment District No. 93-1, Masi Plaza, at the southwest comer of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Section 8682 of the Government Code authorizes cities to collect an annual assessment fee of a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of installments and not to exceed sixteen dollars per parcel assessment for costs incurred in the administration and assessment collection. The fee is calculated on a flat fee basis of the current rate of five dollars ($5.00) per parcel (e.g., a percentage fee basis would inflate the base price per parcel). The requested fee will allow the City to recover funds for collection and management of assessment districts that are applicable to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Staff Report June 2, 1999 Page 2 Rancho Cucamonga's comprehensive management program including record keeping, cost management, payoff calculations, monthly financial reports, debt service schedules, as well as providing information to the public are funded from this fee. This fee is in place now to pay for administration and will allow the City to maintain the current rate and level of service. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director LIT:IYB Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 'Or q "/t',.5' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC~ OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS 1N VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has heretofore undertaken proceedings pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and has confirmed assessments upon land within various special assessment districts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Assessment Districts"); and WHEREAS, said proceedings provided for and the City did subsequently issue bonds pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said bonds representing unpaid assessments within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, the City does incur necessary administrative expenses in the collection of the annual installments of the assessment within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8682 does authorize the City to establish an assessment surcharge to allow the City to recover its expenses of collection of said assessments; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish such an assessment surcharge as authorized by said Government Code Section 8682. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: Treasurer is hereby directed to add to the annual installment of assessments within the Assessment Districts a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of the installments and of the interest thereon, not to exceed the Treasurer's estimate of the expenses of collection, and in any case not to exceed $5.00 per lot or parcel. Said expenses of collection shall include the necessary administrative expenses of the City incurred in providing the County Auditor with current information regarding the ownership or division of the affected lots or parcels of land within the Assessment Districts to ensure the proper entry by the County Auditor in his or her assessment roll and the timely collection of the Assessment installments. Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 3: The above assessment surcharge, when collected, shall belong to the City and shall cover the expenses and compensation of the Treasurer incurred in the collection of the assessments, and of the interest and penalties added on to the assessments. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this __ day of June, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of June, 1999. Executed this __ day of June, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Benefit Assessment District 9 -2 / / /' / /' / / j LEGEND / / ? (~ Benefit Assessment District 9%2 / / J / · - The ma~s, data aad geo~aphic i~oc~on Ch,.forma~o.") available I~- md tiaough &e Cid- of R~ncho Cucamon~a / /// me p~cscnu~d ~s ~ public ~sourcc of $cacral infotreason ~ The Cit~ of Rancho Cuc~n~8& m~es nor implies no / , - ~- .~., in~p~dmdy v~ my and all ~om~-~io~ The City of Ra~ho Cucamooga explicitly and widie~t limitafon " discfauns any e~t all ~csenta~oos end wazrantees, including, but no~ limited to, di~ imptu:d warcamim of ma~haatabiliw and t'an~s for a I~1~uiar puq~ose. 'I~ City of Rancho Cucamonga 0 300 0 300 Feet Prepared by: Chris Bopko G, I. S. Division May 26, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Ingrid Y. Bruce, G.I.S./Special Districts Supervisor SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing an annual benefit assessment levy of ninety-two dollars and seventeen cents ($92.17) per parcel for the maintenance and/or servicing of a drainage channel within Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On November 6, 1991, City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-331 for the annual levy of benefit assessments for the maintenance and/or servicing of a 27+ acre-foot desilting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel within Drainage Area No. 91-2, Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Drainage Area No. 91-2 was a developer initiated district. Protection of the properties from the overland flows was necessary in order to receive development rights from the City. The costs associated with the maintenance of the district was intended to be passed onto the property owners as they would receive special and direct benefit that is distinguishable from the general public. Construction of homes are now in progress and are being placed on the market for sale. There are 350 homes that will be constructed. The total annual cost for maintenance is thirty-two thousand, two hundred and sixty dollars ($32,260) for a total cost to each home of ninety-two dollars and seventeen cents ($92.17) Staff Report June 2, 1999 Page 2 Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director LIT:IYB Attachments: Resolution Annual Supplement to Final Engineer's Report Map A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, previously undertook proceedings to authorize the levy and imposition of benefit assessments to pay for the annual drainage maintenance, including the removal of sediment and debris from the Day Canyon Channel improvements and basin, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 54703), said area of benefit being known and designated as DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (the "Drainage Area"); and WHEREAS, at this time there has been presented to this City Council a Supplemental Report (the "Supplemental Report") to the Final Engineer's Report Drainage Area No. 91-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga setting forth a description of the proposed service, cost estimate and assessment schedule for fiscal year 1999-2000 (the "Final Engineer's Report"); and WHEREAS, at this time this City Council desires to determine the cost of providing authorized services to be financed by the levy of a benefit assessment for fiscal year 1999-2000 and to determine and impose such benefit assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the Supplemental Report is hereby approved and ordered to be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open for public inspection. Said Supplemental Report generally consists of the following: A. A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived through the levy and collection of the benefit assessment; B. A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment; C. The amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel. Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 3: That the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report is hereby adopted and has been utilized as the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment to be levied in fiscal year 1999-2000. SECTION4: That this City Council hereby determines and orders that the benefit assessments described in the Supplemental Report within the Drainage Area are hereby confirmed and levied for fiscal year 1999-2000. SECTION 5: That the above confirmed and levied benefit assessment for fiscal year 1999- 2000 shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general County property taxes are collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of such County taxes shall be applicable to the collection and enforcement of these benefit assessments. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED __ day of June, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the __ day of June, 1999. Executed this __ day of June, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Bob Dutton, Councilmember Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Debra Adams, City Clerk Joe O'Neil, City Engineer JUNE 1999 Resolution No. Page 4 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TABLE OF CONTENTS Engineer's Report Exhibit A - Description of Service Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Exhibit C - Assessment Schedule Map Resolution No. Page 5 AGENCY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT: DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER S REPORT PURSUANT TO BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1982 This Annual Supplement to the Final Engineer's Report (the "Annual Supplement") for City of Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Area No. 91-2 is hereby submitted consisting of the following documents, pursuant to the provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703. This Annual Supplement is applicable for the ensuing 12-month period, being the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE (Exhibit "A"): A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment. 2. COST ESTIMATE (Exhibit "B"): A listing of all costs and expenses for the next fiscal year, including incidental expenses. 3. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE (Exhibit "C"): The annual assessment schedule, setting forth the following: A. Annual Benefit Assessment: The amount of the proposed benefit assessment for each parcel. B. Description of Parcel: A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment, said parcel being described by the County Assessor's parcel number. No benefit assessments shall be imposed or levied upon land owned by a Federal or State governmental agency and/or any other local agency. Any utility property and right-of-way shall be subject to assessment only to the extent that it is specifically benefitted from the proposed services. ,/¥ Resolution No. Page 6 Reference is made the Final Engineer's Report as incorporated in Resolution No. 91-331 for a description of the boundaries of the Drainage Area and each parcel therein and for the method of spreading the benefit assessment. Executed this __ day of June, 1999, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA By:. Final approval, confirmation, and levy of the annual benefit assessment and all matters in the Annual Supplement was made on the __ day of June, 1999, by adoption of Resolution No. by the City Council. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA A copy of said Assessment Roll and Engineer's "Report" was filed in the Office of the City Engineer and the City Clerk on the __ day of June, 1999. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. Page 7 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The properties within Drainage Area No. 91-2 are located within the boundaries of the Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Protection of the properties within the district from overland flows requires the construction of a 27+ acre-foot desilting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel. The channel improvements will intercept the overland flows prior to reaching the properties and carry the storm water runoff, sediment, trash, organic material, and related debris to a desilting basin. Each year the sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris which accumulates in the desilting basin and channel must be removed and transported to an approved spoils site. The services proposed to be financed from the revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment are as follows: A. Monthly on-site inspections of the desilting basin and channel. B. Bi-monthly weed abatement program for the desilting basin and channel. C. Removal of accumulated sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris from the desilting basin and channel to an approved spoils site. This service is expected to be provided annually. During times of excessive rain fall, this service may be required more frequently. q6 Resolution No. Page 8 EXHIBIT B COST ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 A. Cost of Annual Maintenance Desilting Basin $22,500 Channel $ 6,640 Subtotal $29,140 B. Incidental Expenses City Administration $ 3,120 Subtotal $ 3,120 C. Total Annual Costs $32,260 D. Contribution $0 E. Balance to Assessment $32,260 Resolution No. Page 9 EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE WHEREAS, this City Council has previously, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703, formed Drainage Area No. 91-2 all in accordance with the provisions of said Act; and, WHEREAS, the Annual Supplement for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 consisting of certain documentation (including the amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel, a description of the parcel and a description of the service proposed to be provided) has now been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Engineer, by virtue of the power vested pursuant to said Act and by order of the legislative body, hereby makes and recommends the following benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the service proposed to be financed through the levy of assessments and revenue derived for the fiscal year 1999-2000. Said costs and expenses are generally as follows: Cost of Maintenance $29,140 Cost of Improvements $ 0 Incidental Expenses $ 3,120 Total Costs $32,260 Contribution/Surplus $ 0 Balance to Assessment $32,260 I do hereby assess and apportion the total amount of the costs and expenses upon the several parcels of land within the area of benefit in proportion to the estimated benefits received, and hereby further state as follows: A. The amount of benefit assessment imposed is specifically related to the benefit of the parcel which will be derived from the provision of the service to be provided. B. The annual aggregate amount of the total benefit assessment does not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service. C. The revenue derived from the benefit assessment shall not be used to pay for the cost of any service other than the service for which the benefit assessment was levied. The assessment parcels herein refer to the County Assessment Roll for a description of the lots or parcels, and said Roll shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. Resolution No. Page 10 The net amount to be assessed upon the lands has been spread and apportioned by formula as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report in accordance with the benefits received from each parcel, and in my opinion, said costs and expenses have been apportioned in direct relationship to the benefits received from the maintenance works of improvement. In the opinion of the undersigned, the benefit assessments have been spread and apportioned in accordance with the benefits to be received from the proposed work and services. Dated: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT PROPERTY AMOUNT OF NUMBER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 225-471-01 to 58 350 $32,260.00 225-481-01 to 42 Residential 225-491-01 to 19 Parcels 225-451-01 to 35 225-451-39 to 58 225-461-01 to 60 225-072-68 Total $32,260.00 CITY ()F RANCHO CIJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A LIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ALL-STAR TOURNAMENT HOSTED BY ALTA LOMA LITTLE LEAGUE AND CITRUS LITTLE LEAGUE ON JULY 5-21, 1999, AT HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS RECOMMENDATION: The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that the City Council approve a temporary variance of the Light Usage Policy to allow for light use until 11:00 p.m. on two Little League diamonds at Red Hill Park and one Little League diamond at Heritage Park from July 5 - July 21, 1999 (excluding Sundays), for a District 21 All-Star Little League Tournament. Games will begin at 5:00 p.m. BACKGROUND: At the May 20, 1999, Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and approved to recommend to City Council Citrus and Alta Loma Little Leagues' request for a temporary variance to the Light Usage Policy for the upcoming District 21 Regional All-Star Little League Tournament. The current sports field policy curfew is 10:00 p.m. Similar tournaments have been hosted over the past several years and variances have been permitted. No complaints from residents have been received. Games generally last 1.5 to 2 hours. Most games will conclude by 10:00 p.m. Sometimes extra inning play or an injured player necessitate extended play past 10:00 p.m. Note: They are also requesting the use of the Epicenter Little League diamond for this particular tournament; however, no light variance is required for the Epicenter fields. ANALYSIS: The requested variance would apply to the Little League fields located at the north side o£ Red Hill Park; in addition the one Little League field located on the west side of Heritage Park. Staff requests the City Council continue with their current policy of providing curfew variance for sports fields only for extended, overtime or extra innings which is necessary for tournament play. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 LIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ALL-STAR LITTLE LEAGUE TOURNAMENT June 2, 1999 As in the past, the Leagues are to provide the City with a draft of the notice to the neighbors a minimum of two weeks prior to the games. This notice has been required by the City so that surrounding neighbors are aware that a variance has been permitted by the City to accommodate play and that any question regarding use should be addressed to the City or league representatives. Once the draft is approved, the Leagues must distribute to the neighbors who adjoin the park. A final tournament bracket should also be submitted to the City prior to June 21, 1999. Respec 11y subm'tte Comrhunity Services Director I:\CITYCOUN\99Little League Lt Variance.wpd CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR INTERIOR STREETS AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO VICTORIA PARK LANE, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT 15875, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, SUBMITTED BY KAUFMANN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the subject agreement and security related to Tentative Tract Map No. 15875 and authorizing the Mayor and tire City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANA LYSIS Tentative Tract Map No. 15875, generally located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, was approved by the Planning Commission on tire 14th day of October, 1998, for a residential subdivision of ! 58 single ram ily lots on 32.6 acres of'land in the Low Medium Residential Designation with in the Terra Vista Community Plan. The Developer, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $587,000 Labor and Material Bond: :$294,000 Copies of the agreement and security signed by tire Developer are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectively submitted, Willi City Engineer WJO:HM:sd Attachments V ! CJ.N I'J.'Y I¥1AI) F UIl~,E AV[, ', ~ sur.,^R) ~ > PROJECI' SITE I ~ ~ASE i ~E ROAD II cttuRc. 5TEEEl VIC 1 FOOlifil L CITY 01" IL/\FICIIt) CUCAI~ION(,,/ COUNTY Ol" 5AN IIEILNAI(DIHL) 5'I'/\'I'E O1" CAI_,II"OliNIA . j =SO ,UTION q q--//7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR INTERIOR STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15875 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15875, submitted by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, consisting of 158 lots, generally located at the northeast comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on October 14, 1998; and WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, desire to commence construction on interior street and storm drain improvements related to Tract 15875 prior to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City and provide an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security, by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation, as developer; 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 as referred to Tentative Tract Map No. 15875. NOW, ]'HEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City Clerk to attest. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director By: Robert Bowery, Info Systems Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF MICROSOFT CLIENT ACCESS LICENSE AND MICROSOFT UPGRADE ADVANTAGE LICENSE FOR ANNUAL RENEWAL FROM COMPUSA THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE, PROCUREMENT DIVISION, 1999 CONTRACT, 3-97-00-0157A, IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,200 FROM ACCOUNT 01-4161-6028 AND IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,100 FORM ACCOUNT 01-4161-3900 AS APPROVED IN FY 98/99 BUDGET. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase of Microsoft client access license and Microsoft upgrade advantage license from COMPUSA through the state of California CMAS contract in the amount 0£$83,200 from account 01-4161-6028 and in the amount of $21,100 form account 01-¢,'1~61-3900. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In the FY 1998/99 Annual Budget, City Council approved the purchase of software upgrades in the amount of $40,000 in account 01-4161-3900 and software maintenance for (Oracle, Lotus, Escom, Chameleon, Etc.) in the amount of $88,550 in account 01-4161-6028. These upgrades and maintenance license are required to keep the City compliant with copyfight laws and to insure staff has the current software tools to perform their job. By keeping compliant and current staff is proactive in addressing potential issues the city may experience due in part to out dated software applications and a lack of technical support. The Purchasing division used the State of California, Multiple Awards Schedule (CMAS) to acquire the best possible pricing for the above software licenses. Through this process staff was able to save the City of Rancho Cucamonga $23,000 in projected software license costs. The specifications of the City met those within the CMAS contract as provided by COMPUSA and approved by the state as the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder. Staff recommends the award of contract to COMPUSA. Respectfully submitted. Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director -' CITY OF RANCI t() CI. ;CAM()N( i,,\ / STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of lh~ City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Project Manag Michael D. Long, Supervising Publicks Inspcctor,W~ SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF TIlE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUMMIT AVENUE IMI'ROVEMENTS, FROM EAST AVENUE TO 1000' EAST OF EAST AVENUE, TO I,AIRD CONSTRUCTION IN TI IE AMOUNT OF $145,697.75 ($132,452.50 PI,[JS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO BE FUNDED FROM PROPOSITION ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637-9805 RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the City Council award and authorize lbr execution tile contract Ibr the constrt,ction ol'thc Summit Avenue Improvements, from East Avenue to 1000' cast ol'East Avenue. to tile lowest responsible bidder. Laird Construction, in the amount o1'$145.697.75 ($132.452.50 plus 10% contingency) to bc funded l¥om Proposition Account No. 10-4637-9805. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: l'cr previous Council action, bids wcrc solicited, received and opened on May 18, 1999, for the subject project. The Engincer's estimate was $144,288.00. Stall'has reviewed all bids received and lbund them to bc complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to mcct the requirements of the bid documents. City Engineer W.!():MDI~/i~E} l:ls Attachment CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF I~ROPOSALS FOR SUMMIT AVENUE I,MPROVEMENTS east of East Avenue Bids Opened on May 18, 1999 Engineer's Estimate = Laird Construction EGN Construction Ho!land-Lowe Const Item Item Unit of Estimated Total Total Total No. Description Measure Quantit>' Unit Price Bid Unit Price Bid Unit Price Bid 1 Clearing & Grubbine LS I ~'~' ' '~' - ~ $_.~.8)0.00 $~_~,8:>0.00 $ i 5,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,868.00 $25,868.00 '~ Unclassified Excavation CY 1300 515.00 $19,500.00 $21.00 $~7,.~00.00 $19.35 $25,155.00 3 Relocate Trafic Signs/Markers EA 3 $ 100.00 $300.00 $ 100.00 $300.00 $80.00 $240.00 4 Relocate Storage Container EA I $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5760.00 $760.00 5 Relocate Chain Link Fence LF 150 512.50 $1,875.00 $15.00 $2.250.00 $17.00 $2,550.00 6 Relocate Electrical Box LS I 53.000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3.000.00 $3,230.00 $3,230.00 7 Re-adjust Height of C.L. Gate LS I 5250.00 $250.00 $500.00 $500.00 $270.00 $270.00 8 Crushed Aggregate Base IONS 307 $15.00 $4,605.00 $26.35 $8,089.45 $20.00 $6 140.00 9 Asphalt Concrete TONS 691 530.00 $_0,7.~0.00 $42.25 $29,194.75 $30.10 $20 799.10 10 0.10' Cold Plane CY 130 510.00 $1,300.00 $12.00 $1,560.00 $22.00 $2 860.00 11 Adj \Vater Valve/Nleter to Grade EA 15 $50.00 $750.00 $50.00 $750.00 $90.00 $1 350.00 12 Adjust Fire Hydrant to Grade EA 2 51.000.00 $2,000.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 5650.00 $1 300.00 13 8" PCC curb & gutter LF 715 512.50 $8,937.50 $11.60 $8,294.00 513.60 $9724.00 14 8" A.C. Berm LF 101 $5.00 $505.00 $26.50 $2,676.50 $12.00 $1~212.00 15 4" PCC Side~alk SF 4800 52.00 $9,600.00 $2.25 $10,800.00 $2.10 $10080.00 16 Re-constr ex drive~vav ~v/50' DA LS I 56.500.00 $6,500.00 $4, 100.00 $4, 100.00 $5,200.00 $5.200.00 17 Rc-constr ex drive~ av ~'/35' DA LS I $6.000.00 $6.000.00 $3,100.00 $3. ! 00.00 54,750.00 $4.750.00 18 Re-constr ex drive~vav w/35' DA LS I 53.000.00 $3.000.00 $1,600.00 $1.600.00 $2,780.00 $2.780.00 19 H.C. Ramps per City Std #102 EA I S750.00 5750.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,056.00 $1,056.00 20 Curb Ramps per Calftans Std A-88 EA I 51,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,110.00 $1, 110.00 21 Street lighting conduit & pull boxes LF 1000 55.00 55,000.00 $13.50 $13,500.00 $13.45 $13,450.00 22 Striping & Pavement Marking LS I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $ !,900.00 $1,900.00 $2,665.00 $2,665.00 23 Traffic Control LS I $ ! 0,000.00 $ ! 0,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $8,090.00 $8,090.00 $132,452.50 S139,914.70 5150,639.10 Gentry Brothers Vance Corporation Item Item Unit of Estimated Total Total No. Description Measure Quantit)' Unit Price Bid Unit Price Bid I Clearing & Grubbing LS I $8.000.00 $8,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 2 Unclassified Excavation CY 1300 $50.00 $65,000.00 $15.00 $19,500.00 3 Relocate Trafic Signs/Markers EA 3 $60.00 $180.00 $75.00 $225.00 4 Relocate Storage Container EA I $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 5 Relocate Chain Link Fence LF 150 57.00 $1,050.00 $13.00 $1,950.00 6 Relocate Electrical Box LS I 52,700.00 $2,700.00 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 7 Re-adjust Height of C.L. Gate LS I 5400.00 $400.00 $265.00 $265.00 8 Crashed Aggregate Base TONS 307 $15.00 $4,605.00 $25.00 $7,675.00 9 Asphalt Concrete TONS 691 $35.00 $24,185.00 $37.00 $25,567.00 10 0.10' Cold Plane CY 130 $10.00 $1,300.00 $4.00 $520.00 I 1 Adj \Vater Valve/Meter to Grade EA 15 510.00 $150.00 $50.00 $750.00 12 Adjust Fire t lydrant to Grade EA 2 5500.00 $1,000.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 13 8" I'CC curb & gutter LF 715 $13.00 $9,295.00 $14.00 $10.010.00 14 8" A.C. Berm LF I01 $7.00 $707.00 $8.00 $808.00 15 4" PCC Side~alk SF 4800 $2.00 $9,600.00 $2.15 $10,320.00 16 Re-constr ex drive~'ay w/50' DA LS I $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 17 Re-constr ex drive~vay w/35' DA LS I $6,300.00 $6,300.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 18 Re-constr ex driveway w/35' DA LS I 53,600.00 $3,600.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 19 lt.C. Ramps per City Std #102 EA I 5900.00 $900.00 $600.00 $600.00 20 Curb Ramps per Calftans Std A-88 EA I 5800.00 $800.00 $650.00 $650.00 21 Street lighting conduit & pull boxes LF 1000 $13.00 $13.000.00 $9.00 $9,000.00 22 Striping & Pavement Marking LS I 52,000.00 $2.000.00 $1.700.00 $1,700.00 23 'l'raflic Control LS I 55.000.00 $5.000.00 $49.000.00 $49,000.00 S 167,072.00 $171,790.00 CI'I'Y ()F P, ANCi 10 Ct;CAM()N(iA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil. City Engineer BY: Linda Beck, Jr. Engineer ,c~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSIONS FOR TRACTS 12659-2, -3 AND -4 LOCATED ON TIlE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE 8,: 24TM STREET, SUBMITTED BY CENTEX HOMES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that tile City Council adopt the attached rcsolutior~, accepting the subject agreement and security extensions and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreements. BACKG ROUND/ANALYSIS: hnprovcnlcnt Agreement and Improvement Securities to guarantee tile construction of the public improvements lbr Tracts 12659-2, -3 and -4 were approved by the City Cramell, as [bllows: Tract 1265%2 on March 19, 1997 Faithful Pcrtbrmancc Bond in the amount of $ 49,000.00 Tract 12659-3 on September 3, 1997 Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $1.275.800.00 Tract 12659-4 on ,January 21, 1998 Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $ 832.000.00 Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $1.953.000.00 The developer, Centex ! !omcs, is requesting approval ofa 12-month extension on said improvement agreements. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extensions arc available in the City Clcrk's office. City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department TRACT 12659-2 .1265~-3 kfl LSON AVENUE ~2659-4 NORTH RESOLUTION NO. O/q--,,//t$ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI'FY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOR. N[A. APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSIONS AN[) IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR TRACTS 12659-2, -3 and -4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calilbrnia, has lbr its consideration Improvement Agreement Extensions executed on June 2, 1999. by Centex Homes, as developer. tbr the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24'h Street. WHEREAS. the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreements and subject to the ternIs thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tracts 12659-2, -3 and -4; and WHEREAS. said hnprovcmcnt Agreement Extensions arc secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities. which is idcntilied in said Improvement Agreement Extensions. NOW. TI ilH~, EFORI:,. the City Council ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga. California hereby rcsolvcs, that said Improvement Agreement L:xtcnsions and said hnprovcmcnt Securities bc and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extensions on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Cotmcil - '" Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beck, Jr. Engineer.~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS. RELEASE THE FAITIIFUl, PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR 1M PROV EM ENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 14376, LOCATED AT RANCI IERIA AND RED tlILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUBMI]'I'ED BY LONGWEI_L INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements lbr Parcel Map 14376, have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended thnt the City Council ncccpt snid improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithli~l I~crtbrmancc Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. BACKG R()UNI)/ANAI,YSIS: As a condition of approval ofcomplction of Parcel Map 14376, lhe applicanl ~as required to complete street improvements. The street improvements have been completed and It is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithlift Pcrlbrmance Bond and accept the Maintenance Boml. Developer: Longwell Investments, Inc. 19 East Live Oak Avenue. ~K Arcadia, CA 91006 Release: Faithlid Pertbrmancc Bond (Letter of Crcdi0 $ 16,200.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond (Letter of Credit) $ 1,620.00 Re~fifi ly subm itlcd, City Engineer WJO:I,RB:Is Attachments City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department PARCEL MAP NO. 14376 NORTH RESO U'rIO NO. qg-//q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ()F RANC!.IO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEF'TING TIlE F'UBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 14376. AND AUTIIORIZING THE FILING OF ,,\ NOTICE OF COMPI,ETION FOR T! IE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements lbr Parcel Map 14376, have been completed to the satisthction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certi13, ing the work complete. NOW THEREFORE. be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. £¢ CITY ()F RANCII() TO: Mayor and Members of tim City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City FROM: William J. O'Soil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beck, Jr. Enginccr~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE TItE FAITIIFUL I~ERFORMANCE BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRAC'I" 14410, SUBM!'!TED BY CENTEX HOMES, A NEVADA GENERAL I"ARTNI~RS1111' I,IECOMMENI)ATION: The required improvements lbr Tract 14410. 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 t:'aithli. d Perlbrmance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. ilACKG ROUND/ANALYSIS: As it condition of approval ol'complction of Tract 14410. the applicant was rcquircd to complete street improvements. The improvements have been completed and it is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithl'ul I'crlbrmance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond. Developer: CENTEX HOMES 2280 WARDLOW CIRCLE, SUITE 150 CORONA, CA 91720 Release: Faithful Pcrtbrmancc Bond 111 2732 4140 $256,000.00 Accept: Maintenance Bond I I I 2732 4140 $ 25,600.00 ' submitted, Williaha.,/.~ ' " City Engineer WJ('):!,RB:Is City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department TRACT 14410 EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET SOUTH OF 19TM STREET VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NORTH r so u'no , o. 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING TIlE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14410, ANI) AUTHORIZING TI-IE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TilE WORK WIIEREAS, the construction of public improvements Ibr Tract 14410. have been completed to the satislhction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certil3, ing the work complete. NOW THEREFORE. be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and tile a Notice of Complctiort with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-042-88 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The 3.3-acre site has been used for a number of years as a parking lot for Coyote Canyon Elementary School (directly to the east). The original Terra Vista Community Plan designated the site as Low-Medium Residential but the current Plan inadvertently shows the site as Elementary School. Staff and Lewis Development Co. researched the records and determined that the land use designation was never applied for nor app~'oved. The property is being sold to the Central School District for the expansion of classrooms at Coyote Canyon Elementary School. On April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes of the April 14, 1999 meeting are attached. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING A. The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the land use and Terra Vista Community Plan designation in terms of access, size, and surrounding land uses. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TVCPA 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT June 2, 1999 Page 2 B. The proposed amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study which indicates that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use change. C. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Terra Vista Community Plan because of the site's ability to promote the goals and objectives for the Elementary School District. CORRESPONDENCE This item has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing. Public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. City Planner BB:BLC/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report of April 14, 1999 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1999 Planning Commission Resolution 99-26 Resolution approving Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01 CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 14786, from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-042-88. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Single family homes; Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Terra Vista Community Plan South - Vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Terra Vista Community Plan East Coyote Canyon Elementary School; Elementary School, Terra Vista Community Plan West - Vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Terra Vista Community Plan B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Elementary School West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) C. Site Characteristics: The site is improved with a parking lot which is used by the Coyote Canyon Elementary School. ANALYSIS: A. General: The 3.3-acre site has been used for a number of years as a parking lot for Coyote Canyon Elementary School (directly to the east). The original Terra Vista Community Plan designated the site as Low-Medium Residential but the current Plan inadvertently shows the site as Elementary School. Staff and Lewis Development Co. researched the records and determined that the land use designation was never applied for nor approved. The property is being sold to the Central School District for the expansion of classrooms at Coyote Canyon Elementary. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TVCPA 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. April 14, 1999 Page 2 B. Consistency with the General Plan: Land use districts are designated by the General Plan on a general scale. It is recognized that parcel-specific district location is established with the community plan. C. Land Use Compatibility: The site has been used for a number of years as an elementary school parking facility with no apparent problems or conflicts. D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the land use and Terra Vista Community Plan designation in terms of access, size, and surrounding land use. B. The proposed amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study which indicates that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use change. C. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Terra Vista Community Plan because of the site's ability to promote the goals and objectives for the Elementary School District. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter dated February 19, 1999 Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Terra Vista Community Plan Land Use Map Exhibit "D" - Initial Study Part II Resolution Recommending Approval 7/ K_ .U F MAN B RO .D February 19, Mr. Dan Colcm:m City of R;.mcho Cuc;.tmor~ga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Calilbnfia 91730 Re: PARCEL 1, PARCEL MAP 14786 ZONE CHANGE TERP, A VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY Dear Dan, Please consider this letter o Fjusti fication ('or the proposed zone change of an approximate 3.3 acre parcel in ]'crra Vista located West o['thc Coyote Canyon Elementary School. This piece of property is being sold to the Central School District. This site is zoned medium density residential pcr the Terra Vista Community l'lan. Wc arc proposing to ch:mgc this zonc dcsignation to clcmcma~ school. This site is currently improvcd with an asphalt parking lot and some small landscape areas that have bccn used by the Central School District over the last several years. There is no construction proposal with this application, this is solely a zonc change request submiltcd by the owner off the land, Lewis Dcvclopmcnt Go. Please call mc at (909) 802-1163 if you have any qucstions. As ahvays, v,'c apprcciatc your hclp in handling this application l~r us. Sinccrcly, K,'\UFMAN AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA '[';prr~(~tko J'[; ~ i,°,~,m cd Co .n, n tM i ty Dc vc ,o p rn c,,t ['RL:cmb\013 SITE PLA~" TR. ...0. / I EXIST. ' COYOTE CANYON SITE SCHOOL , EXIST. SCHOOl k PARKING LOT TR. NO, 15717 Future Multi Family 0 P.M. 11287 F:~ ~ Fi- ~1~~ Future P cY r k 14 ~42., :c ~ Z ~ 0 ..' ..j o ~l , r ~ [ '~ ~' '3^¥ N3^¥HI n'- City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-042-88. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Lewis Development Company 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Pomona, CA 91768 (909) 802-1163 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) 6. Zoning: Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Terra Vista Community Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: There are existing single family homes to the north, an existing elementary school to the east for which the subject site is used as parking, and vacant land to the south and west, across Elm Avenue. 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: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manage~ FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engine~./~ SUBJECT: AMENDED STAFF REPORT - CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM D-17 Attached is an amended staff report for CUP 95-32 accepting a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $2,076.00 in lieu of a Maintenance Guarantee Bond. WJO:sd Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT AMENDED DATE: June 16, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, A1CP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 95-32, LOCATED AT 9777 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUBMITTED BY FOOTH1LL AUTO BODY RECOMMENDATION The required improvements for CUP 95-32 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, accept the Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $2,076.00, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $145,000.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As a condition of approval of completion of CUP 95-32, the applicant was required to complete street improvements. The street improvements have been completed, and it is recommended that Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bond. DEVELOPER: Foothill Auto Body Accept: Certificate of Deposit $ 2,076.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond $148,000.00 L~i~,ct fully submitted, ~ City Engineer WJO:LRB:Is Attachment Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning (,/) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services ( ) Population and Housing ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems (,/) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier El R pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. s, ned:_AJ Brent Le Count, Associate Planner March 23, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Pa~]e 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. / I I I ~P~ Issu~ and Su~lng Info~t~ S~ea: I~gmficantI M~hgalionISigmfiCanl NO 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? () () () (~) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communi~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Comments: The proposed amendment is necessa~ to clarify the official City record relative to the zoning of the subject prope~y which is currently shown on the Terra Vista Community Plan Land Use Map as Elementa~ School. The site has been used as a parking lot for the adjacent elementa~ school for a number of years without conflict. ~mpec~ Issues and S~plx~ting I~fom'~lio~ ~m~: ~fi~ly U~ iota ficanlMitigafi~ Si~ificanlI NO 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. n} Oumulntively exoeed offioinl regionnl or populntion projections? ( b} Induae substnnti~l gro~h in nn nren either directly indireatly (e.g., thraugh pro~eots in nn undeveloped nren or extension of ranjot infrnstruoture}? ( Displnae existing housing, espeai~lly nffordnble housing? '77 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 4 Issues and Supc~ortmg Informalion Sources: I I I~1 Le~ IP°'*"~'~"y t u.~,. I T~.. I 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: h) The site is indicated to have Tujunga Delhi soil association per the General Plan which, "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development." This would not limit the current use of the site as a parking lot. If the site were ever redeveloped, a soils repo~ would be necessa~ to asce~ain soil bearing capacity and identify mitigation. The impact is not considered significant. I I I JPotemially J Unles,~ Then Issue,~ and ~ding Info~fi~ ~m~: JSigmf~t I ~ti~li~ ~gnilicanl J No J I I~a~ l lnco~ra~ /1~ J I~a~ J 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pa~erns, or the rate and amount of sudace water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Discharge into sudace water or other alteration of sudace water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) d) Changes in the amount of sudace water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 5 I S4gmfican! Irn!~act Less Issues and $upporhn9 InformaliOn Sources; ISignIficant I Iv~tigation I"~gn'f'canl I No I I Ir~)ac! I lncortx)~ated I Imoact I Irr~,~c! J f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () () ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Comments: Whether the site is developed under the current Medium Residential land use district or Elementary School designation, increased hardscape will occur that will increase runoff. Furthermore, the site is already developed as a parking lot with drainage conveyed to existing facilities designed to handle the flows. Leas 5. AIR QUALI~. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quali~ violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) IPotent,a,y J Unles~ Issue,J, and SuoDo~mg InlorrnahOn Sources: 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) (/) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 6 I I S~gn,hc~.nt I ~rreac~ Less IpOlentiallyIUnless The~ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp cu~es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? () () () (/) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supposing alternative transpotation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Comments: a) Access to the subject prope~ is located on East Elm Avenue; therefore, no traffic impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood are anticipated. I I I I ~,m~ L,,~ JPolenlially I Unl~ ~ Ind ~n,ng Info~ ~: IS*on~icnn~ J ~ttgati~ ~,ficanl I NO I 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wou/dtheproposalresu/t in impacts a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal poo )? () () () e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 7 Significanl Polenbally Unless Tha~ I l~ t~nco~rat~ m r~ ] .l~l 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal; a) Conflict with adopted energy consedation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (7) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( } ( ) ( ) (7) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (7) ~ ~gmf~:an~ JPolenlmallyI UnI,. I_ m m I !main ll~omral~ /1~ J I~am J 9. H~ARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Possible intederence with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () () () (~) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards2 ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) J Sigmfican! Issues and $4JDgorting Info~fi~ ~es: ~i~Jlicanl I ~li~li~ ~ilicmnt ) .o m 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Page 8 ]S~gm ficarlt IImpact Less PotenhallyJUnl~ Than J J 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government se~ices in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) e) Other governmental se~ices? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Imoac~ Lea~ JPo,en..,yI Un~-- Than I~ ~d Su~ng tnlo~ll~ ~ea; ~gmf~l J ~a~,¢ JDgndicanlJ ~ J Jl~ JlNo~ra~ J I~ J I~ I 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wou/dtheproposa/ resu/t in a need for new systems or suppries or subsrant/a/ a/terations ~o the fo//ow/ng ut//ifies; a) Power or natural gas? ( } ( ) ( ) (/) b) 0ommunication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () ( ) ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) g) Local or regional water supplies? I Potw~tiWlyIUnless Than I~,ueg and S~l~XJding Informalion Souices: I S~gnific~'ltJ Mifigatio,.3JS~gmficar4J NOI [ IrT~ect I lncoroorl~:~ I Jrr~a_~ I Impact I 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Parle 9 ~ S, grief,cant I I ~"~'":t JPolant~ally J Unless Than Issue~ and Suogomng Informalion ~es: ~,~fficanl J ~gat,~ JSign,licant J No J 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~) IP*to~h~'Y I un~e~ ~ limaeel I In~ort~OraledI Iraoat1J terrellJ 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (,/) S~gnili~llnl ~i~i~l J I~ I~o~f21~ 1~. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIOANOE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the projeot have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduoe the habitat of a fish or wildlife speoies, o~use a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, thremen to eliminate a plant or ~nim~l oommuni~, reduoe the number or restriot the range of ~ rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminme impo~ant examples of the major periods of Oalifornia histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) b) Sho~ t~rm: Does the projem have the potential to 8ehieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals~ (A shornterm impam on the environment is one whioh ooours in a relmively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impams will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga TVCPA 99-01 - Lewis Dev. Co. Page 10 I I IP°~e~t'al~y I Un~ L~ [ss~s a~ Sup~t~ I~et~ S~s IS~n~t J M,t,~{~n [S,gn~t I No J Im~ Ir~at~ J Im~ J Imp~ I c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (/) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? () () ( ) (/) 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): (/) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v')Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (/) Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the project could be required to return to the n Review Committee for approval. Mr. Buller responded that could be done or the Commission could pos action and ask the applicant to show a good faith effort at this time. Commissioner Macias summarized that the resolution, as writt the item to be processed through the Design Review process at staff's recalled that he had recently supported a similar time extension with the provision returned for review by the Design Review Committee. He stated the community had ra concerns regarding the other project but he had also been concerned that such a long had elapsed since approval with nothing happening. He concurred with Chairman McN concerns but felt it may also be a policy issue. Chairman McNiel recalled that the City y extended the time limits for project to be kept alive. Mr. Buller confirmed that the Council had elected to allow projects to be extended to the maximum allowed by state He observed the Commission is under no obligation to approve time extensions. Commissioner Ma~ felt each project must be looked at individually. He said he had been under the assur that the project would have to go back through design review. He reiterated his motion tc a negative declaration and adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative ct 14055 with modification to require that the design be subject to approval by the gr ,iew Committee. Motion seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy. Motion carried by the vote: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT (~OMPANY- A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School, located at 7889 East Elm Avenue- APN: 1077- 421-88. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pat Loy, Lewis Development Co., 801 Corporate Center Drive, #210, Pomona. stated he was available to answer questions. He thanked staff for its quick processing ot' the project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed Ihe public hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval o1' Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 14. 1999 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART. TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15282 - SILVERAD( GROUP, LLC - A subdivision of 5.0 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Industrial Park Di (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Boulevard, east of Aspen Avenue - APN: 208-352-82. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jens Thielmann, Thielmann Engineers, 1078 Town and Country le, indicated they agreed to the conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel dosed the hea Motion: Moved by Mannedno, seconded by Tolstoy, to ado resolution approving Parcel Map 15282. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried F. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENq ~RIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-02 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A ~est to amend the Victoria Community Plan to reduce the Village Commercial land approximately 23 acres to 16 acres, and to redesignate approximately 16 acres of from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential dwelling units per acre) on a project site consisting of 62.3 acres of land, located s of Highland Avenue and the ~'uture Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 an G. ENVIR(: ;MENTAND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15871 - WILLIAM LYON. HOMES proposed subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for single family lots on 62.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located southwest of Highland and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-021-03 and 13. Rebecca Buren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested a change to the resoiLto require that the developer submit a revised Victoria Community Plan incorporating the cha made to the graphics and text made by this amendment. She asked for Commission directi regarding undergrounding. Cl McNiel asked how much area will not be undergrounded if the undergrounding is per resolution as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 14, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR 3.3 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST ELM AVENUE, WEST OF COYOTE CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BETWEEN SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077-042-88. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Development Company has filed an application for Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a single parcel of land totaling approximately 3.3 acres, basically a triangular configuration, located on the north side of Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street, and which is presently improved with a parking lot for Coyote Canyon Elementary School. Access is located on East. Elm Avenue. Said property is currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and b. All of the surrounding properties are within the Terra Vista Planned Community. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and is improved with single family homes. The properties to the west and south (on the south side of Elm Avenue) are designated Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and are currently vacant. The property to the east is designated Elementary School and is developed with the Coyote Canyon Elementary School; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-26 TVCPA 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Apdl 14, 1999 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the distdct in a manner consistent with the General Plan, the Terra Vista Community Plan, and with related development; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and the Terra Vista Community Plan; 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 Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses 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 Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the 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 Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said 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 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 substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(col-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. ?? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-26 I'VCPA 99-01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY April 14, 1999 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment No. 99-01 to change the Land Use Map for the subject property to Elementary School, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 1999. PLANNING C,O~/~SION OF THE CITY OF' RANCHO CUCAMONGA '"' LarZry T~?kliel, Chairman ATTEST: ~ra , Se et~ I, Brad Bullet, Secretary for the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day o1' April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERIN0, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE s.~.~.~. // IlL L~ > = t axsE L,.E ,D~J~JJ~ IRESIDENTIAL M NC LM COMMERCIAC CC ,~, co~ LM LM NC RC MH LM ,Op L~ MIXED US~ - PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC M JrH ~~~o, MH P MH w ' CC I cc ,= ~ ~ . GRUENASSOCIA~E5 FIGURE 111-17 Density Ranges of Approved Projects may va~ slightly from the Plan; Land Use Plan See 'As Built Land Use Progress Plan' - Figure VI-3 on page Vl-11. REVISED Amenament Nos. I. 2. 5. 6. 7 & 9 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.: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01 Public Review Period Closes: April 14, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Lewis Development Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 7889 East Elm Avenue Project Description: A request to amend the Terra Vista Community Plan to redesignate the land use district for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 14786 from Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School. 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 !hat 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 RESOLUTION NO. ¢ ?'"/~ ,'/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, AMENDING THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USE MAP TO REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE DISTRICT FOR PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 14786 FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 TO 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 7889 EAST ELM AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1077-042-88 A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Homes has filed an application for Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as the "application." 2. On the 14th of April, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 99-26 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. On June 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this 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 June 2, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Terra Vista Community Plan; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 2, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TVCPA 99-01- LEWIS HOMES June 2,1999 Page 2 a. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 99-01, to redesignate the land use district of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 14786 from Medium Residential (8 to 14 dwelling units per acre) to Elementary School as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CATELLUS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan definition of Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements to conditionally permit buildings over 25,000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The proposed text amendment would allow for home improvement stores to be developed within Subarea 7. An application has been submitted for a Lowe's Home Improvement store of approximately 185,225 square feet (135,200 square feet of floor area and 49,025 square feet of garden center) and two restaurant pad buildings. The site falls within Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Subarea 7 is intended to function as a transition between large warehouse industrial development to the south and the Terra Vista planned community to the north. In this vein, Subarea 7 currently allows for retail and wholesale Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvement stores of 25,000 square feet or less. Staff believes that a large home improvement center would be consistent with this transition of land use. The use is being proposed as a conditionally permitted use. Lowe's has filed Conditional Use Permit 99-04 in anticipation of the proposed amendment being approved. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit on May 26, 1999, contingent upon City Council approval of this amendment request. Site and use specific issues were analyzed and addressed with the Conditional Use Permit. On April 28, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes of the April 28, 1999 meeting are attached, see Exhibits "A" and "B." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT IASPA 99-01 - CATELLUS June 2, 1999 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING The proposed amendment is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 1999 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated April 28, 1999 Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-35 Resolution of Approval CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: April 28, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CATELLUS- A request to allow the Community Commercial use on approximately 5.2 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. ABSTRACT: The applicant has requested amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) definition of Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements to allow buildings over 25,000 square feet when approved by a Conditional Use Permit. This amendment is necessary to accommodate a Lowe's Home Improvement store proposed at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed text amendment would allow for home improvement stores to be developed within Subarea 7. An application has been submitted for a Lowe's Home Improvement store of approximately 185,225 square feet (135,200 square feet of floor area and 49,025 square feet of garden center) and two restaurant pad buildings. The site falls within Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Subarea 7 is intended to function as a transition between large warehouse industrial development to the south and the Terra Vista planned community to the north. In this vein, Subarea 7 currently allows for retail and wholesale Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvement stores of 25,000 square feet or less. Staff believes that a large home improvement center would be consistent with this transition of land use. The use is being proposed as a conditionally permitted use. Lowe's has filed Conditional Use Permit 99-04 in anticipation of the proposed amendment being approved. Site and use specific issues would be analyzed and addressed with the Conditional Use Permit. B. Environmental Assessment: The proposed amendment is not defined as a project by the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378 and is, therefore, exempt from environmental review per CEQA Section 15061 (b)l. C. Facts for Findinq: The proposal is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. The proposal will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or uses and will not cause adverse environmental impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 99-01- CATELLUS April 28, 1999 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were m~iled to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this amendment to the City Council through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respect~ , Brad Buller City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Subarea 7 Map Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Letter Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council StarMart Medical Center " -~ ~ ~'~ 11800 Elm Avenue ~ Vacant Vacant ~ac~t 11738 Foothill Boulevard Plaza 8100 Masi Dr I 1195 Eucalyptus Vacant .~ . Vacant -..~ ' EPICENTER While Birch Deli 11190 White Birch Drive SPORTS PARK Bill' Coated Steel Cot ~ , 11200 Arrow Route ., StIELTER Vacant ' ; Prime Paper er ~ ~[ 8530 Milliken I 11711 Arrow Route -'" Vacant 11355 Arrow Ro.te Janua~ 9,1999 Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Application Submittal Package for the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park Master Plan Dear Mr. Buller: On behalf of the Catellus Development Corporation, we are submitting applications for a Development Review for the Master Plan, a Specific Plan Amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, a Tentative Parcel Map, and the associated environmental Initial Study for property located on approximately 140 acres in the southeast sector of Rancho Cucamonga. The Master Plan has been prepared to serve as a guide for projects within an overall development framework directed toward achieving development consistency with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan. The Master Plan further specifies master design cdteda while meeting the individual design and development needs of specific projects within the area. We are submitting a Development Review application for the Master Plan which receives approval at the Planning Commission level. Concurrently, the Specific Plan Amendment application is submitted, which continues on for City Council consideration after Planning Commission action. While we realize that no final permits could be approved for an individual project until that Specific Plan Amendment receives final reading, it does allow the project to move forward in design phases. Another component to the process is the separate submittal by Lowe's Home Center for a Conditional Use Permit to develop the site at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. The application is expected to be submitted to the City in approximately one week. This will constitute the first phase of development for the Subarea 7 portion of the Corporate Park. With this Application Package submittal, we are submitting the following items: Uniform Application for Development Review, Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map Completed Initial Study, Part I Filing Fees for a total of $20,340. O0 Development Review - $8553. O0 Specific P/an Amendment - $8598. O0 Tentative Parcel Map - $2514. O0 Initial Study - $675. O0 8 copies of Master Plan Note: The Master Plan document is being submitted in a 3-ring binder format for ease of review and revision. The final Master Plan document will be provided in a bound format. 420~0 Latham Stret.-~, Suite B, Riverside', california 92501 · 909 / 787-9222 o FAX t)~)9 I 781-6014 - E-Mail: HlRive~pac~ql n(rt Brad Bullet, City Planner Page 2 Application Package-Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park Master Plan 8 sets of development package including Master Site Plan, Conceptual Building Elevations, Master Landscape Plan, Landscape and Hardscape Elevations, Tentative Parcei Map, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Utility Plan 5 sets of typed gummed labels, including all required public notice materials Note: It is anticipated that this notice information can be used for the Lowe's Conditional Use Permit application provided that public hearing timing coincides with the Master Plan schedule. Hazardous Waste and Site Statement 1 set of photographs with location map A Traffic Study is being prepared and will be submitted to the City within two weeks Comments received from the Planning Commission at the Pre-Application Review on January 13, 1999, and from staff at our weekly meetings during the past month have proved to be invaluable in guiding us to a Master Plan document that we feel will best serve Catellus and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We truly appreciate your continued guidance on this project. Should you have any questions, please contact me or David Rogers at (909) 787-9222. Sincerely, Principal attachments cc: Charles A. McPhee, Catellus Development Corporation Craig Halverson, Catellus Development Corporation Jerry McKee, Catellus Development Corporation Dennis Hill, Hill Pinckert Architects Charles Lamb, Emerald Design Don Winn, Lowe's Page Winkler, Nadel Architects Thomas Baber, Adams Engineering enclosure Commissioner Mannerino commented that he supported staffs rec/ Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by St d_.~..,j,e..i~~ aw Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Time Extens' f ~ T t 15r r c 247~J [ioo ncarried by the following vote: ~ AYES: MANNER~CNIEL, STEWART NOES: .A~~ACIAS, TOLSTOY -carried C. INDI,I~;TRIAL AREA S.PECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01 - CATELLIJS. - A request to allow Community Commercial use on approximately 5.2 acres of land in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 229-011-32. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15295- CATELLUS. - A subdivision of 140 acres of land into 13 parcels in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) and General Industrial (Subarea 8) Districts of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Related file: Development Review 99-11. NEW BI,JS.INES. S~ E. ENVIRONMENTAL AS.SESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-11 - (~ATELL[,J$ - A request to establish a 140 acre master plan known as the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park, consisting of a mix of commercial and industrial development in Subarea 7 (Industrial Park) and Subarea 8 (General Industhai) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route - APN: 229-011-25, 31, and 32. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 15295. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and displayed a prospective rendering submitted by the applicant for the Activity Center area. He reported that staff received three telephone calls from the public requesting that the driving range on the southeast corner of the master plan area remain open. He remarked that the driving range had been approved as a temporary use and the plan had always been to delete it. He observed that the ddving range is leased from Catellus and that would be an issue between the property owners and the lessee. Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the driving range had already closed. Mr. Le Count could not confirm that it had. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pam Steele, Hogle-lreland, 4200 Latham Street, #8, Riverside, stated she represented Catellus. She said they had changed the plans to conform to the Commission's comments which were given at the Pre-Application workshop. She reported they had already submitted three applications in connection with the master plan. She accepted the conditions and indicated that Chades Mc Phee was planning to address the Commission regarding his intent with the master plan. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1999 ..B ,, /oZ Commissioner Mannerino asked if the driving range is closed. Ms. Steele responded that Mr. Mc Phee indicated it is. Chades Mc Phee, Senior Vice President in the southwest for Catellus Development, 4000 Westedy Place, Suite 200, Newport Beach, stated that they are focused on long term real estate ownership. He expressed appreciation for the City's review of the project. Chairman McNiel observed that the applicant was requesling a departure from the established Activity Center concept and he asked that the corner be pedestrian friendly and no less than what is required by code. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated that so long as the applicant found the conditions acceptable, he supported the project. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01 and approving Tentative Parcel Map 15295 and Development Review 99-11 and to issue a Negative Declaration in regards to the Parcel Map and Development Review. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, TOLSTOY - carried DIRECTQR'S REPORTS F. t,JSE DETERMINATION 99-01 - CHEVRON- A request to determine th/a~ carwash is similar to other Auto Service Station uses and is a conditionally permitted~ within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard.....~..~ic Plan. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant is f 'l.J~" 'th d~om wv pm~ ~ ent standards with respect to service stations. Mr. Grahn responded affirmatively/~_ .................... Commissioner Stewart ask / 'd'f t t ' ' I d d 't~ t~~s'~gn taedActivityCenter area. / Mr. Grahn replied .,~'h ' th h 't b tht Ir e~ct'~~y Ct enter area is to the east of this parcel/ ...... Chairma.~Niel invited public comment. . ................ taff's fi rags and said he was available to answer questions. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1999 / RESOLUTION NO. 99-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF SPECIALTY BUILDING SUPPLIES AND HOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT BUILDINGS OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. .Recitals. 1. Hogle Ireland has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of April 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on April 28, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and - b. The pr"-~posed am-~ndment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment furthers the intent of Subarea 7 to function as a transition between industrial development to the south and commercial/retail development to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development Code; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-35 ISPA 99-01- HOGLE IRELAND Apdl 28, 1999 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development Code; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that the amendment is not defined as a project, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)1 and 15738. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 99-01 amending Page 111-14 regarding the definition of Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements, as attached. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND AIDOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L-'~rry T.(~iel, Chairman I, Lawrence J. Henderson, AICP, Acting Secretary for the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of April 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEt, IART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HACIAS, TOLSTOY Industrial,,trea $pec(l~c Plan Part 171. Section H Re~;taurants with Bar or Entertainment:. Activities typically include, ~3trt are not limited to: the retail sale, from the premises, of unpackaged food or beverages, including hard liquor, generally prepared for on-premises consumption. Uses typically include, but am not limited to: restaurants with hard liquor sales, dancing, or entertainment; cocktail lounges; and bars. Specialty Buildino SuDs)lies and Home Imorovements: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: retail and wholesale sales and installation of specialty items, such as paint; walt/floor/window coverings; doors and windows; building materials; hardware, plumbing and electrical supplies; bath and kitchen fixtures and supplies; lighting; swimming pools and supplies; and garden furnishings, materials and supplies. Actfvities shall be conducted in enclosed buildings o.f~25,000 square feet or less. Uses excluded from this category are general Proposed merchandise stores."' BuildinRs over 25,000 square feet may be permitted when approved Specific by a Conditional Use Permit. Plan Warehouse-,Stvle Retail Merchand~s~no Business: Within an approved Warehouse-Style Retail Amendment Merchandising Center, this category adds to the retail uses already permitted for the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Retail uses shall be added which am consistent with General Commercial Uses within the General Commercial Distrtct of the Development Code (Secl:lon 17.10.030) and which am incorporated herein by ~-e~erence. In the event of a conflict betwean whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted, the Subarea requirement applies. Light · ' Wholesale, Storage and Distribution is already a permitted use. The intent Is to emphasize end expand retail use in conjunction with warehouse use in Subarea 12 which is transitional between industrial and retail commercial [and use areas. CIVIC USE TYPES Administrative Civic Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: management, administrative, or cledcal services performed by public, quasi-public, and public u~lity admini~a-ative offices. Convention Centers: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: conferences, seminars, product demonstrations, and tournaments within an enclosed building for assembled groups or spectators or participants. Uses typically include conventJon centers and exhib~on halls. - Cultural: Acth'ities typically include, but are not limited to, those performed by or at the following instftutions or installations: - Public and private performing arts centers (i.e., music, dance, drama) not including nightclubs; - Public and private museums and art galleries; - Public and private libraries and observatories. Day Care Facility: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: establishments for non- medical care to infants and preschool and school age children under 18 years of age during a portion of the day. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: infant centers, nurser~ schools, pro-schools, and similar facilities. RESOLUTION NO. ¢ ~:~"""'/~A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-01, AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DEFINITION OF SPECIALTY BUILDING SUPPLIES AND HOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT BUILDINGS OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Hogle Ireland has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as the "application." 2. On the 28th of April 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 99-35 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. On June 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this 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 June 2, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced pubic 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 RESOLUTION NO. IASPA 99-01 - HOGLE IRELAND June 2, 1999 Page 2 a. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Resolution is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 99-01, to modify the Industrial Area Specific Plan definition of Specialty Building Supplies and Home Improvements to conditionally permit buildings over 25,000 square feet of as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Industrial Area Svecific Plan Part ~ Section .17 Restaurants with Bar or Entertainmer~r. Activities typically include, gut are not limited to: the retail sale, from the premises, of unpackaged food or beverages, including hard liquor, genera/ly prepared for on-premises consump~on. Uses typically indude. but are not lirr~ed to: restaurants with hard liquor sales, dancing, or entertainment; cock'rail lounges: and bars. SoeciaIlv Bui[dino Suoo{ie= and Home Irrmrovements: Ac~ities lyplcally incJude. but are not limited to: retail and wholesale sales and installation of specialty items, sucfi as paint: walt/floor/window coverings; doors and windows; building materials; hardytam, plumbing and electrical supplies; bath and kitchen fixtures and supplies; lighting; swimming pools and supplies; and garden furnishings, materials and supplies. Activities shall be conducted in enclosed buildings o.f.25,000 square feet or I_~,~t_ _~. Uses excluded from this category are general Proposed merchandise store. s."~Buildlngs over 25,000 square feet may be permitted when approved Specific by a Conditional Use Permit. Plan Warehouse-,Sh, le Retail Merchandisino Business: Within an approved Warehouse-Style Retail Arncndmcnt Mem. handising Center, this category adds to the retail uses already permitted for the Subare. a in which the Center is sYmated. Retail uses shall be added which are consistent with General Commercial Uses within the General CommemiaI District of the Development Code (Section 17.10.030) and which are incorporated herein by ~t~rtmce. In the event of a conflict between whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted, the Subarea requirement applies. Ught Wholesale, Storage and Distribution Is already a peru'titled use. The intent Is to empha.~ize and expand retail use in conjunction with warehouse use in Subarea 12 which is transitional between indusHal and retail commercial [and use areas. F_ CIVIC USE TYPES Administraffve Civic Services: ActtvitJe. s typica[~/include, but am not limited to: management. adminisb-alS've. or cJencal services performed by public. quasi-public. and public utility administrative offices. Conver~tion Center~: Activit/es typically include. but am not limited to: conferences. seminars, product demonstrations, and tournaments within an enclosed building for assembled groups or spectators or participants. Uses typically include convention centers and exhibition halls. - ~[/.[lJ2[~: ActhritJe$ typically include. but am not limited to, those performed by or at the following institutions or installations: - Public and private performing arts centers (i.e., music, dance, drama) not including nightclubs; Public and private museums and art galleries: Public and private libraries and observatories. Day Care F_acjliN: Activities typically include. but are not limited to: establishments for non- medical care to infants and preschool and school age children under 18 years of age during a perlion of the day. Uses typically include. but are not limited to: infant center~, numery schools. pre-schools. and similar facdities. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A PROPOSED EXPANDED CUSTOMER SERVICE PROGRAM AT CITY FACILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PICNIC AREA RENTAL FEE POLICY RECOMMENDATION It is requested that the City Council approve the following actions as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission: 1) initiation of an expanded customer service and staff supervision program at City facilities on weekday nights and on weekends/holidays; 2) implementation of the recommended fee structure for picnic area rentals. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: In any park and recreation system, the most intense use of parks and facilities is on weekday evenings and during weekends/holidays. This is particularly true in Rancho Cucamonga with heavy use taking place at the neighborhood/community park picnic areas, ballfields, Equestrian Center, Skate Park and other facilities. Currently the Community Services Department does not have staff members scheduled during these heavy use periods for the purpose of supervising and assisting facility users. There are maintenance staff members on duty during these time periods, but their primary purpose is to keep the park facilities clean and safe for public use. Community Services staff feels that a customer service and supervision program should be developed which would allow for specially trained Community Services staff members to tour City facilities at nights, weekends and holidays in order to identify policy related concerns, coordinate reservation of facilities and provide proactive, positive customer relations to park users. Having Community Services staff on duty during these heavy use periods would allow supervisors to direct extra staff supervision to those areas which may need it depending upon scheduled activities. Development of such a program would be of tremendous assistance, particularly at the Equestrian Center and Skate Park, in addition to picnic areas at City parks. If approved, Community Services staff members would be scheduled to tour City facilities for four hour periods every weekday night, generally from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. when use is at the heaviest. On weekends and holidays, staff would be scheduled for eight-hour shifts from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff on duty would be available by cellular phone to renters of park facilities, if needed. The staff cost to implement this expanded Customer Service and Supervision Program would be fully recovered through picnic area rental fees, as proposed below. /// CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROPOSED EXPANDED CUSTOMER SERVICES PROGRAM June 2, 1999 Page 2 In order to provide funding for the described staffing, and to make improvements to the existing picnic area rental procedures, staff is recommending implementation of a nominal fee structure for reservation of designated park picnic areas. The current policy allows rental of designated picnic areas at no fee. Reservations are made through the Community Services Department at City Hall and renters are given a reservation permit. As noted earlier in the report, there are no staff available at the parks on weekends to enforce the permit requirements or otherwise assist rental groups. Currently, there are large picnic shelters available for rental at Red Hill and Heritage Community Parks. Small picnic shelters are also available for rental at Hermosa Park and Coyote Canyon Park. There are a number of other picnic shelters available throughout the City which can be used on a first come first serve basis. These include picnic shelters at the following parks: Spruce, Vintage, Kenyon, Ellena, Lions, Etiwanda Creek, Old Town, Milliken, East Beryl and West Beryl Parks. Community Services staff feels that implementation of a nominal hourly fee for reservation of the picnic shelters would serve a number of purposes, in addition to providing funding for staff customer relations and supervision. Revenues received from picnic shelter rentals would also partially offset the rather significant administrative cost associated with processing the reservations. Another identified benefit would be more effective scheduling of picnic shelters, leading to more availability for Rancho Cucamonga residents to use the facilities. Current policy allows shelter renters to reserve the space for as long as they like. This typically results in each shelter being used all day by one particular user. Initiation of a nominal rental fee will encourage users to only reserve the time they need, thus making additional time available for other users. Reservable picnic shelters in the City are in very high demand and a large number of potential renters are turned away each week during the warm weather season. In order to determine what other cities are doing, and what fees they are charging, staff conducted a survey of picnic shelter policies in surrounding cities. The results of that survey are attached. These results indicate that most cities do charge a fee ranging from nominal to more significant. Staff is recommending approval of the following fee structure for picnic shelters: Non-profit Resident/ Non-resident or Groups Private Groups Business Groups Small Shelter $3/hr $5/hr $8/hr Large Shelter $5/hr $8/hr $12/hr As noted earlier, revenues from picnic area rentals will offset the costs for the night and weekend staff supervision program. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROPOSED EXPANDED CUSTOMER SERVICES PROGRAM June 2, 1999 Page 3 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed these issues at their meeting on May 20, 1999. Following discussion, the Commission voted 4-0-1 to recommend approval of both items to the City Council, with Commissioner Bemis absent. In their discussion, the Commission wanted to be sure that the staff member on duty would be reachable by phone in case park users needed assistance. Commissioners were assured that staff members would be equipped with a portable phone and the phone number would be printed on reservation permits. The Commission was very supportive of the recommendations. If this proposal is approved by the City Council this evening, it will be necessary to amend the City's fee resolution to include the picnic area fees. Staff will include the fees in the proposed fee resolution when it is presented to the City Council for annual review within the next few weeks. FISCAL IMPACT The costs to implement the staff customer service and supervision program will be offset by revenues derived from the picnic area rentals. These figures have been calculated into the recommended 1999/2000 Community Services Department budget. Re p~bmi~ Community Services Director KM/mam Attachments citycoun/picnicrentals //3 R E V I S E D 5 / 99 PICNIC RESERVATION SURVEY/98-99 CONTACT CITY FEE/HOUR FEE/DAY NON-RES APPLICATION OTHER STAFF FEE SUPERVISION Karen Collins Arcadia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES (626) 574-5113 Diane Azusa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES Shuttleworth (626) 8~2-~280 Kelly Gretier Brea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (714) 990-7600 Jessica Sandoval Burbank $5-$20 after N/A $10-$50 after $5 fee Yes YES (818) 238-5300 5/hrs. 5hrs. Trash fee of $158.26 Parties of 300+ Yvette Cerritos $3-$ l 0 N/A non-res. yes N/A YES Villalovos not allowed (562) 860-0311 Melissa Chino $30-$105 for N/A N/A yes $25 moon NO Nakamoto 4hrs. bounce (909) 591-9834 $7-$25/hr. after Lisa Fjeldsted Chino Hills $25 after 3 hrs. N/A $25 hr. Yes N/A NO (909) 364-2703 Dick Guthrie Claremont N/A $35-$85 $45-$130 Yes N/A YES 150+ (909) 399-5490 special fee special fee NO<150 parties 300+ parties 300+ Marcos Lozano Colton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (909) 370-5087 Martha Cortez Corona $11/3hrs. Res. N/A N/A Yes N/A YES (909) 736-2241 $4/add hr. $16/3hrs. Non- Profit $5/add hr. $40 hr. Non-res. $10/Add hr. Lisa Torti Covina N/A $47 day $ ! O0 day $3 fee N/A NO (626) 858-7270 Dorothy/Lillian Diamond Bar N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A NO (909) 396-5699 Pain Romero Duarte N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (626) 357-7931 ext. 201 Emily Ishigaki El Monte N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES (626) 580-2200 Yolanda Fontana N/A $ ! 2 - $54 N/A Yes Signs posted NO Valenzuela only at Jurupa (909) 428-8360 Park Joyce Holt Gardena N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A YES (310) 21%9537 Terry Green Glendora N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (626) 914-8228 Sally Talebi Laguna Niguel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (949) 362-4350 Stephanie La Verne N/A Res. $20/day Non-Res. Yes Moon Bounce YES Clayton $25/day handling fee: (909) 596-8700 Res. $10 Non-res. $ ! 5 Edie Christian Mission Viejo Res. $5-$20 N/A $10-$100 Yes N/A NO (949) 470-3000 Frank Lessard Montclair N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (909) 626-8571 Vicki Pulsipher Moreno Valley N/A $10 permit fee N/A Yes N/A NO (909) 413-3000 Becky Mendoza Norco N/A $35 res. $55 non-res. $5 fee N/A YES (909) 735-3900 Suzie Ontario N/A $20 small N/A Yes N/A NO Artukovich $40 large (909) 395-3655 Vicki OItean Palm Springs N/A $49.50 day $66.00 day Yes Deposit for NO (760) 323-8277 alcohol permit $100 Kay Mellon Pomona N/A $20-$40 for $20-$150 for Yes Ganesha YES (909) 620-2341 4 hrs. 4 hrs. Park only reservable Laura Wolbert Redlands $15/hr. $25 residents $35/hr. non- Yes YES (909) 798-7655 residents residents $25/hr. non-resident Joe Ross Rialto N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (909) 820-2525 Debbie Zomes Riverside $32-$96 for N/A $32-$96 for Yes N/A YES (909) 715-3440 4 hrs. 4 hrs. $8 - $24each $8-$24 each add. Hr. add. Hr. Tina Groves San Bernardino Res. $25 first hr. N/A $25 first hr. Yes N/A NO (909) 384-5233 $8 add/hr. $8 add/hr + 10~A Cecilia Ledesma San Dimas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NO (909) 394-6200 Paula Ott Upland N/A $11 for 3 hrs. $20 for 3 hrs. Yes $25 NO (909) 931-4 ! 00 refundable deposit for rr key 1 :parkressurvey9898 CITY ()F RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS TO REASSESS THE PROPERTIES WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 86-2 AND 89-1 AND APPROVING REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER AND TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS AND APPROVING FORM OF THE BOND INDENTURE OF REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1 AND THE APPROVAL OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO ALL BONDS. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolutions which approves the sale of the special tax refunding bonds for Reassessment District 99-1 for assessment districts 86-2 and 98-1. Those refunding bonds will replace and supercede all outstanding unpaid bonds for the orginal original assessment districts. BACKGROUND: The outstanding bond issues proposed to be refunded include the following: · Assessment District No. 86-2- Rancho Cucamonga Storm Drain · Assessment District No. 89-1 - Milliken South of Arrow Drainage The anticipated savings projected to result t?om the refunding will be generated from several interrelated sources: 1) The existence of favorable interest rate conditions in the municipal bond market. 2) The maturity of the assessment districts, i.e., completion of or substantial development within the districts coupled with a diversification of ownership in certain districts, which creates a better overall credit for the districts individually and collectively. 3) The proposed refunding structure which will create "coverage" of the debt service for the refunding bonds and"cross collateralization" through the creation of a common reserve fund. //'7 STAFF REPORT June 2, 1999 Page #2 4) The maturity of the districts and the structural features of the refunding bond structure will enable the City to obtain municipal bond insurance for a substantial portion of the refunding bonds which will result in a lower overall interest cost for the refunding than could be achieved if each of the existing bond issues were refunded individually. The proposed refunding structure includes the issuance of bonds on two levels: the "local obligations" and the "authority bonds". The local obligations will consist of one limited obligation refunding bond issued for a reassessment district which will combine both existing assessment districts into one reassessment district. Each of the local obligations must comply with the requirements of the bond law which is applicable to each type of local obligation. Instead of selling the local obligations separately in the municipal bond market, it is proposed that the local obligations be sold collectively to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority. The Authority would purchase the local obligations using the proceeds of refunding revenue bonds to be sold by the Authority to the municipal bond market. As proposed the refunding has the potemial of saving the property owners a collectively approximately $145,000 over the remaining life of the bond issue. For this reason, staff is recommending approval of the attached resolution and sale of the refunding bonds. ReI ~ct~ ~ txn~°uni~%elopmenti ~ Director RG/js RESOLUTION NO. ~)t/""/d~ ~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER AND CONFIRMING REASSESSMENTS WITHIN REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1 WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, did previously undertake proceedings and continned assessments in certain assessment districts pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment districts known and designated as: 1. Assessment District No. 86-2; and 2. Assessment District No. 89-1. (collectively, the "Assessment Districts"); and, WHEREAS, improvement bonds representing the unpaid assessments within said Assessment Districts (collectively, the "Improvement Bonds") were issued and sold in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and, WHEREAS, at this time, as a result of favorable interest rate conditions within the municipal bond market, this legislative body has initiated proceedings to reassess the parcels within the Assessment Districts and to refund all outstanding Improvement Bonds pursuant to the "Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds", being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Refunding Act"), said refunding bonds and district to be designated as Reassessment District No. 99-1 (the "Reassessment District"); and, WHEREAS, this legislative body has previously ordered the preparation of an Assessment Engineer's Report pursuant to the Refunding Act, said Report to generally contain the following: A. A schedule setting forth the unpaid principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of the Assessment Districts to be reftreded and the total amounts thereof; B. The total estimated principal amount of the reassessment and of the refunding bonds and the maximum interest rate thereon, together with an estimate of costs of the reassessment and of issuing the refunding bonds, including all costs of issuing the refunding bonds; C. The Auditor's Record showing the schedule of the principal installments and interest on all unpaid original assessments for the Assessment Districts and the total amounts thereof; D. The estimated amount of each reassessment, identified by reassessment number corresponding to the reassessment number on the reassessment diagram prepared for the Reassessment District, together with a proposed Auditor's Record for the reassessment; E. A reassessment diagram showing the Reassessment District and the boundaries and dimensions of the subdivision of land within the Reassessment District; and, WHEREAS, this legislative body has now received and considered the Assessment Engineer's Report and is ready to proceed to make certain findings and approve the Assessment Engineer's Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: Section 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. Section2. The Assessment Engineer's Report as presented to this City Council is hereby approved, and it is hereby determined by this City Council that if the refunding bonds proposed to be issued for the Reassessment District are issued and sold with an underwriter's discount and at interest rates not to exceed those set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report, the following conditions will be satisfied: A. Each estimated annual installment of principal and interest on the reassessment will be less than the corresponding annual installment of principal and interest on the portion of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for all subdivisions of land within the Assessment Districts; B. The number of years to maturity of all refunding bonds will be no more than the number of years to the last maturity of the Improvement Bonds; and C. The principal amount of the reassessment on each subdivision of land within the Reassessment District will be less than the corresponding unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for each subdivision of land within the Assessment Districts; and D. The reassessments, as set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report, shall not be deemed to be an assessment within the meaning of, and may be ordered without compliance with the procedural requirements of, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California. Based upon the foregoing determinations, this City Council hereby approves and confirms the reassessments for the refunding bonds and the contributions from the existing funds of the Assessment Districts, all as set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report, and a copy of this Resolution shall be entered upon the minutes of this meeting of the legislative body. The reassessments and the Assessment Engineer's Report may be adjusted and finalized upon the establishment of the final pricing for the sale of the refunding bonds provided that such principal amount of the reassessment on each subdivision of land within the Reassessment District will be less than the corresponding unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for each subdivision of land within the Assessment Districts. Section 3. This City Council hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of refunding bonds to represent all unpaid reassessments and said refunding bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed the interest rates set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report for such refunding bonds, and shall be issued in the manner as provided by the Refunding Act. The last maturity of said refimding bonds shall not exceed the number of years to the last maturity of the Improvement Bonds. Section 4. The final reassessment, together with the reassessment diagram, as shall be set forth in the final Assessment Engineer's Report, shall be recorded in the Office of the Superintendent of Streets upon (a) the running of the limitations period specified in Section 9707 of the Refunding Act without the filing of an action to challenge the validity of the reassessment and refunding proceedings and/or the issuance of the refunding bonds and (b) the execution of a bond purchase agreement with a purchase price and at interest rates not to exceed those set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report. Immediately thereafter a copy of the reassessment diagram shall be filed in the Office of the County Recorder and a Notice of Reassessment, referencing said diagram, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, all pursuant to the provisions of Division 4.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and specifically Section 3114. Upon the recordation, the reassessments shall become liens upon the various parcels of property and land assessed as shown on the reassessment diagram. From and after the date of such recordation and filing, the assessments originally levied shall be superseded and supplanted. The lien of the original assessments is not superseded and supplanted as to any unpaid installments of the assessments originally levied which are now delinquent and the penalties and interest, if any, thereon. Amounts, if any, received from the payment of delinquent assessments and the penalties and interest thereon, excluding attorney's fees and costs and post-judgment interest, if any, shall be deposited into the redemption fund for the refunding bonds. Section 5. This City Council hereby determines and declares that the City will not obligate itself to advance available funds from the City treasury to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund for the refunding bonds. Section 6. A copy of this Resolution confirming the reassessments, which reassessments shall constitute the security for the refunding bonds, shall be filed in the Office of the Treasurer, and the Treasurer shall keep the record showing the several installments of principal and interest on the reassessments which are to be collected each year during the term of said refunding bonds. An annual portion of each reassessment, together with annual interest on said reassessment, shall be payable in the same manner and at the same time and in the same installment as the general property taxes of the County and shall be payable and become delinquent at the same time and in the same proportionate amount. Each year the annual installments shall be submitted to the County Auditor for purposes of collection, and the County Auditor shall, at the close of the tax collecting season, promptly render to the Treasurer a detailed report showing the amount of such installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected. Section 7. This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 6 RESOLUTION NO. q q,-'/~ ~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS AND DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS FOR PROPOSED REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 99-1, AND ORDERING A REPORT THEREON WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, did previously undertake proceedings and continned assessments in certain assessment districts pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 191Y', being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment districts known and designated as: 1. Assessment District No. 86-2; and 2. Assessment District No. 89-1. (collectively, the "Assessment Districts"); and, WHEREAS, improvements bonds representing the unpaid assessments within said Assessment Districts (collectively, the "Improvement Bonds") were issued and sold in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and, WHEREAS, at this time, as a result of favorable interest rate conditions within the municipal bond market, this legislative body desires to initiate proceedings to reassess the parcels within the Assessment Districts and to refund all outstanding Improvement Bonds pursuant to the "Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds", being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Refunding Act"), said refunding bonds and district to be designated as Reassessment District No. 1999-1 (the "Reassessment District"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: Section 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. Section 2. The public interest and necessity require, and it is the intention of this body, acting pursuant to the provisions of the Refunding Act, to refund all outstanding Improvement Bonds for the Assessment Districts, to issue refunding bonds as authorized by the Refunding Act, and to levy reassessments as security for such refunding bonds. Section 3. The proposed reassessment and refunding of the Improvement Bonds is hereby referred to Willdan Associates, as the duly appointed Assessment Engineer, who are hereby directed to make and file an Assessment Engineer's Report as required by the Refunding Act in writing generally containing the following: A. A schedule setting forth the unpaid principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of the Assessment Districts to be refunded and the total amounts thereof; B. The total estimated principal amount of the reassessment and of the refunding bonds and the maximum interest rate thereon, together with an estimate of costs of the reassessment and of issuing the refunding bonds, including all costs of issuing the refunding bonds; C. The Auditor's Record showing the schedule of the principal installments and interest on all unpaid original assessments and the total amounts thereof; D. The estimated amount of each reassessment, identified by reassessment number corresponding to the reassessment number on the reassessment diagram, together with a proposed Auditor's Record for the reassessment; and E. A reassessment diagram showing the Reassessment District and the boundaries and dimensions of the subdivisions of land within the Reassessment District. SECTION 5. Immediately upon the preparation of the Assessment Engineer's Report as above ordered, such Report shall be filed with the City Clerk and presented to this legislative body for further consideration as it relates to these proceedings to levy reassessments within the Reassessment District and to issue refunding bonds representing such unpaid reassessments. SECTION 6. All outstanding Improvement Bonds and original assessments of the Assessment Districts shall continue and remain in full force and effect and be secured by the original assessments until superseded and replaced by the reassessments and the refunding bonds are validly and legally issued for the Reassessment District pursuant to all the terms and provisions of the Refunding Act. SECTION 7. This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ., 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 4 /d~ RESOLUTION NO. q ~].- / 2~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING FORM OF BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT, CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, has undertaken proceedings pursuant to the "Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds" (the "Refunding Act"), being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and has conditionally confirmed reassessments upon lands within a special assessment district known and designated as Reassessment District No. 99- 1 (the "Reassessment District"); and, WHEREAS, said proceedings provide for the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to the Refunding Act; and, WHEREAS, at this time, but subject to the final confirmation of the reassessments and the recordation of the reassessment diagram and notice of reassessment, this legislative body desires to set forth all formal terms and conditions relating to the issuance and sale of such refunding bonds (the "Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds"); and, WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds shall be used to retire, in advance of their scheduled maturities, certain outstanding improvement bonds of the City designated as follows: 1. City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment District No. 86-2 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds; and 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment District No. 89-1 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds; (collectively, the "Prior Bonds"); and WHEREAS, in order to provide the most cost effective refunding of the Prior Bonds, the City Council desires and requests that the that the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority") issue, sell and deliver its Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds and its Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ to provide funds to purchase the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds; WHEREAS, for the purposes of the sale and delivery of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds, there are now on file with the City copies of the forms of the Bond Indenture and the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement by and between the Authority and the City related to the sale of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement"), and reference is hereby made thereto for further particulars; WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed and considered the Bond Indenture providing for the issuance of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds and the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement for the sale of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds and finds those documents suitable for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution; and WHEREAS, there has also been presented the form of a Continuing Disclosure Certificate to establish the undertaking of the City to provide continuing disclosure of required information related to the Bonds and the other obligations to be acquired by the Authority pursuant to the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement; and WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds and the levy of the reassessments as contemplated by this resolution and the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed or have been ordered to have been preformed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the Refunding Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Bonds Authorized. Pursuant to the Refunding Act, this Resolution and the Bond Indenture (hereafter defined), refunding improvement bonds of the City for the Assessment District designated as "City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 99-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds" (the "Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the unpaid reassessments are hereby authorized to be issued. The date, manner of payment, interest rate or rates, interest payment dates, denominations, form, registration privileges, manner of execution, place of payment, terms of redemption and other terms, covenants and conditions of the Bonds shall be as provided in the Bond Indenture as finally executed. Section 3. Authorization and Conditions. The City Manager of the City and each of his specified designees (the "Authorized Officers"), acting for and on behalf of the City, are, and each of them is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the various documents and instruments described in this Resolution with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the City, provided that no additions or changes shall authorize an aggregate principal amount of Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds in excess of the unpaid reassessments or a maturity of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds in excess of the term as set forth in the Assessment Engineer's Report, an annual interest rate on the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds in excess of percent (. %) and a purchase price for the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds not less than. The approval of such additions or changes shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of such documents or instruments by the Authorized Officer, upon consultation with and review by the City Attorney and Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, bond counsel. Section 4. Bond Indenture. The proposed form of Bond Indenture by and between the City and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent, with respect to the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds as presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the City, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Bond Indenture in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the City, and as approved as to form by the City Attorney or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. Section 5. Sale of Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds. This City Council hereby authorizes and approves the sale of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds by negotiation to the Authority. The form of the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the City, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute the Limited Obligation Refunding Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the City upon the execution thereof by the Authority, subject to Section 3. Section 6. Costs of Issuance. "Designated costs of issuing the refunding bonds" for purposes of subsection 9600(b) and Section 9614 of the Refunding Act are the items specified in paragraphs (1) through and including (5) of subsection (a) of Section 9600 of the Refunding Act, and "Costs of Issuance" as such phrase is used in the Bond Indenture shall mean such designated costs of issuing the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds. Section 7. Bonds Prepared and Delivered. Upon the execution of the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement, the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds shall be prepared, authenticated and delivered, all in accordance with the applicable terms of the Refunding Act and the Bond Indenture, and the Authorized Officers and other responsible City officials are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as are required under the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement and the Bond Indenture to complete all actions required to evidence the delivery of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds upon the receipt of the purchase price thereof from the Authority. Section 8. Annual Reassessment Installments. A copy of the resolution confirming the reassessments and the reassessments, which reassessments shall constitute the security for the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds, shall be delivered to the Treasurer and the Treasurer shall keep or cause to be kept the record showing the several installments of principal and interest on the reassessments which are to be collected each year during the term of the Bonds. An annual portion of each reassessment, together with annual interest on said reassessment, shall be payable in the same manner and at the same time and in the same installment as the general property 5 taxes of the County of San Bemardino and shall be payable and become delinquent at the same time and in the same proportionate amount. Each year the annual installments shall be submitted to the County Auditor for purposes of collection. Section 9. Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The form of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the City, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Continuing Disclosure Certificate in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve, and as approved as to form by the City Attorney or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. Section 10. Actions. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the City with respect to the establishment of the Reassessment District and the sale and issuance of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do any and all things and take any and all actions and execute any and all certificates, agreements, contracts, and other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds in accordance with the Refunding Act, this Resolution, the Bond Indenture, the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement and any certificate, agreement, contract, and other document described in the documents herein approved. Section 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. 6 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA iMEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack iLam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director SUBJECT: REASSESSMENT DISTRICT 99-1 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview summary of the refunding structure proposed to be utilized to refund the out standing bonds for certain community facilities districts and assessments districts listed below: Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) [] Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (North Etiwanda Drainage) [] Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace) [] Assessment District No. 86-2 (Rancho Cucamonga Storm Drain) [] Assessment District No. 89-1 (Milliken south of Arrow Drainage) THE SOURCES OF THE SAVINGS. The anticipated savings projected to result t?om the refunding will be generated from several interrelated sources: 1 ) The existence of favorable interest rate conditions in the municipal bond market. 2) The maturity of the community facilities districts and the assessment districts, i.e., completion of or substantial development within the districts coupled with a diversification of ownership in certain districts, which creates a better overall credit for the districts individually and collectively. 3) The proposed refunding structure which will create "coverage" of the debt service for the refunding bonds and "cross collateralization" through the creation of a common reserve fund. 4) The maturity of the districts and the structural features of the refunding bond structure will enable the City to obtain municipal bond insurance for a substantial portion of the refunding bonds which will result in a lower overall interest cost for the refunding than could be achieved if each of the existing bond issues were refunded individually. THE PROPOSED REFUNDING STRUCTURE - GENERAL The proposed refunding structure includes the issuance of bonds on two levels: the "local obligations" and the "authority bonds." The local obligations will consist of four bond issues: one special tax refunding bond issue for each of the community facilities districts and one limited obligation refunding bond issue for a reassessment district which will combine both existing assessment districts into one reassessment district. Each of the local obligations must comply with the requirements of the bond law which is applicable to each type of local obligation. A description of those requirements is provided below. Instead of selling the local obligations separately in the municipal bond market, it is p~-oposed that the local obligations be sold collectively to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority would purchase the local obligations using the proceeds of refunding revenue bonds to be sold by the Authority to the municipal bond market. THE LOCAL OBLIGATIONS. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds. The special tax refunding bonds proposed to be issued for each of the community facilities districts will be issued pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Mello-Roos Act"). The Mello-Roos Act requires that the following test be met for each of the special tax refunding bond issues: the total net interest cost on the special tax refunding bonds plus the principal amount of the special tax refunding bonds will exceed the total net interest cost to maturity on the outstanding bonds to be refunded plus the principal amount of such outstanding bonds. Additionally, the Mello-Roos Act requires that the term of the special tax refunding bonds not exceed the term of the outstanding bonds. Procedurally, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of each community facilities district, will consider the approval of a resolution authorizing the issuance of the special tax refunding bonds for each community facilities district. At the time of consideration of each such resolution, City staff and the financing team shall provide the City Council with the assurances necessary to enable the City Council to determine that the refunding test will be satisfied for each bond issue. As with the outstanding bonds, the special tax refunding bonds will be limited obligations of each of the community facilities districts, secured solely by the levy of special taxes within each respective community facilities district. The only exception is Community Facilities District No. 84-1 in which 2 the Redevelopment Agency has pledged a contribution to the payment of debt service on the bonds of this community fhcilities district. The Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds. The limited obligation refunding bonds proposed to be issued for the reassessment district in order to refund the outstanding assessment district bonds will be issued pursuant to the Refunding Bond Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds (Streets and Highways Code Section 9500 and following) (the "1984 Act"). The provisions of the 1984 Act allow the City to combine two or more existing assessment districts into one reassessment district. In order to accomplish this refunding, the City Council will be asked to undertake proceedings to approve the levy ofreassessments on the properties within the reassessment district and to authorize the issuance of the limited obligation refunding bonds. In order to approve such actions, the Refunding Act requires that three tests be met: 1) Each annual installment of principal and interest on the reassessment will be less than the corresponding annual installment of principal and interest on the portion of the original assessment being superceded and supplanted by the same percentage for each parcel. Stated more simply, the amount each property owner will pay annually after the reassessment must be reduced from the amount the property owner is currently paying by the same percentage for each parcel. 2) The number of years to maturity of the refunding bonds is not more than the number of years to the last maturity of the bonds being refunded. 3) The principal amount of the reassessment for each parcel is less than the unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being superceded and supplanted. In order to enable the City Council to make these determinations, Willdan Associates is preparing an Assessment Engineer's Report as required by the 1984 Act which will show the existing annual assessment payments for each parcel and the proposed annual reassessment payments for the same parcels. In addition to satisfying the statutory refunding tests described above, the financing team is recommending that each of these local obligations reflect at least that minimum level of savings which is financially reasonable and prudent if the City was to undertake each refunding separately. As will be explained below the financing team prqjects that the overall level of savings will, as a result of the proposed overall refunding structure, exceed these minimum amounts. THE AUTHORITY'S BONDS. It is proposed that the Authority issue two series of revenue refunding bonds to generate the proceeds necessary to acquire the local obligations: the Revenue Refunding Bonds 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds (the "Senior Bonds") and the Revenue Refunding Bonds 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds (the "Subordinate Bonds"). The Senior Lien Bonds The Senior Lien Bonds will be secured by a first pledge and lien upon the revenues which will be pledged to pay the debt service on these bonds. The pledged revenues will consist primarily of the revenues which are received from the payment of the debt service on the local obligations. The fact that the Senior Lien Bonds are secured by a first pledge and lien on these revenues means that payment of the debt service on the Senior Lien Bonds will be made prior to the payment of the debt service on the Subordinate Lien Bonds. This priority creates "coverage" for the Senior Lien Bonds, i.e., the anticipated revenues from the payment of the scheduled debt service on the local obligations will be greater than the scheduled debt service on the Senior Lien Bonds. This coverage enhances the creditworthiness of the Senior Lien Bonds. As a result it is anticipated that we will be able to obtain municipal bond insurance tbr the Senior Lien Bonds thereby enabling the achievement of the interest rates below those which would be realized if the local obligations were marketed individually on an unrated and uninsured basis. A reserve fund will be established for the Senior Lien Bonds which will be used to pay debt service on these bonds if there are insufficient revenues received from the payment of debt service on the local obligations to pay the debt service on the Senior Lien Bonds. The Subordinate Lien Bonds. The Subordinate Lien Bonds will also be secured by a pledge of and lien on the revenues resulting from the payment of debt service on the local obligations. This pledge and lien, however, will be subordinate to the pledge and lien on the Senior Lien Bonds. Debt service on these bonds will be paid from such revenues only after the debt service has been paid on the Senior Lien Bonds. A reserve fund will be established for the Subordinate Lien Bonds which will be used to pay debt service on the Subordinate Lien Bonds if there are insufficient revenues received from the payment of debt service on the local obligations to pay the debt service on both the Senior Lien Bonds, to replenish any prior draws on the Senior Lien Bonds Reserve Fund and the Subordinate Lien Bonds. The fact that the Subordinate Lien Bonds are, in fact, in a subordinate position does not mean that such bonds will not be a creditworthy bond issue. In point of fact we will have debt service "coverage" for the Subordinate Lien Bonds and a common reserve fund, i.e., it can be drawn upon for delinquencies in the payment of debt service on any of the local obligations. These features will make the Subordinate Lien Bonds more creditworthy than most of the local obligations would be standing on their own. The debt service coverage on the Subordinate Lien Bonds will result from a difference in the aggregate debt service requirements on the Authority bonds and the local obligations. The aggregate debt service on the local obligations will exceed the aggregate debt service on the Authority bonds. Surplus Revenues It is anticipated that it' we are successful in obtaining municipal bond insurance for the Authority's Senior Lien Bonds the annual debt service payments on the Local Obligations will exceed the debt service requirements for the Senior Lien Bonds and the Subordinate Lien Bonds. These surplus funds will be transferred back on a proportionate basis to the Local Obligations and used as a credit against the special tax or assessment levy in the following fiscal year. If, however, there are delinquencies in the payment of special taxes or assessments securing one of the Local Obligations, such delinquencies could result in a default in the payment of debt service for such Local Obligation. A default in the payment of debt service on the Local Obligations may result in a corresponding shortfall in revenues with which to pay scheduled debt service on the Authority Bonds. In such event the Authority trustee may need to transfer funds initially from the Subordinate Lien Bond reserve ~Bnd and if the shortfall is significant enough from the Senior Lien Bond reserve fund. Such transfers will result in a reduction in the surplus revenues available to be transferred to the Local Obligations. Such reduction in the surplus will result in a corresponding reduction in the surplus revenues to be allocated to the Local Obligation which is in default. If surplus revenues exist in any fiscal year despite the necessity to trm~sfer funds from the Reserve Fund(s), those Local Obligations which are current in the payment of debt service will share the existing surplus revenues proportionately. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call. RG/js OFFICIAL STATEMENT $ * RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS SERIES 1999-A SENIOR LIEN BONDS and $. * RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS SERIES 1999-B SUBORDINATE LIEN BONDS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Official Statement, which includes the cover page and Appendices hereto (the "Official Statement"), is to provide certain Lrtformation concerning the sale and issuance of the following series of bonds (collectively, the "Bonds"): (i) Senior Bonds: Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds; and (ii) Subordinate Bonds: Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds. This Introduction is not a summary of this Official Statement. It is only a brief description of and guide to, and is qualified by, more complete and detailed information contained in the entire Official Statement, including the cover page and appendices hereto, and the documents summarized or described herein. A fidI review should be made of the entire Official Statement. The offering of the Bonds to potential investors is made only by means of the entire Official Statement. Financing Purpose The Bonds are being issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority") to (i) acquire the "Acquired Obligations" described below, (ii) fund separate reserve funds for the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds and (iii) pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. See "THE FINANCING PLAN" herein. The Bonds are payable solely from revenues received by the Authority as the result of the payment of debt service on the Acquired Obligations ("Revenues"), which Revenues are calculated to be in an amount necessary to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Acquired Obligations (which include one "Reassessment District Obligation" and three "CFD Obligations", as defined below) are as follows: (i) City of Rancho Cucam0nga Reassessment District No. 1999-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Reassessment District Obligation"), being issued by the City of Ranch Cucamonga (the "City") to refund two assessment district bond issues of the City (the "Prior Assessment Bonds"). Reassessment District No. 1999-1 (the "Reassessment District") was created by the City pursuant to proceedings taken under the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds, being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Reassessment Act"). See "THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT" herein. The District is comprised of the following two former Assessment Districts (the "Prior Assessment Districts"): * l~reliminary, subject to change. (A) Assessment District No 86-2 ("AD 86-2") (see "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2" herein); and (B) Assessment District No 89-1 ("AD 89-1") (see "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1" herein). (ii) Community Facilities District No. 84-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 84-1 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 84-1 ("CFD 84-1") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 84- (see "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1" herein). (iii) Community Facilities District No. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 88-2 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 88-2 ("CFD 88-2") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 88-2 (see "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2" herein). (iv) Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 93-3 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 93-3 ("CFD 84-1") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 93-3 (see "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3" herein). The three community facilities districts are collectively referred to herein as the CFDs and the CFDs and the Reassessment District are collectively referred to herein as the Districts. See "SECURITY FOR THE BONDS - Revenues", "SECURITY FOR THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION" and "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS" herein. The net proceeds of the Acquired Obligations, along with other available funds, will be used (i) to make a deposit into the Escrow Funds created for each of five series of outstanding bonds (the "Prior Bonds") for the purpose of paying (A) principal of and interest on the Prior Bonds through the first optional redemption dates for each issue and (B) the remaining outstanding principal of the Prior Bonds on such redemption dates, and (ii) to pay certain costs of issuing the Acquired Obligations. See "FINANCING PLAN" herein. Legal Authority The Bonds. The Bonds are being issued under Article 4 of the Joint Powers Act (the "Bond Law") and an Indenture of Trust dated as of June 1, 1999 (the "Indenture"), by and between the Authority and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). The Reassessment District Obligation. The Reassessment District Obligation is being issued pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds, being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Reassessment Act") and a Bond Indenture dated as of June 1, 1999 (the "Reassessment Indenture"), by and between the City and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Fiscal Agent"). The Reassessment District Obligation is issued pursuant to particular provisions of the Reassessment Act which permit its authorization, issuance and sale without public hearing if three conditions are satisfied. See "SECURITY FOR THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION - Legal Authority". The CFD Obligations. The CFD Obligations are being issued pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Part l, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Mello-Roos Act"), and three separate Bond Indentures, each dated as of June 1, 1999 (each, a "CFD Indenture"), each by and between the applicable CFD and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent. The City The City is located in the foothills of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino Basin in the western portion of San Bernardino County (the "County"), approximately 40 miles east of the City of Los Angeles and 18 miles west of the City of San Bernardino. The City was incorporated as a general law city on November 30, 1977. It maintains a council-manager form of government, with the Mayor and Council Members elected at-large for four-year overlapping terms. For certain information regarding the City, see "APPENDIX B - General Information About the City of Rancho Cucamonga". The Authority The Authority is a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing pursuant to Articles I through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of , 1999, by and among the City, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Sources of Payment for the Bonds Pursuant to the Indenture, the Authority has pledged the "Trust Estate" as security for repayment of the Bonds. The Trust Estate consists of the Acquired Obligations, "Revenues" and amounts held in the funds established by the Indenture (except the Rebate Fund and Expense Fund). "Revenues" are defined in the Indenture to include: (a) all amounts derived from or with respect to the Acquired Obligations, including (1) unpaid Reassessments within the Reassessment District in the case of the Reassessment District Obligation (see "SECURITY FOR THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION"), and (2) the proceeds of the Special Taxes ("Special Tax Revenues") annually levied and received by each CFD in the case of the CFD Obligations (see "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS"), (b) investment income with respect to any moneys held by the Trustee in the funds and accounts established under the Indenture, except the Rebate Fund, and (c) any other investment income received under the Indenture. In addition, one of the CFD Obligations (the CFD 84-1 Bonds) is further secured by a pledge by the Agency of certain surplus tax incremen.t revenues generated in the Agency's Rancho Redevelopment Project (see "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS - Agency Payments") herein. Revenues are pledged in the Indenture, first to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Senior Bonds (including replenishment of the Senior Reserve Fund) and second to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Subordinate Bonds (including replenishment of the Subordinate Reserve Fund). See "SECURITY FOR THE BONDS - Revenues; Flow of Funds" herein. Annual Reassessment installments or Special Tax Revenues from one Acquired Obligation cannot be used to cover any shortfall in annual Reassessment installments or Special Tax Revenues from any other Acquired Obligation. Description of the Bonds Payments. Interest is payable on March 2, 2000, and semiannually thereafter on September 2 and March 2 each year. Principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Los Angeles, California, as registrar, transfer agent and Trustee (the "Trustee") for the Bonds. See "THE BONDS - General Provisions" and "- Book-Entry Only System" herein. Denominations. The Bonds will be issued in denominations of $5,000 each or integral multiples thereof. Redemption. The Bonds are subject to redemption on any March 2 or September 2, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest to the redemption date, together with a premium. See "THE BONDS - Redemption" herein. Registration, transfers and exchanges. The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds, registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), and will be available to actual purchasers of the Bonds (the "Beneficial Owners") under the book-entry system maintained by DTC. See "THE BONDS - "Payment, Registration, Transfer and Exchange of Bonds" and "Book-Entry Only System." Tax Matters Assuming compliance with certain covenants and provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds will not be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes although it may be includable in the calculation for certain taxes. Also in the opinion of Bond Counsel interest on the Bonds will be exempt from State of California personal income taxes. See "LEGAL MATTERS - Tax Matters" herein. Professionals Involved in the Offering All proceedings in connection with the issuance of the Bonds are subject to the approval of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, Solana Beach, California, Bond Counsel. Richards, Watson & Gershon, Los Angeles, California, will render a legal opinion on certain matters for the Authority. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Los Angeles, California, will act as the Trustee/Escrow Agent. Stone & Youngberg LLC is acting as underwriter in connection with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation is acting as Underwriter's Counsel. Grant Thornton LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, will provide escrow verification ser~'ices. Brown Diven Hesseli & Brewer and Jones Hall will receive compensation as Bond Counsel and Underwriter Counsel con tingen t upon the sale and delivery of the Bonds. Continuing Disclosure City Continuing Disclosure. The City, on behalf of the Agency, the Authority and itself, has covenanted for the benefit of holders and beneficial owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial information and operating data relating to the Agency, the Authority and the City by 4 not later than seven (7) months foliowing the end of their respective fiscal years (which currently would be by February 1 each year based upon the June 30 end of their fiscal years), commencing by February 1, 2000 with the report for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year (the "Annual Report"), and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events, if material. The Annual Report will be filed by the City with each Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository, and with the appropriate State information repository, if any. The notices of material events will be filed by the City with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (and with the appropriate State information repository, if any). The specific nature of the information to be contained in the Annual Report or the notices of material events is set forth in "APPENDIX H - Form of City Continuing Disclosure Certificate." These covenants have been made in order to assist the Underwriter in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the "Rule"). Neither the City, the Authority nor the Agency has ever failed to comply in all material respects with any previous undertakings with regard to said Rule to provide annual reports or notices of material events. Property Owner in the Districts. On the date of issuance of the Bonds, two property owners (the "Property Owners") will undertake the obligation to provide certain annual information by execution of continuing disclosure certificates: (i) Foothill Marketplace Partners, a property owner in CFD 93-3 and (ii) Rancho Cucamonga II Inc., a property owner in the Reassessment District (AD 89-2) and CFD 84-1. The Property Owners have each covenanted in a Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate, the form of which is set forth in "APPENDIX I - Form of Property Owner Disclosure Certificate" (the "Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificates"), for the benefit of holders and beneficial owners of the Bonds, to provide certain information relating to the Property Owners and their parcels within their respective Districts, and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events (a "Property Owner Annual Report") by not later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2000, but only until the earlier of (i) legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all the Bonds, (ii) the date on which property owned by the Property Owner in the Community Facilities District is no longer responsible for 10 percent or more of the debt service on the Bonds, or (iii) the date on which the Property Owner prepays in full all of the Special Taxes and/or Reassessments attributable to its property in the Districts. A Property Owner Annual Report will be filed by each Property Owner, or the "Dissemination Agent" (as that term is defined in the Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate) on behalf of the Property Owner, with the Repositories, with a copy to the Underwriter, the Trustee (if different than the Dissemination Agent) and the City. Any notice of a material event will be filed by a Property Owner, or by the Dissemination Agent on behalf of that Property Owner, with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and the appropriate State repository, if any, with a copy to the Underwriter, the Trustee (if different than the Dissemination Agent) and the City. The specific nature of the information to be contained in the Property Owner Annual Report or the notice of material events is set forth in the Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The covenants of the Property Owners in their respective Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificates have been made in order to assist the Underwriter in complying with the Rule; provided, however, that a default under the Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate will not, in itself, constitute an Event of Default under the Indenture, and the sole remedy under the Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of a Property Owner or the Dissemination Agent to comply with a Property Owner Continuing Disclosure Certificate will be an action to compel specific performance. 5 CONFIRM: Neither Property Owner has ever failed to comply in any material respect with an undertaking under the Rule. FINANCING PLAN Purpose of Issue and the Refunding Plan Acquisition o,f the Acquired Obligations. The Authority is issuing the Bonds to purchase the following "Acquired Obhgations": (i) Reassessment District Obligation: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 1999-1 Limited (~bligation Refunding Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $ (ii) CFD 84-1 Bonds: Community Facilities District No. 84-1 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $ (iii) CFD 88-2 Bonds: Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $ (vi) CFD 93-3 Bonds: Community Facilities District No. 93-3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $ Refunding of the Prior Bonds. Certain proceeds of the Acquired Obligations, along with other available moneys, will be deposited into five separate escrow funds (each, an "Escrow Fund") held by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent") pursuant to separate Escrow Agreements, each dated as of June 1, 1999 (the "Escrow Agreements"). Funds deposited pursuant to the Escrow Agreements will be used to pay principal and interest payable through the redemption date set forth below, and to redeem the remaining outstanding principal amount of the following outstanding bonds (collectively, the "Prior Bonds"): (a) Prior AD 86-2 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Improvement Bonds (Limited Obligation Bonds) Assessment District No. 86-2 (San Bernardino, California), of which $1,000,000 is currently outstanding, for redemption on September 2, 1999 at a redemption premium of 3 percent. (b) Prior AD 89-1 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino, California) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 89-1, of which $3,985,000 is currently outstanding, for redemption on September 2, 1999 at a redemption premium of 3 percent; (c) Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) 1992 Refunding Special Tax Bonds, of which $9,815,000 principal amount is currently outstanding, for redemption on August 1, 1999 at a redemption premium of 2 percent; (d) Prior CFD 88-2 Bonds: Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Bonds, of which $2,650,000 principal amount is 6 currently outstanding, for redemption on September 1, 2003 at a redemption premium of 2 percent; and (e) Prior CFD 93-3 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Bonds, of which $4,505,000 principal amount is currently outstanding, for redemption on September 1, 2002 at a redemption premium of 2 percent. Certain moneys in the existing funds and accounts relating to the Prior Bonds also will be applied to the redemption. See "Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds" below. Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds The Bonds. The anticipated sources and uses of funds relating to the Bonds are as follows: Senior Subordinate Sources: Bonds Bonds Principal Amount of the Bonds Less: Original Issue Discount Less: Underwriter's Discount Total Sources Uses: Deposit to Program Fund (1) Deposit to Senior Reserve Fund (2) Deposit to Subordinate Reserve Fund O) Transfer to Bond Insurer (4) Deposit to Expense Fund (5) Total Uses 1. Proceeds deposited in the Program Fund will ,b,e used to acquire the Acquired Obligations. , 2. Equal to the Senior Reserve Requirement. See 'SEC ,U, RITY FOR THE BONDS - Reserve Funds . 3. Equal to the Subordinate Reserve Requirement. See' SEC,U,,RITY FOR THE BONDS - Reserve Funds". 4. For payment of Municipal Bond Insurance premium. See MUNIC~AL BOND INSURANCE". 5. Includes the Trustee fees, Bond Counsel fees, printing costs, rating agency fees and other related costs. Acquired Obligations. The anticipated sources and uses of funds relating to the Acquired Obligations are as follows: AD 1999-1 CFD 84-1 CFD 88-2 CFD 93-3 Sources Principal of Acquired Obligation Available Funds From Prior Bonds Total Sources Uses Escrow Fund Costs of Issuance Fund Administrative Expenses Fund Total Uses THE BONDS General Provisions The Bonds (including the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds) will be dated their date of delivery, and will be issued in the aggregate principal amounts set forth on the cover hereof. The Bonds will bear interest from their dated date at the rates per annum set forth on the cover page hereof, payable semiannually on each March 2 and September 2, commencing March 2, 2000 (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), and will mature in the amounts and on the dates set forth on the cover page hereof. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. Principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds are payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon surrender of the Bonds at the principal corporate trust office of the Trustee. Interest on the Bonds (including the final interest payment upon maturity or early redemption) is payable by check of the Trustee mailed by first class mail to the registered owners as shown on the Trustee's books as of the fifteenth day of the calendar month immediately preceding each interest payment date, or by wire transfer made on the Interest Payment Date to any Owner of $1,000,000 or more in aggregate principal amount of Bonds, if so requested. Redemption Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or before September 2, 2009 are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after September 2, 2010 are subject to redemption at the option of the Authority in a principal amount of at least $25,000, in whole on any date, or in part on any Interest Payment Date, on or after September 2, 2009, pro rata among the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds and among maturities as directed in the Authority's Cash Flow Certificate (as described in the Indenture, see "APPENDIX A - Summary of Principal Legal Documents"), from any source of available funds, at a redemption price equal to one hundred percent of the principal amount to be redeemed, together with accrued interest to the date of redemption, plus a redemption premium (computed on the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) equal to: Redemption Date Premium September 2, 2009 through September 1, 2010 2% September 2, 2010 through September 1, 2011 1 September 2, 2011 and thereafter 0 Extraordinary Redemption. The Bonds or any portion of a Bond in any Authorized Denomination is subject to extraordinary redemption prior to maturity, in whole on any date, or in part on any Interest Payment Date, pro rata among the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds and among maturities as directed in the Authority's Cash Flow Certificate, from funds representing a prepayment of the applicable Acquired Obligations resulting from prepayments by property owners of Reassessments or Special Tax Obligations, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount to be redeemed, together with a redemption premium equal to the lesser of (i) three percent of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed or (ii) the redemption premium which would apply in the event of an optional redemption of such bonds pursuant to the redemption provisions in the paragraph above, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Purchase In Lieu of Redemption. In Lieu of depositing cash with the Trustee for payment of the redemption price of any Bonds, subject to certain conditions in the Indenture, amounts on deposit in the Senior Lien Bond Principal Account, the Senior Lien Bond Interest Account and Redemption Account may be used and withdrawn by the Trustee at any time prior to the selection of Bonds for such redemption for the purchase of such Bonds at public or private sale. All Bonds so purchased will be delivered to the Trustee for cancellation Redemption Procedure by Trustee. Whenever less than all of the Bonds are b. eing redeemed, the Trustee will select the amounts and maturities of Bonds for redemption by written notice not less than 30 days prior to the redemption date. The Authority is required to, as nearly as possible (after taking into account certain restrictions and conditions listed in the Indenture) apply eighty percent of the funds to be applied to such redemption to the redemption of Senior Bonds and twenty percent of such funds to the redemption of Subordinate Bonds. Notice of redemption shall be mailed by the Trustee promptly upon receipt of moneys to be applied to the redemption of Bonds, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the respective Owners of any Bonds designated for redemption at their addresses appearing on the Registration Books. Notice must be mailed not more than sixty nor less than thirty days prior to the redemption date. Each notice of redemption shall state the series of Bonds to be redeemed, the redemption date, the place or places of redemption, and the CUSIP numbers and the Bond numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed, and in the case of Bonds to be redeemed in part only, the respective Authorized Denominations of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed. Neither the failure of any Bond Owner to receive any notice so mailed nor any defect therein shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for redemption of any Bonds or the cessation of accrual of interest thereon. Effect of Redemption. From and after the date fixed for redemption, if funds available for the payment of the principal of, and interest and any premium on, the Bonds so called for redemption shall have been deposited in the Redemption Fund on the date fixed for redemption, such Bonds so called will cease to be entitled to any benefit under the Indenture other than the right to receive payment of the redemption price, and no interest shall accrue thereon on or after the redemption date specified in such notice. Payment, Registration, Transfer and Exchange of Bonds The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds, registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), and will be available to actual purchasers of the Bonds (the "Beneficial Owners") in the denominations set forth above, under the book-entry system maintained by DTC, only through brokers and dealers who are or act through DTC Participants (as defined herein) as described herein. Beneficial Owners will not be entitled to receive physical delivery of the Bonds. See "THE BONDS - Book-Entry Only System." In the event that the book-entry-only system is no longer used with respect to the Bonds, the Bonds will be registered and transferred in accordance with the Indenture. See "THE BONDS - Book-Entry Only System - Discontinuance of DTC Service." Transfer of Bonds. Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred upon the Registration Books by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a written instru:ment of transfer, duly executed in a form approved by the Trustee. The Trustee shall not be obligated to make any transfer of Bonds during the period selected by the Trustee for the selection of Bonds for redemption, or with respect to any Bonds selected for redemption. Whenever any Bond or Bonds have been surrendered for transfer, the Authority shall execute 10 and the Trustee shall authenticate and shall deliver a new Bond or Bonds of the same series for a like aggregate principal amount in an Authorized Denomination. The Trustee shall require the Bond Owner requesting such transfer to pay any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. Exchange of Bonds. The Bonds may be exchanged at the corporate office of the Trustee for a Bond of the same series in a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of Authorized Denominations and of the same maturity. The Authority may charge a reasonable sum for each new Bond issued upon any exchange (except in the case of any exchange of temporary Bonds for definitive Bonds and except in the case of the first exchange of any definitive Bond in the form in which it is originally issued) and the Trustee will require the payment by the Bond Owner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. The Trustee is not obligated to make any exchange of Bonds during the period selected by the Trustee for the selection of Bonds for redemption, or with respect to any Bonds selected for redemption. Bond Register. The Trustee will keep, or cause to be kept, at the Office of the Trustee, sufficient records for the registration and transfer of ownership of the Bonds which will be open to inspection during regular business hours and upon reasonable prior notice by the Authority and the City; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Trustee will, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on such records, the ownership of the Bonds. Book-Entry Only System While the Bonds are subject to the book-entry system, the principal, interest and any redemption premium with respect to a Bond will be paid by the Trustee to The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), which in turn is obligated to remit such payment to its DTC Participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, as described in "APPENDIX J-- DTC and the Book-Entry-Only System" herein. See also "GENERAL RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE BONDS - Year 2000-Related Risks" for information relating to DTC's Year 2000 compliance efforts. 11 Estimated Debt Service Schedules The following tables present the debt service schedule for the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds, assuming no redemptions are made: Debt Service on the Senior Bonds Year Ending Principal Interest Total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 12 Debt Service on the Subordinate Bonds Year Ending Principal Interest Total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 13 SECURITY FOR THE BONDS General As described below, the Bonds are payable primarily from Revenues, consisting of amounts received by the Authority as the result of its acquisition of the Acquired Obligations. The Bonds are special obligations of the Authority payable solely from and secured solely by the revenues and funds pledged therefor in the Indenture. The Bonds are not a debt or liability of the City, the State of California or any political subdivisions thereof other than the Authority to the limited extent described herein, and neither the faith and credit of the Authority, the City, the State or any of its political subdivisions are pledged to the payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds and neither the Authority, the City, the State nor any of its political subdivisions is liable therefor, nor in any event shall the Bonds or any interest or redemption premium thereunder by payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the Authority as set forth in the Indenture. Neither the Bonds nor the obligation to make payments under the acquired obligations constitute an indebtedness of the Authority, the City, the State nor any of its political subdivisions within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. The Authority has no taxing power. Revenues; Flow of Funds Revenues. The Bonds are secured by a pledge of the "Trust Estate," which consists of the Acquired Obligations, "Revenues", and amounts held in the funds established by the Indenture (except the Rebate Fund and Expense Fund). "Revenues" are defined in the Indenture to include (a) all amounts derived from or with respect to the Acquired Obligations, (b) investment income with respect to any moneys held by the Trustee in the funds and accounts established under the Indenture, except the Rebate Fund, and (c) any other investment income received under the Indenture. Revenues are pledged in the Indenture, first to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Senior Bonds (including amounts necessary to replenish the Senior Reserve Fund) and second to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Subordinate Bonds (including amounts necessary to replenish the Subordinate Reserve Fund). This pledge constitutes, with respect to the Senior Lien Bonds and the Subordinate Lien Bonds, first and second liens on and security interests in the Trust Estate. Pursuant to the Indenture, the Authority transfers in trust and assigns to the Trustee, for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, all of the Revenues and all of the right, title and interest of the Authority in the Acquired Obligations. If shortfalls in Revenues result (due to a shortfall of payment due under an Acquired Obligation relating to one District) the reassessments or annual special taxes from any other District may not be used to make up such shortfall. Flow of Funds. Pursuant to the provisions of the Indenture, the amounts held by the Trustee in the Revenue Fund will be transferred to various accounts in the Revenue Fund in the following amounts and order of priority: Senior Interest Account. On the day before each Interest Payment Date, the Trustee will deposit in the Senior Interest Account an amount which, together with the amounts then on 14 deposit therein, is equal to the amount of interest coming due and payable on the next Interest l~a~Tnent Date on the Senior Lien Bonds. Senior Principal Account. On September 1 of each year, the Trustee will deposit in the Senior Principal Account an amount which, together with the amounts then on deposit therein, is equal to the amount of principal coming due and payable, either by mandatory redemption or maturity, on the next Interest Payment Date on the Outstanding Senior Lien Bonds. Senior Reserve Fund. On the day before each Interest Payment Date, the Trustee will deposit in the Senior Reserve Fund an amount which, together with the amounts then on deposit therein, is required to cause the aggregate amount on deposit in the Senior Reserve Fund to equal the Senior Reserve Requirement. Subordinate Interest Account. On the day before each Interest Payment Date, the Trustee will deposit in the Subordinate Interest Account an amount which, together with the amounts then on deposit therein, is equal to the amount of interest coming due and payable on the next Interest Payment Date on the Subordinate Lien Bonds. Subordinate Principal Account. On September 1 of each year, the Trustee will deposit in the Subordinate Principal Account an amount which, together with the amounts then on deposit therein, is equal to the amount of principal coming due and payable, either by mandatory redemption or maturity, on the next Interest Payment Date on the Outstanding Subordinate Lien Bonds. Subordinate Reserve Fund. On the day before each Interest Payment Date, the Trustee will deposit in the Subordinate Reserve Fund an amount which, together with the amounts then on deposit therein, is required to cause the aggregate amount on deposit in the Subordinate Reserve Fund to equal the Subordinate Reserve Requirement. Rebate Fund. On the next Business Day following each September 2, the Trustee will deposit in the Rebate Fund certain amounts required to comply with rebate obligations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Expense Fund. On the next Business Day following each September 2, the Trustee will deposit in the Expense Fund such amount as may be requested in a written request of an of the Authority for the payment of Administrative Costs, pursuant to the Indenture. Rebate Fund. On the next Business Day following each September 2, the Trustee will deposit in the Rebate Fund certain amounts required to comply with rebate obligations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Residual Account. On the next Business Day following each September 2, the Trustee shall deposit in Residual Account of the Revenue Fund the amount then on deposit in the Revenue Fund. Residual Account Commencing on January 15, 2001 and January 15 of each succeeding Fiscal Year during the term of the Bonds, the Trustee will transfer monies then on deposit in the Residual Account to the Fiscal Agent for each of the Acquired Obligations; the monies will be credited against the Special Tax or Reassessments to be levied in the particular District in the succeeding Fiscal Year. The amount transferred to the Fiscal Agent for each Acquired Obligation will be calculated pursuant to the applicable formula set forth below: 15 (a) Current Acquired Obligations. Acquired Obligations for which the scheduled debt service has been paid in full during the Fiscal Year in which the transfer is to occur (except that for the transfer to occur on January 15, 2001, the applicable period shall commence on the date of issuance of the Bonds): A=B/C x(D + E) A = Amount to be transferred to the Fiscal Agent for such Acquired Obligation B = The then-outstanding principal amount of such Acquired Obligation C = The then outstanding aggregate principal amount of all Acquired Obligations D = The amount then on deposit in the Residual Account E = The aggregate amount of all unreplenished draws on both the Senior Reserve Fund and the Subordinate Reserve Fund during the Fiscal Year in which the transfer is to occur (except that for the transfer to occur on January 15, 2001, the applicable period shall commence on the date of issuance of the Bonds) Oo) Non-Current Acquired Obligations. Acquired Obligations for which the scheduled debt service has not been paid in full during the Fiscal Year in which the transfer is to occur resulting in a draw on either the Senior Reserve Fund or the Subordinate Reserve Fund which has as of the date of calculation not been replenished (except that for the transfer to occur on January 15, 2001, the applicable period shall commence on the date of issuance of the Bonds): A, = B~/C, x (D, - E~i A, = Amount to be transferred to the Fiscal Agent for such Acquired Obligation B~ = The then outstanding principal amount of such Acquired Obligation C, = The then outstanding aggregate principal amount of all Acquired Obligations D, = The amount then on deposit in the Residual Account E, = The aggregate amount of all unreplenished draws on both the Senior Reserve Fund and the Subordinate Reserve Fund resulting from the delinquency in the payment of scheduled debt service on such Acquired Obligation during the Fiscal Year in which the transfer is to occur (except that for the transfer to occur on June 30, 2001, the applicable period shall commence on the date of issuance of the Bonds) Reserve Funds Establishment of Reserve Funds. Separate Reserve Funds for the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds have been established under the Indenture, each to be held by the Trustee. If on any Interest Payment Date the amount in the Senior Interest Account or the Senior Principal Account is less than the amount required for the interest payable or principal payable, respectively, with respect to the Senior Bonds on such date, the Trustee will withdraw from the Senior Reserve Fund and deposit into the Senior Interest Account or Senior Principal Account, as applicable, the amount necessary to make good the deficiency. Similarly, if on any Interest Payment Date the amount in the Subordinate Interest Account or the Subordinate Principal Account is less than the amount required for the interest 16 payable or principal payable, respectively, with respect to the Subordinate Bonds on such date, the Trustee will withdraw from the Subordinate Reserve Fund and deposit into the Subordinate Interest Account or Subordinate Principal Account, as applicable, the amount necessary to make good the deficiency. Amounts will be deposited into the Reserve Funds as described in "Revenues; Flow of Funds" above. However, it should be noted that the Reserve Funds may be replenished only from Special Taxes and/or Reassessments levied and allocated in the District that was responsible for the Trustee's draw on the Reserve Funds. Reserve Requirements. On the date of issuance of the Bonds, the Authority will deposit certain Bond proceeds into the Reserve Funds in amounts equal to the applicable Reserve Requirements. See "FINANCING PLAN - Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds". The Indenture allows for the amount required to be on deposit in the Senior Reserve Fund and the Subordinate Reserve Fund to be adjusted downward when there are prepayments of reassessment liens or special taxes with respect to one of the underlying Acquired Obligations. See "APPENDIX A - Summary of Principal Legal Documents" for a description of the formulas that determine the amounts of adjustment. Additional Bonds The Authority has covenanted in the Indenture that it will not issue any additional obligations which are secured by the Revenues on a parity with the Bonds (except for bonds for the purpose of refunding any Outstanding Bonds and which results in debt service savings). 17 SECURITY FOR THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION Reassessments The Reassessment District Obligation is issued upon and secured by (i) the unpaid Reassessments (the "Reassessments") levied on properties within the Reassessment District, the annual Reassessment installments collected pursuant to the Reassessment Act and the proceeds of the prepayment of any Reassessments made pursuant to the Reassessment Act, (ii) the unpaid assessment installments due as of the date of the Indenture with respect to the Prior AD 86-2 Bonds or the Prior AD 89-1 Bonds, and (iii) the amounts held in the Redemption Fund created and maintained pursuant to the Reassessment Indenture and the invested earnings thereon (except to the extent earnings are to be transferred to the Rebate Fund). See "THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT". Although the unpaid Reassessments constitute fixed liens on the Reassessment Parcels, they do not constitute personal indebtedness of the owners of the Reassessment Parcels. Furthermore, there can be no assurance as to the ability of the owners to pay the unpaid Reassessments. The unpaid Reassessments levied on the Reassessment Parcels will be collected in annual installments, together with interest on the declining balances, on the tax roll of the County of San Bernardino on which general taxes on real property are collected, and the unpaid Reassessments are payable and become delinquent at the same time and in the same proportionate amounts and bear the same proportionate penalties and interest after delinquency as do general taxes, and the Reassessment Parcels are su,bject to the same provisions for sale and redemption as are properties for nonpayment of general taxes. The annual Reassessment installments together with interest are to be paid into the Redemption Fund which will be used to pay the principal of and interest on the Reassessment District Obligation as they become due. The Reassessment District Obligation is not secured by the general taxing power of the City or the State or any political subdivision of the State, and neither the City nor the State nor any political subdivision of the State has pledged its full faith and credit for the payment thereof. Legal Authority The Reassessment District Obligation is issued pursuant to particular provisions of the Reassessment Act which permit its authorization, issuance and sale without public hearing if three conditions are satisfied. The three conditions are summarized as follows: (a) Each estimated annual installment of principal and interest on the Reassessment is less than the corresponding annual installment of principal and interest on the portion of the original assessment(s) being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for all Reassessment Parcels. (b) The number of years to maturity of all the Bonds is not more than the number of years to the last maturity of the Prior AD 86-2 Bonds and the Prior AD 89-1 Bonds. 18 (c) The principal amount of the Reassessment on each Reassessment Parcel is less than the unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for each Reassessment Parcel. The City Council, as part of the refunding proceedings, has made a finding that the three conditions are satisfied. Methods of Assessment and Reassessment Spread As described in the Reassessment Report prepared with respect to the Reassessment District, the assessments levied in the Prior Assessment Districts were spread on the basis of special and direct benefits received by the assessed parcels from the improvements to be constructed, as initially recommended by the assessment engineer(s) and as finally approved by the City Council. The Reassessments are spread in amounts exactly proportional to the respective outstanding assessments securing the Prior AD 86-2 Bonds and the Prior AD 89-1 Bonds. Covenant to Commence Foreclosure Proceeding The Reassessment Act provides that in the event any Reassessment or installment thereof or any interest thereon is not paid when due, the City may order the institution of a court action to foreclose the lien of the unpaid Reassessment. In such an action, the real property subject to the unpaid Reassessment may be sold at judicial foreclosure sale. This foreclosure sale procedure is not mandatory. However, the City has covenanted in the Reassessment Indenture titat it will determine or cause to be determined, no later than August 15 of each fiscal year in which the Bonds are outstanding, whether or not any owners of the real property within REASSESSMENT DISTRICT are delinquent in the payment of Reassessment installments. The City will order and cause judicial foreclosure actions to be commenced in the Superior Court no later than the next following November 1 against (a) any parcel that is subject to aggregate delinquencies in excess of $7,500 or (b) any parcels the common owner of which is delinquent in the payment of aggregate Reassessment installments in excess of $7,500. The City further covenants to diligently prosecute any such foreclosure action to judgment and foreclosure sale. In the event court foreclosure proceedings are necessary, there may be a delay in payments due under the Reassessment District Obligation, and a corresponding delay in the payment of Revenues, pending prosecution of the foreclosure proceedings and receipt by the City of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. It is also possible that no bid for the purchase of the applicable property would be received at the foreclosure sale. See also the section herein entitled "RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION." Priority of Lien Each Reassessment (and any reassessment thereof) and each installment thereof, and any interest and penalties thereon, constitutes a lien against the parcel of land on which it was imposed until the same is paid. The lien is subordinate to all fixed special assessment liens imposed upon the same property prior to the date that the Reassessments became a hen on the property assessed, but has priority over all private liens and over all fixed special assessment liens which may thereafter be created against the property. It should be noted that pursuant to the Reassessment Act, the Reassessments are considered to have been levied against the applicable property on the date the original assessments were levied. The lien of the Reassessments is co-equal to and independent of the hen for general taxes and any community facilities district special taxes. See "THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE - Overlapping Liens," "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 - Major Assessees" and "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 19 No. 89-1 - Major Assessees" for information relating to the overlapping special tax and special tax liens in the Reassessment District. Covenant Against Encumbrance The City has covenanted in the Reassessment Indenture that it will not permit the creation of any pledge of or lien upon the Reassessments superior to or on a parity with the pledge and lien created for the benefit of the Reassessment District Obligation. Sales of Tax Defaulted Property Generally Property securing delinquent Reassessment installments which is not sold pursuant to the judicial foreclosure proceedings described above, may be sold, subject to redemption by the property owner, in the same manner and to the same extent as real property sold for nonpayment of general County property taxes. On or before June 30 of the year in which such delinquency occurs, the property becomes tax-defaulted. This initiates a five-year period during which the property owner may redeem the property. At the end of the five-year period the property becomes subject to sale by the County Treasurer and Tax Collector. Except in certain circumstances, as provided in the Reassessment Act, the purchaser at any such sale takes such property subject to all unpaid assessments, interest and penalties, costs, fees and other charges which are not satisfied by application of the sales proceeds and subject to all public improvement assessments which may have priority. Limited Obligations of the City Upon Delinquency If a delinquency occurs in the payment of any Reassessment installment, the City has no duty to transfer into the Redemption Fund the amount of the delinquency except from monies available in the Reserve Fund. There is no assurance that funds will be available in either Reserve Fund for this purpose and if, during the period of delinquency, there are insufficient funds in the Reserve Funds, a delay may occur in payments to the Bondowners or there may be insufficient funds to make such payments. If there are additional delinquencies after exhaustion of funds in the Reserve Funds, the City has no direct or contingent liability to transfer into the Redemption Fund the amount of delinquency out of any other available monies of the City. No Acceleration The principal of the Reassessment District Obligation will not be subject to acceleration under the provisions of the Reassessment Indenture. 20 SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS General Each CFD Obligation is secured by and payable from a first pledge of the proceeds of the Special Taxes levied within and received by that CFD; none of the Special Taxes levied in one CFD may be used to pay debt service on another CFD Obligation. Each CFD has covenanted in its CFD Indenture, so long as the corresponding CFD Obligation is outstanding, to annually levy the Special Tax against all taxable land in the CFD to the extent necessary and permitted by the Mello-Roos Act and the Rate and Method (as defined below). The CFD Obligations and related interest, together with any premium paid upon redemption, are not obligations of the City, but are limited obligations of each CFD secured by and payable from an irrevocable first lien on the Special Tax Revenues and on the monies in the funds and accounts established in the corresponding CFD Indenture for each CFD (including the investment earnings thereon) with the exception of the Rebate Fund and the Administrative Expense Fund. Except for the Special Tax Revenues for each CFD, neither the credit nor the taxing power of the CFD or the City is pledged for the payment of the CFD Obligations or related interest, and no Owner of the Bonds may compel the exercise of taxing power by a CFD, the Authority or the City or the forfeiture of any of their property. The principal of and interest on the CFD Obligations and premiums upon the redemption thereof, if any, are not a debt of any CFD or the City, the State of California or any of its political subdivision within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or restriction. The CFD Obligations are not a legal or equitable pledge, charge, lien or encumbrance, upon any of a CFD's property, or upon any of its income, receipts or revenues, except the amounts which are, under any of the CFD Indentures and the Mello-Roos Act, set aside for the payment of the CFD Obligations and interest thereon. Special Taxes The Special Taxes for the CFDs are levied and collected according to the rates and method of apportionment (each, a "Rate and Method") established for each CFD. See "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1", "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2" and "COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3" for a description of each of the CFD's Rates and Methods. Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, properties or entities of state, federal, or other local governments are exempt from the Special Tax except for property not otherwise .exempt which is acquired by a public entity through a negotiated transaction, or by gift or devise, remains subject to the Special Tax. In addition, the Mello-Roos Act provides that if property subject to the Special Tax is acquired by a public entity through eminent domain proceedings, the obligation to pay the Special Tax with respect to that property is to be treated as if it were a special assessment. The Mello-Roos Act further provides that no other properties or entities are exempt from the Special Tax unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in a resolution of consideration to levy a new tax under the Mello-Roos Act or to alter the rate or method of apportionment of an existing tax under the Mello-Roos Act. The Mello-Roos Act prohibits the City Council from adopting a resolution to reduce the rate of the Special Tax or terminate the levy of the Special Tax unless the City Council determines that the reduction or termination of the Special Tax "would not interfere with the timely retirement" of the Bonds. (See "BONDOWNERS' RISKS -Exempt Properties.") The City Council establishes tax rates to be 21 used to levy and apportion the Special Tax against Taxable Land within each CFD on an annual basis by ordinance. The Special Tax is collected in the manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes are collected and is subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale, and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem property taxes. Priority of Lien Each installment of the Special Taxes and any interest and penalties thereon, constitutes a lien on the parcel of land on which it was imposed until the same is paid. Such lien is co- equal to and independent of the lien for general taxes, any other community facilities district special taxes and special assessment liens. See "THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE -- Statement of Direct and Overlapping Debt" herein. Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, in the event of any delinquency in the payment of the Special Tax, the City may order the institution of a Superior Court action to foreclose the lien therefor within specified time limits. In such an action, the real property subject to the unpaid amount may be sold at judicial foreclosure sale. Such judicial foreclosure action is not mandatory. However, each CFD has covenanted in its CFD Indenture for the benefit of the owners of the applicable CFD Obligation that it will review the public records of the County relating to the collect-ion of the Special Tax not later than July 1st of each fiscal year to determine the amount of Special Tax collected in the prior Fiscal Year. With respect to individual delinquencies, if the CFD determines that any single parcel subject to the Special Tax is delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes in the aggregate of $5,000 or more, the CFD shall, not later than August 15th of such fiscal year, send or cause to be sent a notice of delinquency (and a demand for immediate payment thereof) to the property owner. With respect to aggregate delinquencies throughout a CFD, ff the CFD determines that it has collected less than 95 percent of the Special Taxes levied in the prior Fiscal Year, then such CFD will, not later than August 15th of such fiscal year, send or cause to be sent a notice of delinquency (and a demand for immediate payment thereof) to the owner of each delinquent parcel (regardless of the amount of such delinquency). The appropriate CFD will cause judicial foreclosure proceedings to be filed in the Superior Court not later than November 15th of such fiscal year against any property which is subject to the notice of delinquency requirement of the CFD Indenture and for which the Special Taxes remain delinquent. In the event that foreclosure proceedings are commenced, such foreclosure proceedings could be stayed by the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings by or against the owner of the property being foreclosed. Agency Payments Agency Pledge. In December 1981, the Agency established the Rancho Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Project") in an area consisting of approximately 8,500 acres (the "?roject Area"). The primary purpose of the Redevelopment Project was the elimination of certain then-existing conditions, such as improper drainage and exposure to floods, which had caused an underutilization of land within the Project Area. Some of the drainage and flood control improvements necessary to correct these problems were financed with proceeds of bonds that were subsequently refunded with the Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds. Because these improvements promoted the objectives of the Redevelopment Project, the Agency and the City 22 entered into a Loan and Pledge Agreement, dated May 5, 1983 (the "Original Loan Agreement"), under which the Agency pledged tax increment revenues generated in the Redevelopment Project and allocated to the Agency pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §33000 et seq.) (the "Redevelopment Law") in support of debt service on the Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds. The Original Loan Agreement declared that the pledge was of tax increment revenues available after payment of all costs and expenses for the operation, maintenance and general administration of the Agency and of previously incurred indebtedness. The Original Loan Agreement was subsequently amended pursuant to an Agreement Supplementing Loan and Pledge Agreement, dated April 4, 1984 (the "Supplemental Loan Agreement"); the Supplemental Loan Agreement clarified that the Agency's pledge of tax increment revenues was a pledge of tax increment allocated to the Agency by the County pursuant to the "Agreement Regarding Rancho Redevelopment Project Area (Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency)", dated February 21, 1982, less amounts otherwise deposited by the Agency in its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to comply with the Redevelopment Law. Subsequently, the City and the Agency entered into a First Amendment to Agreement Supplementing Loan and Pledge Agreement, dated August 8, 1985 (the "First Amendment", and together with the Original Loan Agreement and the Supplemental Loan Agreement, the "Loan Agreement"). The Loan Agreement, after amendment by the First Amendment, obligates the Agency to pay to the City, from "Surplus Tax Increment Revenues", in each fiscal year the greater of (i) an amount, which together with the estimated Special Tax Revenue in CFD 84-1 for such fiscal year, will equal at least 110 percent of the debt service due on the CFD 84-1 Bonds ~n that fiscal year; or (ii) $500,000. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Agency has pledged "Surplus Tax Increment Revenues" as security for its obligation to make the Agency Payments until such time as all indebtedness incurred by the City to finance certain flood control facilities -- including the CFD 84-1 Bonds -- have been retired. "Surplus Tax Increment Revenues" is defined in the Loan Agreement to mean tax increment revenues generated in the Project Area less (i) amounts required to pay the debt service on certain of the Agency's outstanding bonded indebtedness ("Agency Bonds"), (ii) the amounts due and payable to other governmental agencies in accordance with the provisions of certain cooperative agreements entered into by the Agency with the County and the County Flood Control District, the County Water District, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District and the Foothill Fire Protection District (as described in Appendix C hereto) and (iii) amounts the Agency is required under the Redevelopment Law to deposit into the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund. The Agency may incur other obligations secured by tax increment revenues generated in the Project Area on a senior or parity basis with respect to the Agency's obligations under the Loan Agreement, but only to the extent that Surplus Tax Increment Revenues available to discharge the Agency's obligations under the Loan Agreement will not, as a result, be reduced to an amount less than the amount specified in the Loan Agreement. See "APPENDIX C - The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga" and "APPENDIX D - Audited Financial Statements of the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998" for further description of the Agency' agreements and outstanding indebtedness. See "APPENDIX C - The Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency" for information about historical Agency Payments and the sources of revenue available to the Agency to make the Agency ?ayments. 23 MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE [tO COME] 24 THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE Introduction Set forth in the following sections is certain information describing the four Districts in the aggregate, plus separate sections on each of the Districts, including former assessment districts AD 86-2 and 89-1 that now jointly comprise the Reassessment District. Although the Authority believes the information with respect to the Districts in the aggregate is relevant to an informed decision to purchase the Bonds, investors should be aware that the debt service on an Acquired Obligation relating to one District may not be used to make up any shortfall in the debt service on the Acquired Obligation of any other District. Moreover, the parcels in each District are taxed and/or assessed according to that District's specific Rate and Method or the Reassessment Act, as applicable. Potential investors should barther be aware that Reassessments and/or Special Taxes are levied against individual parcels within each District, and that any such parcel may have a value-to-debt burden less than the overall value-to-debt burden for such District as to all parcels within such District, or less than the value-to-debt burden of the four Districts in the aggregate. In particular, an individual parcel upon which development has not taken place may have a value-to-debt burden of less than 1 to 1. 25 Land Ownership in the Districts on an Aggregate Basis The following table lists, for the 10 owners of property responsible for the greatest share of the Acquired Obligations when considering the Districts in the aggregate, the total parcels owned, the annual Special Tax levy/Reassessment, 1998-99 assessed value, the lien of each owner's share of the Acquired Obligations, overlapping assessment/special tax liens (if any) and value-to-burden ratios (including overlapping assessment/special tax liens). Additional information with respect to each of the property owners is set forth in the sections of this Official Statement relating to the individual Districts. It should be noted that the CFD 84-1 Bonds (September 2, 2005), the CFD 88-2 Bonds (September 2, 2020), the CFD 93-3 Bonds (September 2, 2020) and the Reassessment Bonds (September 2, 2007 with respect to the AD 86-2 portion and September 2, 2012 with respect to the AD 89-1 portion) mature at different times and, as a result, the aggregate significance of the various Districts and the relative concentration of their respective property owners will change over time. See "GENERAL RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE BONDS - Varying Maturities of Acquired Obligations". Table 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-2, CFD 84-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Top Reassessees/Special Tax Payers (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) % of Total Property Total Annual Annual Assessed Additional Value-to- Owner District Parcels Lev~ Levy Value Lien Lien Burden Foothill Marketplace Partners CFD 93-3 9 $340,431 13.9% $21,619,154 $3,545,969 $20,459 6.I Rancho Cucamonga l/Inc AD 89-1 13 261,813 10.7 14,306,322 2,120,221 169,933 6.2 RCDC Associates LP AD 89-1 6 145,530 6.0 10,579,393 1,178,535 43,154 8.7 So. Cal. Edison Co. (1) CFD 84-1 14 91,475 3.7 -- 870,897 - -- Fredrickson Enterprises Inc CFD 93-3 2 81,369 3.3 4,603,467 847,551 708 5.4 Cucarnonga 220 LP CFD 84-1 22 74,947 3.1 8,915,046 713,539 - 12.5 Gruma Corporation AD 89-1 1 84,740 3.5 22,126,322 686,245 282,425 22.8 Standard Pacific Corp CFD 88-2 181 87,631 3.6 -- 613,539 - -- Lewis Development Co CFD 84-1 4 53,546 2.2 3,357,932 509,793 - 6.6 Ameron, Inc CID 84-1 5 36,242 1.5 9,530,741 345,045 15,045 26.5 Total Top Ten Taxpayers 25751,257,725 51.5% $95,038,377 $11,431,333 $531,725 7.9 Total Districts 5,34452,441,574 100.0% 1,345,139,222 22,369,949 13,230,708 37.8 (1) Property constitutes unitary property for which assessed values are not available. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 26 Property Values and Value-to-Burden Ratios on an Aggregate Basis Assessed Value. The Authority has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in the Districts (5,344 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $1,345,139,222 (not including parcels for which no assessed value is currently available). Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (Proposition 13) defines "full cash value" to mean "the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 bill under 'full cash value', or, thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased or newly constructed or when a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment," subject to exemptions in certain circumstances of property transfer or reconstruction. The "full cash value" is subject to annual adjustment to reflect increases, not to exceed 2 percent for any year, or decreases in the consumer price index or comparable local data, or to reflect reductions in property value caused by damage, destruction or other factors. Because of the general limitation to 2 percent per year in increases in full cash value of properties which remain in the same ownership, the county tax roll does not reflect values uniformly proportional to actual market values. No assurance can be given that should a parcel with delinquent installments be foreclosed and sold for the amount of the delinquency, that any bid will be received for such property, or if a bid is received that such bid will be sufficient to pay such delinquent installments. Aggregate Value-to-Debt Burden. The aggregate value-to-debt burden of all property in the Districts against which Special Taxes or Reassessments are levied, based on 1998-99 assessed values ($1,345,139,222) and the lien of the Special Taxes and Reassessments on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($22,369,999) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments ($13,230,708), equals 37.8:1. 27 Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as of April 1, 1999. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Reassessments or Special Taxes are levied and collected and the burden is the lien of the Special Taxes and Reassessments only. Table 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-2, CFD 84-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total Pro Rata Debt % of Catego_ry Parcels of Parcels Acrea_~e Acreage Burden(l~ Debt Burden 30:1 + 5,002 93.6% 1,755.56 48.9% $901,233 36.9% 25:1 to 29.99:1 15 0.3 96.30 2.7 29,642 1.2 20:1 to 24.99:1 29 0.5 250.85 7.0 79,760 3.3 15:1 to 19.99:1 72 1.3 169.96 4.7 119,005 4.9 10:1 to 14.99:1 76 1.4 392.05 10.9 212,402 8.7 5:1 to 9.99:1 24 0.4 230.43 6.4 432,589 17.7 3:1 to 4.99:1 40 0.7 224.94 6.3 301,532 12.3 1:1 to 2.99:1 50 0.9 95.35 2.7 102,953 4.2 Unknown 36 0.7 377.74 10.5 262,457 10.7 Totals 5,344 100.0% 3,593.18 100.0% $2,441,574 100.0% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. Value-to-Burden Ratios on a District-by-District Basis. The following table sets forth the value-to-burden ratios on a District-by-District basis, based upon 1998-99 assessed values and the burden of the Acquired Obligations only. Table 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-2, CFD 84-1, CFD 88-2 and CFE) 93-3 Value-to-Burden Ratios on a District-by-District Basis Principal Amount of Overlapping Assessed Value-to-Burden District Acquired Obli_~ation Lien~ Value Ratio CFD 84-1 59,815,000 $8,925,411 $996,500,233 53.2 CFD 88-2 2,755,000 3,440,000 100,069,481 16.2 CFD 93-3 4,504,999 21,259 26,424,822 5.8 AD 86-2 1,310,000 220,132 175,132,649 114.5 AD 89-1 3,985,000 623,906 47,0!2,037 10.2 Total $22,369,999 13,230,708 $1,345,139,222 37.8 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 28 Delinquencies The following table is a summary of assessment or Special Tax levies, as applicable, current year's delinquencies and delinquency rates in the five Districts for 1993-94 through 1997-98. Because the Districts do not participate in the Teeter Plan, collections of assessments and Special Taxes reflect actual delinquencies. Detailed information about delinquencies in any particular District can be found in the sections of this Official Statement relating to the individual Districts. Table 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-2, CFD 84-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Assessments/Special Tax Levies, Collections and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Assessment/ Current Year's Percent Year Special Tax Levied Delinquencies Delinquent 1993-94 $2,100,597 $175,648 8.3% 1994 -95 2354,687 124,976 5.3 1995-96 2,475,460 103,099 4.2 1996-97 2,468,734 71,593 2.9 1997- 98 2,463,812 66,545 2.7 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 29 Overlapping Liens Numerous agencies providing public services overlap the Districts' boundaries. Many of these agencies may have outstanding certificates of participation and bonds in the form of general obligation, special assessment, special tax, redevelopment or lease revenue bonds. In general, certificates of participation and redevelopment and lease revenue bonds do not represent obligations for which the owner of property is obligated to make a direct payment. However, special tax, assessment and general obligation bonds represent a direct obligation of the subject property. In addition, all of the parcels in AD 89-1 are included in CFD 84-1. Set forth in the table on the following page is information relating to the following overlapping special tax and assessment liens: AD 93-1: On August 20, 1997, the City issued its City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment District No. 93-1 (Masi Plaza) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds. The AD 93-1 bonds are currently outstanding in the principal amount of $2,990,000. Etiwanda School District CFD NO. 2: On November 18, 1998, Community Facilities District No. 2 of the Etiwanda School District issued its Community Facilities District No. 2 of the Etiwanda School District, Series 1998 Special Tax Refunding Bonds. The bonds are currently outstanding in the principal amount of $3,440,000. [OTHER ETIWANDA DISTRICT] [FIRE DISTRICT] AD 85-PD-R: On May 18, 1993, the City issued its City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment District No. 85-PD-R (Refunding) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds. These bonds are currently outstanding in the principal amount of $3,890,000. 30 Table 6 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-2, CFD 84-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Overlapping Liens As of April 1, 1999 Principal Value- Amount of to- Acquired Etiwanda AD Assessed Burden District Obligation AD 93-1 CF~ 93-3 AD 89-1 CFD No. 2 85-PD-R CFD 84-1 Value Rat/o AD 86-2 $1,310,000 $220,132 $175,132,649 114.5 AD 89-1 3,985,000 175,956 $447,950 47,012,037 10.2 CFD 84-1 9,815,000 $2,990,000 $1,782,240 $3,985,000 168,171 996,500,233 53.2 CFD 88-2 2,755,000 3,440,000 100,069,481 16.2 CFD 93-3 4,504,999 4,073 17,186 26,424,822 5.8 Total $22,369,999 $2,990,000 $1,782,240 $3,985,000 $3,440,000 $568,332 $465,136 $1,345,139,222 37.8 31 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 Location and Description Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted a resolution stating its intent to establish Community Facilities District No. 84-1 ("CFD 84-1"), to authorize the levy of special taxes (the "84-1 Special Tax") on land within the district, and to have CFD 84-1 incur bonded indebtedness. Following public hearings conducted pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the district and calling for a special election to authorize the levy of the 84-1 Special Tax and incur bonded indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed $20,225,000. At the special election, the qualified electors of CFD 84-1 authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness and approved the levy of the 84- 1 Special Tax pursuant to the Rates and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes (the "CFD 84-1 Rate and Method"). CFD 84-1, located in the eastern portion of the City, initially totaled 3,695 acres, 3,415 acres of which were subject to the 84-1 Special Tax. The CFD 84-1 Rate and Method specifically excludes from the amount of taxable acres 280 acres of property located in Zone B (as defined in the CFD 84-1 Rate and Method). In 1989, approximately 130 gross acres of property, which comprised Assessment District 89-1, was annexed into CFD 84-1 pursuant to annexation procedures completed by the City in accordance with the Mello-Roos Act. Currently, the majority of land (approximately 91 percent) within CFD 84-1 is being used for single-family residential purposes, approximately 4.5 percent is being used for industrial purposes, and 4.5 percent is vacant. As of July 1, 1998 there were 3,829 assessor's parcels subject to the 84-1 Special Tax. Purpose of Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds The Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds were issued in 1992 to advance refund outstanding bonds of CFD 84-1 that had been issued to finance the construction and installation of certain public capital drainage facilities. Participation by the Redevelopment Agency As described in "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS - Agency Payments," the Agency has agreed to make certain payments from Surplus Tax Increment Revenues for the purpose of paying a portion of the debt service on the CFD 84-1 Bonds. See also "APPENDIX C - The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga" for an overview of the Redevelopment Agency, the Project Area, its historic tax increment revenues and historic payments to the City under the Loan and Pledge Agreement. See also "APPENDIX D - Audited Financial Statements of the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998." The pledge of Surplus Tax Increment Revenues is a pledge of tax increment revenues generated in the Agency's Rancho Redevelopment Project on a basis subordinate to the Agency's pledge of tax increment revenues to certain existing and future obligations of the Agency. See "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS - Agency Payments" herein. Rates and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes' The 84-1 Special Taxes are levied in accordance with the CFD 84-1 Rate and Method, pursuant to Ordinance No. 263 of the City adopted June 5, 1985. Annually, at the time of levying the Special Tax for CFD 84-1, the City Council determines the amount of money to be collected from Taxable Property in CFD 84-1. Such amount will include (i) the amount needed to pay debt service on outstanding bonds of CFD 84-1, (ii) the amount needed to create or 32 replenish reserve funds, (iii) the amount needed to pay administrative expenses; and (iv) the costs of acquisition and construction, in whole or in part, of improvements to be paid from 84-1 Special Tax proceeds. Rate of Special Tax. The maximum Special Tax that may be levied on all private properties in CFD 84-1 is $550 per gross acre per year (except for properties within Zone B, as specified in the 84-1 Rate and Method). Gross acreage is defined in the 84-1 Rate and Method to include all easements (other than those easements for the then currently-proposed improvements and easements for power transmission). Method of Apportionment. In every year since issuance of the Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds (i.e., after refunding of the original CFD 84-1 Bonds), the City has imposed a special tax of $297.48 per gross acre. Any remaining shortfall has been paid from amounts paid to the City pursuant to the Loan Agreement. Because the Special Tax was initially applied to gross acreage, as land in CFD 84-1 was developed, land dedicated to public use (such as streets) became taxable. Therefore, the 84-1 Rate and Method allows that, when the maximum Special Tax so authorized exceeds funds required to meet the obligations of CFD 84-1, the City Council will reduce the maximum tax rate such that it is calculated on a net area rather than a gross area basis. If this occurs, net area will be defined as that area for the parcel appearing on the latest map produced by the County Assessor, or if such parcel does not appear on the Assessor's map, the area will be determined by the City Engineer. The City has historically levied the Special Tax on a net acreage basis. For the complete text of the CFD 84-1 Rate and Method, see "APPENDIX F - Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFDs". Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in CFD 84-1. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in CFD 84-1 (3,829 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $996,500,233. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in CFD 84-1, based on 1998-99 assessed values ($996,500,233) and the burden of the Special Taxes on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($9,815,000) and the liens of overlapping special taxes and assessment districts ($8,925,411), equals 53.2:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Special Taxes are levied and collected and the only burden is the burden of the CFD 84-1 Bonds (because the impact of overlapping liens is insignificant). More than 95 percent of the parcels, or approximately 53 percent of the acreage, in CFD 84-1 have a value-to-burden ratio of greater than 30 to 1. 33 Table 7 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios of Taxable Property (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total Annual % of Total Ca tegory Parcels of Parcels Acreage Acreage Levy Annual Levy 30:1 plus 3,668 95.80% 1,478.2 52.91% $439,424 53.05% 25:1 to 29.99:1 11 0.29 95.4 3.41 28,380 3.43 20:1 to 24.99:1 10 0.26 246.8 8.83 73,415 8.86 15:1 to 19.99:1 34 0.89 148.3 5.31 44,036 5.32 10:1 to 14.99:1 55 1.44 367.6 13.16 109,321 13.20 5:1 to 9.99:1 17 0.44 205.1 7.34 60,490 7.30 3:1 to 4.99:1 27 0.71 169.3 6.06 48,483 5.85 1:1 to 2.99:1 6 0.16 80.0 2.86 23,748 2.87 .99:1 and less 1 0.03 3.2 0.12 961 0.12 Total 3,829 100.00% 2,793.8 100.00% $828,257 100.00% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 34 Major Land Owners The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the top 10 payers of CFD 84-1 Special Taxes for fiscal year 1998-99 as of April 1, 1999, including the number of parcels, and CFD 84-1 Special Tax levy, the 1998-99 assessed value, overlapping special tax and assessment lien information and the value-to-burden ratio based upon the burden of the CFD 84-1 Special Taxes and other liens due to overlapping assessment and community facilities districts. Table 8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 Summary of Top 10 Owners of Taxable Property (Fiscal Year 1998-99) No. of Annual % of Total Assessed CFD 84-1 Add'l Value Name Parcels Levy (1) Annual Levy Value Lien Lien ~2) to Lien So. California Edison Co (3) 14 $91,475 9.7% --- $870,897 Cucamonga 220 LP (4) 22 74,947 8.0 $8,915,046 713,539 12.5 Lewis Development Co. (5) 4 53,546 5.7 $3,357,932 509,793 6.6 Ameron, Inc. (6) 5 36,242 3.9 $9,530,741 345,045 15,045 26.5 West Coast Liq., Inc (7) 2 26,851 2.9 $36,934,115 255,637 6,906 140.7 TBC Rancho Cuc. I, Inc (8) 16 25,003 2.7 $34,293,914 238,043 10,002 138.3 CSM&C Expansion (9) 5 24,304 2.6 $4,729,173 231,389 1,240 20.3 William Lyon Homes Inc (10) 10 18,926 2.0 $1,836,726 180,183 10.2 Rancho Cucamonga II Inc. (11) 13 17,096 1.0 $14,306,322 162,765 2,127,389 6.2 Tamco (12) 2_ 14,672 1 .._.0 $4,589,666 139,683 4,426 31.8 Total Top Taxpayers 93 5383,062 39.4% $118,493,635 $3,646,975 $2,165,008 20.4 Total for District 3,858 $939,449 100.0% $996,500,233 $9,815,000 8,925,411 53.2 (1) Balance of debt service on the CFD 84-1 Bonds is payable from Agency Payments. (2) Includes overlapping assessme? districts and community facilities districts. See "THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE - OverlappingLiens'. (3) U~ility easement for overheadpower transmission lines. (4) Currently undeveloped land. See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses" (5) Commercial shopping center. See "Current Development and S~Tgnificant Land Uses". (6) Pipe ,,m?nufacturing. (7) Pic N Save store. (8) (9) . (10) S~ngle family home construction. (11) . (12) Steel manufacturing. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Current Development and Significant Land Uses Cucamonga 220 LP. Cucamonga 220 LP, the owner of 22 parcels of vacant land in CFD 84-1, is currently applying to the City for a Specific Plan amendment and amended land use designations for a mixed use development of single family detached homes, multifamily housing and commercial uses. The current land use designation permits approximately 3,000 multifamily housing units and 70 acres of commercial uses; Cucamonga 220 LP is applying for entitlements to build approximately 700 single family homes and, on the remaining 70 acres, a combination of commercial uses and additional housing. The City's Planning Commission is currently reviewing the proposed amendments and an environmental impact report prepared in connection with the amendments. 35 Because of the uncertainty of the planning process, Cucamonga 220 LP can provide no assurances as to the nature or timing of development on its land in CFD 84-1. Moreover, Cucamonga 220 LP intends to sell all of the lots once it has received the requested entitlements; it does not plan to undertake residential or commercial development of the property itself. Lewis Development. Lewis Development Company is the owner of a commercial shopping center. [to come] Delinquencies The following table is a summary of CFD 84-1 Special Tax levies, collections and delinquency rates in CFD 84-1 for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98. Because CFD 84-1 does not participate in the Teeter Plan, collections of Special Taxes reflect actual delinquencies. Table 9 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 Special Tax Levies, Delinquencies and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Special Amount Percent Year Tax Levied Delinquent Delinquent 1993-94 $971,236 $129,839 13% 1994-95 956,704 71,759 8 1995-96 948,841 51,078 5 1996-97 943,210 57,601 6 1997-98 944,447 50,553 5 Source: City of Rancho Cucarnonga [Explain delinquencies] 36 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 Location and Description Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted Resolution No 89-185 on April 19, 1989 and amended Resolution No. 89-263 and 89-264 on June 21, 1989 stating its intention to establish Community Facilities District No. 88-2 ("CFD 88-2"), to authorize the levy of a special tax ("Special Tax A") on land within the boundaries of the CFD, and to have the district incur bonded indebtedness up to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 89-185 stating its intention to levy Special Tax B to pay the cost of providing additional police services to the district. Special Tax B is currently being levied at a rate of $1 per parcel. The proceeds of Special Tax B are not pledged as security for the CFD 88-2 Bonds. Following a public hearing called and conducted pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted resolutions establishing CFD 88-2 and calling a special election to submit to the qualified electors of the district the combined ballot proposition of authorizing the levy of a special tax, incurring bonded indebtedness and establishing an appropriations limit for the district. On June 27, 1989, at an election held pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the landowners who comprised the qualified electors of CFD 88-2 authorized CFD 88-2 to incur bonded indebtedness in the aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed $4,000,000, approved the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax (the "CFD 88-2 Rate and Method") and approved an appropriations limit equal to the maximum authorized Special Tax which may be levied in any fiscal year. CFD 88-2, located in the eastern portion of the City, consists of a total of approximately 326.8 acres constituting [224] net taxable acres of land ("Taxable Property"), excluding non- taxable areas such as open space and public rights-of-way. Immediately north of CFD 88-2 is a Southern California Edison easement for overhead power transmission lines. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains and National Forest are located further north of CFD 88-2. Immediately south of the district is vacant acreage to be held as permanent open space for use as a flood control basin. Immediately adjacent to the east of the district is additional vacant acreage to be held in permanent open space. This area is known as the San Sevaine Wash, a flood plain which serves as a natural drainage course from the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The proceeds of the Prior CFD 88-2 Bonds were used to finance a portion of the acquisition and construction costs of certain flood control improvements and roadway improvements necessary for the development of property in CFD 88-2. All such improvements have been completed. Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes The Special Taxes are levied in accordance with the CFD 88-2 Rate and Method, based on the proposed development plans within CFD 88-2 at the time of district formation. The CFD 88-2 Rate and Method provides that, as long as Special Tax A revenues are necessary to pay authorized expenses of CFD 88-2 related to the financing of authorized public facilities, which may include, without hmitation, payment of debt service on any bonded indebtedness of CFD 88-2, replenishment of any required reserve fund for any such bonded indebtedness, funding of any required sinking fund necessary to pay for future public facilities or debt service, or direct payment for pubhc facihties ("CFD Expenses"). Developed and Undeveloped Property. The CFD 88-2 Rate and Method categorizes property as "Developed Property" or "Undeveloped Property". Developed Property is all property identified as a single Tax Assessor's parcel for which a building permit has been 37 issued as of May 31 of any year. Undeveloped Property includes all other property, excluding property which, as of June 27, 1989 is (i) owned by a public entity; (ii) owned by a regulated public utility and being utilized for transmission or distribution purposes or (iii) zoned as open space. Developed Property is further categorized into six residential categories according to ranges of dwelling u_nit living area size, or one commercial/industrial category. Maximum annual tax rates are as follows: Classification Maximum Tax Rate I. Developed Property. Residential Class I (More than 3,590 sq. ft.) $1,037 per year Residential Class II (3,077 to 3,589 sq. ft.) $768 per year Residential Class III (2,564 to 3,076 sq. ft.) $576 per year Residential Class W (2,308 to 2,563 sq. ft.) $461 per year Residential Class V (2,051 to 2,307 sq. ft.) $384 per year Residential Class VI (Less than 2,051 sq. ft.) $269 per year Commercial.or industrial $2,030 per acre per year II. Undeveloped Property. All Undeveloped Property $2,400 per acre per year Method qf Apportionmen t. 1. Annual CFD Expenses are estimated (the "Required Special Tax A Revenue"); 2. Equal percentages of the Developed Property tax rate (which may not exceed 91 percent of the maximum authorized rate) are applied to all Developed Property classifications, to generate the Required Special Tax A Revenue; 3. If additional revenues are necessary, the maximum Undeveloped Property tax rate is applied to all Undeveloped property, in a percentage necessary to make up the shortfall; 4. If additional revenues are still necessary, an additional equal percentage of the Developed Property tax rates (up to the Maximum Tax Rates) are applied to all Developed Property classifications, in a percentage necessary to make up the shortfall; 5. If additional revenues are still necessary, a "Base Maximum Special Tax A" (which is equal to $0.044 per square foot of the parcel) is calculated for all Developed Property. An equal percentage, up to the Base Maximum Special A Tax, is applied to all Developed Property classifications, in a percentage necessary to make up the shortfall. For the complete text of the CFD 88-2 Rate and Method, see "APPENDIX F - Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFDs". 38 Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in CFD 88-2. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in CFD 88-2 (519 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total 100,069,481. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in CFD 88-2, based on 1998-99 assessed values ($100,069,481) and the lien of the Special Taxes on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($2,755,000) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments ($1,562,792), equals 23.2:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Special Taxes are levied and collected and the only burden is the CFD 88-2 Bonds (because the impact of overlapping liens is insignificant). More than 75 percent of the acreage (and the parcels) in CFD 88-2 has a value-to-burden ratio of greater than 30 to 1. Table 10 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios of Taxable Property (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total Annual % of Total Category Parcels of Parcels Acreage Acreage Levy_ Annual Levy_ 30:1 plus 398 77% 100.10 76.5% $193,102 78.6% 25:1 to 29.99:1 4 1 0.90 0.7 1,263 0.5 20:1 to 24.99:1 19 4 4.07 3.1 6,344 2.6 15:1 to 19.99:1 37 7 8.61 6.6 15,487 6.3 10:1 to 14.99:1 16 3 3.72 2.8 8,270 3.4 5:1 to 9.99:1 ........ 3:1 to 4.99:1 ........ 1:1 to 2.99:1 39 8 11.97 9.1 18,802 7.7 .99:1 and less 3 1 1.53 1.2 2,304 0.9 Total 516 100% 130.90 100% $245,573 100.0% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 39 Major Land Owners The following table lists certain information with respect to the three major property owners in CFD 88-2 for fiscal year 1998-99, including the actual CFD 88-2 Special Tax A levy, the 1998-99 assessed value and the value-to-burden ratio based upon the burden of the Special Tax A and overlapping assessment districts and community facilities districts. The ownership information reflects the County property records as of May 19, 1999, which do not necessarily represent actual property ownership as of that date. See "Current Development and Sigrrificant Land Uses" below. Table 11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 Summary of Major Owners of Taxable Property (Fiscal Year 1998-99) No. of Annual % of Total Assessed 88-2 Add'l Value Name Parcels Levy_ A~al Levy Value Lien Lien (1) to Lien Standard Pacific Corp 181 $87,631 22.0% $613,539 $1,112,840 Rancho Cucamonga LLC 42 21,I06 5.0 $217,324 147,668 153,080 0.7 Richmond American Homes 42 16,388 4.0 2,096r004 114,608 296,872 5.1 Total Top Taxpayers 265 $125,125 31.0 $2,313,328 $875,815 $1,562,792 Total for District 519 $393,573 100.0% $100,069,481 $2,755,000 $1,562,792 23.2 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 40 Current Development and Significant Land Uses The property in CFD 88-2 has been subdivided into three residential tracts as shown on Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13564, 13565 and 13566. Although the preceding table sets forth the property ownership data in the County assessor's records as of May 19, 1999, the information below, which has been provided by the property owners, differs as the result of recent development and sales activity. Based on information provided by the property owners, the three property owners own 70 parcels rather than ~. parcels as of May 19, 1999. Of the 70 parcels, all 70 constitute Developed Parcels. Tract No. 13564 (Standard Pacific). The portion of CFD 88-2 included in Tract No. 13564 is located between the two Southern California Edison utility corridors, consists of about 120 acres that have been subdivided into 182 lots, and is currently being developed as a single family residential neighborhood by Standard Pacific Corp. ("Standard Pacific"). This area also includes public open space areas and rights-of-way. Standard Pacific acquired this property in the Spring of 1994 from Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of America in consideration for the payment of accumulated property taxes and liens. The following table lists certain information with respect to property owned by Standard Pacific: Total Homes Sold/ Homes Sold/ Homes Under Undeveloped LO~ Closed Escrow In Escrow Construction 182 84 48 50 0 Standard Pacific expects to finish construction on the remaining 50 homes by the end of calendar year 1999 and to close escrow on the final homes by the middle of the first calendar quarter of 2000. All necessary permits have been issued, all fees have been paid and Standard Pacific has money on hand to complete construction. Standard Pacific is a publicly traded company whose shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It builds single family homes in metropolitan markets in Arizona, California and Texas. Financial information with respect to Standard Pacific is set forth in documents which it has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, particularly its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10- Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999. Tract No. 13565 (Richmond American). The area included in Tentative Tract Map No. 13565 consists of about 160 acres located south of the Southern California Edison utility corridor. Richmond American originally owned 90 lots in CFD 84-1 and has built, sold and closed escrow on all 90 homes as of May 19, 1999. Tract No. 13566 (Rancho Cucamonga LLC). The third area consists of approximately 47 acres south of Summit Road. Rancho Cucamonga LLC owns 42 parcels in the area. The following table lists certain information with respect to property owned by Rancho Cucamonga LLC: 41 Total Homes Sold/ Homes Sold/ Homes Under Undeveloped Lots Closed Escrow In Escrow Construc~ign Lots 42 22 0 20 0 Rancho Cucamonga LLC expects to finish construction of homes and close escrow on the remaining 20 lots it owns in CFD 84-1 by the beginning of August 1999. All necessary permits have been issued, all fees have been paid and Rancho Cucamonga LLC has money on hand to complete construction. Delinquencies The following table is a summary of Special Tax A levies, delinquencies and delinquency rates in CFD 88-2 for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98. Because CFD 88-2 does not participate in the Teeter Plan, collections of Special Taxes reflect actual delinquencies. Table 12 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 Special Tax Levies, Delinquencies and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Special Current Year's Percent Year Tax Levied Delino. uencies Delino. uent 1993-94 $428,675 $29,543 7% 1994-95 399,044 36,045 9 1995-96 398,409 35,755 9 1996-97 401,639 7,445 2 1997-98 403,327 9,272 2 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga The high delinquency rate in CFD 88-2 was principally caused by the failure to pay Special Taxes by the predecessor in interest to Rancho Cucamonga LLC. Rancho Cucamonga LLC acquired the delinquent parcels through foreclosure and cured all applicable delinquencies on January 11, 1997. 42 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 Location and Description Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted Resolution No 93-182 on October 6, 1993 stating its intention to establish Community Facilities District No. 93-3 ("CFD 93-3"), to authorize the levy of a special tax (the "93-3 Special Tax") on land within the boundaries of the CFD, and to have the district incur bonded indebtedness up to an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,100,000. Following a public hearing called and conducted pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council adopted resolutions establishing CFD 93-3 and calling a special election to submit to the qualified electors of the district the combined ballot proposition of authorizing the levy of a special tax, incurring bonded indebtedness and establishing an appropriations Limit for the district. On December 1, 1993, at an election held pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, the landowners who comprised the qualified electors of CFD 93-3 authorized CFD 93-3 to incur bonded indebtedness in the aggregate principal amount of not-to-exceed $5,100,000, approved the rate and method of apportionment of the 93-3 Special Tax (the "CFD 93-3 Rate and Method") and approved an appropriations limit equal to the maximum authorized 93-3 Special Tax which may be levied in any fiscal year. CFD 93-3, located in the extreme north-eastern portion of the City, consists of a total of approximately 31.96 gross acres constituting [29.51] net taxable acres of land ("Taxable Property"), excluding non-taxable areas such as open space and public rights-of-way. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains and National Forest are located further north of the district. Immediately south is a Metropolitan Water District reservoir. All of the land in CFD 93-3 is zoned for retail/commercial use, and has been developed into a regional shopping center known as "Foothill Marketplace". The proceeds of the Prior CFD 93-3 Bonds were used to finance the acquisition and construction costs of certain roadway, water, drainage and infrastructure improvements necessary for the then-proposed development of CFD 93-3. Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes The CFD 93-3 Special Taxes are levied in accordance with the CFD 93-3 Rate and Method, approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 518 adopted December 15, 1993. Special Taxes will be levied in CFD 93-3 as long as necessary to pay for authorized facilities and to discharge authorized bonded obligations or other debt of CFD 93-3. Taxable Property, Maximum Special Tax. The CFD 93-3 Rate and Method defines "Taxable Property" as all of the parcels within the boundaries of CFD 93-3 which are not exempt from the 93-3 Special Tax pursuant to law. Each parcel of Taxable Property is subject to a Maximum Special Tax Rate of $20,000 per acre. Method of Apportionment. The City Council will annually determine the amount of money required to be collected from Taxable Property in CFD 93-3 in each fiscal year. Such amount will include the sums necessary to pay for current debt service on indebtedness of CFD 93-3, to create or replenish reserve funds determined to be necessary, and to pay administrative expenses, construction expenses and acquisition expenses to be paid from 93-3 Special Tax proceeds (the "Special Tax Requirement"). An equal percentage of the Maximum Special Tax Rate will be levied on each parcel of Taxable Property, calculated in an amount to generate CFD 93-3 Special Tax revenues equal to the Special Tax Requirement. 43 For the complete text of the CFD 93-3 Rate and Method, see "APPENDIX F - Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFDs". Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in CFD 93-3. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in CFD 93-3 (12 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $26,424,822. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in CFD 93-3, based on 1998-99 assessed values ($26,424,822) and the lien of the Special Taxes on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($4,504,999) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments ($21,258), equals 5.8:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Special Taxes are levied and collected and the burden consists of the lien of the CFD 93-3 Bonds only (because the impact of overlapping liens is insignificant). More than 86 percent of the acreage (58 percent of the parcels) in CFD 93-3 has a value-to-burden ratio of between 5.1 to 9.99:1. Table 13 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios of Taxable Property (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total Annual % of Total Category Parcels of Parcels Acreage Acreage Levy Annual Levy 30:1 plus ........ 25:1 to 29.99:1 ........ 20:1 to 24.99:1 ........ 15:1 to 19.99:1 ........ 10:1 to 14.99:1 ........ 5:1 to 9.99:1 7 58% 25.34 88.2% $372,099 86.0% 3:1 to 4.99:1 ........ 1:1 to 2.99:1 5 42 3.38 11.8 60,404 14.0 .99:1 and less ....... Total 12 100% 28.72 100.0% $432,503 100.0% Source: Major Land Owners All of the Taxable Parcels in CFD 93-3 are owned by three property owners. One owner, Foothill Marketplace Partners, owns property responsible for 79 percent of the annual Special Tax levied in fiscal year 1998-99. See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses" below. The following table lists certain information with respect to the three payers of the 93-3 Special Tax on Taxable Property in CFD 93-3 for fiscal year 1998-99 as of April 1, 1999, including the actual 93-3 Special Tax levy, the 1998-99 assessed value and aggregate value-to-burden ratio of property owned by each property owner. Table 14 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 Summary of Owners of Taxable Property (Fiscal Year 1998-99) No. of Annual % of Total Assessed 93-3 Add'l Value Name Parcds I~evy Ar~ual [,¢vy_ Value [~ierl l~ieos []) to Lien Foothill Marketplace Partners (2) 9 $340,431 79.0% $21,619,154 $3,545,969 $20,458.89 6.1 Fredrickson Enterprises Inc (3) 2 81,369 19.0 4,603,467 847,550 708.00 5.4 R & M Veady (4) 1 10,703 2...~0 202,201 111,479 91.00 1.._~8 Total for District 12 $432,503 100.0% $26,424,822 $4,504,999 521,258 5.8 (1) Includes overlapping liens due to overlapping assessment di_s,t, ricts and community facilities districts. See "THE DISTRICTS INTHE AGGREGATE - Overlappi~,gLiens ' herein. (2) See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses,below. (3) See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses below. (4) Taco Bell restaurant. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Current Development and Significant Land Uses Foothill Marketplace Partners. Foothill Marketplace Partners owns a majority of the parcels constituting the Foothill Marketplace. As of May 31, 1999, its total leasable square footage of square feet was % occupied (.~ square feet), by the following triple-net lessees: Type of Square Lease Lease Tenant Business l-eet Starting Date Expiration Date Food 4 Less Grocery 50,000 8/25/94 8/31/14 Michaels Stores, Inc. 17,500 9/27/94 2/28/04 Petsmart, Inc. Pet SuEplies 25,015 10/26/94 10/31/09 Office De~.ot Office Supplies 24,958 8/8/94 8/31/09 Circuit City Stores, Electronics Retail 33,008 8/9/94 1/31/15 Inc. Sport Chalet, Inc. Sporting Goods 36,000 7/1/94 6/30/09 In-N-Out Fast Food ? ~ ~ Wal-Mart Discount Retail ~ ~ ~ Price/Costco Discount Retail ~ ~ ~ Holl.vwood Video Rentals 6,550 6/15/97 6/14/07 Entertainment Arby% Fast Food 3,000 6/1/99 9/1/18 Galardi Group ~ 1,983 6/3/94 6/2/14 Realty Corp. Golden Spoon Yogurt 1,200 7/18/95 7/31/05 Chevron Gasoline ~ ~ ~ Oil Max Automotive 1,900 5/1/97 4/30/12 Ctaim Jumper Restaurant 12,600 7/6/94 7/31/14 45 Panda Express Fast Food L&M Restaurants Coco's Restaurant 5,500 11/18/98 10/31/12 Marketplace Dry Cleaners 1,790 12/5/95 11/30/05 Cleaners Sally Beauty Supply Beauty Supply 1,687 6/1/94 5/31/00 Subway Fast Food 1,220 3/1/96 2/28/01 L.A. Nails Beauty Services 1,210 4/1/97 3/31/02 Beer Hunter 9,100 4/1/99 3/30/19 Wok Inn Fast Food 1,600 5/11/95 5/31/05 Cucamonga Flower Flowers 1,225 4/1/96 3/31/01 Lnc. aaP.le One 1,600 6/1/97 5/30/00 ll Boxes Etc. Mail Services 1,664 9/20/95 9/30/00 Foothill Optometric Eye Care 1,735 8/1/97 7/31/02 Center Hungry Howies Restaurant 1,800 3/22/99 6/30/04 Star Dental Group Dental Services 1,500 5/1/95 4/30/00 Stiffed Bagel Co. Bagel Store 1,500 1 / 1/96 9/30/00 Salon Excellence Beauty Services 1,500 12/1/97 6/30/02 Tandy Corp. Radio Shack 2,250 9/9/95 1/31/00 Guitar Center Music Supplies 15,254 1/13/99 4/30/09 Hobby Shack Inc. Hobby Store 4,393 11/21/98 11/30/03 Total Source: Foothill Marketplace Partners. The historical vacancy factor in the leasable square footage owned by Foothill Marketplace Partners is set forth below: Calendar Percent Year Vacant 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 (to date) [Discuss any undeveloped property] Foothill Marketplace Partners has represented to the City that its property has generated positive cash flow in each of the past five years. Fredrickson Enterprises Inc. [to come] 46 Delinquencies The following table is a summary of CFD 93-3 Special Tax levies, delinquencies, and delinquency rates in CFD 93-3 for fiscal years 1994-95 (the year the Special Tax was first levied in CFD 93-3) through 1997-98. Table 15 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 Special Tax Levies, Delinquencies and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1994-95 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Special Amount Percent Year Tax Levied Delinquent Delinquent 1994-95 $432,503 $0 0.00% 1995-96 432,503 0 0.00 1996-97 432,503 0 0.00 1997-98 432,503 0 0.00 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 47 THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT The Reassessment District was formed for the purpose of reassessing the Reassessed Parcels, superseding and supplanting the existing assessments, and refunding the Prior Assessment Bonds (see "THE FINANCING PLAN"). The Reassessment District is comprised of the former AD 86-2 and AD 89-1. See "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2" and "ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1" below for a description of each of the two prior Assessment Districts. Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in the Reassessment District. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in the Reassessment District (955 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $222,144,686. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in the Reassessment District, based on 1998-99 assessed values ($222,144,686) and the lien of the Reassessments on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($5,295,000) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments ($497,106), equals 38.4:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Reassessments are levied and collected and the only Lien is the Reassessments (because the impact of overlapping liens is insignificant). As shown in the table, 98 percent of the parcels in the Reassessment District have value-to-burden ratios of greater than 30:1. Table 16 REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1999-1 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios Of Reassessment Parcels (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total % of Total Catego _ry Parcels of Parcel~ Acreage Acreage Reassessr~erlt Reassessment 30:I + 936 98.0% 177.3 66.5% $268,706 39.7% 25:1 to 29.99:1 - 20:1 to 24.99:I - - 15:1 to 19.99:1 1 0.1 13.1 4.9 59,482 8.8 10:1 to 14.99:1 5 0.5 20.7 7.8 94,812 14.0 5:1 to 9.99:1 3:1 to 4.99:1 13 1.4 55.7 20.9 253,049 37.4 1:1 to 2.99:1 Unknown To tals 955 100.0% 266.8 100.0% $676,049 100.0% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 48 Major Assessees The followin§ table lists certain information retatin§ to the top 10 payers of Reassessments on Reassessment Parcels in the Reassessment District for fiscal year 1998-99 as of April 1, 1999, including the actual Reassessments, the 1998-99 assessed value and the a§§re§ate value-to-burden ratio for each property owner. See the sections relatin§ to AD 86-2 and AD 89- 1 below for more information relating to the various property owners listed below. Table 17 REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1999-1 Summary of Maior Assessees (Fiscal Year 1998-99) No. 'of 1998-99 % of Total Assessed Total Add'l Value Name Parcels Reass. Reass. Value Lien Lien to Lien Rancho Cucamonga II Inc. 13 $261,813 40.5 $14,306,322 $2,120,221 $169,933 6.2 RCDC AssociatesLP 6 145,530 22.5 10,579,393 1,178,535 43,154 8.7 Gruma Corporation 1 84,740 13.1 22,126,322 686,245 282,425 22.8 Prince Alpine Villa Prop. LLC (2) 1 14,205 2.2 101,152 -- - Lucky Stores Inc. 1 3,243 0.5 2,740,000 23,094 617 115.6 Principal Mutual Life Insur. Co 2 2,124 0.3 2,300,000 15,128 354 148.6 Diversifie.d, Properties Co. 2 2,041 0.3 656,492 14,532 263 44.4 McDonald s Corp. 1 1,027 0.2 1,040,400 7,311 91 140.6 Clover Trust 1 573 0.1 817,125 4,078 91 196.0 Alcala, Rogelio P. I 527 0.1 236,963 3r753 177 60.3 TotalTop Assessees 29 $515,823 79.8 $54,803,017 $4r154r049 $497,106 11.8 TotalReassessment District 955 $676,049 100% $222,144,686 $5,295,000 5497,106 38.4 (1)Includes overlapping liens due to overlapping assessment distric~ and community facilities districts. See "THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE - Overlapping Liens' herein. (2) Property owned by Prince Alpine Villa Prop.,LLC will~fiot receive an assessed value until it receives a 1999-00 assessed value on July 1, 1999. See 'ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 86-2 - Major Assessees" for additional information. Source: Ci,ty of Rancho Cucamonga 49 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 Location and Description Assessment District No 86-2 ("AD 86-2"), one of the two Prior Assessment Districts that comprise the Reassessment District, is located in the northeast quadrant of the City, about eight miles north of the San Bernardino Freeway. AD 86-2 is roughly bordered by Haven Avenue to the west, Banyan Street to the north, and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the south. The assessment district extends about one mile to the east of Haven Avenue. The land within AD 86-2 totals approximately 298.5 gross acres, of which 209 acres are zoned for single- family residential use, 17 acres are zoned for multi-family residential use, and 72 acres for neighborhood commercial use. AD 86-2 was created by the City pursuant to proceedings taken under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "Improvement Act"). The Prior AD 86-2 Bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of four master plan storm drains which were required for the initial development of area in AD 86-2. The storm drain project has been completed, and development in the district is substantially complete, with 928 single-family residential units, 308 multi-family residential units (on one parcel of land) and 7 commercial/industrial parcels (which consist of a neighborhood commercial center with a Lucky's Supermarket, a Payless Drug Store and a Union Oil Service Station). The fiscal year 1998-99 Assessor's Tax Roll shows 1,243 parcels ("Reassessment Parcels") in CFD 86-2. The Tax Roll for 1999-00 will show a decrease of 308 Reassessment Parcels, because the 308-unit multifamily parcel owned by Prince Alpine Villa LLC has been consolidated into one parcel. Method of Reassessment Spread The amounts originally assessed against Reassessment Parcels to pay the cost and expenses of the work and improvements funded by the Prior AD 86-2 Bonds were apportioned based upon acreage, with each parcel assessed an amount proportional to its representative share of the total acreage in AD 86-2. The Reassessments are directly proportionate to the ratio of the previously existing assessments to the aggregate previously existing assessments. The principal amount of the Reassessment on each Reassessment Parcel is less than the or/ginal principal amount of the original assessment by the same percentage for each Reassessment Parcel. See "APPENDIX E - Reassessment Diagram". Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in AD 86-2. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in AD 86-2 (936 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $175,132,649. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in AD 86-2, based on 1998-99 assessed values $175,132,649 and the lien of the Reassessments on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($1,310,000) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments (53,369), equals 133.3:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Reassessments are levied and collected and the only Hen is each parcel's share of the Reassessment (because the impact 50 of overlapping liens is insignificant). 100 percent of the acreage (and the parcels) in AD 86-2 has a value-to-burden ratio of greater than 30:1. Table 18 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios Of Reassessment Parcels (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total % of Total Category Parcels of Parcels Acreage Acreage Reassessment Reassessment 30:1 plus 935 100% 158.64 100% $183,966 100% 25:1 to 29.99:1 ........ 20:1 to 24.99:1 ......... 15:1 to 19.99:1 ........ 10:1 to 14.99:1 ........ 5:1 to 9.99:1 ........ 3:l to 4.99:1 ........ 1:1 to 2.99:1 ........ .99:1 and less ......... Total 935 100% 158.64 100% $183,966 100% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. Major Assessees The following table lists certain information with respect to the top 10 payers of Reassessmems on Reassessment Parcels in AD 86-2 for fiscal year 1998-99 as of April 1, 1999, including the actual Reassessments, the 1998-99 assessed value and value-to-burden ratio for each of the property owners. No single assessee is responsible for more than 8 percent of the aggregate Reassessments in fiscal year 1998-99. 51 Prince Alpine Villa Property LLC owns a 308-trait multifamily housing complex which was originally recorded as separate condominiumized parcels but which has subsequently been consolidated into a single assessor's parcel. Table 19 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 Summary of Major Assessees (Fiscal Year 1998-99) No. of 1998-99 % of Total Assessed Total Add'l Value- Name Parcels Assessmt. Assessment Value Lien Lien (1) to-Burden Prince Alpine Villa Prop. LLC (2) 1 $14,205 7.2°,/0 -- $101,152 - -- Lucky Stores Inc (3) 1 3,243 1.6 $2,740,000 23,094 $617 115.6 Princ. Mutual Life Ins. (4) 2 2,124 1.1 2,300,000 15,128 148.6 354 Diversified Properties Co. (5) 2 2,041 1.0 656,492 14,532 263 44.4 McDonald's Corp (6) 1 1,027 0.5 1,040,400 7,311 91 140.6 Clover Trust 1 573 0.3 817,125 4,078 196.0 91 Alcala, Rogelio P 1 527 0.3 236,963 3,753 177 60.3 Chandroo, Charles R 3 470 0.2 496,554 3,349 128.0 531 Nemo, Bachar Z 3 462 0.2 513,541 3,291 122.8 891 HLDC Acquisition Corp 2 41.~.0 0.2 365,324 2,9~1 35._!4 111.5 Total Top Assessees 17 $25,082 12.6% $9,166,399 $178,608 53,369 50.4 Total for District 936 $183,966 100.0% $175,132,649 $1,310,000 $3,369 133.3 (1) Includes overlapping liens due to overlapping assessment districts and community facilities districts. See "THE DISTRICTS INTHE AGGREGATE- O~erlapping Liens" herein. (2) A 308-unit multifamily housing complex, consisting of 124 1 bed/1 bath, 144 2 bed/2 bath and 40 3 bed/2 bath units. (3) Lucky Stores Inc., a subsidiary of American Stores, operates a 42,000 square foot supermarket on this Earcel. It is part of the Haven Village Shopping Center. (4) Property owned by entity now known as Principal Life Insurance Company is part of the Haven Village Shopping Center and leased to approximately 10 commercial tenants. (5) Two parcels owned by original developer of the Haven Village Shopping Center are leased to commercial tenants. (6) Fast food restaurant in Haven Village Shopping Center. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 52 Assessment Installment Delinquencies Property taxes (including assessment and Reassessment installments) may be paid in two installments. The first installment is due on November ! and is delinquent if not paid by December ]0. The second installment is due on March ] and is delinquent if not paid by April 10. The following table is a summary of AD 86-2 assessments, collections and delinquency rates in AD 86-2 for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98. Because AD 86-2 does not participate in the Teeter ?lan, collections of Special Taxes reflect actual delinquencies. Table 20 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 Assessments, Delinquencies and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Current Year's Percent Year Levy Delinquencies Delinquent 1993-94 $207,841 $16,266 8% 1994-95 203,762 17,172 8 1995-96 203,021 16,266 8 1996-97 197,989 6,547 3 1997-98 196,003 6,720 3 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Explain delinquencies. 53 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 Location and Description Assessment District No 89-1 ("AD 89-1"), the second of the two Prior Assessment District that comprise the Reassessment District, was created by the City pursuant to proceedings taken under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. AD 89-1 includes 20 parcels with reassessments ("Reassessment Parcels") and is located in the southeast quadrant of the City, about one-half mile west of Interstate 15. The boundaries of AD 89-1 are contiguous with the bormdaries of Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center II, a master-planned industrial center (the "Distribution Center"). AD 89-1 is located in a neighborhood which can be described as an industrial/manufacturing area with a mix of distribution and manufacturing facilities. The Prior AD 89-1 Bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and construction of certain public improvements, including roadway, water and sewer improvements which were required for the development of the Distribution Center. The improvements have been completed, and development in the district is substantially complete. All of the parcels in the district are zoned for industrial use. See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses" below. Method of Reassessment Spread The amounts originally assessed against Reassessment Parcels to pay the cost and expenses of the work and improvements funded by the Prior AD 89-1 Bonds were apportioned based upon the usable size of the parcel lots, with each parcel assessed an amount proportional to its representative share of the total net usable area in AD 89-1. The Reassessments are directly proportionate to the ratio of the previously existing assessments to the aggregate previously existing assessments. The principal amount of the Reassessment on each Reassessment Parcel is less than the original principal amount of the original assessment by the same percentage for each Reassessment Parcel. See "APPENDIX E - Reassessment Diagram". Valuation and Value-to-Debt Burden Assessed Value of Land in AD 89-1. The City has obtained the "full cash" assessed values of all of the parcels in AD 89-1 (20 parcels in total), as established by the County Assessor for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The "full cash values" of these parcels, as shown in the records of San Bernardino County for 1998-99 property tax purposes, total $47,012,037. Value-to-Debt Burden. The value-to-debt burden of the Taxable Parcels in AD 89-1, based on 1998-99 assessed values $47,012,037 and the lien of the Reassessments on the date of issuance of the Bonds ($3,985,000) and the lien of overlapping special taxes and assessments ($495,513), equals 10.5:1. Value-to-Burden Distribution. The following table describes the number of parcels in certain value-to-debt burden categories as fiscal year 1998-99. For purposes of this Official Statement, parcels shown below are only those parcels against which Reassessments are levied and collected and the only lien is the lien of the Reassessments (because the impact of overlapping liens is insignificant). Over half of the Reassessment Parcels in AD 89-1 have a value-to-burden ratio between 3:1 and 4.99 to 1. 54 Table 21 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 Assessed Value-to-Debt Burden Ratios Of Reassessment Parcels (For Fiscal Year 1998-99) Value-to- % of Debt Burden No. of % No. Total Total % of Total Catego _ry Parcels of Parcels Acreage Acreage Reassessment Reassessment 30:1 plus 1 5% 18.7 17.2% $ 84,740 17.2% 25:1 to 29.99:1 ........ 20:1 to 24.99:1 ........ 15:1 to 19.99:1 1 5 13.1 12.1 59,482 12.1 10:1 to 14.99:1 5 25 20.7 19.2 94,812 19.3 5:1 to 9.99:1 ........ 3:1 to 4.99:1 13 65 55.7 51.5 253,049 51.4 1:1 to 2.99:1 ........ .99:1 and less ........ Total 20 100% 108.2 100% $492,083 100% Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. Major Assessees All of the Reassessment Parcels in AD 89-1 are owned by three owners. Rancho Cucamonga lI Inc. is responsible for approximately 53 percent of the assessments for fiscal year 1998-99. RCDC Associates LP, which originally developed the Distribution Center, is responsible for approximately 30 percent of-the assessments for fiscal year 1998-99. See "Current Development and Significant. Land Uses" below. The following table lists certain information relating to the three property owners in AD 89-1 for fiscal year 1998-99 as of April 1, 1999, including the actual Reassessments, the 1998-99 assessed value and the aggregate value-to-burden ratio for each property owner. Thirteen of the twenty parcels in AD 89-1 show no value due to improvements. [Are these all vacant parcels?] Table 22 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 Top Assessees Fiscal Year 1998-99 Value-to- Property Total % of Total Assessed AD 89-1 Additional Burden Owner Parcels Reassessment Reassessment Value Lien Lien (1) . Ratio Rancho Cucamonga II (2) 13 $261,813 53% $14,306,322 $2,120,221 $169,933 6.2 RCDC Associates LP (2) 6 145,530 30 10,579,393 1,178,535 43,154 8.7 Gruma Corporation (2) 1_ 84,740 17 22,126,322 686r245 282,425 22.8 Total for District 20 $492,083 100% $47,012,037 $3,985,000 $495,513 10.5 (1) Includes overlapping liens due to overlapping assessment districts and community facilities districts. See "THE DISTRICTS INTHE AGGREGATE - OverlappingLiens" herein. (2) See "Current Development and Significant Land Uses"'below. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 55 Current Development and Significant Land Uses Rancho Cucarnonga II, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga II, Inc. is a Corporation controlled by the AT&T Master Pension Trust, which is managed by GE Capital. Rancho Cucamonga II, Inc. owns a portion of the Distribution Center consisting of 636,386 of leasable square feet, and is currently leasing to the following tenants on a "triple-net" basis: Type of Square Lease Lease Tenant Business Feet Starting Date Expiration Date Pacific 49,068 11/15/94 11/15/02 Merchandise Westside 36,470 3 / 15/97 5 / 14/02 Packaging Meyer Chemical 38,176 10/28/91 10/27/01 Distributing Hankook Tire 77,757 8/01/94 7/31/99 Giorgio Beverly 264,558 9/10/91 8/31/99 Hills Jenny Craig 111,351 7/01/96 6/30/01 Products, Inc. Schmalbach- 59,006 4 / 02/99 6/30/99 Lubeca Source: Rancho Cucamonga II, Inc. There are currently no vacancies [Please explain "Miscellaneous Income" heading" as the table suggests 8 units and no vacancies but I count 7 tenantsl The historical vacancy factor in Rancho Cucamonga II, Inc. property is set forth below: Calendar Percent Year Vacant 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 (to date) Rancho Cucamonga II Inc. has represented to the City that its property has generated positive cash flow in each of the past five years. Rancho Cucamonga II Inc.'s property in the Distribution Center is managed by the Trammel Crow Company, City of Industry, California. RCDC Associates L.P. RCDC Associates L.P., a California limited partnership ("RCDC"), is comprised of RC Development L.P., a California limited partnership ("RC Development"), as general parmer, and the AT&T Master Pension Trust, as limited parmer. RCDC owns vacant property in the Distribution Center. RCDC is currently planning to develop four buildings on the parcels, as follows: Parcel Proposed Leasable Intended APN (Building) Acreage Square Feet Use __ (A) 10.73 201,100 56 __ (B) 20.22 426,500 __ (C) 15.43 327,200 __ (D) 2.66 54,000 [describe timing of entitlements, development; describe contractor/developer] Grurna Corporation. Gruma Corporation, a subsidiary of Gruma S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, operates a corn and flour tortilia factory on its property in AD 89-1 under the name Mission Foods. Additional information about Gruma Corporation is available on the Internet at www.gruma.com. Assessment Installment Delinquencies Property taxes (including assessment and Reassessment installments) may be paid in two installments. The first installment is due on November 1 and is delinquent if not paid by December 10. The second installment is due on March 1 and is delinquent if not paid by April 10. The following table is a summary of assessments, colIections and delinquency rates in AD 89-1 for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1997-98. Table 23 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 Assessments, Delinquencies and Delinquency Rates Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 Fiscal Total Amount Percent Year Levy. Delinquent Delinquent 1993-94 492,845 $0 0% 1994-95 362,714 (1) 0 0 1995-96 492,506 0 0 1996-97 493,393 0 0 1997-98 493,243 0 0 (1) The City applied funds remaining in the Construction Fund to reduce assessments in fiscal year 1994-95. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga 57 GENERAL RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE BONDS Varying Maturities of Acquired Obligations The CFD 84-1 Bonds (September 2, 2005), the CFD 88-2 Bonds (September 2, 2020), the CFD 93-3 Bonds (September 2, 2020) and the Reassessment Bonds (September 2, 2007 with respect to the AD 86-2 portion and September 2, 2012 with respect to the AD 89-1 portion) mature at different times. Because the Bonds are payable solely from moneys received by the Authority as debt service on the Acquired Obligations, the credit quality of the Bonds at any one time depends upon the credit quality of the remaining outstanding Acquired Obligations, including the relative concentration of property ownership at any one time. Most significantly, the percentage of debt service on the Bonds payable from Special Taxes paid by the largest property owner on the date of issuance of the Bonds, Foothill Marketplace Partners, will increase from approximately 14 percent on the date of issuance of the Bonds to approximately 40 percent for the period between September 3, 2012 through September 2, 2020. Set forth in the following tables are projected lists of the largest Reassessees/Special Taxpayers between (i) September 3, 2005 (i.e., after maturity of the CFD 84-1 Bonds) and September 2, 2007, (ii) September 3, 2007 (i.e., after maturity of the AD 86-2 portion of the Reassessment Bonds) and September 2, 2012, and (iii) September 3, 2012 (i.e., after maturity of the AD 89-1 portion of the Reassessment Bonds) through September 2, 2020 (final maturity). The top Reassessees/Special Taxpayers as of the date of issuance of the Bonds is set forth in Table 2 above. The following tables set forth projections based upon information currently available to the City. They do not represent guarantees of future conditions. 58 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 86-2, AD 89-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Top Reassessees/Special Tax Payers (September 3, 2005-September 2, 2007) % of Total Property Total Annual Annual Assessed Additional Value-to- Owner District Parcels Levy Levy Value Lien Lien Burden Total Top Ten Taxpayers Total Districts Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AD 89-1, CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Top Reassessees/Special Tax Payers (September 3, 2007-September 2, 2012) % of Total Property Total Annual Annual Assessed Additional Value-to- Owner District Parcels Levy Levy Value Lien Lien Burden Total Top Ten Taxpayers Total Districts Source: Cit,v of Rancho Cucamonga. 59 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CFD 88-2 and CFD 93-3 Top Reassessees/Special Tax Payers (September 3, 2012-September 2, 2020) % of Total Property Total Annual Annual Assessed Additional Value-to- Owner District Parcels Levy Levy Value Lien Lien Burden Total Top Ten Taxpayers Total Districts Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga. Risks Associated with Commercial Real Estate Properties Property in CFD 93-3 and the Reassessment District are heavily commercial in nature. Certain risks are associated with commercial real estate properties, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Dependence on Tenants. The ability of commercial property owners within the Districts to pay the Special Taxes and/or Reassessments which will be levied on their property to pay debt service on the Acquired Obligations may depend primarily on the ability of their tenants to meet their financial obligations under their leases. In the event of defaults by tenants, delays may be experienced in enforcing rights and substantial costs may be incurred in protecting the property owner's investment. Furthermore, at any time, a tenant could seek protection under bankruptcy laws, which could result in the termination of the tenant's lease and an interruption or loss of rental income. The bankruptcy of a major tenant, followed by the closing of its business or the leasing of its space to a different tenant or for a different use, could adversely affect the desirability of the property and result in a decrease in consumer traffic and sales income which would adversely affect the ability of the other tenants to meet their obligations under their leases. Factors Affecting Economic Performance and Value of Commercial Properties. The economic performance and value of commercial properties within the Districts will be affected by a number of factors, including national economic conditions, regional economic conditions (which may be adversely effected by plant closings, industry slow-downs and other factors), local real estate conditions such as an oversupply of retail space or a reduction in the demand for retail space in the area, the attractiveness of the retail centers to tenants, competition from other retail centers, the quality of maintenance, the cost of insurance and management services, and increased operating costs. Other factors which may adversely affect the economic performance and value of commercial properties within the Districts include changes in government regulations and other laws, rules and regulations governing real estate, zoning or taxes, increases in interest rates, the availability of financing and potential liability under environmental and other laws. Due to these factors and other risks, there can be no assurance that commercial development in the Districts will remain economically viable throughout the term of the Bonds, or that the owners of commercial property in the Districts will continue to have the ability throughout the term of the Bonds to pay the Special Taxes and/or Reassessments which will be levied on their property. Loss of Tax Exemption As discussed under the caption "LEGAL MATTERS - Tax Matters," interest on the Bonds might become includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation retroactive to the date the Bonds were issued as a result of future acts or omissions of the Authority in violation of its covenants in the Indenture. The Indenture does not contain a special redemption feature triggered by the occurrence of an event of taxability. As a result, if interest on the Bonds were to be includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, the Bonds would continue to remain outstanding until maturity unless earlier redeemed pursuant to optional or mandatory redemption or redemption. Year 2000-Related Risks A "Year 2000" problem arises because most computer systems and programs were designed to handle only a two-digit year, not a four-digit year (e.g., 1998 is seen as "98"). When the Year 2000 begins, these computers may interpret "00" as the year 1900 and may either stop processing date-related computations or process them incorrectly. If this Year 2000 problem is not timely remedied, problems could arise in the levy and collection of taxes and the calculation of interest and principal payments on the Bonds. To prevent this, public entities and banking organizations need to examine their computers and programs, fix the problem, test their systems and test interactions with other systems. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has introduced proposed temporary regulations for non-bank related paying agents and broker dealers to submit reports to the SEC regarding their attempts to solve the Year 2000 problem. Failure to solve the Year 2000 problem could adversely impact the levy and collection of the Special Taxes that secure the Bonds, and could cause the Community Facilities District, the Fiscal Agent and/or DTC to experience problems that may affect the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds. The County. The San Bernardino County Assessor's Office and Tax Collector's Office have the assessment and collection responsibilities with respect to Special Taxes and annual reassessments. According to information provided by the County, the County's tax collection and assessor functions are already Year 2000-compliant. In addition, the County established a Year 2000 Project Management Office to serve as the focal point for Year 2000 related activities and projects. Further, according to the County's Chief Information Officer, "by targeting all aspects of the year 2000 problem, emphasizing project management, and elevating general awareness of the challenges ahead, San Bernardino County is developing an enterprise strategy and methodology that will sustain them to the Year 2000, and beyond". The City. [To come] The Trustee. The Trustee has undertaken an effort to evaluate its computer programs in order to avoid computer problems on and after January 1, 2000. No assurance can be given as to whether the Trustee will be successful in its efforts to address Year 2000 problems. The Trustee has advised the Authority that certain information regarding such efforts toward 61 compliance with the Year 2000 matter is contained in filings by U.S. Bancorp (the corporate parent of the Trustee) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Year 2000-related provisions of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Further information about U.S. Bancorp is available on the Internet at http://www.usbank.com. DTC. DTC management is aware that some computer applications, systems, and the like for processing data ("Systems") that are dependent upon calendar dates, including dates before, on, and after January 1, 2000, may encounter "Year 2000 problems." DTC has informed its Participants and other members of the financial community (the "Industry") that it has developed and is implementing a program so that its Systems, as the same relate to the timely payment of distributions (including principal and income payments) to securityholders, book- entry deliveries, and settlement of trades within DTC, continue to function appropriately. This program includes a technical assessment and a remediation plan, each of which is complete. Additionally, DTC's plan includes a testing phase, which is expected to be completed within appropriate time frames. However, DTC's ability to perform its services properly is also dependent upon other parties, including but not limited to, issuers and their agents, as well as third party vendors from whom DTC licenses software and hardware, and third party vendors on whom DTC relies for information or the provision of services, including telecommunication and electrical utility service providers, among others. DTC has informed the Industry that it is contacting (and will continue to contact) third party vendors from whom DTC acquires services to: (i) impress upon them the importance of such services being Year 2000 compliant and (ii) determine the extent of their efforts for Year 2000 remediation (and, as appropriate, testing) of their services. In addition, DTC is in the process of developing such contingency plans as it deems appropriate. Failure to solve the Year 2000 problem could adversely impact the levy and collection of Reassessments and Special Taxes which secure the Acquired Obligations, and could cause the City, the City and the CFDs, the Trustee/Fiscal Agent and/or DTC to experience problems that may affect the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds. Secondary Market There can be no guarantee that there will be a secondary market for the Bonds, or, if a secondary market exists, that such Bonds can be sold for any particular price. Occasionally, because of general market conditions or because of adverse history or economic prospects connected with a particular issue, secondary marketing practices in connection with a particular issue are suspended or terminated. Additionally, prices of issues for which a market is being made will depend upon then prevailing circumstances. Such prices could be substantially different from the original purchase price. RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION Foreclosure and Sale Proceedings The City Council of the City is obligated under certain conditions to institute foreclosure and sale proceedings against Reassessment Parcels which have delinquent Reassessment installments, and may do so in other circumstances even if not so obligated. Foreclosure proceedings are instituted by the bringing of an action in the superior court of the county in which the Reassessment Parcel lies, naming the owner and other interested persons as defendants. The action is prosecuted in the same manner as other civil actions. Upon judgment of foreclosure the Reassessment Parcel may be offered for sale at a minimum price. The 62 established minimum price will be sufficient to cover the amount of the delinquent installments and unpaid interest together with penalties, costs, fees and charges and the costs of execution and sale. However, in the event a Reassessment Parcel does not sell for the m'mimum price the court may modify its judgment and reduce or eliminate the minimum price. In order to do so, however, written notice of a hearing on the matter of reducing or eliminating the minimum price is required to be given to the Authority, as owner of the Reassessment District Obligation. If, at the hearing, the court determines that such a sale will not result in an ultimate loss to the Authority, as owner of the Reassessment District Obligation, or if the owners of 75 percent of the outstanding obligation by principal amount (in this case, the Authority) consent and the sale will not result in an ultimate loss to the nonconsenting owners, the court may reduce or eliminate the minimum price at which a Reassessment Parcel may be sold. Further, if the owners of 75 percent of the outstanding Reassessment District Obligation by principal amount (in this case, the Authority) consent the court may reduce or eliminate the minimum price at which a Reassessment Parcel may be sold even if sale below the m'mimum price will result in an ultimate loss to nonconsenting owners, provided that the court makes certain additional determinations specified by statute, including the reasonable unavailability of any other remedy acceptable to the owners of 75 percent or more of the outstanding Reassessment District Obligation by principal amount (in this case, the Authority). Upon sale of the Reassessment Parcel for less than the minimum price, the remaining unpaid balance of the reassessment on the Reassessment Parcel will be reduced by the difference between the minimum price and the sale price. By such a reduction, the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Reassessment District Obligation will exceed the aggregate principal amount of the unpaid Reassessment. Under such circumstances, proportionate payments are to be made, periodically, of the unpaid principal and interest of the Bonds without priority or preference between the Authority, as owner of the Reassessment District Obligation, as funds become available from collection of the unpaid reassessment installments. The maturity dates of the Reassessment District Obligation are to be disregarded and no redemption premiums are to be payable on payments of the principal of the Reassessment District Obligation the maturity dates of which are subsequent to the date of any such payments. The Authority may be required to surrender the Reassessment District Obligation for cancellation in order to participate in such proportionate payments. Factors Affecting Parcel Value and Aggregate Values The facts and circumstances concerning the values of the Reassessment Parcels that are of importance are not confined to those relating to individual Reassessment Parcel values because the Bonds are not individually secured by particular Reassessment Parcels. The Reassessment District Obligation is secured by all of the unpaid Reassessments on all of the Reassessment Parcels. Therefore the value of the Reassessment Parcels must also be evaluated in the aggregate. The following are some of the factors which may affect the market for and value of particular Reassessment Parcels individually and in the aggregate. Geologic, topographic and climatic conditions. Values of Reassessment Parcels can be adversely affected by a variety of natural events and conditions. These include, without limitation: 63 - geologic conditions such as earthquakes; - topographic conditions such as earth movements and floods; and - climatic conditions such as droughts. The possibility of the occurrence of some of these conditions and events has been taken into account to a limited extent in the design of the Reassessment District improvements and has been or will be taken into account to a limited extent in the designs of other public improvements which may be approved by the City or other public agencies. Building codes require that some of these conditions be taken into account to a limited extent in the design of private improvements. Design criteria in any of these circumstances are established upon the basis of a variety of considerations and may change from time to time leaving previously designed improvements unaffected by more stringent subsequently established criteria. In general, design criteria, at the time of their establishment, reflect a balance between the present costs of protection and the future costs of lack of protection, based in part upon a present perception of the probability that the condition will occur and the seriousness of the condition should it occur. Also reflecting that balance are decisions not to impose design criteria at all. The City expects that one or more of these conditions may occur from time to time, and, even if design criteria do exist, such conditions may result in damage to property improvements. That damage may entail significant repair or replacement costs, and repair or replacement may never occur. Under any of these circumstances, the value of the Reassessment Parcels could depreciate substantially notwithstanding the establishment of design criteria. Seismic Conditions. The Districts, like all California communities, may be subject to unpredictable seismic activity. There are several identified faults within close proximity to or within the bou_~daries of the City (and therefor the Districts) that could potentially result in damage to buildings, roads, bridges and property in the event of an earthquake. Past earthquake experiences in the City have resulted in minimal damage to the infrastructure and property within the City. However, the occurrence of seismic activity in the City could result in substantial damage to properties in a District which, in turn, could substantially reduce the value of such properties and could affect the ability or willingness of the property owners to pay their assessments and/or Special Taxes. Any major damage to structures as a result of seismic activity could result in greater reliance on undeveloped property in the receipt of Revenues by the Authority. Legal requirements. Other events which may affect the value of a Reassessment Parcel include changes in the law or application of the law. Such changes may include, without limitation, the following: - local growth control initiatives; - local utility connection moratoriums; - local application of statewide tax and governmental spending limitation measures. Prepayment of Reassessments. There is rarely a uniform relationship between the value of Reassessment Parcels and the proportionate share of debt service on the Reassessment District Obligation to be borne by the Reassessment Parcels. One of the factors that may effect a significant change in the relationship between the aggregate Reassessment Parcel values and the Reassessment is the prepayment before final bond maturity of the remaining balance of the Reassessments on particular Reassessment Parcels. Should the reassessments on Reassessment Parcels having a relatively high ratio of value to Reassessment be prepaid, the security for the Reassessment District Obligation, as evidenced by the ratio of the aggregate remaining Reassessment Parcel values to the remaining balance of the Reassessment, will be reduced. 64 Other Possible Claims Upon the Value of a Parcel Other governmental obligations. While the Reassessment is secured by the Reassessment Parcels, the security only extends to the value thereof that is not subject to priority and parity liens and similar claims relative to the Reassessments. Other governmental obligations may be authorized and undertaken or issued in the future the tax, assessment or charge for which may become an obligation of one or more of the Reassessment Parcels and may be secured by liens on a parity with the liens of the Reassessments securing the Reassessment District Obligation. In general, as long as instalknents of the Reassessment are collected on the County tax roll, the installments arid all other taxes, assessments and charges also collected on the tax roll are on a parity. Questions of priority become significant when collection of one or more of the taxes, assessments or charges is sought by some other procedure, such as foreclosure and sale. In the event of proceedings of foreclosure for delinquency of installments of a Reassessment securing the Reassessment District Obligation, the Reassessment will have priority over specific-amount special assessments levied subsequent to the levy of the Reassessments but will be subordinate to those referred to above. Otherwise, in the event of such foreclosure proceedings the installments of the Reassessment will generally be on a parity with the other taxes, assessments and charges. The Reassessment will have priority over non-governmental liens on a Reassessment Parcel regardless of whether or not the non-governmental liens are in existence at the time of the levy of the Reassessment. Hazardous substances. While governmental taxes, assessments and charges are a common claim against the value of a Reassessment Parcel, other less common claims may be relevant. One of the most serious in terms of the potential reduction in the value that may be realized to pay the reassessment installments is a claim with regard to a hazardous substance. In general, the owners and operators of a Reassessment Parcel may be required by law to remedy conditions of the Reassessment Parcel relating to released or threatened releases of hazardous substances. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, sometimes referred to as "CERCLA" or "Superfund Act", is the most well known and widely applicable of these laws, but CaLifornia laws with regard to hazardous substances are also stringent and similar. Under many of these laws, the owner or operator of a property is obligated to remedy a hazardous substance condition whether or not the owner or operator has anything to do with creating or handling the hazardous substance. The effect therefore, should any of the Reassessment Parcels be affected by a hazardous substance, is to reduce the marketability and value of the parcel by the costs of remedying the condition. Further, it is possible that liabilities may arise in the future with respect to any of the Reassessment Parcels resulting from the current existence on the Reassessment Parcel of a substance presently classified as hazardous but which has not been released or the release of which is not presently threatened, or may arise in the future resulting from the existence on the Reassessment Parcel of a substance not presently classified as hazardous but which may in the future be so classified. Further, such liabilities may arise not simply from the existence of a hazardous substance but from the method of handling it. All of these possibilities could significantly affect the value of a Reassessment Parcel that is realizable upon delinquency. Bankruptcy Proceedings Regardless of the priority of the Reassessment securing the Reassessment District Obligation over non-governmental liens the exercise by the City of the foreclosure and sale remedy or by the County of the tax sale remedy may be forestailed or delayed by bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or other similar proceedings affecting the owner of, or anyone else who claims an interest in, a Reassessment Parcel. The Federal bankruptcy laws provide for an 65 automatic stay of foreclosure and sale or tax sale proceedings thereby delaying such proceedings perhaps for an extended period. Delay in exercise of remedies, especially if the owner owns Reassessment Parcels the Reassessments of which are significant or if bankruptcy proceedings are instituted with respect to a number of owners owning Reassessment Parcels the Reassessments of which are significant, may result in periodic reassessment installment collections that, even in conjunction with the Reserve Fund, may be insufficient to pay the debt service on the Bonds as it comes due. Further, should remedies be exercised under the bankruptcy law against the Reassessment Parcels, payment of installments of the Reassessment may be subordinated to bankruptcy law priorities. Therefore, certain claims may have priority over the Reassessment lien, even though they would not were the bankruptcy law not applicable. Bankruptcy and Foreclosure On July 30, 1992 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in a bankruptcy case entitled In re Glasply Marine Industries holding that ad valorem property taxes levied by a county in the State of Washington after the date that the property owner filed a petition for bankruptcy would not be entitled to priority over the claims of a secured creditor with a prior lien on the property. Although the court upheld the priority of unpaid taxes imposed before the bankruptcy petition, unpaid taxes imposed subsequent to the filing of the bankruptcy petition were declared to be "administrative expenses" of the bankruptcy estate, payable after the claims of all secured creditors. As a result, the secured creditor was able to foreclose on the subject property and retain all the proceeds from the sale thereof except the amount of the pre-petition taxes. Pursuant to this holding, post-petition taxes would be paid only as administrative expenses and only if a bankruptcy estate has sufficient assets to do so. In certain circumstances, payment of such administrative expenses may be allowed to be deferred. Once the property is transferred out of the bankruptcy estate (through foreclosure or otherwise) it would be subject only to current ad valorem taxes (i.e., not those accruing during the bankruptcy proceeding).The Glasply decision is controlling precedent in bankruptcy court in the State of California. Under Glasply, a bankruptcy petition filing would prevent the lien for Reassessments levied in subsequent fiscal years from attaching so long as the property was part of the estate in bankruptcy. To the extent that Glasply is applied to property owners within the District who file for bankruptcy, the amount of Reassessments available to pay debt service on the Reassessment District Obligation may be reduced. However, Glasply only applies to bankruptcy petitions filed prior to October 22, 1994 because Congress enacted on that date 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(18), which added a new exception to the automatic stay for ad valorem property taxes imposed by a political subdivision after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Thus, in the event of a bankruptcy petition filed on or after October 22, 1994, the lien for assessments in subsequent fiscal years will attach even if the property is part of the bankruptcy estate. Reassessments are considered to be levied on the date the Reassessment is confirmed. However, because Reassessments are not ad valorem taxes it is unclear how a bankruptcy court would treat Reassessments in light of Glasply and 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(18). 66 Payments by FDIC The City's ability to collect interest and penalties specified by State law and to foreclose the lien of a delinquent Reassessment, may be limited in certain respects with regard to properties in which the Internal Revenue Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") or other similar federal agencies has or obtains an interest. On June 4, 1991, the FDIC issued a Statement of Policy Regarding the Payment of State and Local Real Property Taxes. The 1991 Policy Statement was revised and superseded by a new Policy Statement effective January 9, 1997 (the "Policy Statement"). The Policy Statement provides that real property owned by the FDIC is subject to state and local real property taxes only if those taxes are assessed according to the property's value, and that the FDIC is immune from real property taxes assessed on any basis other than property value. According to the Policy Statement, the FDIC will pay its proper tax obligations when they become due and payable and will pay claims for delinquent property taxes as promptly as is consistent with sound business practice and the orderly administration of the institution's affairs, unless abandonment of the FDIC's interest in the property is appropriate. The FDIC will pay claims for interest on delinquent property taxes owed at the rate provided under state law, to the extent the interest payment obligation is secured by a valid lien. The FDIC will not pay any amounts in the nature of fines or penalties and will not pay nor recognize liens for such amounts. If any property taxes (including interest) on FDIC owned property are secured by a valid lien (in effect before the property became owned by the FDIC), the FDIC will pay those claims. The Policy Statement further provides that no property of the FDIC is subject to levy, attachment, garnishment, foreclosure or sale without the FDIC's consent. In addition, the FDIC will not permit a lien or security interest held by the FDIC to be eliminated by foreclosure without the FDIC's consent. Under the Policy Statement, it is unclear whether the FDIC considers special reassessments, such as those levied by the Issuer, to be "real property taxes" which they intend to pay. The Policy Statement provides: "The [FDIC] is only liable for state and local taxes which are based on the value of the property during the period for which the tax is imposed, notwithstanding the failure of any person, including prior record owners, to challenge a reassessment under the procedures available under state law. In the exercise of its business judgment, the [FDIC] may challenge assessments which do not conform with the statutory provisions, and during the challenge may pay tax claims based on the assessment level deemed appropriate, provided such payment will not prejudice the challenge. The [FDIC] will generally limit challenges to the current and immediately preceding taxable year and to the pursuit of previously filed tax protests. However, the [FDIC] may, in the exercise of its business judgment, challenge any prior taxes and assessments provided that (1) the [FDIC]'s records (including appraisals, offers or bids received for the purchase of the property, etc.) indicate that the assessed value is clearly excessive, (2) a successful challenge will result in a substantial savings to the [FDIC], (3) the challenge will not unduly delay the sale of the property, and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood of a successful challenge". However, the Resolution Trust Corporation (which dissolved at the end of 1995 and transferred all of its assets to the FDIC), which adopted a similar policy, stated in a letter dated July 2, 1993 to the Honorable Lucille Roybel-Allard, member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of California, that it "... will pay Mello-Roos special taxes and other special assessment and related interest where those taxes and assessments were imposed prior to receivership. However, Mello-Roos special taxes and other special assessments that are imposed on property when the institution owning the property is in receivership will not be paid." The City is unable to predict what effect the application of the Policy Statement would have in the event of a delinquency with respect to a Reassessment Parcel in which the FDIC has 67 an interest, although prohibiting the lien of the FDIC to be foreclosed on at a judicial foreclosure sale would likely reduce the number of or eliminate the persons willing to purchase such a parcel at a foreclosure sale. Owners of the Bonds should assume that the City will be unable to foreclose on any Reassessment Parcel owned by the FDIC. Such an outcome would cause a draw on the Reserve Fund and perhaps, ultimately, a default in payment of the Bonds. The City has not undertaken to determine whether the FDIC currently has, or is likely to acquire, any interest in any of the Reassessment Parcels, and therefore expresses no view concerning the likelihood that the risks described above will materialize while the Bonds are outstanding. Proposition 218 Under the California Constitution, the power of initiative is reserved to the voters for the purpose of enacting statutes and constitutional amendments. Over the past 18 years, the voters have exercised this power through the adoption of Proposition 13 and similar measures, the most recent of which was approved as Proposition 218 in the general election held on November 5, 1996. Any such initiative may affect the collection of fees, taxes and other types of revenue by local agencies such as the City. Subject to overriding federal constitutional principles, such collection may be materially and adversely affected by voter-approved initiatives, possibly to the extent of creating cash-flow problems in the payment of outstanding obligations such as the Bonds. Proposition 218--Voter Approval for Local Government TaxesmLimitation on Fees, Reassessments, and ChargesmInitiative Constitutional Amendment, added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution, imposing certain vote requirements and other limitations on the imposition of new or increased taxes, assessments and property-related fees and charges. Proposition 218 states that all taxes imposed by local governments shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts, including assessment districts, have no power to levy general taxes. No local government may impose, extend or increase any general tax unless and until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. No local government may impose, extend or increase any special tax unless and until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. Proposition 218 also provides that no tax, assessment, fee or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (i) the ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, (ii) any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to the California Constitution, and (iii) assessments, fees and charges for property related services as provided in Proposition 218. Proposition 218 then goes on to add voter requirements for assessments and fees and charges imposed as an incident of property ownership, other than fees and charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services. In addition, all assessments and fees and charges imposed as an incident of property ownership, including sewer, water, and refuse collection services, are subjected to various additional procedures, such as hearings and stricter and more individualized benefit requirements and findings. The effect of such new provisions will presumably be to increase the difficulty a local agency will have in imposing, increasing or extending such reassessments, fees and charges. Proposition 218 also provides that the constitutional initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local taxes, assessments, fees and charges. This provision with respect to the initiative power is not limited to taxes imposed on or after November 6, 1996, the effective date of Proposition 218, and could result in retroactive repeal or reduction in any existing taxes, assessments, fees and charges, subject to overriding federal constitutional principles relating to the impairments of contracts. 68 The Reassessments are being levied against Reassessment Parcels after the passage of Proposition 218. However, the City believes that the issuance of the Bonds does not require the conduct of further proceedings under the Reassessment Act or Proposition 218 because Senate Bill 919 (effective July 1, 1997) amended the Reassessment Act to provide: "Any reassessment that is approved and confirmed pursuant to [the Reassessment Act] shall not be deemed to be an assessment within the meaning of, and may be ordered without compliance with the procedural requirements of, Article XIIID of the California Constitution." Like its antecedents, Proposition 218 is likely to undergo both judicial and legislative scrutiny before its impact on the City and its obligations can be determined. Certain provisions of Proposition 218 may be examined by the courts for their constitutionality under both State and federal constitutional law. The City is not able to predict the outcome of any such examination. The foregoing discussion of Proposition 2t 8 should not be considered an exhaustive or authoritative treatment of the issues. The City does not expect to be in a position to control the consideration or disposition of these issues and cannot predict the timing or outcome of any judicial or legislative activity in this regard. Interim rulings, final decisions, legislative proposals and legislative enactments may all affect the impact of Proposition 218 on the Bonds as well as the market for the Bonds. Legislative and court calendar delays and other factors may prolong any uncertainty regarding the effects of Proposition 218. Payment of the Reassessment Not a Personal Obligation The owners of Reassessment Parcels are not personally liable for the payment of the Reassessment or the Reassessment installments. Rather, the Reassessment is an obligation only of the Reassessment Parcels. If the value of a Reassessment Parcel is not sufficient to fully secure the Reassessment on it the City has no recourse against the owner under the laws by which the Reassessment has been levied and the Bonds have been issued. Limited City Obligation to Pay Debt Service THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE FUNDS TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BONDS IN THE EVENT REASSESSMENT INSTALLMENT COLLECTIONS, AND THUS REVENUES, ARE INSUFFICIENT, WILL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT ON DEPOSIT FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE RESERVE FUNDS, AND IF SO ADVANCED WILL REDUCE THE RESERVE FUNDS BY THE AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS ADVANCED. No Acceleration The principal of the Reassessment District Obligation will not be subject to acceleration under the provisions of the Indenture. Bondholders must rely on other remedies contained in the Reassessment Indenture in the event there is a deficiency in the amounts held under the Assessment Indenture for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Reassessment District Obligation. 69 RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE CFD OBLIGATIONS Land Development [Applicable to 88-2 still?]A risk to the Bondholders is that the remaining development in CFD 88-2 may be subject to unexpected delays, disruptions and changes which may affect the willingness and ability of the property owners to pay Special Taxes when due. For example, proposed development within CFD 88-2 could be adversely affected by unfavorable economic conditions, competing development projects, an inability of the current owner or future owners of the parcels to obtain financing, fluctuations in the real estate market or interest rates, unexpected increases in development costs, changes in federal, state or local governmental policies relating to the ownership of real estate, faster than expected depletion of existing water allocations, the appearance of previously unknown environmental impacts necessitating supplemental environmental review, and by other similar factors. There can be no assurance that land development operations within CFD 88-2 will not be adversely affected by the factors described above. In addition, partially developed land is less valuable than developed land and provides less security for the CFD Obligations (and therefore to the owners of the Bonds) should it be necessary for CFD 88-2 to foreclose on undeveloped property due to the nonpayment of Special Taxes. Moreover, failure to complete future development on a timely basis could adversely affect the land values of those parcels which have been completed. Lower land values result in less security for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds and lower proceeds from any foreclosure sale necessitated by delinquencies in the payment of the Special Taxes. Furthermore, an inability to develop the remainder of the vacant land within CFD 88-2 as planned will reduce the expected diversity of ownership of land within CFD 88-2, making the payment of debt service on the CFD Obligations more dependent upon timely payment of the Special Taxes levied on the Developed Property. Because of the concentration of undeveloped property ownership, the timely payment of the Bonds depends upon the willingness and ability of the current owner of undeveloped land, and any merchant builders to whom finished lots are sold, to pay the Special Taxes levied on the undeveloped land when due. Other Possible Claims Upon the Value of Taxable Property While the Special Taxes are secured by the Taxable Property, the security only extends to the value of such Taxable Property that is not subject to priority and parity liens and similar claims. The information in the section entitled "THE DISTRICTS IN THE AGGREGATE - Direct and Overlapping Debt" states the presently outstanding amount of certain obligations, the tax or assessment for which is anobligation of one or more of the parcels of Taxable Property. The table does not specifically identify which of the governmental obligations are secured by liens on one or more of the parcels of Taxable Property. Other governmental obligations may be authorized and undertaken or issued in the future, the tax, assessment or charge for which may become an obligation of one or more of the parcds of Taxable Property and may be secured by a lien on a parity with the lien of the Special Tax securing the Bonds. 70 In general, as long as the Special Tax is collected on the county tax roll, the Special Tax and all other taxes, assessments and charges also collected on the tax roll are on a parity, that is, are of equal priority. Questions of priority become significant when collection of one or more of the taxes, assessments or charges is sought by some other procedure, such as foreclosure and sale. In the event of proceedings to foreclose for delinquency of Special Taxes securing the Bonds, the Special Tax will be subordinate only to existing prior governmental liens, if any. Otherwise, in the event of such foreclosure proceedings, the Special Taxes will generally be on a parity with the other taxes, assessments and charges, and will share the proceeds of such foreclosure proceedings on a pro-rata basis. Although the Special Taxes will generally have priority over non-governmental liens on a parcel of Taxable Property, regardless of whether the non-governmental liens were in existence at the time of the levy of the Special Tax or not, this result may not apply in the case of bankruptcy. While governmental taxes, assessments and charges are a common claim against the value of a parcel of Taxable Property, other less common claims may be relevant. One of the most serious in terms of the potential reduction in the value that may be realized to pay the Special Tax is a claim with regard to a hazardous substance. See "RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION- Hazardous Substances" above. Disclosure to Future Purchasers The CFDs have recorded notices of the Special Tax liens in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder. While title companies normally refer to such notices in title reports, there can be no guarantee that such reference will be made or, if made, that a prospective purchaser or lender will consider such Special Tax obligation in the purchase of a parcel of land or a home in a CFD or the lending of money thereon. The Mello-Roos Act requires the subdivider (or its agent or representative) of a subdivision to notify a prospective purchaser or long-term lessor of any lot, parcel, or unit subject to a Mello-Roos special tax of the existence and maximum amount of such special tax using a statutorily prescribed form. California Civil Code Section 1102.6b requires that in the case of transfers other than those covered by the above requirement, the seller must at least make a good faith effort to notify the prospective purchaser of the special tax lien in a format prescribed by statute. Failure by an owner of the property to comply with the above requirements, or failure by a purchaser or lessor to consider or understand the nature and existence of the Special Taxes, could adversely affect the willingness and ability of the purchaser or lessor to pay the Special Taxes when due. Factors Affecting Parcel Values and Aggregate Values The values of parcels in the CFDs can be affected from a variety of occurrences, including, but not limited to, the discovery of hazardous substances on the parcel, geologic, topographic and climatic conditions. See "RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS - Factors Affecting Parcel Value and Aggregate Values" above for a brief discussion of risk factors that are equally applicable to parcels in the CFDs. Levy and Collection of the Special Tax The principal source of payment of principal of and interest on the CFD Obligations is the proceeds of the annual levy and collection of the Special Tax against property within the CFDs. The annual levy of the Special Taxes is subject to the maximum tax rates authorized. The levy cannot be made at a higher rate even if the failure to do so means that the estimated proceeds of the levy and collection of the Special Taxes, together with other available funds, will not be sufficient to pay debt service on the corresponding CFD Obligations. Other funds which might be available include funds derived from the payment of penalties on delinquent Special 71 Taxes and funds derived from the tax sale or foreclosure and sale oi~ parcels on which levies of the Special Tax are delinquent. The levy of the Special Taxes will rarely, if ever, result in a uniform relationship between the value of particular taxed parcels and the amount of the levy of the Special Tax against such parcels. Thus, there will rarely, if ever, be a urnform relationship between the value of such parcels and the proportionate share of debt service on the CFD Obligations, and certainly not a direct relationship. The Special Tax levied in any particular tax year on a taxed parcel is based upon the revenue needs and application of the applicable Rate and Method. Application of the applicable Rate and Method will, in turn, be dependent upon certain development factors with respect to each taxed parcel by comparison with similar development factors with respect to the other taxed parcels within the CFDs. Thus, in addition to annual variations of the revenue needs from the Special Taxes, the following are some of the factors which might cause the levy of a Special Tax on any particular taxed parcel to vary from the Special Tax that might otherwise be expected: (1) Reduction in the number of taxed parcels, for such reasons as acquisition of taxed parcels by a government and failure of the government to pay the Special Tax based upon a claim of exemption or, in the case of the federal government or an agency thereof, immunity from taxation, thereby resulting in an increased tax burden on the remaining taxed parcels. (2) Failure of the owners of taxed parcels to pay the Special Tax and delays in the collection of or inability to collect the Special Tax by tax sale or foreclosure and sale of the delinquent parcels, thereby resulting in an increased tax burden on the remaining parcels. (3) Development of a parcel of Taxable Property more rapidly than development of other parcels of Taxable Property, thereby resulting in the application of development factors in the Special Tax formula to the parcel and resulting in an increased tax burden on the parcel of Taxable Property. (4) Development of other parcels of Taxable Property less rapidly that expected, thereby resulting in delay in application of development factors in the Special Tax formula to the other parcels of Taxable Property and resulting in an increased tax burden on the parcel of Taxable Property. The CFD Indentures provide that the Special Taxes are to be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and, except as provided in the special covenant for foreclosure described in "SECURITY FOR THE BONDS - Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales" and in the Mello-Roos Act, is subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem property taxes. Pursuant to these procedures, if taxes are unpaid for a period of five years or more, the property is deeded to the State and then is subject to sale by the County. In the event that sales or foreclosures of property are necessary, there could be a delay in payments to owners of the Bonds pending such sales or the prosecution of foreclosure proceedings and receipt by the City of the proceeds of sale if the Reserve Fund is depleted. See "SECURITY FOR THE CFD BONDS - Proceeds of Foreclosure Sales." 72 Exempt Properties Certain properties are exempt from the Special Taxes in accordance with the three Rates and Methods. In addition, the Mello-Roos Act provides that properties or entities of the state, federal or local government are exempt from Special Taxes; provided, however, that property within a CFD acquired by a public entity through a negotiated transaction or by gift or devise, which is not otherwise exempt from a Special Tax, will continue to be subject to the Special Tax. It is possible that property acquired by a public entity following a tax sale or foreclosure based upon failure to pay taxes could become exempt from the Special Tax. In addition, although the Mello-Roos Act provides that if property subject to the Special Tax is acquired by a public entity through eminent domain proceedings, the obligation to pay the Special Tax with respect to that property is to be treated as if it were a special assessment, the constitutionality and operation of these provisions of the Mello-Roos Act have not been tested, meaning that such property could become exempt from the Special Tax. In the event that additional property is dedicated to the School District or other public entities, this additional property might become exempt from the Special Tax. The Mello-Roos Act further provides that no other properties or entities are exempt from the Special Tax unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in a resolution of consideration to levy a new special tax or to alter the rate or method of apportionment of an existing special tax. Bankruptcy Proceedings The payment of the Special Tax and the ability of the City to foreclose the lien of a delinquent unpaid tax, as discussed in "SECURITY FOR THE CFD OBLIGATIONS," may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws generally affecting creditors' rights or by the laws of the State of California relating to judicial foreclosure. The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds (including Bond Counsel's approving legal opinion) will be qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights, by the application of equitable principles and by the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. Although bankruptcy proceedings would not cause the Special Taxes to become extinguished, bankruptcy of a property owner could result in a delay in prosecuting superior court foreclosure proceedings and could result in the possibility of delinquent Special Tax installments not being paid in full. Such a delay would increase the likelihood of a delay or default in payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. To the extent that property in A CFD continues to be owned by a limited number of property owners, the chances are increased that the Reserve Fund established for the Bonds could be depleted during any such delay in obtaining payment of delinquent Special Taxes. As a result, sufficient moneys would not be available in the Reserve Fund for transfer to the Bond Fund to make up shortfalls resulting from delinquent payments of the Special Tax and thereby to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds on a timely basis. On July 30, 1992 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opirdon in a bankruptcy case entitled In re Glasply Marine Industries. See "RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION Bankruptcy and Foreclosure" above for a discussion of this case. Bondowners should be aware that the potential effect of Glasply and 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(18) on the Special Taxes depends upon whether a court were to determine that the Special Taxes should be treated like ad valorem taxes for this purpose. 73 Payment of Special Tax not a Personal Obligation of the Property Owners An owner of Taxable Property in a CFD is not personally obligated to pay the Special Tax. Rather, the Special Tax is an obligation only against the parcels of Taxable Property. If the value of the parcels of Taxable Property is not sufficient, taking into account other obligations also payable thereby to fully secure the Special Taxes, the CFDs have no recourse against the owner. Limited Obligation Of the CFDs to Pay Debt Service None of the CFDs (with the exception of CFD 84-1 to the extent of Agency Payments) have an obligation to pay principal of and interest on the CFD Obligations in the event any Special Tax collections are delinquent, other than from amounts, if any, on deposit in the Reserve Fund or funds derived from the tax sale or foreclosure and sale of parcels on which levies of the Special Tax are delinquent, nor is the CFD obligated to advance funds to pay such debt service on the Bonds. The Agency's obligation to make the Agency payments are limited to Surplus Tax Increment Revenues. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, approved in the general election held on November 5, 1996, could affect the collection of fees, taxes and other types of revenue by local agencies such as the CFDs. See "RISKS RELATED TO THE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT OBLIGATION - Proposition 218" above for a discussion of Proposition 218 that may also be relevant to parcels in the CFDs. The Special Taxes were authorized by not less than a two-thirds vote of the landowners within the CFDs who constituted the qualified electors of the CFDs at the time of such voted authorization. The City believes, therefore, that issuance of the CFD Obligations does not require the conduct of further proceedings under the Mello-Roos Act or Proposition 218. 74 LEGAL MATTERS Tax Matters In the opinion of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, Solana Beach, California, Bond Counsel, subject, however to the qualifications set forth below, under existing law, the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and such interest is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations; provided, however, that, for the purpose of computing the alternative m'mimum tax imposed on corporations (as defined for federal income tax purposes), such interest is taken into account in determining certain income and earnings. The opinions set forth in the preceding paragraph are subject to the condition that the City complies with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that such interest be, or continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City has covenanted to comply with each such requirement. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements may cause the inclusion of such interest in gross income for federal income tax purposes to be retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is exempt from California personal income taxes. Owners of the Bonds should also be aware that the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds may have federal or state tax consequences other than as described above. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any federal or state tax consequences arising with respect to the Bonds other than as expressly described above. See "APPENDIX G - Form of Bond Counsel Opinion" for a form of the opinion to be provided by Bond Counsel on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Absence of Litigation The Authority, the City and the Agency will certify at the time the Bonds are issued that no litigation is pending or threatened concerning the validity of the Bonds or the Acquired Obligations and that no action, suit or proceeding is known by the Authority, the City or the Agency to be pending that would restrain or enjoin the delivery of the Bonds, or contest or affect the validity of the Bonds or the Acquired Obligations or any proceedings of the Authority, the City or the Agency taken with respect to the Bonds, the Acquired Obligations or the Agency Payments. 75 Legal Opinion All proceedings in connection with the issuance of the Bonds are subject to the approval as to their legality of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, Solana Beach, California, Bond Counsel for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority in connection with the Bonds. The unqualified opinion of Bond Counsel approving the validity of the Bonds will be attached to each Bond. Bond Counsel's employment is limited to a review of legal procedures required for the approval of the Bonds and to rendering an opinion as to the validity of the Bonds and the exemption of interest on the Bonds from income taxation. Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California is acting as Underwriter's Counsel. Payment of the fees of Bond Counsel and Underwriter's Counsel is contingent upon issuance of the Bonds. MISCELLANEOUS Ratings [Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies ("S&P") have assigned their municipal bond ratings of "Aaa" and "AAA" respectively, to the Bonds with the understanding that upon delivery of the Bonds a policy insuring the payment When due of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will be issued by the Insurer. Such ratings reflect only the views of such organizations and an explanation of the significance of such rating may be obtained from Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and S&P. There is no assurance that such ratings will continue for any given period of time or that such ratings will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by such organizations, if in their judgment circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of such ratings may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds.] Underwriting The Bonds are being purchased by Stone & Youngberg LLC (the "Underwriter") at a purchase price of $ (representing the par amount of the Bonds less original issue discount of $ and less underwriter's discount of $ .). The Bond Purchase Agreement relating to the Bonds provides that all Bonds will be purchased if any are purchased, and that the obligation to make such purchase is subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in said Bond Purchase Agreement, including, but not limited to, the approval of certain legal matters by counsel. Additional Information References are made herein to certain documents and reports which are brief summaries thereof which do not purport to be complete or definitive, and reference is made to such documents and reports for full and complete statements of the contents thereof. Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so stated, are intended as such and not as representations of fact. This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract or agreement between the Authority and the purchasers or Owners of any of the Bonds. 76 The execution and delivery of this Official Statement has been duly authorized by the Authority and the City. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY By: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS A-1 APPENDIX B GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA General The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") is located in the foothills of the Los Angeles- San Bernardino Basin in the western portion of San Bernardino County, approximately 40 east of the City of Los Angeles and 18 miles west of the City of San Bernardino. The City Covers approximately 34.3 square miles and is bordered by Ontario on the south, Upland on the west and Fontana o the east; to the north are Cucamonga Peak and Mount Baldy. Municipal Government The City was incorporated in November 30, 1977, as a general law city operating under the council-manager form of government. It is governed by a five-member City Council (the "Council"), which includes a Mayor who is elected at large for a four year term, and four Council Members are elected at large for staggered four year terms. The Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Manager is responsible for the daily administration of City affairs and for implementing Council policy and program decisions. The current Council members are as follows: William "Bill" J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Robert D. Dutton, Councilmember The City's General Plan provides a coordinated policy of development planning, balancing residential, commercial, and industrial expansion. Coordinated transportation planning with the Southern California Regional Association of Governments and the County of San Bernardino is being provided by a traffic model that sets forth the optimum size of streets and timing necessary to accommodate traffic on both existing and future streets. Population Prior to incorporation, the area generally within the corporate boundaries of the City experienced a rapid growth in population. Population figures for the City, the County and the State for the last five years are shown in the following table. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Population Estimates City of County of State of Year Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino California 1994 112,700 1,559,100 31,661,000 1995 114,600 1,572,700 31,910,000 1996 115,800 1,587,200 32,223,000 1997 117,300 1,605,000 32,670,000 1998 118,400 1,621,900 33,252,000 Source: State Department of Finance estimates (as of January 1) B-I Employment The City is included in the Riverside-San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA"). The unemployment rate in the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA was an estimated 5.1% during March 1999. This compares to the unadjusted unemployment rates of 6.2% for Los Angeles County an,.~* 5.8% for Califorpda for the same month. Separately, in Riverside County, the unemployment rate was estimated at 5.3%, and 4.9% in San Bernardino County in March 1999. The following table summarizes the civilian labor force, employment and unemployment in the County for the calendar years 1995 through March 1999. These figures are county-wide statistics and may not necessarily accurately reflect employment trends in the City. RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment (Annual Averages) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Civilian Labor Force (2) 1,292,800 1,302,100 1,352,100 1,382,200 1,420,100 Employment 1,180,800 1,201,900 1,25%000 1,297,300 1,347,600 Unemployment 112,000 100,200 93,100 84,900 72,500 Unemployment Rate 8.7% 7.7% 6.9% 6.1% 5.1% Wage and Salad' Employment: (3) Total All Industries 801,700 824,800 863,100 896,000 928,000 Agriculture 21,800 21,300 21,700 20,800 24,600 Nonagricultural Industries 79,900 803,500 841,400 875,200 903,400 Mining 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,000 Construction 43,100 46,200 52,100 58,200 60,100 Manufacturing 94,400 99,200 104,800 110,100 114,300 Transportation, Public Utilities 40,800 41,100 42,500 45,700 47,200 Wholesale Trade 35,900 37,500 40,200 41,500 42,600 Retail Trade 170,000 172,600 177,800 181,200 183,500 Finance, insurance, Real Estate 29,400 29,600 29,800 30,300 30,600 Services 202,600 208,700 221,500 232,600 242,300 Government 162,600 167,300 171,600 174,500 181,800 (1) Preliminary data not adjusted for seasonality, as of March 1999. (2) Labor force data is by place of residence; includes self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, and workers on strike. (3) Industry employment is by place of work; excludes self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, and workers on strike. Source: State of California Employment Development Department. Farm employment increased by 6,900 jobs between February and March, a normal seasonal increase. Year-over farm employment increased by 400 jobs. The total number of nonfarm jobs in Riverside and San Bernardino counties increased by 1,400 jobs between February and March 1999 to reach 903,400 jobs. Construction employment grew by 600 jobs, primarily in the special trades sector, up by 300 jobs. The services industry division also added 600 jobs, with most of the gains in business services, up by 400 jobs. Other industry divisions with month-over job gains include: transportation and public utilities (up 300 jobs); manufacturing (up 100 jobs); wholesale trade (up 100 jobs); finance, insurance and real estate (up 100 jobs); and government (up 100 jobs). No job changes were noted in the mining division during March. Over-the-month payroll loses were recorded in retail trade (down 500 jobs), primarily due to seasonal changes in general merchandise. 13-2 Year-over total nonfarm employment in Riverside and San Bernardino counties rose by 37,500 jobs from 865,900 in March 1998 to 903,400 jobs in March 1999, a 4.3 percent increase. The services industry division added 8,500 jobs, led by business services and other services, increasing by 3,300 jobs each. Government employment grew by 7,100 jobs, led by gains in local education up by 3,800 jobs. The manufacturing industry division added 6,100 jobs. Other industry divisions with year-over job gains include: retail trade (up 5,400 jobs); construction (up 5,200 jobs); transportation and public utilities (up 2,500 jobs); wholesale trade (up 2,200 jobs); and finance, insurance and real estate (up 600 jobs). Mining reflected a year-over decline of 100 jobs. Employment in high-technology manufacturing posted no change over the month. Compared with March 1998, high-technology employment was up by 600 jobs or 7.3%. Major Employers The following tables list the major manufacturing and non-manufacturing employers within the City and their estimated number of employees as of March 4, 1999: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Major Employers As of March 4, 1999 Company Type of Business No. of Employees Chaffey Community College District Education 2,584 Sears Roebuck & Co. General Merchandise 1,200 Alta Loma School District Education 850 Frito-Lay, Inc. Snack Foods Manufacturer 700 Cid, of Rancho Cucamonga Local Government 695 Volt Information Science Inc. Employment Services 552 Etiwanda School District Education 545 Central School District Education 524 Mission Foods Food Processor 500 Heritage Hospital Health Services 400 Schlosser Forge Company Metal Manufacturer 365 Wal Mart General Merchandise 362 Tamco Metal Manufacturer 335 Cucamonga elementary School District Education 330 Coca Cola Bottling Distribution 300 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. Commercial Activity In the first quarter of 1998, total taxable transactions in the City were $219,635,000, or 7.6% greater than total taxable transactions of $204,031,000 that occurred in the City in the second quarter of 1997. A summary of historic taxable sales within the City during the past five years is shown in the following table. 13-3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Taxable Transactions (figures in thousands) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 {~) Retail Stores Apparel Stores $ 17,045 $ 18,088 $ 17,856 $ 16,772 $ 3,631 General Merchandise Stores 139,571 143,693 143,774 161,946 34,958 Drug Stores 10,555 9,983 10,577 (2) (2) Food Stores 56,993 59,047 61,553 62,699 I6,338 Packaged Liquor Stores 2,742 2.321 2*364 (2) (2) Eating and Drinking Places 70,986 77,939 86,519 95,411 249,456 Home Furnishings and Appliances 21,897 48,098 21,755 17,111 3,985 Bldg. Materials and Farm Implmnts. 17,656 19,564 30,988 67,636 15,487 Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies 12,011 13,020 11,625 12,195 3,220 Service Stations 38,946 42,958 46,955 49,297 11,268 Other Retail Stores 75.266 93.099 133,502 1~3,566 32225 Retail Store Totals 463,668 527,810 567,468 616,633 146,068 All Other Outlets 222,528 241,805 259,912 289,653 73,567 TOTAL ALL OUTLETS $ 686,196 $ 769,615 $ 827,380 $ 906,286 $ 219,635 (1) First Quarter of 1998. (2) Drug stores have been merged with general merchandise stores and packaged liquor stores have been merged with other retail stores. Source: State Board of Equalization. Construction Activity Building activity for the past ten fiscal years in the City is shown in the following table. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Construction Activity Number of Building Fiscal Permits Permit Year Issued Valuation 1988-89 18,679 $397,438,258 1989-90 4,658 198,839,268 1990-91 3,604 126,694,091 1991-92 3,046 73,836,809 1992-93 3,138 85,093,454 1993-94 3,472 102,711,672 1994-95 2,846 117,778,164 1995-96 2,701 119,994,268 1996-97 3,336 138,045,375 1997-98 3,330 185,119,239 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 1996-97. Public Utilities and Services Police protection is contracted from the San Bernardino County Sherfff's Department. A Sheriff's substation is located within the City limits. Fire protection and rescue service are provided by the City-managed Fire protection District, which covers an area of approximately 53 square miles. Southern Califorma Edison Company furnishes electricity and Southern California Gas Company furnishes natural gas to the City. Industrial waste and sewer services are provided by the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, and water is furnished to the City by the Cucamonga County Water District. Telephone service is provided by General Telephone Company. Community Facilities The City provides four park and two community centers for residents. Library services are provided by the City. The Rancho Cucamonga Quakes Baseball Club (Single A) plays its home games at the City's sports complex, the Epicenter. Education Six school districts serve the residents of the City providing local educational opportunities from kindergarten through junior college. Major colleges and universities are located within commuting distance to the City providing residents with both public and private educational opportunities in most of the major professions. Transportation Two interstate highways traverse the area. Interstate 10 is located south of the City's boundary and runs east and west, and Interstate 15 in the eastern section of the city runs north and south. Through these highways the City is linked by interstate highways to all areas of the State and to other states to the east. Three transcontinental railroads provide freight service to the City: Union Pacific Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. Amtrak and Metrolink provide passenger service to the City. Several truck terminals are located nearby. AirLine service from Ontario International Airport, which is adjacent to the City's southern boundary, is provided to approximately 50 cities in the United States. The airport has the capacity to serve wide-bodied jet airplanes and is currently undergoing an expansion. Los Angeles International Airport is located approximately 40 miles to the west of the City. The Port of Los Angeles, located approximately 45 miles to the southwest, provides major international cargo and passenger service. Greyhound and Continental Trailways provide transcontinental bus service. The Southem California Rapid Transit District and Omnitrans furnish intercounty and local bus service. B-5 APPENDIX C THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Authority and Management The Agency was established pursuant to the Redevelopment Law and Ordinance No. 145 of the City Council of the City (the "City Council") adopted on May 20, 1981, activating the Agency, and pursuant to Resolution No. 81-121 of the Agency, which activated the Project Area. The Agency adopted a redevelopment plan (the" Redevelopment Plan") pursuant to Resolution No. RA 81-14 on December 16, 1981. The Redevelopment Plan was amended on August 13, 1987 pursuant to Ordinance No. 316A. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is to eliminate existing conditions which cause a reduction or lack of proper utilization of land within the Project Area so that it will no longer constitute a serious physical, social or economic burden. Members of the City Council serve by virtue of their election as members to the Agency. The City Council members are elected at large for 4-year overlapping terms. The Mayor is elected for a 4-year term. By agreement, the City provides all staff and administrative service to the Agency. Jack Lam, City Manager, is the Executive Director of the Agency. Many of the other Agency support staff also work for the City in the Planning and Engineering sections of its Community Development Department. Agency Powers and Duties All powers of the Agency are vested in its five members. The Agency exercises all the governmental functions as authorized under the Redevelopment Law and has among other powers the authority to acquire, administer, develop, lease or sell property, including the right to issue bonds and expend the proceeds thereof. The Agency possesses the power to clear buildings and other improvements and can develop as a building site any real properly owned or acquired by it. In connection with such development, the Agency can cause streets, highways and sidewalks to be constructed or reconstructed and can require public utilities to be installed. The Agency may pay for all or part of the value of land and the cost of building facilities, structures or other improvements to be pubticly owned and operated to the extent that such improvements are of benefit to the Project Area and no other reasonable means of financing are available for such purposes. The Agency possesses other powers which must be exercised in conformity with the Redevelopment Law. The Redevelopment Plan The Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 16, 1981 under the provisions of the Redevelopment Law. Tax Increment - General As provided in the redevelopment plan for the Project Area, and pursuant to Article 6 of Chapter 6 of the Redevelopment Law (commencing with Section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code) and Section 16 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of California, taxes levied upon taxable property in the Project Area each year by or for the benefit of the State of California and any city, county, city and county, district or other public corporation (herein C-1 collectively referred to as "taxing agencies") for each fiscal year beginning after the effective date of the ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan, are divided as follows: 1. To other taxing agencies: That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of the taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area as shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by such taxing agency last equalized prior to the effective date of the ordinance approving the redevelopment plan) (the "Base Year Amount") shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies in the same manner as taxes by or for the taxing agencies on all other property are paid; and 2. To the Agency: Except for taxes which are attributable to a tax rate levied by a taxing agency for the purpose of producing revenues to repay bonded indebtedness approved by the voters of the taxing agency on or after the date on which the Redevelopment Plan was adopted, which shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid to the respective taxing agency, and except for statutory pass-through payments, that portion of the levied taxes each year in excess of the Base Year Amount shall be paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay the principal of and interest on bonds, loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the Project Area. These amounts are "tax increment revenues". Limitations on Tax Revenues In 1993, the California Legislature enacted AB 1290. Among the changes to the Redevelopment Law accomplished by AB 1290 was a provision which limits the period of time for incurring and repaying loans, advances and indebtedness which are payable from tax increment revenues. In general, a redevelopment plan may terminate not more than 40 years following the date of original adoption, and loans, advances, and indebtedness may be repaid during a period extending not more than 10 years following the date of termination of the redevelopment plan. In compliance with AB 1290, the City adopted Ordinance No. 537 on November 17, 1994 with respect to the Project Area, and enacted the following limitations: 1. Limit on annual tax increment revenues received in the Project Area: $100,000,000. 2. Time limit on incurring debt: No loans, advance or indebtedness to be repaid from Project Area tax increments may be established or incurred by the Agency after January 1, 2004. 3. Maximum bonded indebtedness to be incurred in the Project Area: $500,000,000. 4. Last date to collect tax increment revenues: December 23, 2031. Pass-Through Agreements The Agency has entered into cooperative agreements with taxing agencies affected by the Redevelopment Project. Such agreements (the "Pass-Through Agreements") have been entered into with the following entities: C-2 (i) the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, (ii) the County of San Bernardino on behalf of the County Free Library and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District; (iii) the Cucamonga County Water District and (iv) the Foothill Fire Protection District. Under the terms of these Pass-Through Agreements, as described more completely below, the Agency has agreed that certain tax increment attributable to those areas within the Project Area which would have otherwise been levied upon taxable property in the Project Area by or for the benefit of these taxing agencies after the effective date of the ordinance establishing the Project Area, will be pledged by the Agency to make certain cash payments or in-lieu-of contributions to each affected taxing agency. Chino Basin Municipal Water District. Pursuant to an "Agreement for Cooperation Between the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Rancho Cucamonga," dated March 24, 1982, the Agency and the Chino Basis Municipal Water District (the "Chino Water District") agreed as follows: (i) Taxes attributable to the area within the Chino Water District that would have otherwise been levied upon taxable property in the Project Area by or for the benefit of the Chino Water District and would be allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Law are deposited into a "Rancho Redevelopment Project Sewer and Water Facilities Fund" to pay principal of and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the Chino Water District to finance regional water and sewer facihties that benefit the Project Area. Any taxes in excess of the amount required to pay loans, advances and indebtedness will be allocated to the Agency. (~i) General obligation bond indebtedness taxes attributable the area within the Chino Water District that would have otherwise been levied upon taxable property in the Project Area by or for the benefit of the Chino Water District for general obligation bond debt service and would be allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Law will be deposited into a "Rancho Redevelopment Project Reclaimable Waste Systems Fund" and used to pay principal of and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the Chino Water District to finance nonreclaimable waste systems facilities that benefit the Project Area. Any taxes in excess of the amount required to pay loans, advances and indebtedness will be allocated to the Agency. County of San Bernardino. Pursuant to an "Agreement Regarding Rancho Redevelopment Project Area", dated February 21, 1982, by and between the City, the Agency, the County of San Bernardino acting on behalf of the County Free Library (the "County Library"), and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (the "Flood Control District"), the parties agreed as follows: (i) That portion of the tax increment that would have been allocated and paid to the County for its own use in the absence of the Redevelopment Project (the "County Allocation") will be allocated to the Agency to pay principal and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance "Regional Facilities", which term is defined in the Agreement as a facility which the County and the Agency agree will provide a substantial benefit to persons both within and without the Project Area, including certain flood control improvements. (ii) That portion of the tax increment that would have been allocated to the Flood Control District shah continue to be allocated to the Flood Control District. C-3 (iii) That portion of the tax increment that would have been allocated to the County Library shall continue to be allocated to the County Library. (iv) Any tax revenues allocated to the Agency that are attributable to increases in the tax rate imposed for the benefit of the County, the Flood Control District and the County Library will continue to be paid to the County, the Flood Control District and the County Library, respectively. (v) County Mitigation Fund. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1998-99 or upon the receipt by the Agency of $50 million of the County Allocation, whichever occurs earlier, the County will be paid each year a sum determined by multiplying the Per Capita Service Cost for the immediately preceding fiscal year times a figure derived by subtracting the population of the Project Area on January 1, 198 from the population of the Project Area on June 30 of the immediately preceding fiscal year, except that for the first four fiscal years only after the first operative year of this provision, the sum required to be paid to the County will be reduced by computing the sum as previously described and then substractmg the following: 1st fiscal year: the computed sum multiplied by 0.8; 2nd fiscal year: the computed sum multiplied by 0.6; 3rd fiscal year: the computed sum multiplied by 0.4; and 4th fiscal year: the computed sum multiplied by 0.2. Per Capita Service Cost is defined as follows: for any fiscal year, the amount of money determined by the County to be the per capita cost to the County, on a County- wide basis, of furnishing certain enumerated County services in incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County for such year, computed as follows: Total cost of County services for that year, in dollars Minus the amount of such costs funded by other than property tax revenues. Divided by the total population of the entire County as actually determined for that fiscal year or as estimated for such year by the California Department of Finance. Cucamonga County Water District. Pursuant to an "Agreement for Cooperation Between the Cucamonga County Water District, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Rancho Cucamonga," dated April 7, 1982, between the Cucamonga County Water District (the "County Water District"), the Agency and the City, the parties agreed as follows: (i) Taxes attributable to special bonded indebtedness attributable to that area within the territorial limits of the County Water District which would have otherwise been levied upon taxable property in the Project Area by or for the benefit of the County Water District after the effective date of the Redevelopment Plan will be paid by the Agency into a "Rancho Redevelopment Project Sewer and Water Facilities Fund" and used to pay principal and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the County Water District to finance or refinance sewer and water facilities that benefit the Redevelopment Project. When any such loans, advances or indebtedness is repaid, all such taxes attributable to the County Water District will be paid into the special fund of the Agency. C-4 (ii) The County Water District will be allocated all or any portion of the tax increment revenues attributable to increases in the rate of tax imposed for the benefit of the County Water District after the effective date of the Redevelopment Plan. Foothill Fire Protection District. Pursuant to an "Agreement for Cooperation Between the Foothill Fire Protection District, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Rancho Cucamonga," dated April 22, 1982, between the City, the Agency and the Foothill Fire Protection District (the "Foothill Fire District"), the parties agreed as follows: (i) Taxes attributable to the area within the Foothill Fire District that would have otherwise been levied upon taxable property in the Project Area by or for the benefit of the Foothill Fire District and would be allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Law will be used as follows: (A) Deposited into a "Rancho Redevelopment Project Fire Protection Fund" to pay principal of and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the Foothill District to finance construction of the Foothill Fire District's Fire Station No. 4. (B) When the annual debt service for such loans, advances and indebtedness have been paid in any one year, all such taxes thereafter receive in that year will be deposited into the Agency's "Fire Station No. 4 Operation and Maintenance Fund". (C) Excess taxes will be paid to the Foothill Fire District upon request to pay principal of and interest on loans, advances or indebtedness incurred by the Agency of the District to finance acquisition, construction or maintenance of fire facilities and equipment of benefit to the Project Area. (D) Any remaining taxes will be paid into the Rancho Redevelopment Fire Protection Fund and released to the District upon request and used for operation and maintenance of fire protection facilities of benefit to the Project Area and to otherwise expand and improve construction, operation and maintenance of fire protection capabilities. A "First Amendment" of the Foothill Fire District Cooperation Agreement, dated March 21, 1985, provided for Redevelopment Agency Indebtedness The Agency currently has the following outstanding indebtedness (see APPENDIX D - Audited Financial Statements of the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998" hereto for additional information relating to the payment of indebtedness of the Agency): Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Rancho Redevelopment Project, 1990 Tax Allocation Bonds (the "1990 Bonds") On March 1, 1990, the Agency issued $107,780,000 in tax allocation bonds with interest rates ranging from 6.1 percent to 7.125 percent. The final maturity of 1990 Bonds is September 1, 2020. A portion of the 1990 Bonds have been dereased, and as of July 1, 1998, the outstanding principal balance was $48,875,000. The 1990 Bonds have a claim on Tax Revenues that is senior to the claim of the Agency Payments. C-5 Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Rancho Redevelopment Project, 1994 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (the "I994 Bonds") On February 1, 1994, the Agency issued $64,460,000 in tax allocation bonds with interest rates ranging from 3.0 percent to 5.5 percent. The 1994 Bond proceeds were used to defease a portion of the 1990 Bonds. The final maturity of 1994 Bonds is September 1, 2023, and as of July 1, 1998, the outstanding principal balance was $57,325,000. The 1994 Bonds have a claim on Tax Revenues that is senior to the claim of the Agency Payments. Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, Rancho Redevelopment Project, 1996 Housing Set- Aside Tax Allocation Bonds (the "1996 Bonds") On September 1, 1996, the Agency issued $37,665,000 in tax allocation bonds with interest rates ranging from 3.9 percent to 5.25 percent. The 1996 Bonds are payable solely from money deposited in the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The final maturity of 1996 Bonds is September 1, 2026, and as of July 1, 1998, the outstanding principal balance was $36A70,000. The 1996 Bonds have a claim on Tax Revenues that is senior to the claim of the Agency Payments. Agency Investment Policy On October 7, 1998, the Agency adopted its Annual Statement of Investment Policy (the "Investment Policy"), as required by California law. Reflecting recent legislative changes, the Agency deleted certain investments deemed "risky" from investments permitted by the Investment Policy. The Investment Policy establishes that the criteria for selecting investments are, in order of priority, safety, liquidity and yield. As of May 31, 1999, approximately 75 percent of the Agency's funds was invested in obligations of federal agencies, 23 percent was invested in bank certificates of deposit and 2 percent was invested in the State's Local Agency Investment Fund. THE PROJECT AREA The Project Area encompasses an irregularly bounded area of approximately 8,500 acres mainly in the undeveloped area of the City. The Project Area encompasses approximately 36 percent of the total acreage of the City, and approximately 34 percent of the total assessed value of property within the City, based on Fiscal Year 1998-99 values. The northern portion of the Project Area contains two planned communities; the Victoria Planned Community of approximately 2,150 acres, and the Terra Vista Planned Community of approximately 1,321 acres. Both planned communities have experienced significant growth over the past 15 years; approximately 50 percent of the land area has been developed. The City anticipates continued growth within the two planned communities over the next five years. Development proposals continue to be submitted to the City for issuance of land use entitlements and building permits. A summary of the proposed land use of each of these communities is set forth in the table below: Land Use /In Acres) Victoria TerraVista Cornrnercial 400 270 Community & Recreational Uses 350 224 Roads 147 64 Residential 1,253 763 Total 2,150 1,321 C-6 The southern portion of the Project Area contains a portion of the Industrial Specific Plan (with an area of approximately 4,020 acres in size). This Specific Plan provides an overall master plan for business, commercial, and industrial uses in this portion of the Project Area. Roughly 30 percent of the area within the Specific Plan is currently undeveloped. The Specific Plan provides for the remaining area to be developed during the next 7 to 12 years. The Specific Plan also provides for approximately 1,230 acres devoted to industrial park use for offices, research and development activities, as well as 1,570 acres for general industrial uses and 1,212 acres for manufacturing industrial uses. The remaining area within the Project Area generally includes parcels which follow the major east-west arterial of Foothill Boulevard. Land use within this area are largely devoted to commercial and office uses with scattered sites of vacant land. The following table illustrates the land use of property within the entire Project Area. Table 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Rancho Redevelopment Project Area Land Use Statistics (Fiscal Year 1998-99) Land Use Approximate Acreage Commercial/Industrial 1,389 Residential Single Family 779 Condominium 41 Multifamily 174 Mobile Home 7 Vacant 4,301 Golf Course 185 Common Area 76 Parks 204 Schools 82 TOTAL 7,238 Source: Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. Allocation of Taxes Secured taxes are due in two equal installments. Installments of taxes levied upon secured property become delinquent on December 10 and April 10. Taxes on unsecured property are due March 1 and become delinquent August 31. The County Auditor-Controller is responsible for the aggregation of the taxable values assigned by the Assessor as of the January 1st for property within the boundaries of the Project Area. This results in the reported total current year Project Area taxable value and becomes the basis of determining tax increment revenues due to the Agency. Although adjustments to taxable values for property within the Project Area may occur throughout the fiscal year to reflect escaped assessments, roll corrections, etc., such adjustments are not assumed on the tax C-7 increment projection. The County disburses secured and utility tax increment revenue to all redevelopment agencies in five installments during the fiscal year. Supplemental tax roll revenue and homeowner's exemption revenue is distributed periodically during the fiscal year with the final reconciliation being remitted in September following the close of the fiscal year. San Bernardino County has not implemented the Alternative Method of Distribution of Tax Levies and Collections and of Tax Sale Proceeds (the "Teeter Plan"), as provided for in Section 4701 et seq. of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, which allows each entity levying property taxes in the County to draw on the amount of property taxes levied rather than the amount actually collected. Therefore, the Agency's property tax revenues reflect actual collections (i.e., total levies less delinquencies). Based on the total assessed valuation of properties within the Project Area, the following illustrates the 20 largest property owners and corresponding assessed valuation of all their holdings in the Project Area: Table 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Rancho Redevelopment Project Area 20 Largest Property Owners (Fiscal Year 1997-98) Percent of Total Assessed Property Owner Type of Business Assessed Value Value (1) Western Land Properties Various $94,251,843 3.3% General Dynamics Properties, Inc. Recreation/Vacant 36,083,852 1.3 West Coast Liquidators, Inc. Warehouse 35,744,929 1.2 TBC Rancho Cucamonga I, Inc. Warehouse 34,293,914 1.2 Cal Industrial Properties Inc. Light industrial 27,978,418 1.0 Lewis Development Co. Retail/Resid./Vacant 27,261,650 0.9 Southern California Housing Multifamily housing 22,440,000 0.8 Gruma Corporation Food processing 22,126,322 0.8 Foothill Marketplace Partners Various 21,619,154 0.7 Recot Inc. Light industrial 20,326,428 0.7 Diversified RE Fund Ltd. Part. Multifamily housing 15,814,080 0.5 Lincoln Rancho Multifamily housing 15,463,642 0.5 Northtown Housing Dev. Corp. Residential 15,262,338 0.5 Rancho Cucamonga [I Inc. Light industrial/vacant 14,306,322 0.5 Weingart Foundation Warehouse 13,477,341 0.5 O'Donnell-Oltmans/Rancho Cuc. I Light industrial 12,730,485 0.4 Lincoln Rancho Cucamonga Associates Warehouse I2,020,337 0.4 Lincoln Arrow Multifamily housing 11,354,925 0.4 Wilmington Trust Co. Tr. Retail 11,037,044 0.4 Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. Light industrial 11~011,832 0.4 Total $474,607,856 16.5% Sources: San Bernardino County Assessor, Secured Roll; the Agency. (1) Percent of total secured assessed value for the Project Area: $2,881,222,679 C-8 ASSESSED VALUES, TAX INCREMENT REVENUES AND SURPLUS TAX INCREMENT REVENUES Assessed Valuation Project Area assessed valuation has increased approximately 862 percent from a base year value of $299,384,256 in 1981 to $2,881,222,679 in Fiscal Year 1997-98, to produce total incremental value of $2,581,838,423. Table 3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Rancho Redevelopment Project Area Historical Assessed Values (Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98) Fiscal Secured Total Assessed Percent Year Secured Utility Unsecured Valuation Chan_ge 1993-94 $2,5140536,467 N/A I~ $318,048,980 $2,832,585,447 -- 1994-95 2,358,144,657 N/A I~ 297,935,407 2,656,080,064 -6.2% 1995-96 2,316,799,886 $5,011,491 347,950,223 2,669,761,600 0.5 1996-97 2,3480593,081 4,038,613 438,386,192 2,791,017,886 4.5 1997-98 2,395,4280514 3,185,611 482,6080554 2,881,222,679 3.2 Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller. (1) The dollar figure for secured utility is not available. However, this dollar figure may be included in with the secured dollar amount. C-9 Delinquencies The following table illustrates historical property tax delinquencies in the Project Area. Table 4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Rancho Redevelopment Project Area Secured Tax Charges and Delinquencies (Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98) Fiscal Secured Amount Received % Delinquent Year Tax Charge (1) |une 30 (2) |une 30 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller; the Agency. (1) Based on 1 percent of the secured roll after roll corrections. (2) Gross receipts before deductions for pass-through payments. C-10 Historical Tax Increment Revenues and Surplus Tax Increment Revenues The table below shows the Agency's gross tax increment revenues, Surplus Tax Increment Revenues and payments made by the Agency to the City under the Loan Agreement for the past five fiscal years. Table 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Distribution of Tax Increment Revenues Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1997-98 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Gross Tax Increment 25,708,957 22,125,163 25,033,246 26,078,349 26,802,054 Less: Housing Set-Aside 4,744,152 4,371,360 4,917,269 5,215,670 5,630,411 Pass-throughs to Taxing ]Entities: Cucamonga County Water District 269,225 227,576 111,469 149,939 132,649 Chino Basin Mumcipal Water District 743,835 534,284 810,041 891,296 886,127 County Agreement 0 0 0 275,924 551,997 School Districts Pass Through 1,238,552 1,086,213 1,107,192 1,215,373 1,289,841 Library Pass Through 372,000 342,000 348,840 335,820 Pied ged Tax Reve~ ues: CFD 84-1 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000 000 Federal Loan 672,820 672,820 672,820 672,820 672,520 Less: Agency Bonds Debt Service: 90/94 TA 7,456,778 10,239,699 8,733,619 8,331,109 8,725,494 96 Housing TA 959,103 945,453 Fire Protection Fund 2,173,966 2.061.981 2.327.172 2,439,678 2,53~,048 Subtotal 18,299,328 20,565,933 20,021,582 21,499,752 22,721,660 Plus: Amounts available under County Agreement Additional Pledged Tax Revenues Surplus Tax Increment Revenues 7,409,629 1,559,230 5,011,664 4,578,597 4,080,394 Amounts Paid to City under Loan Agreement $945,060 $976,210 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Source: The Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. No amounts were paid by the Agency to the City under the Loan Agreement in Fiscal Year 1995-96 because available moneys in the Redemption Fund relating to the Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds were sufficient to pay debt service on the Prior CFD 84-1 Bonds. Assessed Valuation Appeals Pursuant to California law, property owners may apply for a reduction of their property tax assessment by filing a written application, in form prescribed by the State Board of Equalization, with the appropriate county board of equalization or assessment appeals board. After the applicant and the assessor have presented their arguments, the Appeals Board makes a final decision on the proper assessed value. The Appeals Board may rule in the assessor's favor, in the applicant's favor, or the Board may set their own opinion of the proper assessed value, which may be more or less than either the assessor's opinion or the applicant's opinion. Any reduction in the assessment ultimately granted applies to the year for which application is made and during which the written application was filed. The assessed value C-11 may be increased to its pre reduction level for fiscal years following the year for which the reduction application is filed if the real estate market recovers. Appeals for reduction in the "base year" value of an assessment, if successful, reduce the assessment for the year in which the appeal is taken and prospectively thereafter. The base year is determined by the completion date of new construction or the date of change of ownership. Any base year appeal must be made within four years of the change of ownership or new construction date. Since 1991-92 there have been ~ assessment appeals filed on properties within the Project Area. Of the ~ appeals filed, ~ have been allowed with a reduction in value and have been denied or withdrawn. There are _ appeals currently pending on properties within the Project Area. [ADD ANY RELEVANT DISCUSSION] Most of the appeals filed in the Project Areas are based on Section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation Code which requires that for each lien date the value of real property shall be the lesser of its base year value annually adjusted by the inflation factor pursuant to Article XIIIA of the State Constitution or its full cash value, taking into account reductions in value due to damage, destruction, depreciation, obsolescence, removal of property or other factors causing a decline in value. Significant reductions have taken place in some counties due to declining real estate values. Reductions made under this code section may be initiated by the County Assessor or requested by the property owner. After a roll reduction is granted under this section, the property is reviewed on an annual basis to determine its full cash value and the valuation is adjusted accordingly. This may result in further reductions or in value increases. Such increases must be in accordance with the full cash value of the property and it may exceed the maximum annual inflationary growth rate allowed on other properties under Article XIIIA of the State Constitution. Once the property has regained its prior value, adjusted for inflation, it once again is subject to the annual inflationary factor growth rate allowed under Article XIIIA. CERTAIN FACTORS RELATING TO THE AGENCY PAYMENTS The following information relating to the Agency's ability to make the Agency's Payments should be considered by prospective investors in evaluating the Bonds. However, the following does not purport to be an exhaustive listing of risks and other considerations which may be associated with the timely payment of Agency Payments. In addition, the order in which the following information is presented is not intended to reflect the relative importance of any such risks. Reduction in Taxable Value Tax Revenues allocated to the Agency are determined by the amount of incremental taxable value in the Project Area and the current rate or rates at which property in the Project Area is taxed. The reduction of taxable values of property caused by economic factors beyond the Agency's control, such as a relocation out of the Project Area by one or more major property owners, or the complete or partial destruction of such property caused by, among other eventualities, an earthquake (see "RISK FACTORS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION - Factors Affecting Parcel Value and Aggregate Values- Seismic Conditions"), flood or other natural disaster, could cause a reduction in Tax Revenues, and therefor, Surplus Tax Revenues. Property owners may also appeal to the County Assessor for a reduction of their assessed valuations. Such a reduction of assessed valuations and the resulting decline in Tax C-12 Revenues or the resulting refund of property taxes could have an adverse effect on the Agency's ability to make timely payments of Agency Payments. Application of the Provisions of Article XIIIA(2(d) of the California Constitution and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 68 may also result in a significant reduction of the assessed valuation of a property within a redevelopment project area. These provisions permit a person who is displaced from property by eminent domain proceedings or by governmental action resulting in a judgment of inverse condemnation to transfer the adjusted base year value of the property from which the person is displaced to another comparable property anywhere within the State. Persons acquiring replacement property must request assessment pursuant to these provisions within four (4) years of the date the property was acquired by eminent domain or purchase or the date the judgment of inverse condemnation becomes final. Any such assessment pursuant to these provisions of Article XIIIA(2)(d) and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 68 could result in a substantial and completely unexpected reduction in the assessed valuation of a property within the Project Area. Reduction in Inflationary Rate As described in greater detail below, Article XIIIA of the California Constitution provides that the full cash value of real property used in determining taxable value may be adjusted from year to year to reflect the inflationary rate, not to exceed a 2 percent increase for any given year, or may be reduced to reflect a reduction in the consumer price index or comparable local data. Such measure is computed on a calendar year basis. Because Article XIIIA limits inflationary assessed value adjustments to the lesser of the actual inflationary rate or 2 percent, there have been years in which the assessed values were adjusted by actual inflationary rates, which were less than 2 percent. The Agency is unable to predict if any adjustments to the full cash value of real property within the Project Area, whether an increase or a reduction, will be realized in the future. Levy and Collection The Agency does not have any independent power to levy and collect property taxes. Any reduction in the tax rate or the implementation of any constitutional or legislative property tax decrease could reduce the Tax Revenues, and accordingly, could have an adverse impact on the ability of the Agency to make Agency Payments. Likewise, delinquencies in the payment of property taxes could have an adverse effect on the Agency's ability to make Agency Payments in a timely manner. San Bernardino County has not elected to follow the procedures of Sections 4701 et seq. of the California Revenue and Taxation Code; consequently, the Agency's property tax revenues in the Project Area reflect total collections (i.e., total levies less delinquencies). Parity Debt The Agency may issue or incur obligations payable from Tax Revenues on a senior or parity with its pledge of Surplus Tax Revenues to payment of the Agency Payments. However, pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Agency may incur other obligations secured by tax increment revenues generated in the Project Area on a senior or parity basis with respect the Agency Payments, but only to the extent that Surplus Tax Increment Revenues available to discharge the Agency's obligations under the Loan Agreement will not, as a result, be reduced to an amount less than the amount specified in the Loan Agreement. The existence of and the potential for such obligations increases the risks associated with the Agency's payment of Agency Payments in the event of a decrease in the Agency's collection of Tax Revenues. C-13 State Budget In connection with its approval of the budget for the 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 fiscal years, the State Legislature enacted legislation which, among other things, reallocated funds from redevelopment agencies to school districts by shifting a portion of each agency's tax increment, net of amounts due to other taxing agencies, to school districts for such fiscal years for deposit in the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF"). The amount required to be paid by a redevelopment agency under such legislation was apportioned among all of its redevelopment project areas on a collective basis, and was not allocated separately to individual project areas. At present, the State is not requiring this reallocation to ERAF; however, there can be no assurances that reallocations will not be required in the future. Tax Collection Fees SB 2557 (Chapter 466, Statutes of 1990) authorizes county auditors to determine property tax administration costs proportionately attributable to local jurisdictions. Subsequent legislation specifically includes redevelopment agencies among the entities which are subject to a property tax administration charge. The estimated 1998-99 SB 2557 charges, based upon the actual SB 2557 charges to the Agency for fiscal year 1997-98 ($384,633), are approximately $535,120. The County deducts the SB 2557 charge from gross tax increment revenues before distributing any tax increment revenues to the Agency. As a result, the amount of the SB 2557 charge in each year will not be available for Agency Payments. State Board of Equalization and Property Assessment Practices On December 10, 1998, the State Board of Equalization ("SBOE") approved revisions to its guidelines regarding the valuation of intangible business and commercial property for property tax purposes. The SBOE approved these revisions over the strong objections of the California Assessors Association ("CAA"), an organization representing all 58 County Assessors in California. Prior to modification of the revised guidelines, SBOE staff estimated a Statewide loss of $2.23 billion in property tax revenues. After modification of the revised guidelines, SBOE staff revised its estimated loss to $4.36 million Statewide. However, the CAA has indicated in a media release dated December 10, 1998 that it does not believe that the modification to the revised guidelines will minimize the Statewide loss of property tax revenues to the extent claimed by SBOE staff. The Agency is not able to predict, at this time, whether the revised SBOE guidelines will cause any reduction in its tax increment revenues. However, the Agency does not believe that the SBOE's adoption of the revised guidelines will affect its ability to make Agency Payments. Proposition 218 On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 - Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes - Limitation on Fees, Assessments, and Charges - Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Surplus Tax Increment Revenues securing the Agency's obligations to make the Agency Payments are derived from property taxes, which are outside the scope of taxes, assessments and property-related fees and charges which were limited by Proposition 218. C-14 APPENDIX D AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 APPENDIX E REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM APPENDIX F RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE CFDs APPENDIX G FORM OF BOND COUNSEL OPINION APPENDIX H FORM OF CITY CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE H-1 APPENDIX I FORM OF PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE J-1 APPENDIX J DTC AND THE BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM The following description of the procedures and record-keeping with respect to beneficial ownership interests in the Bonds, payment of principal, interest and other payments with respect to the Bonds to Participants or Beneficial Owners, confirmation and transfer of beneficial ownership interests in such Bonds and other related transactions by and between DTC, the Participants and the Beneficial Owners is based on information provided by DTC. Accordingly, the Authority, the City and the Agency take no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The Bonds will be executed and delivered as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee). One fully-registered certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Bonds, each in the initial aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC. DTC is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds securities that its participants ("Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the settlement among Participants of securities transactions, such as transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through electronic computerized book-entry changes in Participants' accounts, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities Bonds. "Direct Participants" include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing companies, and certain other organizations. DTC is owned by a number of its Direct Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange, Inc., and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as securities brokers and dealers, banks and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). The Rules applicable to DTC and its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Purchases of Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive credit for the Bonds on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each Beneficial Owner is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase, but Beneficial Owners are expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interest in the Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive Bonds representing their ownership interests in Bonds, except in the event that use of the book-entry system for the Bonds is discontinued. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Bonds deposited by Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co. The deposit of Bonds with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. effect no change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Bonds; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Bonds are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers. K-1 Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Prepayment notices will be sent to Cede & Co. If less than all of the Bonds within a maturity are being prepaid, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such maturity to be prepaid. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. will consent or vote with respect to Bonds. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the Authority as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy). Principal and interest payments with respect to the Bonds will be made to DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts on the payment date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records unless DTC has reason to believe that it will not receive payment on a payment date. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Trustee or the Authority, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of principal and interest to DTC is the responsibility of the Authority or the Trustee, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants. The Authority cannot and does not give any assurances that DTC Participants or others will distribute payments with respect to the Bonds received by DTC or its nominee as the registered Owner, or any prepayment or other notices, to the Beneficial Owners, or that they will do so on a timely basis, or that DTC will service and act in the manner described in this Official Statement. The Authority and the Trustee cannot and do not give any assurances that DTC will distribute to Participants, or that Participants or others will distribute payments of principal or interest with respect to the Bonds paid to DTC or its nominee as the registered Owner, or any prepayment or other notices, to the Beneficial Owners, or that they will do so on a timely basis or will serve and act in the manner described in this Official Statement. The Authority and the Trustee are not responsible or liable for the failure of DTC or any Participants to make any payment or give any notice to a Beneficial Owner with respect to the Bonds or any error or delay relating thereto. Discontinuance of DTC Service. In the event that (a) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the Bonds, or Co) the Authority determines to remove DTC from its functions as a depository, DTC's role as securities depository for the Bonds and use of the book- entry system will be discontinued. If the Authority fails to select a qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the Authority will cause the Trustee to execute and deliver new Bonds in fully registered form in such denominations numbered in the manner determined by the Trustee and registered in the names of such persons as are requested by the Beneficial Owners thereof. Upon such registration, such persons in whose names the Bonds are registered will become the registered Owners of the Bonds for all purposes. K-2 APPENDIX K [SPECIMEN MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE POLICY] 29079-75 J~I:CKL 05/25/99 ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT This ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "Purchase Agreement"), dated as of ,1999, is by and among the following parties: (i) Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority, a joint exercise of powers authority duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (the "Authority"), (ii) Community Facilities District No. 84-1 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("CFD 84-1"), a community facilities district organized and existing under the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act"); (iii) Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("CFD 88-2"), a community facilities district organized and existing under the Mello- Roos Act; (iv) Community Facilities District No. 93-3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("CFD 93-3, "and together with CFD 84-1 and CFD 88-2, the "CFDs"), a community facilities district organized and existing under the Mello-Roos Act; (v) City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (the "City"); and (vi) Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, a community redevelopment agency organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (the "Agency"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority is a joint exercise of powers authority duly organized and existing under the provisions of Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), and is authorized pursuant to Article 4 of the Act (the "Bond Law") to borrow money for the purpose of financing the acquisition of bonds, notes and other obligations to provide financing or refinancing for public capital improvements of local agencies within the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City or the CFDs has previously issued the following series of Bonds (the "Prior Bonds"): (a) Prior AD 86-2 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Improvement Bonds (Limited Obligation Bonds) Assessment District No. 86-2 (San Bernardino, California), of which $1,310,000 is currently outstanding; (b) Prior AD 89-1 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino, California) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 89-1, of which $3,985,000 is currently outstanding; (c) Prior CFD 84-! Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) 1992 Refunding Special Tax Bonds, of which $9,815,000 principal amount is currently outstanding; (d) Prior CFD 88-2 Bonds: Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Bonds, of which $2,920,000 principal amount is currently outstanding; and (e) Prior CFD 93-3 Bonds: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Bonds, of which $4,505,000 principal amount '~s currently outstanding; and WHEREAS, in order to realize interest rate savings on the Prior Bonds, the City and the CFDs have authorized the issuance of the following bonds (collectively, the "Acquired Obligations"t: (i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 99-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Reassessment District Obligation"); (ii) Community Facilities District No. 84-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 84-1 Bonds"); (iii) Community Facilities District NO. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 88-2 Bonds"); and (iv) Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 93-3 Bonds," and together with the CFD 84-1 Bonds and the CFD 88-2 Bonds, the "CFD Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Agency has agreed to make periodic payments (the "Agency Payments") from certain surplus tax increment revenues (the "Surplus Tax Increment Revenues") generated in its Rancho Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") as additional security for the CFD 84-1 Bonds pursuant to an [Amended and Restated Loan and Pledge Agreement] (the "Loan Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has authorized the issuance of its Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds (the "Series A Bonds") and Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds (the Series B Bonds, and together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds"), under an Indenture of Trust dated as of 1, 1999 (the "Authority Bond Indenture"), by and between the Authority and , as trustee (the "Trustee") and under the Bond Law for the purpose of providing the funds required to acquire the Acquired Obligations; and WHEREAS, the Authority, the CFDs, the Agency and the City desire to enter into this Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement providing for the purchase and sale of the Acquired Obligations by the City to the Authority and containing the other agreements herein set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Authority, the Agency and the City agree as follows: 1. Upon the terms and conditions and upon the basis of the representations, warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and the CFDs hereby commit to sell to the Authority and do hereby sell to the Authority, and the Authority hereby commits to -2- purchase from the City and the CFDs and does hereby purchase from the City and the CFDs with the proceeds of the Authority Bonds all of the $ aggregate principal amount of the Acquired Obligations. The Acquired Obligations will bear the annual interest rates and mature at the times set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. The purchase price of each issue of the Acquired Obligations shall be as set forth in Exhibit A. 2. All terms not herein defined shall have the meanings given such terms in the Indenture of Trust authorizing the issuance of the Authority Bonds. 3. The City and the CFDs confirm that there are no substantial conditions precedent to the issuance by the City or the CFDs and to the sale (as provided herein) and the delivery to the Authority of the Acquired Obligations 4. The parties hereteo hereby specify , 1999, as the date of closing of the purchase of the Acquired Obligations hereunder (the "Closing Date"). The Acquired Obligations shall be registered in the name of the Trustee, as assignee of the Authority. On the Closing Date, the City and the CFDs shall issue and deliver the Acquired Obligations to the Trustee upon payment by the Trustee of the purchase price of the Acquired Obligations in the aggregate amount of $. Said purchase price shall be paid from the proceeds of sale of the Authority Bonds, and shall be paid by the Trustee from the Program Fund established under the Authority Bond Indenture. 5. The Acquired Obligations shall be as described in the Official Statement dated as of the date hereof, relating to the Authority Bonds (the "Official Statement") and shall be issued and secured under the provisions of the separate resolutions, Indentures of Trust, and related proceedings providing for the issuance of the Acquired Obligations (the "Proceedings"). The Acquired Obligations and interest thereon will be payable from annual Reassessments or Special Taxes levied and collected in accordance with the Bond Resolutions and the Proceedings relating thereto. Proceeds of the Acquired Obligations will be used to refund the Prior Bonds in accordance with five separate Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreements, each dated as of March 1, 1998 (the "Escrow Agreement"), by and between the City or CFD, as applicable, and , as escrow bank (the "Escrow Bank"). 6. Any action under this Purchase Agreement taken by the Authority, including payment for and acceptance of the Acquired Obligations, and delivery and execution of any receipt for the Acquired Obligations and any other instruments in connection with the closing on the Closing Date, shall be valid and sufficient for all purposes and binding upon the Authority, provided that any such action shall not impose any obligation or liability upon the Authority other than as may arise as expressly set forth in this Purchase Agreement. 7. It is a condition to the City's and the CFD's sale and delivery of the Acquired Obligations to the Authority, and to the Authority's purchase of the Acquired Obligations and the obligations of the Authority to accept delivery of and to pay for the Acquired Obligations, that the entire aggregate principal amount of the Acquired Obligations authorized by the Proceedings shall be delivered by the City, and accepted and paid for by the Authority, on the Closing Date. 8. The City, the CFDs and the Agency have furnished some, but not all, of the information contained in the Official Statement and hereby authorize the use of that information by the Authority in connection with the public offering and sale of the Authority Bonds. 9. The City represents and warrants to the Authority that: -3- (a) The City is a general law city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and has, and on the Closing Date will have, full legal right, power and authority (i) to enter into this Purchase Agreement, (ii) to adopt or enter into the Proceedings relating to the Reassessment District Obligation, (iii) to issue, sell and deliver the Reassessment District Obligation to the Authority as provided herein, and (iv) to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Proceedings relating to the Reassessment District Obligation and the Official Statement; (b) The City has complied, and will on the Closing Date be in compliance in all respects, with the Proceedings relating to the Reassessment District Obligation; (c) By official action of the City prior to or concurrently with the acceptance hereof, the City has duly adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of the Reassessment District Obligation (the "City Resolution"), has duly authorized and approved the execution and delivery of, and the performance by the City of the obligations contained in, the Reassessment District Obligation and this Purchase Agreement, and has duly authorized and approved the performance by the City of its obligations contained in the City Resolution and the other Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obiigation, and the consummation by it of all other transactions contemplated by the Official Statement; (d) The execution and delivery of this Purchase Agreement and the Reassessment District Obligation, the adoption of the City Resolution and the adoption or entering into of the other Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obligation, and compliance with the provisions of each thereof, and the carrying out and consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Official Statement, will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or a default under any applicable law or administrative regulation of the State of California or the United States, or any applicable judgment, decree, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or is otherwise subject; (e) To the knowledge of the City, at the time of the City's acceptance hereof and at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the Closing Date, with respect to information describing the City, the Reassessment District and the Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obligation conducted by the City, the Official Statement does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (f) Except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or, to the knowledge of the City, threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the City or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (ii) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the Reassessment District Obligation, the levy and receipt of the Reassessments which secure the Reassessment District Obligation, or the pledge thereof, (iii) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the City with respect to the moneys pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Reassessment District Obligation, (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the Reassessment District Obligation, or the validity or enforceability of the Reassessment District Obligation, the City Resolution or the other Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obligation, or (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions -4- contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement, the City Resolution, the other documents referred to in the Official Statement, or any other agreement or instrument to which the City is a party relating to the Reassessment District Obligation; (g) The City will furnish such irfformation, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Authority, as the Authority may reasonably request, to qualify the Authority Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Authority may designate, and will assist, if necessary therefor, in the continuance of such qualifications in effect as long as required for the distribution of the Authority Bonds; provided, however, that the City shall not be required to qualify as a foreign corporation or to file any general consents to service of process under the laws of any state; (h) The issuance and sale of the Reassessment District Obligation is not subject to any transfer or other documentary, stamp taxes of the State of California or any political subdivision thereof; (i) The Citv has never failed to comply with a continuing disclosure undertaking pursuant to Rule lgc2-12; and (j) Any certificate signed by any official of the City authorized to do so shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the City to the Authority as to the statements made therein. 10. Each of the CFDs represents and warrants to the Authority that: (a) The CFDs are community facilities districts formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and has, and on the Closing Date will have, full legal right, power and authority (i) to enter into this Purchase Agreement, (ii) to adopt or enter into the Proceedings relating to the CFD Bonds, (iii) to issue, sell and deliver the CFD Bonds to the Authority as provided herein, and (iv) to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds and the Official Statement; (b) The CFDs have complied, and will on the Closing Date be in compliance in all respects., with the Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds; (c) By official action of the City Council of the City, as legislative body of the CFDs, the CFDs have duly adopted resolutions authorizing issuance of the CFD Bonds (the "CFD Resolutions"), have duly authorized and approved the execution and delivery of, and the performance by the CFDs of the obligations contained in, the CFD Bonds and this Purchase Agreement, and has duly authorized and approved the performance by the City of its obligations contained in the CFD Resolutions and the other Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds, and the consummation by it of all other transactions contemplated by the Official Statement; (d) The execution and delivery of this Purchase Agreement and the CFD Bonds, the adoption of the CFD Resolutions and the adoption or entering into of the other Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds, and compliance with the provisions of each thereof, and the carrying out and consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Official Statement, will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or a default under any applicable law or administrative regulation of the State of California or the United -5- States, or any applicable judgment, decree, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or is otherwise subject: (e) To the knowledge of the CFDs, at the time of the CFDs' acceptance hereof and at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the Closing Date, with respect to information describing the CFDs and the Proceedings conducted by the CFDs, the Official Statement does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (f) Except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or, to the knowledge of the CFDs, threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the CFDs or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (ii) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the CFD Bonds, the levy and receipt of the Special Taxes which secure the CFD Bonds, or the pledge thereof, ('Hi) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the CFDs with respect to the moneys pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the CFD Bonds, (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the CFD Bonds, or the validity or enforceability of the CFD Bonds, the CFD Resolutions or the other Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds, or (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement, the CFD Resolutions, the other documents referred to in the Official Statement, or any other agreement or instrument to which the CFDs are a party relating to the CFD Bonds; (g) The CFDs will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Authority, as the Authority may reasonably request, to qualify the Authority Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Authority may designate, and will assist, if necessary therefor, in the continuance of such qualifications in effect as long as required for the distribution of the Authority Bonds; provided, however, that the CFDs shall not be required to qualify as a foreign corporation or to file any general consents to service of process under the laws of any state; (h) The issuance and sale of the CFD Bonds is not subject to any transfer or other documentary stamp taxes of the State of California or any political subdivision thereof; (i) Any certificate signed by any official of the City authorized to do so on behalf of the CFDs shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the CFDs to the Authority as to the statements made therein. 11. The Agency represents and warrants to the Authority that: (a) The Agency is a community redevelopment agency and political subdivision, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, including the Community Redevelopment Law, and has, and on the Closing Date will have, full legal right, power and authority (i) to enter into this Purchase Agreement, (ii) to adopt or enter into the Loan Agreement, (iii) to agree to make the Agency Payments and pledge the Surplus Tax Increment Revenues thereto, and (iv) to carry out and -6- consummate the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Loan Agreement and the Official Statement; (b) The Agency has complied, and will on the Closing Date be in compliance in all respects, with the Loan Agreement: (c) By official action of the Agency prior to or concurrently with the acceptance hereof, the Agency has duly adopted a resolution authorizing execution of the Loan Agreement and payment of the Agency Payments (the "Agency Resolution"), has duly authorized and approved the execution and delivery of, and the performance by the Agency of the obligations contained in, the Loan Agreement and this Purchase Agreement, and has duly authorized and approved the consummation by it of all other transactions contemplated by the Official Statement; (d) The execution and delivery of this Purchase Agreement and the Loan Agreement and the adoption of the Agency, Resolution, and compliance with the provisions of each thereof, and the carrying out and consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Official Statement, will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or a default under any applicable law or administrative regulation of the State of California or the United States, or any applicable judgment, decree, agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or is otherwise subject; (e) To the knowledge of the Agency, at the time of the Agency's acceptance hereof and at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the Closing Date, with respect to information describing the Agency, the Surplus Tax Increment Revenues, the Project Area and the Agency Payments, the Official Statement does not and will not contain any' untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (f) Except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or, to the knowledge of the Agency, threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the Agency or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (ii) enjoin or restrain the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement or the pledge of Surplus Tax Increment Revenues, ~'~iii) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the Agency with respect to the moneys pledged or to be pledged to pay the Agency Payments, (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, or the validity or enforceability of the Loan Agreement or the Agency Resolution, or (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement, the Agency Resolution, the other documents referred to in the Official Statement, or any other agreement or instrument to which the Agency is a party relating to its obligation to pay the Agency Payments; (g) The Agency will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Authority, as the Authority may reasonably request, to qualify the Authority Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Authority may designate, and will assist, if necessary therefor, in the continuance of such qualifications in effect as long as required for the distribution of the Authority Bonds; provided, however, that the Agency shall not be required to qualify as a foreign corporation or to file any general consents to service of process under the laws of any state; (h) The Agency has never failed to comply with any continuing disclosure undertaking pursuant to Rule 15c2-12; (i) Any certificate signed by any official of the Agency authorized to do so shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the Agency to the Authority as to the statements made therein; and (j) The Agency is authorized by the Loan Agreement to pledge Surplus Tax Increment Revenues to payment of debt service on the CFD 84-1 Bonds in the manner and the amount described in the Official Statement 12. If between the date of this Purchase Agreement and the date ninety (90) days after the Closing Date an event occurs which is materially adverse to the purpose for which the Official Statement is to be used which is not disclosed in the Official Statement, the City, the CFDs or the Agency shall noti .fy the Authority of such fact. 13. At 9:00 a.m., Pacific Time, on the Closing Date, or at such other time or on such other date as is mutually agreed by the City and the Authority, the City and the CFDs will deliver the Acquired Obligations to the Trustee in definitive form, duly executed, together with the other documents hereinafter mentioned, and, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Trustee solely from moneys held under the Indenture of Trust will accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Acquired Obligations as referenced in paragraph 1 hereof by wire transfer or other timds which are good funds on the Closing Date payable to the order of the Escrow Agent. DeLivery and payment, as aforesaid, shall be made at such place as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the City, the Escrow Agent and the Authority. 14. The Authority has entered into this Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations, warranties and agreements of the City, the CFDs and the Agency contained herein and to be contained in the documents and instruments to be delivered on the Closing Date, and upon the performance by the City, the CFDs and the Agency of their respective obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. Accordingly, the Authority's obligations under this Purchase Agreement to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Acquired Obligations shall be subject to the performance by the City, the Agency and the CFDs of their respective obligations to be performed hereunder and under such documents and instruments at or prior to the Closing Date, and shall also be subject to the following conditions: (a) The representations and warranties of the City, the CFDs and the Agency contained herein shall be true, complete and correct on the date hereof and on and as of the Closing Date, as if made on the Closing Date; (b) On the Closing Date the Proceedings and the Loan Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, and the Official Statement shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, except in either case as may have been agreed to by both the Authority and the Underwriter; (c) As of the Closing Date, all official action of the City, the CFDs and the Agency relating to the Proceedings, the Acquired Obligations and the Loan Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and there shall have been taken all such actions as, in the opinion of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP ("Bond Counsel"), shall be necessary or appropriate in connection therewith, with the issuance of the Authority Bonds and the -8- Acquired Obligations, and with the transactions contemplated hereby, all as described in the Official Statement; (d) The Authority shall have the right to terminate the Authority's obligations under this Purchase Agreement to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Acquired Obligations by notifying the City and the CFDs of its election to do so if, after the execution hereof and prior to the Closing: (i) either the marketability of the Authority Bonds or the market price of the Authority Bonds, in the opinion of the Authority, has been materially and adversely affected by any decision issued by a court of the United States (including the United States Tax Court) or of the State of California, by any ruling or regulation (final, temporary or proposed) issued by or on behalf of the Depatlment of the Treasury of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service, or other governmental agency of the United States, or any governmental agency of the State of California, or by a tentative decision with respect to legislation reached by a committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Congress of the United States, or by legislation enacted by, pending in, or favorably reported to either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Congress of the United States or either house of the Legislature of the State of California, or formally proposed to the Congress of the United States bv the President o,f the United States or to the Legislature of the State of California b~ the Governor o,f the State of California in an executive communication, affecting the tax status of the Authority or the City, their property or income, their bonds (induding the Authority Bonds) or the interest thereon, or any tax exemption granted or authorized by the Bond Law; (ii) the United States shall have become engaged in: hostfiities which have resulted in a declaration of war or national emergency, or there shall have occurred any other outbreak of hostilities, or a local, national or international calamity or crisis, financial or otherwise, the effect of such outbreak, calamity or crisis being such as, in the reasonable opinion of the Authority, would affect materially and adversely the ability of the Authority to market the Authority Bonds (it being agreed by the Authority that there is no outbreak, calamity or crisis of such a character as of the date hereof); (iii) there shall have occurred a general suspension of trading on the New York Stock Exchange or the declaration of a general banking moratorium by the United States, New York State or California State authorities; (iv) there shall have occurred a withdrawal or downgrading of any rating assigned to any securities of the City by a national municipal bond rating agency; (v) any Federal or California court, authority or regulatory body shall take action materially and adversely affecting the ability of a developer to proceed with the development as contemplated by the Official Statement; (vi) an event described in paragraph 12 hereof occurs which in the opinion of the Authority requires a supplement or amendment to the Official Statement, and such supplement or amendment is not agreed to by the City; and (e) On or prior to the Closing Date, the Authority shall have received each of the following documents: (1) All documents and opinions required to be received by the Trustee prior to the application of proceeds of the Authority Bonds to the purchase of the Acquired Obligations; (2) Opinions, in form and substance satisfactory to the City and the Authority, dated as of the Closing Date, of Bond Counsel, approving, without qualification, the validity of the Acquired Obligations; (3) A letter of Bond Counsel, dated the date of the Closing and add:ressed to the Authority, to the effect that the opinion referred to in the -9- preceding subparagraph (2) may be relied upon by the Authority to the same extent as if such opinion were addressed to it; (4) A supplementary opinion, dated the date of the Closing and addressed to the Authority, of Bond Counsel to the effect that this Purchase Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by, and, assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the Authority, constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement of the City enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by the application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought, and that the statements contained in the Official Statement (including the cover page and the Appendices thereto), insofar as such statements purport to summarize. certain provisions of the Acquired Obligations or the Proceedings relating thereto, accurately sununarize the information presented therein; (5) A certificate dated the Closing Date, addressed to the Authoritv, signed by a City official having knowledge of the facts to the effect that: (i) The representations and warranties of the City contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on anh as of the Closing Date as if made on the Closing Date; (ii) Except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (A) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the City, or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (B) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the Reassessment District Obligation, the levy or collection of the Reassessments or any other moneys or property pledged or to be pledged under the City Resolution, or the pledge thereof, (C) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the City with respect to the moneys and assets pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Reassessment District Obligation, (D) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the Reassessment District Obligation, or the validity or enforceability of the Reassessment District Obligation or the Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obligation, or (E) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Proceedings related to the Reassessment District Obligation, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement; (iii) The City has complied with all agreements, covenants and arrangements, and satisfied all conditions, on its part to be complied with or satisfied on or prior to the Closing Date; and (iv) To the best of its knowledge, no event affecting the City has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which should be disclosed in the Official Statement for the purposes for which it is necessary to disclose therein in order to make the statements not misleading in any respect; -10- (6) A certificate dated the Closing Date, addressed to the Authority, signed by a City official on behalf of each of the CFDs having knowledge of the facts to the effect that: (i) The representations and warranties of the CFDs contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Closing Date as if made on the Closing Date; (ii) Except as described in the Official Statement, there ts no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (A) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the CFDs, or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (B) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the CFD Bonds, the levy or collection of the Special Taxes or any other moneys or property pledged or to be pledged under the CFD Resolutions, or the pledge thereof, (C) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the CFDs with respect to the moneys and assets pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, 'i~ any, or interest on the CFD Bonds, (D) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the CFD Bonds, or the validity or enforceability of the CFD Bonds or the Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds, or (E) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement; (iii) The CFDs have complied with all agreements, covenants and arrangements, and satisfied all conditions, on its part to be complied with or satisfied on or prior to the Closing Date; and (iv) To the best of its knowledge, no event affecting the City has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which should be disclosed in the Official Statement for the purposes for which it is necessary to disclose therein in order to make the statements not misleading in any respect; (7) A certificate dated the Closing Date, addressed to the Authority, signed by an Agency official having knowledge of the facts to the effect that: (i) The representations and warranties of the Agency contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Closing Date as if made on the Closing Date; (ii) Except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (A) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the Agency, or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices, (B) enjoin or restrain the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, its ability to make the Agency Payments or the pledge of Surplus Tax increment Revenues as security therefor, (C) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the Agency with respect to the Surplus Tax Increment Revenues, (D) in any way question or affect any authority for the execution and delivery of the -11- Loan Agreement, or the validity or enforceability of the Loan Agreement, or (E) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Loan Agreement, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement; ('fro The Agency has complied with all agreements, covenants and arrangements, and satisfied all conditions, on its part to be complied with or satisfied on or prior to the Closing Date; and (iv) To the best of its knowledge, no event affecting the Agency has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which should be disclosed in the Official Statement for the purposes for which it is necessary to disclose therein in order to make the statements not misleading in any respect; (8) An opinion, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Authority, of the City Attorney to the effect that, excevt as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the City, or the titles of its members and officers to their respective offices; (ii) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the Reassessment District Obligation, the receipt of any other moneys or property pledged or to be pledged under the Proceedings related to the Reassessment District obligation or the pledge thereof; ('ffi) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the City with respect to the moneys and assets pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Reassessment District Obligation; (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the Reassessment District Obligation, or the validity or enforceability of the Reassessment District Obligation; (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement and (vi) the statements in the Official Statement relating to the Reassessment District are true and accurate; (9) An opinion, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Authority, of the City Attorney, as counsel to the CFDs, to the effect that, except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the CFDs, or the authority of the City Council as the legislative body for the CFDs; (ii) enjoin or restrain the issuance, sale and delivery of the CFD Bonds, the receipt of any other moneys or property pledged or to be pledged under the Proceedings related to the CFD Bonds or the pledge thereof; (iii) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the CFDs with respect to the moneys and assets pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the CFD Bonds; (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for the issuance of the CFD Bonds, or the validity or enforceability of the CFD Bonds; (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement and (vi) the statements in the Official Statements relating to the CFDs are true and accurate; -12- (10)An opinion, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Authority, of Agency counsel, to the effect that, (A) except as described in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation before or by any court, public board or body pending or threatened, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would: (i) affect the creation, organization, existence or powers of the Agency; (ii) enjoin or restrain the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the receipt of any other moneys or property pledged or to be pledged under the Loan Agreement or the pledge thereof; (iii) in any way question or affect any of the rights, powers, duties or obligations of the Agency with respect to the moneys and assets pledged or to be pledged Loan Agreement; (iv) in any way question or affect any authority for execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement; (v) in any way question or affect this Purchase Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement or the documents referred to in the Official Statement and (vi) the statements set forth in the Official Statement relating to the Loan Agreement, the Surplus Tax Increment Revenues, the Agency Payrnents and the Project Area are 'true and accurate and (B) the Surplus Tax Increment Revenues are validly pledged to payment of debt service on the CFD 84-1 Bonds pursuant to the Loan Agreement; (11)Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and documents as the Authority may reasonably request to evidence the truth and accuracy, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date, of the City's, the CFDs' and the Agency's representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statement; and (12) Executed copies of the Escrow Agreements. In addition to the foregoing, the City, the Agency and the CFDs shall on the Closing Date provide the Proceedings, certified by authorized officers as true copies and/or as having been adopted or executed (as applicable), with only such amendments, modifications or supplements as may have been agreed to by the Authority. All of the opinions, letters, certificates, instruments and other documents mentioned above or elsewhere in this Purchase Agreement shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions hereof if, but only if, they are in form and substance satisfactory to the Authority, but the approval of the Authority shall not be unreasonably withheld. Receipt of, and payment for, the Acquired Obligations shall constitute evidence of the satisfactory nature of such as to the Authority. 'lite performance of any and all obligations of the City, the CFDs and the Agency hereunder and the performance of any and all conditions contained herein for the benefit of the Authority may be waived by the Authority in its sole discretion. If the City, the CFDs or the Agency shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the, Authority to purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Acquired Obligations contained in this Purchase Agreement, or if the obligations of the Authority to purchase, accept delivery of and pay for the Authority Bonds shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Purchase Agreement, this Purchase Agreement shall terminate, and neither the Authority, the Agency, the CFDs nor the City shall be under further obligation hereunder, except that the respective obligations of the City and the Authority set forth in paragraphs 15 and 16 hereof shall continue in full force and effect. 15. The A,uthority shall be under no obligation to pay, and the City shall pay the expenses incurred by the City, the Agency, the CFDs and the Authority in connection with issuance of the Authority Bonds and the Acquired Obligations. -13- 16. To the extent permitted by law, the City, the Agency and the CFDs shall indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and the Trustee, and their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation fees and disbursements of counsel and other expenses) incurred by them or any of them in connection with investigating or defending any loss, damages, liability or any suit, action or proceeding, joint or several, to which they or any of them may become subject under the laws of the State of California or under federal tax law, insofar as such losses, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (or any suit, action or proceeding in respect thereof) arise out of or are based upon the issuance and sale of the Acquired Obligations or any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact contained in the Official Statement or in any amendment or supplement thereto, or any omission or alleged omission to state therein a material fact relating to the City, the CFDs, the Agency or the Acquired Obligations which is required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. This indemnity agreement shall be in addition to any liability which the City, the Agency or the CFDs may otherwise have. 17. This Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the City, the CFDs, the Agency and the Authority (including their successors and assigns), and no other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. All of the City's, the CFDs' and the Agency's representations, warranties and agreements contained in this Purchase Agreement shall remain operative and in full force and effect regardless of: (i) any investigations made by or on behalf of the Authority or (ii) delivery of and payment for the Authority Bonds pursuant to this Purchase Agreement. The agreements contained in this paragraph and in paragraph 14 shall survive any termination of this Purchase Agreement. 18. This Purchase Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. 19. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unerfforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof. 20. The validity, interpretation and performance of this Purchase Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. -14- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the CFDs, the Agency and the City have each caused this Purchase Agreement to be executed by their dulv authorized officers all as of the date first above written. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY By CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By¸ COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By. -15- EXHIBIT A Maturity. Schedule City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 99-1 Limited Obligation Rehmding Bonds Purchase Price: $. Maturity Date (September 2) Principal Maturity. Interest Rate A-1 Community Facilities District No. 84.-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds purchase Price: $ Maturity Date (September 2) Principal Maturi~ Interest Rate A-2 Community Fadlities District No. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds Purchase Price: $. Maturity Date (September 2) Principal Maturi~ Interest Rate A-3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS Purchase Price: $ Maturity Date (September 2) Principal Maturity Interest Rate A-4 BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT $ RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY Refunding Revenue Bonds $ Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds and $ Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds , 1999 Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority [address] Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned (the "Underwriter") offers to enter into this Bond Purchase Agreement (this "Purchase Agreement") with the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority") which will be binding upon the Authority and the Underwriter upon the acceptance hereof by the Authority. This offer is made subject to its acceptance by the Authority by execution of this Purchase Agreement and its delivery to the Underwriter on or before 5:00 p.m., California time, on the date hereof. All terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Indentures (as hereinafter defined). Section 1. Purchase and Sale. Upon the terms and conditions and upon the basis of the representations, -warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth, the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the Authority for offering to the public, and the Authority hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter for such purpose, all (but not less than all) of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds (the "Series A Bonds") and Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds (the "Series B Bonds", and together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds"). The purchase price for the Bonds shall be as follows: (i) Series A: $ (being the aggregate principal amount thereof ($ ) less an underwriter's discount of $. and less an original issue discount of $. ). (ii) Ser/es B: $ (being the aggregate principal amount thereof ($ .) less an underwriter's discount of $ and less an original issue discount of $. ). Section 2. Description of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") dated as of __ 1, 1999 by and between the Authority and _, as trustee (the "Trustee") and pursuant to the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act (the "Bond Law") and a resolution of the Authority adopted on , 1999 (the "Bond Resolution"). The Bonds shall be as described in the Indenture and the Official Statement dated the date hereof relating to the Bonds (which, together with all exhibits and appendices included therein or attached thereto and such amendments or supplements thereto which shall be approved by the Underwriter, is hereinafter called the "Official Statement"). The proceeds of the Bonds shall be applied by the Authority to finance the purchase of the following issues of Bonds (the "Acquired Obligations"): (i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Re~essment District NO. 99-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Reassessment District Obligation"), being issued by the City of Ranch Cucamonga (the "City") to refund two assessment district bond issues of the Citv. (ii) Community Facilities District NO. 84-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 84-1 Bonds"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 84-1 ("CFD 84-1") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 84-1. (iii) Community Facilities District NO. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 88-2 Bonds"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 88-2 ("CFD 88-2") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 88-2. (iv) Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 93-3 Bonds"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 93-3 ("CFD 84-1") to refund outstanding bonds of CFD 93-3. The Acquired Obligations will be purchased by the Authority in accordance with an Acquired Obligations Bond Purchase Agreement dated the date hereof (the "Acquired Obligations Bond Purchase Agreement"), by and among the Authority, the City and the Agency. Section 3. Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all the Bonds initially at the public offering prices (or yields) set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Subsequent to the initial public offering, the Underwriter reserves the right to change the public offering prices (or yields) as it deems necessary in connection with the marketing of the Bonds, provided that the Underwriter shall not change the interest rates set forth on Appendix A. The Bonds may be offered and sold to certain dealers at prices lower than such initial public offering prices. Section 4. Delivery of Official Statement. The Authority has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Underwriter prior to the execution of this Purchase Agreement or the first offering of the Bonds, whichever first occurs, copies of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). Such Pre 'hminary Official Statement is the official statement deemed final by the Authority for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule") and approved for distribution by resolution of the Authority. The Authority shall have executed and delivered to the Underwriter a certification to such effect in the form attached hereto as Appendix B. Within seven (7) business days from the date hereof, the Authority shall deliver to the Underwriter a final Official Statement, executed on behalf of the Authority by an authorized representative of the Authority and dated the date hereof, which shall include information permitted to be omitted by paragraph Co)(1) of the Rule'and with such other amendments or supplements as shall have been approved by the Authority and the Underwriter. The Authority will undertake, pursuant to the Indenture and a continuing disclosure certificate (the "Continuing Disclosure Certificate"), to provide certain annual financial information and notices of the occurrence of certain events, if material. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement and will also be set forth in the final Official Statement. In addition, [discuss any property owner continuing disclosure undertakings] Section 5. The Closing. At 8:00 a.m., California time, on , 1999, or at such other time or on such earlier or later business day as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Authority, the City and the Underwriter, the Authority will deliver (i) the Bonds in definitive form to the Underwriter at The Depository Trust Company in New York, New York, or such other location as may be specified by the Underwriter, with CUSIP identification numbers printed thereon, in fully registered form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., and (ii) the closing documents hereinafter mentioned at the offices of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, Solana Beach, California or another place to be mutually agreed upon by the Authority, the City and the Underwriter. The Underwriter will accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth in Section 1 hereof by federal funds wire payable to the order of the Trustee on behalf of the Authority. This payment and delivery, together with the delivery of the aforementioned documents, is herein called the "Closing." The Bonds will be delivered in such denominations and deposited in the account or accounts specified by the Underwriter pursuant to written notice not later than five business days prior to Closing. The Bonds will be made available to The Depository Trust Company for inspection not less than 24 hours prior to the Closing. Section 6. Representations, Warranties and Covenants. The Authority represents, warrants and covenants to the Underwriter that: (a) Due Organization, Existence and Authority. The Authority is a joint powers authority duly organized and existing under the Bond Laws of the State of California, with full right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Purchase Agreement, the Indenture, the Acquired Obligations Bond Purchase Agreement and the Continuing Disclosure Certificate (together, the "Authority Documents") and to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by the Authority Documents and the Official Statement. (b) Due Authorization and Approval. By all necessary official action of the Authority, the Authority has duly authorized and approved the execution and delivery of, and the performance by the Authority of the obligations contained in, the Authority Documents and as of the date hereof, such authorizations and approvals are in full force and effect and have not been amended, modified or rescinded. When executed and delivered, the Authority Documents will constitute the legally valid and binding obligations of the Authority enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws or equitable principles relating to or affecting creditors' rights generally. The Authority has complied, and will at the Closing be in compliance in all respects, with the terms of the Authority Documents. (c) Official Statement Accurate and Complete. The Pre 'hrninary Official Statement was as of its date, and the final Official Statement is, and at all times subsequent to the date of the final Official Statement up to and including the Closing will be, true and correct in all material respects, and the Pre 'hminary Official Statement and the final Official Statement contain, and up to and including the Closing will contain, no misstatement of any material fact and do not, and up to and including the Closing will not, omit any statement necessary to make the statements contained therein, in the light of the circumstances in which such statements were made, not misleading. (d) Underwriter's Consent to Amendments and Supplements to Official Statement. The Authority will advise the Underwriter promptly of any proposal to amend or supplement the Official Statement and will not effect or consent to any such amendment or supplement without the consent of the Underwriter, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. The Authority will advise the Underwriter promptly of the institution of any proceedings known to it by any governmental authority prohibiting or otherwise affecting the use of the Official Statement in connection with the offering, sale or distribution of the Bonds. (e) No Breach or Default. As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the time of the Closing, except as otherwise disclosed in the Official Statement, the Authority is not and will not be in breach of or in default under any applicable constitutional provision, law or administrative rule or reg~Jl~tion of the State of California or the United States, or any applicable judgment or decree or any Indenture, loan agreement, bond, note, resolution, ordinance, agreement or other instrument to which the Authority is a party or is otherwise subject, and no event has occurred and is continuing which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a default or event of default under any such instrument; and, as of such times, except as disclosed in the Official Statement, the authorization, execution and delivery of the Authority Documents and compliance with the provisions of each of such agreements or instruments do not and will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or default under any applicable constitutional provision, law or administrative rule or regulation of the State of California or the United States, or any applicable judgment, decree, license, permit, indenture, loan agreement, bond, note, resolution, ordinance, agreement or other instrrtment to which the Authority (or any of its officers in their respective capacities as such) is subject, or by which it or any of its properties is bound, nor will any such authorization, execution, delivery or compliance result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or other security interest or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of its assets or properties or under the terms of any such law, regulation or instrument, except as may be provided by the Authority Documents. (f) NO Litigation. As of the time of acceptance hereof and the Closing, except as disclosed in the Official Statement, no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, government authority, public board or body, pending or threatened (i) in any way questioning the corporate existence of the Authority or the titles of the officers of the Authority to their respective offices; (ii) affecting, contesting or seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the issuance or delivery of any of the Bonds, or the payment or collection of any amounts pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or in any way contesting or affecting the validity of the Bonds or the Authority Documents or the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereby, or contesting the exclusion of the interest on the Bonds from taxation or contesting the powers of the Authority and its authority to pledge the revenues securing the Bonds; (iii) which may result in any material adverse change relating to the Authority; or (iv) contesting the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the final Official Statement or any supplement or amendment thereto or asserting that the Preliminary Official Statement or the final Official Statement contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and there is no basis for any action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation of the nature described in clauses (i) through (iv) of this sentence. Section 7. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations, warranties and covenants herein and the performance by the Authority of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the date of the Closing. The Underwriter's obligations under this Purchase Agreement to purchase and pay for the Bonds shall be subject to the following additional conditions: (a) Bring-Down Representation. The representations, warranties and covenants of the Authority contained herein shall be true, complete and correct at the date hereof and at the time of the Closing, as if made on the date of the Closing. (b) Executed A~eements and Performance Thereunder. At the time of the Closing (i) the Authority Documents shall be in full force and effect, and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented except with the written consent of the Underwriter and (ii) there shall be in full force and effect such resolutions as, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, shall be necessary in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Agreement, the Official Statement and the Authority Documents. (c) Issuance and Purchase of Acquired Obligations. Concurrent with the issuance of the Bonds and the purchase thereof by the Underwriter in accordance with this Purchase Agreement, the City shall have issued the Acquired Obligations and delivered the Acquired Obligations to the Authority under and in accordance with the Acquired Obligations Bond Purchase Agreement, and all conditions set forth in the Acquired Obligations Bond Purchase Agreement to the issuance and delivery of the Acquired Obligations shall have been satisfied. (d) Closing Documents. At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive each of the documents identified in Section 8. Section 8. Closing Documents. In addition to the other conditions to the Underwriter's obligations under this Purchase Agreement to purchase and pay for the Bonds, at or before the Closing the Underwriter shall receive each of the following documents, provided that the actual payment for the Bonds by the Underwriter and the acceptance of delivery thereof shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section 8 shall have been satisfied or waived by the Underwriter. (a) Bond Opinion. An approving opinion of Brown Diven Hessell & Brewer LLP, Solana Beach, California ("Bond Counsel") dated the date of the Closing and substantially in the form appended to the Official Statement, together with a letter from such counsel, dated the date of the Closing and addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that the foregoing opinion addressed to the Authority may be relied upon by the Underwriter to the same extent as if such opinion were addressed to them. (b) Supplemental Opinion. A supplemental opinion or opinions of Bond Counsel addressed to the Underwriter, in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter, and dated the date of the Closing substantially to the following effect: (i) This Purchase Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and the Indenture have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Authority and constitute the valid, legal and binding agreements of the Authority, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. (ii) The statements contained in the Official Statement (including the cover page and the Appendices thereto), insofar as such statements purport to summarize certain provisions of the Bonds, the Indenture or federal tax law, accurately summarize the information presented therein; provided that Bond Counsel need not express any opinion with respect to any financial or statistical information contained therein. (iii) The Bonds are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Indenture are exempt from qualification pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended. (c) Authority Counsel Opinion. An opinion of Counsel to the Authority, dated the date of the Closing and addressed to the Underwriter, in form and substance acceptable to Bond Counsel substantially to the following effect: (i) The Authority is a joint powers authority duly organized and validly existing under the Bond Laws of the State of California. (J_i) The Bond Resolution has been duly adopted, is in full force and effect and has not been modified, amended or rescinded. (iii) Without conducting an independent investigation, except as otherwise disclosed in the Official Statement and to the best knowledge of such counsel after due inquiry, there is no litigation, proceeding, action, suit, or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, governmental authority or body, pending or threatened against the Authority, challenging the creation, organization or existence of the Authority, or the validity of the Authority Documents or seeking to restrain or enjoin the repayment of the Bonds or in any way contesting or affecting the validity of the Authority Documents or contesting the authority of the Authority to enter into or perform its obligations under any of the Authority Documents, or under which a determination adverse to the Authority would have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or the revenues of the Authority, or which, in any manner, questions the right of the Authority to pledge the Revenues to the payment of the Bonds. (d) Trustee Counsel Opinion. The opinion of counsel to the Trustee, dated the date of the Closing, addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that: (i) The Trustee is a national banking association, duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the United States of America, having full power to enter into, accept and administer the trust created under the Indenture. (i_i) The Indenture have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Trustee and constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Trustee enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights generally and by the application of equitable principles, if equitable remedies are sought. (e) Authority Certificate. A certificate of the Authority, dated the date of the Closing, signed on behalf of the Authority by the Executive Director, Treasurer or other duly authorized officer of the Authority to the effect that: (i) The representations, warranties and covenants of the Authority contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date of the Closing as if made on the date of the Closing and the Authority has complied with all of the terms and conditions of this Purchase Agreement required to be complied with by the Authority at or prior to the date of the Closing. (ii) No event affecting the Authority has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which has not been disclosed therein or in any supplement or amendment thereto which event should be disclosed in the Official Statement in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (iii) Except as otherwise disclosed in the Official Statement and to the best knowledge of such signing officer without conducting an independent investigation, there is no litigation, proceeding, action, suit, or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, governmental authority or body, pending or threatened against the Authority, challenging the creation, organization or existence of the Authority, or the validity of the Authority Documents or seeking to restrain or enjoin the repayment of the Bonds or in any way contesting or affecting the validity of the Authority Documents or contesting the authority of the Authority to enter into or perform its obligations under any of the Authority Documents, or under which a determination adverse to the Authority would have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or the revenues of the Authority, or which, in any manner, questions the right of the Authority to pledge the Revenues to the payment of the Bonds. (f) Trustee's Certificate. A certificate of the Trustee, dated the date of Closing, in form and substance acceptable to counsel for the Underwriter, to the following effect: (i) The Trustee is duly organized and existing as a national banking association in good standing under the Bond Laws of the United States of America, having the full power and authority to enter into and perform its duties under the Indenture. (ii) The Trustee is duly authorized to enter into the Indenture. (iii) To its best knowledge after due inquiry, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court or governmental district, public board or body pending against the Trustee or threatened against the Trustee which in the reasonable judgment of the Trustee would affect the existence of the Trustee or in any way contesting or affecting the validity or enforceability of the Indenture or contesting the powers of the Trustee or its authority to enter into and perform its obligation under the Indenture. (g) Underwriter's Counsel Opinion. An opinion of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation ("Underwriter's Counsel"), dated the Closing Date, and addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that: (i) during the course of serving as Underwriter's Counsel in connection with the execution and delivery of the Bonds and without having undertaken to determine independently or assuming any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the Official Statement, no information came to the attention of the attorneys in such firm rendering legal services in connection with the issuance of the Bonds that would lead them to believe that the Official Statement (excluding therefrom the financial statements, any financial or statistical data, or forecasts, charts, numbers, estimates, projections, assumptions or expressions of opinion included in the Official -7- Statement, [information regarding the Insurer], information regarding DTC, and the appendices to the Official Statement as to which no opinion need be expressed), as of the date thereof or the Closing Date, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (ii) the Bonds are exempt from registration pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (h) Original Executed Documents. An original executed copy of each of the Authority, Documents. (i) Additional Documents. Such additional certificates, instruments and other documents as Bond Counsel, Underwriter's Counsel, the Authority or the Underwriter may reasonably deem necessary. If the Authority shall be unable to satisfy the conditions contained in this Purchase Agreement, or if the obligations of the Underwriter shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Purchase Agreement, this Purchase Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the Authority shall be under further obligation hereunder, except as further set forth in Section 10. Section 9. Termination Events. The Underwriter shall have the right to terminate this Purchase Agreement, without liability therefor, by notification to the Authority if at any time between the date hereof and prior to the Closing: (a) any event shall occur which causes any statement contained in the Official Statement to be materially misleading or results in a failure of the Official Statement to state a material fact necessary to make the statements in the Official Statement, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (b) the marketability of the Bonds or the market price thereof, in the opinion of the Underwriter, has been materially adversely affected by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States or by any legislation in or by the Congress of the United States or by the State, or the amendment of legislation pending as of the date of this Purchase Agreement in the Congress of the United States, or the recommendation to Congress or endorsement for passage (by press release, other form of notice or otherwise) of legislation by the President of the United States, the Treasury Depa~h~ent of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service or the Chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate or the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives, or the proposal for consideration of legislation by either such Committee or by any member thereof, or the presentment of legislation for consideration as an option by either such Committee, or by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the United States, or the favorable reporting for passage of legislation to either House of the Congress of the United States by a Committee of such House to which such legislation has been referred for consideration, or any decision of any Federal or State court or any ruling or regulation (final, temporary or proposed) or official statement on behalf of the United States Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service or other federal or State authority materially adversely affecting the federal or State tax status of the Authority, or the interest on bonds or notes or obligations of the general character of the Bonds; or (c) any legislation, ordinance, rule or regulation shall be introduced in, or be enacted by any governmental body, depath~ent or authority of the State, or a decision by any court of competent jurisdiction within the State or any court of the United States shall be rendered which, in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the market price of the Bonds; or (d) legislation shall be enacted by the Congress of the United States, or a decision by a court of the United States shall be rendered, or a stop order, ruling` regulation or official statement by, or on behalf of, the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental district having jurisdiction of the subject matter shall be issued or made to the effect that the issuance, offering or sale of obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the issuance, offering or sale of the Bonds, including all underlying obligations, as contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement, is in violation or would be in violation of, or that obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the Bonds, are not exempt from registration under, any provision of the federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, or that the Indenture needs to be qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended and as then in effect; or (e) additional material restrictions not in force as of the date hereof shall have been imposed upon trading in securities generally by any governmental authority or by any national securities exchange which restrictions materially adversely affect the Underwriter's ability to trade the Bonds; or (f) a general banking moratorium shall have been established by federal or California authorities; or (g) the United States has become engaged in hostilities which have resulted in a declaration of war or a national emergency or there has occurred any other outbreak of hostilities or a national or international calamity or crisis, or there has occurred any escalation of existing hostilities, calamity or crisis, financial or otherwise, the effect of which on the financial markets of the United States being such as, in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, would affect materially and adversely the ability of the Underwriter to market the Bonds; or (h) the commencement of any action, suit or proceeding described in Section 6(0(iii) or 6(g)(iii) with respect to either the Authority or the City which, in the judgment of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the market price of the Bonds; or (i) there shall be in force a general suspension of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Section 10. Expenses. The Underwriter shall be under no obligation to pay and the Authority shall pay or cause to be paid the expenses incident to the performance of the obligations of the Authority hereunder including but not limited to (a) the costs of the preparation and printing, or other reproduction (for distribution on or prior to the date hereof) of the Authority Documents and the cost of preparing, printing, issuing and delivering the definitive Bonds, (b) the fees and disbursements of any counsel, financial advisors, accountants or other experts or consultants retained by the Authority and the City; (c) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and Underwriter's Counsel (but only to the extent to which such counsel's fee relates to preparation of the preliminary and final Official Statement); and (d) the cost of printing of the Pre 'hminary Official Statement and any supplements and amendments thereto and the cost of printing of the Official Statement, including the requisite number of copies thereof for distribution by the Underwriter. -9- The Underwriter shall pay and the Authority shall be under no obligation to pay all expenses incurred by it in connection with the public offering and distribution of the Bonds, including but not limited to (a) reporting fees chargeable by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, (b) the portion of Underwriter Counsel's fee n9t relating to preparation of the preliminary and final Official Statement, and (c) CUSIP Service Bureau fees. Section 11. Notice. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Authority under this Purchase Agrt, ement maybe given by delivering the same in writing to such entity at the address set forth above. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to: Stone & Youngberg LLC, 50 California Street, 35th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Attention: Mr. Jim Cervantes. Section 12. Entire Agreement. This Purchase Agreement, when accepted by the Authority, shall constitute the entire agreement between the Authority and the Underwriter and is made solely for the benefit of the Authority and the Underwriter (including the successors or assigns of any Underwriter). No other person shah acquire or have any right hereunder by virtue hereof, except as provided herein. All the Authority's representations, warranties and agreements in this Purchase Agreement shah remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of any investigation made by or on behalf of the Underwriter. Section 13. Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invahdity, illegality or unenforceabihty shall not affect any other provision hereof. Section 15. Governing Law. The validity, interpretation and performance of this Purchase Agreement shall be governed by the Bond Laws of the State of California. Section 16. No Assignment. The rights and obligations created by this Purchase Agreement shall not be subject to assignment by the Underwriter or the Authority without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto. STONE & YOUNGBERG LLC, as Underwriter By: Accepted as of the date first stated above: RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY By: -11- APPENDIX A Maturiby Schedule of Series A Bonds Principal Payment Date Principal Interest (September 2) Amount Rate Price/Yield Maturity Schedule of Series B Bonds Principal Payment Date Principal Interest (September 2) Amount Rate Price/Yield A-1 APPENDIX B RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds and Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds RULE 15C2-12 CERTIFICATE The undersigned hereby certifies and represents that he or she is a duly appointed and acting authorized officer of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"), and as such is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate and further hereby certifies and reconfirms on behalf of the Authority as follows: (1) This Certificate is delivered in connection with the offering and sale of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 1999,A Senior Lien Bonds (the "Series A Bonds") and Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds (the Series B Bonds, and together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds") in order to enable the underwriter of the Bonds to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule"). (2) In connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, there has been prepared a Preliminary Official Statement (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). (3) As used herein, "Permitted Omissions" shall mean the offering price(s), interest rate(s), selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the Bonds depending on such matters, all with respect to the Bonds. (4) The Pre 'hminary Official Statement is, except for the Permitted Omissions, deemed final within the meaning of the Rule. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of this u__ day of ........ 1999. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY By B-1 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIHCATE This Continuing Disclosure Certificate (the 'Z)isclosure Certificate") is executed and delivered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City"), by and on behalf of itself, the Ranchv Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Redevelopment Agency") and the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority") in connection with the issuance by the Authority of (i) the $ Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds (the "Series A Bonds") and (ii) the $ Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds (the "Series B Bonds", and together with the Series A Bonds, the "Bonds"~. The Bonds are being issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of 1, 1999 (the "Indenture of Trust"), between the Authority and , as trustee (the "Trustee"). The Authority is issuing the Bonds for the purpose of acquiring the following assessment and special tax bonds ("Acquired Obligations") to be issued concurrentiv bv the City and various community facilities districts (the "CFDs") formed by the City: (i) City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 99-1 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Reassessment District Obligation"), being issued by the City. (ii) Community Facilities DistriCt No. 84-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 84-1 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 84-1 ("CFD 84-1"). (iii) Community Facilities District NO. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 88-2 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 88-2 ("CFD 88-2"). (iv) Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "CFD 93-3 Bonds" and a "CFD Obligation"), being issued by the City's Community Facilities District No. 93-3 ("CFD 84-1"). The Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has pledged certain Surplus Tax Increment Revenues as security for its obligation under an [Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of __ 1, 1999] to make certain "Agency Payments" in support of debt service on the CFD 84-1 Bonds. The City hereby covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Certificate. This Disclosure Certificate is being executed and delivered by the City for the benefit of the holders and beneficial owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriters in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2- 120o)(5). Section 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Indenture of Trust, which apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Certificate unless otherwise defined in this Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: "Annual Report" shall mean any Annual Report provided by the City pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. "Dissemination Agent" shall mean , or anv successor Dissemination Agent designated in writing by the City and which has filed with the City a written acceptance of such designation. "Listed Events" shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Disclosure Certificate. "National Repository" shall mean any Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository for purposes of the Rule. Information on the National Repositories as of a particular date is available on the Internet at www.sec.gov/consumer/ru'rnsir.htm. "Q~cial Statement" shall mean the Official Statement relating to the Bonds. "Participating Underwriter" shall mean Stone & Youngberg LLC. The address for information mailed to the Participating Underwriter is: Stone & Youngberg LLC, 50 California Street, 35th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111~ "Repository" shall mean each National Repository and each State Reposito~-. "Rule" shall mean Rule15c2-12(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time. "State Repository" shall mean any public or private repository or entity designated by the State of California as a state repository for the purpose of the Rule and recognized as such by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of the date of this Disclosure Certificate, there is no State Repository. Section 3. Provision of Annual Reports. (a) The City shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, not later than months after the end of the City's fiscal year (which currently would be based upon the City's current June 30 fiscal year), commencing , 2000 with the report for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year, provide to the Participating Underwriter and each Repository an Annual Report which is consistent with the requirements of Section4 of this Disclosure Certificate. Not later than fifteen (15) Business Days prior to said date, the City shall provide the Annual Report to the Dissemination Agent (if other than the City). The Annual Report may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may include by reference other irfformation as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate; provided that the audited financial statements of the City may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Report, and later than the date required above for the filing of the Annual Report if not available by that date. If the City's fiscal year changes, it shall give notice of such change in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c). (b) If the City is unable to provide to the Repositories an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a), the City shall send a notice to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and the appropriate State Repository, if any, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A. (c) The Dissemination Agent shall: (i) determine each year prior to the date for providing the Annual Report the name and address of each National Repository and each State Repository, if any; and (ii) if the Dissemination Agent is other than the City, file a report with the City certifying that the Annual Report has been provided pursuant to this Disclosure Certificate, stating tl~ date it was provided and listing all the Repositories to which it was provided. Section 4. Content of Annual Reports. The City's Annual Report shall contain or incorporate by reference the following: (a) Audited Financial Statements of the City and the Redevelopment Agency, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as promulgated to apply to governmental entities from time to time by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. If such audited financial statements are not available by the time the Annual Report is required tv be filed pursuant to Section 3(a), the Annual l~e.vort shall contain unaudited financial statements in a format similar to the financial statements contained in the final Official Statement, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the Annual Report when thev become available. (b) Additional Items relating to the Authority. (i) Outstanding principal amount of the Bonds as of the end of the most recent fiscal year; and (ii) Balance of each of the Senior Reserve Fund and the Subordinate Reserve Fund as of the end of the most recent fiscal year. (c) Additional Items relating to the Reassessment District. Unless otherwise provided in the audited financial statements filed on or prior to the annual filing deadline for the Annual Reports provided for in Section 3 above, financial information and operating data with respect to the Reassessment District for the preceding fiscal year, substantially similar to that provided in the corresponding tables and charts in the Official Statement for the Bonds, as follows: (i) Principal amount outstanding of the Reassessment District Obligation. (ii) Balance in all of the funds and accounts created pursuant to the Bond Indenture for the Reassessment District Obligation. (iii) Total assessed value (per the San Bernardino County records) of all parcels currently subject to the Reassessment within the Reassessment District, distinguishing between AD 86-2 and AD 89-1, showing the total assessed valuation for all land and the total assessed valuation for all improvements within the Reassessment District. (iv) In the event that the total delinquencies within the Reassessment District as of August 1 in any year exceed 5% of the Reassessment for the previous year, delinquency information, including a list of all parcels delinquent in the payment of the Reassessment, amounts of delinquencies, length of delinquency and status of any foreclosure for each parcel listed (including results of foreclosure sales). (v) A land ownership summary listing property owners responsible for more than five percent (5%) of the annual Reassessment, as shown on the San Bernardino County Assessor's last equalized tax roll prior to the September next preceding the Annual Report Date, and an indication of whether the land is developed or undeveloped. (vi) Information relating to the number of new construction building permits and certificates of occupancy issued in the Reassessment District during the preceding fiscal year. (d) Additional Items relating to the CFDs. Unless otherwise provided in the audited financial statements filed on or prior to the annual filing deadline for the Annual Reports provided for in Section 3 above, financial information and operating data with respect to each CFD for the preceding fiscal year, substantially similar to that provided in the corresponding tables and charts in the Official Statement for the Bonds, as follows: (i) Total assessed value (per the San Bernardino County Assessor's records) of all parcels currently subject to the Special Tax within each CFD, showing. the total assessed valuation for all land and the total assessed valuation for all improvements within the CFD and distinguishing between the assessed value of improved and unimproved parcels. Parcels are considered improved if there is an assessed value for the imvrovements in the Assessor's records. (ii) The total dollar amount of delinquencies in each CFD as of August 1 of any year and, in the event that the total delinquencies within a CFD as of August 1 in any year exceeds 5% of the Special Tax for the previous year, delinquency information for each parcel responsible for more than $5,000 in the payment of Special Tax, amounts of delinquencies, length of delinquency and status of any foreclosure of each such parcel (including results of foreclosure sale). (iii) The amount of prepayments of the Special Tax with respect to the CFD for the most recently completed Fiscal Year. (iv) A land ownership summary listing property owners responsible for more than 5% of the annual Special Tax levy, as shown on the San Bernardino County Assessor's last equali~.ed tax roll prior to the September next preceding the Annual Report Date, and a calculation of each such owner's value- to-burden ratio based upon assessed value and the burden of that property's share of the Acquired Obligations only. (v) The principal amount of the CFD Bonds outstanding as of the September 30 next preceding the Annual Report Date. (vi) An updated calculation of each CFD's value-to-burden ratio on a CFD-wide basis, based upon (A) the Taxable Property's assessed value as shown on the San Bernardino County Assessor's last equalized tax roll prior to the September next preceding the Annual Report Date and (B) the burden of that property's share of the Acquired Obligations only. (vii) Any changes to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for a CFD. (v'~ii) Annual information required to be filed by the District with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission pursuant to the Act and 4 relating generally to outstanding CFD bond amounts, fund balances, assessed values, special tax delinquencies and foreclosure information. (ix) Information relating to the number of new construction building permits and certificates of occupancy issued in the CFD during the preceding fiscal year (e) Additional Items Relating to the Redevelopment Agency.. Unless otherwise provided in the audited financial statements filed on or prior to the annual filing deadline for the Annual Reports provided for in Section 3 above, financial information and operating data with respect to the Redevelopment Agency for the preceding fiscal year, substantially similm' to that provided in the corresponding tables and charts in the Official Statement for the Bonds, as follows: (i) Assessed value of property in the Project Area, total tax increment revenues and Surplus Tax Increment Revenues available to pay Agent,.' Pavments for the most recent fiscal vear in substantially the form of Table (ii) summary of Agency indebtedness payable from tax increment generated in the Project Area, including the amount outstanding as of June 30 of the most recent fiscal year; and (iii) Identity of pending and successful appeals of assessed values in the Project Area, but only if total appeals exceed, in the aggregate, 5% of assessed value in the Project Area; and (iv) Debt service coverage on the Agency Payments in substantially the form of Table Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the City or related public entities, which have been submitted to each of the Repositories or the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the document included by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The City shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference. (f) In addition to any of the information expressly required to be provided under paragraphs (a) through (e) of this Section, the City shall provide such further information, if any, as may be necessary to make the specifically required statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents, induding official statements of debt issues of the City or related public entities, which have been submitted to each of the Repositories or the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the document included by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The City shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference. 5 Section 5. Reporting of Si~m~dficant Events. (a) Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5, the City shall give, or cause to be given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material: (1) Principal and interest payment delinquencies. (2) Non-payment related defaults. (3) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties. (4) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties* (5) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform. (6) Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security. (7) Modification~ to rights of security holders. (8) Contingent or unscheduled bond calls. (9) Defeasances. (10) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities. (11) Rating changes. (b) Whenever the City obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event, the City shall as soon as possible determine if such event would be material under applicable Federal securities law. (c) If the City determines that knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event would be material under applicable Federal securities law, the City shall promptly file a notice of such occurrence with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and each State Repository. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice of Listed Events described in subsections (a)(8) and (9) need not be given under this subsection any earlier than the notice (if any) of the underlying event is given to holders of affected Bonds pursuant to the Indenture of Trust. Section 6. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The City's obligations under this Disclosure Certificate shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If such termination occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the City shall give notice of such termination in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c). Section 7. Dissemination Agent. The City may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate, and may discharge any such Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. The initial Dissemination Agent shall be Section 8. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the City may amend this Disclosure Certificate, and any provision of this Disclosure Certificate may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (a) if the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4 or 5(a), it may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature, or status of an obligated person with respect to the Bonds, or type of business conducted; 6 (b) the undertakings herein, as proposed to be amended or waived, would, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and (c) the proposed amendment or waiver either (i) is approved by holders of the Bonds in the manner provided in the Indenture of Trust for amendments to the Indenture of Trust with the consent of holders, or (ii) does not, in the opinion of the Trustee or nationally recognized bond counsel, materially impair the interests of the holders or beneficial owners of the Bonds. If the annual financial information or operating data to be provided in the Annual Report is amended pursuant to the provisions hereoL the first annual financial information filed pursuant hereto containing the amended operating data or financial information shall explain. in narrative form, the reasons for the amendment and the impact of the change in the type oi operating data or financial information being provided. If an amendment is made to the ,undertaking specifying the accounthag principles to be followed in preparing financial statemetres, the annual financial information for the vear in which the change is made shall present a comparison between the financial statements or information prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. The comparison shall include a qualitative discussion of the differences in the accounting principles and the impact of the change in the accounting principles on the presentation of the financial information, in order to provide information to investors to enable them to evaluate the ability of the City to meet its obligations. To the extent reasonably feasible, the comparison shah be quantitative. A notice of the change in the accounting principles shah be sent to the Repositories in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c). Section 9. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Certificate shah be deemed to prevent the City from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Certificate or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Certificate. If the City chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Certificate, the City shall have no obligation under this Disclosure Certificate to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event. Section 10. Default. In the event of a failure of the City to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the Trustee may (and, at the request of any Participating Underwriter or the holders of at least 25% aggregate principal amount of Outstanding Bonds, shaH), or any holder or beneficial owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate. A default under this Disclosure Certificate shall not be deemed an Event of Default under the Indenture of Trust, and the sole remedy under this Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of the City to comply with this Disclosure Certificate shall be an action to compel performance. Section 11. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination Agent shah have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure Certificate, and the City agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which it may incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses (including attorneys fees) of defending against any claim of 7 liability, but excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent's negligence or willful misconduct. The obligations of the City under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent and payment of the Bonds. Section 12. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Certificate shall inure solely to the benefit o~ the City, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriters and holders and beneficial owners from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. Date: , 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Acceptance of Dissemination Agent: AGREED AND ACCEPTED: , as Dissemination Agent By: Title: EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT Name of Issuer: Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Name of Bond Issues: (i) the $ Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-A Senior Lien Bonds and (ii) the $ Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1999-B Subordinate Lien Bonds. Date of Issuance: ..... 1999 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") has not provided an Annual Report with respect to the above-named Bonds as required by that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate dated with respect to the Bonds. The City anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by Dated: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By. cc: Trustee A-1 T RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC F!~NCING A UTHOI~ITY 1999 ~EFUNOING I~'E~NUE ~ONO~, SEttlES A REASSESSMENT DtS~IC'T NO. ~999 City CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEER'S REPORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 1999 REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, SERIES A CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tempore Paul Biane, Council Member James V. Curatalo, Council Member Bob Dutton, Council Member OTHER OFFICIALS Debra J. Adams, City Clerk James Frost, Treasurer CITY STAFF Jack Lam, City Manager Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Tamara L. Layne, Finance Officer James L. Markman, City Attorney and Agency Counsel William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BOND COUNSEL Brown, Diven, Hessell & Brewer LLP TRUSTEE/ESCROW AGENT U.S. Bank Trust National Association OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Richards, Watson & Gershon - Issuers Counsel Fieldman, Rolapp, & Associates - Financial Advisor Stone & Youngberg - Underwriter Willdan Associates - Assessment Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Table of Contents ENGINEER'S REPORT PAGE Part I Outstanding Bonds Unpaid Principal and Interest 7 Part II Cost Estimate 11 Part III Amended Auditor's Report 13 Part IV Reassessment Roll 14 Part V Reassessment District Auditor's Report 36 Part VI Assessment Diagram 37 BM:tb3~Jss 02091 \3000\R02 6480 REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF THE "REFUNDING ACT OF 1984 FOR 1915 IMPROVEMENT ACT BONDS" REASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, did previously undertake proceedings and confirm assessments for two assessment districts pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment districts known and designated as Assessment District No. 86-2 and 89-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Districts"). City of Rancho Cucamonga Reassessment District No. 1999 Limited Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Reassessment District Obligation"), being issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") to refund two assessment district bond issues of the City (the "Prior Assessment Bonds"). Reassessment District No. 1999 (the "Reassessment District") was created by the City pursuant to proceedings taken under the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Act Improvement Bonds, being Division 11,.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Reassessment Act"). The District is comprised of the following two former Assessment Districts (the "Prior Assessment Districts"): Assessment District No. 86-2 was formed in 1986 to fund the construction and acquisition of master plan drainage facilities and acquisition of real property. Assessment District No. 89-1 was formed January 15, 1991, in order to finance the acquisition of certain public improvements, including roadway, water, and sewer improvements. Original improvement bonds representing the unpaid assessments within Prior Assessment Districts were issued and sold in the manner provided in the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915," being Division 10 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. The legislative body is now desirous of initiating proceedings to refund outstanding improvement bonds pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds (the "Bonds"), being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The Bonds are being issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") to (i) acquire the "Acquired Obligations" described above, (ii) fund separate June 2, 1999 Page I City of Rancho Cucamonga reserve funds for the Senior Bonds and the Subordinate Bonds and (iii) pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. The Authority is a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing pursuant to Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") and pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of April 21, 1999, by and among the City, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The Reassessment District Obligation is being issued pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds, being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Reassessment Act") and a Bond Indenture dated as of June 2, 1999 (the "Reassessment Indenture"), by and between the City and U.s. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Fiscal Agent"). Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9523 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California ("Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds"), and in accordance with a Resolution of the legislative body, the undersigned authorized and appointed Assessment Engineer, does herewith submit the following Report for Reassessment District No. 1999 generally consisting of the following documentation and parts. June 2, 1999 Page 2 City of Rancho Cucamon9~, PART I A schedule setting forth all unpaid principal and interest on the bonds to be refunded on the amended Assessment District to be refunded. PART II A cost estimate of the proposed reassessment, including all expenses for issuing refunding bonds, including the total estimated principal amount of the reassessment and refunding bonds and the maximum interest rate. PART III A copy of the amended Auditor's Report for the original Assessment District, showing the schedule of all principal installments and interest on unpaid original assessments, including the total amounts thereof. PART IV The Reassessment Roll containing the estimated amount of each individual reassessment identified by its corresponding reassessment number on all the assessment diagrams. PART V A copy of the proposed Auditor's Report for Reassessment District No. 1999, showing the schedule of all principal installments and estimated interest on unpaid reassessments, including the total amount thereof. PART Vl Assessment diagrams showing Reassessment District No. 1999 and the boundaries and subdivision of land within the Reassessment Districts. Each subdivision, including any separate condominium interest, shall be given a separate reassessment number upon the diagrams. Each subdivision of land shall be referenced by its Assessor's parcel number as shown on the Assessor's maps of the county, and for any further description of the property, reference is made to the deeds and subdivision instruments on file in the office of the County Recorder. Serial and/or term refunding bonds to represent unpaid reassessments shall be issued, and the interest rate on said refunding bonds shall not exceed the current legal maximum rate of 12 percent per annum. Said refunding bonds shall be issued hereunder in the manner and form as provided by the "Refunding ,Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds," being Chapter 3 of Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and by the "Improvement Bond ,Act of 1915," being June 2, 1999 Page 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The last installment of said refunding bonds shall mature a term of years not-to-exceed thirteen (13) years from the second day of September next succeeding 6 months from their date. For Assessment District No. 86-2, the last installment of the original bonds issued for the original Assessment District was to mature on the second day of September 2007, and the last installment of said refunding bonds shall mature on the second day of September, 2007, next succeeding 6 months from their date. For Assessment District No. 89-1, the last installment of the original bonds issued for the original Assessment District was to mature on the second day of September 2012, and the last installment of said refunding bonds shall mature on the second day of September, 2012. Based upon this Report of the Engineer as submitted herewith and as Assessment Engineer, I make the following findings: A. That each estimated annual installment of principal and interest on the reassessment, as set forth in the Proposed Auditor's Report for Reassessment District No. 1999, is less than the Corresponding annual installment of principal and interest on the portion of the amended assessment being superseded and supplanted, as set forth in the amended Auditor's Report, by the same percentage for all subdivisions of land within Reassessment District No. 1999. B. That the number of years to maturity of the refunding bonds is not more than the number of years to the last maturity of the bonds being refunded. C. That the principal amount of the reassessment on each subdivision of land within Reassessment District No. 1999 is less than the unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for each subdivision of land within the District. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Assessment Engineer Richard L. Kopecky, RCE 16742 June 2, 1999 Page 4 city of Rancho Cucamonga APPROVALS The undersigned City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga, does hereby certify that foregoing Report of the Engineer, together with the reassessment roll and assessment diagram was filed in my office on the day of ,1999. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga County of San Bernardino State of California The undersigned City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby certify that the reassessment in the amounts as set forth in the reassessment roll as submitted herein were approved and confirmed by the legislative body on the day of ,1999. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga County of San Bernardino State of California The undersigned City Engineer, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby certify that the foregoing reassessment roll, together with the assessment diagram attached thereto, was recorded in my office on the day of , 1999. ACKNOWLEDGED William J. O'Neil, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga County of San Bernardino State of California June 2, 1999 Page 5 City Of Rancho Cucamonga The undersigned City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does hereby certify that the assessment diagram was recorded in the office of the County Recorder on the day of ,1999. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga County of San Bernardino State of California The undersigned City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby certify that the Notice of Reassessment was recorded in the office of the County Recorder on the day of ,1999. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga County of San Bernardino State of California June 2, 1999 Page 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PART I OUTSTANDING BONDS UNPAID PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST The schedules, setting forth unpaid principal and interest on the outstanding bonds on the amended Assessment Districts to be refunded, are found on Tables 1 through 3. June 2, 1999 Page 7 city of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 ISSUE DATE: 1128192 TRUST NO: 60153 No DAYS 1sT INT PERIOD: 214 AMT ISSUED: $4,780,673.00 DEBT SINKING SERVICE INTEREST PRINCIPAL INTEREST DUE PRINCIPAL DATE RATE FUND DUE OUTSTANDING PMT 09/02/92 $225,178.73 $4,780,673.00 03/02/93 $189,402.67 $4,780,673.00 09/02/93 5.250 % $115,673.00 $189,402.67 $4,665,000.00 03102/94 $186,366.25 $4,665,000.00 09/02/94 6.000 % $120,000.00 $186,366.25 $4,545,000.00 03/02/95 $182,766.25 $4,545,000.00 09/02/95 6.500% $125,000.00 $182,766.25 $4,420,000.00 03/02/96 $178,703.75 '~ $4,420,000.00 09/02/96 6.750% $135,000.00 $178,703.75 $4,285,000.00 03/02/97 $174,147.50 $4,285,000.00 09.02~97 7.000 % $145,000.00 $174,147.50 $4,140,000.00 03~02/98 $169,072.50 $4,140,000.00 09/02/98 7.200% $155,000.00 $169,072.50 $3,985,000.00 0 3/02/99 $163,492.50 $3,985,000.00 09/02/99 7.400 % $165,000.00 $163,492.50 $3,820,000.00 03/02/00 $157,387.50 $3,820,000.00 09/02/00 7.600% $175,000.00 $157,387.50 $3,645,000.00 03/02/01 $150,737.50 $3,645,000.00 09/02/01 7.800 % $190,000.00 $150,737.50 $3,455,000.00 03/02/02 $143,327.50 $3,455,000.00 09/02/02 7.900% $205,000.00 $143,327.50 $3,250,000.00 03/02/03 $135,230.00 $3,250,000.00 09/02~03 8.000 % $220,000.00 $135,230.00 $3,030,000.00 03/02/04 $126,430.00 $3,030,000.00 09/02/04 8.100% $240,000.00 $126,430.00 $2,7901000.00 03/02/05 $116,710.00 $2,790,000.00 09/02/05 8.2'00 % $260,000'. 00 $116, 710.00 $2,530,000.00 03/02/06 $106,050.00 $2,530,000.00 09/02/06 8.250 % $280,000.00 $106,050.00 $2,250,000.00 03102/07 $94,500.00 $2,250,000.00 09/02/07 8.400% * $305,000.00 $94,500.00 $1,945,000.00 03/02/08 $81,690.00 $1,945,000.00 09/02/08 8~400 % * $330,000.00 $81,690.00 $1,615,000.00 03/02/09 $67,830.00 $1,615,000.00 09/02/09 8.400% * $355,000.00 $67,830.00 $1,260,000.00 03/02/10 $52,920.00 $1,260,000.00 09/02/10 8.400% * $385,000.00 $52,920.00 $875,000.00 03/02/11 $36,750.00 $875,000.00 09/02/11 8.400% * $420,000.00 $36,750.00 $455,000.00 03/02/12 $19,110.00 $455,000.00 09/02/12 8.400% $455,000.00 $19,110.00 $0.00 June 2, 1999 Page 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT BOND LIMITED OBLIGATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 ISSUE DATE: April 6, 1987 TRUST NO.: 79625 No DAYS 1sT INT PERIOD: 146 AMT ISSUED: $2,059,351.81 DEBT SERVICE Ih i =REST PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL DATE RATE DUE DUE OUTSTANDING 09/02/87 5.750% $64,284,84 $2,059,351.81 03/02/88* 5.750% $90,000.00 $79,267.61 $1,969,351.81 09/02/88 5.750% $49,351.81 $76,680.11 $1,920,000.00 03/02/89** 6.000% $10,000.00 $75,261.25 $1,910,000.00 09/02/89 6.000% $45,000.00 $74,961.25 $1,865,000.00 03/02/90 6.500% $73,611.25 $1,865,000.00 09/02/90 6.500% $50,000.00 $73,611.25 $1,815,000.00 0 3/02/91 6.750% $71,986.25 $1,815,000.00 09102/91 6.750% $55,000.00 $71,986.25 $1,760,000.00 03/02/92 7.000% $70,130.00 $1,760,000.00 09/02/92*** 7.000% $220,000.00 $70,130.00 $1,540,000.00 03/02/93 7.250% $62,430.00 $1,540,000.00 09/02/93 7.250% $55,000.00 $62,430.00 $1,485,000.00 03/02/94 7.500% $60,436.25 $1,485,000.00 09/02/94 7.500% $60,000.00 $60,436.25 $1,425,000.00 03/02/95 7.750% $58,186.25 $1,425,000.00 09/02/95 7.750% $65,000.00 $58,186.25 $1,360,000.00 03/02/96 7.900% $55,667.50 $1,360,000.00 09/02/96 7.900% $65,000.00 $55,667.50 $1,295,000.00 03/02/97 8.000% $53,100.00 $1,295,000.00 09/02/97 8.000% $75,000.00 $53,100.00 $1,220,000.00 03/02/98 8.000% $50,100.00 $1,220,000.00 09/02/98 8.000% $85,000.00 $50,100.00 $1,135,000.00 03/02/99 8.100% $46,700.00 $1,135,000.00 09/02/99 8.100% $90,000.00 $46,700.00 $1,045,000.00 03/02/00 8.200% $43,055.00 $1,045,000.00 09/02/00 8.200% $100,000.00 $43,055,00 $945,000.00 03/02/01 8.200% $38,955.00 $945,000.00 09/02/01 8.200% $105,000.00 $38,955.00 $840,000.00 03/02/02 8.250% $34,650.00 $840,000.00 09/02/02 8.250% $115,000.00 $34,650.00 $725,000.00 03/02/03 8.250% $29,906.25 $725,000.00 09/02/03 8.250% $120,000.00 $29,906.25 $605,000.00 03/02/04 8.250% $24,956.25 $605,000.00 09/02/04 8.250% $135,000.00 $24,956.25 $470,000.00 03/02/05 8.250% $19,387.50 $470,000.00 09/02/05 8.250% $145,000.00 $19,387.50 $325,000.00 03/02/06 8.250% $13,406.25 $325,000.00 09102/06 8.250% $155,000.00 $13,406.25 $170,000.00 03/02/07 8.250% $7,012.50 $170,000.00 09102/07 8.250% $170,000.00 $7,012.50 $0.00 TOTAL PRINCIPAL DUE: $2,059,351.81 Notes: BOND CALL 3/2/88, $90,000.00* BOND CALL 3/2/89, $10,000.00'* BOND CALL 9/2/92, $165,000.00*** June 2, 1999 Page 9 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 94625970 PAYABLE MARCH 2 AND SEPTEMBER 2 DATED APRIL 6, 1987 MATURING YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL OR OUTSTANI:NN ANNUAL SEMIANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL AND RATE SINKING FUND G BONDS INTEREST INTEREST DEBT DEBT MONTH September 2 PAYMENT SERVICE SERVICE 09/02/95 7.750% $65,000.00 $1,360,000.00 $5,037.50 $52,236.25 $117,236.25 03/02/96 0.000% $0.00 $1,360,000.00 $0.00 $49,717.50 $49,717.50 $166,953.75 09/02/96 7.900% $65,000.00 $1,295,000.00 $5,135.00 $49,717.50 $114,717.50 03/02/97 0.000% $0.00 $1,295,000.00 $0.00 $47,150.00 $47,150.00 $161,867.50 09102/97 8.000% $75,000.00 $1,220,000.00 $6,000.00 $47,150.00 $122,150.00 03102/98 0.000% $145,000.00 $1,075,000.00 $0.00 $44,150.00 $189,150.00 $311,300.00 09102/98 8.000% $75,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $6,000.00 $44,150.00 $119,150.00 03/02/99 0.000% $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $41,150.00 $41,150.00 $160,300.00 09/02/99 8.100% $75,000.00 $925,000.00 $6,075.00 $41,150.00 $116,150.00 03/02/00 0.000% $0.00 $925,000.00 $0.00 $38,112.50 $38,112.50 $154,262.50 09/02/00 8.200% $85,000.00 $840,000.00 $6,970.00 $38,112.50 $123,112.50 03/02/01 0.000% $0.00 $840,000.00 $0.00 $34,627.50 $34,627.50 $157,740.00 09/02/01 8.200% $90,000.00 $750,000.00 $7,380.00 $34,627.50 $124,627.50 03/02/02 0.000% $0.00 $750,000.00 $0.00 $30,937.50 $30,937.50 $155,565.00 09/02/02 8.250% $100,000.00 $650,000.00 $8,250.00 $30,937.50 $130,937.50 03/02/03 0.000% $0.00 $650,000.00 $0.00 $26,812.50 $26,812.50 $157,750.00 09/02/03 8.250% $105,000.00 $545,000.00 $8,662.50 $26,812.50 $131,812.50 03102/04 0.000% $0.00 $545,000.00 $0.00 $22,481.25 $22,481.25 $1 54,293.75 09102/04 8.250% $120,000.00 $425,000.00 $9,900.00 $22,481.25 $142,481.25 03/02/05 0.000% $0.00 $425,000.00 $0.00 $17,531.25 $17,531.25 $160,012.50 09/02/05 8.250% $130,000.00 $295,000.00 $10,725.00 $17,531.25 $147,531.25 03/02/06 0.000% $0.00 $295,000.00 $0.00 $12,168.75 $12,168.75 $159,700.00 09/02/06 8.250% $140,000.00 $155,000.00 $11,550.00 $12,168.75 $152,168.75 03/02/07 0.000% $0.00 $155,000.00 $0.00 $6,393.75 $6,393.75 $158,562.50 09/02~07 8.250% $155,000.00 $0.00 $12,787.50 $6,393.75 $161,393.75 Note: $145,000 Bond Call On 03/02/98 June 2, 1999 Page 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PART II COST ESTIMATE The following is a cost estimate showing the proposed sources and use of funds for the proposed reassessment, including the total estimated principal and all expenses for issuing the reassessment and refunding bonds: 1999 REFUNDING OF 1992 AD 89-1 BONDS Dated Date: 06/30/1999 Delivery Date: 06/30/1999 Sources Bonds Proceeds: Par Amount 3,815,000.00 Other Sources of Funds: Prior Reserve Funds 887,088.00 4,702,088.00 Uses Refunding Escrow deposits: Cash Deposit 0.62 SLG Purchases 4,229,588.00 4,229,588.62 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 2,500.00 Other Uses of Funds: Rounding Amount 469,999.38 *Total Delivery Date Expenses: $427,499.38 $4,702,088.00 * This amount includes the reserve fund, legal fees, insurance costs, underwriters discount and related costs. June 2, 1999 Page 11 City of Rancho Cucarnonga 1999 REFUNDING OF 1987 AD 86-2 BONDS Dated Date: 06/30/1999 Delivery Date: 06/30/1999 Sources Bonds Proceeds: Par Amount 915,000.00 Other Sources of Funds: Prior Reserve Funds 154,415.00 Debt Service Funds 269,135.00 $1,338,550.00 Uses Refunding Escrow deposits: Cash Deposit 0.92 SLG Purchases 1,102,858.00 $1,102,858.92 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 2,500.00 Other Uses of Funds: Rounding Amount 233,191.08 *Total Delivery Date Expenses: $235,691.08 $1,338,550.00 * This amount includes the reserve fund, legal fees, insurance costs, underwriters discount and related costs. June 2, 1999 Page 12 City of Rancho Cucamong,:, REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT BALANCE TO REASSESMENT PART III AMENDED AUDITOR'S REPORT The Amended Auditor's Report, showing principal installments and interest for each unpaid amended assessment, is voluminous and will not be bound in this report, but by this reference is incorporated as if attached to this Report. The amended Auditor's report is on file in the offices of the Department of Administrative Services and the Auditor-Controller of the County of San Bernardino. June 2, 1999 Page 13 City of Rancho Cucarnonga REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PART IV REASSESSMENT ROLL By virtue of the authority of the "Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds," being Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the Assessment Engineer hereby makes the following reassessment to cover the costs and expenses of the proposed reassessment and refunding for said Reassessment District No. 1999: Schedules, setting forth the amount of each individual reassessment, identified by a reassessment number corresponding to a reassessment number on the Assessment Diagrams for all unpaid assessments of the amended Assessment Districts, are found on Table 4 and Table 5. June 2, 1999 Page 14 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 REASSESSMENT ROLL Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Original Appo~ioned Refunding Assessment Assesso¢s Assessment Assesso¢s Recording the Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Appo~ionment Assessment Assessment Assessment I 22911127 I 22911127 $121,529.00 2 22911128 2 22911128 $90,463.00 3 22911129 3 22911129 $88,256.00 4 22911130 25 22911130 $87,859.00 $108,554.21 5 22911131 26 22911160 $86,359.00 $325,799.79 6 22911132 N/A $124,574.00 7 22911133 N/A $135,827.00 8 22911134 8 22911134 Public 9 22911135 9 22911135 $160 230.00 10 22911136 10 22911136 $155 287.00 11 22911137 11 22911137 $148006.00 12 22911138 12 22911138 $143 196.00 13 22911139 13 22911139 $135 121.00 14 22911140 14 22911140 $111997.00 15 22911141 15 22911141 $98 229.00 16 22911142 16 22911142 $91963.00 17 22911144 17 22911144 $607 734.00 18 22911146 18 22911146 $160,274.00 19 22911147 19 22911147 $577,947.00 22 22911148 27 22911148 $411,628.00 $444,222.84 23 22911149 28 22911149 $442,915.00 $379,136.06 24 22911150 29 22911150 $366,088.00 $397,272.10 25 22911156 25 22911156 $223,553.00 26 22911157 26 22911157 ~211,639.00 $4,780,674.00 June 2, 1999 Page 15 City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLE 5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 REASSESSMENT ROLL Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 1 20127113 Deleted $10,963.64 2 20127114 Deleted $10,963.64 201122O1 20112202 201122O3 20112204 20112205 20112206 20112207 20112208 20112209 20112210 20112211 20112212 20112213 20112214 20112215 20112216 20112217 2O112218 20112219 20112220 20112221 20112222 20112223 20112224 20112225 3 20127122 Paid Off $6,101.36 4 20127123 Paid Off $6,101.36 5 20127124 Paid Off $3,101.36 6 20127133 Deleted $22,086.74 7 20127134 7-1 20108401 03/21/99 $136,746.43 $2,401.13 7-2 20108402 03/21/99 $1,777.46 7-3 20108403 03/21/99 $1,642.33 7-4 20106404 03/21/99 $1,559.17 7-5 20106405 03/21/99 $1,642.33 7 -6 20106406 03/21/99 $1,621.54 7-7 20106407 03/21/99 $1,704.70 7-8 20106408 03/21/99 $1,673.51 7-9 20106409 03/21/99 $1,808.64 7-10 20106410 03/21/99 $2,099.69 June 2, 1999 Page 16 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Asssssor's Recording the OHginal Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 7-11 20107201 03/21/99 $1,964.56 7-12 20107202 03/21/99 $1,922.98 7-13 20107203 03/21/99 $2,224.42 7 - 14 20107204 03/21/99 $3,534.12 7-15 20107205 03/21/99 $2,744.14 7-16 20107206 03/21/99 $1,694.30 7-17 20107207 03/21/99 $1,746.27 7-18 20107208 03/21/99 $1,704.70 7-19 20107209 03/21/99 $1,808.64 7-20 20107210 03/21/99 $1,631.93 7-21 20107211 03/21/99 $1,590.36 7-22 20107212 03/21/99 $1,798.25 7-23 20107213 03/21/99 $1,985.35 7-24 20107214 03/21/99 $1,725.48 7-25 20108411 03/21199 $1,787.85 7-26 20108412 03/21/99 $2,058.11 7-27 20108413 03/21/99 $2,130.87 7-28 20108414 03/21/99 $1,860.61 7-29 20108415 03/21/99 $2,473.89 7-30 20108416 03/21199 $2,442.70 7-31 20108417 03/21/99 $2,162.05 7-32 20108418 03/21/99 $1,704.70 7-33 20108419 03/21/99 $1,767.06 7-34 20108420 03/21/99 $1,590.36 7-35 20108421 03/21/99 $1,611.14 7-36 20108422 03/21/99 $1,839.82 7-37 20108423 03/21/99 $1,777.46 7-38 20107215 03/21/99 $1,798.25 7-39 20107216 03/21/99 $2,078~89 7-40 20107217 03/21/99 $2,078.89 7-41 20107218 03/21/99 $1,767.08 7-42 20108424 03/21/99 $1,725.48 7-43 20108425 03/21/99 $1,933.37 7-44 20108426 03/21/99 $1,891.80 7-45 20108427 03/21/99 $1,954.16 7-46 20108428 03/21/99 $1,974.95 7-47 20108429 03/21/99 $1,964.56 7-48 20108430 03/21/99 $1,829.43 7-49 20108431 03/21/99 $1,902.19 7-50 20108432 03/2 i/99 $2,141.26 7-51 20108433 03/21/99 $2,505.07 7-52 20109201 03/21/99 $2,754.54 7-53 20109202 03/21/99 $2,297.18 7-54 20109203 03/21/99 $2,120.47 7-55 20109204 03/21/99 $1,902.19 7-56 20109205 03/21/99 $1,735.88 June 2, lg99 Page 17 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 7-57 20109206 03/21/99 $1,715.09 7-58 20109207 03/21/99 $1,808.64 7-59 20109208 03/21/99 $2,484.28 7-60 20109209 03/21/99 $3,617.28 7-61 20109210 03/21/99 $2,120.47 7-62 20109211 03/21/99 $1,850.22 7-63 20109212 03/21/99 $1,590.36 7-64 20109213 03/21/99 $1,559.17 7-65 20109214 03/21/99 $1,943 77 7-66 20109215 03/21/99 $2,172.45 7-67 20109216 03/21/99 $2,006.14 7 -68 20109217 03/21/99 $1,985.35 7-69 20109218 03/21/99 $1,829.43 7-70 20109219 03/21/99 $1,767.06 7-71 20109220 03/21/99 $1,725.48 7-72 20109221 03/21/99 $1,881.40 7-73 20109222 03/21/99 $1,985.35 7-74 20109223 03/21/99 $2,058.11 7-75 20108434 03/21/99 $1,881.40 7-76 20108435 03/21/99 $2,515.46 7-77 20108436 03/21/99 $5,051.72 7-78 20108437 03/21/99 $2,130.87 7-79 20109224 03/21/99 $1,767.06 7-80 20109225 03/21/99 $1,600.75 7-81 20109226 03/21/99 $1,995.74 7-82 20109227 03/21/99 $2,047.72 7-83 20109228 03/21/99 $2,120.47 7-84 20109229 03/21/99 $2,473.89 7-85 20109230 03/21/99 $2,307.58 7-86 20109231 03/21/99 $2,151.66 7-87 20109232 03/21/99 $2,182.84 7-88 20109233 03/21/99 $2,099.69 7-89 20109234 03/21/99 $1,922.98 7-90 20109235 03/21/99 $1,819.03 7-91 20109236 03/21/99 $2,037.31 Portion 8 20127141 7-92 20127134 03/21/99 $115,536.78 $39,293.65 Portion 9 20127142 7-93 20127141 03/21/99 $13,873.98 $43,089.06 10 20127147 10A 20127147 05/17/88 $6,059.90 $2,948.05 11 20127173 Deleted $122,537.56 12 20127174 Paid Off $22,397.71 13 20127175 Deleted $304,988.40 2O 138526 20138657 20138795 14 20221139 $29,741.35 June 2, 1999 Page 18 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 15 20221145 $123,031.92 16 20296117 $2,057.18 17 TR13117-Lot 1 20159401 $1,674.45 18 TR13117-Lot 2 20159402 $1,674.45 19 TR 13117-Lot 3 20159403 $1,674.45 20 TR13117-Lot 4 20159404 $1,722.29 21 TR 13117-Lot 5 20159405 $1,722.29 22 TR13117-Lot 6 20159406 $1,722.29 23 TR13117-Lot 7 20159407 $1,722.29 24 TR13117-Lot 8 20159408 $1,722.29 25 TR13117-Lot 9 20159409 $1,722.29 26 TR13117-Lot 10 20159410 $1,722.29 27 TR13117-Lot 11 20159411 $1,722.29 28 TR13117-Lot 12 20159412 $1 722.29 29 TR13117-Lot 13 20159413 $1 722.29 30 TR13117-Lot 14 20159414 $1 722.29 31 TR13117-Lot 15 20159415 $1 722.29 32 TR13117-Lot 16 20159416 $1 722.29 33 TR13117-Lot 17 20159417 $1 722.29 34 TR 13117-Lot 18 20159418 $1 722 35 TR 13117-Lot 19 20159419 $1 722.29 36 TR13117-Lot 20 20159420 $1 722.29 37 TR13117-Lot 21 20159421 $1.722.29 38 TR13117-Lot 22 20159422 $1,722.29 39 TR 13117-Lot 23 20159423 $1,722.29 40 TR13117-Lot 24 20159424 $1,722.29 41 TR 13117-Lot 25 20159425 $1,722.29 42 TR13117-Lot 26 20159426 $1,722.29 43 TR13117-Lot 27 20159427 $1,722~29 44 TR13117-Lot 28 20159428 $1,722.29 45 TR 13117-Lot 29 20159429 $1,722.29 46 TR13117-Lot 30 20159430 $1,722.29 47 TR13117-Lot 31 20159431 $1,722.29 48 TR 13117-Lot 32 20159432 $1,722.29 49 TR 13117-Lot 33 20159433 $1,722.29 50 TR13117-Lot 34 20159434 $1,722.29 51 TR13117-Lot 35 20159435 $1,722.29 52 TR13117-Lot 36 20159436 $1,72229 53 TR 13117-Lot 37 20159437 $1,722~29 54 TR 13117-Lot 38 20159438 $1,722.29 55 TR13117-Lot 39 20159439 $1,722.29 56 TR 13117-Lot 40 20159440 $1,722.29 57 TR13117-Lot 41 20159441 $1,722.29 58 TR13117-Lot 42 20159442 $1,722.29 59 TR13117-Lot 43 20159443 $1,722.29 60 TR13117-Lot 44 20159444 $1,722.29 June 2, 1999 Page 19 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 61 TR13117-Lot 45 20159445 $1,722.29 62 TR 13117-Lot 46 20159446 $1,722.29 63 TR 13117-Lot 47 20159447 $1,722.29 64 TR13117-Lot 48 20159448 $1,722.29 65 TR13117-Lot 49 20159449 $1,722.29 66 TR13117-Lot 50 20159450 $1,722.29 67 TR 13117-Lot 51 20159451 $1,722.29 68 TR13117-Lot 52 20159452 $1,722.29 69 TR13117-Lot 53 20159453 $1,722.29 70 TR13117-Lot 54 20159454 $1,722.29 71 TR13117-Lot 55 20159455 $1,722.29 72 TR 13117-Lot 56 20159456 $1,722.29 73 TR13117-Lot 57 20159457 $1,722.29 74 TR13117-Lot 58 20159458 $1,722.29 75 TR13117-Lot 59 20159459 $1,722.29 76 TR13117-Lot 60 20159460 $1,722.29 77 TR13117-Lot 61 20159461 $1,722.29 78 TR 13117-Lot 62 20159462 $1,722.29 79 TR13117-Lot 63 20159463 $1,722.29 80 TR13117-Lot 64 20159464 $1,722.29 81 TR13117-Lot 65 20159465 $1,722.29 82 TR13117-Lot 66 20159466 $1,722.29 83 TR 13117-Lot 67 20159467 $1,722.29 64 TR13117-Lot 68 20159468 $1,722.29 85 TR 131 t 7-Lot 69 20159469 $1,722.29 86 TR13117-Lot 70 ' 20159470 $1,722.29 87 TR13117-Lot 71 20159471 $1,722.29 88 TR 13117-Lot 72 20159472 $1,722.29 89 TR13117-Lot 73 20159473 $1,722.29 90 TR13117-Lot 74 20159474 $1,722.29 91 TR13117-Lot 75 20159475 $1,722.29 92 TR13117-Lot 76 20159476 $1,722.29 93 TR13117-Lot 77 20159477 $1 722.29 94 TR13117-Lot 78 20159478 $1 722.29 95 TR13117-Lot 79 20159479 $1 722.29 96 TR13117-Lot 80 20159480 $1 722.29 97 TR13117-Lot 81 20159481 $1 722.29 98 TR 13117-Lot 82 20159482 $1 722.29 99 TR13117-Lot 83 20159483 $1 722.29 100 TR13117-Lot 84 100-1 20177139 01/06/87 $153 251.69 $1,309.74 100-2 20177140 01/06/87 $1,528.95 100-3 20177141 01/06/87 $1,718.41 100-4 20177142 01/06/87 $1,441.93 100-5 20177143 01/06/87 $1,446.33 100-6 20177144 01/06/87 $1,593.94 100-7 20177145 01/06/87 $1,598.35 June 2, 1999 Page 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Original Apportioned Refunding Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 100-8 20177146 01/06/87 $1,307.54 100-9 20177147 01/06/87 $1,299.83 100-10 20177148 01/06/87 $1,505.82 100-11 20177149 01/06/87 $2,633.80 100-12 20177150 01/06/87 $2,075.32 100-13 20177151 01/06/87 $1,393.46 100-14 20177152 01/06/87 $1,440.82 100-15 20177153 01/06/87 $1,341.68 100-16 20177154 01/06/87 $1,322.96 100-17 20177155 01/06/87 $1,522.34 100-18 20177156 01/06/87 $1,615.97 100-19 20177157 01/06/87 $1,645.71 100-20 20177158 01/06/87 $1,647.91 100-21 20177159 01/06/87 $1,744.80 100-22 20177160 01/06/87 $1,536.66 100-23 20177161 01/06~87 $1,280.00 100-24 20177162 01/06/87 $1,280.00 100-25 20177163 01/06/87 $1,502.51 100-26 20177164 01/06~87 $1,502.51 100-27 20177165 01/06/87 $1,277.79 100-28 20177166 01/06~87 $1,335.08 100-29 20177167 01/06/87 $1,360.41 100-30 20177168 01/06/87 $2,001.51 100-31 20177169 01/06/87 $2,284.61 100-32 20177170 01/06/87 $1,611.56 100-33 20177171 01/06/87 $1,280.00 100-34 20177172 01/06187 $1,307.54 100-35 20177173 01/06/87 $1,585.13 100-36 20177174 01/06/87 $1,668.84 100-37 20177175 01/06/87 $1,530.05 100-38 20177176 01/06/87 $1,391.25 100-39 20177177 01/06/87 $1,335.08 100-40 20177178 01/06/87 $1,643.99 100-41 20177179 01/06/87 $1,504.71 100-42 20177180 01/06/87 $1,416.59 100-43 20177181 01/06/87 Paid Off $1,416.59 100-44 20177182 01/06/87 $1,264.57 100-45 20177183 01/06/87 $1,264.57 100-46 20177184 01/06/87 $1,264.57 100-47 20177185 01106/87 $1,429.81 100-48 20177186 01/06/87 $1,505.82 100-49 20177187 01/06/87 Paid Off $1,277.79 100-50 20159464 01106/87 $1,264.57 100-51 20159485 01/06187 $1,264.58 100-52 20159486 01106/87 $1,44 1.93 100-53 20163201 01/06/87 $1,391.25 June 2, 1999 Page 21 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Pamel No. Number Pamel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 100-54 20163202 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-55 20163203 01/06/87 $1,441.93 10 0-56 20163204 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-57 20163205 01/06/87 $1,267.88 100-58 20159487 01/06/87 $1,760.27 100-59 20159488 01/06/87 $1,500.31 100-60 20159489 01/06/87 $1,631.39 100-61 20162301 01/06/87 $1,631.39 100-62 20162302 01/06/87 $1,947.54 100-63 20162303 01/06/87 $1,693.08 100-64 20162304 01/06/87 $1,516.83 100-65 20162305 01/06/87 $1,528.95 100-66 20162306 01/06/87 $1,452.94 100-67 20162307 01/06/87 $1,277.79 100-68 20162308 01/06/87 $1,265.68 100-69 20162309 01/06/87 $1,753.66 100-70 20162310 01/06/87 $1,753.66 100-71 20162311 01/06/87 $1,365.92 100-72 20162312 01/06/87 $1,441.93 100-73 20162313 01/06/87 $1,516.83 100-74 20162314 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-75 20162315 01/06/87 $1,516.83 100-76 20162316 01/06/87 $1,521.24 100-77 20162317 01/06/87 $1,824.16 100-78 20162318 01/06/87 $1,515.73 100-79 20162319 01/06/87 $1,784.51 100-80 20162320 01/06/87 $1,667.74 100-81 20162321 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-82 20162322 01/06/87 $1,439.72 100-83 20162323 01/06/87 $1,652.32 100-84 20162324 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-85 20162325 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-86 20162326 01/06/87 $1,516.83 100-87 20162327 01/06/87 $1,473.87 100-88 20162328 01/06/87 $1,409.98 100-89 20162329 01/06/87 $1,382.44 100-90 20162330 01/06/87 $1,365.92 100-91 20162331 01/06/87 $1,365.92 100-92 20162332 01/06/87 $1,275.59 100-93 20162333 01/06/87 $1,295.42 100-94 20162334 01/06/87 $1,488.19 100-95 20162335 01/06/87 $1,266.78 100-96 20162336 01/06/87 $1,264.58 100-97 20162337 01/06/87 $1,516.83 100-98 20162338 01/06/87 $1,527.85 100-99 20162339 01/06/87 $1,804.33 June 2, 1999 Page 22 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 100-100 20162340 01106187 $1,831.87 100-101 20162341 01/06/87 $1,643.51 100-102 20162342 01/06/87 Paid Off $1,839.58 101 TR13117-Lot 85 101-1 20163206 05/17/88 $183,232.24 $1,689.52 101-2 20163207 05/17/88 $1,333.42 101-3 20163208 05/17/88 $1,701.88 101-4 20163209 05/17/88 $1,701.88 101-5 20163210 05/17/88 $1,612.01 101-6 20163211 05/17/88 $2,645.48 101-7 20163212 05/17/88 $2,351.17 101-8 20163213 05/17/88 $1,687.27 101-9 20163214 05/17/88 $1,957.99 101-10 20163215 05/17/88 $1,404.18 101-11 20163216 05/17/88 . $1,521.01 101-12 20163217 05/17/88 $1,691.76 101-13 20163218 05/17/88 $1,701.87 101-14 20163219 05/17/88 $1,701.87 101-15 20163220 05/17/88 $1,799.60 101-16 20163221 05/17/88 $1,940.02 101-17 20163222 05/17/88 $1,530~00 101 - 18 20163223 05/17/88 $1,606.39 101-19 20163224 05/17/88 $1,740.06 101-20 20163225 05/17/88 $1,558.08 101-21 20163226 05/17/88 $1 606.39 101-22 20163227 05/17/88 $1 514.27 101-23 20163228 05/17/88 $1 586.17 101-24 20163229 05/17/88 $1 636.72 101-25 20163230 05/17/88 $1 605.26 101-26 20163231 05/17/88 $1 519.89 101-27 20163232 05/17/88 $1 416.54 101-28 20163233 05/17/88 $1 660.31 101-29 20163234 05/17/88 $1,431.14 101-30 20163235 05/17/88 $1,358.13 101-31 20163236 05/17/88 $2,073.70 101-32 20163237 05/17/88 $2,288.26 101-33 20163238 05/17/88 $2,547.75 101-34 20163239 05/17/88 $1,500.79 101-35 20163240 05/17/88 $1,577.18 101-36 20163241 05/17/88 $1,701.87 101-37 20163242 05/17/88 $1,624.36 101-38 20163243 05/17/88 $1,716~47 101-39 20163244 05/17/88 $2,421.93 101-40 20163245 05/17/88 $1,982.71 101-41 20163246 05/17/88 $1,321.06 101-42 20163247 05/17/88 $1,500.79 101-43 20163248 05/17/88 $1,343.52 June 2, 1999' Page 23 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Pamel No. Number Pamel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 101-44 20163249 05/17/88 $1,714.66 101-45 20163250 05/17/88 $1,407.55 101-46 20163251 05/17/88 $1,585.04 101-47 20163252 05/17/88 $1,603.02 101-48 20163253 05/17/88 $1,370.48 101-49 20163254 05/17/88 $1,705.24 101-50 20163255 05/17/88 $1 770.39 101-51 20163256 05/17/88 $1 78612 101-52 20163257 05/17/88 $1 787.24 101-53 20163258 05/17/88 $1 774.89 101-54 20163259 05/17/88 $1 647.95 101-55 20163260 05/17/88 $1 738.94 101-56 20163261 05/17/88 $2,281.52 101-57 20163262 05/17/88 $1,591~ 78 101-58 20163263 . 05/17/88 $1,455.86 101-59 20163264 05/17/88 $1,317.69 101-60 20163265 05/17/88 $1,563.70 101-61 20163266 05/17/88 $1,56819 101-62 20163267 05/17/88 $1,30982 101-63 20163268 05/17/88 $1,576.05 101-64 20162343 05/17/88 $1,580.55 101-65 20162344 05/17/88 $1,582.80 101-66 20162345 05/17/88 $1,535.61 101-67 20162346 05/17/88 $1,549.09 101-68 20162347 05/17/88 $1,550.22 101-69 20162348 05/17/88 $1,535.61 101-70 20162349 05/17/88 $1,439.01 101-71 20162350 05/17/88 Paid Off $1,398.57 101-72 20162351 05/17/88 $1,294.10 101-73 20162352 05/17/88 $1,423.28 101-74 20162353 05/17/88 $1,297.47 101-75 20162354 05/17/88 $1,299.71 101-76 20162355 05/17/88 $1,485.06 101-77 20162356 05/17/88 $1,410.92 101-78 20162357 05/17/88 $1,309.82 101-79 20162358 05/17/88 $1,417.66 101-80 20162359 05/17/88 $1,315.44 101-81 20162360 05/17/88 $1,318.81 101-82 20162361 05/17/88 $1,433.39 101-83 20162362 05/17/88 $1,727.71 101-84 20162363 05/17/88 $1,550.22 101-85 20162364 05/17/88 $1,501.91 101-86 20162365 05/17/88 Paid Off $1,392.95 101-87 20162366 05/17/88 Paid Off $1,445.75 101-88 20162367 05/17/88 $1,556.96 101-89 20162368 05/17/88 $1,546.85 June 2, 1999 Page 24 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 101-90 20162369 05/17/88 $1 289.60 101-91 20162370 05/17/88 $1 289.60 101-92 20162371 05/17/88 $1 546.85 101-93 20162372 05/17/88 $1 422.16 101-94 20162373 05/17/88 $1 391.83 101-95 20162374 05/17/88 $1 687.27 101-96 20162375 05/17/88 $1 724.34 101-97 20162376 05/17/88 $1 680.53 101-98 20163269 05/17/88 $1,517.64 101-99 20163270 05/17/88 $1,304.21 101 ~ 100 20163271 05/17/88 $1,341.28 101-101 20163272 05/17/88 $1,330.04 101 - 102 20163273 05/17/88 $1,404.18 101 - 103 20163274 05/17/88 $1,696.25 101-104 20163275 05/17/88 Paid Off $1,479.45 101-105 20163276 05/17/88 $1,428.90 101-106 20163277 05/17/88 $1,382.84 101-107 20163278 05/17/88 $1,982.71 101-108 20163279 05/17/88 $1,824.31 101-109 20163280 05/17/88 $1,289.60 101-110 20163281 05/17/88 $1,54685 101-111 20163282 05/17/88 $1,546.85 101 - 112 20163283 05/17/88 $1,663.68 101-113 20163284 05/17/88 $1,663.68 101 - 114 20163285 05/17/88 $1,546.85 101-115 20163286 05/17/88 $1,546.85 101 - 116 20163287 05/17/88 $1,289.60 101-117 20163288 05/17/88 $1,556.96 $186,641.18 102 20285101 107641101 $1,993.39 103 20285102 107641102 $1,993.39 104 20285103 107641103 $1,993.39 105 20285104 107641104 $1,993.39 106 20285105 107641105 $2,001.36 107 20285106 10764 1106 $2,009.34 108 20285107 10764 1107 $2,009.34 109 20285108 10764 1108 $2,009.34 110 20285109 107642101 $2,009.34 111 20285110 107642102 $2,009.34 112 20285111 107642103 $2,009.34 113 20285112 Paid Off 107642104 $2,009.34 114 20285113 107642105 $2,009.34 115 20285114 107642106 $2,009.34 116 20285115 107641109 $2,009.34 117 20285116 107641110 $2,009.34 118 20285117 107641111 $2,009.34 119 20285118 107641112 $2,009.34 June 2, 1999 Page 25 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of OHginal Appo~ioned Refunding Assessment Assessors Assessment Assesso(s Recording the Assessment Assessment Assessment Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment 120 20285119 107641113 $2,00934 121 20285120 107641114 $2,009.34 122 20285121 107641115 $2,009.34 123 20285122 107641116 $2,009.34 124 20285123 107641117 $2,009.34 125 20285124 107641118 $2,009.34 126 20285125 107641119 $2,009.34 127 20285126 107641120 $2,009.34 128 20285127 107641121 $2,009.34 129 20285128 107641122 $2,009.34 130 20285129 107641123 $2,009.34 131 20285130 107641124 $2,009.34 132 20285131 107641125 $2,009.34 133 20285132 107641126 $2,009.34 134 20285133 107641127 $2,009.34 135 20285134 107641128 $2,009.34 136 20285135 107641129 $2,009.34 137 20285136 107641130 $2,009.34 138 20285137 107641131 $2,009.34 139 20285138 107641132 $2,009.34 140 20285139 107641133 $2,009.34 141 20285140 107641134 $2,009.34 142 20285141 107641135 $2,009.34 143 20285142 107640190 $2,009.34 144 20285143 107640189 $2,00934 145 20285144 107640188 $2,009.34 146 20285145 107641136 $2,009.34 147 20285146 107641137 $2,009.34 148 20285147 107641138 $2,009.34 149 20285148 107641139 $2,009.34 150 20285149 107641140 $2,009.34 151 20285150 107641141 $2,009.34 152 20285151 107641142 $2,009.34 153 20285152 Paid Off 107641143 $2,009.34 154 20285153 107641144 $2,009.34 155 20285154 107641145 $2,009.34 156 20285155 107641146 $2,009.34 157 20285156 Paid Off 107641147 $2,009.34 158 20285157 107641148 $2,009.34 159 20285158 107641149 $2,009.34 160 20285159 107641150 $2,009.34 161 20285160 107641151 $2,009.34 162 20285161 107641152 $2,009.34 163 20285162 107641153 $2,009.34 164 20285163 107641154 $2,009.34 165 20285164 107641155 $2,009.34 June 2, 1999 Page 26 City of Rancho Cucarnonga OHginal Original Apportioned Current Date of OHginal Apportioned Refunding Assessment Assessors Assessment Aseesso¢s Recording the Aseeaament Assessment Assessment Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment 166 20285165 107641156 $2,009.34 167 20285166 107641157 $2,009.34 168 20285167 107641158 $2,009.34 169 20285168 107641159 $2,009.34 170 20285169 107641160 $2,009.34 171 20285170 107641161 $2,009.34 172 20285171 107641162 $2,009.34 173 20285172 107641163 $2,009.34 174 20285173 107641164 $2,009.34 175 20285174 107641165 $2,009.34 176 20285175 107641166 $2,009.34 177 20285176 107641167 $2,009.34 178 20285177 107641168 $2,009.34 179 20285178 107641169 $2,009.34 180 20285179 107641170 $2,009.34 181 20285180 107641171 $2,009.34 182 20285181 107641172 $2,009.34 183 20285182 107641173 $2,009.34 184 20285183 107641174 $2,009.34 185 20285184 107641175 $2,009.34 186 20285185 107641176 $2,009.34 187 20285186 107641177 $2,009.34 188 20285187 107641178 $2,009.34 189 20285188 107641179 $2,009.34 190 20264101 107645133 $1,977.44 191 20284102 107645134 $1,977.44 192 20264103 107645135 $1,977.44 193 20284104 107642107 $1,977.44 194 20284105 107642108 $1,977.44 195 20264106 107642109 $1,977.44 196 20284107 107642110 $1,977.44 197 20284108 107642111 $1,977.44 198 20264109 Paid Off 107642112 $1,961~49 199 20284110 107642113 $1,961.49 200 20264111 107642114 $1,961.49 201 20284112 107642115 $1,961.49 202 20264113 107642116 $1,961.49 203 20284114 107642117 $1,961~49 204 20264115 107642118 $1,961.49 205 20284116 107645136 $1,961.49 206 20284117 107645137 $1,961.49 207 20264118 107645138 $1,961.49 208 20264119 107645139 $1,961.49 209 20264120 107645140 $1,961.49 210 20264121 107645141 $1,961.49 211 20264122 107642119 $1,961.49 June 2,1999 Page 27 City of Rancho Cucarnonga OHginal Original Appo~ioned Cu~ent Date of Assessment Assesso¢s Assessment Asaeaso¢s Recording the Original Appo~ioned Refunding Assessment Assessment Assessment Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Appo~ionment 212 20284123 107642120 $1,961.49 213 20284124 107642121 $1,961.49 214 20264125 107642122 $1,961.49 215 20264126 107642123 $1,961.49 216 20264127 107642124 $1,961.49 217 20284128 107642125 $1,961.49 218 20285201 107642126 $1,961.49 219 20285202 107642127 $1,961.49 220 20285203 Paid Off 107641190 $1,961~49 221 20285204 107641191 $1,961~49 222 20285205 107641192 $1,961.49 223 20285206 107642128 $1,961.49 224 20285207 107642129 $1,961.49 225 20284129 107642130 $1,961.49 226 20264130 107642131 $1,961.49 227 20284131 107642132 $1,961.49 228 20284132 107642133 $1,961.49 229 20284133 1076421~4 $1,961.49 230 20284134 107642177 $1,961.49 231 20284135 107645142 $1,961.49 232 20284136 107645143 $1,961.49 233 20284137 107645144 $1,961.49 234 20284138 107645145 $1,961.49 235 20284139 107645146 $1,961.49 236 20284140 107645147 $1,961.49 237 20284159 107642135 $2,025.28 238 20284160 107642136 $2,033.26 239 20284161 107642137 $2,033.26 240 20284162 107642138 $2,033.26 241 20285208 107642139 $2,033.26 242 20285209 107642140 $2,033.26 243 20285210 107642141 $2,017.31 244 20285211 107641180 $2,017.31 245 20285212 107641181 $2,017.31 246 20285213 107641182 $2,017.31 247 20285214 107641183 $2,017.31 248 20285215 107641184 $2,017.31 249 20285216 107641185 $2,017.31 250 20285217 107641186 $2,017.31 251 20285218 107641187 $2,017.31 252 20285219 107641188 $2,017.31 253 20285220 107641189 $2,017.31 254 20285221 Paid Off 107642150 $2,017.31 255 20285222 Paid Off 107642151 $2,017.31 256 20285223 107642152 $2,017.31 257 20285224 107642153 $2,017.31 June 2,1999 Page 28 City of Rancho Cucamonga OHginal Odginal Apportioned Current Date of OHginal Apportioned Refunding Assessment Assessors Assessment Assessors Recording the Aeeeeement Assessment Assessment Number Pamel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment 258 20285225 107642154 $2,017.31 259 20285226 107642155 $2,017.31 260 20285227 107642156 $2,017.31 261 20285228 107642157 $2,017.31 262 20285229 107642158 $2,017.31 263 20284163 107642159 $2,017.31 264 20284164 107642160 $2,017.31 265 20284165 107642161 $2,017.31 266 20284166 107642162 $2,017.31 267 20284167 Paid Off 107642163 $2,017.31 268 20284168 107642164 $2,017.31 269 20284169 107642165 $2,017.31 270 20284170 107642166 $2,017.31 271 20284171 107642167 $2,017.31 272 20284172 107642160 $2,017.31 273 20284173 107642161 $2,017.31 274 20284174 107642162 $2,017.31 275 20264175 107642163 $2,017.31 276 20264176 107642164 $2,017.31 277 20264177 107642165 $2,017.31 278 20264178 107642166 $2,017.31 279 20264179 107642167 $2,017.31 280 20277142 107646138 $2,089.07 281 20277143 107646139 $2,089.07 282 20277144 107646140 $2,089.07 283 20277145 107646141 $2,089.07 284 20277146 107646142 $2,089.07 285 20277147 107646143 $2,089.07 286 20277148 107646144 $2,089.07 287 20277149 107646145 $2,089.07 288 20277150 107646146 $2,089.07 289 20277151 107645105 $2,089.07 290 20277152 107645106 $2,089.07 291 20277153 107645107 $2,073.12 292 20277154 107645108 $2,073.12 293 20277155 107645109 $2,073.12 294 20277156 107645110 $2,073.12 295 20277157 107645111 $2,073.12 296 20277158 107645112 $2,073.12 297 20277159 107645113 $2,073.12 298 20277160 107645114 $2,073.12 299 20277161 107645115 $2,073.12 300 20277162 107645116 $2,073.12 301 20277163 107645117 $2,073.12 302 20277164 107645118 $2,073.12 303 20277165 107645119 $2,073.12 June 2, 1999 Page 29 City of Rancho Cucamon9~ OHginal OHginal Apportioned Current Date of OHginal Appo~ioned Refunding Assessment Assssso~a Assessment Assssao~s Recording the Assessment Assessment Assessment Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Appo~ionment 304 20284141 107645120 $2,073.12 305 20284142 107645121 $2,073.12 306 20284143 107645122 $2,073.12 307 20284144 107645123 $2,073.12 308 20284145 107645124 $2,073.12 309 20284146 107645125 $2,073.12 310 20284147 107642176 $2,073.12 311 20284148 107642175 $2,073.12 312 20284149 107642174 $2,073.12 313 20284150 107642173 $2,073.12 314 20284151 107642168 $2,073.12 315 20284152 107642169 $2,073.12 316 20284153 107642170 $2,073.12 317 20284154 107642171 $2,073.12 318 20284155 107642172 $2,073.12 319 20284156 107645126 $2,073.12 320 20284157 107645127 $2,073.12 321 20284158 107645128 $2,073.12 322 20277166 107645129 $2,073.12 323 20277167 107645130 $2,073.12 324 20277168 107645131 $2,073.12 325 20277169 107645132 $2,073.12 326 20277170 107646147 $2,073.12 327 20277171 107646148 $2,073.12 328 20277172 107646149 $2,073.12 329 20277173 107646150 $2,073.12 330 20277174 107646151 $2,073.12 331 20277175 107646152 $2,073.12 332 20277176 107646153 $2,073.12 333 20277177 107646154 $2,073.12 334 20277178 107646155 $2,073.12 335 20277179 107646156 $2073.12 336 20277180 107646157 $2073.12 337 20277181 107646158 $2073.12 338 20277101 107646101 $2184.75 339 20277102 107646102 $2 184.75 340 20277103 107646103 $2 184.75 341 20277104 107646104 $2184.75 342 20277105 107646105 $2 184.75 343 20277106 107646106 $2 184.75 344 20277107 107646107 $2 184.75 345 20277108 107645101 $2 184.75 346 20277109 107645102 $2,184.75 347 20277110 107645103 $2,184.75 348 20277111 107645104 $2,184.75 349 20277112 Paid Off 107646108 $2,184.75 June 2, 1999 Page 30 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Original Apportioned Refunding Assessment Assessors Assessment Assessors Recording the Assessment Assessment Assessment Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment 350 20277113 107646109 $2,184.75 351 20277114 107646110 $2,192.73 352 20277115 107646111 $2,192.73 353 20277116 107646112 $2,192.73 354 20277117 107646113 $2,192.73 355 20277118 107646114 $2,192.73 356 20277119 107646115 $2,192.73 357 20277120 107646116 $2,192.73 358 20277121 107646117 $2,192.73 359 20277122 107646118 $2,192.73 360 20277123 107646119 $2,192.73 361 20277124 107646120 $2,192.73 362 20277125 107646121 $2,192.73 363 20277126 107646122 $2,192.73 364 20277127 107646123 $2,192.73 365 20277128 107646124 $2,192.73 366 20277129 107646125 $2,192.73 367 20277130 107646126 $2,192.73 368 20277131 107646127 $2,192.73 369 20277132 107646128 $2,192.73 370 20277133 107646129 $2,192.73 371 20277134 Paid Off 107646130 $2,192.73 372 20277135 107646131 $2,192.73 373 20277136 107646132 $2,192.73 374 20277137 107646133 $2,192.73 375 20277138 107646134 $2,192.73 376 20277139 107646135 $2,192.73 377 20277140 $2,192.73 378 20277141 $2,192.73 379 20127163 $31,336.06 380 20127164 Paid Off $16,042.79 381 20127165 $3,293.08 382 20127166 $5,493.78 383 20127167 $4,393.43 364 20127168 $5,493.78 385 20127169 $16,108.17 386 20127170 $4,353.56 387 20127171 387-1 20127208 05/05/88 $27,444.97 $14,607.55 388 20127172 387-2 20127209 05/05~88 $22,828.28 $35,665.70 389 20295101 107638107 $1,507.00 390 20295102 107638106 $1,507.00 391 20295103 107638105 $1,507.00 392 20295104 107638104 $1,507.00 393 20295105 107638103 $1,507~00 394 20296101 107638102 $1,507.00 395 20296102 107638101 $1,507.00 June 2, 1999 Page 31 City of Rancho Cucamonga Odginal Odginal Appo~ioned Current Date of Assessment Assesso¢s Assessment Assessors Recording the Original Appo~ioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 396 20296103 107640105 $1,507.00 397 20296104 107640104 $1,507.00 398 20296105 107640103 $1,507.00 399 20296106 107640102 $1,507.00 400 20296107 107640101 $1,507.00 401 20296108 107639169 $1,507.00 402 20296109 107639168 $1,507.00 403 20296110 107639167 $1,507.00 404 20296111 107639166 $1,507.00 405 20296112 107639165 $1,507.00 406 20296113 107639164 $1,507.00 407 20296114 107639163 $1,507.00 408 20295106 107639162 $1,507.00 409 20295107 107639161 $1,514.98 410 20295108 107639160 $1,514.98 411 20295109 Paid Off 107639159 $1,514.98 412 20295110 107639158 $1,514.98 413 20295111 107639157 $1,514.98 414 20295112 107639156 $1,514.98 415 20295113 107639155 $1,514.98 416 20295114 107639154 $1,514.98 417 20295115 107640186 $1,514.98 418 20295116 107640185 $1 514.98 419 20295117 107640184 $1 514.98 420 20295118 107640183 $1 514.98 421 20295119 107640182 $1 514.98 422 20295120 107640181 $1 514.98 423 20295121 107640180 $1514.98 424 20295122 107638116 $1 514.98 425 20295123 107638115 $1514~98 426 20295124 107640179 $1,514.98 427 20295125 107640178 $1,514.98 428 20295126 Paid Off 107640177 $1,51498 429 20295127 107640176 $1,514.98 430 20295128 107640175 $1,514.98 431 20295129 107640174 $1,514.98 432 20295130 107640173 $1,514.98 433 20295133 107640172 $1,514.98 434 20295132 107640171 $1,514.98 435 20295131 107640170 $1~514.98 436 20294101 107640169 $1,514.98 437 20294102 107640168 $1,514.98 438 20294103 107640167 $1,514.98 439 20294104 107640166 $1,514.98 440 20294105 107640165 $1,514.98 441 20294106 107640164 $1,514.98 June 2, 1999 Page 32 City of Rancho Cucamonga OHginal Original Appo~ioned Current Date of Assessment Assesso(s Assessment Assesso(s Recording the Original Appo~ioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 442 20294107 107640163 $1 514.98 443 20294108 107640162 $1 514.98 444 20294109 107640161 $1514.98 445 20294110 107640160 $1514.98 446 20294111 107640159 $1514.98 447 20294112 107640158 $1514.98 448 20294113 107640157 $1514.98 449 20294 114 107640156 $1 514.98 450 20294115 107640155 $1.514.98 451 20294116 107640154 $1,514.98 452 20294117 107640153 $1,514.98 453 20294118 107639153 $1,514.98 454 20294119 107639152 $1,514.98 455 20294120 107639151 $1,514~98 456 20294121 107639150 $1,514.98 457 20294122 107639149 $1,514.98 458 20294123 107640152 $1,514.98 459 20294124 107640151 $1,514.98 460 20294125 107640150 $1,514.98 461 20294126 107640149 $1,514.98 462 20294127 107640148 $1,514.98 463 20294128 107640147 $1,514.98 464 20294129 107640146 $1,514.98 465 20294130 107640145 $1,514.98 466 20294131 107640144 $1,514~98 467 20294 132 107640143 $1,514.98 468 20294 133 107640142 $1,514.98 469 20294134 107640141 $1,514.98 470 20294135 107640140 $1,514.98 471 20294136 107640139 $1,514.98 472 20294 137 107640138 $1,514.98 473 20294138 107640137 $1,514.98 474 20294139 107640136 $1,514.98 475 20294140 107640135 $1,514.98 476 20294141 107640134 $1,514.98 477 20294142 107639148 $1,514.98 478 20294143 107639147 $1,514.98 479 20294144 107639146 $1,514.98 480 20294145 107639145 $1,514.98 481 20294146 107639144 $1,514.98 482 20294147 107639143 $1,514.98 483 20294148 107639142 $1,514.98 484 20295134 107639141 $1,514.98 485 20295135 107639140 $1,514.98 486 20295136 107639139 $1,514.98 487 20295137 107639138 $1,514.98 June 2, 1999 Page 33 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original OHginal Appo~ioned Current Date of Original ApportJoned Refunding Assessment Asseeso~s Assessment Asseeso(s Recording the Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment A~sessment Assessment Assessment 488 20295138 107639137 $1 514.98 489 20295139 107639136 $1 514.98 490 20295140 107639135 $1 514.98 491 20295141 107639134 $1 514.98 492 20295142 107639133 $1 514.98 493 20295143 107639132 $1514.98 494 20295144 107639131 $1514.98 495 20295145 107639130 $1,514.98 496 20295146 107639129 $1,514.98 497 20295147 107639128 $1,514.98 498 20295148 107639127 $1,514.98 499 20295149 Paid Off 107639126 $1,514.98 500 20295150 107639125 $1,514.98 501 20295151 107639124 $1,514.98 502 20295152 107639123 $1,514.98 503 20294149 107639122 $1,514.98 504 20294150 107639121 $1,514.98 505 20294151 107639122 $1,514.98 506 20294152 107639121 $1,514.98 507 20294153 107639120 $1,514.98 508 20295153 107639119 $1,514.98 509 20295154 107639116 $1,514.98 · 510 20295155 107639115 $1,514.98 511 20295156 107639114 $1,514.98 512 20295157 107639113 $1,514.98 513 20295158 107639112 $1,514.98 514 20295159 107639111 $1,514.98 515 20295160 107639110 $1,514.98 516 20295161 107639109 $1,514.98 517 20295162 107639108 $1,514.98 518 20295163 107639107 $1,514.98 519 20295164 107639106 $1,514.98 520 20295165 107639105 $1,514.98 521 20295166 107639104 $1,514.98 522 20295167 107639103 $1,514.98 523 20295168 107639102 $1,514.98 524 20295169 107639101 $1,514.98 525 20295170 107640133 $1,514.98 526 20295171 107640132 $1,514.98 527 20295172 107640131 $1,514.98 528 20295173 107640130 $1,514.98 529 20295174 107640129 $1,514.98 530 20295175 107640128 $1,514.98 531 20295176 107640127 $1,514.98 532 20295177 107640126 $1,514.98 533 20295178 107640125 $1,514.98 June 2, 1999 Page34 City of Rancho Cucamonga Original Original Apportioned Current Date of Assessment Assessor's Assessment Assessor's Recording the Original Apportioned Refunding Number Parcel No. Number Parcel No. Apportionment Assessment Assessment Assessment 534 20295179 107640124 $1,514.98 535 20296115 107640123 $1,514.98 536 20296116 107640122 $1,514.98 537 20295180 107640121 $1,514.98 538 20295181 107640120 $1,514.98 539 20295182 107640119 $1,514.98 540 20295183 107640118 $1,514.98 541 20295184 107640117 $1,514.98 542 20295185 107640116 $1,514.98 543 20295186 107640115 $1,514.98 544 20294154 107640114 $1,514.98 545 20294155 107640113 $1,514.98 546 20294156 107640112 $1,514.98 547 20294157 107640111 $1,514.98 548 20294158 107640110 $1,514.98 549 20294159 107640109 $1,514.98 550 202 94 160 107640108 $1,514.98 551 20294161 107640107 $1,514.98 552 20294 162 107640106 $1,514.98 553 20294163 107638114 $1,514.98 554 20294164 107638113 $1,514.98 555 20294 165 107638112 $1,514.98 556 20294166 107638111 $1,514.98 557 20294 167 Paid Off 107638110 $1,514.98 558 20294168 107638109 $1,514.98 559 20294169 107638108 $1,514.98 $2,377,384.09 June 2, 1999 Page 35 City of Rancho Cucamonga REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PART V REASSESSMENT DISTRICT AUDITOR'S REPORT The proposed Auditor's Report for Reassessment District No. 1999, showing the schedule of all principal installments and interest on unpaid reassessments, is voluminous and will not be bound in this report, but by this reference is incorporated as if attached to this Report. The proposed Auditor's Report for Reassessment District No. 1999 is on file in the offices of the Department of Administrative Services and the Auditor-Controller of the County of San Bernardino. June 2, 1999 Page 36 City of Rancho Cucamonga REFUNDING AND REASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT PART Vl ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The following is a reduced scale copy of the assessment diagram showing the boundaries and subdivisions o£ land within Rcass¢ssmcr~t District No. ]999: June 2, 1999 Page 37 City of Rancho Cucamonga ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM '- '-- " ,REASBE~M~T DISTRICT RANCHO ©~GMONGA lIEFUNDING NO. GITY OF RANGHO ©UGAMONGA COUNTY OF 8AN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA IlllET "' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM REASSESSMENT DISTRICT RANCHO CUCAMONGA REFUNDING ~ NO. 19~9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..n",,,.~.L.COUNTY OF 8AN BERNANDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AD8~2 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM REASSESSMENT DIBTRIGT RANCHO GUCAMONGA REFUNDING NO. 1eGG CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF 8AN BERNANDINO 8'rATE OF CALIFORNIA #111i lill & mmm tlllimlll ~ 111 IlilML Mllllll~ Nllli. m ~m~ mm mMIIIW~ mmm mm ~ ~ Mm~mm m ~umlE mlu m ,-,,,, m m mlm~ m Mllmm mmmm mm tamil mllG M NII mmJ 1 N ROUTE · ~RgW ...... __ ,, == , == -,. == ...... == ...... -- _.... ; ~? 1( ® I -' RAILROAD REASSE$8MENT DIAGRAM A$$E ,,SMENT DI I'RICT 94-X AD 89-1 ORIGINAL OI~IGINAL /~ PoR'r~oNr..D CU~NT DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S A-~SI:'qSMENT ASSESSOR'S RECORDING THE ORIC-~ NAL APPORTIONED REFUNDING NUMBE:R PARCEL NO. NUMBER PARCEL NO. APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT A.~SESSMENT ASSESSMENT 1 22911127 1 22911127 $121.529.00 2 22911128 2 2291 t 128 $90.465.00 .3 22911129 3 22911129 ~NL256.00 4 22911150 25 229111.30 ~?,B59.00 $108.554,21 § 22911131 26 22911160 SB6,359.00 ~25,799.79 6 229111,32 N/A $124.$74.00 7 22911155 N/A $155.627.00 8 22911154 $ 22911154 Public 9 2291115,5 9 229111.35 $160.230.00 10 22911136 10 22911156 $155,287.00 t 1 229111.37 11 229111.37 S 14~,006.00 12 22911158 12 22911158 $145,196.00 15 22911159 1.3 22911159 $1.35,121.00 14 22911140 14 22911140 $111,997,00 15 22911141 15 22911141 $98.229.00 16 22911142 16 22911142 $91.96.3,00 17 22911144 t7 22911144 ~607.754.00 18 22911146 18 22911146 S 1 ~0,274.00 19 22911147 19 22911147 $577.947.00 22 22911148 27 22911148 $411.62B.00 $444,222.84 2..3 22911149 28 22911149 $442,9t 5.00 $579,156.06 24 22911150 29 22911150 $566,0~B.00 ~97,272.10 25 22911156 25 22911156 $22.3,553.00 26 22911157 26 22911157 $211,659.00 $4,7~0,674.00 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL APPORTIONED CURRENT DATE OF ORIGINAL APPORTIONED REFUNDING ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSESSMENT A.~ES$OR'$ RECORDING THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT NUMBER PARCEL NO. NUMBER PARCEL NO. APPORTIONMENT 1 2012711.3 Delete¢ $10,96 .3.64 2 20127114 Deleted $ 20112201 20112202 2011220.3 20112204 20112205 20112206 20112207 20112206 20112209 20112210 20112211 20112212 20112215 20112214 20112215 20112216 20112217 20112218 20112219 20112220 20112221 20112222 2011222.3 20112224 20112225 .3 20127122 Paid Off $6,101,56 4 20127125 P~id Off $6,101,56 5 20127124 Paid Off 6 20127133 Dented $22,086,74 7 20127154 7- 1 2010~401 05/21/99 $156,7+6.4.3 $2,4~1.13 7- 2 20108402 05/21/99 $1,777,46 7- .3 201084~.3 O3/21/99 7- 4 2010~404 05/21/99 $1,559.17 7- 5 2010~405 0.3/21/99 7- 6 2010a406 03/21/99 $1,621.54 7- ? 2010~407 03/21/99 $1.704.70 REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X A~ 89-1 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ,N~PORTION~D CURRENT DA'T[ OF ASSESSMENT ASSE,$SOR*S ASSESSMENT AS~L~'$ R[C0~DING THE ORIGINAL APPORTIONED REFUNDING NUMBER PARCEl NO. NUMBER PARCEL NO. APPOR'TlONMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Roncho Cucomom~o 7-8 2010~408 03/21/99 7-9 20108409 05/21/99 $1.805.64 7-10 20108410 03/21/99 $2,099.69 7-11 20107201 03/21/99 $1,964.56 7-12 20107202 03/21/gg $1,922.98 7-13 20107205 03/21/g'9 $2.224.42 7-14 20107204 03/21/99 ~5,534.12 7-15 20107205 03/21/99 $2,744.14 7-16 20107206 03/21/99 $1.694.50 7-17 20107207 05/21/99 $1,746.27 7-18 20107208 05/21/99 $1,704.70 7-19 20107209 05/21/99 $1.808.64 7-20 20107210 05/21/99 $1,631.9'~, 7-21 20107211 05/21/99 $1,590.36 7-22 20107212 05/21/99 $1,795.2.5 7-25 20107213 05/21/99 $1,98.5.35 7-24 20107214 05/21/99 $1,725.48 7-25 20105411 03/21/99 .'~,1,787.B5 7-26 20108412 05/21/99 $2,058.11 7-27 20108413 05/21/99 $2,150.87 7-28 20108414 05/21/99 $1,850.61 7-29 2010841,5 03/21/99 $2,473.89 7-30 20108416 03/21/99 $2.442.70 7-3,1 20108417 03/21/99 $2.162.05 7-32 20108418 03/21/99 $1.704.70 7-35 20108419 05/21/99 $1.767.06 7-34 20108420 03/21/99 $1,590.36 7-35 20108421 03/21/99 $1,611.14 7-36 20108422 05/21/99 $1,839,82 7-37 20108425 05/21/99 $1,777.46 7-58 20107215 03/21/99 $1,798.25 7-59 20107216 05/21/99 $2,078.89 7-40 20107217 05/21/99 $2,078.89 7-41 20107218 03/21/99 $1,767.06 7-4,2 20108424 03/21/99 $1.725.48 7-45 20108425 05/21/99 $1.935.37 7-4.4 20108426 03/21/99 $1,891.80 7-4,5 20108427 03/21/99 $1.954.16 7-46 20108428 03/21/99 $1.974.95 7-47 2010~1,29 03/21/99 $1,964.56 7-48 20108430 03/21/99 $1,829,45 7-4.9 20108431 03/21/99 $1,902.19 7-,50 20108432 05/21/99 $2,141.26 7-51 20105455 03/21/99 $2.505.07 7-',2 20109201 03/21/99 $2.754.54 7-53 20109202 03/21/99 $2,297.18 7-54 20109203 03/21/99 $2,120.47 7-55 20109204 03/21/99 $1,902.19 7-56 20109205 05/21/99 $1,735.88 7-57 20109206 03/21/99 $1,715.09 7-`58 20109207 05/21/99 $1,808.64 7 -,59 20109208 05/21/99 $2,484.28 7-60 20109209 03/21/99 $3.617.28 7-61 20109210 05/21/99 $2.120,47 7-62 20109211 03/21/99 $1.850.22 7-63 20109212 03/21/99 $1.590.36 7-64 20109213 03/2 I/gg $1,559.17 7-65 20109214 03/21/99 $1.943.77 7-66 2010921§ 05/21/99 $2,172.45 7-67 20109216 03/21/99 $2.006.14 7-58 20109217 05/21/99 $1.985...x5 7-69 20109218 03/21/99 $1,829.43 7-70 20109219 05/21/99 $1.767.06 7-71 20109220 03/21/99 $1,725.48 7-72 20I~09221 03/21/99 $1.881.40 7-75 20109222 03/21/99 $1,985.55 7-74 20109223 05/21/99 ~2.O5,8.11 --'. REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL 0~IGINAL A.~PORT]ONE~ CURRENT DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S A.~SESSMENT A.~E~SOR'$ RECORDING '11-18 ORIGINAL APPOR'FION ED EEFUNDING NUMBER PARCEL NO. NUMBER PARCEL NO. N~PORTIONMENT A~SES~MENT A~ESSMENT ASSESSMENT 7-75 2010~454 05/21/99 $1.~1.40 7-76 20108455 03/21/99 $2.51546 7 - 77 20108456 05/21/99 $5.051.72 7-78 20108457 05/21/99 7-79 20109224 05/21/99 $1,767.0~ 7 -80 20109225 05/21/99 $1.600.75 7-81 20109226 05/21/99 $1.995 74 7-82 2010~227 05/21/99 $2.047 72 7-83 2010~228 03/21/99 $2,120.47 7-84 20109229 03/21/99 $2,473.89 7-85 20109230 03/21/9g $2,307.58 7-86 20109251 05/21/99 $2,151.66 7-87 20109232 05/21/99 12,182.84 7-88 20109233 03/21/99 $2,099.69 7-89 20109234 05/21/99 $1,922.98 7 -90 20109255 05/21/99 $1.819.03 7-91 20109236 03/21/99 $2,057.31 8 20127141 7-92 Portion 20127103/21/99 S115,556.7~ 159.295.65 9 20127142 7-95 Portion 20127105/21/99 $15.873.98 145.089.06 10 20127147 IDA 20127147 05/17/88 $6,059.90 $2.948.05 11 20127173 Deleted $122,537 12 20127174 Poid Off $22.397.71 13 20127175 D~ete~ ~04,988.40 20158526 2O158657 .20158795 14 20221159 $29,741 15 20221145 $125,051.92 16 20296117 $2,057.18 17 Tr 13117-Lot 1 20159401 $1,674.45 18 'l'r 13117-Lot 2 20159402 $1,674.45 19 Tr 15117-Lot 5 20159405 $1,674.45 20 Tr 15117-Lot 4 20159404 $I,722.29 21 T~ 15117-Lot 5 20159405 $1,722.29 22 Tr 13117--Lot 6 20159406 $1,722.29 25 Tr 15117-Lot 7 20159407 $1,722.29 24 Tr 15117-Lot 8 201594.0~ S1,722.29 25 'rr 15117-Lot 9 20159409 $1,722.29 26 ?r 15117-Lot 10 20159410 $1,72.2.29 27 Tr 13117-Lot 11 20159411 $1.722.29 28 Tr 13117-Lot 12 20159412 $1,72.2.29 29 Tr 13117-hOt 15 20159413 $1.722.29 50 Tr 13117-Lot 14 201594t4 $1.72.2.29 51 Tr 13117-Lot 15 20159415 $1.72.2.29 32 Tr 15117-Lot 16 20159416 $1,722.29 55 Tr 15117-L~t 17 20159417 $1,72.2.29 34 Tr 13117-L~t 18 20159418 $1.722.29 35 Tr 13117-L~t 19 20159419 $1,722.29 56 Tr 13117-Lot 20 20159420 $1,722.29 37 Tr 15117-Lot 21 20159421 $1.72.2.29 38 ?r 13117-L~t 22 20159422 $1.722.29 59 Tr 15117-LOt 25 20159423 $1,722.29 40 Tr 15117-1~t 24 20159424 $1.722.29 41 Tr 13117-Lot 25 20159425 $1,722.29 42 Tr 15117-L~t 25 20159426 $1,722.29 45 'rr 15117-Lot 27 20159427 $1,722.29 4-4. Tr 15117-L~t 28 20159428 $1.722.29 45 Tr 13117-Lot 29 20159429 $1.722.29 46 Tr 15117-L~t 50 20159450 $1.722.29 47 ?r 13117-Lot 31 20159451 $1,722.29 4~B Tr 13117-Lot 52 20159432 $1,722.29 49 Tr 15117-Lot 55 20159435 $1,722.29 50 Tr 15117-Lot 54 20159454 $1.722.29 51 Tr 15117-L~t 55 20159455 $1.722.29 52 Tr 15117-1.~t 56 20159456 $1.722.29 55 Tr 13117-Lot 57 2015~457 $1.72.2.29 54 Tr 13117-L~t 38 20159458 $1,722.29 55 Tr 13117-Lot 39 20159459 $1.722.29 56 Tr 13117-LOt 40 201594~O Sl,722.29 57 Tr 13117-Lot 41 20159441 $1,722..29 58 Tr 13117--Lot 42 201594~2 $1,722.29 59 Tr 15117-Lot 4'~ 20159445 $1.722.29 60 lr 15117--Lot 44 201594.4~ $1,722.29 61 'rr 15117-Lot 45 20159445 $1,722.29 62 7r 15117-Lot 46 20159446 $1.722.29 ! ,.,,,, REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DI BTRICT 94-X O~I~INAL O~ GINK~. ~POR'TIONE~) CURRENT DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR $ AS~:~"$$MENT ~ESSOR'$ RECORDING THE ORIGINAL APPORTIONED REFUNDINC NUMBER PARCEL NO. NUId~ER PARCEL NO. APPORTIONMENT ASSE~SSMENT ASSESSM£NT ASSESSMENT 62 Tr 13117-Lot 46 20159446 $1,722.29 65 Tr 15117-Lot 47 20159,~47 $1.722.29 6,~ Tr 1.3117-Lot 46 20159448 $1.722.29 65 Tr 1.3117-*L~t 49 2015944*9 $1,722.29 66 ?r 1.3117..-L=t 50 20159450 Sl,722.29 67 Tr 1.3117--Lot 51 20159451 S1.722.29 68 l'r 15117--Lot 52 20159452 $1,722.29 69 Tr 1.3117-Lot 5.3 2015945.t $1,722.29 70 Tr 1.3117-Lot 54 20159454 $1.722.29 71 Tr 1.3117-Lo1 55 20159455 $1,722.29 72 Tr t.3117-Lot 56 20159456 $1,722.29 75 Tr 1.3117-Lot 57 20159457 $1,722.29 74 Tr 1.3117-Lot 58 20159458 $1.722.29 75 Tr 1.3117-Lot 59 20159459 $1.722.29 76 Tr 1.3117--Lot 60 20159460 $1,722.29 77 Tr 1.3117-Lot 61 20159461 $1,722.29 78 Tr 1.3117-Lot 62 20159462 $1,722.29 79 Tr 13117-Lot 65 2015946.3 80 Tr 1.3117-Lot 64 20159464 $1,722.29 81 Tr 13117-Lot 65 20159465 $1,722.29 82 Tr 13117-Lot 66 201594.66 $1,722.29 85 Tr 1.3117-Lot 67 20159467 $1,722.29 /14 Tr 1.3117--Lot 68 20159468 $1.722.29 /t5 Tr 1.3117-Lot 69 20159469 $1,722.29 86 Tr 1.3117-Lot 70 20159470 $1.722.29 87 Tr 1.3117--Lot 71 20159471 $1.722.29 6/1 Tr 1.3117-Lot 72 20159472 $1.722.29 89 Tr 1.3117-Lot 75 20159475 $1,722.29 90 Tr 1.3117-Lot 74 2015947¢ $1,722.29 91 Tr 1.3117-Lot 75 2015947.5 $1,722..29 92 Tr 15117-Lot 76 20159476 $1,722.29 93 T. 1.tl 17-Lot 77 20159477 $1,722.29 94 Tr 1.3117-Lot 76 20159478 Sl,722.29 95 Tr 1.3117-Lot 79 20159479 $1,722.29 96 Tr 1.3117-Lot 80 20159480 $1.722.29 97 Tr 1.3117-Lot 81 20159481 $1,722.29 96 Tr 1.3117-Lot 62 20159482 $1,722.29 99 Tr 15117-Lot 83 20159483 $1,722.29 100 Tr 15117-Lot 64 100- 1 20177159 01/06/67 $155,251.69 $1,509.74 100- 2 2017714~ 01/06/87 $1.528.95 100- -3 20177141 01/06/87 $1,71841 100- 4 20177142 01/06/67 $1,441.9.t 100- 5 20177145 01/06/67 $1,446.-33 100- 6 2017714~ 01/06/87 $1.593.94 100- 7 20177145 01/06/87 $1,598..15 100- 8 20177146 01/06/87 $1.307.54 100- 9 20177147 01/0~/67 $1.299.63 100- 10 20177148 01/06/87 $1,505.82 100- 11 20177149 01/06/87 $2,655.80 100- 12 20177150 01/06/87 $2,075.32 100- 1.3 20177151 01/06/67 $1,39-3.46 100- 14 20177152 01/06/87 $1,440.62 100- 15 20177153 01/06/87 $1,-341,68 100- 16 20177154 01/06/87 $1,522.96 100- 17 20177155 01/06/67 $1.522,34 100- 18 20177156 01/06/87 $1,615.97 100- 19 20177157 01/06/87 $1,645.71 100- 20 20177158 0t/06/87 100- 21 20177159 01/06//17 100- 22 20177160 01/06/87 $1,536.66 100- 25 20177161 01/06/87 $1,280.00 100- 24 20177162 01 y06/87 $1,280.00 100- 25 20177165 01/06/87 $1,502.51 100- 26 20177164 01/06/87 $1,502.51 100- 27 20177165 01/06/87 $1.277.79 100- 28 20177166 01/06/87 $1.355.08 100- 29 20177167 01/06/67 $1,360.41 100- 30 20177168 01/06/87 $2,001.51 100- -31 20177169 01/06/67 $2,284.61 100- -32 20177170 01/06/87 $1,611.56 100- 55 20177171 01/06/87 $1,280.00 100- .34 20177172 01/06/87 $1.307.54 100- 55 20177173 01/06/87 $1.~85.13 100- .%6 20177174 01/06//17 $1.668.84 -'" REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL O~IC~N~. ApPo~0~rn CU~£N~ ~ ~ 1~- 57 20177175 01/~/87 1~- ~ 20177176 01/~/87 100- 59 20177177 01/~/87 S1.335.08 100- ~ 20177178 01/~/87 $~,~5.99 1~' 42 ~1771~0 01/~/87 100- 45 ~177181 01/~/87 Pe~ ~ ~1,416.59 ~- ~ 20~a2 o~/~/87 ~1.2~.57 100- 45 20177185 01/06/87 100- 46 201771~ 01/~/87 ~.2~.57 100- 47 201~B5 01/~/87 ~1,~29.81 100- ~ 20177166 O1/~/87 100- ~9 20177187 01/~/87 pe~ ~ ~1,277,79 100- ~ 20159~ 01/06/87 ~ 1.264.57 100- 51 ~159~5 01/~/87 ~1.2~.58 100- 52 ~1~9~6 01/~/87 ~1,~1.g~ 100- 53 20163201 01/~/87 ~1,591.25 100- 54 201 ~5202 01/~/87 100- 55 2016520~ 01/~/87 100- 56 20165204 01/~/87 ~1,2~.58 100- 57 ~165205 01/~/87 $1.267.~ 100- ~ ~1~7 0~/06/a7 1~- 59 2015g~B 01/06/87 1~- ~ ~15g~g O1/~/87 S1,631.Sg 1~- 61 20162~1 01/~/87 ~1,631.59 ~-- 62 20162~2 01/~/87 1~- 65 20162~3 01/~/87 ~1,695.08 100- ~ 20162~4 O~/~/87 S1,516.83 100- 65 20~ 62~5 01/~/87 ~ 1.528.95 100- 66 20162~6 01/06/~7 ~1 .~52.94 100- 67 ~162~7 01/06/87 ~,277.79 1~- ~ 20162~8 01/~/87 ~ 1,265.68 100- 69 20162~9 01/~/87 ~1.753.66 100- 70 20162510 01/~/87 [1,753.66 100- 71 20~62511 01/~/87 100- 72 20162512 01/~/87 ~1.~193 100- 75 20162515 01/06/87 ~1.516.83 100- 74 20162514 01/06/87 100- 75 20162~15 01/06/87 ~1.516.83 100- 76 20162316 01/~/87 ~1.521.24 100- 77 20162317 O1/~/87 ~1,824.16 100- 78 20162318 01/~/87 ~1,515.73 100- 79 20162..319 01/06/~7 100- 80 20162520 01/~/87 100- 81 ~162321 01/0~/87 1~- 82 20 ~ 62522 Ol/~/87 ~1.439.72 100- 85 20162525 01/~/87 ~1.652.~2 ~00- 84 20t 62524 01/06/87 ~1,2~.~ 100- 85 20t ~525 01/~/87 100- 86 20162~26 01/06/87 ~1,516.85 100- 87 20162~27 01/06/87 ~1,~75.87 100- ~ ~162528 01/~/87 ~1.~.98 100- 89 20162529 O1/~/87 ~1,~2.~ 1~- ~ 2016~ 01/~/87 [1,~5.92 100- 91 20162531 01/~/87 ~1,565.92 100- 92 20t 62552 01/~/87 ~,275.59 100- 93 20162~3 01/~/87 ~1,~5.42 100- 94 20162534 01/~/87 ~1,~.~9 100- 95 20162535 O1/~/87 $1,~6.78 1~- 97 20162537 01/~/87 S1,516.85 ~ ~- 98 201 ~23~ 01/~/87 ~ 1,527.85 '100- 99 20162559 01/06/87 ~1.~.53 100- 1~ 20~ 62~ 01/~/87 100- 10~ 20~I 01/~/87 1~- 102 201 ~2 01/~/87 PO~ 101 lr 15117-~t 85 101- 1 201652~ 05/17/88 ~183.252.2~ ~1,~9.52 ,,-- REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-,X ORIGINAL ORI~NAL ~doPORTIONE~) CURR'E:NT DATE OF ASSESSMENT AS.~SOR'S ASSESSMENT A$~SSOR'5 RE'~ORDING THE ORIGH~N. AI='PORTtONED RETUN~NG NUMBER PARCEL NQ NUI~ER PARCEL NO. AJ~0Rl'IONMENT A_~SESSMENT ASSP'~SMENT ASSESSMENT 101- 2 20165207 05/17/88 $1,555.42 101- 3 20165208 05/17/88 $1,701.88 101- 4 20163209 05/17/88 $1,701.88 101- 5 20163210 05/17/88 $1,612.01 101- 6 20185211 05/17/88 $2,645.48 101- 7 20165212 05/17/88 $2,551.17 101- 6 20185215 05/17/88 $1,667.27 101- 9 20185214 05/17/88 $1,957.99 101- 10 20165215 05/17/88 $1.4434.16 101- 11 20165216 05/17/88 $1,521.01 101- 12 20185217 05/17/68 $1,691.76 t01- 13 20163218 05/17/88 $1,701.87 101- 14 20165219 05/17/88 $1,701.87 101- 15 20163220 05/t7/88 $1,769.60 10t- 16 20163221 05/17/88 $1,940.02 101- 17 20165222 05/17/88 Sl.550.00 101- 18 20163225 05/17/88 $1,606.59 101- 19 20165224 05/17/88 $1,740.06 101- 20 20165225 05/17/88 $~,558.08 101- 21 20165226 05/17/68 $1,606.59 101- 22 20165227 05/17/86 $1,514.27 101- 25 20185228 05/17/88 Sl,586.17 101- 24 20165229 05/17/~8 S1,636.72 101- 25 20163250 05/17/88 $1,605.26 101- 26 20163251 05/17/8~ $1,519.89 t01- 27 20163252 05/17/88 $1,416.54 10t- 28 20163253 05/17/88 $1,660.51 101- 29 20165254 05/17/88 $1,431.14 101- 30 20163255 05/17/88 $1,558.15 101- 31 20165256 05/17/88 $2,073.70 101- 52 20165257 05/17/88 $2,268.26 101- 53 20185258 05/17/88 $2,547.75 101- 34 20165259 05/17/88 $1,500.79 101- 35 201632¢0 05/17/88 $1,577.18 101- 36 20185241 05/17/8e, $1,701.87 101- 57 20183242 05/I7/68 $1,624.56 10t- 38 20165243 05/17/88 $1,716.47 101- 59 20165244 05/17/88 $2,421.93 101- 4.0 20165245 05/17/88 $1,982.71 101- 4t 20165246 05/17/88 $1,321.06 101- 42 20165247 05/17/88 $1,500.79 101- 45 20165248 05/17/~8 $1,5,45.52 101- 44 20163249 05/17/88 $1,714.66 t01- 45 20165250 05/17/88 $1,4.07.55 101- 4~ 20185251 05/17/88 $1,585.04 101- 47 20163252 05/17/88 Sl,603.02 10t- 48 20163255 05/17/88 S1,370.48 101- 49 20163254 05/17/88 $1,705.24 101- 50 20163255 05/17/88 $1,770.59 101- 51 20165256 05/17/88 $1,786.12 101- 52 20165257 05/17/88 $1,787,24 101- 53 20163258 05/17/88 $1,774.89 101- 54 20165259 05/17/88 $1,64.7.95 101- 55 20163260 05/17/88 $1,758.94 101- 56 20163261 05/17/88 $2,281.52 101- 57 20163262 05/17/88 $1,591.78 10t- 58 20163263 05/17/88 Sl,455.86 101- 59 20165264 05/17/88 $1,517.69 101- 60 20165265 O5/17/88 $1~63.70 101- 61 20165266 05/17/88 Sl,568.19 101- 62 20165267 05/17/88 $1,509.82 101- 65 20163268 05/17/68 $1,576.05 101- 64 20182345 05/17/88 Sl.580.55 101- 65 20162544 05/17/88 Sl,582.80 101- 66 20162545 05/17/88 $1,555.61 10t- 67 20162546 05/17/88 $1,54.9.09 101- 68 20162~47 05/17/88 $1 ~50.22 101- 69 20162548 05/17/88 $1,555.61 101- 70 20182549 05/17/68 $1,459.01 101- 71 20162350 05/17/88 Paid Off S1,..1~8.57 101- 72 20162351 05/17/88 $!,294.10 101- 75 20162552 05/17/88 $1,423.28 101- 74 20162355 05/17/88 $1,297.47 101- 75 201625,54 05/17/88 $1,299.71 '""" REAB$EBBMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORiGiNAL ORiGiNAL APPORTIONED CURRENT DATE: OF ASSESSMENT ASS£SSOR'$ A-.~LrSSMENT ASSe::SSOR 'S RECOR~NG THE O~IGINA~ APPORTIONED REFUN~NG NUMBER PARCEL NO NUMBER PARCEL NO. APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT ASSE~MENT 101-76 20162555 05/17/88 $1,485.06 101-77 20162556 05/17/88 $1.410.92 101-78 20162357 05/17/88 $1.509.82 101-79 20162558 05/17/88 $1.417.66 101-80 20162559 05/17/88 $1,515.44 101-81 20162560 05/17/88 Sl,518.81 101-82 20162361 05/17/88 Sl,433.59 101-85 20162362 05/17/88 Sl,727.71 101-84 20162565 05/17/88 S1,550.22 101-85 20162564 05/17/88 S1,501.91 101-86 20162565 05/17/~8 Poid Off $1,392.95 101-87 20162566 05/17/88 Poid Off $1.4.45.75 101-88 20162567 05/17/88 $1,556.96 101-89 20162568 05/17/88 $1,546.85 101-90 20162369 05/17/88 $1,289~60 101-91 20162570 05/17/88 Sl.289.60 101-92 20162571 05/17/8~. $1,546.85 101-95 20162572 05/17/88 $1,422.16 101-94 20162575 05/17/88 $1.591.85 101-95 20162574 05/17/88 Sl,687.27 101-96 20162575 05/17/88 SI,72¢.54 101-97 20162576 05/17/88 101-98 20165269 05/17/88 Sl,517.64 101-99 20165270 05/17/88 Sl,504.21 101-100 20165271 05/17/88 $1,541.28 101-101 20165272 05/17/88 $1.550.04 101-102 20165275 05/17/88 $1,404.18 101-103 20165274 05/17/88 $1,696.25 101-104 20163275 05/17/8~, PQ~ Off Sl.479.45 101--105 20165276 05/17/88 Sl.428.90 101--106 20165277 05/17/88 SI,382.84 101-107 20165278 05/17/88 Sl.982.71 101-108 20165279 05/17/88 $1,82~.51 101-109 20165280 05/17/88 $1,289.60 101-110 20165281 05/17/88 $1,546.85 101-111 20165282 05/17/8~ $1,546.85 101-112 20165283 05/17/88 Sl,663.68 101--115 2016328& 05/17/88 $1,663.66 101-114 20163285 05/17/88 101-115 20163286 05/17/68 S1,546.85 101-116 20165287 05/17/88 $1,289.60 101-117 20165288 05/17/88 Sl.556.96 S186,641.18 102 20285101 1076~1101 Sl,993.59 105 20285102 107641102 $1,993.59 104 20285105 10764.1105 Sl,995.59 105 20285104 107641104 $1,995.59 106 20285105 107641105 S2.001.56 107 20285106 107641106 108 20285107 107641107 S2.009.54 109 20285108 107641108 S2,009.34 110 20285109 107642101 S2.009.54 111 20285110 10764.2102 112 20285111 107642105 113 20285112 Poid Off 107642104 $2,009.34 1t4 20285115 107642105 S2,OO9.5& 115 20285114 107642106 S2,009.54 116 20285115 107641109 117 202~5116 107641110 $2,009.54 118 20285117 107641111 119 20285118 10764.1112 120 20285119 107~4tt15 12,009.54 121 20285120 107641114 S2,009~4 122 20285121 107641115 123 20285122 107641116 124 20285125 107641117 S2.009.54 125 20285124 107641118 126 20285125 107641119 $2,009.5¢ 127 20285126 107641120 128 20285127 10764.1121 S2.009.54 129 20285128 107641122 150 20285129 107641125 S2,009.34 151 20285150 107641124 $2.00cJ-54 152 20285151 107641125 $2,009.54 REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL Of~I~NAL APPOInTION ED CURRENT DATE OF ~SESSM~T ~SES~R'S ~S~E~ ~'S R~DfNG ~E O~ ~PORTIONED R~UNDINC NUMBER P~C~ NO. NU~ P~CEL NO. ~ME~ ~ES~ENT ~SES~ENT ~SES~ENT 133 202~152 107~1126 S2.~.34 1~ 20285155 107~127 ~55 20285154 107~1128 ~.0~.54 t56 20285155 107~1129 S2.0~.54 ~57 20285136 107~1130 158 20285157 107~1131 S2.~4 159 202851~ 107~1132 S2.~.54 1 ~ 202851 ~ 107~ 1135 S2.~ 141 202~ 1 ~ t 07~ 1154 S2 ~ ~2 202~ 141 t 07~1155 S2.~ 1~5 202~142 107~190 ~,~.~ 1~ 20285145 107~189 14D 2028~1~ 107~0188 S2.~.54 1~6 20285145 107~1156 S2.0~.5~ 147 202851~ 107~1137 1~ 20285147 107~1158 1~9 202851~ 107~1139 S2.~.~ 150 20285149 107~11~ 151 202851~ 107~11~1 S2.~.~ 152 2028515~ 107~11,2 S2.009.54 153 202~152 Poid Off 107~1143 S2.~.54 154 202~ 155 107~ 11 ~ S2.0~.5~ 155 202~ 1 ~ 107~ ~ 145 S2.0~.5~ ~ 56 202~ 155 ~ 07~ ~ 1 ~ S2.~. 157 20285156 ~io ~ 107641147 158 20285157 107~11~ 159 20285158 '107641149 S2.~.34 ~60 20285159 ~07~50 161 20285160 107~1151 S2.0~.34 162 20285161 107~1152 163 20285162 107~1153 S2.0~.5+ 164 20285163 107~1154 165 202851~ 107~1155 166 20285165 107~1156 167 20285166 107~1157 168 20285167 107~1158 169 20285168 107~11~9 ~.0~.34 170 20285169 107~1160 S2.0~.3, ~71 20285170 107~1161 S2.~.3, 172 20285171 107641162 ~75 20285172 107~1165 174 20285173 107~116. 175 20285174 107~1165 S2.~.3~ 176 202~175 107641166 S2.~.34 177 20285176 107641167 ~.~.34 178 20285177 107~1168 ~.~.34 179 20~5178 107~1169 S2.0~.3~ 180 20285179 107641170 S2.0~.3, ~81 2~85180 107~1171 S2.~.34 182 202~181 107~1172 183 202~182 107~1173 184 202~83 107~117. S2.~.3, 185 202~184 107~1175 S2.~.34 186 202~185 107~1176 ~.~.34 187 20285186 107~1177 S2.0~.5~ 1~ 20285187 107~1178 189 20285188 107641179 190 20284101 107~5155 S1.977.44 191 202~102 107~513. 192 20284103 107~5135 193 202~t~ 107~2107 S1.977.~ 194 202~105 107~2108 195 202~1~ 107~21~ 196 202~107 107G42110 197 202841~ 107~2111 S1.977.~ 198 202841~ po;d ~ 107642112 S1.~I.~ 199 20284110 107~2113 S1.961.49 2~ 202~111 t07~2114 S1.~1.49 201 20284112 t07~2115 S1.~1.49 202 20284113 107~2116 203 20~4114 107~2117 S1.9E1.49 204 20284115 107~2118 205 202~116 107~51~ 206 202~117 107645157 S1.~1.49 207 202~118 107~51~ S1.~1.49 '"" REA88ES8MENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL ORIGINAL APPORq'IONED CUR'RENT DATE OF' ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S RECORDING THE O~NAL NaPORTIONED REFUNDING NUMBEE PARC,CL NO. NUId~ER PARCEL NO. APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT ASSE~SSMENT ASSESSMENT 208 2028411g 107645159 $1,961.49 209 20284120 107645140 $1,961.49 210 20284121 107645141 $1,961.49 211 20284122 107642119 $1,961.49 212 20284125 107642120 $1,961.49 213 20284124 107642121 $1,961.49 214 20284125 107642122 $1,961.49 215 20284126 107642123 $1,961.49 216 20284127 107642124 $1,961.49 217 20284128 107642125 $1,961.49 218 20285201 107642126 $1,961.49 219 20285202 107642127 $1,961.49 220 20265203 Paid Off 107641190 $1,961.49 221 20285204- 107641191 $1,961.49 222 20285205 107641192 $1,981.49 223 20285206 107642128 $1,961.49 224 20285207 107642129 $1,961.49 225 20284129 1076421.10 $1.961.49 226 20284130 107842131 $1,961.49 227 20284131 107642152 $1,981.49 228 20284152 10764.2133 $1,961.49 229 20284153 107642154- $1,961.49 . 250 20284154 107642177 $1,961.49 231 20284135 107845142 232 20284156 10764.5143 $1,961.49 233 20284137 107645144. $1,961.49 254 20284158 107645145 $1,961.49 255 20284159 107645146 $1,961.49 · 236 20284140 107645147 $1.96149 237 20284159 107642155 $2,025.28 238 20284160 107642156 $2,035.26 239 20284161 107642157 $2,055.26 240 20284162 107642138 $2,053.26 241 20285208 107642159 $2,055.26 242 20285209 107642140 $2,053.26 243 20285210 107642141 $2,017.31 244 20285211 107641180 $2,017.51 245 20265212 107641181 $2,017.31 246 20285213 10764~182 $2,017.31 247 20285214 107641183 $2,017.31 248 20285215 107641184 $2,017.31 249 20285216 107641185 $2,017.31 250 20285217 107641186 ~L2,017.31 251 20285218 107641187 $2,017.51 252 20285219 1076411~8 $2,017.31 253 20265220 107641189 $2,017.31 254 20285221 Paid Off 107642150 $2,017.31 255 20285222 Paid Off 107642151 $2,017.31 256 20265223 107642152 $2,017.31 257 20285224 107642153 $2,017.31 258 20285225 107642154 259 20285226 107642155 $2,017.51 260 20285227 107642156 $2,017.31 261 20285228 107642157 $2,017.31 262 20285229 107642158 $2,017.31 263 20284163 107642159 S2,017.31 264 20284164 107642160 $2o017.51 265 20284165 107642161 266 20284166 107642162 $2,017.31 267 20284167 Paid Off 10764.2165 $2,017.51 268 20284168 107642164 $2,017.51 269 20284169 107642165 $2,017.31 270 20284170 107642166 $2,017.31 271 20284171 107642167 $2,017.31 272 20284172 107642160 $20017.31 273 20284173 107642161 ~2,017.31 274 20284174 107642162 $2,017.31 275 20284175 107642163 $2,O17.3t 276 20264176 107642164 $2,017.31 277 20284177 107642165 $2,017.51 278 20284178 107642166 $2,017.31 279 20284179 107642167 280 20277142 107646136 $2,089.07 REASSE85MENT DIAGRAM A88ESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL ORIGINAL APPORTIONED CURRENT DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSE..%"~'NT ASSESSOR'S RECORDING THE O~NAL adel~)'l~rlONED REF't~DINC NUMBER PARCEL NO. NUM~["~ PARCEL NO. ARPORqlONM£NT A.~S.eddF...NT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 281 20277143 10764~159 $2,089.07 282 20277144 107646140 $2,089.07 ' 285 20277145 107646141 $2.089.07 284 20277146 10764,6142 285 20277147 10764.6145 286 20277148 10764~14.4 287 20277149 107646145 288 20277150 10764614.6 289 20277151 107648105 $2,089.07 290 20277152 107645106 ~2,0~9.07 291 20277155 107645107 $2,075.12 292 20277154 107645108 · $2,075.12 295 20277155 107645109 $2,075.12 294 20277156 107645110 $2.075.12 295 20277157 107646111 $2,075.12 296 20277158 107645112 $2,075.12 297 20277159 107845115 $2,075.12 296 20277160 107645114 $2,075.12 299 20277161 107845115 $2,075.12 500 20277162 107645116 $2.075.12 30~ 20277165 107645117 $2.075.12 502 20277164 107645118 $2,075.12 505 20277165 107645119 $2,073.12 504 20284141 107645120 $2,075.12 ,,105 20284142 107645121 $2,075.12 506 20284145 107~.45122 $2.073.12 507 20284144 107~45125 $2,075.12 508 20284145 107645124 $2,075.12 509 20284146 107648128 $2,073.12 510 20284147 107642176 $2.075.12 311 20284148 107642175 $2,075.12 512 20284149 107642174 $2,075.12 313 20284150 107642175 $2,075.12 314 20284151 107642168 $2,073.12 515 20284152 107642169 $2.075.12 516 20284155 107642170 $2,075.12 517 20284154 107842171 $2,075.12 516 20284155 107642172 $2.075~12 519 20284156 107645126 $2,075.12 520 20284157 107645127 $2.073.12 521 20284158 107645128 $2,075.12 522 20277166 107645129 $2,075.12 325 20277167 107645150 $2,073.12 524 20277168 107845151 $2.075.12 525 20277169 107645152 $2,075.12 326 20277170 10764.6147 $2,075~12 527 20277171 1076461~8 $2.075.12 526 20277172 107846149 $2,075.12 529 20277173 107646150 $2,075.12 550 20277174 107646151 $2,075.12 551 20277175 107846152 $2.075.12 552 20277176 107646153 $2,075.12 553 20277177 10764~154 $2,075.12 554 20277178 107646155 $2.075.12 555 20277179 107646156 $2,075.12 556 20277180 107646157 $2,075.12 357 20277181 107646158 $2.075.12 558 20277101 107646101 $2.1~4.75 559 20277102 107646102 $2,184.75 5,4-0 20277105 107646105 $2,184..75 541 20277104 10784~104 $2,184..75 542 20277105 107646105 $2,184.75 545 20277106 107646106 $2,184..75 544 20277107 107646107 $2,1~4..75 545 20277108 107645101 $2.184.75 546 20277109 107645102 $2,184.75 547 20277110 107645105 $2.184.75 546 20277111 107845104 $2.184.75 549 20277112 Paid Off 107646108 $2,184.75 550 20277113 107646109 $2.184.75 551 20277114 10764611O $2. t92.75 552 20277115 107646111 $2,192.75 5§5 20277116 107646112 $2,192.73 354 20277117 107646115 $2,192.73 555 20277118 107846114 $2,192.75 REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSE MENT DISTRICT 9,4-X A~SE~SMENT ASSF..~$OR'S ASSESSME:NT ASSESSOr'S RECORDING THE ORIGINAL APPOR 1*ION E"D REFUNDING NUMB[R PJd~C[L NO. NUM~LC'R PAJ~C[L NO. APPOR'llONM£NT ASSESSMENT A.SSE~SM[NT 356 20277119 107646115 S2.192.73 357 20277120 107646116 $2.192.73 358 20277121 107646117 $2,192.73 359 20277122 107646118 $2.192.73 360 20277123 107646119 $2.192.73 361 20277124 107646120 $2,192.73 362 20277125 107646121 $2.192.73 363 20277126 107646122 $2.192.73 364 20277127 107646123 $2,192.73 365 20277128 107646124 $2,192.73 366 20277129 107646125 $2.192.73 367 20277130 107646126 $2,192.73 368 20277131 10764.6127 $2.192.73 369 20277132 107646128 $2.192.73 370 20277133 107646129 $2.192.73 371 20277134 Poid Off 107646130 $2,192.73 372 20277135 107646131 $2.192.73 373 20277136 107646132 $2.192.73 374 20277137 107646133 $2,192.73 375 20277156 1076461.~. $2,192.73 376 20277139 107646135 $2.192.73 377 20277140 $2,192.73 378 20277141 $2,192.73 379 20127163 ~.~1,..~6.06 380 20127164 Poid Off $16,042.79 381 20127165 $3,293.08 382 20127166 $5.493.78 383 20127167 $4.393.43 384 20127166 $5.493.76 385 20127169 $16,108.17 386 20127170 $4,353.56 357 20127171 387- 1 20127208 05/05/88 $27.444..97 $14.607.55 38B 20127172 3&7- 2 20127209 05/05/88 $22,826.26 $35.665.70 389 20295101 107638107 $1,507.00 390 20295102 107638106 391 20295103 107638105 $1,507.O0 392 20295104 107638104 $1,507.00 393 20295105 107638103 $1.507.00 394 20296101 107658102 $1.507.00 395 20296102 107658101 $1,507.00 396 20296103 107640105 $1,507.00 397 20296104 107640104 $1,507.00 396 20296105 107640103 $1,507.00 599 20296106 107640102 $1,507.00 400 20296107 107640101 $1,507.00 401 20296108 107639169 $1.507.00 402 20296109 107659168 $1,507.D0 403 20296110 107659167 $1,507.00 4.04 20296111 107659166 $1.507.00 4.05 20296112 1076.}9165 $1,507.00 ' 4-06 20296113 107639164 4.07 20296114 107639163 $1,507.00 4.08 20295106 107639162 $1,507.00 409 20295107 107639161 $1,514.96 410 20295108 107639160 $1,51498 411 20295109 Poid Off 107639159 $1,514.98 412 20295110 107659158 $1,514.98 413 20295111 107659157 $1,514.96 414 20295112 107659156 $1,514.98 415 20295115 107659155 $1,514.98 416 20295114 107639154. $1.514.98 417 20295115 107640186 $1.514.98 418 20295116 107640185 $1.514.98 419 20295117 107640184 $1,614.98 420 20295118 107640183 $1,514.96 421 20295119 107640182 $1.514.98 422 20295120 107640161 $1,$14.98 423 20295121 107640180 $1,614.98 424 20295122 107658116 $1,514.98 425 20295125 107658115 $1,514.98 426 20295124 107640179 $1,514.98 427 20295125 107640178 $1.514.96 426 20295126 Poid Off 107640177 $1.514.98 429 20295127 107640176 $1,514.98 430 20295128 107640175 $1,514.98 REABSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 94-X ORIGINAL ORI~NAL aPPORTIONED CURRENT D~TE OF ASSESSMENT A~SESSOR'S A.~ E~MENT A~S~SOR'S RECOROING THE ORtGINAL APPORTIONED R~FUNDING NUMBER PARCEL NO. NUMBER PARCEL NO. ARPOR~ONMENT A~'SSMENT ~E~'"'~MENT ASSESSMENT 451 20295129 107640174 {1 21496 452 20295150 10764.0175 $1214.98 435 20295153 107640172 {1214.98 434 20295152 107640171 11,514.98 455 20295151 107640170 11,514.96 456 20294101 107640169 11,514.98 457 20294102 I07640166 {1,514.98 438 20294105 10764.0167 $1214.98 439 20294104 107640166 {I~14.98 440 20294105 107640165 {1214.98 441 20294106 107640164 {1.514.96 442 20294107 107640163 11,514.98 443 2029410~ 107640162 11,514.98 444 20294109 107640161 $1214.96 445 20294110 107640160 11~14.98 446 2029411~ 107640159 {1214.96 447 20294112 107640156 {1 214.98 446 20294113 107640157 {1.514.96 449 20294114 107640156 11,514.98 450 20294115 107640155 $1,514.96 451 20294116 10764.0154 {1214.98 452 20294117 10764,0155 {1,514.96 455 20294116 107639155 S1214.96 454 20294119 107639t52 Sl,514.96 455 20294120 107659151 $1,514.98 456 20294121 107659150 {1~14.96 457 20294122 107659149 $1214.96 456 20294123 107640152 11,514.98 459 20294124 107640151 11,514.98 460 20294125 107640150 11,514.98 461 20294126 10764.0149 Sl,514.98 462 20294127 107640148 S1214.96 463 20294125 107640147 $1214.96 464 20294129 1076401&6 $1,514.98 465 20294150 107640145 $1,514.98 466 20294151 107640144 {1214.98 467 20294152 107640145 $1,514.98 468 20294155 107640142 11,514.98 469 20294154 107640141 $1,514.96 470 20294135 107640140 $1214.96 471 20294156 107640159 $1,514.98 472 20294137 107640138 $1,514.96 473 2029415~ 107640137 11.514.98 474 20294159 107640136 11,514.98 475 20294140 107640155 $1,514.96 476 2029414~ 107640154 11,514.98 477 20294142 107639148 Sl,514.96 476 20294143 107659147 $1214.96 479 2029414~ 10765914-6 11,514.96 480 20294145 107639145 11.514.98 481 20294146 I076591~4 11,514.98 482 20294147 107659145 {1,514.98 483 20294148 107639142 $1,514.96 484 20295134 107659141 {1,514.98 485 20295155 107639140 $1,514.96 486 20295156 107639139 {1~14.98 487 20295137 107639158 $1214.98 458 20295158 107639137 {1,514.98 469 20295159 107639136 {1,514.98 490 20295140 107639155 {1~14.96 491 20295141 107659154 $1,514.98 492 20295142 107659153 {1,514.98 493 20295145 107659132 11,514.98 494 2029514~ 107659151 $1214.98 495 20295145 107639130 $1,514.98 496 20295146 107659129 {1,514.96 497 20295147 107639128 {1,514.98 498 2029514~ 107659127 $1.514.98 499 20295149 Pai~ Off 107639126 $1,514.98 500 20295150 1076~9125 $1,514.98 501 20295151 107659124 $1214.98 502 20295152 107659125 11.514.98 505 20294149 I07639122 11,514.98 504 20294150 107639121 Sl,514.98 505 20294151 107639122 Sl,514.98 ---- REASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT g4-X ORICdNAL ORI~NAL N)POf~lONE~D CURRENT DATE OF ASSLr~MENT A~.~SSOR'$ AS~E.~SIdENT AS~£S~OR'$ RECORDING THE ORI~NAL APPORTIONE l:) REFUNDING NUMBER PARCEL NO NUMBER PARCEl. NO. ~,P~OR~ONMENT AS~:$SIdENT A.~SESSMENT A~SESSMENT 506 20294152 107639121 $~.514,95 507 20294153 107639120 $1.514.96 508 20295155 107639119 $1,514.98 509 2029515.4 107659116 $1,514.98 510 20295155 107659115 $1.514.98 511 20295156 107639114 $~,514.98 512 20295157 107659113 $1,514.96 513 20295158 107639112 $1,514.98 514 20295159 107639111 $1,514.98 515 20295160 107639110 $1,514.98 516 20295161 107639109 $1,514.98 517 20295162 107639108 $1,514.98 518 20295165 107659107 $1,514.98 519 20295164 107659106 $1,514.98 520 20295165 107639105 $1,514.98 521 20295166 107659104 $1,514.98 522 20295167 107659103 $1,514.98 525 20295168 I07659102 $1.514.96 524 20295169 107659101 $1,514.98 525 20295170 107640155 $1,514.98 526 20295171 107640152 $1,514.98 527 20295172 107640131 $%514.98 528 20295175 107640130 $1,514.98 529 20295174 10764.0129 $1,514.98 530 20295175 107640128 $1,514.98 §51 20295176 107640127 $1,514.98 552 20295177 107640126 $1,514.98 555 20295178 107640125 $1,514.98 55~ 20295179 107640124 $1,514.98 535 20296115 107640123 $1,514.98 536 20296115 107640122 $1,514.98 537 20295180 10764.0121 $1,514.98 558 20295181 107640120 $1.514.98 539 20295182 107640119 $1,514.98 540 20295183 107640116 $1.514.98 541 20295184 107640117 $1,514.98 542 20295185 107640116 $1,514.96 543 20295186 107640115 $1,514.98 544 20294154 107640114 $1,514.98 545 20294155 10764~115 $1,514.98 546 20294156 107640112 $1,514.98 547 20294157 107640111 $1,514.98 548 20294158 107640110 $1,514.98 549 20294159 10764.0109 $1,514.98 550 20294160 10764.0108 $1,514.98 551 20294161 107640107 $1,514.98 552 20294162 107640106 $1,514.98 553 20294165 I0765~,114 $1.514.98 554 20294164 107658115 $1,514.98 555 20294165 107658112 $1,5t4.98 556 20294166 107658111 $1,514.98 557 20294167 Poid Off 107658110 $1.514.98 558 20294168 107638109 Sl.514.g8 559 20294169 107658108 $1.514.98 $2,577,384,09 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS NO. 84-1, NO. 88-2, AND NO. 93-3. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolutions which approves the sale of the special tax refunding bonds for community facilities districts 84-1, 88-2, and 93-3. BACKGROUND: The outstanding bond issues proposed to be refunded include the following: · Community Facilities District No. 84-1 Day Creek Drainage · Community Facilities District No. 88-2 North Etiwanda Drainage · Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Foothill Marketplace The anticipated savings projected to result t¥om the refunding will be generated from several interrelated sources: 1) The existence of favorable interest rate conditions in the municipal bond market. 2) The maturity of the community facilities districts, i.e., completion of or substantial development within the districts coupled with a diversification of ownership in certain districts, which creates a better overall credit for the districts individually and collectively. 3) The proposed refunding structure which will create "coverage" of the debt service for the refunding bonds which will result in a lower overall interest cost for the refunding than could be achieved if each of the existing bond issues were refunded individually. 4) The maturity of the districts and the structural features of the refunding bond structure will enable the City to obtain mtmicipal bond insurance for a substantial portion of the refunding bonds which will result in a lower overall interest cost for the refunding than could be achieved if each of the existing bond issues were refunded individually. STAFF REPORT June 2, 1999 Page #2 The proposed refunding structure includes the issuance of bonds on two levels: the "local obligations" and the "authority bonds". The local obligations will consist of one special tax refunding bond issue for each of the community facilities districts. Each of the local obligations must comply with the requirements of the bond law which is applicable to each type of local obligation. Instead of selling the local obligations separately in the municipal bond market, it is proposed that the local obligations be sold collectively to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority. The Authority would purchase the local obligations using the proceeds of refunding revenue bonds to be sold by the Authority to the municipal bond market. As proposed the refunding has the potential of collectively saving the property owners approximately $478,000 annually over the remaining life of the bond issues. For this reason, staff is recommending approval of the attached resolution and sale of the special tax refunding bonds. ~Q/j s° un~~l~elopment Director RESOLUTION NO. ¢q-/d ~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ("City Council"), did previously conduct proceedings to form and did form a community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), said Community Facilities District designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (the "District") for the purpose of financing the construction of certain public improvements; and, WHEREAS, the District did issue its Community Facilities District No. 84-1 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Bonds of which $9,815,000 principal amount is currently outstanding (the "Prior Bonds") to finance the construction, installation and acquisition of certain public facilities and appurtenances; and WHEREAS, at this time in order to take advantage of the existence of favorable interest rates in the municipal bond market and the improved credit quality of the properties within the District securing the Prior Bonds as a result of the development, diversification of the ownership and increase in the value of such properties, the City Council desires to issue the Community Facilities District No. 84-1 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "Bonds") in order to provide the funds, together with the moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts established for the Prior Bonds, necessary to (a) defease and refund the Prior Bonds and (b) fund the costs of issuing the Bonds and certain costs of administering the Bonds and the District; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Bonds be sold by negotiated sale to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, there has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk the forms of the bond indenture by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Bond Indenture") establishing the terms and conditions pertaining to the issuance, sale and administration of the Bonds; the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement among the District, the Authority (the "Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement"), Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Facilities District No. 93-3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency; and the escrow agreement by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as escrow agent (the "Escrow Agreement"); and WHEREAS, this City Council, with the aid of City staff, has reviewed and considered the Bond Indenture, the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and finds those documents suitable for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution; and WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the bonds as contemplated by this resolution and the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed or have been ordered to have been preformed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the Act; and WHEREAS, the District desires to authorize the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the defeasance and refunding of the Prior Bonds. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. Determinations. This legislative body hereby makes the following determinations pertaining to the proposed issuance of the Bonds: A. The value of the property within District which will be subject to the special tax to pay debt service on the Bonds will be at least three (3) times the principal amount of the Bonds and the principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by a special tax levied pursuant to the Act on property within the District or a special assessment levied on property within the District; B. The sale of the Bonds at private sale to the Authority will result in a lower overall cost to the District and will result in greater overall savings to the owners of property subject to the levy of special taxes; and C. The total net interest cost to maturity on the Bonds plus the principal amount of the Bonds will exceed the total net interest cost to maturity on the Prior Bonds to be refunded plus the principal amount of the Prior Bonds to be refunded. SECTION 3. Approval of Issuance and Sale of Bonds. This City Council hereby approves the issuance and sale of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Bond Indenture and the Act. The proceeds of the Revenue Bonds may be expended to defease and refund the Prior Bonds and to pay the costs of the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 4. Bond Indenture. The form of the Bond Indemure relating to the Bonds presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The City Manager of the City and each of his specified designees (the "Authorized Officers"), acting for and on behalf of the District, are, 3 and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Bond Indenture in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 5. Sale of the Bonds. This City Council hereby authorizes and approves the sale of the Bonds by negotiation to the Authority. The form of the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District upon the execution thereof by the Authority; provided, however, that the Authorized Officer shall execute the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement only if the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds is equal to or less than $ , the purchase price for the Bonds is not less than percent (.__%) and the aggregate true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed percent (.__%) per annum and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than September 2, 20 SECTION 6. Escrow Agreement The form of the Escrow Agreement presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Escrow Agreement in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to 4 the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 7. Official Action. The Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Manager, the City Clerk, the Treasurer, the Finance Officer, any Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, for and in the name of the District, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including without limitation, the execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance, warrants and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary and advisable in order to consummate the transactions contemplated by the documents approved pursuant to this Resolution and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. In the event any such officer is unavailable or unable to execute and deliver any of the above-referenced documents, any other officer of the District may validly execute and deliver such document. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 5 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ¢~/~ 7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ("City Council"), did previously conduct proceedings to form and did form a community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), said Community Facilities District designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES NO. 88-2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (the "District") for the purpose of financing the construction of certain public improvements; and, WHEREAS, the District did issue its Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Bonds of which $2,920,000 principal amount is currently outstanding (the "Prior Bonds") to finance the construction, installation and acquisition of certain public facilities and appurtenances; and WHEREAS, at this time in order to take advantage of the existence of favorable interest rates in the municipal bond market and the improved credit quality of the properties within the District securing the Prior Bonds as a result of the development, diversification of the ownership and increase in the value of such properties, the City Council desires to issue the Community Facilities District No. 88-2 Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 1999 (the "Bonds") in order to provide the funds, together with the moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts established for the Prior Bonds, necessary to (a) defease and refund the Prior Bonds 1 and (b) fund the costs of issuing the Bonds and certain costs of administering the Bonds and the District; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Bonds be sold by negotiated sale to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, there has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk the forms of the bond indenture by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Bond Indenture") establishing the terms and conditions pertaining to the issuance, sale and administration of the Bonds; the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement among the District, the Authority (the "Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement"), Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage Channel) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Facilities District No. 93-3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency; and the escrow agreement by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as escrow agent (the "Escrow Agreement"); and WHEREAS, this City Council, with the aid of City staff, has reviewed and considered the Bond Indenture, the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and finds those documents suitable for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution; and WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the bonds as contemplated by this resolution and the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed or have been ordered to have been preformed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the Act; and WHEREAS, the District desires to authorize the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the defeasance and refunding of the Prior Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. Determinations. This legislative body hereby makes the following determinations pertaining to the proposed issuance of the Bonds: A. The value of the property within District which will be subject to the special tax to pay debt service on the Bonds will be at least three (3) times the principal amount of the Bonds and the principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by a special tax levied pursuant to the Act on property within the District or a special assessment levied on property within the District; B. The sale of the Bonds at private sale to the Authority will result in a lower overall cost to the District and will result in greater overall savings to the owners of property subject to the levy of special taxes; and C. The total net interest cost to maturity on the Bonds plus the principal amount of the Bonds will exceed the total net interest cost to maturity on the Prior Bonds to be refunded plus the principal amount of the Prior Bonds to be refunded. SECTION 2. Approval of Issuance and Sale of Bonds. This City Council hereby approves the issuance and sale of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Bond Indenture and the Act. The proceeds of the Revenue Bonds may be expended to defease and refund the Prior Bonds and to pay the costs of the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 3. Bond Indenture. The form of the Bond Indenture relating to the Bonds presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The City Manager of the City and each of his specified designees (the "Authorized Officers"), acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Bond Indenture in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 4. Sale of the Bonds. This City Council hereby authorizes and approves the sale of the Bonds by negotiation to the Authority. The form of the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District upon the execution thereof by the Authority; provided, however, that the Authorized Officer shall execute the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement only if the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds is equal to or less than $ , the purchase price for the Bonds is not less than percent (.__%) and the aggregate true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed percent (.__%) per annum and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than September 2, 20 4 SECTION 5. Escrow Agreement The form of the Escrow Agreement presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Escrow Agreement in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 6. Official Action. The Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Manager, the City Clerk, the Treasurer, the Finance Officer, any Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, for and in the name of the District, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including without limitation, the execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance, warrants and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary and advisable in order to consummate the transactions contemplated by the documents approved pursuant to this Resolution and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. In the event any such officer is unavailable or unable to execute and deliver any of the above-referenced documents, any other officer of the District may validly execute and deliver such document. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. /¢7 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 6 RESOLUTION NO. ~}q'- ]~ g RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF A BOND INDENTURE, ACQUIRED OBLIGATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ("City Council"), did previously conduct proceedings to form and did form a community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), said Community Facilities District designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES NO. 93-3 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (the "District") for the purpose of financing the construction of certain public improvements; and, WHEREAS, the District did issue its Community Facilities District No. 93-3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Tax Bonds of which $4,505,000 principal amount is currently outstanding (the "Prior Bonds") to finance the construction, installation and acquisition of certain public facilities and appurtenances; and WHEREAS, at this time in order to take advantage of the existence of favorable interest rates in the municipal bond market and the improved credit quality of the properties within the District securing the Prior Bonds as a result of the development, diversification of the ownership and increase in the value of such properties, the City Council desires to issue the Community Facilities District No. 93-3 Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 1999 (the 156 1 "Bonds") in order to provide the funds, together with the moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts established for the Prior Bonds, necessary to (a) defease and refund the Prior Bonds and (b) fund the costs of issuing the Bonds and certain costs of administering the Bonds and the District; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Bonds be sold by negotiated sale to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, there has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk the forms of the bond indenture by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as fiscal agent (the "Bond Indenture") establishing the terms and conditions pertaining to the issuance, sale and administration of the Bonds; the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement among the District, the Authority (the "Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement"), Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage Channel) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Facilities District No. 88-2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency; and the escrow agreement by and between the District and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as escrow agent (the "Escrow Agreement"); and WHEREAS, this City Council, with the aid of City staff, has reviewed and considered the Bond Indenture, the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and finds those documents suitable for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution; and WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the bonds as contemplated by this resolution and the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed or have been ordered to have been preformed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the Act; and WHEREAS, the District desires to authorize the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the defeasance and refunding of the Prior Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND DETERMINED: SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. Determinations. This legislative body hereby makes the following determinations pertaining to the proposed issuance of the Bonds: A. The value of the property within District which will be subject to the special tax to pay debt service on the Bonds will be at least three (3) times the principal amount of the Bonds and the principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by a special tax levied pursuant to the Act on property within the District or a special assessment levied on property within the District; B. The sale of the Bonds at private sale to the Authority will result in a lower overall cost to the District and will result in greater overall savings to the owners of property subject to the levy of special taxes; and C. The total net interest cost to maturity on the Bonds plus the principal amount of the Bonds will exceed the total net interest cost to maturity on the Prior Bonds to be refunded plus the principal amount of the Prior Bonds to be refunded. SECTION 2. Approval of Issuance and Sale of Bonds. This City Council hereby approves the issuance and sale of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Bond Indenture and the Act. The proceeds of the Revenue Bonds may be expended to defease and refund the Prior Bonds and to pay the costs of the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 3. Bond Indenture. The form of the Bond Indenture relating to the Bonds presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The City Manager of the City and each of his specified designees (the "Authorized Officers"), acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Bond Indenture in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 4. Sale of the Bonds. This City Council hereby authorizes and approves the sale of the Bonds by negotiation to the Authority. The form of the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute the Acquired Obligation Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District upon the execution thereof by the Authority; provided, however, that the Authorized Officer shall execute the Acquired Obligations Purchase Agreement only if the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds is equal to or less than $ , the purchase price for the Bonds is not less than percent ( %) and the aggregate true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed percent (.__%) per annum and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than September 2, 20 SECTION 5. Escrow Agreement The form of the Escrow Agreement presented at this meeting is hereby approved. The Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Escrow Agreement in substantially the form approved hereby, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve as being in the best interests of the District, and as approved as to form by the legal advisor to the District or his specified designee and bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof by such Authorized Officer. SECTION 6. Official Action. The Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Manager, the City Clerk, the Treasurer, the Finance Officer, any Authorized Officers, acting for and on behalf of the District, are, and each of them is, hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, for and in the name of the District, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including without limitation, the execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance, warrants and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary and advisable in order to consummate the transactions contemplated by the documents approved pursuant to this Resolution and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. In the event any such officer is unavailable or unable to execute and deliver any of the above-referenced documents, any other officer of the District may validly execute and deliver such document. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 1999, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - General Plan Amendment Policies & Moratorium Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: On May 19, 1999, the General Plan Update Task Force reviewed a recommendation from the Planning Commission to establish a General Plan land use amendment (GPA) moratorium for specified areas of the City and for sites greater than 10 acres in size. The Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council continue its present policy of reviewing land use amendment applications. BACKGROUND: One of the objectives in the General Plan Update was to complete the project in 15 months. A primary factor in suggesting a moratorium was to minimize the complicating and time consuming effects that land use amendment requests will have on the comprehensive land use evaluation of the Update. The project consultants will be studying the General Plan area (including the Sphere of Influence) as a whole, and in some cases, small areas of special interest. The land use relationships will be pivotal in their environmental analysis as it addresses public health, safety and welfare issues. The complexity of reviewing and balancing numerous land use change requests against the backdrop of the comprehensive plan analysis could affect the City's land use and environmental determinations. After discussion from the public, including the Baldy View chapter of the Building Industry Association, and individual developers affected by the proposed moratorium, the Task Force recommended against the Planning Commission proposed moratorium. Also, issues concerning the potential for delays in the General Plan Update progress and additional project costs due to GPA actions were noted during the discussion. The Task Force believed that some additional time and costs (to be borne by private GPA proponents) would be outweighed by the benefits of allowing land use discussions to proceed normally. · ,. J CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE June 2, 1999 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: Written correspondence was received from the Building Industry Association regarding this matter and is attached to the General Plan Update Task Force staff report and those who spoke at the meeting are listed in the attached Task Force minutes. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Update staff report and attachments, May 19, 1999 Exhibit "B" - Draft Task Force Minutes of May 19, 1999 cc: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director CITY OF RANCHO CUC,~MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 19, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the General Plan Update Task Force FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: At its April 14 and May 11, 1999, meetings, the Planning Commission considered various policies to limit General Plan Amendments (GPAs) during the General Plan Update process. The Planning Commission recommended, unanimously, that the staff proposals contained in the May 11 staff report be applied to requests for general plan land use amendment requests (refer to attached staff report). CORRESPONDENCE: Bradley V. Mitzelfelt, Deputy Director of the B.I.A. Baldy View Chapter spoke in opposition to any moratorium. A letter outlining his concerns was sent to the City on May 13, 1999 and is attached to this report. Because of the late submittal of his letter, staff is responding under separate cover and will forward our response to the Task Force before your meeting on May 19, 1999. RECOMMENDATION: If the Task Force concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, it would be appropriate for the Task Force to forward a similar recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:AW:Is Attachments: Planning Commission staff report, May 12, 1999 Letter from B.I.A. ..2 /'- CITY OF RANCHO C[.I~,' tONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 12, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: At the meeting on April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission discussed various policies (Exhibit "B") to limit General Plan land use amendments during the process of the General Plan Update program. The discussion focused on the three staff recommended scenarios as follows: 1. Establish a site-specific moratorium on General Plan Amendments (GPAs) during the entire update process as established by State law. 2. Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until a draft General Plan Update is endorsed by the City. Following that, allow those GPAs which are consistent with the Draft General Plan to proceed through the amendment process. GPA requests that are not consistent would be denied without prejudice to reapply after the General Plan is formally adopted. The consultant expects to have a draft General Plan ready for City consideration by mid-September 1999. 3. In addition to Nos. 1 and 2, a deadline for land use amendments requested for consideration within the General Plan Update process should be established. Such a policy may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan alternatives. Staff recommended a deadline of May 12, 1999, for such proposals and requiring the payment of the established GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan Update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. The resultant analysis would be used in formulating alternative land use plans. The Planning Commissioners' discussion focused on use issues as they would be applied to the General Plan Update. Rather than any staff-recommended site specific moratorium, the Commission felt that limiting the amount of commercial land use changes (plus or minus acreage) was one of the key concerns during the update process. After discussions between Planning staff and the City Attorney's office, the City Attorney advised against limiting land use amendments to only specific land use categories. In light of further discussions with the City Attorney, staff again suggests that the Planning Commission consider area-wide moratoriums based on land use issues in specific areas of the City. Since any land use change has the potential to affect neighboring areas regardless of their land use designation, the City may wish to delay formal consideration of any land use changes in areas where commercial development requests are anticipated. PLANNING COMMISSIOI' -AFF REPORT GPA UPDATE/POLICIES May 12, 1999 Page 2 There are three designated areas where significant land use redes/gnat/on for commercial activities has been discussed: A. The area around the mall site between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard east of the 1-15 Freeway and west of Rochester Avenuebecause of the enhancement of the 1-15 Freeway on/off ramps and large amounts of vacant land. B. Generally, area on either side of the 1-15 Freeway from Summit Avenue to Arrow Route, and the area on either side of the Foothill Freeway Corridor from Haven Avenue to the 1-15 Freeway Staff believes that land adjacent to these very significant transportation corridors are potentially critical commercial windows to our community and have been subject to land use change discussions in the past. Staff has defined this area as: 1. The area 600 feet west of the Haven/Highland Avenues intersection, east to the 1-15 Freeway, north of the freeway corridor in line with (and east/west extension of) Lemon Avenue, south of the freeway corridor in line with Highland Avenue, and 2. The area 2,000 feet west of the 1-15 Freeway between the northern City limit and Arrow Route and between Miller Avenue and Foothill Boulevard west of Eftwanda Avenue. C. The area on the south side of Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route between the Deer Creek Channel and the !-15 Freeway - This area, like the two freeway corridors, has been discussed in the recent past and continues to be subject to requests for major land use changes of commercial character. Again, because any land use change has the potential to significantly affect neighboring properties, staff recommends that any moratoriums apply to all land use change requests within the recommended moratorium areas. Finally, staff also suggests that a 10-acre maximum be established on all GPAs not covered by the selected area moratoriums. Hopefully this approach will limit the need to amend the General Plan Update/EIR contract to readjust the costly consultant data .qathering and analysis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider endorsing the following changes to the current GPA policies: 1. A designated area moratorium on all General Plan land use amendments, in conjunction with a 10-acre maximum site limitation moratorium in all other areas, as authorized by the State Government Code. 2. The payment of the current GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan Update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. 3. This policy is to be applied to all GPA applications not considered complete by May 12, 1999. 4. Any General Plan land use amendment application will be evaluated with the draft General Plan Update (after it receives General Plan Update Task Force endorsement), for compliance with the draft plan's recommended land use policies. PLANNING COMMISSIOn' 'AFF REPORT GPA UPDATE/POLICIES May 12, 1999 Page 3 The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the General Plan Update Task Force and ultimately to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW:Is Attachment: Exhibit"A" - Proposed Moratorium Areas Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 14, 1999 VICINITY MAP Moratorium Areas '' """'"" """" '"""' '""" '""""' '""" ':':':':':':':':':':':':"'""""'"";':':':':':':':':':' ':':':':':':':':':':':'":':'""':':':':':':':':'":'~1~':':':' ' C,.a~an I'.'.'.':':':':':-:':-:':':.:.:.:-:.:.'.'.'.'.'.',':':'.":';,;,~_":· ':':':':-:.:,:.:':,:':':.:-:.:.: I I.:.:':-: I:..........................:.:.:.:.:.:..' '~'" _..............:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.1 ~.......... :':':':':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':'"~ I':':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'.'.':'.':' :':':':-. w~.~ ,, :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , ".:.:.:~:.::':':':':':':':':':':'~'j:' ======================================= :"':' Al~,q" D. i" - '"' '"'~'t ' ~-:.:.'.':':':':':':':':':':-:': r.:.:-:.:., ~ .. _..........~ ~ ...... ':.1,,:.,, ...,~.._,[; ............ ;:..;..::.:.::..~,:,~,,,, ~,,...-.,~ I CiTY OF RANCHO CUC(~ IONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: April 14, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: During the General Plan update process, consultants will be gathering information about the community and analyzing potential alternatives and their anticipated impacts. This work, at some point, must be able to develop a preferred alternative for the General Plan Update. Developer initiated General Plan Amendments (GPA) can significantly impact the review and approval process. If these amendments are considered during the General Plan Update they would complicate and fragment the consultant's work products. Attached is a listing of those amendments which are in process and those that staff anticipates may be filed in the near future (Exhibit "A"). Staff recommends that the City consider establishing a policy regarding General Plan Land Use Amendment requests during the update process from the following options: 1. Continue to allow GPA applications to proceed as normally scheduled during the City's established GPA cycles. Presently the City has established regularly scheduled cycles for GPA review and action as follows: The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of January. The deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., November 15, of the preceding year. The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of May. The deadline for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m., March 15, of the same year. The 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of September. The deadline for submittal shall be not later than 5:00 p.m., July 15, of the preceding year. One floating date which may be scheduled as necessary by the City Council or Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIOI~' 'AFF REPORT GPA POLICY April 14, 1999 Page 2 2. Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. 3. Establish a site specific moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. 4. Establish a site specific and acreage limitation (10 acres) moratorium on GPAs during the entire update process as established by State law. 5. Establish a city-wide moratorium on all GPAs until an interim General Plan update is endorsed by the City and then allow those GPAs which are consistent with the Draft General Plan to proceed through the amendment process. GPA requests that are not consistent would be denied without prejudice to reapply after the General Plan is formally adopted. The consultant expects to have a draft General Plan ready for City consideration by mid September 1999. 6. In addition to Nos. 2 through 5, a deadline for land use amendments requested for consideration within the General Plan update process should be established. Such a policy may allow for some land use questions to be included and analyzed in the draft General Plan alternatives. Staff recommends a deadline of May 12, 1999, for such proposals and requiring the payment of the established GPA fee plus a consultant time and material fee to cover added General Plan update costs due to expanded analysis by the consultant. The resultant analysis would be used in formulating alternative land use plan(s). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select from Options No. 2 through 6. Staff prefers Option No. 3, and secondly Option No. 6. Option No. I could easily complicate the process of updating the Genera[ Plan. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:AW/mlg Attachment:: Exhibit"A" - Pending and Proposed GPA Applications PENDING AND PROPOSED GPA APPLICATION~ (Refer to attached map for locations) Presently there are three GPA's in progress as follows: 1. GPA 99-01 (Medium to Low-Medium) at the northeast corner of Highland and Lemon Avenues has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and is scheduled for City Council consideration on April 21, 1999. 2. GPA 99-02 (Low to Low-Medium) for 5.1 acres at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue is to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1999. 3. GPA 98-02 (Medium, Medium-High and Regionally Related Commercial to Low-Medium) for 192 acres north of the Victoria Mall site is tentatively scheduled to be forwarded to the Planning Commission in mid-June 1999. These three projects will easily fit into the consultant's draft General Plan and their inclusion should not create any significant difficulties. Staff has had discussion with development representatives on potential GPA applications at the following locations: 4. Office to Commercial at the northwest intersection of Haven Avenue and the Route 30 freeway. 5. Low-Medium to Commercial at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the Route 30 freeway. Medium to Low-Medium east of the future Day Creek Boulevard on the north side of Base Line Road. 7. Medium to Low-Medium at the southwest intersection of East Avenue and the I-15 Freeway and Low-Medium to Medium between Etiwanda and East Avenues, north of the commercial land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. 8 Low-Medium to Commercial or Office for land adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway, north of the commercial land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. 9. Industrial Park to Low-Medium for about 18 acres south of the intersection of 6th Street and Archibald Avenue adjacent to the existing Griffin residential development. 10. Industrial Park to Residential for land around the golf course at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue. These projects may cause significant difficulties depending on when they are formally submitted. The next Planning Commission GPA cycle is for September 22, 1999 (filing deadline is July 15, 1999), which is after the anticipated completion of the draft General Plan. EXHIBIT "A" Pending and Proposed GPA Applications ,"J-i ' I I I i ! ./'i ! I ...;. -.~.; ....,,... .;--;; -',.. :.~--.. :...;.::...-.?.:: .:.'. .? ;.;.. ,......'.. , ;;-::"-":::'-;'"-'-- ' .?.:,,:x..:,~:~:;.~:. ..~~ S~ere of Influence '"'"'"'-";'-' :' "' = Major Ro~d~ · . O.S 0 0.5 1 Mlle~ May-13-99 11:13A BIA-Baldy View Chapter 9099489631 P.02 Biff Baldy View Chapter May 13, 1999 ,,r.~.,,f,...,, ,,~,.,~,~,, Pl~ing Co,mission C.lifi,rniu 917~ City of R~cho ~c~onga I~ ~ t~9. qqK.gfz:[ I 10500 Civic ~nter Drive ~cho Cuc~onga. CA 91730 Dc~ Mcmbc: of&c Pl~g Co~i~on: Follo~ng ~e ~en commenm ~d questions ~ I i~icated would ~ provided subsequent m my o~ presentation ~fore ~e Co~i~ion May 12. We requested ~at ~s item ~ ~ntinued due to the !hct ~t we had received late notice, · e f~t ~at the commit,on agenda did not mention ~e word "moratod~." ~d ~e fact ~t key B[A execufiv: ~ o~cers ~e aReriding a conference in W~hington, D.C. ~d ~ ~av~lable to p~icipam in this discos,on at ~is time. With reg~d to notice, co~i~ion ~d st~alluded to ~e fact ~at o~ ~iation has ~eived ~ple notice on this issue over the p~t month. To ~ best of my knowledge, om ~ciation ~ not i~o~ed ofa pm~ mom~ri~ ~til last week. I re~v~ my copy of the st~ m~m on ~e day of thk com~ssion m~ting. I should ~t out ~t ~e ~mmJmion agen~ ~ys nothing ors pro,seal moramfi~; it only lists ~tis ~ a "Director's re~" on "General l'l~ Amendraft policies." In light of these rams, · e Commission should take no action at this time. S~ing to ~e is~ of~e ~pro~l. I offer ~e follo~ng ~ents ~d q~iom: I. A moratorium requires findings ~t indicate how the target~ proposed will result ~ ~ c~ent ~d immediate t~at to ~e public he~, ~fety ~d welf~e. (Go~. Code Section 6585g(c)). A GPA is not a "urn" but a }~d use desig~tion. ~crefore, it ~y ~ appropriate to deny a su~rdinate !~d use entitlement, e.g., a petit, which will result in a "use" but not a GPA. Still, the findings ~e require. 2. How is it ~t the cu~nt ~se will not result in a c~ent ~d immediate ~eat to ~e public health, ~fety, ~d weif~e but a GPA ~tl7 RECEIVED: 5-13-9g; 10:07; gOg9489631 => R CUCAUONGA COil DEV; #3 May-13-99 11:13A BIA-Baldy View Chapter 90~489631 P.03 Plarming Commission/May 13, 1999 Page 2 3. If inconsistencies wi~h a general plan always constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, why are inconsistent uses legally permitted to be grandfathercd in? 4. The moratorium should specifically exempt any project for which a complete tentative map application has been submitted. (Govl. Code Section 66474.2). 5. Projects which would be consistent w/th the Draft General Plan Update should be exempt fi'om the moratorium in order to comply with die requirements mcntioncd in #1 above. 6. What is the purpose of the 10 acre exemption? This seems somewhat arbitrazy. According to the staff report, "...staff suggests that a 10-acre maximum be established on all GPAs not covered by the selected area moratori~s. Itopefully this approach will limit the need to amend the General Plan UpdateffEIR contract to readjust the costly consultant data gathering and analys.;s." If I read this correctly, cost is the primary concern. if this is so, why not collect fcc deposits from applicants to cover these additional costs? Also, ifcost is the primary concern, how does this meet the requirements of a finding of current a~d immediate threats to public health, safety and welfare? 7. Finally, I would urge that the city avoid the term "moratorium" in this endeavor. The city should not underestimate the negative image this refiee.~ a city. As we regularly communicate with over 4,000 companies wc have found that when a city imposes any kind of moratorium, the initial reaction by most is to ask wfta( is wrong w/th the city in question. This negative image affects a city's commercial and industrial as well as residential markctability. Again, we request tlmt you take no action on this proposal at this time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bradley V. Mitzelfeh Deputy Director CC: Frank L. Williams, Execulivc Officer DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only May 19, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TASK FORCE MINUTES Special Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Task Force meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tri-Communities Conference Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Paul Biane led the Task Force in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present were Task Force Members: Council Members Paul Biane and Bob Dutton; Planning Commissioners Rich Macias and John Mannerino; Park and Recreation Commissioners Gary Bemis and Martin Dickey Staff present were: Brad Buller, City Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; and Alan Warren, Associate Planner B. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 14, 1999, were approved by the Task Force. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MORATORIUM Chairman Biane opened the meeting and requested a presentation. Brad Buller, City Planner, said that the Planning Commission and staff at the request of the Task Force has considered alternative methods of reviewing projects as the City is going through the General Plan Update, This includes the option of a moratorium. Mr. Buller also gave an update as to what current General Plan applications were in process. The Planning Commission has looked at the applications and they support the idea of limiting the number of amendments to the General Plan during the update process. Chairman Biane raised concern with delays in the completion of the General Plan Update and any potential developers request. Mr. Buller said that Council gave staff direction to minimize the time for completing the General Plan Update (15 months). He noted that delays could be experienced by both the project applicants and the City's update. Currently, the City limits General Plan Amendments to 3 times a year by public request, and 1 time is a floater. The next submittal deadline is July 15, 1999 for anything to be considered in the next General Plan cycle. Depending on what applications, how many and when they are submitted it may not cause delays to either. GPU Task Force Minutes May 19, 1999 /~_~ ~ DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Councilmember Bob Dutton said he thought it was an overreaction to have a moratorium. He was concerned that we remain upfront with everybody trying to do business in the City. He felt that it would be beneficial to the City if developers want to go through the extra effort in participating in the General plan process, that we should not have a moratorium. He felt that would penalize a lot of people. Chairman Biane asked with regard to any of the projects that are pending if there would be re- zoning problems with the properties. Mr. Buller explained that staff moved into the General Plan Update based on Commission and Council discussion, and he did not see this update to be anything where we would make major changes to land uses. We wanted to make sure that we were going in the right direction, and possibly make some minor adjustment as needed. Commissioner Dickey asked the question as to whether Mr. Buller had an opinion on the government code section cited by BIA. Mr. Buller indicated yes he had an opinion, but that City Attorney James Markman said he would give his legal opinion. Mr. Markman indicated that when you are reconsidering zoning on a specific physical area of the City at the same time private developers are suggesting re-zoning general plan changes and you have a possibility of mixing up uses. For the general welfare of the City and developers it is valid to consider freezing the development process at some level, and if Council directed it to be done, staff would present a va~id ordinance to the Council. Chairman Biane opened the meeting up for public comments. Bruce Strickland, Griffen Homes, spoke about property in the southwest part of the City and while they were processing their application and doing the environmental impact report he felt there was a significant fiscal impact pending what would happen during this general plan process. He said his concern is that while you have an aggressive schedule, it can be cumbersome while you get public input. He said that we should have some sort of mechanism in place that possibly the size of the restriction of the project be reconsidered, or possibly consider this on a case-by-case basis and thus allow him to present his case. Frank Williams, Building Industry Association, said that the worse thing you could do is create a moratorium. Mr. Williams said he heard about the possibility of a moratorium from 4 bankers in the City, and they were concerned about investing money in the City. He also said a moratorium damages the credibility of the elected officials. Mr. Williams said that a moratorium is a very drastic action that the City could take and that the City should continue with what is in place and the Council has the power to approve or deny projects. Jack Shine, American Beauty, said he agreed that a moratorium was not the way to go. He said there are 2 levels of decision making with the Planning Commission and the City Council already in place. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, indicated that depending on how many Amendment requests are filed and when they are filed it could have an affect on the CEQA review. He explained the process and the schedule for preparing the preferred plan and how future amendment requests might cause delays in that process. GPU Task Force Minutes - 2 - Ma~/19, 1999 DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Commissioner Dickey agreed that a moratorium was not needed and there was a precess in place and that we should continue in that direction. Commissioner Macias said the Planning Commission was mainly concerned with maintaining the integrity of the process. He felt that we do need to drew the line and we don't want is an infringement on the environmental review process and have to revise the impact analysis, alternatives etc. He also said he thought we should only consider a moratorium for those projects that constitute a regional significance whereby SCAG would be obligated to respond to and consider. Commissioner Mannerino said that he has said publicly before that he saw no reason why projects, which involve land use changes, could not be considered on a project-by-project basis. He said that he initially voted to support the resolution by the Planning Commission because of consideration with regard to additional time and funds spent by staff in precessing the requests for general plan amendments that might be forseebly turned down. He said he feels assured by staff that staff time is not burdensome. Councilmember Dutton said he was not in favor of a moratorium and that from a Council perspective he is interested in stimulating economic development in our community and not hampering it. Chairman Biane said he felt that staff and the Planning Center are up to the challenge and that when we have an environmental concern, we will address it then. Chairman Biane agreed that a moratorium is not the right way to go. Mr. Warren added that if applicants are in a hurry and don't want to wait for the general plan environmental process, and if they want to independently do their own environmental study then it has to solely stand on its own. The Task Force voted against the Planning Commission's recommendation for a proposed moratorium. 4-1 Macias voting no. 3. PROGRESS REPORT (ORAL) Staff presented a brief progress report. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No additional items were identified. GPU Task Force Minutes - 3 - May 19, 1999 ,/7/ E. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no communications from the public. F. ADJOURNMENT The General Plan Update Task Force adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only GPU Task Force Minutes - 4 - May 19, 1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William N. Makshanoff, Building and Safety Official SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE LOCATED AT 8786 CENTER STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ENR!QUE ESPINOZA, SR. OWNER This property was brought to the attention of the Building & Safety Division on June 22, 1998 by the Sheriffs Department. In response to the Sheriffs Department referral a visit to the site was made on June 23, 1998. A conversation took place with Luciano Espinoza, a son representing his father, the property owner, and a notice was left for the property owner to contact the Building and Safety Division. An inspection of the property took place on July 23, 1998 with Mr. Enrique Espinoza St. At no time did Building and Safety Staff state that Mr. Enrique Espinoza, St. would have to vacate the primary residence on the property. The meeting on July 23, 1998 was only to inspect the various out buildings constructed on the property without the proper permits and inspections. On September 30, 1998, following written correspondence and verbal discussions, a meeting took place on the site with Mr. Enrique Espinoza Jr. representing his father, and Carlos Silva, Senior Building Inspector, Allen Brock, Plan Check Manager and myself representing the city. The discussion revolved around the city's concem for fire and life safety including the structural, electrical and plumbing integrity, and setbacks of the out buildings. The matter was referred to the City Prosecutor's office on October 26, 1998 when it became apparent that the property owner was not attempting to correct the violations. Mr. Enrique Espinoza Sr. received a letter dated November 18, 1998 scheduling an office conference with the City Prosecutor on December 17, 1998. At the office conference Mr. Enrique Espinoza, Sr. agreed to bring the property into conformance, submit plans and begin the process to obtain the necessary permits by January 19, 1999. A Mr. Michael Stevens who identified himself as a draftsman representing Mr. Enrique Espinosa, Sr. contacted Carlos Silva in the Building and Safety Division to discuss the preparation of plans. Mr. Silva suggested that Mr. Stevens visit the site for the purpose of inspecting the structures in question and taking the appropriate measurements for the preparation of plans. At no time did Mr. Silva suggest to Mr. Stevens that the only resolution was removal of the structures as stated by Mr. Enrique Espinosa, Jr. in his letter to the City Council. Subsequently we received a letter from Mr. Enrique Espinoza Jr. stating that Mr. Stevens would not be preparing the plans. When it became apparent that Mr. Enrique Espinoza, Sr. would not be complying with the agreement he made in the office conference with the City Prosecutor, /7,3 STAFF REPORT: 8687 Center Street June 2, 1999 Page 2 misdemeanor charges were filed in Municipal Court. A letter dated March 3, 1999 was sent to Mr. Enrique Espinoza, Sr. directing him to appear in the West Valley Municipal Court on March 23, 1999. Attached to this report are copies of pictures with descriptions of the structures and violations in question taken on September 30, 1998. Also attached are copies of correspondence referenced in this report and a copy of the referral from the Sheriffs Department. Respectfully submitted, William N. Makshanoff Building and Safety Official WNM:lc Attachments ;Condition; )el'i -- T H E C I T Y 0 F Enrique P. and lsidora T. Espinoza 8786 Center St. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 RE: Substandard conditions at property located at 8786 Center St., Rancho Cucamonga, California APN: 209-104-31 "LETTER OF NOTICE" Recently, it has come to the attention of this division that the dwelling located al 8786 Cenler St., Rancho Cucamonga, California, which is apparently owned by you, exists in a substa,~dard condition due to: 1. Two to three room additions at the rear of the main structure built witht)ul the bcnclit of permits. 2. A partial garage conversion to habitable space without beuelit ol'permits. 3. An on-going conversion of the remainder of the garage to storage space without benefit of permits. 4. The usage of a small detached structure at the northwest portion ofthe property Ibr occupancy. ' 5. Exterior electrical installations without the benefit of permits. · 6. Said electrical installed in violation of the National Electric Code and contrary to approved installation practices. The current codes and ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga require that we take certain legal steps to abate these conditions. You are therefore required to: 1. Submit plans and obtain the required permits lbr all conditions cited no later than August 31, 1998, and complete all work within thirty (30) days t¥om date of permit issuance on Mayor Willlorn J. Alexan, der t~.../..~ Cour'~cilmer~d:;er ~,JlJl Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Williams Councilrnembe~ Bob Dullon Jack Lain, AIC~ City Manager Councilmember James V 105~Civic Center Ddve · P.O. Box 807 · Rancl~o Cucamonga. CA 91729 * (909) 4T/ 270(I · fAX (q09) 4/7~2849 August 11, 1998 page 2 2. Submit copies of county permits substantiating the cxisting strutlures or, 3. Convert garage structure back to its original use by removing all initriot walls and removing all electrical and plumbing fixtures. 4. Remove all exterior mounted electrical. 5. Remove the detached structure at the northwest portion o l'the property. 6. Raze/remove the two to three additions a the rear of the main struclt~rc. Failure to comply with above time li'ame will result in this office forwarding the case on to the City Prosecutor for action. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at 909/477-2710, extension 2223. Respectfully submitted, Community Development Department Building and Safety Division Carlos H. Silva, Sr. Senior Building Inspector CHS:dm T H E C I T Y 0 F A N C H0 C U C A ]vl 0 N G A September 21, 1998 Enrique P. and Isidora T. Espinoza 8786 Center Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Substandard conditions at property located at 8786 Center St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA APN: 209-104-31 "FINAL NOTICE" Recently, it has come to the attention of this division that the property located at 8786 Center St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, which is apparently owned by you, exists in a substandard and/or dangerous condition due to: 1. Two to three room additions at the rear of the main structure built without the benefit of permits. 2. A partial garage conversion to habitable space without benefit of permits. 3. An on-going conversion of the remainder of the garage to storage space without benefit of permits. 4. The usage of a small detached structure at the northwest portion of the property fro occupancy. 5. Exterior electrical installations without the benefit of permits. 6. Said electrical installed in violation of the National Electric Code and contrary to approved installation practices. The current codes and ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga require that we take certain legal steps to abate these conditions. You are therefore required to: 1. Submit plans and obtain the required permits for all conditions cited no later than October 5, 1998, and complete all work within thirty (30) days form date of permit issuance or, 2. Submit copies of county permits substantiating the existing structures, or 3. Convert garage structure back to its original use by removing all interior walls and removing all electrical and plumbing fixtures. 4. Remove all exterior mounted electrical. Mayor William J. Alexander ,.~ Councilmember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Diane Williams Councilmember Bob Dutton Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Councilmember James V. Curatalo 10500 Civic Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamongo, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 / 5. Remove the detached structure at the northwest portion of the property. 6. Raze/remove the two to three additions at the rear of the main structure. Failure to comply with above time frame will result in this office forwarding the case on to the City Prosecutor for action. No further notice will be given prior to the filing of said complaint. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at 909/477-2710, extension 2223. Respectfully Submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building and Safety Division Carlos H. Silva, Sr. Senior Building Inspector CHS:mb T H E C I T Y O F A N C H 0 C U C A H 0 N G A OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR November 18, 1998 '~' ~'~..... Enrique P. and Isidora T. Espinoza ~ o /.9~J~? / 8786 Center Street '-c--L/r~" o~ -~-,~_. ,. ! Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ""~"~'~'~?lo~ Dear Mr. and Mrs. Espinoza: It has come to the attention of the Office of City Prosecutor that you are in violation of sections 301.1,302.2 and 305.5 of the Uniform Administrative Code and 1001.14 of the Uniform Housing Code (as adopted by section 15.04.010 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, California Building Code, 1995 Vol. I and the Uniform Housing Code, 1994 Edition) in that you are unlawfully failing to obtain required permits, failing to submit plans and specifications and failing to schedule the required inspections for the addition of two (2) rooms at the rear and the garage conversion and you are unlawfully utilizing a building in a manner other than what it was designed for at the property known as 87'86 Center Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Despite attempts by the City to secure your cooperation, this problem still exists. Prior to the possible filing of a criminal complaint against you for your failure to comply with these ordinances, (which may result in the payment of a fine and/or a term of summary probation), an office conference has been arranged to discuss the matter. The time chosen for either you personally to be present or a representative on your behalf is 11:00 A.M. in my office located in City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, on Thursday, December 17', 1998. If this time is inconvenient for you please contact either me or Carlos H. Silva, Sr., Senior Building Inspector at 909 47'?-2800 since your non-appearance will compel us to assume that the charges are correct, and we will proceed with appropriate legal action. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, MARTIN J. MAYER City Prosec~l:~- Deputy City Prosecutor DP\sgc cc: Carlos H. Silva, Sr., Senior Building Inspector 10500 Civic Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 · RanchoCucamonga, CA91729 · (909) 477-2710 · FAX (909) 477-~84~:~ T H E C I T Y 0 F PANCHO CUCAHONGA OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR January 6, 1999 Enrique Espinoza 8786 Center Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Espinoza: This is to' memorialize our discussions at the office conference on December 17, 1998 relative to the conditions existing at the above captioned property. To alleviate the conditions, you have agreed to: 1. Submit complete plans to the City and initiate the permit process by January 19, 1999. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter so that the necessity of filing criminal charges is avoided. If the above provisions do not agree with your recollection of our discussions, please notify us by January 15, 1999. If we do not hear from you, we will assume the above constitutes our agreement and will expect compliance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MARTIN J, MAYER City Pr(~ cu~~~j) B i ~;;O~DEMANN City Prosecutor JST/sgc cc: Carlos H. Silva, Sr., Senior Building Inspector 1D50(] Civic Center Drive * P.O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 . (909) 477-2710 . FAX (909) 477-2847 / :R7 T H E C I T Y 0 F R2 AN C H 0 C U CA H 0 N C~ A March 3, 1999 ENRIQUE ESPINOZA 8786 Center Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Dear Mr. Espinoza: Since you have, at 8786 Center Street, Rancho Cucamonga, continued to unlawfully fail to obtain required permits prior to construction, fail to submit plans and specifications prior to construction, fail to schedule and obtain r~quired inspections during construction and utilize a building for other than what it was designed for despite attempts to secure your compliance, the City has been compelled to file a misdemeanor complaint (copy enclosed) with the West Valley Municipal Court. This is your notice to appear for arraignment, on charges of violating section(s) 301.1, 302.2 and 305.5 of the Uniform Administrative Code (as adopted by section 15.04.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and California Building Code, 1995 Volume 1) and 1001.14 of the Uniform Housing Code (as adopted by section 15.04.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and California Building Code, 1995 Vol. 1), a misdemeanor, at the West Valley Municipal Court, 8303 N. Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California at 8:30 AM on Tuesday, March 23, 1999. Your failure to appear at that time and place either in person or through counsel will result in the Court issuing a warrant for your arrest. Very truly yours, MARTIN J. MAYER City Prosecutor Deputy City Prosecutor MJM/sgc enclosure .~ CC: CARLOS H. SILVA, SR. 10500CivicCenterDrive ·P.O. Box807 · RanchoCucamonga. CA91729 · (909)477-2710 · FAX(909)477-2847 ® /?~