Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000/08/16 - Agenda Packet
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Office: (909) 477-2700 AGENDAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ' CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS: 1sT and 3rd Wednesdays, 7:00 p.m. August 16, 2000 A.qency, Board & City Council Members William J. Alexander ....................Mayor Diane Williams ...............Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane ...............................Member James V. Curatalo .....................Member Bob Dutton ..............................Member Jack Lam .........................City Manager James L. Markman .............City Attorney Debra J. Adams .....................City Clerk ORDER OF BUSINESS 5:30 p.m. Closed Session ................................. Tapia Conference Room 7:00 p.m. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting ...... Council Chambers Regular Fire Protection District Meeting ....... Council Chambers Regular City Council Meeting ......................Council Chambers City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A._:. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane Curatalo __., Dutton , and Williams__ B.~. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of the 2000 Project of the Year Award from the American Public Works Association for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Haven Avenue Parkway for Street Beautification. 2. Presentation recognizing the contributions of the hosts and major business sponsors for Library Telethon 2000. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D._:. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: June 21,2000 (Dutton absent) July 5, 2000 (Biane absent) July 12, 2000 (Special Workshop) July 19, 2000 August 2, 2000 (Dutton absent) 2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/26/00 AND 8/2/00 and Payroll ending 8/3/00 for the total amount of $3,139,764.49. 3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of July 31, 16 2000. 4. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale Beer and Wine 22 for Ron's Arco AM/PM (transfer of license), Roger H. Wong, 9533 Foothill Boulevard. City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 5. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale General for 24 Von's (transfer of license), Von's Companies, Inc., 6351 Haven Avenue. 6. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine 26 for Felipe's (new business), Ala V. & Felipe De La Piedra, 11815 Foothill Boulevard, Unit E. 7. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the 28 Hermosa Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvements on the east side of Hermosa Avenue 2000 feet south of Wilson Avenue, to be funded from Account No. 01-4647-**** RESOLUTION NO. 00-147 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS 8. Approval to declare surplus miscellaneous City-owned equipment. 36 9. Approval of Sheriff's Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Schedule "A" Amendment 41 to the Law Enforcement Contract. 10. Approval to purchase and appropriate funds in the amount of $557,500 47 from Fund 01-4647-7042, authorize the City Engineer to execute final documents on behalf of the City, and authorize final payment for the purchase of a 16.87 parcel of vacant land known as 8852 Hellman Avenue, Assessor's Parcel No. 209-013-23. 11. Approval to appropriate $55,000 in Account No. 152-4130-6028 to fund 48 Professional Services related to the formation of a proposed Community Facilities District (Catellus), to be funded by Project Developer. 12. Approval of a Resolution adopting a Boundary Map of the territory 49 proposed for inclusion in proposed Community Facilities District 2000- 03 (Rancho Summit). RESOLUTION NO. 00-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 3 13. Approval of a Resolution declaring Intention to Establish Community 55 Facilities District 2000-03 (Rancho Summit) and to authorize the levy of a special tax therein to finance the provision of certain public services and the acquisition of certain public facilities. RESOLUTION NO. 00-149 57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN PUBLTC SERVICES AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES 14. Approval of a Resolution ordering and directing the preparation of a 72 report for proposed Community Facilities District 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). RESOLUTION NO. 00-150 74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) 15. Approval of a Resolution declaring Intention to Issue Bonds secured by 76 Special Taxes to pay for the Acquisition of certain facilities in proposed Community Facilities District 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). RESOLUTION NO. 00-151 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000- 03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) 81 16. Approval to appropriate $58,500.00 in Account No. 47-4130-6028 to fund professional services related to the formation of a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit), to be funded by the Project Developer. 17. Approval of a Community Facilities District Reimbursement Agreement 82 with Lennar Homes (CO 00-058). City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 4 18. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Best, Best & 83 Krieger (CO 00-059) for Bond Counsel Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit) in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for formation services and not to exceed $15,000 for debt issuance services; to be funded by the Project Developer. 19. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Empire Economics 84 (CO 00-060) to perform Market Absorption Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit) in an amount not to exceed $11,000; to be funded by the Project Developer. 20. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Bruce W. Hull & 85 Associates (CO 00-061) to perform Appraisal Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit) in an amount not to exceed $20,000; to be funded by the Project Developer. 21. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Fieldman, Rolapp 86 & Associates (CO 00-062) for Financial Advisor Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit) in an amount not to exceed $9,000 for formation services and not to exceed $20,500 for debt issuance services; to be funded by the Project Developer. 22. Approval to award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 00- 87 063) in the amount of $0.00 ($0.00 plus 10% contingency) for the construction of 6th Street Pavement Rehabilitation from Haven Avenue to Milliken Avenue to the apparent low bidder, * ........ to be funded from Proposition 111 Fund, Account No. 10-4637-9904 and Measure I Fund, Account No. 32-4637-9904. 23. Approval of an easement over Metropolitan Water District properly on 88 Blue Grass Avenue for the purposes of a secondary access required as a condition of development for Tract 14120-1 and release of the funds deposited by the Developer of said Tract to Metropolitan Water District for the purchase of said easement. RESOLUTION NO. 00-152 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHQ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A STREET EASEMENT FOR BLUE GRASS AVENUE, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A DEPOSIT TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR PURCHASE OF THE EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE EASEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 24. Approval of a request to Summarily Vacate Vehicular Access Rights at 92 the southeast corner of Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue at proposed driveway locations for the proposed SAV-ON, V171 - APN: 1077-422-06, related file: CUP 99-26. City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-153 94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ON TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN AVENUE FRONTING PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS ON PARCEL 12 OF PARCEL MAP 11030 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN, V171 - APN: 1077-422-06, RELATED FILE CUP 99-26 97 25. Approval of Development Review 00-01 - Kim Jay Aylor - to modify the Community Trail Alignment for two previously approved single-family hillside lots on two acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street -APN: 10744-051-18 and 19. RESOLUTION NO. 00-154 108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRAIL MODIFICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-01 WITH CONDiT~ONS, LOCATED AT 5138 AND 5148 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1078-051-18 AND 19 26. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho I 10 Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Agreement for a Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development (CO 99-066/RA99-017). 27. Approval to accept bids received, waive any and all minor irregularities 112 in the bidding documents submitted by the apparent low bidder, and award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 00-064) in the amount of $91,514.50 ($83,195 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent low bidder, G. B. Cooke, Inc., for the construction of various site improvements and foundation improvements for Rehabilitation of the Isle House, to be funded from CDBG Fund, Account No. 28-4333-9835. 28. Approval to award contract to Pageantry Productions (CO 00-065) for 114 services for the 2000 Founder's Day Parade in the amount of $8,058.11. City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 6 29. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for 119 CUP 99-26, located on the southeast corner of Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue, submitted by Western Land Properties. RESOLUTION NO. 00-155 121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 99-26 30. Approval of lmprovement Agreement and Improvement Security for DR '122 00-05, located on the north side of Millennium Court east of Milliken Avenue, submitted by Catellus Development Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 00-156 124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 00-05 31. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and 125 Ordering the Summary Vacation of a portion of Hamilton Street Easement and also Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract Map 14162, located at the south side of 19th Street at the western city limits, submitted by Promus Investment Network, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 00-157 128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 14162, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 00-158 129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION QF HAMILTON STREET EASEMENT LOCATED WEST OF SARD STREET City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 7 RESOLUTION NO. 00-159 134 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT 14162 32. Approval to accept the Beryl Street Rehabilitation Project, from Base Line Road to Cielito Street, Contract No. 00-006, as complete, and 144 authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final Contract amount of $110,727.31. RESOLUTION NO. 00-160 146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE BERYL STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO CIELITO STREET AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION E,~. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. The Council will act them upon at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 30 MPH ON PALO ALTO STREET BETVVEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HELLMAN AVENUE 147 ORDINANCE NO. 630 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMQNGA CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMT OF 30 MPH ON PALO ALTO STREET BET%NEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HELLMAN AVENUE City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 8 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. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 150 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. - Consideration of approval for a development agreement for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue - Tentative Tract Map 14493 through 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, and 15902. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified on October 26, 1999. An addendure to the EIR was prepared because the project description did not include a development agreement or the construction of full improvements to the extension of Banyan Street from Day Creek Channei to Rochester Avenue, or full improvements to the segment of Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Avenue and SR 30. The addendure was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RESOLUTION NO. 00-161 246 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND AS AUGMENTED BY AN ADDENDUM PREPARED BY THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR THE UNIVERSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ORDINANCE NO. 631 (first reading) 249 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNtA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U.C.P. INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATELY 250-ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 685 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND UP TO TWO COMMERCIAL AREAS, GENERALLY LCOATED NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF HANLEY AVENUE - TENTATIVE TRCT MAP 14493 THROUGH 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, AND 15902 City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 9 2. ANNEXATION 00-01 - Consideration to approve the Tax Revenue 315 Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCO No. 2864) between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 00-162 321 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFCO NO. 2864 3. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 323 CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - Consideration to amend the industrial Area Specific Plan, Development Code Chapter 17.30, to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution" as permitted uses on parcels of 35 acres of larger, subject tO the approval of a Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 632 (first reading) 340 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO INCLUDE "MEDIUM MANUFACTURING" AND "MEDIUM WHOLESALE, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION" AS PERMITTED USES ON PROPERTY OF 35 ACRES QR LARGER SUBJECT TO A MASTER PLAN, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 10 4. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 - LENNAR HOMES 342 .OF CALIFORNIA - Consideration to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to modify the design of Wilson Avenue from Wardman Bullock Road to approximately 1400 feet west of Wardman Bullock Road. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption. 350 ORDINANCE NO. 633 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01, TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED WILSON AVENUE STREET SECTION BY REDUCING THE SOUTH PARKWAY WIDTH FROM 65 FEET TO 38 FEET FROM WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET WEST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 5. ETiWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF 353 RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to update street trees. Staff has prepared a Notice of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO UPDATE STREET TREE REFERENCES AND RELATED FIGURES 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. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 363 12.04.01B OF SECTION 12.04.010 OF CHAPTER 12.04 OF TITLE 12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 11 ORDINANCE NO. 634 (first reading) 365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.04.010B OF SECTION 12.04.010 OF CHAPTER 12.04 OF TITLE 12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 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. APPROVAL OF AMENEMENT TO THE CITY'S PURCHASING 367 POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 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. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 369 UPDATE 2. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL PARK AND RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO FILL TERM (Oral Report) J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the city Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. City Council Agenda August 16, 2000 12 L. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 10, 2000, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. June 21, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, June 21, 2000, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; Larry Temple Administrative Services Director; and George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager. Absent was Councilmember: Bob Dutton B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Mayor Alexander announced the item to be discussed in closed session. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND LARRY TEMPLE, .ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS - CITY & FIRE C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY No one was present to comment on the closed session item. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Closed session began at 5:36 p.m. E. RECESS THE CLOSED SESSION RECESSED AT 6:14 P.M. TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE CIVIC CENTER LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetinn A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Diane Willjams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Jan Reynolds, RE)A Analyst; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Shelly Munson, Information Systems Specialist; Lorraine Phone, Information Systems Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; John Thomas, Plan Check Manager/Fire; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst Ih Jodi Sorrell, Marketing Manager; Captain Rodney Hoops, Police Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Protection District; Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. Absent was Councilmember: BobDutton B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to Patty Geye thanking her for her service on the Community Foundation. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Patty Geye. B2. Presentation by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin to the City Council in appreciation of their on- going support of the All Star Baseball Game at the Epicenter. Jackie Amsler, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, stated it is a pleasure to be working with the City on any event and talked about the partnership between the Daily Bulletin and the City. She thanked staff that assisted with this event. Mayor Alexander thanked Ms. Amsler for her work and involvement with this wonderful event. B3. Councilmember Williams stated the San Bernardino County LAFCO voted to oppose AB 2838 re development in sphere of influence and other annexation issues that pertain to Rancho Cucamonga. She felt it was important that LAFCO voted to oppose this and added the bill would be taken apart and worked on. She mentioned Dave Eshleman from Fontana was the only person to approve this bill. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Dean Sillman of RC Spot for the Dog Park stated he wanted to announce to the public that the dog park is now open and very usable. He thanked the Council for making this possible. He thanked Kevin McArdle and Jeff Barnes for their assistance with this project. He stated they are still City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 3 raising funds to improve the park. He added their website address is dog-park.net. Ha stated the park is at the east end of Etiwanda Creek Park and is being used more and more. C2. Mark Hodrin, 10089 Mignonette, spoke about the curb cutting project near his street and Hermosa. He wanted the Council to know what the workers are doing at this location. He told about the damage they have done in front of his house and felt this situation is making government look incompetent. He asked for the Council to assist him to get his house put back together. C3. John Lyons, Etiwanda, talked about how wonderful the Mayor's address was at the Rancho Cucamonga High School graduation and how exciting it was. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: June 5, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) June 6. 2000 (Special Meeting) D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 5/24/00, 5/31/00 and 6/7/00 and Payroll ending 5/25/00 and 6/8/00 for the total amount of $2,727,616.90. D3. Apprevai to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of May 31, 2000. D4. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Foundation Improvements for Rehabilitation of the Isle House, to be funded from Account No. 28-4333-9835. RESOLUTION NO. 00-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR REHABILITATION OF THE iSLE HOUSE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D5. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for Corporate Yard, Phase IINVarehouse Construction in the amount of $495,000.00 (plus 10% contingency) and approve an appropriation from Account Number 01-4648-7043 for the referenced project. RESOLUTION NO. 00-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CORPORATE YARD, PHASE IINVAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D6. Approval to authorize staff to reject the sole bid for the installation of Restroom Partitions at Eight City Parks, to be funded from Funds 40, 41,43 and 47. D7. Approval of reallocation of funding source for Community Development Computer Software, Hardware and Contract Services (CO 00-024 - Tidemark Computer Systems). D8. Approval of a request for a park reservation fee waiver from Old Baldy Council Boy Scouts of America to hold their Cub Scout Day Camp at Red Hill Community Park on July 10-14, 2000. D9. Approval of a free Youth Baseball Clinic at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium on July 7, 2000. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 4 D10. Approval to appropriate funds for the replacement purchase of one Mobile M-8A Street Sweeper from Nixon-Egli Equipment Company of Santa Fe Springs, California, through a Piggyback Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Anaheim, California, funded from Account 01-4647- 7044 in the amount of $135,000 and unappropriate $135,000 from Account 72-4225-7044. Dll. Approval to adopt and implement the New National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DevelopmentJRedevelopment Guidelines. D12. Approval of Records Retention Schedules for the City Manager's Department, City Cterk's Office, City Council, Code Enforcement, Building and Safety, Finance, Risk Management and the Library. RESOLUTION NO. 00-115 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS D13. Approval of Resolutions relating to the November 7, 2000 Election. RESOLUTION NO. 00-116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 7TM DAY OF NOVEMBER 2000, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE RESOLUTION NO. 00-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENEAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7TM 2000 D14. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Conditional Use Permit 99-10, located at the southeast corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets, submitted by Evergreen Devco, Inc. (Walgreens). RESOLUTION NO. 00-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (~ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-10 City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 00-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION QF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-10 D15. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, Interim Basin Maintenance Agreement (CO 00-040) and Ordering the Annexation to Street Light Maintenance Districts No. 1 and 8 for Tract Map Number 15912, located at the southwest corner of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, submitted by Ryland Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 00-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15912, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND INTERIM BASIN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 00-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT MAPS NUMBER 15912 D16. Approval of the Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 15947, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA RESOLUTION NO. 00-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15947, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 00-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 15947 D17. Approval of the Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 15948, located on the south side of Base Line Road west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. RESOLUTION NO. 00-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA, CALIFORNIA, APPRQVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15948, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 00-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 15948 D18. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for the Base Line Road south side parkway landscaping for Tracts 15947 and 15948 located on the south side of Base Line Road west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. ITEM I~EMOVED FROM AGENDA, RESOLUTION NO. 00-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR THE BASE LINE ROAD SOUTH SIDE PARKWAY LANDSCAPING FOR TRACTS 15947 AND 15948 D19. Approval of an Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Inland Empire Open, Inc. (CO 00-041 ) to conduct the Buy.Com Professional Golf Tournament at Empire Lakes Golf Course from October 9-15, 2000. RESOLUTION NO. 00-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT D20. Approval to authorize, award and execute a Contract with Painting The Town, Inc., of California (CO 00-042), for repainting of restrooms in nine City parks, in the amount of $18,828.00 (plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Funds 40, 41, 43 and 47. D21. Approval to authorize, award and execute a Contract with Kitson Specialty Contracting of Santa Fe Springs, California, (CO 00-043) for Resurfacing of Restroom Floors in Six City Parks, in the amount of $11,490.00 (plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Funds 40, 41, 43 and 47. D22. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Dan Guerra & Associates (CO 00-044) to provide Engineering Design Services for Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Widening Project, from Base Line Road to south of the Route 210 (30) Freeway in the amount of $325,000, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9703. D23. Approval and execution of a Contract with the California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CO 00-045) for the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the amount not to exceed $200,000.00. D24. Approval of a Joint Use Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (CO 00-046) for the Banyan Street at Fredericksburg Avenue Traffic Signal and Widening Improvements. D25. Approval to accept the Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Material Bond and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DR 97-09, submitted by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., located on the northeast corner of Red Oak Street and Arrow Route. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page ? RESOLUTION NO. 00-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 97-09 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar with the exception of items D16, D17 and D18. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 78 homes within Tentative Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8) dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related File: Variance 99-11. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 2000) Jack Lam, City Manager, stated this item was continued from the last meeting. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated there is a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance in order to better prepare for the public hearing. He added that Mr. Banks agreed with the requested continuance. RESOLUTION NO. 00-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 78 HOMES WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACTS 15911 AND 15912 IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVE. AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY -APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141- 11&12 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to continue the item to July 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 8 F2. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 99-11 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a request to construct perimeter tract walls up to approximately 17 feet high where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted for freeway noise mitigation purposes for Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right- of-way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related File: Development Review 99-72. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 2000) SAME DISCUSSION AS ITEM F1. PLEASE REFER TO THAT ITEM FOR DETAILS. RESOLUTION NO. 00-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-11 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET IS ALLOWED, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141-11 AND 12 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to continue the item to July 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). F3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01B -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOC. Request 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 22.9 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Rd. approximately 765 feet west of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-881-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared for consideration. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOC. - Request to change Victoria Community Plan zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 22.9 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 765 feet west of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-881-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared for consideration. Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. Councilmember Biane felt this change was good and stated he would support staffs recommendation. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, stated they support staff's commendation and asked the Council to approve this. There being no further input, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 00-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01B, A REQUEST 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 22.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 765 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WiTH VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 227-881-01 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to approve Resolution No. 00-127. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent) Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 623. ORDINANCE NO. 623 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ADOPTING VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITSPER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 22.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 765 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA PARK LAND, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 227-881-01 MOTION: Moved by Willlares, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 623 for the July 5, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). F4. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01A - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to change the General Plan land use designati6n from Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use for 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternatives for the entire site - APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to change the Development District zoning designation from General Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use, and the establishment of a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), including deviation from certain development standards for the residential portion of the base district, on 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Street, south of the intersection with LaGrande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternatives for the entire site - APN: 202- 151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment00-01A, and Development Agreement 00-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A Development Agreement bet,,veen the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Northtown Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards for 80-96 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a Mixed Use site of 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with LaGrande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive - APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, and Development District Amendment 00-01. Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Nacho Gracia, Executive Director of the Northtown Housing Authority in Rancho Cucamonga, stated he concurred with the staff report. He also added there are no other plans to build anything else except for senior housing. He stated no commercial project is planned. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Williams stated she would be abstaining from voting on this item because of the close proximity of her residence to this project. RESOLUTION NO. 00-128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP PROVISIONS FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OFFICE USES FOR 3.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMETHYST STREET, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LAGRANDE STREET AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LOMITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 202-151-12 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. 00-128. Motion carried unanimously 3-0-1-1 (Dutton absent, WIlljams abstained). ORDINANCE NO. 624 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE WITH A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR 3.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMETHYST STREET, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LAGRANDE STREET AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LOMITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-151-12 Ci~ Council Minutes June 21,2000 Page 1! ORDINANCE NO. 625 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-01, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT (SHOD), INCLUDING DEVIATING FROM CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 80 TQ 96 SENIOR APARTMENT UNITS AND ONE MANAGER UNIT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMETHYST STREET, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LAGRANDE STREET AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LOMITA DRIVE - APN: 202-151-12 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance Nos. 624 and 625 for July 5, 2000. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Dutton absent, Williams abstained). F5. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to add a Mixed Use Zoning District with accompanying definitions, processing provisions, and development standards to the Rancho Cucamonga, Development Code. Staff repor~ presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. ORDINANCE NO. 625 626 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-01, TO ESTABLISH MIXED USE DISTRICTS, WITH ACCOMPANYING DEFINITIONS, PROCESSING PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.06.010.C.1, 17.08.020, 17.08.030 AND 17.08.040A OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 626 for July 5, 2000. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 12 H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. ANNEXATION 00-01 - U.C.P., INC. - A request to approve a statement of intention to annex an approximately 504-acre portion of San Bernardino County unincorporated area generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue - as described in Exhibit "A" (attached) and as shown in Exhibit "B" (attached). Staff report by Rick Gomez, Community Development Director. Councilmember Curatalo asked for a map to be shown so the people would know the boundaries of the area. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, showed the map. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Malissa McKeith, 4993 Ginger Court, asked if they are voting tonight on this matter. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated this is approving the intention to apply for the annexation of the property. Ms. McKeith asked whether or not the City was going to wait for the San Bernardino County Floor Control District to complete their flood inundation maps before they make a decision whether the annexation will be safe to build on. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated this is in the Day Creek Drainage area, not the Deer Creek. Ms. McKeith stated she is not only talking about the Deer Creek but the Day Creek Drainage area as well. She stated the Governor's Office of Emergency Services has pointed out that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District has not completed their flood in undation maps on Day Creek. She stated she personally thinks Day Creek is as dangerous as Deer Creek. She stated as a tax payer she did not want her City to be annexing property that may not be suitable for building depending on the flood inundation maps that the County has yet to complete. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated there has been an EIR for this project. James Markman, City Attorney, stated this was a project ready for construction when the City brought SUit, and essentially stopped the project and negotiated about six or seven months. He stated there is a settlement agreement that depends on annexation and a development agreement which in turn depend on the City processing EIR with any new information that can be added to what was already approved by the Board of Supervisors, which the City still feels is inadequate. He stated any such information would be welcome. Ms. McKeith asked if the annexation goes through will the intended project come before the City Council, or is it already approved so it will not be coming before the City Council. James Markman, City Attorney, stated it is coming before the City Council now. He stated there is a Development Agreement that is going through the Council processes now with environmental. John Lyons, Etiwanda, stated he wanted to see this happen because of some of the people he talked to while he was out talking to people about the Route 30 Freeway. He stated the amenities that go along with this are very important. He added he would also like to see this so that Banyan will go through. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 13 Councilmember Biane stated he and Councilmember Dutton met with Sun Cal to settle any differences pertaining to this project with regards to the lawsuit. He talked about the project and stated he would support the intent to annex this property. James Markman, City Attorney, stated we have a lawsuit that has been dismissed without prejudice, or will be, if we meet these timelines. He added if this project goes down and is not approved by the City, we are back in front of the Board of Supervisors with the original project without right to raffle suit, and start all of that again. He pointed out this is where we are with this project. He stated if anyone goes to the Planning Commission hearings they can see the comparisons between projects. He added he feels this project is better and concerns were addressed. He stated there is no other party that has an opportunity to contest the County project besides the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He mentioned that the Spirit of the Sage filed suit and settled indicating they are through. Councilmember Willlares commended the developer for all of their work they did on this project to make it a much better project. RESOLUTION NO. 00-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO PURSUE A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN ROCHESTER AVENUE AND HANLEY AVENUE - AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED, AND AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 00-129. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). H2. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE UTILITY USER'S FEES Staff report presented by Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director. Councilmember Biane asked when the complete sunset of the tax would be. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated if the economy stays the same as it is now, the City is looking at four years. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 558-D. ORDINANCE NO. 558-D (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 14 MOTOIN: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 558-D for July 5, 2000. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. REPORT ON CLOSURE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING STADIUM EVENTS Staff report presented by Rodney Hoops, Police Chief. Councilmember Willlares asked why this was done in the first place. Captain Hoops stated it was determined that it would be safer for pedestrian traffic to keep it closed. Councilmember Willlares stated the east parking lot is not hardly used at all and did not feel traffic should be altered for those going into the east lot. Captain Hoops stated they can look at this for a couple of weeks and then bring it back to the Council with an update, and if it is working fine he would have no problem opening it up on the weekend. Councilmember Willlares suggested that possibly Citizens Patrol staff help with the crossing of Rochester if there would be anyone that needed to cross, but didn't feel there should be that many because of no one parking in the east lot. She felt there would be more people to benefit by having this opened all the time than closed for the games. Mayor Alexander felt the transition approach would be appropriate, but stated he knew Councilmember Willjams was out there most of the time and sees what is actually happening. Councilmember Curatalo felt the trial period of two weeks was a good suggestion and then open it up all the time if things go well. Councilmember Biane stated he would go along with the expedited trial period. He thanked everyone for working on this. He felt with the signal there everyone should be able to cross safety. He stated the reason he brought this up was because of the day there was an event at the California Speedway and the problem it caused by having Rochester closed because there was a game that day. He suggested these types of situations should also be looked at when considering the overall plan. Captain Hoops also mentioned the Police and Fire Games were also this weekend and told what a great event it would be. Jim Kronenfeld, Hessop Drive, thanked the Council and the Police Department for taking care of his frustration by opening this street up. John Bahnson stated he was glad this was going to be opened up. He stated no other big City closes streets and was glad to see this would be opened up. ACTION: Council concurred to try this for two weeks and then bring it back to Council with a report to consider the possibility of opening it up full time. 12. CONSIDERATION QF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SUBCOMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS TO FILL VACANCIES Staff report presented by Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager, City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page 15 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to approve the subcommittee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). 13. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL PARK AND RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO FILL VACANCIES Staff report presented by Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager. MOTOIN: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Biane to approve the subcommittee's recommendation, Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). 14. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE ACTION: Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Bill Hawkins, 4987 Ginger Court, thanked the paramedics for assisting his daughter over Easter holiday when she needed help. He mentioned an article in the newspaper that referred to Mayor Alexander endangering the lives of children, and how the Mayor stated he disagreed with this. He stated he has never seen anything from the Army Corps stating that the debris basin is safe. He asked for the Council to do an independent study of this area. Mayor Alexander asked him if he was stating that because of drainage, the funding for the high school was removed. Mr. Hawkins stated it was one of the factors because the inundation maps were not provided. Mr. Alexander clarified it was the inundation maps not because of the safety factor. Mr. Hawkins stated safety is an issue. K2. Jeffrey Brown, 7212 Daybreak, presented a video for the Council to view (a copy was not ~eft with the City Clerk), He stated the Mayor promised a moratorium. Mayor Alexander stated that was not correct. James Markman, City Attorney, presented a chronology of events pertaining to the video comments. K3. Xavier Leon, 9442 Kanopty Street, talked about kids getting stopped on their way to the park. He stated the police talked to them asking them to empty their pockets. He asked if there is a City policy so that kids are not stopped because of their ethnic background. Mayor Alexander stated the City does not want this to occur and that this would be looked into. K4. John Lyons stated he wanted to talk about flood control and how the City planned for this assuming their would be complete failure. He felt Rancho Cucamonga was safe and people were not going to flood out because of all of the planning that has taken place. City Council Minutes June 21, 2000 Page ]6 K5. Pat Domiani, 8740 White Oak, asked for clarification of Mr. Markman's comments about Malissa McKeith getting paid for her work regarding the Lauren project issue. James Markman, City Attorney, answered her questions. Ms. Domiani stated Ms. McKeith and other homeowners are suing the Haven View Homeowners Association for legal fees and that is why she is asking the question. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by V~lliams, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * July 5, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTE8 A. CALL TO ORDER The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Willjams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Absent was: Councilmember Biane. Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; and George Rivera, Administrative Services Manager. B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Mayor William J. Alexander announced the item to be discussed in closed session. B1. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF 1-15 FREEWAY, FOREST CITYDEVELOPMENT CA, INC., & LEWIS INVESTMENT CO., LLC; LINDA D. DANIELS, RDA DIRECTOR, NEGOTIATING PARTY, REGARDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT - RDA B1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE GEORGE RIVEIRA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER; AND LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS.- CITY C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY No one was present to comment on the closed session item listed above. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Closed session began at 5:33 p.m. City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 2 E. RECESS THE CLOSED SESSION RECESSED AT 6:30 P.M. TO THE REGULAR CiTY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CiTY HALL, ~i0500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reqular Meetinfi A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Willjams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Absent was: Councilmember Biane. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Lorraine Phong, Information Systems AnaLyst; Michael Toy, Information Systems Specialist; Brad Buller, City Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent; 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; James Frost, City Treasurer; and Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Mayor Pro Tern Willlares gave an update on Assembly Bill 2838. She said this bill is a very serious threat to local control in land use planning whereby it is creating a new layer of government to make our land decisions for us. She said our city has taken a very strong stand and our involvement in this has been able to create some language that is being added. She added that the bill was held over until August for vote only so that the amendments contributed by the League of California Cities and others will be incorporated and brought back. She thanked Senator Nell Soto for her support of the City's position and stated her appreciation to the League of California Cities. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Janet Beech stated she represents the Board of the Sunscape Condominiums on 19th Street, She said they have a circumstance that they don't know how to handle. She said there is a unit in deplorable condition and several months ago the man who lives there was taken out of the unit by the police because neighbors complained of the odor. She said the unit is so bad that it probably needs to be torn down. She said they have tried to contact different agencies but to no avail. City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 3 Mayor Alexander suggested that she start with the Fire Chief for the appropriate contacts. He also suggested that she contact the Public Health Department. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, stated that part of the problem is getting legal access into the unit. Mayor Alexander said if it is a County Health issue, we can help intercede but we don't have any control over that agency. He then referred her to Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, who accepted the packet of information from her. Mayor Alexander said the City would pursue as though it is our issue and then explain fully, by way of the law, that we don't have jurisdiction. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated we have jurisdiction if it is a public safety issue. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, stated that it cannot be occupied until it is cleaned up. Part of the problem, though, is getting someone in there to clean it up. He said the City does not have the resources to clean it; we can tell them what needs to be done but we can't physically do it either, and because he still owns the properly, he does have legal rights. Mayor Alexander stated without knowing the complete circumstances we can't really discuss it, but we can offer the help tonight. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated that Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, along with Fire Chief Dennis Michael, could assist her in finding out what can be done. C2. John Lyons, resident, commented regarding an article in the 6/26/00 "Inland Valley Times", "Rancho's Mayor Response to Critics." He stated his support for Mayor Bill Alexander with respect to the people who threatened to take political action against the Mayor. He stated the Mayor was elected by 75% of the vote and has overwhelming support of the people. C3. Bob Cristiano, property owner in Haven View Estates, commented regarding a letter received from Senator Boxer regarding Haven View Estate debris basin. He complimented the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and City Engineer for their overwhelming patience and encouraged them that they are on the right path. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jack Lain, City Manager, mentioned that there is a typographical error on Item D4. and that a correction has been submitted. D1. Approval of Minutes: June 7, 2000 June 12, 2000 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/14/00 and 6/21/00 and Payroll ending 6/22/00 for the total amount of $8,012,340.28. D3. Approval of Resolution to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (CO 00-048, 00-049 and 00- 050) for all City employee groups. RESOLUTION NO. 00-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZtNG ENTRY INTO MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 4 EMPLOYEE, MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE, AND THE SUPERVISORY/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE MEET AND CONFER GROUPS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2000/2001,2001/2002 AND 2002/2003 D4. Approval to adopt a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 99-169 and implementing Salary and Benefits for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. RESOLUTION NO. 00-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-169 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 D5. Approval to transfer a City vehicle to the County of San Bernardino for Police services. D6. Approval of Light Fee Waiver Amendment proposed by Park and Recreation Commission for youth sports recreation organizations that currently are ineligible for existing light fee waiver. D7. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Tract 16000, located in Terra Vista Planned Communities and bounded by Church Street, Elm Avenue (west) and Spruce Avenue, submitted by LDC Cougar LLC and Western Land Properties LP. RESOLUTION NO. 00-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 16000, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 00-133 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR TRACT 16000 DS. Approval to accept the bids received, appropriate $176,417.40 from the fund balance of Fund 22 (Transportation) to be placed in Account No. 22-4637-9935, award and authorize the execution of the Contract for the Construction of Banyan Street at Fredericksburg Avenue Traffic Signal and Widening Improvements in the amount of $171,417.40 ($155,834.00 plus 10% contingency) to Gentry Brothers, Inc. (CO 00-051), the apparent low bidder, to be funded from Transportation Fund Account No. 22- 4637-9935. D9. Approval to appropriate funds and award and authorize the execution of the Contract in the amount of $159,400 ($144,842 plus 10% contingency) for the Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting at Carnelian Street and La Vine/La Grande Streets, to the apparent low bidder, L.A. Signal (CO 00-052), to be funded from Transportation Fund Account 22-4637-9921. D10. Approval to acknowledge a Consent Agreement between William Lyon Homes, Inc., and Southern California Edison (CO 00-053) regarding improvements to Victoria Park Lane Crossing Edison Rights-of-Way adjacent to Tract 15871, submitted by Southern California Edison. ' City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 00-134 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC., AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON REGARDING INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN VICTORIA PARK LANE ACROSS THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH WILL BECOME THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY D11. Approval to accept the Installation of Park and Walkway Lighting in Church Street Park, release bonds, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve final contract amount of $72,700.00. RESOLUTION NO. 00-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE iNSTALLATION OF PARK AND WALKVVAY LIGHTING IN CHURCH STREET PARK AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01B -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOC. Request 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 22.9 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Rd. approximately 765 feet west of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-881-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared for consideration. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOC. - Request to change Victoria Community Plan zoning designation from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 22.9 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 765 feet west of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-881-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared for consideration. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 623. ORDINANCE NO. 623 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 22.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 765 FEET City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 6 WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA PARK LANE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 227-881-01 MOTION: Moved by Willjams seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 623. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). E2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01A - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use for 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternatives for the entire site - APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request to change the Development District zoning designation from General Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use, and the establishment of a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), including deviation from certain development standards for the residential portion of the base district, on 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Street, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternatives for the entire site - APN: 202- 151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, and Development Agreement 00-01. A Negative Declaration of Environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Northtown Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code), including deviation from certain development standards for 80-96 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a Mixed Use site of 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Loreira Drive - APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, and Development District Amendment 00-01. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance Nos. 624 & 625. ORDINANCE NO. 624 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE WITH A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR 3.24 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMETHYST STREET, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LA GRANDE STREET AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LOMITA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-151-12 City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page ? ORDINANCE NO. 625 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-01, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT (SHOD), INCLUDING DEVIATING FROM CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 80 to 96 SENIOR APARTMENT UNITS AND ONE MANAGER UNIT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMETHYST STREET, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LA GRANDE STREET AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH LOMITA DRIVE- APN: 202-151-12 MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinances No. 624 & 625. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 (Biane absent, Willjams abstained). E3. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to add a Mixed Use Zoning District with accompanying definitions, processing provisions, and development standards to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 626. ORDINANCE NO. 626 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-01, TO ESTABLISH MIXED USE DISTRICTS, WITH ACCOMPANYING DEFINITIONS, PROCESSING PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.06.010.C.1, 17.08.020, 17.08,030 AND 17.08.040A OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 626. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). E4. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE UTILITY USER'S FEES Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk, mad the title of Ordinance No. 558-D. ORDINANCE NO. 558-D (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 558-D. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 8 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 78 homes within Tentative Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8) dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related File: Variance 99-11. Staff report presented by Brad Bullet, City Planner. He said Caltrans now, after telling us a wall would be okay on the shoulder of the freeway to mitigate the noise, is saying that it would not be their position to support a wall on the freeway right of way when there are other options available. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: John Melcher, speaking of behalf of Ryland Homes, stated they did explore the Council's direction regarding the possibility of building within the right of way on the shoulder. He explained to the Council part of the effort that has transpired between Council's direction of four weeks ago and tonight. He said CalTrans determined they really needed a cooperative agreement between the City and Caltrans in order to explore the process. He said they (Ryland) were surprised, as staff was, by the sudden reversal of CalTrans stating this is not something that can ever happen as they will be widening the freeway eventually and that this can be done on the private property. Mr. Melcher said a genuine effort has been made by staff and the developer, and he would hope that Council would deny the appeal so that the project can move ahead. Carlos Garcia, Ryland Homes, stated he is here to field any questions that the City Council may have. City Council members had no questions for Mr. Garcia at this point. Jim Banks, resident of Etiwanda, said he would like to have the opportunity to talk to CalTrans and work his way through the process. He said he would like to see the noise study and see the regulations they are citing, because he finds it difficult to accept that they can twice tell us it is all right and then the third time change their mind. He said the trees have been removed, and he feels the noise has doubled since. He asked that, whatever the decision, they do something about trees that will grow and at least muffle the noise so as to make it a more habitable place. Jim Frost, resident of Etiwanda, said he suggested as another option to drop that wall back down to a reasonable height, if it's not going to stop that noise, and not let the people in the backyards of those homes suffer looking at a 17 ft. high wall in their backyards. He said those backyards are not going to have the environment that we would all like to enjoy, wall or not. He said an option is to bring the wall back down to something that will be visually attractive and then continue to look at other alternatives, such as vegetation, etc. John Lyons, resident of Etiwanda, said the quality of life is at stake. He said we need to take a realistic approach to this. He said he would encourage the Council very strongly to help us work with CalTrans to get this resolved in order to save Etiwanda. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Pro Tern Willjams asked how high the wall would be if a resident was standing in his back yard. Mr. Garcia, Ryland Homes, said it would be 16 to 21 feet from the back. City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 9 Brad Buller, City Planner, said from the residents' side it is 16 to 17 feet and from the freeway side it is taller. Mayor Pro Tem Williams asked if the wall would block the view from the freeway if she were the resident. Mr. Garcia, Ryland Homes, said he would not be able to answer that unless he went out there to figure it out. He said the setback is about 20 feet on average from the home to the wall. Mayor Pro Tem Willjams asked how many homes will have a very tall garden wall. Mr. Garcia, Ryland Homes, replied five homes. Councilmember Curatalo stated he is well aware that a lower body of government can't tell a higher body of government what to do, but he certainly can express his displeasure in how CulTruns has changed their position on this issue. Councilmember Dutton said a 21-foot wall still does not thrill him and he certainly would prefer some vegetation, especially trees. He asked the City Planner if the wall had to be 21 foot or could you put in a lower wall and with the cost differential put in tress that would provide a more aesthetic value. Brad Bullet, City Planner, said the acoustic report that was presented for this project determined the wall height and this was the wall height required based on that acoustic study, given the grade of the freeway. He said an option would be to talk to the acoustic engineers and look at some alternatives. He said you can mitigate the noise from the building standpoint for the interior noise to a level that is consistent with our codes, but it's that exterior noise level at that rear yard; and without adopting some statement of overriding considerations under a CEQA proceeding for environmental, you have to meet your code minimum. He said we would have to look at some engineering alternatives to meet that sound standard. He said throughout this project there will be trees, although not 65-ft. trees any time in the near future, but there will eventually be a whole array of planrings that will occur within this tract of homes that will help deflect noise. Mayor Alexander said the bureaucratic stance that CulTruns is taking is ludicrous. He said we did not play hardball with them nearly enough. He said we have cooperated with them as much as they have cooperated with us in the design and the lowering of the freeway, however, he thinks they are being grossly unfair. He said living in a house there would be like living in a prison as far as he is concerned. He said he does not think it is right what CaITrans is doing, and he would like to continue this for at least two weeks to find a resolution. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated within two weeks staff can probably structure something that the Council could take action on that would allow Ryland Homes to at least get started knowing that it is either going to be this wall or some alternative wall situation. He said it would be helpful to look at schematics or visuals as to what this wall, even a 6-~. wall, would look like from the freeway, because in fairness for the Council to make that determination, you need to know the visual impact of a wall without the possibility of even landscaping that portion of the right of way to mitigate it for graffiti. Mayor Alexander said it would be nice to have a workshop with the Council to explain this issue. Mayor Pro Tem Willjams stated at a previous Rt. 30 meeting a sound engineer came and gave a very good layman's explanation as to how sound walls work. She said that may be a good thing for all involved. She said there are some examples on the 1-10 freeway of some high 6-~. walls which we could get photographs of which are similar to what we are talking about. City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 10 Carlos Garcia, Ryland Homes, said in counseling with the noise consultant, the right-of-way wall minimum is probably ten feet, not six feet, and it could even be higher as well as longer. Mayor Alexander stated again that he would like to present at the meetings regarding this. Mr. Garcia, Ryland Homes, stated that the Tract in question, 15911, did not have any trees cut; it was just weeds. He said in addition to a six-ft. garden wall that will be back from the back yard of the homeowner, there is still some retaining to be done on the other end, so it will still be higher than six feet. He said there will be a perimeter wall for the whole project, a six-foot garden wall from the homeowner side with some additional feet for a retainer. Brad Buller, City Planner, said they would try to get an acoustic engineer within the next two weeks, th and they will notify the Council of such. At the 19 meeting staff will bring back a resolution that Council can take action on that allows the developer to move forward with his project and will put some kind of timeline and commitments on resolving this issue. RESOLUTION NO. 00-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 78 HOMES WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACTS 15911 AND 15912 IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVE. AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY - APN: 227-131-05 AND 227- 141-11 & 12 APPEAL OF VARIANCE 99-11 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a request to construct perimeter tract walls up to approximately 17 feet high where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted for freeway noise mitigation purposes for Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right-of- way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related File: Development Review 99-72. RESOLUTION NO. 00-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPRQVING VARIANCE NO. 99-11 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET IS ALLOWED, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141-11 AND 12. MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to continue the item to July 19, 2000, 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 11 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 No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Edde Neidich, a volunteer for AARP, said he would bring information each month to different communities regarding age-related subjects. He distributed packets to the City Council that might be of interest to their constituents. K2. Mark Vurisek of Sunscape Condominiums on 19th Street elaborated regarding the condition of a unit previously addressed this evening by Janet Beech. He had photographs to view and said that this particular unit is pretty bad with extensive human waste and mold on the walls. Mayor Alexander stated that the Building Official, Public Health and Fire are aware of it and there is certainly the ability to help. He promised Mr. Vurisek that staff would follow up with him. Mayor Pro Tem Williams asked Paula Pachon, Community Services Management Analyst II, for her recommendation regarding a human services resource contact that could assist this owner. Paula Pachon, CSD Management Analyst li, said staff would look through the human services referral directories to provide information to Mr. Vurisek that he might be able to share with the homeowner. Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, stated that the County offers Conservatorships to assist City agencies when they do an investigation to determine if a person can take care of their own welfare. Councilmember Dutton said as a property manager for thirty years, he is aware of that fact that the Condominium Association, as the governing board, has the ability to lien the unit for costs of clean up. City Council Minutes July 5, 2000 Page 12 L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Dutton to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane absent). The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. R~spectfully submitted, Kathryn L. Scott Deputy City Clerk Approved: * July 12, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Workshop A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 in the Td Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. by Mayor Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams (arrived at 8:12 a.m.), and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager, had gone to Sacramento today to pay respects to the Gonsalves family due to the death of Joe Gonsalves, the City's lobbyist. B. ITEM OF BUSINESS B1. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF POSSIBILITIES FOR FUTURE ARTS RELATED PROGRAMMING Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated when the City Council went to Santa Barbara to visit their downtown retail area, it was brought up about the possibility of a performing arts center and that is the reason for this workshop today. He introduced Victor Gottsman who is with a theater projects company and told of his accomplishments. He stated Mr. Gottsman was present to only give information, not make suggestions what he felt the Council should do. He added both he and Mr. Gottsman will be happy to answer any questions the Council has. Victor Gottsman proceeded to go through the nine discussion items which were distributed to the City Council. 1. Programming differences between a Community Theater and a professional Performing Arts Center. Mr. Gottsman stated there is a difference between community theater and a professional performing arts center. Mayor Alexander felt it would be a greater cost for a professional performing arts center. Mr. Gottsman stated yes and explained to the Council what these costs were. Mayor Alexander asked if there were any performing arts centers that he knew of that were not receiving some kind of subsidy to run their program. Mr. Gottsman stated no. City Council Minutes July 12, 2000 Page 2 Councilmember Curatalo asked if you could do community as well as professional performances at the same facility. Mr. Gottsman stated yes. He stated you can have dance, theater and other performances if it is designed correctly. Jack Lam, City Manager, asked how do you figure out what the needs of the community are. Mr. Gottsman stated it is a research process that takes into consideration what the existing needs are in the area and the needs that are not met, the needs of the community, the vision of the City, educational requirements for the City, which would involve a total needs assessment. Councilmember Dutton brought up the cost to the community to construct the center. Mr. Gottsman stated they can provide the City with the tools to work with the community on this. Councilmember Dutton brought up the dinner theater aspect. Mr. Gottsman stated this could be considered in the planning of the center when figuring the requirements of construction. He felt all different aspects would be a great opportunity to the City. Councilmember Curatalo asked if the dinner theater was restrictive for families. Mr. Gottsman stated you could have both family and non-family performances. He talked about food and beverages being served as well. Mr. Gottsman felt educational performances is very important to the community and that if you have only a dinner theater, you could not have educational performances. Councilmember Williams asked how you could have a professional group there and still have something for the community going on as well. Mr. Gottsman stated you could accommodate both depending on the design. He stated the City would need to identify what their needs are to figure the design. Councilmember Biane asked about partnerships with other surrounding communities to help pay for the center. Mr. Gottsman stated he is not aware of any partnerships in Southern California, but felt there were some across the United States. Councilmember Dutton brought up the performing arts center at Citrus College. Mr. Gottsman stated it is very successful. 2. Role(s) and expectations of a Community Theater or professional Petforming Arts Center as part of a Regional Shopping Marl or similar downtown development project. Review of similar examples from around the country. Mr. Gottsman talked about what Hollywood is doing with their performing arts center and being connected with their mall. Councilmember Willjams asked if the developer is participating when there is a performing arts center in a shopping. City Council Minutes July 12, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Gottsman stated yes they are and that developers feel a performing arts center would generate business for the shopping center. He felt this was a trend that was starting. 3. Possible programming relationship(s) of a Community Theater or Performing At~s Center to Ontario Airport, Convention Center, hotels and proposed Arena. Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, asked Mr. Gottsman's opinion of these relationships. Mr. Gottsman stated that the City should be aware of this, but felt it would be a great relationship and that discussions with them was important. Councilmember V~lliams asked if he saw any possibility of doing a performing arts center in conjunction with a hotel. Mr. Gottsman stated yes and felt the opportunity was there. Kevin McArdle asked if he felt the performing arts center would attract a hotel. Mr. Gottsman felt it would with a regional center as opposed to a community center. He stated some hotels and performing arts center work out package deals which are attractive to people. Councilmember Biane asked if there is one kind of performance that need to be subsidized over the other. Mr. Gottsman stated yes, that orchestras, ballets and that type require subsidy because they are very hard to sell. Mayor Alexander asked if there was a minimum amount of people an artist would perform in front of. Mr. Gottsman stated yes. He also taiked about the cost of various artists and an exclusivity clause within a seventy-five mile radius. 4. Possible economic spin off effects resulting from a Community Theater or Performing Arts Center. Mr. Gottsman talked about other methods for subsidizing, i.e., ticket surcharge, sponsorships, and luxury box sales. 5. Operating budget and revenue expectations for a Community Theater or Performing Arts Center. Various levels of financial support provided by cities. Discussion of the possible role(s) and expectations of fundraising groups to support the Theater. Mr. Gottsman felt corporations 'are less likely to give money to a City for a performing arts center. He talked about 501(c)3 organizations and that Cerritos did this for their educational programs. He stated people are more likely to give to a 501(c)3 than a City. Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, asked how close the City could get to a self sustaining performing arts center through the things he mentioned above. Mr. Gottsman stated the City Council would control and dictate this based on the programs they want. He stated Cerritos spent a lot of money for the center and subsidizes three to four million per year. Mayor Alexander asked how this was sold to the community of Cerdtos. City Council Minutes July 12, 2000 Page 4 Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director, stated there is no additional properly tax to the residents of Cerritos for this performing arts center. Mr. Gottsman stated the community of Cerritos was infatuated with the center. Councilmember Williams asked of other cities that have performing arts centers. Mr. Gottsman stated La Mirada, Thousand Oaks, Escondido. 6. Theater programming and operation. City operated vs. privately contracted/owned vs. community non-profit organization. Mr. Gottsman stated if it is privately operated, the City has less control. Councilmember Willjams asked if there is a board to operate the center. Mr. Gottsman stated if the City does not totally operate it, a board is created to operate the facility. He stated programming issues is always controversial. 7. Pros and cons of conducting a professional feasibility study for a potential Community Theater or Performing Arts Center. Mr. Gottsman stated a project cannot be developed just by vision alone. He stated you need a performing arts center that is occupied 365 days a year. He stated before the Council recommends the development of a performing arts center, they would want to do a needs assessment. He stated if the City does a study, it gives the Council some ammunition as to why they are doing something because it is based on the results of the study. 8. Mechanics/components of conducting a meaningful and accurate feasibility study. Councilmember Dutton asked what would the cost be for a study. Mr. Gottsman stated $28,000, plus expenses, for the first phase, and then depending on if the Council goes ahead and develops the project they go to phase two for an additional $28,000. He added it would probably be between $30 - $60,000 total. Councilmember Dutton thought the General Plan process could possibly be considered as part of the needs assessment. Councilmember Williams felt the City is at a very critical point with the shopping center and felt if the City is goin9 with a performing arts center it should be considered with the design of the mall right now. Councilmember Duffon felt the developer of the mall should do the feasibility study for the performin9 arts center. He stated possibly the City could share the cost. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Forest City'is going to give a financial package to the City in the next 30 days. He stated that was a possibility to have them pay for the study, Mayor Alexander felt the City would end up paying for it anyway. Councilmember Williams stated she agreed with Councilmember Dutton, Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director, felt the mall developer would want to be a part of this process. City Council Minutes July 12, 2000 Page 5 Councfimember Williams stated this would be important to the mall and its success. Direction was given to staff to proceed with the study. Mr. Gottsman felt the Council should develop the scope of the proposal. 9. Options, possible expectations and steps for a fund raising/sponsorship program for design and construction of a Community Theater or Performing Arts Center. This was answered in discussions stated above. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * July 19, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, July 19, 2000, in the Tapia Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 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; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; and Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the following item is requested to be added to the City Council closed session agenda: DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS LOCATED AT 8852 NELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUGAMONGA, REGARDINGS PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT, JOE O'NEIL, CITY ENGINEER, NEGOTIATING PARTY. MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Dutton to add the above stated item to the closed session agenda. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY No one was present to comment on the closed session item. D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Closed session began at 5:47 p.m. The City Council unanimously authorized Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, to sign the applicable purchase contract and escrow documents on behalf of the City pertaining to the property described above. E. RECESS THE CLOSED SESSION RECESSED AT 6:30 P.M. TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE CIVIC CENTER LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Councit was held on Wednesday, July 19, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 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; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Shelly Munson, Information Systems Specialist; Michael Toy, Information Systems Specialist; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Brent LeCount, Associate Planner; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Protection District; Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager; Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation for community service to the youth of Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Katie Gibbons. B2. Recognition of Police and Fire Games Medal Winners. Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and Lieutenant Lee Watkins, Police Department, introduced the personnel that were medal winners at the Police and Fire Games. Councilmember Williams mentioned how the events were held in Rancho Cucamonga as well as surrounding communities. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Sharon McHolland, Alta Loma School District, thanked the Council for their support of the bond measure voted on last year. She also distributed information to the Council about this. She stated she appreciated the support of the City Council and staff. City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 3 D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/28/00 and 7/5/00 and Payroll ending 7/6/00 for the total amount of $2,856,648.40 D2. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30, 2000. D3. Approval to reject all bids for the Arrow Route Cross Gutter Removal and Drainage Improvement Project, just west of Hellman Avenue. as non-responsive to the needs of the City. D4. Approval of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of City Records pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090, the City's Records Retention Schedule, and other applicable legal citations. RESOLUTION NO. 00-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LEGAL REFERENCES D5. Approval to adopt a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 00-131 and implementing Budget Provisions for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. RESOLUTION NO. 00437 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 00-131 AND IMPLEMENTING BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 D6. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Drainage Acceptance Agreement (CO 00-054) and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 15350, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street, submitted by General Dynamics Properties, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15350, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 00-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DRAINAGE ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT FROM GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 00-140 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 15350 D7. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for DR 98-10 for Tract 13316, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Court, submitted by Barratt American. RESOLUTION NO. 00-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 98-10 FOR TRACT 13316 D8. Approval of the Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 15947, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 00-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15947, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 00-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 15947 D9. Approval of the Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract 15948, located on the south side of Base Line Road west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 00-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 15948, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 00-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT 15948 City Council Minutes July 19. 2000 Page 5 D10. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for the Base Line Road south side parkway landscaping for Tracts 15947 and 15948 located on the south side of Base Line Road west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by WL Homes LLC, DBA John Laing Homes. RESOLUTION NO. 00-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR THE BASE LINE ROAD SOUTH SIDE PARKVVAY LANDSCAPING FOR TRACTS 15947 AND 15948 Dll. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan (CO 00-055) for Special Tax Consulting Services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Catellus) in an amount not to exceed $20,000, to be funded by the project developer. D12. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 441395S in the amount of $9,988.22, and Bond No. 441393S in the amount of $21,153.83 for Tract 13565, located on the northeast corner of San Sevaine and Wardman Bullock. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. E, CONSENT ORDINANCES No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The additions of Section 17.20.060 - Hillside Overlay District, to Development Code Chapter 17.20 in order to implement the addition of a Hillside Overlay District on the Zoning Map. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The addition of a Hillside Overlay District to the city of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map in order to geographically define the Hillside area, as defined in the Development Code, Chapter 17.24. Staff report presented by Debra Meier, Contract Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 627 and 628. ORDINANCE NO. 627 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROViNG DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-02, TO ADD SECTION 17.20.060 - HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 6 ORDINANCE NO. 628 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-02, TO CREATE A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP, AS DEFINED IN DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.24.020 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance Nos. 627 and 628 for August 2, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. F2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to add Automotive Fueling Services as a conditionally permitted use in the Haven Overlay District in Development Code Chapter 17.30. Councilmember Biane informed the Council he would be abstaining from voting on this matter. Staff report presented by Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner. Councilmember Williams wanted to make sure that flags, banners, etc., are not put up all along Haven Avenue and wanted to make sure this is enforced. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they will monitor the criteria for signage. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Charles Buquet, Charles Joseph and Associates, stated they have been working with Planning staff for the last year and one-half and feel this is a very positive addition to Haven Avenue. He stated they are working with Planning on the signage and want this to be a winner. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 629. ORDINANCE NO. 629 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.30, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE FUELING SERVICES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 629 for August 2, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Biane abstained from voting). City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page ? F3. APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 78 homes within Tentative Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8) dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related File: Variance 99-11. (CONTINUED FROM JULY 5, 2000) Staff report presented by Brent LeCount, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Gil Miltenberger, Ryland Homes, wanted to make sure the City Council received the sound information from RKJK. He added he also had a sound engineer with him that might be able to answer questions. He commented on page 331, item 5, No. 2 regarding the issuance of building permits. He stated his concern is that since this wall is partly a retaining wall, it is an integrated designed wall where those pads are actually currently cut back and you can't build those pads so there would be some delay in that area if the wall became an issue and there was no resolution. He asked that this be reworked so they can continue. John Lyons, Etiwanda, stated the noise started when the trees were cut down. He stated they are trying to preserve the character of Eitwanda. Jim Banks, Etiwanda, stated the developer has taken trees which has increased the noise. He stated he does disagree with staff's recommendation on the replacement of the wall. He felt it would be more visible down by the residences. He felt whatever landscaping the developer is required to put in, the new property owner will probably remove or change as the years go by. Mayor Alexander inquired if there were any decibel readings before and after the trees were cut down. Jim Banks stated no. Mayor Alexander asked if Mr. Banks really felt the landscaping would help with the noise. Jim Banks stated he also wonders if it will help. He just wanted to come up with the best solution to mitigate the noise problem. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Dutton inquired about the size of the retaining wall on the various lots. He also asked about the landscaping that would be at this wall. Brad Buller, City Planner, talked about Boston Ivy and how well it does in the City. He stated it is proven to be very hardy and aggressive. Councilmember Dutton also inquired about tree planting along the freeway side of the equestrian trails. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated they are requiring trees to be planted on the resident's side, but that possibly a homeowner could come in after they are planted and change the trees that are in there. He stated it is required to plant the vines on the homeowners side to go through the pockets of the wall. Councilmember Dutton stated he would like to see about putting in a tree belt on the east side of the trail to help with the noise problem. City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 8 Councilmember Dutton asked about the ongoing maintenance and can this be done through a landscape maintenance district to pay for it. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated if it is in the trail area, it could be a landscape maintenance district. He stated if it is in the freeway right-of-way, the City has never done this before and it is a process they would have to investigate and go through. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, added it would require a public hearing to annex this into the landscape maintenance district if there is no increase to the budget. He added if there is an increase to the budget, it would require a Prop 218 election. He added they are planning on widening the freeway and if and when they do, the landscaping will be gone. Councilmember Willlares felt staff should look at planting trees in the trail. Mayor Alexander stated he felt the Council should go ahead and let the 21' walls be built. He felt as much density landscaping should be done as possible. Councilmember Biane stated he wanted to make sure increased trail landscaping is done and wanted this on the record. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Resolution could be modified to accomplish the Council's intent. RESOLUTION NO. 00-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-72 THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 78 HOMES WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACTS 15911 AND 15912 IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY -APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141- 11 AND 12 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Dutton to approve Resolution 00-103 and 00-104. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 as modified. F4. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 99-11 - RYLAND HOMES - The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a request to construct perimeter tract walls up to approximately 21 feet high where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted for freeway noise mitigation purposes for Tracts 15911 and 15912 in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest and northeast corners of East Avenue and the Southern Pacific right- of-way. APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-11 and 12. Related Files: Development Review 99-72., Tentative Tract 15911 and 15912. (CONTINUED FROM JULY 5, 2000) SEE DISCUSSION UNDER ITEM F3 FOR THIS ITEM. City Council Minutes I July 19, 2000 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 00-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-11 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET IS ALLOWED, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141-11 AND 12 MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Dutton to approve Resolution 00-103 and 00-104. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 as modified. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS NO Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. DESIGNATION OF A VOTING REPRESENTATIAVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEETING Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager. ACTION: The Council concurred that Dutton would be the voting representative with Biane as the alternate voting representative. 12. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE ACTION: Report received and filed, 13. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY SUBCOMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION FOR LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND LIBRARY FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS (ORAL REPORT) Staff report presented by Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager. MOTION: Moved by Willlares, seconded by Biane to approve the subcommittee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Council Minutes July 19, 2000 Page 10 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. John Melcher stated he appreciated the regulations being placed on gas stations on Haven Avenue as was previously discussed. He also did not feel there should be cookie-cutter buildings and asked the Council to keep up the good work. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * August 2, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Re.qular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, August 2, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Diane Willlares, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Flavio Nunez, Assistant RDA Analyst; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Shelly Munson, Information Systems Specialist; Michael Toy, Information Systems Specialist; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Captain Rodney Hoops, Potice Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Protection District; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. Absent was Councilmember: Bob Dutton B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Proclamations to the Business Press 2000 Women of Distinction Award recipients. Mayor Alexander presented proclamations to Rosemary Faust, Captain Katie Roberts, Deborah Barmack, Linda Daniels and Linda Shestock. Jennifer Brown and Meredith Maloney could not be present. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/12/00 and 7/19/00, and Payroll ending 7/20/00 forthe total amount of $2,092,200.46. D2. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Construction of 6th Street Rehabilitation from Haven Avenue to Milliken Avenue, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9904. City Council Minutes August 2, 2000 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 00-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "6TM STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO MILLIKEN AVENUE" IN SAID CITY ANDAUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D3. Authorization to appropriate $7,360 in Account No. 01-4333-6028 to supplement funding of the City's share of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. D4. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Bruce W. Hull & Associates (CO 00-056) to perform appraisal services in conjunction with a proposed Community Facilities District (Catellus) in an amount not to exceed $25,000, to be funded by the project developer. DE. Approval to appropriate $530,440.00 to Account No. 22-4637-9843 and the approval of a Professional Services Agreement (CO 00-057) with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., to provide engineering design services for street widening and median island construction on Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue, in the amount of $875,650.00 ($796,045.00 plus 10% contingency), to be funded from Account No. 22-4637-9843. D6. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DR 97-33, located on the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Dove Investments, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 00-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 97-33 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D7. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, file a Notice of Completion for Improvements for DR 98-30, located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Street, submitted by Koll Development Company. RESOLUTION NO. 00-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 98-30 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D8. Approval of release of Maintenance Guarantee Bonds, Tract 10210, located on Sapphire Street, north of Almond. D9. Approval to accept the Sapphire Street Improvements, from Moon Court to just south of Almond Street, Contract No. 00-017, as complete, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $219,281.82. City Council Minutes August 2, 2000 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 00-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE SAPPHIRE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM MOON COURT TO JUST SOUTH OF ALMOND STREET, AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). CONSENT ORDINANCES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The additions of Section 17.20.060 - Hillside Overlay District, to Development Code Chapter 17.20 in order to implement the addition of a Hillside Overlay District on the Zoning Map. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The addition of a Hillside Overlay District to the city of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map in order to geographically define the Hillside area, as defined in the Development Code, Chapter 17.24. ORDINANCE NO. 627 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-02, TO ADD SECTION 17.20.060 - HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 628 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-02, TO CREATE A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP, AS DEFINED IN DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.24.020 Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 627 and 628. MOTOIN: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve Ordinance Nos. 627 and 628. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES - A request to add Automotiv~ Fueling Services as a conditionally permitted use in the Haven Overlay District in Development Code Chapter 17.30. City Council Minutes August 2, 2000 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. 629 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 99-05, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.30, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE FUELING SERVICES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 629. MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 629. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Dutton absent, Biane abstained). F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No Items Submitted. G, PUBLIC HEARINGS G1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 30 MPH ON PALO ALTO STREET BETVVEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HELLMAN AVENUE 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. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 630. ORDINANCE NO. 630 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A PRiMA FACIE SPEED LIMT OF 30 MPH ON PALO ALTO STREET BETVVEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HELLMAN AVENUE MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 630 for August 16, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). G2. APPROVAL OF THE SYSTEM TRANSFER FROM COMCAST CABLEVISION TO ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS Staff report presented by Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I. City Council Minutes August 2, 2000 Page 5 Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed, RESOLUTION NO. 00-146 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 HELD BY COMCAST CABLEVISION OF INLAND EMPIRE, INC. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 00-146. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent), H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. REPORT ON CLOSURE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE DURING STADIUM EVENTS Staff report presented by Captain Rodney Hoops, Police Department. ACTION: Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Dutton absent). The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR pERIOD~ 07-26-00 (00/01) RUN DATE: 07/26/00 PAOE: 1 2382 CASK N CLEAVER EMpLOYEE'OF THE MONTH CERT. 153807 70.00- <<< 153808 - 1542~6 4635 A & K pHOTOGRAPHY PHOTO DEVELOPING & SUPPLIES 1542~7 15.37 6271 ABBEY EVENTS SERVICES RECREATION SUPPLIES 1542~8 80.00 2732 ABC LOCKSMITHS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1542eg 163.01 2634 ABM BUSINESS MACHINES, INC. pROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154300 23e. 50 3785 ACTION ART RECREATION SUPPLIES 154301 30.35 14 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY AIRLINE TICKETS 154302 242.00 630~ ADAMSON. RONALD INSPECTION SERVICES 154303 1,280.00 5986 AICPA ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 154304 45.00 800g AMADOR, GILBERT RECREATION REFUNDS 154305 50.00 8010 ANSELMI, JESSICA RECREATION REFUNDS 154306 50.00 1291 ARCUS DATA SECURITY DATA STORAGE 154307 367.50 8001 ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM RECREATION REFUNDS 154308 70.00 667 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION VISA MONTHLY BILLINGS # 15430e 110.06 22202 ARTRY, ETHEL RECREATION REFUND 154310 8011 AUSTIN, DONNA RECREATION REFUNDS 154311 50.00 6142 BASSETT-SMITH, TERRI RECREATION REFUND 154312 50.00 5860 BERGERSON, MARLENE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 154313 50.00 6704 BEST, AL RECREATION REFUND 154314 50.00 4454 BIANE, PAUL CASH ADVANCE 154315 50.00 8002 BRADY, LUCY RECREATION REFUNDS 154316 70. O0 5993 BROCK, ALLEN REIMBURSEMENT 154317 50.00 8012 BRUNSON, DIANE RECREATION REFUNDS 154318 70.00 22203 BRYAN, ROBERT RECREATION REFUND 15431~ 8013 BURNS, WES RECREATION REFUNDS 154320 50.00 2440 BURRUSO~ LISA INSTRUCTOR pAYMENT 154321 37.80 5959 BUSINESS WEEK SUBSCRIPTION 154322 54.~5 8014 CARL~ JENIFER RECREATION REFUNDS 154323 50.00 8015 CASILLAS~ TONY RECREATIO REFUNDS 154324 50.00 8003 CHAMBERS, MARK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 154325 70.00 54e2 CHINO CITY OF ADVERTISEMENT 154326 50.00 e4e CLARK, KAREN INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 154327 268.50 8004 CODILLO, CARLOS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 154328 70.00 8016 CORTEZ, ADRIAN BUSINESS REFUNDS 15432e 50.00 8005 DAVIS, STEVEN SUBSCRIPTION 154330 70.00 8006 DAWSON, MICHELLE PHOTO SERVICE & SUPPLIES 154331 70.00 107 DETCO OFFICE SUPPLIES 154332 87.28 5BEe DUTTON, BOB REFUND 154333 70.00 4205 DYNAMIC GRAPHICS, INC. OFFICE EGUIPMENT 154334 58.95 4937 DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING RECREATION SUPPLIES 154335 538.75 3364 EIGHTH AVENUE GRAPHICS OFFICE SUPPLIES 154336 24.78 6444 EL CHICANO NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT 154337 291.00 8017 ELLIOT, WALTER RECREATION REFUNDS 154338 50.00 41351 EVENT PLANNERS CONTRACT SERVICES 154339 2,515.~6 4914 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES OFFICE SUPPLIES 154340 14.00 41352 FACILITIES & EVENT MANAGEMENT ADVERTISEMENT 154341 744.00 5944 FAVELA JR., RICHARD REIMBURSEMENT 154342 50.00 8018 FENN, CHARLES RECREATION REFUNDS 154343 50.00 41017 FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154344 67.83 6685 FOOTHILL BEVERAGE COMPNAY RECREATION SUPPLIES 154345 le7.05 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07-26-00 (O0/OI) RUN DATE: 07/26/00 PAGE: 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. 41031 FREDRICK8EN, CHRISTINE REIMBURSEMENT 154346 50.00 6232 GADABOUT TOURS~ INC RECREATION # 154347 4,625.20 8007 GLENN JR., WILLIE RECREATION REFUNDS 154348 70.00 8019 GRANGER, DONALD RECREATION REFUNDS 154349 50.00 4014 GRANT, RITA CONTRACT SERVICES 154350 51.52 ,:<{ 154351 - 154351 137 GTE CALIFORNIA MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINGS # 154352 593.24 33003 HALLAK, CAROL RECREATION 154353 12.00 5774 HARUYAMA, JENNY MILEAGE 154354 70.00 8020 SEAGSTEDT, JASON SUBSCRIPTIONS 154355 50.00 8021 HEMPHILL~ JEFFREY RECREATIO REFUNDS 154356 50.00 8022 HERRON, SHANNON RECREATION REFUNDS 154357 50. O0 6293 HIMSON, KATHY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154358 50.00 1234 HOSEMAN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154359 34.48 32365 HUNT, JENNIFER REIMBURSEMENT 154360 44.90 32289 HURST, JOHN REIMBURSEMENT 154361 70.00 6370 INLAND EMPIRE BUSINESS JOURNAL RECREATION REFUND 154362 24.00 4747 INLAND LIBRARY SYSTEM MEMBERSHIP DUES 154363 43.00 6565 JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 154364 121.00 8036 JOHNSON, JEREMY RECREATION REFUNDS 154365 70.00 6702 JONES~ KEITH RECREATION REFUND 15436~ 500.00 5790 KAMRANI, dOSEPH REIMBURSEMENT 154367 50.00 5295 KLAUS ~! SONS MISC 154368 3,420.00 60~0 KONG, SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154369 444.00 4982 ~ORANDA CONSTRUCTION C.D.B.G. 154370 339 LAM, JACK LEAGUE MEETING # 154371 435.97 8083 LANCE, BRETT RECREATION REFUNDS i5437~ 30. O0 6809 LAW, DANA SUBSCRIPTION 154373 100. O0 8024 LEIVA~ PETE COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPPLIES 154374 50.00 3490 LIST, ERICH CASH ADVANCE '154375 50. O0 5274 LITTLE BEAR pRODUCTIONS GRAPHIC DESIMNER 154376 1,290.00 30436 LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION 154377 39. 95 200 LOS ANGELES TIMES SUBSCRIPTION 154378 16.56 7164 MANELA~ ROSARIO REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154379 72.80 7165 MARA, PAMELA REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154380 50.00 250 MARTINEZ TOWING AND AUTOMOTIVE TOWING SERVICES # 154381 90.00 7172 MELTON, GARY REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154382 70.00 6669 METROPOLITAN PROVISIONS REIMBURSE TREE WORKER CERT. # 154383 635.82 7173 MEYER~ PATRICIA REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154384 50.00 749 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY ALARM SERVICES 154385 240.00 8025 MILLER~ RANDY HOTEL RESERVATIONS 154386 50.00 33002 MITCHELL~ YOLANDA RECREATION 154387 60.00 8026 ~ITCHEM~ DAVID MSTR PLN STORM DRAIN REIMB 154388 50.00 8027 MONTANO-PERALTA, NINA RECREATION REFUNDS 134389 50.00 7183 MORALES, MELISSA REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154390 50.00 8008 MULLIGAN, SONIA RECREATION REFUND8 154391 70.00 5813 MUNSON, MICHELLE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 134392 30.00 4882 MURRAY'S HOTEL & RESTAURANT SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154393 ~39.98 2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE # 154394 312.62 ~584 OLIVA, PHILIP RECREATION REFUND 154395 120.00 7197 ORTEGA, PHILLIP REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154396 70.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · ~ LIST OF WARRANTS FOR pERIOD: 07-26-00 (00/01) RUN DATE: 07/26/00 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 1441 PACIFIC BELL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 1543~7 1~443.2g 7203 PEARSON, dAMES REPUND PERS DEDUCTION 154398 50.~0 8028 PEREZ, LORETTA RECREATION REFUNDS 1543gg 50.00 6148 PIRSN, SHAUN CONTRACT SERVICES 154400 1~8.00 6~3 POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO.~ INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154401 169. ~6 583 PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES pROTECTION SERVICES-LIONS CNTR # 154402 ~4.64 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154403 .14.82 65a? GUINN, SHERLINE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154404 280.00 7223 RICO, ERIC REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154405 50.00 118~8 RIVERA, GEORGE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 154406 50.00 8035 RODRIgUIZ, ALICIA RECREATION REFUNDS 154407 70.00 6673 ROTH STAFFINO COMPANIES, INC RECREATION REFUND 154408 68~.50 2084 SAFECO INS. CO. OROUP ADMIN. MEDICAL INSURANCE 15440~ 11818.00 1171~ SALAZAR, SAL REIMB OF SUPPLIES 154410 50.00 30e2 SAN BERN COUNTY DOCUMENTARY HANDLING FEE 154411 35.00 150 SAN BERN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT· ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES # 154412 60.00 301 SAN BERN COUNTY SHERIFFS CONTRACT SHERIFFS SERVICE # 154413 850,524.00 305 SAN BERN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION/FLD AGREEMENT FLOOD CONTROL 154414 15,475.00 11088 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CITY OF REGISTRATION FEEICMBTA CONF 154415 50.00 802g SCHRADER, LOIS RECREATION REFUNDS 154416 50.00 1~656 SERNA. MARC~LINO RECREATION REFUND 154417 37. e2 11730 SERNA, SONYA RECREATION REFUNDS 154418 50.00 7243 SETTJE JR.~ EDWARD REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 15441g 50.00 11823 SMIDERLE, RICHARD EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT 1544~0 11g. 00 31g SO CALIF GAS COMPANY MONTHLY GAS BILLS 154421 857.31 12657 SOHOLT&CO RECREATION REFUND 154422 71.50 <<< 1544~3 - 154424 >>> 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS # 154425 2,478.~7 1~661 TCSA SOUTH RECREATION REFUND 15442~ ~5.00 7270 TUCKERMAN~ BARBARA REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154427 50.00 12655 TUTTLE, ROD RECREATION REFUND # 154428 345.00 ~e58 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION UMP SERVICES # 15442~ 2~52~.75 7271 UNgASHICK~ dULIE REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154430 70.00 2682 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE METER MONTHLY SERVICES 154431 4,500.00 8030 VAN FOSSON~ BRIAR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 154432 50.00 2370 VAS~UEZ~ ANTHONY REIMBURSEMENT 154433 50.00 a661 VERIZON WIRELESS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 154434 115.15 4e77 VOSS, MARY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 154435 50.00 1265g WAA RECREATION REFUND # 15443~ 800.00 8032 WAHTSTROM~ CATHY RECREATION REFUNDS 154437 50.00 1522 WE TIP CITY COUNCIL AD 154~38 5,~21.75 1~658 WHEATON, MANDY RECREATION REFUND 15443~ 21.00 ~703 WILKERSON~ LOUISE RECREATION REFUND 154440 50.00 8033 WILLIAMS, VANESSA RECREATION REFUNDS 154441 50.00 12660 WLC ARCHITECTS RECREATION REFUND 154442 85.00 11836 WOODSIDE HOMES OVERPAYMENT ON FEES 154443 12.312.62 8034 WYMAN, LINDA RECREATION REFUNDS 154444 50.00 11821 ZUNIOA, VALERIE EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT 154445 50·00 ~ TOTAL ~32,461.86 CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD~ 07-26-00 (g?/O0) RUN DATE: 07/27/00 PAGE: 1 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR, AMT, ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 1851 CAL WESTERN PAINT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 153862 1,683.57- <<< 153863 - 154447 22118 AM.H. INC. DEPOSIT REFUND 154448 500.00 ~2131 ABBONA, ARLENE RECREATION REFUND 15444? 48.00 2732 ABC LOCKSMITHS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154450 517.74 ~231 AEF SySTEMS'CONSULTING, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154451 2212e ALTHIS, WIDAD RECREATION REFUND 154452 106,00 1430 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES 154453 270.42 ~658 AMERICAN FIRST AID & SAFETY SUPPLIES ~ 154454 351.81 22130 AMINIKHARRAZI, LORRAINE RECREATION REFUND 154455 60.00 22121 ANDERCRAFT PRODUCTS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154456 248,03 ~2122 ANNASELLErS PREFERENCE~ INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND I54457 7.00 5807 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ~ 154458 1,200.00 1271 ARCUS DATA SECURITY DATA STORAGE # 15445~ 367, 50 <<< 154460 - 154460 667 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION VISA MONTHLY BILLINGS ~ 154461 3,615.73 22085 BARNES~ WALLACE RECREATION REFUND 154462 5.00 22120 BC DONUTS & ESPRESSO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154463 30.00 22123 BENNETT, GEORGE REFUND PARKING CITATION 154464 30.00 4441 BEST BUY CO., INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 154465 436.18 6527 BEYOND. COM SOFTWARE ~ 154466 346.65 22125 BROWN, LORRAINE RECREATION REFUND 154467 27.60 22133 BRUNNER, JANET RECREATION REFUND 154468 1223 CALSENSE OFFICE/MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT ~ 154469 7~827.12 22127 CARLSON~ ANDREA RECREATION REFUND 154470 33.00 6320 CARY, KRISTIN BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154471 11.38 22126 CASTRO~ DELIA RECREATION REFUND 154472 33.00 22128 CHACON, LORENA RECREATION REFUND 154473 60.00 1061 CHAMPION AWARDS & SPECIALITIES ENGRAVED PLAQUE ~ 154474 1~830.67 52134 CLARK GRADING SERVICE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154475 4301 COMPUSA~ INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154476 23,146.68 <<< 154477 - 154477 130 COMPUTER SERVICE CO SIGNAL MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES # 154478 10~042.72 643 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES # 15447~ 7,633.01 22124 CONTRERAS~ DENISE RECREATI0N REFUND # 154480 60,00 22i32 CORONADO, DONNA RETREATION REFUND 154481 55.00 4419 CREATIVE DATA PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 154482 1,318.~9 <<< 154483 - 154487 85 CUCAMONQA CO WATER DIST MONTHLY WATER BILLINGS # 154488 47,~25.75 1290 DEER CREEK CAR WASH VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 15448~ 101.50 658e DELTA MICROIMAGING~ INC. pROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154470 2,7~2.47 41329 DEWITT~ KAREN RECREATION REFUND 154471 27.00 5764 DIALOG CORPORATION, THE MAINTENANCE 1544e2 83~ DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 154473 12.90 41330 DILELLO, BARBARA RECREATION REFUND ~ 154474 130.00 41331 DODT~ DENISE RECREATION REFUND 1544e5 33.00 6474 DOOR HARDWARE SERVICES MAINTENANCE SERVICE/SUPPLIES 1544e6 241.30 5372 DREAMAKER CREATIONS RECREATION SUPPLIES 154477 484.78 977 E S R I~ INC. SOFTWARE SUPPORT FEES # 154498 3,870.93 41332 EDWARDS~ SHERYL RECREATION REFUND 15447e 25.00 41333 EFM METALS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154500 79.84 ! · CITY OF RANCH8 CUCAMQNOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07-26-00 (gV/O0) RUN DATE: 07/27/00 PAQE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARP NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 41334 ELLIOT~ WALTER REIMBURSEMENT 154501 144.00 3312 ESKENAZI, MQISES REIMBURSEMENT 154502 50.00 41335 ESQUEDA CONSTRUCTION CO.. INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154503 17.28 41336 EWINQ. LASHANDA RECREATION REFUND 154504 40.00 41337 EXCEL CABINETS~ INC. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154505 14.40 4914 EXCLUSIVE EMAQES OFFICE SUPPLIES 154506 96.98 123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP DELIVERY SERVICE ~ 154507 87.53 4371 FISHER SCIENTIFIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154508 1~857.56 4371 FISHER SCIENTIFIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154509 557.06 41338 FISHER, SHERYL RECREATION REFUND 154510 9.90 6440 FLUORESCO LIQHTINQ MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES/SERVICE ~ 154511 632.00 6685 FOOTHILL BEVERAQE COMPNAY RECREATION SUPPLIES 154512 127.05 41339 FRY STEEL COMPANY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154513 5.00 41326 OAFHEY, CAROL RECREATION REFUND 154514 25.00 41340 QENERAL UNDERQROUND FIRE PROTEC. REFUND 154515 1,000.00 5780 8IANT INLAND EMPIRE R.V. CENTER INSTALLATION SERVICE/SUPPLIES 154516 636.71 41163 QILLI, CSRIS TUITION REIMBURSEMENT # 154517 81.92 6217 HARO ENQINEERINQ BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154518 440.00 32715 HERNANDEZ~ HECTOR RECREATION 154519 93.00 32718 HERNANDEZ, RENEE RECREATION 154520 72.00 4724 HI-WAY SAFETY, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154521 515.05 1234 HOSEMAN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154522 327.56 3634 HOUSE OF RUTH 93/94 CDBQ CONTRACT 154523 633.00 6641 HOUSTON HARRIS PIPE CLEANINQ RECREATION REFUND # 154524 5~460.0O 1942 HYDRO TEK SYSTEMS~ INC. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 154525 1~034.31 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS~ INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154526 1~873.38 908 INLAND MEDIATION BOARD LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE RESOL. 154527 7.50 2315 INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154528 227.89 171 JACKSON-HIRSH~ INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154529 137.27 32709 JAMIESON~ ROBERT RECREATION 154530 60.00 32717 JANIKDWSKI~ BETH RECREATION 154531 47.00 32720 JONES & ASSOC.~ DIANNE pROFESSIONAL SERVICE 154532 647.25 32722 JUAREZ, MARSHA REIMBURSEMENT 154533 32714 JULIUS, BERTHA RECREATION 154534 60.00 32712 KASSISSA, ISSA RECREATION 154535 60.00 149 KINQ~ L.D. pROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154536 8,333.73 1024 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154537 409.78 4982 KDRANDA CONSTRUCTION C.D.B.Q. # 154538 960.90 1075 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154539 412.48 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CD pROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 154540 36,3O0.5O <<< 154541 - 154541 321 LANDSCAPE WEST~ INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ~ 154542 119~148.65 32706 LASHER, CYNTHIA RECREATION 154543 90.00 32716 LAVERTU~ JUDITH RECREATION 154544 60.00 5884 LILBURN CORPORATION pROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154545 65.84 2369 MAR-CO EQUIPMENT CO. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE # 154546 142.99 549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT. INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 154547 65~407.72 72 MARK CHRIS~ INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154548 143.12 4727 MARSHALL pLUMBIND REHAB. pRODRAM ~ 154549 1~641.23 ~ 154550 1~80000 5300 MAYER, COBLE & PALMER pROFESSIONAL SERVICES 025 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 154551 54.54 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIODz 07-26-00 (99/00) RUN DATB: 07/27/00 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NAMB ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHEC~ OVERLAP 4164 MIDDLESEX OFFICE SUPPLY, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154552 227.07 32705 MOODIE, FRAN RECREATION 154553 345.00 32708 MUINOS, TINA RECREATION 154554 33.00 32713 NELSON, WENDY RECREATION 154555 60.00 433 NIXON-EGLI EGUIPMENT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 154556 311.99 32711 NUAIMI, SUSANNE RECREATION ~ 154557 65.00 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 154558 3,028.45 32719 OH, JENNY RECREATION 154559 50.00 32707 OICKETT~ EDDIE RECREATION 154560 33.00 3429 ON CALL COMPUTER SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154561 98.92 32721 ONE STOP HOME EXPRESS BUSINESS LICENSE 154562 5.73 1224 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVICE~INC. STRIPING SERVICES ~ 154563 37~565.30 235 OWEN ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154564 1,097.25 32710 OWENS, TERRI RECREATION 154565 60.00 6206 pLANNING CENTER, THE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154566 1,181.25 255 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ~ 154567 12,579.79 3952 pOMONA INL VALLEY CNCL OF CHURCHES WEST END HUNGER pROGRAM 154568 628.00 6399 PREMIER pERSONNEL RECREATION REFUND ~ 154569 1~398.60 5899 GUALITY ONE ENGRAVERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 154570 34.48 251 R & R AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE MAINT~SUPPLIES&SERVICE ~ 154571 231.00 345 R D 0 EGUIPMENT CO/POWERPLAN MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 154572 1~084.50 1038 R J M DESIGN GROUP, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ~ 154573 1~925.50 12637 RAMIREZ, SANDRA RECREATION REFUND # 154574 17.00 12649 RANCHO MOBILE AUFO SERVICESREPAIR RECREATION REFUND 154575 17.66 12638 RANDLE~ PAULA RECREATION REFUND ~ 154576 65.00 12643 RED E. BOARDWEAR RECREATION REFUND 154577 7.33 5618 RICHARDS~ WATSON~ & GERSHON LEGAL SERVICES ~ 154578 2~096.15 276 RIVERSIDE DLUEPRINT PRINTS 154579 76.88 1263~ RUBEL, LAURIE RECREATION REFUND 154580 40.00 12640 RUBENSTEIN, BELINDA RECREATION REFUND 154581 54.00 662~ RVC ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. RECREATION REFUND 154582 5~774.54 5538 SAN ANTONIO MATERIALS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154583 283.51 4432 SAN BERN ASSOC GOVERNMENTS GEN ASSESSMENT MEMBERSHIP DUES 154584 700.00 300 SAN BERN COUNTY REIMB PARKING CITATIONS 154585 132 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOffi CO, INC MAINT SUPPLIES # 154586 1,208.96 I105 SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 154587 646.50 1829 SHARED TECH. FAIRCHILD TELECOM, INC TELEPHONE SERVICES 154588 78.00 12641 SHATTUC~, MARGIE RECREATION REFUND 154589 15.00 6683 SHAWN STAHL RECREATION REFUND 154590 70.00 12642 SHINKLE~ MICHELLE RECREATION REFUND 154591 46.00 692 SIR SPEEDY OFFICE SUPPLIES 154592 43.10 1327 SMART & FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 154593 247.98 319 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY MONTHLY GAS BILLS # 154594 226.91 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS ~ 154595 4,297.92 5491 SPEK, CHRISTOPHER CASH ADVANCE 154596 36.63 11792 STANDARD pACIFIC TEMP UTILITY OVERPAYMENT 154597 6,000.00 902 STATE OF CA~DEPARTMENT OF TRANS TRAFFIC SIQNAL MAINTENANCE 154598 14,193.75 3058 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK ~ 154599 2,688.00 3632 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 154600 742.94 3632 STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 154601 708~37 12670 SUE'S pOSTAL&GIFT STORE RECREATION REFUND 154602 24.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07-26-00 <99/00) RUN DATE: 07/27/00 PAGE: 4 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARN NO WARN. AMT, ~ CHEDK~ OVERLAP 12844 SUTPHEN, MILLIE RECREATION REFUND # 154603 65.00 12671 SWAN ROOLS RECREATION REFUND 154604 45.7~ 12872 T!T.S. PRODUCTS~ INC RECREATION REFUND 154805 111.00 2344 TARGET YOUTH PROGRAM ~ DAY CAMP SUPPL ~ 154608 139.13 3495 TERRA-CAL DONSTRUCTION~ IND. BID PACKET OVERPAYMENT 154807 119~283.88 12848 TIGERWALL ALTERNATE WALL SYSTEMS RECREATION REFUND 154808 331.90 4558 U S GUARDS CO., INC. SECURITY GUARD SERVICE ~ 154809 1~314.00 3437 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES # 154610 227.35 4206 UNIQUE CREATIONS 1ST AID ~ITS 154611 247.02 5601 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. MANAGEMENT SERVICES 154812 434. 05 3844 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL 154613 32.33 12847 URENDA~ ALFONSO RECREATION REFUND 154814 50.00 12648 VEDA, HECTOR RECREATION REFUND 154815 30.00 <<< 154818 - 154618 6661 VERIZON WIRELESS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND ~ 154817 4~528.37 1103 VISTA PAINT MAINT SUPPLIES # 154818 11082.84 12845 WADE LOUISE RECREATION REFUND 154819 12874 WALKER~ RAWAH RECREATION REFUND 154820 75.00 12675 WAS~O~ SARA RECREATION REFUND 154821 45.00 12876 WAYDEMAN, BONNIE RECREATION REFUND ~ 154822 55,00 12673 WESTCO PRODUCTSi INC RECREATION REFUND 154623 120.00 i2877 WRIGHT~ SUSAN RECREATION REFUND 154824 12836 YOKOHAMA~ KWANQ HOE RECREATION REFUND 154825 85.00 12878 ZARATE, JUDI RECREATION REFUND 154628 50,00 371 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE RECREATION SUPPLIES 154827 45.14 348 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES 154828 578.93 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 08-02-00 (99/00) RUN DATE: 08/02/00 PAGE 1 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT 107 DETCO OFFICE SUPPLIES 150603~ 2~047.85 12165 WILLIAMS~ FLOB RECREATION REFUND 151278~ 37.20- 12543 STANFORD UNIVERSITY RECREATION REFUND 152970~, 275.00 <Z<< 152971 - 153486 6181 WEST END MATERIAL SUPPLY RECREATION REFUND 153487 50.37- 32090 NAVAR, LAURA RECREATION 15369;: 60.00- 32382 INTERCOASTAL FUNDING CORP. BUSINESS LICENSE 15391~ 32671 MATHIS, BILLII RECREATION 153936~ 35.00- <<< 153937 - 153972 6514 RY-LEE TRUCk TIRE SERVICE RECREATION REFUNDS 153973+ 65.00- 12653 WYNDHAM PALM SPRINGS HOTEL RECREATION REFUND 154012 219. B8- 214 SAN BERN COUNl~ MONTHLY SERVICE 154018+ 550.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON~A LIST OF WARRANTS FOS PERIOD: 08-02-00 (ee/oo) RUN DATE; 08/02t00 PA~I VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AM1 22146 BURKE, KAREN RECREATION REFUN[ 154666 50.00 4410 BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE~ ~ 154667 3~218.43 22158 BURTON, BRIQETTE RECREATION REFUNIj 154668 276.00 6713 CALIFORNIA OVERNIQHI RECREATION REFUNDS 154669 8.00 22140 CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT REFUND 154670 1~O00.00 22138 CARL'S JR. RESlAURANT #643 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 15467i 23.00 22150 CARLOS, BRENDA RECREATION REFUND # 154672 30.58 22142 CHELETTE, LOUIS MARKUS RECREATION REFUND 154673 63.00 22152 CHOI, HAEN~ RECREATION REFUND 154674 35.00 22147 CHU, CHIA--YUN RECREATION REFUND 154675 350.00 22139 CLAIM JUMPER RESIAURANT ~lS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154676 27.1~ 22143 COALS, QINA RECREATION REFUND 154677 35.00 3073 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154678 294.78 22137 COMMERCIAL CABINET & CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154678 58.5] 643 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 154680 4~145.80 2362 COMSERCO~ IN( SERVICE/REPAIRS 15468] 339.4~ 22157 CONNELLi BRID~E1 RECREATION REFUND 15468F~ 35.00 22148 CORDOVAl ROBERi RECREATION REFUNi 154683 22135 CREST COMPUIER INSTITUTE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154684 50.7~ 85 CUCAMONQA CO WATER DISl MONTHLY WATER BILLIN~E~ ~ 154687 24~733.]4 239 D & ~ CONCRETE CO STREET MAINTENANC) ~ I5468B 818614] 284 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO~ INC OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 154689 41341 DARISSON~ LOR~ RECREATION REFUNI 154690 72.5C 41342 DEAO, ROBER! RECREATION REFUN[ 154691 35.00 3909 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STRDNQ MOTION FEt 154692 13~234.0(} 41343 DITTEMORE INSULATION CDNTRACTORBI BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154693 47.90 41309 DUFFIELD~ PBQQ~ RECREATION REFUND 154694 41344 ECHAVARRIA~ CAROLYN RECREATION REFUND 15469~ 35;00 5137 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE[ ) 154697 1,076.90 41345 FALER~ DEBBIt RECREATION REFUND 154699 70.00 6556 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATEB PERSONNEL SERVICE~ ~ 154700 422;00 2840 FORD OF UPLAND, IN{ VEHICLE MAINTENANCI ~ 154703 41346 FREJLACHI KURi RECREATION REFUND 154702 60.00 5833 FRITTS FORD EGUIPMENT ~ 154703 23,000.00 6628 Q · M BUSINESS INqERIORS RECREATION REFUND 15470~ 480.1~ 41347 OILBERT, REBECCA .RECREATION REFUNI 154706 138.00 139 QLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 15470? 73.65 3827 QREEN ROCK POWER EOUIPMEN1 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE&. # 15470B 136.8] 32756 QUSHUE FAMILY REALTORSI THE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154709 413.00 6383 H.V. CARTER CD BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 154710 61.35 327~1 HASSCUM, BAREA RECREATION # 15471~ 40.50 2855 HAVEN WINE & LIQUOR CO. SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINB~ # 154712 367.1~ 32765 HDELTING~ TRISH RECREATION 154713 35.00 158 HOLLIDAY ROCK Cd., INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE~ ~ 15471~ 3,572.32- 32726 HUNT, KRISTINI RECREATION ~ 15471~ 150.50 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 15471~ 4,288.4t 1218 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION ~ROUF MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE~ ~ 15471~ 6,147.9~ ~ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS -OR PERIOD: 08-02-00 (eB/O0) RUN DATE: 08/02/00 PAOE: ] VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. ANT. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP }682 [NLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154718 151.50 32724 JACKSON, BARBARA RECREATION 15471~ 28.00 3~766 jACKSON, BEATRICE RECREATION 154750 35,00 L941 JACOBSEN DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC. MAINF SUPPLIES · 154721 i19.63 31822 JAVA CITY BUSINESS LICENSE 154722 21.69 ~2725 JIMENEZ, SANDIE RECREATION 154723 66.50 3~736 JOINER, CURT RECREATION 154724 175.00 12730 JONES, DOROTHY RECREA[ION 154725 19,10 32751 K-VAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 154726 330.83 )2734 KEENEY~ JANET RECREATION 154727 25.00 32738 KELLY~ CHARLES RECREATION ~ 154728 38.00 3273~ KELTNER, TRICIA RECREATION 154729 45.00 3275~ KILDE, ~ERROD RECREATION 154730 35.00 J2745 KINEMATICS RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ~ISC 154731 202.00 ~764 KULI INABS INC. RECREATION SUPPLIES ~ 154732 ~,214.48 1~743 LACY~ DARRYL RECREATION 154733 75.00 t93 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION C3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154734 ~,420.00 ~21 LANDSCAPE WEST, INC, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 154735 ~4,330,00 l~74~ LEE~ MAY RECREATION 15473~ 15.12 ]~744 LENZ, LARRY BUSINESS LICENSE 154737 70.74 5884 LILBURN CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154738 1,727.50 ~75~ LIZARRAGA, FRANK JR. ATTORNEY ~ LAW BUSINESS LICENSE 154739 10.50 J~53 LOWELL GOMEZ, REAL ESTATE BROKER BUSINESS LICENSE 154740 7.50 3~7~4 I_Y, TINA HUE RECREATION 154741 I3.00 32742 MACALINAO~ WENDY RECREATION 154742 108.00 ~2723 MAGIC TOUCH LANDSCAPE RELEASE OF DEPOSIT 154743 250.00 :3272q MAIER~ LIZA RECREATION 154744 35.00 i4e MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT. INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ~ 154745 14,077.97 7~ MARK CHRIS~ INC, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154746 S04.14 ~727 MARSHALL PLUMBIN~ BEHAB. PROGRAM 154747 742.2~ 32767 MATHEWS, LISA RECREATION 154748 I03.00 32762 MAXWELL~ DENISE RECREATION ~ 154749 40,00 32754 MCADE~S AIR COMFORT BUSINESS LICENSE 154750 6,94 32763 MCANINCH, JIM RECREATION 154751 35.00 32747 METEOR, INC. BUSINESS LICENSE 154752 51.93 32758 MILLER~ JOANNE RECREATION 154753 34.00 32740 MILLER, NANCY RECREATION # 154754 60,00 ~2768 MITTAL~S DENTAL OFFICE, DR. BUSINESS LICENSE 154755 56.16 32731 MONDRY~ PAUL RECREATION 154756 eO. O0 5885 MORITA~ DUANE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154757 5~070.00 32748 MOTHERHOOD MATERNITY ~ 1367 ~USINESS LICENSE 154758 79.00 3e78 MUNIFINANCIAL, INC. ARBITRAGE REBATE SERVICES ~ 154759 ~,500.00 32737 MYC~ KIMBERLY RECREATION ~ 154760 40,00 5~71 NAFCO REFUND PERMIT DEPOSIT 1547~1 ~1.14 2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE · 1547~2 364.0~ 320e0 NAVAR, LAURA RECREATION 1547~3 60.00 32755 NEVAC BUSINESS LICENSE 154764 32.3~ ~33 NIXON-EGLI EGUIPMENT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ~ .154765 3,1e7.87 32728 NOETH, DIANNA RECREATION I5476~ 35.00 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 154767 1,615.61 365 OLD GUAKER PAINT COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154768 704.03 CITY OF SANCHO CUCAMONQA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 08-02-80 (99/00) RUN DATEz 08/02/00 PAGE: 4 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARS NO WARS. ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 32760 OSBORN, SHELLY RECREATION 154769 70.00 32757 PACIFIC COATING BUSINESS LICENS~ 154770 6.45 338 PACIFIC E~UIPT & IRRI~ATION, INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE~ 154771 533.36 6668 PAINTIN8 THE TOWN RECREATION REFUNI ~ 15477~ 18~828.00 32733 PARK, dI YOUNG RECREATION 154773 50.00 6597 PAVEMENT RECYCLINO SYSTEM RECREATION REFUNi 154774 1,450.00 32749 PEOPLE'S PARALEGAL BUSINESS LICENS~ 154775 844 32761 PEREZ, ALID~ RECREATIO~ ~ 154776 40.00 3547 PERPETUAL STORAGE STORAQB SUPPLIEr 154777 576.48 32735 PERRY, LILLIAN RECREATION 15477E 120.00 5720 PERVO PAINT CO. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154779 1,474.19 2987 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEM~i MONTHLY SERVICt 154780 406.07 32732 PORTER, dENNIFER RECREATION 154781 66.00 4401 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC. EQUIPMENT RENtAl # 154782 551.68 4335 PUBLIC A~ENCY RISK SHARIN~ AUTH CA. 2ND QUARTER PREMIUM DEPOSIT 154783 711.00 345 R D 0 EQUIPMENT CO/POWERPLAN MAINT SUPPLIE~ 154784 840.96 264 RALPHS QROCERY COMPANY RECREATION SUPPLIES 154785 37.44 3016 SANCHO CUCAMONQA POLICE DEP3 REIMBURSEMENq 154786 889.1~ 3016 SANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPI REIMBURSEMEN] 154787 987.90 5914 REXEL CALCON ELECTRICAL SUPPLIE~ ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ~ 154788 323.38 6518 RHYTHM ENTERTAINMEN1 RECREATION REFUNDS 154789 555.2~ 5618 RICHARDS~ WATSON, & GERSHON LEGAL SERVICES ~ 154790 31,61915 12679 RIVERA~ SANDBA RECREATION REFUNi ~ 15478~ 40.00 12680 RIVERO, LISA RECREATION REFUND i5479~~ 6171 S & K ENGINEERS RECREATION REFUNi 154793 2~030.00 581 SAN BERN COUNTY CAL-ID PROQRAP~ ~ 154794 60,707.36 5029 SAN BERN COUNTY FIRE DEP] UNDERGROUND TANK! ~ 154795 1,807.00 301 SAN BERN COUNTY 8HERIFFE CONTRACT SHERIFFS SERVICE ~ 15479~ 22,710.25 6655 SAN DIEGO, CITY OF, TREASUREE~ RECREATION REFUNi 154797 12681 SCHWARTZ, CHERYL RECREATION REFUNI 15479B 59.50 12682 SCOTT, DEAN RECREATION REFUNi; 154798 63.00 1105 SEAL FURNITURE & SYSTEMS IN( OFFICE SUPPLIEE 154800 1,858.90 12689 SHOULTZ, SYLVIA AND DAVID DEPOSIT REFUND 154801 70.00 851 8IGN SHOP, TH~ MAINT SUPPLIE~: 154802 142.50 12683 SINGHAL, VISAY RECREATION REFUND ]54803 35.00 692 SIR SPEEDY OFFICE SUPPLIE] ~ 154804 174.5~i 12684 S~IPPER, PATRICIA REGISTRATION ~ 154805 110.00 12685 SMITH, VERONICA PERMIT REFUND 154806 35.00 12686 SNOWDON, SUSAN RECREATION REFUNI 154807 35.00 6660 SPINDLES CONSTRUCTION RECREATION REFUNI 154808 261.8[ 4663 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP, INC RECREATION SUPPLIES ~ 154809 2,568.52 2847 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL M~Mq., IN~ SERVICE AND SUPPLIES 154810 3058 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK ~ 154811 ~,688.00 12687 STEPHENSON, MONICA RECREATION REFUND 154812 70.00 5281 STERICYCLE, INC SHARPS PROGRAPi ~ 154813 124.84 12688 STEVENS, KAREN RECREATION REFUND 154814 35.00 4733 SUNRISE FORD AUTO SERVICE & SUPPLIES 154815 5079 SYNCHRONEY ~ VIDEO DETECTION SYSTEM ]54816 646.50 4114 TAYLOS-DUNN ALARM SERVIC~ 154817 1~116.8~ 12690 TEdAS, DOLORES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154818 35.00 394~ TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVIC~ ~ ]54818 533.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD~ 08--02--00 (98~/00) RUN DATE= 08/02/00 PAQE~ 5 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT~ · * CHECK~ OVERLAP 12691 TERRA VISTA CLEANERS RECREATION REFUND 154820 4-0.38 6642 TIDEMARk COMPUTERS SYSTEMS, ~NC. SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL L5A821 ~7,524,. 53 12595 TO, JENNIFER BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND [54822 ~000 18705 TO~ LINDA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND ~ 154823 12692 TOOHEY, JULIE RECREATION REFUND [5A824 ? 50 126~3 TORRES, MARIA RECREATION REFUND [5A825 70~00 5238 rRANSAMERICAN SOIL !_ANDSCAPE SUPPLIES [54826 B4,1.84 12694- TRUONQ, CHRISTINE RECREATION REFUND [54827 [250 4-788 UNDERQROUND SVS. ALERT OF SO DALIF UNDERQROUND SERVICE ALERT [54-828 ~35.75 34-37 UNIFIRS[ UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES ~ ~54829 ~71.35 3844 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL ~ 154830 h5~065 12695 UPLAND ANIMAL HOSPITAL RECREATION REFUND 154831 ~3+00 12696 VALENCIA, JOANN BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND [54-832 [40 OO 12173 VAN BREUKELEN, E d RECREATION REFUND ~ 154833 L7.00 1~6~7 VELAZGUEZ, SILVIA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND [54-834 ~0.00 [{< 154,835 - ~54885 56~1 VERIZON WIRELESS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND ~ 154836 ~,4,06.43 6653 VETRONIX SALES CORP. REFUND LANDSCAPE MAINT DIST. L54837 ~4,9.53 12698 VIN5ON, SELINA RECREATION REFUND [54-838 4-78 WARREN & CO., CARL LIABILITY CLAIMS L54,839 L64,.28 ~002 WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT ~ 15484-0 580.06 ~13 ~AXIE, KLEEN-LINE CORP MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 154,84,1 6,14,3.05 12699 WENFZ, QLENDA MEMBERSHIP DUES t5484,2 63.00 1270D WHEELER~ dOHN SUBSCRIPTION [54-84-3 ~3.00 3080 WHITTIER FERTILIZER LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 1548~ ~09.4,5 12701 WILLCOT, NAKIA RARKIN~ CITATION REFUND ~ 15484-5 BS. 00 ~12 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES RROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154,84,6 10,08000 12572 WILSON, KISHA RECREATION REFUND [5484,7 )5.00 12702 WILSON, MICHELLE PARKIND CITATION REFUND [54~84,8 175.00 12703 WYMAN, DATNY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 154849 13.00 12704 ZUNIQA, PATRICIA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND [54850 ~0.00 ~* TOTAL ~82,979.84 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD; 08-08-00 (00/01) RUN DATE: 08/02/00 PAGE ~ CHECK# OVERLAP 12653 WYNDHAM PALM SPRINOS HOlEi RECREATION REFUND 154016~ 212.88 499 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) MONTHLY VISION SERVICE BILLIN{ 194017~ 8,546.04 <<{ 154018 - 154325 5492 CMINO CITY OF ADVERTISEMENq 154326~ 5000- {<< 154327 - 194417 11730 SERNA~ SONYA RECREATION REFUNDS 154418~ 50.00- 728i WARD~ DAVID REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 154a29~ 90~00 {<{ 154630 - 154~31 33004 OENNINQ8, STEPHEN RECREATION 154~32~ <{< 154633 - 154852 a451 A A AUTOMOTIVE RECREATION REFUND 154853 337.33 33 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARt MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154854 15.29 22204 BELLO, HEATHER RECREATION REFUND 154855 6320 CARY, KRISTIN BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND # 154856 39.00 68 CENTRAL CITIES SI~NS~ INi MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154857 951.70 713 CHICK'S SPORTINQ QOODS IN( RECREATION SUPPLIEEi 154858 153.5~ 73 CITRUS MOTOBS ONTARIO~ ]Ni VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES! # 154859 156.37 82205 COOPER~ PAULA RECREATION REFUND 154860 178.00 60 DELTA DENTAL DENTAL INSURANCi 154861 41353 DIAS~ MANUEL REFUND 194862 83.13 5744 DIRECTV SUBSCRIPTION 154863 27.99 4937 DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING RECREATION SUPPLIES ~ 154864 912.1] 5137 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERV]CI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1548~5 4,297.50 380~ ETINANDA SCHOOL DISTRIC'~ FACILITY RENTAL 154866 3,080.00 2840 FORD OF UPLAND, INC VEHICLE MAINTENANC~ ~ 154867 875.06 33005 ~ARRISON~ LESLIE REIMBURSEMEN! 154869 I00.00 41354 8EOR~E, CHRIS RECREATION REFUNI 154869 16.00 5955 8OLDEN WEST DISTRISUTIN( RECREATION SUPPLIEE 154870 106.56 382? ~REEN ROCK POWER EOUIPMENTM MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154871 555.30 <<< 15487~i - 154873 137 ~E CALIEORNIA MONTHLY TELEPHONE BILLINQS ~ 154874 4~270.55 5699 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE CDMPAN~ RECREATION SUPPLIES 154875 269.35 2855 HAVEN WINE & LIQUOR C[ SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS 154876 105.84 462 HCS-CUTLER STEEL CO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 154877 96.98 6639 HOLMES ICE AND STORA~E~ IN! RECREA]ION REFUND 154878 208.40 1234 HOSEMAN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154879 10.21 4188 I D BURR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES ~ 154880 256.39 1218 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUIlON 08OUF MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 154881 240.92 568P INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICA: QROUf PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154882 1,84~.00 908 INLAND MEDIATION ~OARI LANDLORD/]ENANT DISPUTE RESOi 154883 27.50 6429 INLAND UNIFORM8 RECREATION REFUND 154884 344.69 128 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN ADVERTISIN~ 154885 1,456.70 6626 JOHN'S TRAILERS RECREATION REFUND 154886 80.00 6985 JOHNSON, CHARLOTTt SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 194887 297.00 179 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN MEDICAL INSURANC~ 154888 67,508.95 6139 KAUFMAN AND BROAD REIMB. PES~ CNTRL RE~ISTRATIO~ # 154889 2220 KELLY PAPER COM~ANh PAPER SURPLIE~ 154890 115.74 339 LAM~ JAC~ LEAOUE MEETIN( 154891 852.00 315 LEAOUE OF CALIF CITIE! INLAND EMPIRE DIV. MEETING ~ 154892 975.00 3162 LET'S STOR IT MONTHLY RENTA; 154893 500.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 08-02-00 (00/01) RUN DATE: 08/02/00 PAGE: VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION 4ARR NO WARR. AMT. ~ CHECK~ OVERLAP 1455 LONQ'S DRU~S FILM PROCESSINO ~ I54894 L317 5662 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL. CO RECREATION SUPPLIES ~ I54895 i87 20 3156 LUgS LIGHTHOUSE, INC. OIL ANALYSIS L54896 ~33.29 602 MEYER, PAT REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES L54897 ~0.53 25~7 MINNESOTA WESTERN MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES [54898 7,000.00 7182 MOORE, DAVID REFUND PEPS DEDUCTION [54899 )0.00 33006 NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE, THE MEMBERSHIP 154900 ~5.00 744 NATIONAL DEFERRED DEFERRED COMP L54901 i, 426.00 523 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 154902 L05.03 8584 OLIVA, PHILIP RECREATION REFUND [54903 [20.00 3682 PACHON, ANDREW REIMBURSEMENT-SUPPLIES [54904 sO00 6287 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA RECREATION REFUND L54905 34,02894 8148 PIRON, SHAUN CONTRACT SERVICES L54906 L86.00 272 PITNEY BONES POSTAGE METER RENTAL ~54907 ~643 791 PMI/DELTA CARE MEDICAL INSURANCE 154908 [~18093 3288 PRINCIPAL LIFE MEDICAL/DISABILITY INSURANCE 154909 i29,143.59 4335 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTH CA+ ~ND QUARTER PREMIUM DEPOSIT 154910 L,68000 S569 QUINN, SHERLINE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND [54911 328.13 4451 R C QUAKES PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL FQIF MINI PLAN I54912 ]5~50 959 RADIO SHACK ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND t5491Q 215.~8 ~714 RAQINO SUN RECREATION REFUND 154914 ~0000 70 RANCHO CUCAMONQA CHAMBER MEMBERSHIP MEETIN~ ~ 154915 ~00.00 12662 RIVERSIDE AGAINST TAGOERS RECREATION REFUND L54916 ~0.00 ~78 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT PRINTS L54917 ~1.2i 828 ROBLES, PAUL P., SR. TIRE REPAIR ~ 154918 ~5500 8673 ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES~ INC RECREATION REFUND [54919 ~lO. O0 1292 S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS RECREATION SUPPLIES ~ 154920 ~3.08 3092 SAN BERN COUNTY DOCUMENTARY HANDLING FEE 15492i JE. 00 [2664 SEA INC. RECREATION REFUND L54922 3,898.00 4253 SHALlMAR TOURS & CHARTER RECREATION TRIP L54923 ?q8.49 12663 SHANKS~ TERRY RECREATION REFUND 154924 L2.00 1829 SHARED TECH. FAIRCHILD TELECOM, INC TELEPHONE SERVICES 154925 78.00 1327 SMART & FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES ~ !54926 [,820.88 ~{< 154927 - 154932 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLS ~ 154933 55,869.08 5281 STERICYCLE, INC. SHARPS PROGRAM 154934 b830.00 4733 SUNRISE FORD AUTO SERVICE & SUPPLIES ~ 154935 ~29.75 · 4111 SWIFTY SIGN SIGN DISPLAYS 154938 ~8.49 3735 TANNER, D.C. EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS 154937 318.95 2344 TARGET YOUTH PROGRAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL i 154938 L52.70 12685 TAVERNIER, SHEPIE RECREATION REFUND 154939 ]000 1151 TECHNIC OFFICE SUPPLIES L54940 245.00 4873 TROPHY CENTER OF ALTA LOMA RECREATION SUPPLIES 154941 150.85 12666 TUCKERMAN, BARB RECREATION REFUND L5~942 ~5.29 8554 TURCH & ASSOCIATES, DAVID CYBDRG PAYROLL TRAINING I54943 4,000.00 2737 U C REGENTS POCKET GUIDE 154944 132.00 350 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE LANDSCAPE NEWSLETTER 154945 5,50000 4208 UNIQUE CREATIONS IST AID KITS 154~48 ~1.5~ 1226 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE 154~47 4,00000 12658 WHEATON, MANDY RECREATION REFUND 154948 ?5.00 12867 WITHERSPOON, DOROTHY RECREATION REFUND ~ 154949 ~000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: O~-O2-OO (OO/O1) ~ CHEC~ OVERLAP City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary July 31, 2000 Par Market BOOk % of Days to YTM YTM investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv, 365 Equiv. Local Agency Investment Funds 24,087,849.67 24,087,849.67 24,087,849.67 21.24 I I 6 355 6,443 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 5,325,532,00 5,336,52789 5,325,532.00 4.70 365 193 6,613 6.705 Federal Agency ~ssues - Coupon 78,000,000,00 76,159,06250 77,964,843.75 6875 1,666 1,091 6,150 6,235 Treasury Securities - Coupon 6,000,000,00 5,958,75000 5,973,437.50 5,27 725 385 5785 5,865 Mortgage Backed Securities 48,463,29 49,39036 45,197.01 0,04 7,977 3,227 9,807 9,943 Investments 113,461,844.96 111,591,580.42 113,396,859.93 100.00% 1,204 781 6,197 6.283 Cash and Accrued Interest Passbook/Checking 1,090,480.18 1,090,480 18 1,090,480.18 I I I 973 2,000 (not included in yield calculations) ACCrued Interest at Purchase 3,945.00 3,945.00 Subtotal 1 ~094,425 18 1,094,425.18 Total Cash and Investments 114,552,325.14 112,686,005.60 114,491,285.11 1,204 781 6.197 6.283 Total Earnings July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Currant Year 596,758.54 596.758.54 Average Daily Balance 113,925,949.64 113,925,949.64 Effective Rate of Return 6.17% 6.17% I Certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in Cemformity with the investment policy adopted OCtober 20, 1999. A COpy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative ServiCes Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient Cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month-end market values wera obtained from (IDC)-Interactive Data Corporation pricing serviCe. The attached Summary of Cash and Investments with FisCal Agents as of the prior month's end is provided under the City official Investment Policy. The provisions of the individual bond documents Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 08~)7r20c0 - 16:20 PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V501f City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Daysto Maturity CUSIP Investmerit # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 24,087.849,67 24,087,849,67 24,087,849.67 6.443 6.355 1 Subt~tal and Average 21,431,188.32 24,087,849.67 24,087,849.67 24,087,849.67 6.355 1 Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 06050EJG1 1061 BANK OF AMERICA 03115/2000 1,810,532.00 1,806,08877 1,810,532.00 6.560 6.560 226 03115/2001 06050EMS1 1064 BANK OF AMERICA 05/05/2000 2,000,000.00 2,015,538,20 2,000,000.00 7.330 7.330 308 05/05/2001 06050EAR6 01055 NATIONSBANKNA 08103/1999 1,515,000.00 1,514,900.92 1,515,000.00 5.730 5.730 I 08/02/2000 Subtotal and Average 5,325,532.00 5,325,532.00 5,336,527.89 5,325,532.00 6.613 193 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 31331P, AA3 00988 FEDERALFARMCREDITBANK 03/2711997 2,000,000.00 1~984,375.00 2,000,000.00 6.620 6.529 603 03/27/2002 31331RDX0 00996 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 0711711997 2,000,000.00 1,975,000+00 1,999,375.00 6.240 6.162 715 07/17/2002 31331RMS1 01002 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/0711998 1,000,000.00 982,812,50 1,000,000.00 6.330 6.243 889 01107/2003 3133IRMA0 01004 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/06/1998 2~000,000,00 1,968,750.00 2,000,00000 6.220 6.135 888 01105/2003 31331RU08 01022 FEDERAL FARM CREDFF BANK 0512711998 2,000,000.00 1,960,000,00 1,999,375.00 6.290 6.211 1,029 05127/2003 31331RQ65 01036 FEDERAL FARM CREDWT BANK 12/15/1998 2,000,000.00 1,919,375,00 2,000,000,00 5.660 5.582 1,231 12/15/2003 31331R2Y0 01042 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 0311611999 3,000,000.00 2,892,187,50 3,000,000.00 5.930 5.849 1,323 03116/2004 31331R306 01045 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/07/1999 2.000,000.00 1,942,500,00 1,997,500.00 5.850 5.805 979 04107/2003 31331R4R3 01046 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/28/1999 4,000,000.00 3,842,500.00 3,997,500.00 5.850 5.784 1,365 04127/2004 31331RTE9 01052 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/2111999 2,000,000.00 1,975,625.00 2,000,000.00 6.375 6,288 689 06121/2002 3133M2US4 01003 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/06/1998 1,000,000.00 981,875.00 1,000,000.00 6.230 6,145 888 01/06/2003 3133M6NE4 01035 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/0811998 2,000,000.00 1,911,250,00 2,000,000.00 5.530 5.454 1,224 12/08/2003 3133M75D4 01038 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/21/1999 1,000,000.00 953,43750 1,000,000.00 5.510 5,435 1,268 01121/2004 3133M86L3 01043 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/2311999 3,000,000,00 2.928,750.00 3,000,000.00 5.755 5,676 783 09123/2002 3133M8878 01044 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/0611999 2,000,000.00 1,911,875.00 2,000,000.00 5.700 5.622 1,344 04106/2004 3133M94J8 01050 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/17/1999 3,000,000.00 2,923,125,00 2,984,531.25 6.230 6.265 1,416 06117/2004 3133M9501 01051 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/2111999 2,000,000.00 1,971,250.00 1,999,375.00 6.150 6.077 689 05/21/2002 3133M96K3 01053 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/28/1999 2,000,000.00 1,952,500.00 1,996,875.00 6.480 6.428 1,427 06/25/2004 3133M9C05 01054 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/13/1999 1,000,000.00 992,187.50 1,000,000,00 6.040 5.957 346 07/13/2001 3133MARK7 1059 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/25/2000 2,000,000.00 1,993,125.00 1,999,687.50 7.000 6.910 938 02/25/2003 3133MBHV2 1062 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2000 2,000,000.00 2,013,750.00 1,994,375.00 7.890 7.850 1,749 05/15/2005 3133MBM46 1067 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/13/2000 1,000,000.00 1,002,187.50 1,000,000.00 7.550 7447 864 12/13/2002 3134A1LB4 00994 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 06/25/1997 3,000,000.00 2,982,187.50 3,000,000,00 6.630 6,537 541 01/24/2002 3134AIH45 01000 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 10122/1997 2,000,000.00 1,970,000.00 2,000,000,00 6.320 6.233 812 10/22/2002 3134A2PN2 01030 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 08/20/1998 2,000,000,00 1,944,375.00 2.000,000.00 6.050 5,967 1,114 05/20/2003 3134A2XJ2 01033 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP, 11/24/1998 2,000,000,00 1,925,625.00 2,000,000.00 5.790 5.711 1,210 11/24/2003 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 08/O7/2(X~ - 1620 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V501f \ City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value BOOk Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3134A2N20 01037 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 01114/1999 2,000,000.00 1,939,375.00 2,000,000.00 5,600 5.523 896 01114/2003 3134A3NS1 01047 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG, CORP. 05104/1999 5,000,000.00 4,803,125.00 5,000,000,00 5,900 5.819 1,372 05/04/2004 312902ZL6 1(366 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG, CORP. 06113/2000 2,000,000.00 2,010,000,00 2,000,00000 7.610 7.508 499 12/1312001 31364FC33 01016 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 0510411998 3,000,000.00 2,937,187,50 3,000,000.00 6.280 6.194 1,007 05/0512003 31364FG96 01018 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 05/19/1998 2,000,000.00 1,957,500.00 2,000,000,00 6.125 6.041 1,021 0511912003 31364GBE8 01032 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 10/06/1998 2,000,000.00 1,923,75000 2,000,000.00 5.670 5.592 1,161 10106/2003 31364GJM2 01034 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 12/01/1998 2,000,000.00 1,913,125.00 2,000,000.00 5.520 5.444 1,217 12/01/2003 31364GTJ8 01039 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 02/1111999 4,000,000.00 3,853,750,00 3,996,250.00 5.860 5.801 1,289 02/11/2004 31364KPT1 1065 FEDERALRATLMTGASSN 06/06/2000 3,000,000.00 3,020,625.00 3,000,00~3.00 7,875 7.767 1,770 06/0612005 <~.h4~d~! and Average 77,964,843.75 78,000,000.00 76,159,062.50 77,964,843.75 6.150 1,091 Treasury Securities - Coupon 9128275H1 01049 TREASURY NOTE 06/09/1999 4.000.000,00 3,960,000,00 3,977,500.00 5250 5.478 303 05/31/2001 9128275X6 1058 TREASURY NOTE 01/31/2000 2.000.000.00 1,998.750.00 1,995,937.50 6.375 6.396 548 01/31/2002 Subtotal and Average 7,905,292.34 6,000,000.00 8,958,750.00 5,973,437.50 5.785 385 Mortgage Backed Securities 313401VV~V7 00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG, CORP. 02/23/1987 3,008.52 3,032.83 2,986,88 8.000 8,219 518 01/01/2002 313608J21 00203 FEDERALNATLMTGASSN 09/1511987 42,146.16 43,019,01 38,932,52 8.500 10,018 3,683 09/01/2010 36215WX74 00002 GOVERNMENTNATIORALMORTGASSN 06/2311986 2,878,93 2,903.78 2,839,34 8.500 8.778 287 05/1512001 36215XZS4 00069 GOVERNMENTNATIORALMORTGASSN 05123/1986 429.68 434.74 438.27 9.000 8.547 226 03/1512001 Subtotal and Average 46,037.57 48,463.29 49,390.36 45,197.01 9.807 3,227 Total lnvestmebts and Average 112,672,893.98 113,461,844.96 t11,591,580.42 1t3,396,859.93 6.197 781 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 4 Portfolio Details - Cash July 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated ~ Days to CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Cash Accounts 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 1,090,480.18 1,090,480.18 2,000 1.973 1 Cash Subtotal and Average Balance 1,253,055.66 Cash Account Total 1,090,480.18 1 Accrued Interest at Purdlase 3,945.00 3,945.00 Subtotal 1,094,425.18 1,094,425.18 Total Cash and lnvestrnents 113,925,949.64 114,552,325.t4 112,686,005.60 114,491,285.11 6.t97 78t City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Management Page 5 Investment Activity By Type July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2000 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Sales/l~udtles Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date orDeposlts orl/Vithdrawals Balance Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUN D 6.443 3,835, 115.52 0.00 Subtotal 20,252,734.15 3,835,1t5.52 0.00 24,087,849.61 Savings/Miscellaneous Accounts (Monthly Summary) 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 4,160,000.00 3.415,167.06 Subtotal 345,641.24 4,160,000.00 3,415,161.06 1,090,480.18 Certificates of DepositJNeg. - Sank Subtotal 5,325,532.00 5,325,532.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Subtotal /7,964,843.75 77,964,843.75 Treasury Securities - Coupon 9128274M1 01026 TREASURY NOTE 5.375 0713112000 0.00 1,996,250.00 Subtotal 7,969,687.50 0.00 1,996,250.00 5,973,437.50 Mortgage Backed Securities 313401v~fi7 00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP 8.000 0711712000 0.00 370.87 31360BJ21 00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8,500 07/25/2000 0.06 426.92 36215WX74 00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8500 0711712000 0,00 547.98 36215XZS4 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000 0711712000 0.00 69.35 Subtotal 46,6t2.13 0.00 1,415.12 45,197.01 Total 111,905,056.77 7,995,1 t 5.52 8~412,832.18 1 t 4,487,340.11 Portfolio CITY CP (~un Date: 08/07/20(30 - 1620 PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept VS.01f City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended June 30, 2000 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue Pa¥inq Aqent Account Name Investment Date Date Yield Value Assessment District No 93-1 US Bank Imprvmnt Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/97 N/A* 5.90% $ 254,849.00 Masi Plaza Imprvmnt Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.55 Reserve Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/97 N/A* 5.90% 246,893.00 Reserve Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.12 Redemp. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/97 N/A 5.90% 11,140.00 Redemp. Fund Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.01 , $ 512,882.68 PFA RFDG Rev Bonds series US Bank Expense Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/99 N/A' 5.90% $ 26,210.00 Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.14 1999 A (Sr) & 1999 B (Subord) Sub Resrv. Fund First Amedcan Treasury Obligation 7/1/99 N/A* 5.90% 605,171,00 Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.42 Sr, Resrv. Fund FirstAmedcanTreasuryObligation 7/1/99 N/A* 5.90% 1,136,887.00 Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.88 Redemption Fund FirstAmedcanTreasuryObligation 7/1/99 N/A* 5.90% 13.117.00 Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.20 Revenue Fund First American Treasury Obligation 3/2/00 N/A' 5.90% 89.612.00 Cash N/A N/A N/A 0.07 $ 1.870,998.71 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENT,c $ 2,3831881.39 · Note: These investments are money markets accounts which have no stated maturity date due to their liquidity. (~ i:lfinance~Cash with Fiscal Agents.xls 8/8/00 8:01 AM ' State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) ABC 211 (6/99) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number: 367832 3737 Main Street Receipt Number: 1289102 Suite 900 Geographical Code: 3615 Riverside, CA 92501 Copies Mailed Date: July 11, 2000 (909)782-4400 Issued Date: DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: RIVERSIDE First Owner: WONG ROGER a Name of Business: RONS ARCO AM/PM Location of Business: 9533 FOOTHILL BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA~ CA 91730 JIJL County: SAN BERNARDINO City~tRancho~ga "- premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: 10871 CARRIAGE DR (If different from ALTA LOMA, CA 91737 premises address) Type of liCense(s): 20 Transferor's license/name: 200577 / SANDHU GURBA Dropping Partner: Yes No License Type Transaction Type Fee Type Master Dup Date Fee 20 OFF-SALEBEERANE PER$ONTOPERSONTRANSF NA Y 0 07/11/00 $50.00 20 OFF-SALEBEERANE ANNUALFEE NA Y 0 07/11/00 $34.00 20 OFF-SALE BEER AN[ STATEFINGERPRINTS NA N I 07/11/00 $39.00 Total $123.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? N o Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be d~cmcd pan of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date: July 11, 2000 Under penalty of perjury, e~h person whose signalare appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) /_~ ~/~~ Applicant Signature(s) WONG ROGER H ABe 211-A 227 to follow United Title Co y 8333 Foothill Blvd #121 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Alcoholic Beveraqe License Description: Application: Type 20 (Off sale Beer and Wine - PACKAGE STORE) Applicant: Wong, Roger H. - Ron's Arco AM/PM Address: 9533 Foothill Boulevard Description: Existing business; transfer of license (existing legal) Site and Surroundinq Zoninq: Site: Community Commercial (CC) North: Community Commercial (CC) West: Community Commercial (CC) East: Community Commercial (CC) South: Low (L) Residential L St;i~l~ of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage'Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) ABC 211 16/99) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number: 367550 3737 Main Street Receipt Number: 1287852 -~:' Suite 900 Geographical Code: 3615 Riverside. CA 92501 Copies Mailed Date: Dist_ ~'i] ] n"ti~y (909)782-4400 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: RIVERSIDE First Owner: VONS COMPANIES INC THE Name of Business: VONS Received Location of Business: 6351 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737 County: SAN BERNARDINO CitYofaanchoCucamo~iga __ Planning Division Is premise inside city limits? Yes M:qiling Address: 618 MICHILLINDA AVE (If different from ARCADIA, CA 91007 premises address) Type of license(s): 21 X Transferor's license/name: 358275 /K V MART CO Dropping Partner: Yes__ No __ License Tvne Transaction Type Fee Type Master Duo Date Fee 21 OFF-SALEGENERAL PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF NA Y 0 06/29/00 $1,274.00 21 OFF-SALEGENERAL ANNUALFEE NA Y 0 06/29/00 $446.00 30 TEMPORARY PERMI DUPLICATE NA N I 06129100 $100.00 Total $1.820.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. or regulations of the Department 'pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the li^en" , qualifications Gf a ,. ~ee and (b) that he will not ;,iclate or cause cr permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNAP.DINO Date: June 29, 2000 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is an applicant. or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf: 12) that he has read the/'oregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true: (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor: (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) VONS COMPANIES INC THE See attached ABC- 211-SIG (P-12 Listing) Attached: ABC-211-A, 211-SIC, 227 & 280 ~C~TZD -jUL 3 20OO ......... ...'~-ii;~. , Alcoholic Beverage License Description: Application: Type 21 (Off sale general - PACKAGE STORE) Applicant: Vons Companies, Inc. Address: 6351 Haven Avenue Description: Existing business; transfer of license (existing legal) Site and Surrounding Zoning: Site: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) North: Low (L) and Low Medium (LM) Residential West: Office Professional (OP) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) East: Medium High (MH) Residential South: Low Medium (LM) Residential · ', r~,~' 3.93. ' ~~o~'''''''' ~ '1 ' ' Po~rcel Map No. 10972, RM. ~25/21-24 Porcel Mo~ No. 9416, RM. 10~/53-5~ Pot. Foothill Frostless Fruit Co. Su~. No. ~ta~ of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) ABC 211 (6/99) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number: 367819 3737 Main Street Receipt Number: 1289068 Suite 900 Geographical Code: 3615 Riverside, CA 92501 Copies Mailed Date: July 11, 2000 (909)782-4400 Issued Date: DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: RIVERSIDE ~ -- First Owner: DE LA PIEDRA ALMA V ___Received Name of Business: FELIPE'S ] [ Location of Business: 11815 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT E !JUL J 0 L~00 RANCHO CUCAMONG.4, CA 91730 City of Rancho Cuctirnonga County: SAN BERNARDINO __ Planning Division Is premise inside city limits? Yes Mailing Address: (If different from premises address) Type of license(s): 41 Transferor's license/name: / Dropping Partner: Yes No __ License Type Transaction Type Fee Type Master Duo Date 41 ON-SALE BEER AND ORIGINAL FEES NA Y 0 07/11/00 $300.00 41 ON-SALE BEER AND ANNUALFEE NA Y 0 07/11/00 $205.00 Total $505.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? N o Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed pan of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date: JuLy 1 i, 2000 Under penalty of perjury, each penon whose signature appears below. certifies and says: (1) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants. or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicanB has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor: (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) C~, ~nt Signature(s) DE LA PIEDRA FF.I JPE ~L~ A coho c Bevera.qe License Description: Application: Type 41 (On sale Beer and Wine - Eating Place RESTAURANT) Applicant: De La Piedra, Alma V. - FELIPE'S Address: 11815 Foothill Boulevard Unit 'E' Description: New business Site and Surround n~ Zonin.q: Site: Industrial Specific Plan (ISP) Subarea 7 - Industrial Park (IP) North: Community Commercial (CC) West: Industrial Specific Plan (ISP) Subarea 7 - Industrial Park (IP) East: Industrial Specific Plan (ISP) Subarea 7 - Industrial Park (IP) South: Industrial Specific Plan (ISP) Subarea 8 - General Industrial (GI) [ [ SITE RAN H O C UCA MONGA ENCINEEI~ING DEDA[~TMENT St :fReport DATE August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: W~lliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 01-4647-xxxx RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Hermosa Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvements on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, 2000 feet south of Wilson Avenue, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids." BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The. Project will remove the existing open drainage inlet on the east side of Hermosa Avenue and replace it with a covered catch basin to provide a sidewalk for children en route to Hermosa Elementary School to the north. The project will be funded from the General fund (Account No. 01-4647-xxxx). Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per Article19, Section 15301 (c) of the CEQA guidelines. The project plans and specifications were completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Engineers estimate is $64,000 including a 10% contingency, plus an additional $1,500 required for Construction Administration which includes construction CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT HERMOSA AVE. STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS August 16, 2000 Page 2 survey, and soils and material testing. Legal advertising. is scheduled for August 17, 2000 and August 24, 2000, with a bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2000. Res Ily submitte,~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD Attachments: Vicinity Map and Resolution EXHIBIT "A" I PROJECT LIMITS Banyan Hermosa Ave. Street and Storm Drain hprovmenb. East Side 2000 feet S/o lisa VICINITY MAP RESOLUTION NO. OO"/5/7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE, BE IT FLIRTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of thg City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2000, sealed bids or proposals for the "HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of HERMOSA AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE 2000 FEET SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE". RESOLUTION NO. August 16, 2000 Page 2 PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprentieable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. RESOLUTION NO. August 16, 2000 Page 3 The Contractor is required to make contributions to ~mds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be remmed to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the RESOLUTION NO. August 16, 2000 Page 4 payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to fumish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. On the date and at the time of the submittal of the Bidder' s Proposal the Prime Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) or a combination of Specialty Class "C" licenses sufficient to cover all the work to be performed by the Prime Contractor in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is tree and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In 'accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to reject any or all bids. RESOLUTION NO. August 16, 2000 Page 5 By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 16t~ day of August, 2000. Publish Dates: August 17 and August 24, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 16m day of August, 2000. William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Raneho Cueamonga, California, do hereby ¢ert'~fy that the foregoing Resolution Was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 16th day of August, 2000. Executed this 16th day of August, 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: August 17 and August 24, 2000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, City Manager, Jack Lam, AICP FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO DECLARE SURPLUS MISCELLANEOUS CI'FY- OWNED EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION That the City Council gives approval to surplus the City owned equipment on the attached listing, which is no longer needed, obsolete or unusable. BACKGROUND The City' s purchasing manual identifies two major categories of surplus property: materials and supplies, and capital equipment. It is the policy of the City to request that the City Council provide authorization to the Purchasing Agent to dispose of City property by declaring such items surplus. Methods of disposition can be transferred to another department, trade-in, sale by bid or auction, sale as scrap, donation, or simply trashing. As the replacement of various pieces of equipment has occurred, the miscellaneous items listed:' are surplus to the City' s need and should be disposed of. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Attachments co: Sharon Leonard CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 18, 2000 TO: Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manger FROM: Sigmund M. Dellhime, Management Analyst 1I SUBJECT: Disposal of Surplus Vehicles The following vehicles were recently replaced and are available for disposal as surplus equipment. ASSET # VIN ID LICENSE MAKE MODEL YEAR 1FMEEllN8KHA91509 105 267288 Ford E-150 1989 1246 lgljC54G1MJ185166 119 343002 CHEVY CAVALIER 1991 1232 2FACP72G3MXI73729 150 267346 FORD CrowVic 1991 1319 1GCDMI9Z5Lb208722 151 II 1367 Chevy Astro VAN 1990 1634 lFTCRI4U9PPB35680 190 376731 FORD RANGER 1993 1GNCSSZ3KS1655 207 208568 CHEVY BLAZER 1989 0029 CGD26A7133770 230 744006 CIqEVY VAN 1980 1244 IFMCU22X5MUC04732 237 286894 FORD EXPLORER 1991 1243 1FMU22X6MUC04741 238 286886 FORD EXPLORER 1991 1242 IFMU22X4MUC047371 328 286887 FORD EXPLORER 1991 1256 1GIJC54GXMJI83948 335 330332 CHEVY CAVALIER 1990 1239 1FMU22X6MUC04734 332 286897 FORD EXPLORER 1991 1241 1FMU22X6MUC04738 329 286896 FORD EXPLORER 1991 1348 IGNDT13W2V2231287 412 343012 CHEVY ASTRO VAN 1991 1022 1HTLDZ5RSKH630112 517 076345 INTL HIRANGER 1988 0958 I HTMAZMH5HH485223 519 076325 INTL VAN 1988 0973 1FTHF25M9KPA22999 525 208603 FORD UTILITY BED 1989 1231 W00626X003285 526 N/A DEER UTIL.CART 1990 1316 2FTJW35M4MCA34702 592 332901 FORD F-350-ST.BD 1991 1315 2FDKF37M6MCA34701 593 332900 FORD F-350-ST.BD 1991 1014 1HTSAZRM5LH204429 624 353814 INTL UTILITY BD 1990 1320 1GCCSI9Z2K8168810 716 382206 CHEVY S-10 1989 Thank you for your time. Please let me know if you need any additional infbrmation. d7 HARDWARE SERIAL NUMBER FA# BOX# H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A04995 01313 41 Epson Printer 12011833 00489 42 H.P. Vectra 5/133 US62151338 00437 43 H.P. 14" Monitor 54266954 43 H .P. Vectra 5/133 US72919102 00285 44 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,34218804 44 H.P. Vectra 4/66 3420H00522 01214 45 H.P. 14" Monitor KR53831327 45 H.P. Vectra 5/133 US72707525 00238 46 H.P. Monitor MX6439821 46 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A04934 01262 47 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,54267199 47 H.P. Vectra 5/120 US61952349 48 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42355294 48 H.P. Vectra 5/166 US72100018 01584 49 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,54471293 49 H.P. Vectra 5/166 US74602495 50 H.P. 14" Monitor MY71593349 50 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3425A05748 01238 51 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,60188585 51 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A05780 01239 52 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42051507 52 H.P. Vectra M2 4/66 3420A00696 01211 53 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,42354838 53 HP. Vectra M2 4/66 3420A00864 01210 54 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42355180 54 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A04997 55 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42575735 55 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A04743 56 H.P. 14" Monitor KP,42355266 56 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A05676 57 H.P. 14" Monitor KR60188553 57 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A0496 58 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42051431 58 H.P. Vectra M2 4/50 3424A04496 59 H.P. 14" Monitor KR33809689 59 H.P. Vectra 5/120 US61952328 60 H.P. 14" Monitor KR43403033 60 H.P. Vectra 3424A05616 61 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42353420 61 H.P. Vectra VL 5/133 US71712288 01644 62 H.P. 14" Monitor MY71493119 62 HARDWARE SERIAL NUMBER FA# BOX# H.P. Vectra VL 5/133 US72707476 63 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42353732 63 H.P. Vectra XU 5/133 SG61202477 01443 64 H.P. 14" Monitor MY71593346 64 H.P, Vectra VL 166 US72100098 01583 65 H.P. 14" Monitor KR338103075 65 H.P. Vectra XP 60 3415500672 01202 66 Compaq 14" Monitor 02814544N599 66 H.P. Vectra VL 5/120 US61952626 21936 67 Compaq 14" Monitor 3.34426E+11 67 H.P. Vectra VL 5/166 US72100010 01585 68 VVYSE Monitor 26H 13C01348 68 Apple II 14" Monitor DH136CX6A15 69 MAC II Ci F11414NA724 69 Apple II 14" Monitor 7111721 70 MAC II Ci F11414XY724 70 Apple II 14" Monitor 5055634 71 MAC II Ci F120535TC53 71 Apple II 14" Monitor 7044275 72 MAC II Ci F11414WM724 72 MAC II Ci F8190BOMS030 000566 73 Mac II SI FC222AXWC516 74 Apple RGR 14" Monitor 7107170 74 H.P. 5/120 US61967896 21937 75 Apple Laser Writer II CA109XRQ%M6000 77 Apple Laser Writer II CA120J95%M6000 78 CalComp 9100 Drafting Table 000296 Adv. Computer Comm. - Nile 14450 02015 79 Compaq LTE Lite 4/25c Laptop 6236HBG30224 R000035 80 Compaq Contura 3/25c Laptop 7252HCH33697 81 Compaq LTE Lite 4/25c Laptop 01596 82 H.P. LaserJet IIID 3022J16529 00865 83 H.P. LaserJet IIID 3022J16531 00866 84 H.P. Jet Direct JPFF014118 85 Vectra mll 4/66 3420A00864 01210 86 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42355294 86 Apple Color Monitor 5428161 87 Macintosh II Si F10450AXC53 87 Laser Writer II CA7501948M6000 88 Apple Color Monitor 5494923 89 Macintosh II Si F1045LSMC53 89 H.P. Color Monitor KR72255932 90 HARDWARE SERIAL NUMBER FA# BOX# H.P. 14" Monitor MX72560925 PALLET H.P. 14" Monitor KP,52347743 H.P. 14" Monitor KR34218810 ~H.P. 14" Monitor MY72560927 H.P. 14" Monitor MX72398046 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42560775 H.P. 14" Monitor KR53459428 H.P. 14" Monitor MX72560832 H.P. 14" Monitor KR53824753 H.P. 14" Monitor KR41542708 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42051486 H.P. 14" Monitor KR42575382 Wyse 14" Monitor OKJ14C00228 Wyse 14" Monitor OKJ14C00225 Wyse 14" Monitor OKJ14C00244 AST 14" Monitor 0384U1C2075 H.P. Vectra computer US71904322 01550 H.P. Vectra computer US71817160 01564 H.P. Vectra computer !US71904337 01562 H.P. Vectra computer US60154590 01403 H.P. Vectra computer US54604046 :H.P. Vectra computer US71904405 01553 H.P. Vectra computer US72615377 01551 H.P. Vectra computer 3415500639 H.P. Vectra computer 3424A05026 R000107 THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Stuff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the Gity Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 SHERIFF'S SCHEDULE "A" CONTRACT AMENDMENT RECONffi/IENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 San Bernardino County Sheriffs Contract Schedule "A" amendment. The amendment is for law enforcement and DARE program services and totals $11,395,564. This contract is to be funded from accounts 01-4451-6028, 01-4451-6030 and Funds 117 (State Grant) and 139 (Federal Grant). BACKGROUND The annual amendment of Schedule "A" of the Sheriffs contract reflects changes in service levels requested by the City as well as changes in labor costs experienced by the County of San Bernardino. The $11,395,564 Schedule "A" amendment reflects the law enforcement priorities approved by the City Council in the City's annual budget. This is the formal change that needs to be approved to enact the priorities approved in the budget. The City Manager's Office, in conjunction with our City Finance Officer, has reviewed the Schedule "A" and finds it to reflect the City Councirs direction as found in the City budget. For this reason, staff recommends approval of this contract amendment. R!~ectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager FOR COUNTY USE ONLY E New Vendor Code IC Dept. A Contract Number County Department Dept. Orgn. Contractors License No. SHERIFF SHR SHR County Department Contract Representative Ph. Ext. Amount of Contract Wendy Britt (909) 387-3746 $11,395,564 County of San Bernardino Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source Activity GRC/PROJ/JOB Number F A S AAA SHR SHR 9565 RANCHO STANDARD CONTRACT Commodity Code Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year FY Amount lID FY Amount lID Project Name Contract Law Enforcement FY00/01 THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereinafter called the County, and Name City of Rancho Cucamonga hereinafter called CITY Address 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone - Birth Date (909) 477-2700 ' ' · Federal ID No. or Social Security No. IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ' (Use space below and additional bond sheets. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, time for performance or completion, determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and altach plans, specifications, and addenda, if any.) NINTH AMENDMENT Contract No. 94-524 providing law enforcement service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby amended, effective July 1, 2000, by replacing Schedule A. referred to in Paragraph IV, with the Schedule A attached hereto and incorporated heroin by reference. Except as amended, all other terms and conditions of this contract remain as stated therein. Page 1 of 2 [This page is intentionally left blank]. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO City of Rancho Cucamonga (Print or type name of corporation, company, contractor, etc.) By Jon D. MikeIs, Chairman, Board of Supervisors (Authorized signature - sign in blue ink) Dated: Name (Print or type name of person signing contract) SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE Title CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (Print or Type) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Dated: of the County of San Bernardino. By Address 10500 Civic Center Drive Deputy Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 : Reviewed by Contract Compliance Reviewed for Processing I> l~j'~nty~o~nsel, b~'Kevin L, Norris, Deputy Agency Administrator/CAO Oate .ata Page 2 of 2 SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 2000/01 FY00/01 SERVICE COST ,v (PERSONNEL COSTS INCLUDE SALARY AND BENEFITS) 1 Captain $ 131,630 2 Lieutenant 232,448 10 Sergeant 1,003,750 11 Deputy Ill 955,031 70 Deputy II 5,625,900 2 Deputy II (D.A.R.E.) 165,355 2 Forensic It 102,542 7 Sheriff's Service Specialist 299,488 I Research Analyst 64,634 3 Community Services Officer 115,296 I Secretary II 43,044 1 Secretary I 40,757 15 Station Clerk 585,120 2 Motor Pool Services Assistant 81,360 30 Marked Unit 329,430 ** 19 Unmarked Unit 131,290 ** 1 Crime Prevention Van (Non-Code 3) 4,228 ** 2 Mid-Size Pickup w/MDT 11,412 ** 9 Motorcycle 47,970 ** 1 Marked4X4 14,781 ** 1 Bicycle Van (Equipment and Insurance Only) '1,502 ** 2 D.A.R.E. Van (Equipment and Insurance Only) 3,004 ** I - MA.I.T. Van (Equipment and Insurance Only) 1,502 ** 4 - Citizen Patrol Vehicles (Equipment and Insurance Only) 6,008 ** 32 - HT Radios (800 MHz Access and Maintenance Only) 11,904 Dispatch Services 570,524 Radar Gun 2,924 Administrative Support 64,090 Office Automation 10,269 Vehicle Insurance 89,548 Personnel Liability and Bonding 268,556 Telephone Report Unit 69,066 Stamp Cost 6,700 County Administrative Cost 304,501 TOTAL COST $11,395,564* MONTHLY PAYMENT SCHEDULE: 1't payment due July 15, 2000: $949,634 2"a through 12th payment due 5t~ of each month: $949,630 * Subject to change due to salary and benefit changes or Board of Supervisors action. ** Less fuel and maintenance. City is responsible for fuel and maintenance on all contract vehicles. Maintenance is defined as all routine maintenance, all necessary repairs (mechanical and body repair), and replacement of any destroyed vehicle. If vehicle damage is eligible for coverage under County insurance policies, a claim will be filed with County Risk Management. Any money reimbursed by Ris~k~M_an_a_g~ment wi~ll b~e_cr3dit~ed to the City's account to offset City c~o_st_s_.. ............ (07/01/00) PAGE I of 3 z/¢ SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 2000/01 ADDITIONAL COST BILLED QUARTERLY: OVERTIME: Overtime and court appearances estimate for FY00/01 is $330,000. Actual overtime will be billed quarterly. ON-CALL: Estimated on-call cost for FY00/01 is $56,160. Actual on-call cost will be billed quarterly. City will be billed on a quarterly basis for: · Actual overtime cost. · Actual on-call cost. · Professsinnal services fi'om private vendors (i.e., towing, etc.). · Services and supplies above contract formula. · Fuel and maintenance (if applicable). · K-9 Charges: Cost for food, medical expenses, etc. (if applicable). PUBLIC GATHERING: The following Public Gathering rates shall apply to the City ofRancho Cucamonga when deputies and reserve deputies assigned to the City are used to provide security at City-sponsored public events and at City-sponsored public events held at City-owned facilities. Deputies will be provided and claims processed by use of the standard County Public Gathering Agreement. RATES Reserve Deputy $22.02 Per Hoar Deputy II 47.34 Per Hour Deputy IIl 51.94 Per Hour Sergeant 58.96 Per Hour (07/01/00) PAGE 2 of 3 SCHEDULE A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT LEVEL OF STAFFING GUIDE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FY 2000/01 SAFETY: GENERAL: Captain 1 Research Analyst 1.00 Lieutenant 2 Forensic Specialist II 2.00 Sergeant l0 Dispatcher It 12.30 Deputy III 11 Secretary II 1.00 Deputy II 70 Sheriff's Service Specialist 7.00 D.A.R.E. Officer 2 Secretary I 1.00 96 Motorpool Services Assistant 2.00 Community Services Officer 3.00 Station Clerk 15.00 44.30 VEHICLES: MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: Marked Unit 30 Radar Gun - 1 Unmarked Unit 19 Mini Van Non-Code 3 - 1 Mid-Size Pickup I DONATED VEHICLES w/no equipment: Mid-Size Pickup w/MDT - 1 Motorcycle 9 Chevy Van - 1 Marked 4X4 1 Windstar Van - 1 Bicycle Van I Chevy Pickup - 1 D.A.R.E. Van 2 Nissan Pickup - 1 · M.A.I.T. Van I Volkswagen - 1 Citizen Patrol 4 (1-Tahoe, 3-Explorers) Motorhome - 1 (Satellite Office) 70 (Included for insurance cost only) (03/28/00) PAGE 3 of 3 RANC H O C UCA M O N GA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TCk. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager SUBJECt: APPROVE THE PURCHASE AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $557,500 FROM FUND 01-4647-7042, AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE FINAL DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 16.87 PARCEL OF VACANT LAND KNOWN AS 8852 HELLMAN AVENUE, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 209-013-23. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase and appropriate funds in the amount of $557,500.00, from Account No. 01-4647-7042, authorize the Ci Engineer to execute final documents on behalf of the City and authorize final payment for the pur~t~ase of a 16.87 parcel of vacant land known as 8852 Hellman Avenue, Assessor's Parcel No. 209-013-23. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City Council previously authorized the City Eng~ineer to enter into a real-estate parchase contract and a forty-five day due diligence period for the acqmsition of 16.87 acres located immediately south of the existing City Corporation Yard. Staff, with the assistance of a local consulting finn, is in the process payment from the buyer is due and payable into the escrow account on or before that date. Respectfully submitted, Wil~~C~7 City Engineer WJO:DC:ju z/7 Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATE $55,000.00 IN ACCOUNT 152-4130-6028 TO FUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED COMMUNrrY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CATELLUS). TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize an appropriation in the amount of $55,000 in account number 152-4130-6028 to pay for the professional services required for the formation of a proposed Community Facilities District (Catellus). The appropriation will be funded from deposits made to the City by Cateilus to pay for these services. Background: During the FY 2000/01 budget process, a final dollar figure for the professional services required for the formation of this Community Facilities District was not available. Although the developer deposited $43,000, only $13,000 was encumbered as other costs were unknown. Those costs are now known and it is necessary for the remaining amount of the deposit to be appropriated. In addition, it is requested that another $25,000 be appropriated. This amount will be deposited by the developer to pay for necessary appraisals as required by Reimbursement Agreement CO 00-027. This appropriation will allow the City to complete the necessary preliminary work required for this Community facilities District. Re ectfully submitted TH E CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAFIONGA St fffReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BOUNDARY MAP OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution adopting a boundary map showing the boundaries of the territory proposed for the inclusion in proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). This is a necessary function required for the formation of any CFD. The boundary map clearly identifies the property to be included in the proposed CFD. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759 (Rancho Summit). The development in question is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. These facilities will serve the residents in the northeast region of the community by providing needed parks and beautification improvements along the public streets. To help fund these improvements, the developer has requested that a CFD be formed. This request is in keeping with the City's policy on CFD formations and all associated costs are being borne by the developer. In order to form the CFD, several preliminary actions are required by the City Council. One of those actions is the adoption of a boundary map that clearly shows which properties are included in the proposed CFD. The attached resolution accomplishes this purpose. By adopting this resolution, the City Council is not actually forming the CFD. A public hearing and election of the affected property owners must still be held. After the public APPROVAL Of A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BOUNDARY MAP FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) August 16, 2000 Page 2 hearing the City Council will make the final decision whether or not to form the CFD. This resolution does not obligate the City Council to form the CFD. This action meets the statutory requirements for forming a CFD and all associated costs are borne by the developer with no negative impact to the City's general fund. This action is also consistent with established City policy. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council approve this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager -2- RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - OO---//--/S> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR THE INCLUSION IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ("City Council"), desires to initiate proceedings to create 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"). This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, there has been submitted a map showing the boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the District including properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. The map designated as "BOUNDARIES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT)" submitted to the City Council showing the boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the District including properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the District is hereby approved. SECTION 3. A certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one (1) copy of the map of the District, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the Resolution fixing the time and place of the hearing on the formation or extent of such District, a copy of such map shall be filed with the correct and proper endorsements thereon with the County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for in Sections 3110 and 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of ., 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk PROPOSED BOUNDARIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA iNTERSTATE 10 INDEX MAP PROPOSED BOUNDARIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD WILSON AVENUE ............ / L SUMMIT AVENUE SCALE iN FErr THE C ITY OF [QANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution declaring its intention to establish Community Facilities District (CFD) 2000-03 (Rancho Summit) and to authorize the levy of a special tax in the CFD to finance the provision of certain public services and the acquisition of certain public facilities. This action is recommended in accordance with the request of the property owner and pursuant to City policy. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759 (Rancho Summit). The development in question is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. These facilities will serve the residents in the northeast region of the community by providing three needed parks and beautification improvements along the public streets. Specifically the improvements will be the land clearing, grading, and hardscape of three new parks as well as various hardscape and walls associated with the beatification of Summit Ave. and Wardman Bullock Rd. In addition, this CFD will fund the maintenance for these parks and the public landscaping in this tract, much like the landscape maintenance districts we use in other parts of the City. To help fund these improvements and to insure their continued maintenance, the developer has requested that a CFD be formed. This request is in keeping with the City's policy on CFD formations and all associated costs are being borne by the developer. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANGHO SUMMIT) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES August 16, 2000 Page 2 In order to form the CFD, several preliminary actions are required by the City Council. One of those actions is the adoption of resolution of intention to establish the CFD and to authorize the levy of a special tax to acquires the public facilities as well as pay for the maintenance of those facilities. This resolution not only declares the City's intention but also sets a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing is scheduled for September 20, 2000. At the public hearing the City Council will take testimony and make a final determination whether or not to form the district. If the City Council decides to form the CFD then an election is held of the property owners. In this case there is only one property owner and they are requesting the CFD. This resolution does not obligate the City Council to form the CFD. This action meets the statutory requirements for forming a CFD and all associated costs are borne by the developer with no negative impact to the City's general fund. This action is also consistent with established City policy. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council approve this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager -2- RESO'UT ON NO. 2000 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO, 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICES AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (the "City Council"), received a petition from the owners of certain property located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga identified as Tract No. 14759 requesting that the City Council initiate proceedings to consider the formation of 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") to finance the provision of certain public services and the acquisition of certain public facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to such petition the City Council desires to initiate proceedings to consider the formation of such community facilities district which shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, this City Council is now required to proceed to adopt its Resolution of Intention to initiate the proceedings for the establishment of such District, to set forth the boundaries for such District, to indicate the type of public facilities and public services proposed to be financed by such District, to indicate the rate and apportionment of a special tax sufficient to finance the provision of such public services and the acquisition of such public facilities and the administration of the District and any indebtedness incurred by the District, to set a time and place for a public hearing relating to the establishment of such District; and WHEREAS, a map of such District has been submitted showing the boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the District including properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the District. SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. Initiation Of Proceedings. These proceedings are initiated by this City Council pursuant to the authorization of Section 53318 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 3. Boundaries Of District. It is the intention of this City Council to establish a Community Facilities District pursuant to the provisions of the Act, and to determine the boundaries and parcels on which special taxes may be levied to finance the 1 provision of certain public services and the acquisition of certain public facilities. A description of the boundaries of the territory proposed for inclusion in the District including properties and parcels of land proposed to be subject to the levy of a special tax by the District is as follows: All that property as shown on a map as previously approved by this City Council, such map designated by the name of this Community Facilities District, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and shall remain open for public inspection. SECTION 4. Name Of District. The name of the proposed Community Facilities District to be established shall be known and designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT). SECTION 5. Description Of Public Facilities and Public Services. It is the further intention of this City Council to finance the acquisition of certain public facilities and the provision of certain public services. A general description of the type of public facilities to be acquired and the types of public services to be provided is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The types of facilities described in Exhibit A are facilities which this legislative body is authorized by law to contribute revenue to or to construct, own or operate. it is hereby further determined that the proposed public facilities and public services are necessary to meet increased demands and needs placed upon the City and other public agencies as a result of development within the District. The cost of acquiring such public facilities and providing such public services includes incidental expenses where applicable including, but not limited to, the costs of planning and designing such facilities; all costs associated with the establishment of the District, the issuance and administration of bonds, including the payment of any rebate obligation due and owing to the federal government, the determination of the amount of any special taxes to be levied, the costs of collecting any special taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the District, together with any other expenses incidental to the acquisition, construction, completion and inspection of such facilities SECTION 6. Special Tax. It is hereby further proposed that, except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for such public services and such public facilities and related incidental expenses authorized by the Act, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the District, will be levied annually within the boundaries of such District. Under no circumstances will the special tax to pay for such public facilities levied against any parcel used for private residential purposes be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the 2 owner of any other parcel or parcels within the District by more than 10 percent. For further particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax, reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit B, which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed District to clearly estimate the maximum amount that such person will have to pay. The special taxes herein authorized, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer. SECTION 7. Public Hearing. NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT ON THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000, AT THE HOUR OF 7:00 O'CLQCK P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD WHERE THIS CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, THE PROPOSED METHOD AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION OF INTENTION. THAT AT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ANY PERSONS INTERESTED, INCLUDING TAXPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD, AND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FOR OR AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRICT, THE EXTENT OF THE DISTRICT, OR THE FINANCING OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, WILL BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED. ANY PROTESTS MAY BE MADE ORALLY OR IN WRITING. HOWEVER, ANY PROTESTS PERTAINING TQ THE REGULARITY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE IN WRITING AND CLEARLY SET FORTH THE IRREGULARITIES AND DEFECTS TO WHICH THE OBJECTION IS MADE. ALL WRI'FFEN PROTESTS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON OR BEFORE THE TIME FIXED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. WRITTEN PROTESTS MAY BE WITHDRAWN IN WRITING AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF A WRITTEN MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRICT IS FILED, THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE ABANDONED. IF SUCH MAJORITY PROTEST IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR PORTIONS OF THE SPECIAL TAX, THOSE SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR THAT TAX SHALL BE ELIMINATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SECTION 8. Election, If, following the public hearing described in the Section above, the City Council determines to establish the District and proposes to levy a special tax within the District, the City Council shall then submit the levy of the special taxes to the qualified electors of the District. If at least twelve (12) persons, who need not necessarily 3 be the same twelve (12) persons, have been registered to vote within the District for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearing, the vote shall be by registered voters of the District, with each voter having one (1) vote. Otherwise, the vote shall be by the landowners of the District who were the owners of record at the close of the subject hearing, with each landowners or the authorized representative thereof, having one (1) vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land owned within the District. SECTION 9. Notice. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City Clerk by causing the publication of a Notice of Public Hearing in the legally designated newspaper of general circulation, such publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, with such publication to be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the public hearing. SECTION 10. Reservation Of Rights To Authorize Tender Of Bonds. The City Council reserves to itself, in its capacity as the leg islative body of the District if formed, the right and authority to allow any interested owner of property within the District, subject to the provisions of Government Code Section 53344.1 and to such conditions as this City Council may impose, and any applicable prepayment penalties as may be described in the bond indenture or comparable instrument or document, to tender to the Treasurer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting for and on behalf of the District, in full payment or part payment of any installment of the special taxes or the interest or penalties thereon which may be due or delinquent, but for which a bill has been received, any bond or other obligation secured thereby, the bond or other obligation to be taken at par and credit to be given for the accrued interest shown thereby computed to the date of tender. SECTION 11. Advances Of Funds Or Work-In-Kind. At any time either before or after the formation of the District, the City Council may accept advances of funds or work- in-kind from any source, including, but not limited to, private persons or private entities and may provide, by resolution, for the use of those funds or that work-in-kind for any authorized purpose, including, but not limited to, paying any cost incurred by the City in creating the District. The City may enter into an agreement, by resolution, with the person or entity advancing the funds or work-in-kind, to repay all or a portion of the funds so advanced, or to reimburse the person or entity for the value, or cost, whichever is less, of the work-in-kind, as determined by the City Council. The City has entered into a Community Facilities District Reimbursement Agreement with Rancho Summit, LLC to provide for such advances for the payment of all initial consulting and administration costs and expenses related to the proceedings to consider tl~e formation of the District and to subsequently authorize, issue and sell bonds for the District. Such advances are subject to reimbursement pursuant to the terms of such agreement. No such agreement shall constitute a debt or liability of the City. 4 PASSED, APPROVED, And ADOPTED this day of , 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 5 Exhibit "A" Description of Public Facilities and Public Services The types of public facilities proposed to be financed by the District shall include: Park improvements to three (3) parks to be located within the District including cleaning and grading of such park sites, park hardscape and restrooms; street improvements; and parkway hardscape. The types of public services proposed to be financed by the District shall include: Parks and parkways. A-1 EXHIBIT "B" RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit) RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX Special Tax applicable to each assessor's parcel or portion thereof in the CFD shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the Council, through the application of the rate and method of apportionment ofthe Special Tax set forth below. All of the property in the CFD, unless exempted by law or by the provisions of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, shall be taxed to the extent and in the manner herein provided. I. DEFINITIONS "Act" means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. "Acre or Acreage" means the land area of a Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other map or plan recorded with the County. "Administrative Fees or Expenses" means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City to determine, levy and collect the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and the fees of consultants, legal counsel, paying agents, fiscal agents, and trustees; the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes; cost of arbitrage calculation and arbitrage rebates, preparation of required reports; and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the City. "Administrative Services Director" means the Administrative Services Director of the City or his or her designee. "Allocated Share" means, as applicable, the greater of the Assigned Facilities Special Tax for a Parcel divided by the Assigned Facilities Special Tax Revenue or the Backup Facilities Special Tax for a Parcel divided by the Backup Facilities Special Tax Revenue. "Assessor" means the Assessor of the County. "Assigned Facilities Special Tax" means the Special Tax for each Land Use B-1 Class of Developed Property as determined in Section III, Table 1. "Assigned Facilities Special Tax Revenue" means the sum of the Assigned Facilities Special Tax for all Developed Property projected at buildout of the CFD, as determined in accordance with Section III, Table 1. "Backup Facilities Special Tax" means the Backup Facilities Special Tax applicable to each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, as determined in accordance with Section III below. "Backup Facilities Special Tax Revenue" means the sum of the Backup Facilities Special Tax for all Developed Property projected at buildout of the CFD, as determined in accordance with Section III below. "Bonds" mean any bonds issued by the CFD or other debt as defined in Section 53317 (d) of the Act incurred by CFD 2000-03. "Bond Share" means the share of Bonds assigned to a Developed Parcel calculated pursuant to Section VI. "CFD" means the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). "City" means the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. "Council" means the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga acting as the legislative body of the CFD pursuant to the Act. "County" means the County of San Bernardino, California. "Debt Service" means for each calendar year, the total scheduled amount of the principal of and the interest payable on any Outstanding Bonds during the calendar year commencing on January 1 of such Fiscal Year. "Developed Property" means for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property, for which a building permit for new construction was issued after March 1, 2000 and prior to March I of the prior Fiscal Year. "Facilities Special Tax Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year, the total of (i) Debt Service for such Fiscal Year; (ii) related Administrative Expenses for such Fiscal Year; (iii) any amounts needed to replenish the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Requirement and (iv) the amount, if any, equal to reasonably anticipated Special Tax delinquencies for the current Fiscal Year [subject to the limitations of Government Code Section 53321 (d)], less any credit from earnings on the bond reserve fund. B-2 "Fiscal Year" means the period starting on July 1 and ending the following June 30. "Indenture" means the bond indenture, fiscal agent agreement, indenture of trust, trust agreement, resolution of issuance of other instrument pursuant to which the Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same. "Maintenance Special Tax" means the amount of Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section III, which may be levied for maintenance in any Fiscal Year on Developed Property. "Maintenance Special Tax Requirement" means for any Fiscal Year the total of i) the amount necessary to maintain the authorized facilities as determined by the City Engineer or his/her designee, ii) the amount necessary to pay for the annual costs of administering the maintenance services and the levy and collection of the Maintenance Special Tax, and, iii) an amount necessary to fund an operating reserve for maintenance, unanticipated increases in the cost of providing such maintenance services and unanticipated expenditures. "Maximum Facilities Special Tax" means the greater of the Assigned Facilities Special Tax or the Backup Facilities Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section Ill, which can be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Parcel. "Maximum Special Tax" means the combination of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax, as determined in accordance with Section III, and the Maintenance Special Tax , as determined in accordance with Section III. "Non Residential Property" means any Developed Property which is not assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 5, inclusive. "Outstanding Bonds" means the total principal amount of Bonds that have been issued and not retired or defeased. "Parcel" means any County assessor's parcel that is within the boundaries of the CFD, based on the equalized tax rolls of the County as of January 1 of the prior Fiscal Year. "Parcel's Allocated Share" means the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for a Parcel divided by the aggregate Maximum Facilities Special Tax for all Parcels. "Payoff Parcel" means any Developed Parcel for which a prepayment of the Facilities Special Tax Obligation is being calculated pursuant to Section VI. B-3 "Reserve Fund" means the total amount held in any bond reserve fund established for the Outstanding Bonds of the CFD. "Reserve Requirement" shall have the meaning given such term in the Indenture. "Reserve Fund Share" means the total Reserve Fund amount multiplied by the Parcel's Allocated Share. "Residential Floor Area" means, for a Parcel of Developed Property assigned to one of Land Use Classes 1 through 5, all of the square footage of living area within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Residential Floor Area for a Parcel shall be made by reference to the building permit(s) issued for such Parcel. "Special Tax" means the special tax to be levied pursuant to the Act and this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax in each Fiscal Year on each Parcel of Developed Property or Undeveloped Property within the CFD to fund the Facilities Special Tax Requirement and Maintenance Special Tax Requirement. "Special Tax Obligation" means the total obligation of a Taxable Parcel to pay the Facilities Special Tax or the Maintenance Special Tax, as applicable, for the remaining term of the Facilities Special Tax or the remaining life of the CFD in the case of the Maintenance Special Tax. "Subdivided Undeveloped Property" means lots created by the recordation of a Tract Map and assigned an individual Assessor Parcel number by the Assessor. "Taxable Parcel" means any Parcel that is not a Tax-Exempt Parcel. "Tax-Exempt Property" means not to exceed 27.5 acres of land presently designated on the land use entitlements approved by the City for development within the CFD for public use as parkways, parks and trails. Should any of these areas become subject to private development, they shall become subject to the Special Tax described in Section III, from the time the appropriate public agency acts to permit the property to become available for private development. "Tract Map" means a final subdivision map or parcel map approved by the City to create lots which may be developed in accordance with the appreved land use entitlements applicable to such lots. "Undeveloped Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property. B-4 II. CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS At the beginning of each Fiscal Year, using the definitions above, the Council shall cause each Parcel to be classified as Developed Property, Subdivided Undeveloped Property, Tax-Exempt Property or Undeveloped Property and each such Parcel shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the Section III below. III. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES Facilities Special Tax Developed Property Each Parcel's Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be calculated by using the greater of the Assigned Facilities Special Tax or the Backup Facilities Special Tax. Each Parcel of Developed Property which involves residential development shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 5 as listed in Table 1 below based on the Residential Floor Area Footage allocated to the dwelling unit constructed or permitted to be constructed on such Parcel. Non Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 6. TABLE l Land Use Residential Assigned Facilities Class Floor Area Special Tax 1 <2,500 Sq. Ft $243.00 per unit 2 2,500-2,999 Sq. Ft 300.00 per unit 3 3,000-3,499 Sq. Ft 566.00 per unit 4 3,500-3,999 Sq. Ft 998.00 per unit 5 4,000 Sq. Ft and 1,259.00 per unit above 6 Non-Residential $2,591.00 per Acre Property On each July 1, commencing on July 1,2002, theAssigned Facilities Special Tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. Backup Facilities Special Tax Taxes may exceed the levels set forth in Table 1 if the Backup Facilities Special Tax is greater than the Assigned Facilities Special Tax. For Fiscal Year 2001/02 the Backup Facilities Special Tax for Developed Property is B-5 $0.063 per Square Foot of lot space. On each July 1, commencing on July 1,2002, the Backup Facilities Special Tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. Undeveloped Property The Fiscal Year 2001/02 Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property shall be $2,979 per Acre or $600 per subdivided lot. On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2002, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. B. Maintenance Special Tax In addition, each parcel shall be subject to a Maintenance Special Tax as described in Table II TABLE II LAND USE CLASS MAINTENANCE SPECIAL TAX Developed Property (Classes 1-5) $900.00 per unit Non-Residential Property 4,462.50 per Acre Subdivided Undeveloped Property 900.00 per Parcel Undeveloped Property 4,462.50 per Acre The Maintenance Special Tax shall be levied beginning in Fiscal Year 2001/02. On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2002, the Maintenance Special Tax shall be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. IV. APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A. Facilities Special Tax Commencing with Fiscal Year 2001/02 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Council shall determine the Facilities Special Tax Requirement and levy the Facilities Special Tax until the amount of Facilities Special Taxes levied equals the Facilities Special Tax Requirement. The Facilities Special Taxes shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows: First: The Facilities Special Tax shall be levied on Developed Property in an amount up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Facilities Special Tax; B-6 Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Facilities Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Facilities Special Tax is determined through the application of the Backup Facilities Special Tax shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Facilities Special Tax up to the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for each such Parcel. B. Maintenance Special Tax First: The Maintenance Special Tax shall be levied on Developed Property in an amount up to 100% of the Maintenance Special Tax; Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Maintenance Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Maintenance Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Subdivided Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Subdivided Undeveloped Property; Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Maintenance Special Tax Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Maintenance Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Parcel of Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property; V. MANNER OF COLLECTION Collection of the Maintenance Special Tax and the Facilities Special Tax shall be by the County of San Bernardino in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes. The Special Tax shall be subject to the same penalties and the same lien priority in the case of delinquency as ad valorem taxes; provided, however, that the CFD may provide for (i) other means of collecting the Special Tax, including direct billings thereof to the property owners and (ii) judicial foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes. VI. SATISFACTION OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION Property owners may prepay and permanently satisfy the Special Tax Obligation for the Facilities Special Tax on Developed Property ("Facilities Special Tax Prepayment") by a cash settlement with the CFD as permitted under Government Code Section 53344. Prepayment is permitted only under the following conditions: B-7 The CFD determines that the prepayment of the Facilities Special Tax Obligation does not jeopardize its ability to make timely payments of Debt Service on Outstanding Bonds and any authorized but unissued Bonds. No Facilities Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless the Maximum Facilities Special Tax that may be levied on all Taxable Property other than the Parcel for which the Special Tax Obligation is being prepaid is at least 110% of the maximum annual Debt Service on the Outstanding Bonds and any authorized but unissued Bonds. · Any property owner prepaying the Special Tax Obligation for the Facilities Special Tax must pay any and all delinquent Special Taxes and penalties for the Payoff Parcel prior to prepayment. PREPAYMENT AMOUNT FOR FACILITIES SPECIAL TAX The amount of the Facilities Special Tax Prepayment shall be established by the following steps: Step A. 1: Determine the Assigned Facilities Special Tax and the Backup Facilities Special Tax for the Payoff Parcel based on the assignment of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax described in Section III above. Step A.2: Divide the Assigned Facilities Special Tax for the Payoff Parcel from Step A. 1 by the Assigned Facilities Special Tax Revenue. Divide the Backup Facilities Special Tax for the Payoff Parcel by the Backup Facilities Special Tax Revenue. The greater amount calculated in this Step shall be the Payoff Parcel's Allocated Share. Step A.3: Determine the Bond Share for the Payoff Parcel by multiplying the Parcel's Allocated Share from Step 2 by the total amount of Outstanding Bonds issued by the CFD plus the total amount of all authorized but unissued Bonds. Step A.4: Determine the Reserve Fund Share associated with the Bond Share determined in Step 3. The Reserve Fund Share is equal to the lesser of Reserve Requirement or existing monies in the Reserve Fund, if any, for the Outstanding Bonds multiplied by the Allocated Share. Step A.5: Calculate the amount needed to pay interest on the Parcel's Allocated Share from the first Bond interest and/or principal payment date established pursuant to the Indenture following B-8 the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Bonds on which Bonds may be redeemed from the proceeds of a Facilities Special Tax Prepayment. Subtract from this amount, the amount of interest that is reasonably expected to be earned from the reinvestment of the Parcel's Allocated Share from such first Bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until such redemption date for the Bonds. Step A.6: Determine the total Facilities Special Tax Prepayment amount by subtracting the Reserve Fund Share calculated in Step 4 from the Bond Share calculated in Step 3, adding the interest amount calculated in Step 5 and by adding Debt Service not yet paid for the current Calendar Year to the date of bond redemption and all fees, call premiums, and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the prepayment calculation or with the application of the proceeds of the Facilities Special Tax Prepayment. Prepayment Amount for the Facilities and Maintenance Special Tax a) Determine the amount to prepay and permanently satisfy the Facilities Special Tax by computing Steps 1 .A through A.6 as described above. b) Add the present value of the Parcel's remaining Maintenance Special Tax payments at the average yield on Bonds issued for the CFD. This shall be calculated by using the current maximum Maintenance Special Tax determined pursuant to Section III.B. increased by 2% annually for 100 years to determine remaining payments. VI. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX Subject to prepayment of the Special Tax Obligation for a Parcel pursuant to Section V, the term of the levy of the Special Tax shall be as set forth below. The Facilities Special Tax shall be collected only so long as required to make payments on the Bonds, but in no event shall it be levied after Fiscal Year 2036-2037. Taxable Property in the CFD shall remain subject to the Maintenance Special Tax in perpetuity. B-9 THE CITY OF I~ANCnO CUC~O~G^ Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHQ SUMMIT) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution ordering and directing the preparation of a report for proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). This special tax report is necessary to provide the City Council with information on the proposed CFD on which to base their final decision. This action is recommended in accordance with the request of the property owner and pursuant to City policy. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759 (Rancho Summit). The development in question is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. These facilities will serve the residents in the northeast region of the community by providing three needed parks and beautification improvements along the public streets. Specifically the improvements will be the land clearing, grading, and hardscape of three new parks as well as various hardscape and walls associated with the beatification of Summit Ave. and Wardman Bullock Rd. In addition, this CFD will fund the maintenance for these parks and the public landscaping in this tract, much like the landscape maintenance districts we use in other parts of the City. To help fund these improvements and to insure their continued maintenance, the developer has requested that a CFD be formed. This request is in keeping with the Gity's policy on CFD formations and all associated costs are being borne by the developer. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) August 16, 2000 Page 2 In order to form the CFD, several preliminary actions are required by the City Council. One of those actions is the preparation of a special tax report to provide the City Council with the necessary information and findings on which they can base their final decision on whether or not to form the CFD. Generally the report will contain a full and complete description of the public facilities to be acquired; a full and complete description of the public services proposed to be financed through the CFD; a general cost estimate setting forth the costs of acquiring the public facilities and providing the specified public services; and the particulars of the rate and method of apportionment for the proposed special tax. This action meets the statutory requirements for forming a CFD and all associated costs are borne by the developer with no negative impact to the City's general fund. This action is also consistent with established City policy. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council approve this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager -2- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (the "City Council"), has declared its intention to initiate proceedings to create 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"). This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be designated as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, this City Council directs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 53321.5 of the Government Code of the State of California, the preparation of a report to provide more detailed information relating to the proposed District, the proposed public facilities and public services to be financed through the District, and estimate of the cost of providing such facilities (the "Special Tax Report"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Manager is hereby directed and ordered to prepare or cause to be prepared the Special Tax Report to be presented to this City Council, generally setting forth and containing the following: FACILITIES: A full and complete description of the public facilities the acquisition of which is proposed to be financed through the District. SERVICES: A full and complete description of the public services proposed to be financed through the District. COST ESTIMATE: A general cost estimate setting forth costs of acquiring such public facilities and providing such public services. SPECIAL TAX: Further particulars regarding the rate and method of apportionment for the proposed special tax. 1 SECTION 3. The Special Tax Report, upon its preparation, shall be submitted to this City Council for review, and such report shall be made a part of the record of the public hearing on the Resolution of Intention to establish such District. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 2 THE C ITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution declaring its intention to issue bonds secured by special taxes to pay for the acquisition of certain facilities in proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) 2000-03 (Rancho Summit). The total amount of bonds necessary to acquire the facilities is estimated to be $3,000,000.00. This is a necessary function required for the formation of any CFD. In order to acquire the public facilities, it is necessary to issue bonds which are secured by the special taxes collected by the CFD. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759 (Rancho Summit). The development in question is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. These facilities will serve the residents in the northeast region of the community by providing needed parks and beautification improvements along the public streets. Specifically the improvements will be the land clearing, grading, and hardscape of three new parks as well as various hardscape and walls associated with the beatification of Summit Ave. and Wardman Bullock Rd. To help fund these improvements, the developer has requested that a CFD be formed. This request is in keeping with the City's policy on CFD formations and all associated costs are being borne by the developer. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) August 16, 2000 Page 2 In order to form the CFD, several preliminary actions are required by the City Council. One of those actions is the adoption of resolution of intention to issue bonds. The debt service for these bonds will be secured by special taxes collected by the CFD for this specific purpose. The attached resolution accomplishes this purpose. By adopting this resolution, the City Council is not actually forming the CFD. A public hearing and election of the affected property owners must still be held. After the public hearing the City Council will make the final decision whether or not to form the CFD. This resolution does not obligate the City Council to form the CFD. This action meets the statutory requirements for forming a CFD and all associated costs are borne by the developer with no negative impact to the City's general fund. This action is also consistent with established City policy. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council approve this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager -2- RESOLUTION NO. O~- I.~' I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS SECURED BY SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA (the "City Council"), has initiated proceedings to create 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") to finance the acquisition of certain authorized facilities. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, it is the intention of this legislative body to finance the acquisition of all or a portion of such facilities through the issuance of bonds, such bonds to be secured by special taxes to be levied on taxable property within the District, all as authorized pursuant to the Community Facilities District Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. This City Council declares that the public convenience and necessity requires that a bonded indebtedness be incurred to finance all or a portion of certain public facilities as proposed for the designated District. SECTION 3. The purpose for the proposed debt is to finance the acquisition of authorized public facilities consisting of the types of public facilities described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The amount of the proposed bonded indebtedness, including the cost of the facilities, together with all incidental expenses, contingencies and financing costs is generally estimated to be: $3,000,000 SECTION 5. NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT ON THE 20TM DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000, AT THE HOUR OF 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, A HEARING WILL 1 BE HELD ON THE INTENTION OF THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY TO INCUR A BONDED INDEBTEDNESS TO FINANCE PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT BY THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX. AT THE TIME AND PLACE FIXED FOR SAID PUBLIC HEARING ANY PERSONS INTERESTED, INCLUDING PERSONS OWNING PROPERTY WITHIN THE AREA, MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT ANY MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED INTENTION AND NECESSITY FOR INCURRING THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WHICH WILL PAY FOR ALL OR A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITIES AND WHICH WILL BE SECURED BY A SPECIAL TAX TO BE LEVIED WITHIN SAID COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. SECTION 6. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given by the City Clerk by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in a legally designated newspaper of general circulation, such publication pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code, with said publication to be completed at least seven (7) days ~rior to the date set for the public hearing. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk 2 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF FACILITIES Parkway improvements to three (3) parks to be located within the District including cleaning and grading of such park sites, park harriscape and restrooms; street improvements; and parkway harriscape, A-1 THE CITY OF I~ANCHO CUCAMONGA SlaffReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATE $58,500.00 IN ACCOUNT 153-4130-6028 TO FUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE FORMATION QF A PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (RANCHO SUMMIT). TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize an appropriation in the amount of $58,500.00 in account number 153-4130-6028 to pay for the professional services required for the formation of a proposed Community Facilities District (Rancho Summit). The appropriation will be funded from deposits made to the City by Lennar Homes to pay for these services. Background: During the FY 2000/01 budget process, a final dollar figure for the professional services required for the formation of this Community Facilities District was not available. Although the developer deposited $35,000, only $8,500 was encumbered as other costs were unknown. Those costs are now known and it is necessary for the remaining amount of the deposit to be appropriated along with an additional deposit of $23,500 from the developer. This appropriation will allow the City to complete the necessary preliminary work required for this Community facilities District. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR HOMES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Reimbursement Agreement related to a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund public improvements. This agreement provides that the developer deposit funds to pay for all services associated with the formation of the CFD. The initial deposit is $58,500. If a CFD is formed, this agreement provides for the developer to be reimbursed from the bond proceeds. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759 (Rancho Summit). The development in question is located south of Summit Avenue on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road. City policy is to require anyone requesting the formation of a CFD to pay all of the associated costs. Further it has been the City' s practice to allow the developers to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds associated with the CFD. This does not effect the City in any way as the payments for the bonds are coming solely from the developer. Also, should the City Council decide during the CFD public hearing not to form the CFD, the City is in no way obligated to repay the developer. This initial agreement provides for a deposit of $58,500 to pay for the City's Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, Appraiser, Market Absorption Study and Special Tax Consultant. Should the City require the services of other professionals, we have the ability to request that additional funds be deposited to pay for those services. This agreement provides for the developer to pay all costs associated with this process. This agreement will not affect the City's budget. Finally, this agreement will facilitate financing for needed public improvements in the community. For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council approve this Reimbursement Agreement. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duanc A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BEST, BEST AND KREIGER FOR BOND COUNSEL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (RANCHO SUMMIT) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FOR FORMATION SERVICES AND NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 FOR DEBT ISSUANCE SERVICES. TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Best, Best & Kreiger to provide services as the bond counsel to the City in relation to a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD). The amount for these services will not exceed $10,000 for the formation phase and will not exceed $15,000 for the debt issuance phase. The total cost for these services will be paid by the developer requesting the formation of this CFD. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759. The bond counsel works for the City to insure that the proposed district is being formed in accordance with all applicable laws and coordinates the preparation of agreements, documents and legal opinions to support district formation. The cost for the bond counsel is being paid by the developers who are requesting this CFD. Because there is no impact to the City financially and because of the need for an experienced bond counsel to assist in representing the City's legal interests, it is recommended that this Professional Services Agreement be approved. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EMPIRE ECONOMiCS TO PERFORM MARKET ABSORPTION SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (gANCHO SUMMIT) 1N AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $11,000. TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Empire Economics to provide market absorption services to the City in relation to a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD). The amount for these services will not exceed $11,000. The developers requesting the formation of this CFD will pay the total cost for these services. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759. The market absorption study is necessary to insure that the property in question is economically viable and be able to support the special tax for the CFD. The developer who is requesting this CFD is paying the cost for the market absorption study. Because there is no impact to the City financially and because of the need for a market absorption study of the proposed CFD to insure the financial viability of the CFD, it is recommended that this Professional Services Agreement be approved. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 15, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRUCE W. HULL & ASSOC. TO PERFORM APPRAISAL SERVICES 1N CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (RANCHO SUMMIT) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000. TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Brace W. Hull & Associates to provide appraisal to the City in relation to a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD). The amount for these services will not exceed $20,000. The developers requesting the formation of this CFD will pay the total cost for these services. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Leunar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759. The appraisal is necessary to insure that the property in question has sufficient value to support the proposed bonded indebtedness per City policy. The developer who is requesting this CFD is paying the cost for the appraiser. Because there is no impact to the City financially and because of the need for an appraisal of the proposed CFD to insure compliance with City policy, it is recommended that this Professional Services Agreement be approved. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOC. FOR FiNANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES iN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (RANCHO SUMMIT) iN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,000 FOR FORMATION SERVICES AND NOT TO EXCEED $20,500 FOR DEBT ISSUANCE SERVICES. TO BE FUNDED BY THE PROJECT DEVELOPER. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to provide services as the financial advisor to the City in relation to a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD). The amount for these services will not exceed $9,000 for the formation phase and will not exceed $20,500 for the debt issuance phase. The total cost for these services will be paid by the developer requesting the formation of this CFD. BACKGROUND The proposed CFD is being requested by Lennar Homes to fund public improvements and parks related to their development of Tract 14759. The financial advisor works for the City to insure that the proposed district makes financial sense and coordinates the preparation of studies, appraisals and other documents to support that decision. The financial advisor also works for the City during the negotiation with the underwriter to insure that the City receives the most competitive rate possible if and when bonds are sold. The cost for the financial advisor is being paid by the developers who are requesting this CFD. Became there is no impact to the City financially and became of the need for an experienced financial advisor to assist in representing the City's financial interests, it is reconunended that this Professional Services Agreement be appmved. Respectfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager RANC h O C UCAMON GA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO:. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer SUR1ECT: ACCEPT BIDS RECEIVED AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA., IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,253.00 ($224,775.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) FOR THE 6m STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO MILLLIKEN AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM FUND 32 (32-4637-9904). RFL~MMEMDATION: It is recommended that the Ci Council accept all bids received, wave the minor irregularit~ in the bid submitted by Gentry Brothers t~nc. and award the subject contract to the lowest res ons~ble hdder, Laird Construction Co., lnc.,thofRancho Cucamon a, CA., in the amount of $247,253.00 ~224775.00 plus 10% contingenc) for the 6 Street Pavement R~e~abilitation Project, to be funded by Fund 32-4697-9904 and authorize t~e) Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Contract Agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Bids for the subject project were solicited per previous Council action and were o ened in the office of the City Clerk at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, Au use 15, 2000 (see attached Bid ?~mmary). Staff has reviewed all bids received and has found t~em to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. The bid submitted b Gent Brothers, Inc. contained a minor arithmetic error when corrected did not effect the bid results. St~a~ has completed the required background investigations and has found all bidders to meet the bidder requirements. Re ectfully~ CW~yqeil Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS FOR 6TH STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO MILLIKEN AVENUE Bids Opened on August 15, 2000 at 2:00 PM Engineer's Estimate = $266,274.50 Laird Construction Co., Inc. Silvia Construction, Inc. Vance Construction Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Measure Quantity Price Bid Price Bid Price Bid 1 Clearing, Grubbing, Saw Cut & Removals LS I $23,254.25 $23,254.25 $19,900.00 $19,900.00 $11,475.00 $11,475.00 2 0.10ColdPlane SY 42,855 $0.75 $32,141.25 $0.90 $38,569.50 $0.85 $36,426.75 3 AsphaltRubberHotMix TONS 2,893 $51.50 $148,989.50 $49.70 $143,782.10 $55.50 $160,561.50 4 Asphalt Concrete TONS 129 $50.00 $6,450.00 $65.86 $8,495.94 $34.50 $4,450.50 5 Crushed Aggregate Base TONS 165 $25.00 $4,125.00 $38.65 $6,377.25 $20.50 $3,382.50 6 Replace Inductive Loop Detector EA 17 $195.00 $3,315.00 $195.00 $3,315.00 $192.00 $3,264.00 7 Striping, Pavement Markings and Markers LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00 8 Traffic Control LS I $1,500.00 ........... ~1,5.0~:5~9.' $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 TOTAL BID AMOUNT $224,775.00 $233,539.79 $236,960.25 All American Asphalt Gentry Brothers, Inc. Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Total Unit Total Corrected No. Description Measure Quantity Price Bid Price Bid Bid I Clearing, Grubbing, Saw Cut & Removals LS I $6,725.01 $6,725.01 $29,400.00 $29,400.00 $29,400.00 2 0.10ColdPlane SY 42,855 $0.68 $29,141.40 $0.85 $36,452.25 $36,426.75 3 A~phalt Rubber Hot Mix TONS 2,893 $57.50 $166,347.50 $55.00 $159,115.00 $159,115.00 4 Asphalt Concrete TONS 129 $52.50 $6,772.50 $40.00 $5,160.00 $5,160.00 5 Crushed Aggregate Base TONS 165 $29.00 $4,785.00 $15.00 $2,475.00 $2,475.00 6 Replace Inductive Loop Detector EA 17 $190.00 $3,230.00 $230.00 $3,910.00 $3,910.00 7 Striping, Pavement Markings and Markers LS 1 $5,240.00 $5,240.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 8 Traffic Control LS 1 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL BID AMOUNT $241,241.41 $247,012.25 $246,986.75 R A C H O C U C A M O N G A ~.NGINEI~DING DI~PA~TMI~NT DALE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM; William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Inspector SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.00 ($0.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 6TM STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM HAVEN AVENUE TO MILLIKEN AVENUE TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, , TO BE FUNDED FROM PROP 111 FUND ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637-9904 AND MEASURE I FUND ACCOUNT NO. 32-4637-9904 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authodze for execution the contract for the ~h Street Pavement Rehabilitation, from Haven Avenue to Milliken Avenue, to the apparent low bidder, , to be funded from Prop 111 Fund Account No. 10-4637-9904 and Measure I Fund Account No. 32-4637-9904. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited and will be received and opened on August 15, 2000, for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $267,000. To avoid any delay in this project, a bid summary and announcement of the lowest responsive bidder will be submitted to Council prior to Council Meeting. City Engineer WJO:LEH:MDL:IS THE' CITY 0 F I:~ANCIIO CUCA~ONGA Ski:f Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT OVER METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY ON BLUE GRASS AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SECONDARY ACCESS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR TRACT 14120-1 AND RELEASE OF THE FUNDS DEPOSITED BY THE DEVELOPER OF SAID TRACT TO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID EASEMENT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Blue Grass Avenue right-of-way north of Tract 14120-1, releasing the $22,000.00 deposit and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Metropolitan Water District standard easement deed. ANALYSIS: Tentati~/e Tract 14120 was conditioned to provide a second access which was originally designed to intersect Highland Avenue at Locust Street. As a part of the freeway construction the original access route was vacated February 16, 2000. The developer has sought to acquire an easement from MWD to satisfy the need for an alternate second access. The alternate access will provide a secondary emergency access of 26' pavement with gated access at either end. The access will extend from the northerly boundary of Tract 14120-1 to the intersection with Via Verde Street in Tract 12659. The permanent improvements and acquisition expenses incurred by the developer will be reimbursable from future development as it occurs subject to an application for a reimbursement agreement. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 14120 SECONDARY ACCESS August 16, 2000 Page 2 The developer has deposited the amount requested by MWD to purchase the necessary easement of $22,000.00. A copy of the appraisal performed by MWD right- of-way is included as an exhibit to this report. MWD has prepared their standard Permanent Easement Deed and has executed their portion. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MP Attachments RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANGHO CUGAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A STREET EASEMENT FOR BLUE GRASS AVENUE, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A DEPOSIT TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR PURCHASE OF THE EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE EASEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. 1. On the 26th day of June 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved Tentative Tract Map 14120 for the development of 68 single family homes on 53.05 abres of land. 2. Engineering special condition number 3 of Planning Commission Resolution 91- 83 requires that the developer provide sufficient secondary access at all times to the tract. 3. Construction of the Route 30 freeway eliminated the secondary access dedicated with Tract 13812. 4. The developer of Tract 14120 has successfully negotiated the purchase of a secondary access north of his tract on Blue Grass Avenue from MWD and made a deposit with the City to purchase said easement. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The 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 this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The easement sought over the MWD right-of-way on Blue Grass Avenue provides for secondary access to Tract 14120 as required in the conditions of approval. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. BLUE GRASS AVENUE EASEMENT August 16, 2000 Page 2 b. The $22,000.00 deposited by the developer to purchase the secondary access should be released to the Metropolitan Water District in exchange for the easement. c. The developer is entitled to reimbursement from future development for costs incurred in the acquisition and construction of permanent improvement for the secondary access from future development as it occurs. d. The Mayor shall sign the easement deed accepting the right-of-way for Blue Grass Avenue on behalf of the City. RANC HO C UCAMONGA ~N~XNEERIN~ D~P~RTM~T St3ffReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Manager BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO SUMMARILy VACATE VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN AVENUE AT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED SAV~ON, V171 -APN 1077-422- 06, RELATED FILE: CUP 99-26 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the vacation of the vehicular access rights at the locations shown on Exhibit A of the resolution and directing the City clerk to present same to the County Recorder for recordation. BACKGROUND/ANALySIS Western Land Properties has received approval for the development of a 14,841 square foot drug store with a drive-thru facility at the southeast corner of Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue. The two existing driveways approved and constructed per the site master plan will be relocated with the proposed development. The vacation of the vehicular access restriction set with the original parcel map allows for relocation of the driveways. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:MEP:sd Attachments CITYOF ITEM: V-171 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Vicinity Map ENGINEERING DIVISION EXBIBIT: "A" RESOLUTION NO. ~0--/-5'-22' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ON TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN AVENUE FRONTING PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS ON PARCEL 12 OF PARCEL MAP 11030 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN, V171 -APN: 1077- 422-06, RELATED FILE CUP 99-26 WHEREAS, the City Council found by all the evidence submitted that the vehicular access rights per the description in attached Exhibit A is unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby makes its order vacating the vehicular access rights as described in a legal description which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B and by reference made a part thereof. SECTION 2: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said vehicular restriction no longer constitutes a public easement. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and is shall thereupon take effect and be in force. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS VACATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCEL 12 OF AM~lqDING PARCEL MAP NO. 11030, THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 145, PAGES 33 THROUGH 39, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHW'EST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 12; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 12, NORTH 00°07'20" WEST 68.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 00°07'20" WEST 45.00 FEET. PARCEL 2: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 12, SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS "N 55°46'35" E 148.44' "; THENCE ALONG SAID COURSE, NORTH 55°46'35" EAST 55.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, NORTH 55046'35" EAST 48.00 FEET. PREPARED BY MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OF THE INLAND EMPIRE WILLIAM RO'ARO JASS'~' P.L.S. 4756 EXP: 9/30/2003 r~o. 4756 ~ 9-3O-.P_~1 I/ Ii i C'_, //PARCEL ,,/~ -- ~ PARCEL 2 -~. ~ ~1~, ~HICU~R ( ACCE~ PARC~ 12, JM~D[~C PARC~ MAP.~O. 11030 P.~. 145 / 33-39 48' WIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS J BE VACATED BY THE CITY OF . RANCHO CUCAMONGA ! PARCEL 3 WIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO BE VACATED BY THE CITY , OFiRANCHO PARCEL6 I ~ N.V.A. N.V.A. -- N.V.A. - INDICATES NON HA V ~,iV _ ,g__,P_cLV~E VEHICULAR ACCESS No. 4756 EXHIBIT "B" E,,.: 9-3o-o VACATION MAP ~ ),La~DbLE &: ASSOCLATES, INC. 126884/9073OF THE INLAND EMPIRE the c ly of Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-01- KIM JAY AYLOR - A request to modify community trail alignment for two previously approved single-family hillside lots on 2 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street- APN: 1074-051-18 and 19. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the modification to community trail alignment. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The issue of modifying the community trail was initiated by the applicant at the time of Development Review approval in order to extend the useable area of the two newly developed single-family homes. The trail is located 300 feet west of Hermosa Avenue, runs parallel to Hermosa Avenue, and extends to the top of Almond Street. The proposed modification to the trail will move the trail 25 feet west. The alignment was selected to minimize grading, maximize tree preservation, preserve natural rock outcroppings, and to parallel the stream whenever possible. The Planning Commission considered the subject application on July 12, 2000. No written or oral opposition to the trail modification was received. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The amendment is exempt from the requirements of.the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Brad Buller City Planner BB:EW\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated July 12, 2000 Proposed Resolution of Approval THE CiTY OF ~ANCIIO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: July 12, 2000 TO:. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 00-01- KIM JAY AYLOR - A request to modify community trail alignment for two previously approved single-family hillside lots on 2 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District, located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street - APN: 1074-051-18 and 19. BACKGROUND: This public community trail runs through "The Woods," a development of custom and semi-custom homes within a grove of Eucalyptus trees. In order to preserve the unique character of the site, the original developer worked closely with the Trails Advisory Committee and staff on the trail alignment. The alignment was selected to minimize grading, maximize tree preservation, preserve natural rock outcroppings, and to parallel the stream whenever possible. The trail alignment was literally "field fit" by walking the path and carefully marking which trees should be saved. Trees and rocks exist in the trail. ANALYSIS: The attached map shows that the community trail has been previously moved, which increased the useable land for both lots (see Exhibit "C"). The trail currently slopes approximately 7.5 percent and will be increased to an 8.5 slope. The Trail Implementation Plan design standards allow up to 10 percent. The new trail alignment will not cause the removal of any Eucalyptus trees, The community trail currently has tree and rock outcroppings within the trail. The new layout of the trail will accommodate Eucalyptus trees and rock outcroppings to the fullest extent feasible. When the new trail is close to the top of slopes, alternative methods may be necessary to ensure long-term stability of the trail surface (i.e., soil compaction or other slope stabilizing measures). The applicant requested the modification of the Community Trail Alignment to increase the useable back, yard area of the two lots. The modification was recommended for approval at the Trails Committee on June 14, 2000 with a condition that the applicant must confer with Maintenance and Engineering Divisions to resolve any outstanding issues of runoff or soil compaction. The applicant will complete a careful walk-through with staff, prior to construction. Staff believes that the proposed relocation is compatible with the surrounding development and complies with the objectives of the Trails Implementation Plan and the Trails Advisory Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 00-01 - KIM JAY AYLOR July 12, 2000 Page 2 PROCESS: If approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant would proceed with a request to vacate the existing trail alignment. Vacations require a City Council approval. Once approved by City Council, the applicant would have their engineer prepare public improvement plans, and post bonds and improvement agreements. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices were mailed to all property owners within the tract. RECOMMENDATION: The Trails Advisory Committee and staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the modification to the Community Trail though the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:EVV:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Project Site Map Exhibit "C" - Existing and Proposed Trail Exhibit "D" - Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Resolution of Approval for Modification to Trail for DR 00-01 Project Site Location Map ~": ~°~'°~'~'~ ,. N 0 480 960 Feet A Project Site DR 00-01 (;oeo ' ..... .*' ,, ...... · ,;,, / , ,. r/~.r, r ~¢~ / /-_~, '~/ /~L John A. and Jacquelyn F. Gardner 5158 He~ mos a Ave Alta Loma, CA 91737 Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Ms. Wimer, As the owner of the property at 5158 Hermosa Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. (APN# 107-405-120), we do not object to the modification to the community trail located approximately 300 feet west of the comer of Almond St. and Hermosa Avenue. We are giving our permission to make any changes or improvements to the community trail that would affect that portion that runs through our property. John A. Gardner ~Jacquei~dner Exhibi+"[5' RESOLUTION NO. 00-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-01 MODIFICATION TO RE-ALIGN A COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ON 2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND ALMOND STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-051-18-19. A. Recitals. 1. Kim Jay Aylor filed an application for Development Review 00-01 Modification as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review Modification is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearin9 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 Plannin9 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, Par~ A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the properties located on the southwest comer of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street with a street frontages of 213.70 and 110 feet and lot depths of 301.96 and 317.36, and is presently undergoing development of two single family custom homes. Said property is currently designated as Very-Low Residential; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Very-Low Residential and is currently undeveloped. The properties to the west, east, and south are designated Very-Low Residential and are currently developed with single family custom homes c. The trail vacation and re-alignment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the General Plan in that it allows efficient use of land while providing for equestrian trail access to the public at large; and d. The proposed trail re-alignment is sensitive to existin9 natural features such as Eucalyptus trees and significant rock outcroppings; and e. The modification to the trail will not inhibit use or access to and from the equestrian trail. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-71 DR 00-01 MODIFICATION - KIM JAY AYLOR July 12, 2000 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the distdct in which the site is located. ' b. The proposed modification of the use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Review 00-01 Modification subject to the following conditions: ~Division: 1) The applicant shall apply for and process a vacation of the existing easement. This approval is contingent upon City Council approval of a request to vacate the existing trail alignment. The vacation process does include a public headng at which time the request may be reconsidered depending upon public input. Actual vacation document will not be recorded until new trail is constructed. 2) The applicant shall coordinate with staff (Public Works Division) to ensure proper measures have been taken (i.e., soil compaction, slope stabilization) to ensure long-term stability of the trail. 3)All applicable City processing fees (i.e., vacation process, plan check, construction permit, etc.) shall be paid in due process. 4) Improvement Plans and Construction: a) Trail improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Secudty shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public trail improvements. b) Pdor to any work being performed in public fight-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-71 DR 00-01 MODIFICATION - KIM JAY AYLOR' July 12, 2000 Page 3 c) An appropriate licensed Civil Engineer or land surveyor shall prepare legal description of vacation and new easement. d) A new easement shall be dedicated to the City. 5) The applicant shall schedule a walk-through with Planning Division and Public Works Division, prior to completion of the trail modification. 6) All public improvements shall be constructed to City Standards. 7) The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 8) Trail shall be located outside the 100-year floodplain. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ~ ~,~.~r~.~ w / ~j T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'rEST: I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERIN0, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE =MENT REVIEW 00-30 - KINKO'S -The development of a 6,500 square foot tpply store on 0.66 acre of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Streets - APN: 208-352-88. A Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was r this project with Development Review 99-04 on March 23, 1999. Brent Le Count, Associ ~ staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that oper had indicated the Haven Wine and Liquor project and the hotel project had been ~ he asked if approval of this project wou!d create any problems with the master plan. Mr. Le Count indicated it would not. He said problems had been addressed. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kyle Cavanaugh, KZ Holdings, 520 Washington Boulevard, ff-424, Rey, said he had no comments. Headng no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public headng. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolution appreving Review 00-30. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-01 - KIM JAY AYLOR - A request to modify community trail alignment for two previously approved single-family hillside lots on 2 acres of land in the Very- Low Residential district, located at the southwest comer of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street - APN 1074-051-18 and 19. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Kim Jay Aylor, The ACI Group, 8401 White Oak Avenue, Suite 108, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed with the staff report. He thanked Ms. Wimer for her assistance. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart commented the Trails Committee had reviewed the project and the developer had been very,cooperative. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 00-01. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 12, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~" / ~'/7/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRAIL MODIFICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-01 WITH CONDITIONS, LOCATED AT 5138 AND 5148 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1078-051-18 AND 19. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Kim Jay Aylor, has filed an application for approval of a trail modification, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Development Review is referred to as the "application." 2. On July 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the application with conditions and adopted Resolution 00-17. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found and determined 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 substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced August 16, 2000, hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution 00-17, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at 5138 and 5148 Hermosa Avenue, with a street frontage of 113.7 and 110 feet and lot depths of approximately 301.96 and 317.36 feet, and is presently undergoing development of two single-family custom homes. Said property is currently designated as Very Low Residential; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed trail modification is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code; and b. The proposed trail modification and the use, together with conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed trail modification is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 0-01 - KIM JAY AYLOR August 16, 2000 Page 2 4. The project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of the trail modification subject to the following conditions: Enqineerinq Division: 1 ) Actual vacation document will not be recorded until new trail is constructed. 2) The applicant shall coordinate with staff (Public Works Division) to ensure proper measures have been taken (i.e. soil compaction, slope stabilization) to ensure long-term stability of the trail. 3) All applicable City processing fees (i.e. vacation process, plan check, and construction permit, etc.) shall be paid in due process. 4) Improvement Plans and Construction: a) Trail improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public trail improvements. b) Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c) An appropriate licensed Civil Engineer or land surveyor shall prepare a legal description of vacation and new easement. d) A new easement shall be dedicated to the City. 5) The applicant shall schedule a walk-through with Planning Division and Public Works Division, prior to the completion of the trail modification. 6) All public improvements shall be constructed to City Standards. 7) The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 8) Trail shall be located outside the 100-year floodplain 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2000. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RAN C HO C UCA M ON GA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Stuff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director BY: Flavio H. Nu~ez, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHQ CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE RANCHO CUCAMQNGA CHAMBER QF COMMERCE AGREEMENT FOR A PLAN OF COOPERATIVE ACTION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION Approval of Amendment No. 1 to City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Agreement For A Plan of Cooperative Action For Economic Development. BACKGROUND In June 1999 the City and Agency approved a revised Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development between the City, Agency and Chamber for FY 1999~00. As part of the Agreement, the Chamber acts as a contractor to the City and Agency by providing several services and products in furtherance of the economic development goals of the community. The Chamber has requested to amend the approved Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development to include the production of a City Street Map. The last City Street Map to be produced by the Chamber was in 1997. I10 August 16, 2000 Staff Report - Chamber of Commerce Page 2 ANALYSIS As a result of the City's growth and development of new streets the Chamber has proposed to update and produce a new City Street Map. It will be four (4) color throughout on coated stock. The map will include a detailed street map with street index, bicycle and hiking trails, City points of interest, and an area map showing the larger surrounding region. In addition, the map will also include City phone numbers, demographics, history highlights of the City, Chamber history, and school information. The Chamber will produce a total of 10,000 maps, of which 5,500 will be mailed to the City's businesses and 2,500 will be given to the City. The Chamber will distribute the remaining maps in relocation packets and will be given to visitors upon request. The Chamber will produce and update the City Street Map every two (2) years commencing September 2000. The City and Agency will contribute $2,000 to the Chamber every two (2) years for the production of the map. Respectfully Submitted, Linda D. Daniels Redevelopment Director i:\fnunez~staff repor~s%chamber_stfreport.doc /// THE CITY OF ~ANCIIO CUCAFIONGA DATE: August 16,2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BIDS RECEIVED, WAIVE ANY AND ALL MINOR IRREGULARITIES IN THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,514.50 ($83,195 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, G.B. COOKE INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR REHABILITATION OF THE ISLE HOUSE, TO BE FUNDED FROM CDBG FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 28-4333-9835 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids received, waive any and all minor irregularities in the bidding documents submitted by the apparent low bidder, and award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $91,514.50 ($83,195 plus 10% contingency) to the apparent low bidder, G.B. Cooke Inc., for the construction of foundation improvements for rehabilitation of the Isle House, to be funded from CDBG funds, Account No. 28-4333-9835. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Isle House was relocated out of the right-of-way for the Foothill Freeway and will be rehabilitated through a cooperative effort with the Etiwanda Historical Society for use as a community building/museum similar to that of the Chaffey-Garcia House. The proposed project will provide for foundation improvements for the structure and various site improvements including, concrete sidewalks, concrete handicapped parking spaces, concrete curbs, and aggregate base for the driveway and remainder of the parking area. Per previous City Council action, bids for the project were opened on July 25, 2000~ Two bids were received, staff reviewed them and found them to be complete in accordance with the bid requirements, and found G.B. Cooke to be the low bidder. Staff completed the required background investigation and found all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid document. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BID APPROVAL FOR FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ISLE HOUSE August 16, 2000 Page :2 City Planner BBFFG:Is RANC HO C UCAMONGA COMMUNITY SERVICES s P,q,o t TO: Mayor and City Council Members Jack tam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Nettle Nielsen, Recreation Supervisor(~ DATE: August 16, 2000 SUBJECT: Approval to award contract to Pageantry Productions for services for the 2000 Founder's Day Parade in the amount of $8,058.11. Recommendation That the City award the contract for the services specified below for the 2000 Founder's Day Parade to Pageantry Productions in the amount of $8,058.11. Background and Analysis The City's Annual Founder's Day Parade and Celebration is scheduled for Saturday, November 11, 2000. The parade, which begins at 9:30 a .m., will feature 150 entries including bands, drill squads, equestrian groups, floats, youth organizations and novelty acts. This year our parade theme is "American Heroes." The parade will begin at Archibald and Base Line and conclude at Red Hill Park, where the Founder's Day Celebration will be held. The Celebration, a festival for families, will open at 10 a.m. and close at 3:00 p.m. A copy of the contract for the 2000 Founders Day Parade is attached. The City has contracted with Pageantry Productions for parade services for the past nine years. Pageantry provides the following services to the City as part of the contract: design and mailing of parade applications, receipt of all entries, parade line up, script, awards, judges, automobiles for dignitaries, and announcer and public address system for the main reviewing stand. Pageantry provides staff on parade day and coordinates all aspects of the parade with the City. City staff handles parade Iogistics (street closures, resident and business notifications etc.) City Council Staff Report August 6, 2000 Approval of Pageantry Productions Contract Page 2 of 2 Pageantry Productions is a professional special events company with expertise in parade management. Our working relationship with them in the past has been exemplary. Fiscal Impact: The amount of the contract: $8,058.11 is included in the Community Services General Fund (01) Budget for Fiscal Year 200012001. Z.~ Community Services Director Attachment: Pageantry Productions Contract cc: Dave Moore, Recreation Superintendent i:\COMMSERV~FOUNDERS~2000~parade~pageantrystaffreportdoc -2- 1/5 PAGiB NTRV PRODUCTIONS pARADES/FESTIVALS 11904 LONG BEACH BLVD. pARTIES/CONVENTIONS LYNWOOD, CA 90262 (310) 5374240 FAX (310) 631-1134 July 18, 2000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention Nettie Nielsen 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 We at Pa,~ean~ Pr~uctions hereby agree to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in producing their Annual Founders Day Parade and Celebration on Saturday, November 11,2000; We agree to assist the City with the use of our most up-to-date mailing list to obtain enthes for the day of parade. We at Pageantry will provide the following: 6' Musical Sweepstakes Award Grand Marshal Award 2 Division Marshal or Featured Rider Awards (if necessary) Float Sweepstakes Award Mayor's Award Tall Flag Sweepstakes Ddll Team Sweepstakes Equestrian Sweepstakes City Award All necessary 1'1, 2nd and 3rd place awards for up to 45 classes 4~h and 5~h place awards in music classes F.M. communications for day of parade All necessary participant vehicle passes All necessary unit numbers with pins for day of parade Staff for parade check-in, formation and parade starter A Pageantry representative to attend all necessary parade meetings Pdnting of one color parade applications Postage for mailing of applications, letters of acceptance and non-acceptance Obtain and provide up to 8 convertibles for Dignitary use Provide 8 sets of signs for Dignitary vehicles Contact and arrange for Southern California School Band and Orchestra Association and a professional Equesldan Judge Pageantry Staff will: Mail all applications Process all returned applications Prepare and mail all letters of acceptance, non-acceptance, parade maps and passes Answer all calls to the Pageantry office from partialpants, judges and local agencies Supply parade judges with all necessary paperwork Formulate the parade line-up Write the parade scdpt and provide up to 4 copies for day of parade Provide necessary line-ups and maps for day of parade Provide award sheets for parade judging results Provide necessary division line up signs for the formation area In addition Pageantry will provide the Annual Founders Day Parade and Celebration with an upgraded trophy package. This will provide the event with the oversized class trophies, which are larger than the standard parade package. We will also provide rosette style ribbons, in keeping with the theme of the parade for City Staff and Parade Dignitaries (up to 50 pieces) and Participant Ribbons for non-competitive entries (up to 2000 pieces.) TOTAL COORDINATING PACKAGE AND SERVICES ............................. $ 8,058.'1 '1 PAGEANTRY PROD JCTIOHS pARADES/FESTIVALS 11904 LONG B~CH BLVD, PARTlY/CONdiTIONS LYNWOOD, CA 90262 (310) 5374240 CI~ Of ~NCHO CUCAMONGA F~ (310) 631-11~ ANNUAL FOUNDERS DAY PA~DE AND CELEBRATION You hereby agr~ to provide / perform the following: Parade hosting for dignitaries Po.able res~ooms in ~e location, disbanding and judging areas Dis~bute applica~ons to local entries Dist~bute al press releases to local media Act as liaison be~een local seaice clubs, businesses, city agencies and Pagean~ Clear all necessa~ permi~ A~uire ~e Parade Grand Marshal Arrange for adequate reviewing and judging stands, with electrical power, tables and chai~ for day of parade Supply additional staff manpower for day of parade Affange for parade announcers Arrange and ~r~ necessa~ insuran~ Arrange for Awards Ceremony area with tables for awards set up and P.A. system Coordinate for ~e formation, parade route and disbanding areas to be post~ wi~ "no parking" signs WE PROPOSE TO FURNISH LABOR AND MATERIALS, COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS, AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOUND IN THIS AGREEMENT FOR THE SUM OF EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY EIGHT DOLLARS AND ELEVEN CENTS $ 8,058.11 PAYMENT AS FOLLOWS: PAYMENT IN FULL DAY OF PARADE, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER.1 li 2000 ACCEPTED. The above prices, specifications and conditions RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized WORLD WIDE SPECTACULARS, INC. to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. d/b/a pAGEANTRY PRODUCTIONS DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: BY: I ' ' ' BY BY 117 SUMMARY OF COSTS COORDINATING SERVICES $ 6,700.00 PRINTING OF PARADE APPLiCATiONS $ 475.00 PLUS $ 39.19 TAX POSTAGE FOR MAILING OFAPPLICATIONS, ACCEPTANCE AND NON-ACCEPTANCE $ 340.00 8 CONVERTIBLES FOR DIGNITARY USE @ $ 50.00 EACH $ 400.00 6 SETS OF CAR SIGNS FOR DIGNITARY VEHICLES @ $12.00 EACH PLUS TAX $ 96.00 PLUS $ 7.92 TAX TOTAL COST $ 8,058.11 NOTE: TOTAL COST MAY CHAGE ID MORE (OR LESS) DIGNITARY CARS AND SIGNS ARE REQUIRED. RA N H O C U CA M O N GA I~NGINEERING DEPARTMENT Sh ffReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 99-26, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOWN CENTER DRIVE AND HAVEN AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving CUP 99-26, accepting the subject agreement and security, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CUP 99-26, located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Town Center Drive, in the Community Commercial Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999, for the development of a 14,841 square foot drug store with drive-thru facility. The Developer, Western Land Properties, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $40,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $20,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Res i]y submitte/.~.~ City Engineer WJO:MEP:sd Attachments FO THILL BOULEVARD ITEM: ~-~'~-~ CITY OF TITLE: Vicinity Map RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT:"A" ENGINEEXI!iG DIVISION /~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND MPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 99-26 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Western Land Properties as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the southeast comer of Town Center Ddve and Haven Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as CUP 99-26; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. RA NCHO CUCAM ONGA ENGINEERINC- DEi~ARTMENT DA~8: August 181 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY': Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 00-05, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLENNIUM COURT EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, SUBMITrED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving DR 00-05, accepting the subject agreement and security and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DR 00-05, located on the north side of Millennium Court, east of Milliken Avenue, was approved by the City Planner on July 3, 2000, for the development of an industrial building on approximately 9 acres within the Catellus Master Plan area. The Developer, Catellus Development Corporation, has previously bonded for the improvements that are now under construction on Milliken Avenue, Arrow Route, Foothill Boulevard and Century and Millennium Courts. They are now submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of additional off-site improvements (a traffic signal at Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue) required of DR 00-05 in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $140,000.00 Labor and Material Bond $ 70,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from CCWD. Respectfully subm. itted, Wi~c'~(~ City Engineer WJO:BAM:sd Attachments ~ NORTH 1~ 1 "= 400' CITY OF ~TEM: DR 00-05 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Improvement Agreement ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: Vicinity Map RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 00-05 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement by Catellus Development Corporation as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the north side of Millennium Court east of Milliken Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as DR 00-05; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. RAN HO C UCAM ON GA ENGXNEE~NG DEPARTMENT Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF HAMILTON STREET EASEMENT AND ALSO ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT MAP 14162, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TM STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS, SUBMI ~ I ED BY PROMUS INVESTMENT NETWORK, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map 14162, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the summary vacation of a portion of Hamilton Street easement and also ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract Map 14162, located at the south side of 19th Street at the western City limits, in the Low Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission of August 26, 1992, for the division of 5 acres into 17 single family lots. The Developer, Promus Investment Network, Inc., is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $293,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $146,500.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit: $ 3,250.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 14162 August 16, 2000 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. A condition for approval of the map requires the vacation of the unused and excess right-of- way portion of Hamilton Street easement adjacent to and along the southerly boundary of this map. The subject street easement was originally obtained by the County in 1974. It was intended for the future continuation of Hamilton Street to the west into the City of Upland. Since then, the City of Upland approved and a subdivision was built which does not have Hamilton Street continuing westerly. This resulted in the excess right-of-way now being summarily vacated. The portion of Hamilton Street proposed for vacation is not presently used or fully improved and will not be needed in the future for street use. Hamilton Street will be realigned and curved northerly and connected to 19th Street through Tract 14162. It would be appropriate to vacate the excess portion of Hamilton Street easement within the boundary of this map and return the property use to the owner. The subject summary vacation was found to conform to the General Plan and to be consistent with the Tentative Tract Map as was approved by the Planning Commission. Easements will be reserved or provided for all existing utilities, or abandoned as directed by the affected utility companies. Vacated street roadway improvements in the existing one-half street will be removed, and the site will be improved by the Developer as part of a private single-family lot. A letters of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:PV:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 00-/5 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANGHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 14i62, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 14162, submitted by Promus Investment Network, Inc., and consisting of 17 lots located on the south side of 19u~ Street at the western City limits, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on August26, 1992, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 14162 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Promus Investment Network, Inc., as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 14162 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. Ob-/,5'S7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HAMILTON STREET EASEMENT, LOCATED WEST OF SARD STREET WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8330, of the Streets and Highway Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate a portion of the City Street hereinafter more particularly described; and WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that portion of Hamilton Street west of Sard Street is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes because it has been superceded by relocation. NOW, TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby makes its order vacating that portion of street on Map V-477, on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part thereof. SECTION 2: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, if any, set forth in Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 3: That from and after the date this resolution is recorded, the subject street easement as specifically described in Exhibit "A" shall no longer constitute a public easement for street purposes. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATION OF HAMILTON. STREET pARCEL 1: That portion of Hamilton Street (60 feet wide) as it now exists, being a portion of Lot 2 of Block 20 Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancbo Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of Calitbrnia, as per map recorded m Book 6, Page 46 of Maps, in the office of the County Recordd of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North Line of Lot 1 of Block 20 Of said Cucamonga Homestead Association, heir~g North 89° 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Northeasi corner of sai~ bt 1: thence Sou~erl~ along a line drawn parallel wi~ ~e East line of said Lot 1, Sou~ 0~ 01' 0~" East 659.68 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 2, said Nor~erl~ line being the centerline of Hamilton Street, ~r Tract No. 8507, ~ per map recorded in Book 121 Pages 49 and 50 of Maps, in the office of ~e Count~ Recorder of said Count~, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ~ence continuing South 0~ 01' 00" East 20.00 feet to ~e Northerly line of Lot 4~ of said Tract No. 8507; thence along said Nort~erl~ line North 8~ 48' 15" West 119.56 fed to the N~the~terly line of Tract ~o. 13266, ~ per map recorded in Book 219, Pages 59 through 63, inclusive 6f Maps, in the office of the Count~ Recorder of said County; thence along said Northeasterl~ line North 31° 50' 0T' West 23.59 t~et to a point on the Nor~erl~ lin~ of said Lot 2; ~ence along said Northerly line of Lot 2 and said centerline of Hamilton Street, South 89~ 48' 15' East 132.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Having an area of 2,516 square feet. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 1 of Bl~k 20 of Cu~monga Homestead Association, in ~e City of R~cho Cucamonga, County of San Ber~dino, State ~f California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page ~.6 of Maps, in ~e office of the County Recorder of ~aid County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 1, being North 89" 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Nor~east corner of said Lot 1; ~ence SouSefly along a line drawn parallel with th~ East line of said Lot 1, South 0~ 01' 00" E~t 619.68 feet to a point on the Nor~erly right-of-way line of H~iiton Street (60 l~et wide) as it now exist, said point being th~ TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 0~ 01' 00" E~t 40.00 feet along said parallel line to the Sofftherly line of Said Lot I ahd the centerline of Hamilton Street; thence Wesmrly along said Southerly line North 89° 48'-15" West 132.00 feet to a point on the Northeasmrly line of Tract No. 13266, hs per map recorded in Book 219, Pages 59 through 63, inclusive of Maps, in the office of the County kecorder of said County; thence along said Northeasterly line North 31~ 50' 07" West 47.18 feet to a point on the Northerly righvot~way line of Hamilton StVeet: thence South 89° 48' 15" East along said Northerly line 156.88 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Having an area of 5,777 squ~e feet. Prepa ed By: E~IBIT "A" ~'~'~o' w NINETEENTH STREET } ~.~ ((694.g41~)l~25-aot ~ LINE LOT 18LK 20 ~ ~;-~OR, LOT s se'or~' ~ ~LOCX 20 1~"~1~,:-~ Im:~' I~z~ l'&,~l.~.o....~ SCA~E: 1"= 100' - ~ ...r~'.T_~: ~,~..~C~-°°' ~CBNn: ' ~ PARCEL 2 ~' ~ , HAM~T~.N'STREET ~ >$NDmCA~ES RECORO ~ATA PER mac7 NO. 850Z. ~.~. ~2~/~s-50, ¢'~- PARCEL1 ~' ~ ' ' SHEET 2 OF 3 h 2 ~ ' so.s~' i ~o' ' 30' ~ VACATION 0F HAMILTON STREET SCALE: 1" 50' F-- . 156.88' ,/ 660.00' ' NSg'~'l~l ~ F~ ~ - ~ ~:~ ~ ~g.ss' ~ s sg'~s'~s' E 50' ~ ~50' DETAILS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 NOTE: TPOB TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT "A" ~ SHEET 3 OF 3 VACATION OF HAMILTON i STREET EXHIBIT "B" Reservations and Exceptions To the Vacation of Hamilton Street The vacation of the street described above pertains only to the use of said land for street purposes. All utility uses are retained and excepted that exist by deed on the date of recording hereof. In addition, an easement to the Cucamonga County Water District is retained in, over, upon, under and across the following described parcel: That portion of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 20 of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 46 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 47 of Tract No. 8507, as per map recorded in Book 121 Pages 49 and 50 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along the Northeasterly line of Tract No. 13266, as per map recorded in Book 219 Pages 59 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, N 31° 50' 07" W 10.13 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northeasterly line N 31 ° 50' 07" W 15.45 feet; thence N 72° 01' 10" E 37.88 feet; thence S 89° 48' 15" E 39.76 feet to a non-tangent curve, concave to the Northeast and of radius 70.00 feet; a radial bearing at said point being S 58° 46' 04" W; thence along said curve through a central angle of 15° 56' 22" and an arc distance of 19.47 feet; thence N 89° 48' 15 "W 49.68 feet; thence S 72° 01' 10 "W 31.78 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit "B" - 1of I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE GITY GOUNGIL OF THE GITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT 14162 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (referred to collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation resolutions, an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the Maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to such districts; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and RESOLUTION NO. TRACT 14162 August 16, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act and/or Article XIIID applicable to the authorization to the levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization of levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property To Be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Promus Investment Network, Inc., a California Corporation The legal description of the Property is: SEE SHEETS A-2 AND A-3 ATTACHED HEREWITH The above described parcel is shown on sheet A-4 attached herewith and by this reference made a part hereof. Boundary Description Of Tract No. 14162 PARCEL "A" consisting of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 hereon described. Note: Total Parcel Area = 223,188 square feet or 5.124 acres. Parcel 1: That portion of Lot I of Block 20 of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 46, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 1, being North 89° 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence Westerly along the North line of said Lot 1, North 89° 48' 30" West 465.65 feet; thence South 00° 35" 30" East 216.87 feet to the Northerly line of Tract No. 13266 in the City of Upland, as per map recorded in Book 219, Pages 59 through 63 inclusive, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said Northerly line South 89° 07' 00" East 61.05 feet; thence South 31 o 50' 07" East 474.25 feet; thence Easterly and parallel with the Southerly boundary of said Lot 1, South 89° 48' 15" East 156.88 feet; thence Northerly along a line parallel with the Easterly boundary of said Lot 1, North 00° 01' 00" West 619.68 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT therefrom that portion described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 1 of Block 20 of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 46, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, said point being North 89° 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence South 00° 01' 00" East 29.83 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 00° 01' 00" East 101.71 feet; thence North 44° 48' 30" West 7.83 feet; thence North 00° 11' 30" East 91.00 feet; thence North 45° 11' 30" East 7.31 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 2: That portion of Lot 1 of Block 20 of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of Califomia, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 46, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 1, being North 89° 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence Southerly along a line parallel with the Easterly boundary of said Lot 1, South 00° 01' 00" East 619.68 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of Hamilton Street (60 feet wide), said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said parallel line South 00° 01' 00" East 40.00 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 1, said Southerly line also being the centerline of Hamilton Street; thence along said Southerly line North 89° 48' 15" West 132.00 feet to the Northeasterly line of Tract No. 13266 in the City of Upland, as per map recorded in Book 219, Pages 59 through 63 inclusive, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said Northeasterly line North 31 ° 50' 07" West A-2 47.18 feet to a line parallel with the 40.00 feet North of the South line of said Lot 1, said parallel line also being the Northerly right-of-way line of Hamilton Street; thence along said parallel line South 89° 48' 15" West 156.88 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 3: That portion of Lot 2 of Block 20 of Cucamonga Homestead Association, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 46, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 1 of Block 20 of said Cucamonga Homestead Association, being North 89° 48' 30" West 660.00 feet from the Northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence Southerly along a line parallel with the Easterly Boundary of said Lot 1, South 00° 01' 00" East 659.68 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 2, said Northerly line also being the centerline of Hamilton Street, per Tract No. 8507, as per map recorded in Book 121 Pages 49 and 50, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 00° 01' 00" East 20.00 feet to the Northerly line of Lot 47 of said Tract No. 8507; thence along said Northerly line North 89° 48' 15" West 119.56 feet to the Northeasterly line of Tract No. 13266 in the City of Upland, as per map recorded in Book 219, Pages 59 through 63 inclusive, of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said Northeasterly line North 31 o 50' 07" West 23.59 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 2; thence along said Northerly line South 89° 48' 15" East 132.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. A-, /ZZ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTPdCT NO. 1. · STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 TRACT NO. 14162 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD1NO STATE OF CALIFOP,_NIA .... ~parkway)j,'!) - PARCEL m,=,.~,m .~1_ ! _It. ........ ~ i. Of 4 I~l .,~ LOT 2 LOt lt~ Areas of street ~ and street lj L~T ~5 (see Exhibit "B",, page B-2 for quantities) LOT 14 ~0~ ~i A-4 /3 ' Exhibit B To Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD # 1 ) represents 33.93 acres of landscape area and 43.25 acres of parks which are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, Community Trails and Parks. The 43.25 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park which is 5 acres, 20 acres of East and West Beryl Park, 5 acres of Old Town Park, 6.5 acres of Church Street Park, the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center which consists of 1.75 acres and the newest park; Golden Oaks Park located on 6t" Street, west of Archibald. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N~). 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD # 1 ) i s used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to the City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Exhibit B (continued) Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2001/2002) For Project: Tract 14172 Number of Lamps Street Lights 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L SLD #1 6 ............ SLD #2 8 ............ Community Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Landscaping DGSF SF SF EA L1 0 0 8,260 71 *Existing items installed with original project Assessment Units by District Parcel DU or Acres S 1 S2 L 1 SEE EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED HEREWITH B-2 /q/ Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2000/2001 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City): # of Assessment # of Rate Per Physical Units Assessment Assessment Land Use Type Units Factor Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 7269 1.0 7269 $92.21 $670.274.49 Family Multi- Unit 5952 0.5 2976 $92.21 $274,416.96 Family TOTAL $944,691.45 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 14162) is: 17 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $92.21 Rate Per A.U. = $1,567.57 Annual Assessment STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $17.77 for the fiscai year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment Land Use Unit Type [lnit~ llnit~ Factnr Units Unit Revenue Single Parcel 16,956.00 1.00 16,956.00 $17.77 $301,310.00 Family Multi- Unit 6,257.00 1.00 6,257.00 $17.77 $111,190.00 Family Commercial Acre 1999.52 2.00 1999.52 $17.77 $71,060.00 Total $483,560.00 The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (TR 14162) is: 17 Parcels x 1 A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.U. = $302.09 Annual Assessment Exhibit C (continued) STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS): The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2000/01. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): # of Rate Per Physical # of Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment l,and Use Unit Type llnit~ Units Factor Units llnit Revenue Single Parcel 6606 1.00 6606 $39.97 $264,042.00 Family The Proposed Annum Assessment against the Property (TR 14162) is: 17 Parcel x 1 A.U. Factor x $39.97 Rate Per A.U. = $679.49 Annual Assessment C-2 I?A NC hO C UCAMONGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda ' ' ' Michael pector~/~' SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE BERYL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO CIELITO STREET, CONTRACT NO. 00-006, AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $110,727.31 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City council accept Beryl Street Rehabilitation Project, from Base Line Road to Cielito Street, Contract No. 00-006, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the release of the Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion and release the retention in the amount of $11,072.73 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of $110,727.31. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project documentation, is $219,281.82. City Engineer WJO:LH:MDL Attachments RANCHO CUCAMONGA / "'?Project "q / ~4TH ~T + )IGHLANI ,VE z f FDDTHILL BLV - ~ BN~F RR u~ 6TH ST '- > , ,, . ~r ONTARIO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~, BERYL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FROM CIEUTO STREET TO 19TH STREET LOCATION MAP ~./z/~ RESOLUTION NO. D 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE BERYL STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO CIELITO STREET, AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for the Beryl Street Rehabilitation Project, from Base Line Road to Cielito Street, Contract No. 00-006, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino. ORDINANCE NO. 630 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 30 MPH ON PALO ALTO STREET BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND HELLMAN AVENUE A. RECITALS (i) California Vehicle Code Section 22357 Provides that this City Council may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any street not a state highway. (ii) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering and traffic survey, of certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which streets as specified in Part B of this Ordinance. (iii) The determinations concerning prima facie speed limits set forth in Part B, below, are based upon the engineering and traffic survey identified in Section A (ii), above. B. ORDINANCE .-, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga City Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: 10.20.020 Decrease of state law maximum speed. It is determined by City Council resolution and upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets, and it is declared the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hereof: (Ord. 169 Section I (paR), 1982; Ord. 39 Section 5.1, (1978). Rancho Cucamonga 5/82 124 EXISTING POSTED PROPOSED PRIMA FACIE NAME OF STREET AND LIMITS SPEED LIMIT (MPH) SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 1. Palo Alto Street-Archibald NP 30 to Hellman Avenues Ordinance No. 630 Page 2 of 3 (i) Both sixty-five (65) miles per hour and fifty-five (55) miles per hour are speeds which are more than are reasonable or safe; and (ii) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie speeds which are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said streets or portions thereof; and (iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on said streets; and (iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed timit declared herein. SECTION 2: The City Cterk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Inland Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation pubtished in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Ordinance No. 630 Page 3 of 3 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of August 2000, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of August 2000. Executed this 17th day of August 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk THE CITY 0 F I~.ANCHO CUCAMONGA Stuff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. - A request to recommend approval for a development agreement for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue - Tentative Tract Map 14493 through 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, and 15902. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified on October 26, 1999. An addendure to the EIR was prepared because the project description did not include a development agreement or the construction of full improvements to the extension of Banyan Street from Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue, or full improvements to the segment of Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Avenue and SR 30. The addendum was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval of Development Agreement 00-02 and the Resolution affirming the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) certified by the County of San Bernardino as augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND On October 26, 1999, the applicant received approval by the County Board of Supervisors for a 685-1ot residential subdivision and two commercial centers. On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga filed a lawsuit on the adequacy of the environmental document prepared for the project. In June 2000, the City, County of San Bernardino, and project developer reached a conditional settlement agreement, which required the parties to perform specific CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT DA 00-02 - U.C.P.,INC. August16,2000 Page 2 actions. In keeping with the settlement agreement, the applicant has requested approval of a development agreement for a term of 10 years. On July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the development agreement and affirming the EIR and SEIR certified by the County of San Bernardino and as augmented by an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ANALYSIS The purpose of'the development agreement is to proceed with the plans for the development of the residential project and to assist the applicant in the creation of financing mechanisms for infrastructure, which will be constructed in cooperation (as defined in the development agreement) with the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An EIR was prepared for the project and certified by the County of San Bernardino on October 26, 1999. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is identified as a responsible agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR was served on the City as such responsible agency. The City is the lead agency for the processing of the development agreement. The City as a responsible agency under CEQA for the Project and as lead agency for the development agreement prepared an addendum to the SEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 and 15164 to address the refinements of the Project as set forth in the development agreement. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SS\Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Map Exhibit "B" - Initial Study and Addendum Exhibit "C" - Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SCH #88082915 and #98121091 ) Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2000 Environmental Documents (provided under separate cover) Resolution of Approval Ordinance ~ /IlIIIIIIIEX"' INITIAL .$TUDY/ADDENDUM REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO GOUNTY, GALIFOKNIA LSA Project No. CRG031 SUBMx'i-x'ED TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cueamonga, California 91730 PREPARED BY: LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10m Street, Suite 520 Riverside, Califomia 92562 909.781.9310 LSA August 9, 2000 LSAABSOCIATES, iNC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 iNTRODUCTiON ....................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................ 1-1 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION .................. 1-1 1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM .................... 1-2 1.4 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ..... 1-4 1.5 CONTACT PERSONS ............................................. 1-4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................. 2-1 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTFNG .......................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ............................ 2-1 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................... 2-1 2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................... 2-4 3.0 INITIAL STUDY ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ............................. 3 - 1 3.2 EXPLANATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST . 3-14 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES/PERSON AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ..................................... 4-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1 - Project Location ......................................................... 2-2 2 - Revised University Project ................................................. 2-3 8/9/00((R:\CRG031\dev_agreement_is-toc.wpd)) i LSAASSOCIATES, INC. REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Initial Study/Addendum is an addendure to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (ERR.) State Clearinghouse No. 88082915 certified by the County of San Bemardino in June of 1991 for the University/Crest PD and the Supplemental EIR State Clearinghouse No. 98121091 certified by the County of San Bernardino on October 26, 1999 for the Revised University Project. These documents, together with all other technical studies and environmental documents incorporated by reference herein, serve as the environmental review of the proposed project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the Supplemental EIR the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and U.C.P. Incorporated (property owner) have agreed to enter into a Development Agreement (Appendix A) with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This addendure addresses potential environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the Development Agreement (and corresponding modifications to the Revised University Project). Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency, and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed project (modifications to the Revised University Project as set forth in the Development Agreement). As part of the decision making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from the modification of mitigation measures included in the Final EIR and Supplemental EIR prepared for the project site. This EIR Addendure addresses potential impacts w1~ich may result from development of the Revised University Project site, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT~4TION In June of 1991, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors certified the Environmental Impact Report for the University/Crest Project Planned Development, PUD No. W 121-49 (University/Crest PD). The University/Crest PD entitlements combined two separately owned properties with 1,238 residential units, commercial, school, park, and open space uses. On October 26, 1999, the San Bemardino County Board of Supcrvisurs approved the Revised Preliminary Development Plan W121-49 (Revised University Project), and a Minor General Plan Amendment and zone change. The Revised University Prnjcct modified previous entitlemcnts to the University/Crest PD. These modifications included: separating the University portion of the University/Crest PD from the Crest portion; adding 64 acres of former Southern California Edison (SCE) property to the project; increasing the number of dwelling units from 575 to 685; revising project design; increasing the size &school and park sites; and modifying the location and size of commercial uses. The Revised University Project eliminated a 675-acre space area from the project, and provided land and funds to provide and maintain for off-site open space. The County certified as accurate, adequate, and 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 \dev_agreemcnt_is .wpd>> ] ' ] LSAASSOCIATES. INC. complete the Supplemental EIR which provided environmental evaluation of the impacts associated with the Revised University Project on October 26, 1999. At this time, the County adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1.3 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUD Y/ADDENDUM Pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study/Addendum has been prepared in order to determine whether development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will result in a change in circumstances, new impacts, or new information of substantial importance requiting the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This addendum reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Supplemental EiR was certified. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed project. The focus of the examination is on whether the Supplemental EIR adequately addresses the impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines, the City's environmental review of the proposed project is limited to examining the environmental effects associated with the changes between the previously certified Supplemental EIR and the impacts which may result from implementation of applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. This focus is due to the fact that the Supplemental EIR has already addressed the environmental impacts of the development of the Revised University Project, and the San Bcmardino County Board of Supervisors certified that the Supplemental EIR was adequate and met the provisions of CEQA. Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the previous EIY, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental 8/9/00(<R:\CRG031 xtlev_agreement_is.wpd)) 1-2 LSA ASSOCIATES, 1NC. effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been knoWn with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous E1R; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions are met, the City is not permitted to require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Rather, the City may require preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. This Initial Study/Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the Supplemental EIR, as well as each of the issues contained in the checklist presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained herein, there is no evidence that the proposed project requires major changes to the Supplemental EIR. Comparison of the previous project with the proposed project, as described in Section 2.3 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. This Initial Study/Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form (Form), as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form is used: To evaluate whether or not there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the Development Agreement; and · To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, or if an Addendum is appropriate. Section 3.0 of this document contains the Checklist Form.and explains the basis for each response to the questions on the Form. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)) ] -3 1.4 EX[ST1NG DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined in this section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study/Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCHNo, 98121090, LSA Associates, Inc., April 15, 1999 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 Final Biological Surveys for the University Planned Development and Adjacent Parcels, San Bernardino County, California, Harmsworth Associates, July 28, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectives, August 1989 1.5 CONTACT PERSONS The Lead Agency for the Initial Study/Addendum for Rcvlsed University Project is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any questions about the preparation of this Initial Study/Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should bc referred to: Salvador Salazar, AICP City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: (909) 477-2750 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is .wpd>> ] -4 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING The proposed project entails modifications to the previously entitled Revised University Project as outlined in the Development Agreement. Implementation of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The Revised University Project site is situated in unincorporated Sen Bemardino County, adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Figure 1). The site is bounded on the north by the Crest portion of the previously approved University/Crest PD, on the west by a SCE utility corridor, on the south by Highland Avenue, and on the east, south of Wilson Avenue, by Hanley Avenue (Figure 2). The project site is located west of the Devure Freeway (I-15) end north of both the San Bemardino Freeway (I-10), and the future State Route 30 (SR~30) in western San Bemardino County. 2.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARYACTIONS Approval of the Development Agreement by City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission · Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the development of the University Project Site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement which may result in impacts not identified in the Supplemental EIR include the following: Section 2(B): The extension of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain lendscape, end Americens with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the project site; · Section 2(C)(1)(a)(ii): The extension of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;" Section 2(C)(2): The design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape shall be modified to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site end/or substantially consistent with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Hen; Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding end/or construction necessary to improve Benyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; · Section 2(C)(5): Review and approval by the City of slopes within all landscape maintenance districts and adherence to City standards for slopes in excess of 12.5 feet in height; 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 ~ev_agreement_is.wpd>) 2-1 Bernaniino Angeles National National t Forest Forest ~ J PROJECT / LOCATION .... -, ___, \ ' ...... 1 i Fontana Upland Rancho Cucamonga Pomona Onta,qo Los , Angeles County San Bernardino , County Riverside ' County Orange County Figure 1 LSA Associates, Inc. Revised University Project ~ ~" Project Locat~,~n o' 1 ,ooo' 2,000' N / &, I I Wilson ~Avenue :: LEGEND :':' ["1 siNglE fAMILY :: (7,200 SF = MINIMUM LOT SIZE) I I PUBLIC (PARK & ELEM. SCHOOL) ~ :l:l COMMERCIAL II NAP I I ! Drive II HighlandAvenue (Proposed Freeway Route 30) Map Source: Allard Engineering. ,<~,,ooCcRoo,,<Aadend.~ Figure 2 Initial Study/Addendum Revised University Project L S A Revised Universi Project LSA Associates, Inc. N Not to Scale /~ ~C~-- Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City trail system; Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and Section 2(D)(1): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. 2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site remains vacant and undeveloped. Existing physical conditions have not changed since approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the Supplemental EIR in October of 1999. 8/9/00<<R:\CRGO31\dev_agreement_is.wpd)> 24 LSAASSOC]ATES, INC. 3.0 INITIAL STUDY 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM The following pages contain the Environmental Checklist Form (Form) for the proposed project. The Form is marked with findings as to the environmental effects of the project. A checked box in columns 1, 2, or 3 shall require additional environmental analysis in the form of a supplemental or subsequent E1R. A checked box in columns 4, 5, or 6 shall require preparation of a mitigated negative declaration, a negative declaration, or an addendum. As explained in Section 1.0, this analysis has been undertaken, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, to provide the City ofRancho Cucamonga with the factual basis for determining, based on the information available, the form of environmental documentation the project warrants. The basis for each of the findings listed in the attached Form is explained in Section 3.2, Environmental Analysis and Explanation of Checklist Responses. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Development Agreement for the Revised University Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Salvador Salazar (909) 477-2750 4. Project Location: The Revised University Project site is situated in unincorporated San Bernardino County, adjacent to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is bounded on the north by the Crest portion of the previously approved University/Crest PD, on the west by a SCE utility corridor, on the south by Highland Avenue, and on the east, south of Wilson Avenue, by Hanley Avenue. The project site is located west of the Devote Freeway (I-15) and north of both the San Bemardino Freeway (I-10), and the future SR-30 in westem San Bemardino County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.P.C., Incorporated 5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D Anaheim, CA 92807 Ben Anderson, Senior Vice President (714) 693-6700 6. General Plan Designation: Planned Development (PD) (San Bemardino County designation) 7. Zoning: WF/PD-3/1; WF/IN (San Bemardino County designations) 8. Description of the Projeet (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.): The proposed project is the development of the University Project Site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement which may result in impacts not identified in the Supplemental EIR include the following: 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 klcv_agreemenLis.wpd)> 3 - 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC~ , Section 2(B): The extension of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain landscape, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the project site; Section 2(C)(1)(a)(ii): The extension of Etiwanda Noah Specific Plan design "criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;" Section 2(C)(2): The design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape shall be modified to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site and/or substantially consistent with the City' s Day Creek Boulevard Master; Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding and/or construction necessary to improve Banyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; Section 2(C)(5): Review and approval by the City of slopes within all landscape maintenance districts and adherence to City standards for slopes in excess of 12.5 feet in height; · Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City trail system; Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and Section 2(D)(1): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surrounding.): The property west of the southem extension of Hanley Avenue and north of Highland Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga has a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (minimum lot average of 10,000 square feet). Lots to the east of this area south of Banyan Avenue and north of Highland Avenue have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet). Lots north of Banyan Avenue, east of Hanley Avenue and south of Wilson Avenue have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (minimum lot average of 25,000 square feet). Properties to the north of Wilson Avenue adjacent to the northern SCE easement of the revised University Project have a minimum of 7,200-square- foot lots (minimum lot average of 10,000 square feet). Lots to the south of Highland Avenue, also in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are planned for 3,000- to 7,200-square-foot sizes, and lots to the west of Day Creek Channel are planned for a minimum of 7,200 square feet. 10. Pnblie Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). The following Hst is not exhaustive, and contains the approvals and permits that may be necessary based on the best available data at the time the Initial Study was prepared. Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031\dev_agreement_is.wlxt>> 3-2 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. Approval of the Development Agreement by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Determination: (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] The City finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The City finds 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. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The City finds 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 on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to addressed. [] The City finds that changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken require major revisions to the previous EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. [] The City finds that changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken require only minor revision to the previous EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR shall be prepared. · The City finds that the significant effects that would result from the proposed project have been addressed irt an earlier EIR, and that none of the determinations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established. Thus, an ADDENDUM to the University/Crest Supplemental EIR shall be prepared. Signature Date Title Agency Evaluation of Environmental Impacts This Initial Study/Addendum uses an Environmental Checklist Form (Form) to compare the anticipated environmental effects of the project with those disclosed in the previous EIR and to review whether any of the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are met. The Form is used to review the potential environmental effects ofth~ proposed project for each of the following areas: 8/9/00((R:\CRGO31\dev_agreemenLis.wpd)) 3-3 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. · Aesthetics · Agricultural Resources · Air Quality · Biological Resources · Cultural Resources · Geology/Soils · Hazards and Hazardous Materials · Hydrology/Water Quality · Land Use/Planning · Mineral Resources · Noise · Population/Housing ' · Public Services · Recreation · Transportation/Traffic · Utilities/Service Systems Cumulative Impacts (This Checklist Form topic is discussed in Section 3.0 - Initial Study, Subsection 3.2 - Environmental Analysis, under heading 16 [Mandatory Findings of Significance]). This Initial Study/Addendum is based on an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form includes a checklist to indicate whether the conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines that would require a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met, and whether there are new significant impacts resulting from the project. The Form is found in Section 3.0 of this Initial Study/Addendum. It contains a series of questions about the project for each of the areas. Following the Checklist Form in Section 3.2 is an explanation for each answer on the Form. There are six possible responses to each of the questions included on the Form: 1. Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major Revision of Previous EIR. Thisresponseisused when the project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous EIR are required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial Change in Circumstances under which Project is Undertaken Requiring Major RevisionofPreviousEIR. ThisresponseisusedwhenthecircumstancesunderwhichtheProject is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the previous EIR are required because such changes would result in the project having new significant environmental effects or would substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New Information of Substantial bnportance Showing New or Greater Signi~cant Effects Than Identified in Previous EIR. This response is used when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified in, shows that the project would have a new significant environmental effect or more severe significant effect than identified in the previous EIR. 8/9/00((R:~CRG031 ~dev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3 -4 4. New ~nf~rmati~n ~f Substantia~ ~mp~rtance Sh~wing Ability t~ Substantia~y Reduce Signi~ca~t Impacts ldentified in Previous EIR. Thisresponseisusedwhennewinformationofsubstantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows: A. The significant environmental effects of the project could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives that although previously found to be infeasible are in fact now feasible, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; or B. The significant environmental effects of the project could be substantially reduced through imposition of mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. 5. Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or Circumstances and No New Infortnation That Would Require the Preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. This response is used when 1) the potential impact of the project is determined to be below known or measurable thresholds of significance and would not require mitigation, or 2) there are no changes in the project or circumstances and no new information that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental E1R pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 6. No Impact. This response is used when the proposed project does not have any measurable environmental impact. The Form and accompanying evaluation of the responses provide the information and analysis upon which the City of Rancho Cucamonga may make its determination that no subsequent EIR may be required for the project. 8/9/00((R:\CRG03 l~dev_agreernent_is.wpd>> 3-5 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic [] [] [] [] [] [] vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [] [] [] [] [] [] including, but not limited to, h'ees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [] [] [] [] [] [] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare [] [] [] [] [] [] which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [] [] [] [3 [] [] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use [] [] [] [] [] [] or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing r~ ?1 [] [] [] [] environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the [] [] [] [] [] [] applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [] [] [] [] [] [] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 8/9/00((R:\CRG03 lXdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3 -6 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [] [] [] [] [] [] increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [] [] [] [] [] [] pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [] [] [] [] [] [] number of people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly [] [] [] [] [] [] or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian [] [] [] [] [] [] habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [] [] [3 [] [] [] protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [] [3 El [] [] [] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances [] [] [] [] [] [] protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? O Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [] [] rn [] [] [] Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] [] [] [] [] [] significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] [] [] [] [] [] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57 8/9/00((R:\CRG03 lXdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3 -7 LSAASSOC1ATES. INC. I 2 3 4 5 6 Less than Slg~ificaat N~v Information Impact~o c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [] [] [] [] [] [] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those [] [] [] [] [] [] interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential [] [] [] [] [] [] substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Joss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [] [] [] [] [] [] delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] [] [] [] [] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [] [] [] [] [] [] liquefaction? iv) Landslides? [] [] [] [] [] [] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [] [] [] [] [] [] topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is [] [] [] [] [] [] unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table [] [] D [] D [] 18- I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting [] [] [] [] [] [] the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] [] [] [] [] [] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] [] [] [] [] [] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031\dev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-8 /7/ LSAASSOCIATES. INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Less than Significant Ne~ lnfo~nafion Impact/No c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous [] [] [] [] [] [] or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [] [] [] [] [] [] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use [] [] [] [] [] [] plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impairimplementation of or physically interfere [] [] 121 [] [] [] with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk [] [] [] [] [] [] of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. BYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALlTY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste [] [3 [] [] [] [] discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [] [] [] [] [] [] interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern [] [] [] r'l [] [] of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? 8/9/00((R:\CRG031\dev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-9 LSAASSOCIATES. ING, d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem [] [] [] [] [] [] of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface ranoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute ranoff water which would [] [] [] [] [] [] exceed the capacity of existing or planned substantial additional sources of polluted ranoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] [] [] [] [] [] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard [] [] [] [] [] [] area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [] [] [] [] [] [] structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk [] [] [] [3 [] [] of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [] [] [] [] [] [] 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] [] [] [] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [] [] [] [] [] [] policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation [] [] [] [] [] [] plan or natural community conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known [~ [] [] [] [] [] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- [] [] [] [] [] [] delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: 8/9/00(<R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is .wpd)) 3 - 10 / 70-3 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise rn [] [] [] [] [] levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [] [] [] [] [] [] noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient rn [] [] [] [] [] noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [] [] [] 121 [] [] ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use [] [] [] [] [] [] plan or, where such a plan has not bean adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use aispon, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [] [] [] [] [] [] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [] [] [] rn [] [] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] [] [] D [] [] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse rn [] [] cl [] [] physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [] [] [] [] [] [] 8/9/00({R:\CRGO31 klev_agreement_is.wpd>> 3 - 1 ] LSAASSOCIATE$, INC. Police protection? [] [3 [] [] E3 [] Schools? [] [] [] [] [] [] Parks? [] [] [] E3 [] [] Other public facilities? [] [] [] [] [] [] 14. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing [] [] [] [] [] [] neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or [] [] [] [] [] [] require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATIONEfRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial [] [] [] [] [] [] in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a [] [] [] [] [] [] level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patreins, [] [] [] [] [] [] including either an increase in traffic levels or a changc in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design [] [] [] c1 rn [] feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [] [] [] [] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [] [] [] [] g) Cqn~ict with adopted policies, plans, or [] [] [] [] [] [] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.1 bus turnouts? bic~'cle racks)? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031 klev_agreernent_is.wpd)) 3 - ] 2 / LSAASSOCIATES, INC, a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [] [] [] [] [] [] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new [] [] [] [] [] [] water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new [] [] [] [] [] [] storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [] [] [] rn [] [] the project from existing entitlemerits and needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater m [] gl [] gl [] treatment prorider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [] [] [] [] [] [] capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [] [] [] [] [] [] regulations related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a). POTENTIALTODEGRADE:Doesthepmjecthave [] [] [] [] [] [] the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife spec~as, cause a fish or wildl fie population to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to diminate a plant or animal corrananity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or enimal or eliminate nmpormt examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b). CUMULATIVE 1MPACTS: Does the project have [] [] [] [] [] [] impactsthatareindividuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cormection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) ADVERSE IMPACTS ON HUMANS: Does [] [] [] [] [] [] the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hmm~ belnSsI either directly or indirectly? 8/9/00{<R:\CRG031 ~dev_agreement_is .wpd;.> 3 - 13 LSAASSOCIATES, INC, I 2 3 4 5 6 Less than Significant New Infonmlon Impact/No 18. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIP,, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(cX3)(D).) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCH No, 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., April 15, 1999 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121090, LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectivesr Au/~ust t989 3.2 EXPL4NATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 1. Aesthetics. Would the Project.. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Mitigation measures adopted with the Final EIR designated SR-30 as a scenic corridor. Adherence to applicable Revised University Project and City of Rancho Cucamonga development and/or design standards will reduce potential adverse impacts within the SR-30 viewshed. There are no other scenic highways or vistas that would bc affected by development on site. Therelure, no impacts related to scenic vistas or highways will occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Final EIR does not identify any on-site scenic resources, therefore, development of the Revised University Project, as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no damage to scenic resources will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. c) W~uld the pr~ject substantial~y degrade the existing visual character ~r qua~ity ~f the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The proposed project pertains to implementation of the Development Agreement between the City ofRancho Cucamonga and the project applicant. Development within the project site will bc subject to applicable provisions of the Revised University Project Entitlemerits and City ofRancho Cucam6nga standards (as outlined in the Development Agreement). Implementation of the Dcvelopmant Agreement will ensure the consistency and continuity of design, landscaping, and development standards within the City and would, therefore, have a beneficial effect. No degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the project site would occur. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3 - 14 /77 LSAASSOCIATES, ING, d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. As stated in the Development Agreement, City ofRancho Cucamonga lighting standards will apply throughout the project site. Development of the Revised University Project, as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no new source of light or glare beyond that identified in previous environmental documents will be created. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics. Addendura Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that them are no new significant environmental impacts resulting fi'om implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final andor Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendnm has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 2. Agricultural Resources. Would the Project.. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 \dev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3 - 15 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ofStatewide lmportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Revised University Project envisions development of residential and commercial uses and community facilities within the project site. The project site has not been used for agricultural purposes and is not viewed as an agricultural resource. No agricultural use of land within the project site is planned. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the mix of planned uses on the project site; therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Con~ictwithexistingZoningforagriculturaluse, oraWilliamsonActcontract? No Impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter current on-site or planned land uses. No impact related to this issue will OCCur. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agricultural production. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural resources. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/ur Supplemental E1R. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3 - ] 6 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final end/or Supplemental EIR. 3. Air Quality. WouM the Project.. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions will occur. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Impacts assoqiated with this issue not identified in the Final and Supplemental EIRs will not occur. b) IVould the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ? No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions beyond' that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. In addition, modifying the schedule for traffic/circulation improvements may decrease the amount of local traffic congestion, which could result in a decrease in the number and/or level of CO hotspots. Such a decrease would result in a beneficial impact. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? No Impact. Development of the project site will result in short-term increases in dust and construction equipment exhaust emissions and long-term regional increases in mobile and stationary source emissions. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within the project site. No increase 8/9/00 ((R:\CRG031 \dev_agreement_i s .wpd>) 3 - 17 L~AASSOCIATE$,INC, in the amount of operational und/or constraction emissions beyond that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) ~Vould the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and intensity of permitted uses within in the project site. No increase in the amount of operational and/or construction emissions beyond that estimated in previous environmental documents will occur. The Final and Supplemental EIRs identified measures which would reduce air quality impacts resulting from development of the RevisedUniversityProject. Theproposedprojectwillnotresultinimpactswhichwerenotidentified and addressed in the previous environmental documents. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. e) rVould the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of PeoPle? No Impact. The Revised University Project envisions development of residential and commercial uses and community facilities within the project site. The proposed project would not generate new odors, in and of itself; however, short-term odor impacts (i.e., diesel fumes, asphalt paving) associated with project construction may occur during construction. These fumes would dissipate quickly, and do not pose a potentially significant odor impact. Commercial and residential uses will be required to adhere to standards which ensure the sanitary and timely disposal of solid waste. Odors associated with these uses would quickly dissipate and would not adversely affect adjacent properties or persons. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in the creation of objectionable odors beyond that identified in previous environmental documents. No impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for air quality issues. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there i s no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 8/9/O0((R:\CRG031 ~lev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3-18 LSAASSOCIATES, INC, No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 4. Biological Resources. Would the ProjecL.. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Revised University Project modified the previously approved University/Crest PD by splitting the project into separate University and Crest PDs. This action resulted in modifications to the University Project site which included adding acreage formerly held by SCE; increasing the number of permitted dwelling units; increasing amount of commercial, school, and park acreage; and revising street alignments and lot configurations. The Revised University Project included Area "H," a linear (former) SCE easement, that extends northeast from the proj eel site. With the exception of Area "H," biological assessments were conducted for the Revised University Project site. No plant and/or animal species classified as "endangered" or "threatened" by state or federal programs were identified on site. The Supplemental EIR contained mitigation measure 4.3.1 .C which states, "Until such time as biological habitat studies determine otherwise, the northerly 30 acres of the former SCE easement are presumed to be habitat for species protected by the California and federal endangered species acts, and no development may be permitted." Biological surveys were conducted by Hamsworth Associates in the Spring of 1999. These surveys concluded that the entire Revised University Project site did not support suitable habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), a federally listed endangered species. In addition, biological surveys of Area "H" did not identify the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (federally designated as "threatened") or the San Bemardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriamiparvus) (federally listed as "endangered"). No federally or state listed plant species were detected during these biological surveys. The findings of these surveys may be referenced in Appendix B of this document. Because biological surveys conducted prior and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR did not identify any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species on site, impact development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in impacts related to this issue. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 ~lev_agreement_is.wpd>) 3 - 19 LSAASSOCIATES. INC, b) Haveasu~stantialadverseeffe~t~nanyri~arianhabitat~r~thersensitivenaturalc~mmunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Biological surveys conducted prior to and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR did not identify impacts associated with his issue. A "blue-line" stream was identified on site. It was determined that this intermittent watercourse did not fit the normal stream/wetlands pattern. The vegetation associated with this stream is Riversidean alluvial sage scrub instead of the typical willow/cottonwood riparian association found for most blue-lined streams. Because of the lack offiparian vegetation, loss of this feature was not deemed significant. Development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact associated with this issue will occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water A ct (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please refer to Response 4Co). d) ~nterfere substantia~~y with the m~vement ~f any native resident ~r migrat~ry~sh ~r wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The Supplemental EIR stated that pattern of commercial and residential development south, east, and west of the Revised University Project site, has lessened the value of the site as a wildlife corridor. The loss of the project site as a potential wildlife corridor was determined to be a less than significant impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will not occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Please refer to Responses 4(d) and 4(f). J) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan ? No Impact. Subsequent to approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991, the County of San Bemardino established the Noah Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) (1994). This program seeks to establish open space areas and to provide connections between open space within a 7,243-acre area located north of the City ofRancho Cucamonga. The Revised University Project site is located within the NEOSHPP program area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will not occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures 8/g/00((R:\CRG031~dev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-20 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new signi fieant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Abili~ to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 5. Cultural Resources. Would the Project... a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. This condition is similar to that which existed at the time the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (respectively). While the University/Crest PD Final EIR stated the subject property and surrounding area are highly sensitive for historic resources, moderately sensitive for historic structures, and have a low sensitivity for prehistoric remains relative to the presence of cultural material s, no such resources where identified on site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state and federal requirements 8/9/00((R:\CRG031 \dev_agreement_is .wpd>) 3 -21 LSAASSOCIATES, INC, pertaining to the identification, preservation and/or disposition of historical resources. Because no historic resources were previously identified on site, development of the project site as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource. No impact related to this issue will occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. This condition is similar to that which existed at the time of the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (re spectively). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state and federal requirements pertaining the identification, preservation and/or disposition of archaeological resources. Because no archaeological resources were previously identified on-site, development of the project site as entitled and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource. No impact related to this issue will OCCur. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. This condition is similar to that which existed at the time the University/Crest Final EIR and Revised University Project Supplemental EIR were certified in 1991 and 1999 (respectively). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The 1991 Final EIR included Mitigation Measure No. 73 which mandated the retention of a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a Paleontological Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to the issuance of grading permits. This mitigation was carded forward in the Supplemental EIR. Because the proposed project will not result in a change in the type or scale of uses, and development of the Revised University Project will adhere to applicable provisions of Mitigation Measure No. 73, no impact associated with this issue will occur. d) Disturb any huntan retnains, including those interred outside of fortnal cerneteries? No Impact. The 1991 Final EIR and Supplemental EIR did not identify on-site human remains. Development of the Revised University Projeet, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in changes to the type or scale of permitted uses. Because on-site human remains have not been identified prior or subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EIR, and because development within the project site will be required to adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations, standards and guidelines pertaining to the identification, preservation and/or disposition of human remains, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to cultural resources. Addendure Determinations 8/9/00((R:\CRG031\dev_agreement_is.wpd>> 3-22 Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental ErR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental ErRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental ErR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final andor Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 6. Geology and Soils. Would the Project... a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent /liquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses. As stated in the Supplemental EIR, the Revised University Project site does not lie in a fault zone area. No further impacts associated with this issue are anticipated. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses. As stated in the 8/9/O0((R:\CRGO31~dev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3-23 LSAAS$OCIATES. ING, previously approved Supplemental EIR, development of the Revised University Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. Therefore, implementation of the Development Agreement will not result in ground shaking impacts greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water laden soils are subject to shaking, causing the soils to lose cohesion. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a project site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity, sufficient groundwater (within 40 feet of the ground surface) to cause high pore pressures, and on the grain size, plasticity, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the project site. Groundwater depths at the project site are approximately 250 feet below ground level. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site, or significantly affect local groundwater levels. Therefore, no impact greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. iv) Landslides? No Impact. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 1,500 feet at the south end of the site to approximately 1,850 feet along the northem project boundary. The project site is relatively flat, sloping generally to the south at an overall gradient of approximately 5 percent. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(5) requires City review and approval of selected slopes within the project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Adherence to City standards pertaining to slope design will not result in impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. b) Would theproject result in substantial soll erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The soils identified on the project site have a slight potential for wind or water erosion. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Construction activities in the project area would not increase this potential beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. No further impacts are anticipated. c) Would the project be located on a geologie unit or soil that is unstable, or that would beeome unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. Please Refer to Responses 6(a)(iii), 6(a)(iv) and 6(d). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. As stated in the previously approved Supplemental EIR, development of the Revised University Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. No impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will OCCur. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031klev_agreement_is.wpd>) 3-24 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1~B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. The geotechnical report prepared for the Supplemental EIR addressed impacts associated with expansive soil s and identified requirements that related to grading operations. These requirements will be incorporated into the grading operations as required to obtain the necessary grading permits. No impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The site is not currently served by sanitary sewers. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Wastewater flows will be conveyed to facilities operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the planned method of waste water disposal. Because the Revised University Project will not utilize septic or alternative methods ofwastewater disposal, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Proj eel will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related geology and/or soils. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendnm has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental E1R. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3-25 LSAASSOC1ATES. INC. information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the Project.. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no impact related to this issue greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please refer to Response 7(a). c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impac~o New Information or Changed Circumstances Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Revised University Project includes a 6.44-acre elementary school site. Construction and occupation of proposed on-site land uses will result in the generation of air emissions from motor vehicles, construction equipment, and commercial uses. The Supplemental EIR identified and mitigated air quality impacts resulting from the construction and occupation of on-site uses. Development of the project site as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no increase in the level of air pollutants or in the frequency and/or amount of hazardous material Wansport, sale, or storage is anticipated. Because these factors remain unchanged, no impacts beyond those identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs did not identify any hazardous materials site within the boundaries of the Revised University Project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Developers of the project site will adhere to 8/9/00({R:\CRG031Xdev_ag~eement_is.wpd>> 3-26 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. applicable local, State, and federal standards related to the identification, remediation and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Revised University Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of Ontario International Airport, 8.0 miles west of Rialto Municipal Airport, and 8.5 miles northeast of Cable Airport (Upland). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. W~uld the pr~~ect be l~cated within the vicinity ~f a private airstrip~ w~uld the pr~ject result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Please refer to Response 7(e). g) W~uldthepr~~e~timpairimp~ementati~n~f~rphysical~yinterferewithanad~ptedemergenc~ response plan or emergency evacuation plan ? Less than Significant Impact/No New Information or Changed Circumstances requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(1) specify the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Compliance with emergency access requirements of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), San Bemardino County Sheriffs's Department (SBSD), and/or the City ofRancho Cucamonga will ensure that emergency response to the site will not be hampered. Therefore, no impact beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. h) Would the projea expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ? No Impact. A combination of climate, topography, vegetation, and development pattern can create fire risks in the vicinity of the Revised University Project. The project site is currently vegetated with a variety of weeds, annual grasses, shrubs, and other forms of plant material. This vegetation will be removed to allow for the construction of homes, commercial sites, and community facilities. All new construction will comply with applicable standards of the Uniform Fire Code, regulations of the San Bemardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and/or City of Raneho Cucamonga. No impact beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new signi ticant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazards or hazardous materials. Addendum Determinations 8/9/00((R:\CRG03 lXdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3 -27 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and informati on, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. & Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the Project... a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. Development within the project will adhere to applicable provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System CNPDES) permit as required by the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Aria Region. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue will be no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have been granted) ? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No increase in the amount of water required to service the project site or the amount of impermeable surfaces is anticipated. Therefore, development of the project site will not result in 8/9/00((R:\CRG031klev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-28 LSAASSO(IIATES. INC. impacts related to groundwater supply and/or recharge beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which wouM result in substantial' erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. Therefore, substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will not occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in fiooding on- or off-site? No Impact. The Revised University Project includes on-site storm water facilities that will be designed, installed, and maintained to adequately handle the ultimate drainage anticipated for the area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. Therefore, no impact greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runof~. No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. No significant increase in the amount of impermeable surfaces is anticipated. Development within the project will adhere to applicable provisions of the NPDES permit as required by the RWQCB. No impact beyond that addressed in the Supplemental EIR will occur. J) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ? No Impact. Please refer to Response 8(e). g) Place housing within a lO0-year fiood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact will occur. h) Place within a l O0-year fiood hazard area structures which wouM impede or redirect fiood flows? No Impact. Refer to Response 8(g). i) Exp~se pe~p~e ~r structures t~ a significant risk ~f ~~ss~ injury ~r death inv~~ving fi~~ding~ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031klev_agreement_is.wlxl>) 3-29 LSAASSOCIATES, ING. No Impact. The Revised University Project includes on-site storm water facilities that will be installed and maintained to adequately handle the ultimate drainage anticipated for the area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses, or substantially modify the configuration of residential and commercial areas. The risk of exposing persons or structures to flooding hazards through the construction and occupation of on-site uses is no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to coastal waters, on large, contained bodies of water. Therefore, impacts resulting from either a tsunami or seiche will not occur. The project site is relatively flat, sloping generally to the south at an overall gradient of approximately 5 percent. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(5) requires City review and approval of selected slopes within the project site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Adherence to City standards pertaining to slope design will not result in impacts greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to hydrology and water quality. Addendure Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Stody/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 8/9/00~(R:\CRG03 l\dev_agreement_is.wpd>> 3-30 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce SigmJicant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental E1R. 9. Land Use and Planning. WouM the Project.. a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Because the project site is currently undeveloped, no disruption of an established community will occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoidlng or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Development Agreement between the City ofRancho Cucamonga and the owners of the Revised University Project permits development of the project site as entitled. Selected provisions of the Development Agreement require adherence to City standards, regulations and guidelines, modify the extent and scheduling of circulation improvements, or permit the City to apply new ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies to the project site. Adherence to City of Rancho Cucamonga standards, regulations and guidelines will result in a pattern of development which is consistent with adjacent properties. The consistency of standards resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement will provide a beneficial impact to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan ? No Impact. Subsequent to approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991, the County of San Bernardino established the Noah Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) (1994). This program seeks to establish open space areas and to provide connections between open space within a 7,243-acre area located north of the City ofRancho Cucamonga. The Revised University Project site is located within the NEOSHPP program area. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts greater than those identified in the Supplemental E1R will not occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use or planning. Addendum Determinations 8/9/00((R:\CRG031ktev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-3 1 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major E1R Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental E1Rs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental Ell>,. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant EffeGts in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 10. Mineral Resources. Would the Project... a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownminerairesourcethatwouldbeofvaluetothe region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Final and Supplemental EIRs did not identify any on-site energy or mineral resources. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other !and use plan? Nolmpact. Please refer to Response 10(a). Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031\dev_agveement_is.wpd>> 3-32 t95 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting ~'om implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 11. Noise. W ouM the ProjecL.. a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Final EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project and provided mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project area; therefore, no increase in commercial, residential, construction and/or traffic related noise is anticipated. No impact related with this issue will occur. b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within 8/9/00((R:\CRGO31~ev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-33 LSAASSOCIATES, IHC. thepr~jectarea;theref~re~theam~unt~f~n~sitec~ns~ructi~nactivitywi~~remainunchanged~ No increase in the amount of groundbome noise or vibration is anticipated. No impact related to this issue will occur. e) R esult in a substantial ~ermanent in~rease in ambient n~ise leveis in the pr~ject vicinity ab~ve levels existing without the project? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(a). d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise leveis in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(a). e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Revised University Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of Ontario Intemational Airport, 8.0 miles west of Rialto Municipal Airport, and 8.5 miles northeast of Cable Airport (Upland). Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impact associated with this issue will occur. J9 ~f within the vicinity ~f a private airstrip~ exp~se pe~ple residing ~r w~rking in the pr~ject area to excessive noise levels ? No Impact. Please refer to Response 1 l(e). Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for noise related issues. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant anvironmantal impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiz:ing Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 8/9/00<(R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-34 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring maj or revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final andor Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 12. Population and Housing. Would the ProjecL.. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? No lmpact. DevelopmentundertheRevisedUniversityProjectwillresultinthedevelopmentof single-family residential units, and the installation of roadways, utilities, and commanity facilities. Impacts resulting from this development have been identified and, if necessary, mitigated for in the Final and Supplemental EIRs. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase would take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Displacesubstantialnumbers~fexistingh~using~rpe~p~e~necessitatingthec~nstructi~n~f replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, persons or housing will not be displaced. No impact related to this issue will occur. c) Displace substantialnumbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please refer to Response 12Co). Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to population and housing. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required 8/9/00(<R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3-35 LSAASSOCIATES. INC, Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiting major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental Ell(. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental E1R 13. Public Services. Would the Project.. a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental factTitles, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site, therefore no increase in the demand for fire protection services will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. ii) Police protection? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no increase in the demand for police protection services will take place. No impact associated with this issue will occur. iii) Schools? 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd>> 3 -36 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. No Impact. The Supplemental EIR stated, "Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residence, the developer shall pay school fees pursuant to Government Code 65995 ." Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for school services and facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will occur. iv) Parks? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for park facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will OCCur. v) Otherpublic facilities? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no increase in the demand for library, medical, or social services will take place. No additional maintenance burden of public facilities is anticipated. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of public services. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there i s no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental E1R are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final 8/9/00<<R:\CRGO31\dev_agreemcnt_is.wpd>> 3-37 or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Abili(y to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR 14. Recreation. Would the ProjecL.. a) ~ncreasetheuse~fexistingneighb~rh~~dandregi~na~parks~r~therrecreati~na~faci~ities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site; therefore, no population increase will take place. Demand for park facilities will be similar to that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No impact associated with this issue will OCCUr. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(8), requires the installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City ofRancho Cucamonga lxail system. The location and construction of these paseos shall be in substantial conformante with "Exhibit L" and "Exhibit L-l" of the Development Agreement and/or approved by the City's Trail Committee. The construction and maintenance of these paseos will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site and, therefore, will not have an adverse effect of the environment. The Revised University Project included a 10-acre park site. Section 2(D)(2) of the Development Agreement specifies the extent and timing of park improvements, but does not entail actions which would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. No impact related to this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of recreational facilities. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 3 -3 8 LSAASSOCIATES, ING, No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental Ell>.. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 15. Transportation/Traffic. Would the Project... a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips~ the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Because the type and intensity of development remains unchanged from that identified in the Supplemental EIR, no increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratios, or congestion on local roadways is anticipated. No impact related to this issue will occur. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congesaon management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. As noted in Response 15(a), no increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratios, or congestion on local roadways is anticipated as a result of development of the project site (as entitled). Therefore, impacts to level of service standards will be no greater than that identi fled in the Supplemental EIR. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3 ), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)( 1 ) specify the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. These modifications to the previously entitled Revised University Project, may improve traffic flow in and adjacent to the project site. Any such improvement would be a beneficial impact. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels °r a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 8/9/00((R:\CRG03 lXdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-39 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. No Impact. The Revised University Project does not include an air transportation component. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipmenO ? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(1) specifies the extent and timing of specific circulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development ofthe Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site, and will not increase hazards from incompatible uses or design features. Adherence to Development Agreement and mitigation measures included in the Final and Supplemental E1Rs will reduce traffic related impact resulting from development of the Revised University Project. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Development Agreement, Section 2(C)(3), Section 2(C)(9), and Section 2(D)(1) specifies the extent and timing of specific cimulation improvements which were not included in the approved Revised University Project. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Compliance with emergency access requirements of the San Bemardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), San Bernardino County Shetiffs's Depa~ hnent (SBSD), and/or the City ofRancho Cucamonga will ensure that emergency response to the site will not be hampered. Therefore, no impact beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR will occur. J9 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Development of the Revised University Project as enti~ed, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. No impacts associated with this issue were identified in the Final or Supplemental EIRs. parkingforcommercialusesandcommunityyfacilitieswillbeprovidedperCityofRancho Cucamonga standards. No impact associated with this issue will occur. g) C~n~ictwithad~ptedp~~i~ies~plans~~rpr~gramssupp~rtingalternativetransp~rtati~n(e.g.~ bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The Final EIR includes Mitigation Measure No. 39, requiring that development within the project site shall include transit improvements such as bus shelters, bike storage facilities, benches, and bus pockets in streets. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Because Mitigation Measure No. 39 still applies to development within the project site, no impact related to this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of recreational facilities. 8/9/00((R:\CRGO31Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3'-40 LSAASSOCIATES. INC. Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that maj or changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental Ell(. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Ff ould the Project.. a) Exceedwastewatertreatmentrequirements~ftheapp~icab~eRegi~na~F~aterQua~ityC~ntr~~ Board? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, no increase in the amount ofwastewater generated by on-site uses will occur. No impact associated with this issue will occur. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Without a change of uses or an increase in the intensity of development, no increase in the demand for water 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3 -4 l c bz/ or wastewater treatment will take place. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. The Revised University Project provided a storm drain system. Construction and/or expansion of storm water drainage facilities beyond that identified in the Supplemental EIR is not required. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitiements needed? No Impact. The Revised University Project identified water system improvements which will provide adequate service to planned on-site uses. ModificationoftheRevisedUniversityProject, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site. Without a change of uses or an increase in the intensity of development, no increase in the demand for water supply or delivery facilities will occur. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or maY serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site and would not result in increased sewer flows or increased pressure on existing or planned waste water treatment facilities. Construction and/or expansion ofwastewater treatment facilities beyond that identified in the Revised University Project. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. J) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. Modification of the Revised University Project, as outlined in the Development Agreement will not alter the scale or intensity of permitted uses within the project site and would not increase the amount of solid waste generated by on-site uses. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. g) Comply with federal, state~ and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Nolmpact. Because modifications to the Revised University Project, as outlined in the DeveloPment Agreement, will not result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated by on-site uses, no impact associated with this issue will occur. Refined Project Mitigation Measures Implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project will not result in any new significant impacts. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to the provision of utility services. 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031klev_agreement_is.wpd)) 3-42 Addendum Determinations Major EIR Revisions Not Required Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that major changes to the Final and/ur Supplemental EIR are required. Comparison of the previous project with the project as described in Section 2.3 of this document indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances that would require major changes to the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than in Final and/or Supplemental EIR This Initial Study/Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the Final and Supplemental EIRs were certified that may indicate that a new significant effect may occur that was not reported in the Final or Supplemental EIR. Based on the information and analysis above, there is no substantial new information that there will be new, significant impacts requiring major revisions of the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. No New Information Showing Abilitg to Reduce Significant Effects in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR The analysis above shows that there are no feasible alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that must be considered to substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Final and/or Supplemental EIR. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantiallY reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlif e species, cause a fish or wildlif e population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en dangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. As previously stated in Section 4 (Biological Resources), biological surveys conducted prior to and subsequent to certification of the Supplemental EFR did not identify any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species on site. Impacts associated with riparian areas, migration corridors, or natural community conservation areas were determined not to be significant. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources will be no greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. No historic, archeological, or paleotological resources have been identified on site. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitted uses within the project site. Therefore, 8/9/00<<R:\CRG031~dev_agreement_is.wpd>) 3-43 LSAASSOCIATES.|NC. impacts to historic or cultural resources would be no greater than that addressed in the Supplemental EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental eff ects 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) ? No lmpact. CumulativeimpactsassociatedwithdevelopmentoftheprojectsitehavebeenpreviouslY identified in the Supplemental EIR. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type or scale of permitteduseswithintheprojectsite. ImplementationofprovisionsoftheDevelopmentAgreement will not result in cumulative impacts which were not identified in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. . c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. Potential impacts associated with development of the Revised University Project have been identified and (where necessary) mitigated for in the Supplemental EIR. Development of the Revised University Project as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not alter the type and scale of permitted uses within the project site. Implementation of provisions of the Development Agreement will not cause direct or indirect impacts greater than that identified in the Supplemental EIR. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue will occur. 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd)> 344 LSAASSOCIATES, INC. 4.0 LIST OF pREPARERS/REFERENCESfPERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 4. 1 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared under the direct management of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as Lead Agency for the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgemcnt and position regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Lead Agency was assisted by the following outside consultant(s): Lead Consultant LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) Environmental/Planning Consultants Lynn CalVert-Hayes, AICP, Associate/Project Manager Carl Winter, Environmental Analyst Jennifer Schuk, Graphics Technician Elsa Brewer, Word Processor 4.2 REFERENCES · Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Crest Project (SCH No, 98121091), LSA Associates, Inc., April 15, 1999 · Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Project (SCH No. 98121090, LSA Associates, Inc., July 21, 1999 Final Biological Surveys for the University Planned Development and Adjacent Parcels, San Bernardino County, California, Harmsworth Associates, July 28, 1999 Final Environmental Impact Report University/Crest Project PUD No. W121-49 SCH No. 88082915, Environmental Perspectives, August 1989 8/9/00((R:\CRG031Xdev_agreement_is.wpd>) 4- ] CEQA FINDINGS City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Findings Related to the Addendure for the University Crest Planned Development Environmental Impact Report, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised University Planned Development Project and Addendum in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). |l REVISED UNIVERSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CEQA FINDINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 II. PROJECT SUMMARY ..........................................................................L ...........................2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................2 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............................................. 5 A. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT ............................................................................7 B. FINDING ON 1991 EIR, SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND ADDENDUM ..........................................................................................................7 C. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................. 7 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDiNGS .......................................................................8 A. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS LESS THAN SIGNFICANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATiON ..............................................................8 B. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITiGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................10 C. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ..........................................................................14 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................24 VI. PROJECT BENEFITS ...................................................................................................................28 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 29 VIII. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................33 ii Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects from the Development Agreement for the University Planned Development (SCH # 88082915 and 98121091) I. INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("this Council") in approving the Development Agreement for the University Planned Development (PD), makes the findings described below and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented at the end of the Findings. The "project" under CEQA for purposes of the City's discretionary action is the approval of the Development Agreement, which will now govern the development of the University Planned Development (PD) site as entitled by the County of San Bemardino, subject to the terms and provisions of the Development Agreement. The University Planned Development (PD) is a modification to a project previously approved by the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of San Bernardino in June, 1991. The prior project was identitied as the University/Crest Planned Development (PD) (the "University/Crest PD"), and at the time of that project approval, the Board certified a Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 88082915 (the "1991 Final EIR"). In May 1991, the Board approved an addendum to the 1991 Final EIR. Subsequent to the 1991 approval, a portion of the University Crest Development Project was purchased, and in 1998 the new owners made application to the County for approval of revisions to the University portion including, severing the University portion from the Crest portion of the original University Project (the "Revised University Project"). The Board was presented with the Revised University Project and certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "SEIR") on October 26, 1999 (SCH 98121091 ). The City of Rancho Cucamonga challenged the Board's approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the SEIR through a Petition for Writ of Mandate tiled in the San Bernardino County Superior Court on November 29, 1999 (the "Action"). The Action challenged the adequacy of the SEIR on a number of grounds, of which the primary concerns included inadequate traffic impacts analysis, inadequate open space analysis and improper application of the City's zoning standards applicable within its sphere of influence. The City, the Board and the Project proponent have now entered into a conditional settlement agreement as regards the Action. Through the settlement agreement the Project proponent has agreed to enter into a Development Agreement to address the City's concerns about potential traffic impacts, and to modify certain traffic design and construction timing issues related to the development of the Revised University Project. The primary benefits to the City arising from the settlement agreement are (a) the Project proponent's agreement to enter into a development agreement as regards to the development of the Revised University Project (b) Project proponent's agreement to support the City's application to annex the Revised University Project into the City and (c) the addition of further clarifying language into the SEIR pursuant to an Addendum, as the same is defined in Section 15164 of the Guidelines. The Project proponent has advised the City that it is acquiring additional off site mitigation land for perpetual use as open space which address the City's concems about adequate mitigation for open space. The annexation of the land where the Project is located addresses the City's concerns about applicable zoning standards for the Project. Finally, of additional benefit is the proposal that the Project be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, thus providing further benefits to the City and through the settlement agreement addresses concerns about the City's zoning standards as applied to the Project. The City applied for annexation in June 2000, and it is anticipated that the annexation will be finalized in October or November 2000. These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report CSEIR") prepared for the Project and the addendum which augments the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR for the Project as regulated by the settlement agreement and the development agreement CAddendnm"). The EIR and SEllTM- were prepared by the County of San Bemardino acting as the lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"). The City ofRancho Cucamonga is identified in the SEIR as a Responsible Agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR. I1. PROJECT SUMMARY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As originally proposed and approved by the Board, the Project site is located in an unincorporated area of southwestern San Bernardino County. The Project site is located just west of Interstate 15 (I- 15) and north of the future State Route 30 (SR-30) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located to the south and east (SE1R Figures 1.1 & 1.2). As a result of the pending annexation process, the Project site will be located within the City limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The University/Crest PD was approved in 1991 with 1,238 residential units, related commercial development, school, park and open space on 1,111.29 acres. To provide for comprehensive planning and infrastructure efficiency, two separate properties "known as University and Crest" were included under a single land use approval. The University/Crest PD was never developed. The current owner of the University portion, U.C.P. Inc., proposed revisions to reflect the changes in circumstances with regard to ownership, land area, and concept design. The Project provides a detailed plan for residential and commercial development, park, school and open space on 250.67 acres. The specific modifications analyzed in the SEll( were: · Revise the existing University Development Plan of 578 residential units, commercial, school, and park on 186.83 acres by: Adding 64 acres Of former SCE property to the project; Increasing the proposed number of dwelling units from 578 to 685; Modifying the location of proposed commercial uses and adding a new 2.3 acres of commemial development. as shown in Figure 2.3; and Increasing the size of the proposed school and park sites from a cumulative total of 11.96 to 18.00 acres. 2 · Revise portions of the project design by adding new street alignments, new lot designs, and new lot sizes. All parcels are proposed to be a minimum 7,200 square feet. · Transfer to the County of San Bemardino, in fee, of a one-half interest in 172 acres of off- site land for permanent open space purposes, along with funding to provide for the long- term maintenance of the off-site land. · Create two stand-alone planned development projects, which will be called the University Planned Development and the Crest Planned Development. Eliminate the 675-acre open space area from the project. · Extend Banyan/Summit Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel to connect with Rochester Avenue. · Reduce the design standard of Day Creek Boulevard from six lanes to four lands divided from SR-30 to Banyan Avenue, four lanes undivided to Wilson Avenue and two lanes north of Wilson Avenue. The SEIR evaluated the potential environmental effects that would result from the development of these modifications to the approved University/Crest PD, according to the requirements of the CEQA. The City was identified in the SEIR as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The 1991 Final EIR, and subsequent SEll>, together with and as clarified by the City's Addendum was intended to serve as an informational document to be used by the City in its responsible and lead agency roles in assessing the environmental effects of the proposed Project, and to provide mitigation measures to avoid or minimize identified significant impacts. The "project" under CEQA for purposes of the City's discretionary action is the approval of the Development Agreement, which will now govern the development of the Revised University Project as entitled by the County, subject to the terms and provisions of the Development Agreement. Provisions of the Development Agreement include the following: · Section 2(B): The application of City street improvement, lighting, storm drain landscape, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to uses within the Revised University Project; · Section 2(C)(1)(a)(ii): The application of Etiwanda Noah Specific Plan design criteria to commercial uses located within Area "G;" · Section 2(C)(2): The modification of design of the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape to be consistent with the Day Creek Boulevard streetscape south of the project site and/or substantially consistent with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan; · Section 2(C)(3): Provision by the Property Owner of funding and/or construction necessary to improve Banyan Avenue from the existing SCE easement, through to Rochester Avenue; · Section 2(C)(5): Review and approval by the City of slopes within all landscape maintenance districts and adherence to City standards for slopes in excess of 12.5 feet in height; 3 c 13 · Section 2(C)(8): The installation of seven additional "paseos" to provide access to the City trail system; · Section 2(C)(9)(c): Modifications to type, extent, location, and/or timing of circulation improvements included in the Revised University Project; and · Section 2(D)(1): The timing and funding of circulation improvements to Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and the timing and extent of development of the park site. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Development Agreement are as follows: · To conform the standards under which the Revised University Project will be developed to the standards of the City, as set forth in the Development Agreement, including the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and the Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan which provide for slightly different standards for street improvement, lighting, storm drain, landscape, and streetscape within the Revised Unversity Project as approved by the County. · To be consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to include the following: · To create an identifiable "sense of place" within the City by using natural open space area and major areterial streets to define individual neighborhoods. · To promote the use of a landscape theme that respects climate, drought tolerant plants, soil conditions and the natural surroundings. · To promote the use of design features such as walls, fencing, lighting, and signage to enhance the overall community image. · To phase necessary backbone and local street improvements to maximize the efficiency of traffic as development progresses. · To discourage through Waffle from entering the small neighborhood unit. · To mitigate traffic impacts upon City streets outside the development area. · To assure that the development of the Revised University Project will be a benefit to the City and its residents by providing quality development to meet the City's housing demands. The objectives of the Revised University Project are as follows: Integrate the former utility easement which extended through the boundaries of the original University/Crest PD, the easement was sold by SCE as surplus proper~ to the project proponents, U.C.P. Inc., for incorporation, thereby increasing the project area by 64 acres. Allow for an independent entitlement so that the independently owned University property can be developed separately from the independently- owned Crest property. Modify the prior approval to take into account the changes in off-site urban development. Increase the amount of acreage provided for the school site. Realign the location of community facilities to achieve a better relationship between these uses. · Relocate commercial land uses adjacent to SR-30 in order to take advantage of the proximity to this lransportation corridor. · Better reflect the current residential development market, and improve the compatibility of proposed development with surrounding communities. · Recognize that the 675-acre parcel originally proposed for open space mitigation is not controlled by the owners of the University and Crest properties, has been committed to permanent open space by its current owner as mitigation for a project other than the University/Crest PD, and is no longer part of the University or Crest development projects. Provide substitute off-site permanent open space to replace the 675-acre parcel. Develop the Project in conformanee with the design standards within the Efiwanda North Specific Plan regulating commercial land uses. Provide for the timely installation of roadway improvements in conformante with City standards. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC pARTICWATION The City of Rancho Cucamonga has conducted environmental review for the approval of the Development Agreement, which provides for the development of the Revised University Project as follows: · The City, in order to approve the Development Agreement to provide for development of the Revised University Project, conducted further environmental review in an Addendnm to the SEIR. · On July 26, 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing on the .development agreement and recommended the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council approve adoption of the Addendum to the SEIR and approve adoption of the ordinance approving the proposed Development Agreement. On August 16, 2000 the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a public heating on the development agreement and the adoption of the Addendum to the SEIR 5 and the adoption of the ordinance approving the Development Agreement. The County of San Bemardino previously conducted environmental review for development of the University/Crest PD and the Revised University Project which included the 1991 Final EIR and the SEIR which was completed in 1999; including technical reports conceming traffic and circulation impacts; air quality; biological resource and open space impacts, as well a review of the project site's previous environmental documentation including the 1991 Final EIR. The following is a summary of the County's and City, as Responsible Agency, environmental review for this project relative to the SEIR: · A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study identifying the scope of environmental issues, were distributed to 89 state and federal agencies, and local agencies and organizations on December 21, 1999, and notice was provided through publication on December 25, 1999, in the San Bemardino Sun. A total of 17 comment letters were received. Copies of those comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR (under separate cover). Relevant comments received in response to the NOPanitial Study were incorporated into the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR was distributed for public review on April 19, 1999, for a 45-day review period with the comment period expiring on June 3, 1999. Seventeen comment letters were received at the close of the public comment period. The specific and general responses to comments are in the Final SEIR. A Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent with the Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghouse on April 16, 1999, and notice was provided on April 19, 1999, in the following newspaper of general and/or regional circulation: The San Bernardino County Sun The Final SEIR was distributed for a 10-day notification period beginning on July 26, 1999. · The San Bemardino County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations on August 19, 1999. Following public testimony, and staff recommendations, the Commission recommended to the Board that the SEIR is adequate and should be certified and that the Board adopt these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Project. On October 26, 1999, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. Following public testimony and staff recommendations, the Board certified the SEIR and adopted the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Project. 6 A. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING ~qe City of Rancho Cucamonga subsequently retained LSA Associates to prepare the Addendura to the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR. The Addendum was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department, Planning Division. Finding: The Addendure reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code, Section 21082.1 (c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the Addendum to the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant. B. FINDING ON THE 1991 EIR, SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND ADDENDUM Finding: The proposed changes to the Revised University Planned Development as set forth in the Development Agreement as well as the adoption of the Development Agreement reqmre only minor teclmical changes or additions to the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR to adequately make the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR apply to the Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the SEIR is the required environmental documentation for the City's consideration of the Project, as modified by the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. C. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES The City has reviewed the conditions of approval and mitigation measures applicable to the Project as a result of the Cotmty's approval of the University/Crest PD in 1991 and the Revised University Project in 1999. Attached as Exhibit "A' is a table comparing the environmental mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR to the mitigation measures now applicable to the Revised University Project. The City has determined in that preparing the conditions of approval for Revised University Project, the County incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR. In the event that the conditions of approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR, in each such instance, the adopted conditions of approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose. Findings: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it is the City's intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and Addendure. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and addendure are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures as 7 worded in the Final SEIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. Finally, the mitigation measures applicable to the Revised University Project have incorporated, or deleted, as necessary, the mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR, as shown on Exhibit "A." Such mitigation from the 1991 Final EIR has been properly assigned to mitigate the impacts of the development of the Revised University Project, or has been deleted because the mitigation is no longer applicable as set forth in Exhibit "A." No new environmental impacts have been identified to arise from the adoption of the Development Agreement or are identified in the Addendum. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS City and County staff reports, the 1991 Final EIR, SEW,, and Addendum, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or hearings, and these Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Revised University Project arc presented in Chapter 4 of the DEIR, Draft SEW, and within the Addendure. Responses to comments and any revisions or omissions to the Dra~ SEW, arc provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final SEW,. The SEW, evaluated three major environmental categories (traffic and circulation, air quality, and biological resources/open space rcsourccs) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Bothproject-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these three environmental categories, the City concurs with the conclusions in the SEW, that the issues and subissues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold and for those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, overriding considerations exist which make impacts acceptable. In addition to the three major environmental categories addrcsscd in the SEIR, twelve other major categories were found to be nonsignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Revised University Project. The City concurs with the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft SEW,) and finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required. In addition the City prepared an Addendnm to the SEW, to address potential impacts which may result from the development of thc Revised University Project site, in accordancc with the applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. A. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE SE1R AS LESS THAN SIGN!IqCANT REQUIRING NO MITIGATION The following issues were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft SEW,) as having the potential to cause significant impact and were carrie~ forward to the SEW, for detailed evaluation. These issues were found in the SEW, as having no potential to cause significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. In the following presentation, each resource issue is identified and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed. 1. BIOLOGICAL AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES a. Plummer's Mariposa Lily Potential Significant Impact: The proposed Project would substantially diminish habitat for the Plummer's Mariposa Lily (Calochortusplurnrnerae). Finding: Potential impacts to Plummer's Mariposa Lily are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that, impacts to Plummer's Mariposa Lily brought about by the implementation of the proposed Project would not be significant. No mitigation is required. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The Plummer's Mariposa Lily, a species designated by the California Native Plant Society under CNPS List 1B was observed in several locations on the University portion of the site but not within the SCE easement. Currently, this species has no federal or state status but is on a watch list by CNPS which indicates that this species is rare in California and is eligible for state listing. The Biological Survey completed for the SEIR shows that approximately 50 +/- individual plants are located on the University project site, in gravely alluvium and rocky soils. The range of this species extends from Pasadena to Yucaipa, and includes the Etiwanda Wash, where the largest intact population exists. Substantial numbers of this plant are protected within the North Etiwanda Preserve and the loss of 50 +/- individuals is not considered to be significant. Because no plants were found with 64-acre easement acquired from Southern California Edison, which is being added to the previously approved project, no additional mitigation is necessary. b. "Blue-line" stream. Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in the loss of an on-site "blue-line" stream. Finding: Potential impacts to the "blue-line" stream are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEW,. The analysis concluded that the loss of the "blue-line" stream would not be significant due to the lack of riparian vegetation associated with this intermittent watercourse. Facts andanalysisinSupportoftheFinding: This "blue-line"' stream does not fit the normal stream/wetlands pattern. No riparian vegetation was associated with this intermittent watercourse. The vegetation associated with the stream is Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub instead of 9 the typical willow/cottonwood riparian association found for most blue-lined streams. The loss of this intermittent stream course would not result in a loss of streamcourse associated or wetland habitat. Therefore, impacts to the "blue-line" stream are not significant and no mitigation is required. c. Wildlife Movement Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project would interfere with local wildlife movement patterns. Finding: Potential impacts to any potential on-site wildlife corridor are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that the loss of any potential on-site wildlife corridor would not be a significant impact. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The former utility easements which cross the proposed project site were previously identified as potential corridors for the movement ofwildlife. The 1991 Final E1R found the quality of habitat in these easements to be degraded. Utility easements directly south of the proposed project site have been sold and are planned for development. The proposed project is located at the southern extreme of the NEOSHPP area and is located directly north and east of commercial and residential development and north of the right-of-way for the future SR-30. The pattern of commercial and residential development in the areas adjacent to the proposed project site lessens the value of the parcel as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project on wildlife corridors is not significant and no mitigation is required. B. pOTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES. The following issues f~om the environmental categories analyzed by the 1991 Final EIR and the SEIR; Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, and Biological/Open Space Resources, were found to be potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the imposition of mitigation measures. The City finds that all potentially significant impacts of the project listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan adopted by the City. Specific findings of the City for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or altematives identified in the SEIR. The City hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081 that the following potential environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the implementation of the mitigation measures in the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and Addendum. Each mitigation measure discussed in this section of the findings is assigned a code letter correlating it with the environmental category used in the Mitigation Monitoring Program included in the SEIR, and adopted by the City to provide for the enforcement of such mitigation measures. 1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a. Roadway Construction and Improvement Potential Significant Impact: The proposed Project would significantly impact area roadways. The 1991 Final EIR determined that with mitigation, no significant project- related or cumulative impacts would result from development of the University/Crest PD. Finding: The potential impacts to area roadways are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR determined that with mitigation, no significant project-related or cumulative impacts would result from the University/Crest PD. The SEIR analysis concluded that construction of internal roadways and improvements to roadways providing access to the Project site to standards required to maintain satisfactory operations and safe traffic conditions contained in the mitigation measures avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects analyzed in the SEIR such that no significant impacts remain. The following measure from the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR is still applicable and will mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 4. LIB Landscape plantings and signs shall be limited in height in the vicinity of project roadways to assure good visibility. The following mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR have been modified through the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement to change the timing of the installation of traffic signals: 4. 1.0 The project proponent shall construct the following roadway and intersection improvements.' pha;c c,f :!:c F;'c, 'cc: as ;:;-:;!:,:c~ ;r, ....r' ~ .................,, Day Creek Boulevard/Wilson Avenue - Install traffic signal, by the end of the Pro./ect development or when warranted, which ever occurs first. Day Creek Boulevard/Summit Avenue - Install traffic signal to be operational when warranted or by the issuance of the one-hundred and fiftieth (150~n) building permit, whichever first occurs. · Day Creek Boulevard/Vintage Drive - Install traffic signal b.v the end qf the prq/ect development or when warranted, whichever occurs .first. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: Since the certification of the 1991 Final EIR, the 762-acre Oak Summit development project, located north of the Project site, has been converted to pennanent open space, resulting in a decrease in future traffic volumes. Consequently, some of the traffic mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR are no longer required to mitigate project-related and cumulative traffic impacts, as analyzed in the SEIR. The required improvements to roadways and intersections within the Project site will provide adequate access and maintain satisfactory levels of service. Design standards related to roadways and intersections generally ensure the safe and adequate design, construction and maintenance of these facilities will reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. b. Public Transportation Potential Significant Impact: Increased demand for public wansportation in the vicinity of the proposed project. Finding: The potential impacts related to public ~nsportation arc discussed in Scctien 4.1 of the SEIR. The analysis concluded that the project will increase demand for transit service along the Day Creek Boulevard, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Strect~Summit Avenue corridors. This is a potentially significant impact of the proposed project Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below will substantially lessen the significant impact identified in thc SEIR such that no significant impacts remain. The following measure from the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR is still applicable and will mitigate these impacts below a level of significance. 4. 1.7 To mitigate the project '~ increase in demand for transit service in the project area, bus transit stopx shouM be provided at major intersections a~ follows: Day Creel~ Boulevard: - Bz~ turnout northbound far side of Vintage Drive - Bus turnout southbound far side of Vintage Drive - Bus turnout northbound far side of Banyan Street-Summit Avenue - Bus turnout southbound far side of Banyan Street-Summit Avenue - Bus stop northbound far side of Vintage Drive - Bus stop southbound far side of Vintage Drive Summit Avenue: - Bus stop eastbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Banyan Street: - Bus stop westbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Wilson Avenue: Bus stop eastbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Bus stop westbound far side of Day Creek Boulevard Facts and analysis to Support of the Finding: As with the University/Crest PD, the proposed Project would increase the demand for transit service along the Day Creek Boulevard, Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street/Summit Avenue corridors. The TIA for the Revised University Project identified measures associated with providing transit stops along roadways within the project. Implementation of these measures will reduce potential impacts related to public transportation to less than significant levels. 2. MR QUALITY a. On-site stationary emissions Potential Significant Impact: The project will increase emissions from on-site stationary sources. Finding: The potential impact to air quality is discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The long-term occupancy of the proposed development of homes and retail commercial uses would consume natural gas and electricity. On-site stationary sources (i.e., energy consumption) emissions would be below the mission thresholds established by the SCAQMD and, therefore, is not a significant long-term impact of the proposed project. Adherence to the following energy eonservatinn measures will reduce energy consumption and mitigate impacts related to stationary source emissions identified in the SEIR such that no significant effect remains. The following measures from the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR are still applicable and will mitigate these impacts below a level of significance. 10. Require bus turnouts and shelters in commercial developments and public use areus us identified. 11. Include solar water heaters and pool heaters in model homes and community facilities with pools. ]2. Use extensive landscaping to shade buildings 13 Facts and analysis in Support of the Findings: Criteria pollutant emissions associated with stationary sources are generally small compared to those of the mobile sourues. This was reflected in the 1991 air quality analysis. There would be an increase in indirect stationary source emissions (energy consumption) associated with the addition of 107 dwelling units. Total net increase in daily emissions for all criteria pollutants would be less than 5 pounds for NOx, and less than 3 pounds for the others. The project also proposes a lower density for the on-site commercial development. Together, the proposed modifications would not result in significant changes to the County's General Plan and SCAG's projection for the project area. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the local Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Implementation of the mitigation measures stated above will reduce potential impacts from on-site stationary sources to less than significant levels. C. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN TIlE FEIR, SEIR AND ADDENDUM AND DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIIqCANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the 1991 FinalEIR and the SEIR, the following adverse impacts of the proposed Project stated below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in the SEIR and Addendure, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public heanngs on this project. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation measures which are imposed and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible. 1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a. Key Intersections are forecast to exceed LOS standards at one or more peak hours Significant Unavoidable Impact: The following intersections are forecast to exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga minimum standard of LOS D or meet warrants for installation of traffic signals under 2003 background plus project conditions during the one or both peak hours: Rochester Avenue/Banyan Street · Etiwanda AvenueNictoria Street. Finding: Issues associated with the Revised University Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This' impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each devel- opment phase of the project, the applicant shah pay its fair share cost in accordance with Table 4. I. G (Table 6-4 of the TIA for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SEIR) for installing signals at the following intersection: Rochester Avenue/Banyan Street · Etiwanda Avenue/Victoria Street Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project peak hour trip assignments were added to the year 2003 traffic base. Intersection level of service analysis was conducted for the year 2003 with project peak hour condition at key study area intersections, based on existing intersection configurations with the SR-30 Freeway improvements. In addition, improvements to roadways and intersections within the project site which would be required to provide adequate access and maintain satisfactory levels of service are included. The Etiwanda Avenue/ Victoria Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour with year 2003 plus project traffic volumes. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact b. Key Intersections are forecast to exceed LOS Standards Significant Unavoidable Impact: The following intersections are forecast to exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga minimum standard of LOS D: Day Creek Boulevarddltighland Avenue Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue · Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue Findings: Issues associated with the Revised University Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the stated mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the Revised University Project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.3 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each devel- opment phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval the applicant shaH pay pro-rated costs as shown in Table 4.1.G (Table 6-4 of the TIA for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SEIR) for the following intersection improvements.' 15 · Day Creek BoulevardZHighland Avenue - Addition of a second southbound le~ turn lane, a second eastbound left turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, and a second westbound through lane. Etiwanda Avenue/Summit Avenue- Signalization of the intersection. Etiwanda Avenue/Highland Avenue - Addition of a westbound right turn lane. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project trip assignment was added to the future year 2015 traffic base. The 2015 plus project daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in the SEIR. The project scenario level of service analysis is based on the future year 2015 circulation network improvements discussed previously. With the addition of the project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volume to the future year 2015 traffic base, four intersections will operate below local LOS threshold standards It should be noted that the intersection of Etiwanda AvenueNictoria Street will operate at LOS E with the current stop control. However, as noted in the discussion of year 2003 plus project impacts, this intersection will require signalization by 2003 to maintain satisfactory levels of service. With signalization, this location would continue to operate with satisfactory levels of service under 2015 plus project conditions. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. c. Required Intersection Improvements SignificantUnavoidable Impact: The following intersections will require additional lane improvements to maintain satisfactory operations: Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue · Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road Finding: Issues associated with the Revised University Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SE1R. Implementation of the stated mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.4 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each development phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval, the applicant shall pay pro-rated costs as shown in Table 4.1.G (Table 6-4 of the TIA for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of the SEIR) for the following intersection and roadway improvements: 16 · Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane. Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road - Addition of a second eastbound left turn lane. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: While the level of service analysis indicates that these locations will operate with satisfactory levels of service, examination of the forecast volumes for the northbound left turn at Milliken Avenue/Highland Avenue and the eastbound left turn at Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road warrant additional left mm lanes to accommodate forecast demand. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. d. SignalizationofKeylntersection Significant Unavoidable Impact: The intersection of East Avenue/Summit Avenue will require installation of a traffic signals under 2015 background plus project conditions. Finding: Issues associated with the proposed project's impact on Waffle and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures stated below cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contributions towards needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Based on this conclusion, development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 4.1.5 Prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling unit within each development phase of the project as stipulated in the project's conditions of approval, the applicant shaH pay its fair share cost in accordance with Table 4.1.G (Table 6-4 of the TIA for the Revised University Project, included as Appendix B of this supplemental EIR) for installing a signal at the intersection of East Avenue/Summit Avenue. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The project proponent is required to pay its fair share contribution for installing a signal at the intersection of East Avenue/Summit Avenue. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. e. Freeway Segments Levels of Service Significant Unavoidable Impact: The proposed project will contribute to deficiencies along the following freeway sections: SR-30 Eastbound - Euclid Avenue to 1-15 and Cherry Avenue to Beech Avenue SR-30 Westbound - Beech Avenue to Cherry Avenue and 1-15 to Euclid Avenue 1-15 Northbound - 1-10 Freeway to SR-30 Freeway · 1-15 Southbound - SR-30 Freeway to 1-10 Freeway. Finding: Issues associated with the Revised University Project's impact on traffic and circulation systems are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIR. There is no mechanism for individual projects to contribute financially to freeway mainline improvements. No mitigation is proposed that is feasible, therefore the impact to freeway mainline improvements remains significant and unavoidable. Development of the proposed project will create a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts and analysis in Support of the Finding: The forecast year 2015 freeway mainline analysis summary tables are conreined in the TIA for the Revised University Project (Appendix B, Tables 5-10 and 5-11 of the SEIR). Within the project study area, 11 freeway segments are forecast to operate at LOS F during the a.m. and/or p.m. peak hour, without or with the project. The project would not be responsible for the degradation of freeway segments to LOS F; however, the project would contribute additional traffic to the forecasted impacted segments on SR-30 and 1-15. Funds have not been made available for freeway improvements along these sections of SR-30 and 1-15. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable impact remains. 2. AIR QUALITY a. Impacts from Construction and Grading Significant Unavoidable Impact: Peak grading and construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for the criteria pollutant of NOx and PMx0, which is 100 and 150 pounds per day respectively. Finding: Air quality issues for project grading and construction are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR found the University/Crest PD to be consistent with the 1989 AQMD update and to have no project related impacts, which would not be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, the SEIR identifies that implementation of the mitigation measures stated below and identified in the Addendum to the 1991 Final EIR would not reduce the criteria pollutant emissions for NOx and PMio associated with construction of the proposed Project to a less than significant level under current standards. Despite implementation of the stated mitigation measures significant and unavoidable impacts remain. This impact is overridden by the Project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. 18 The following mitigation measures from the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR, as revised, are still applicable and will mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 61. As a requirement of the County Development Code, Sections 810.0305 through 810-0360, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the County Agricultural Commissioner for the purpose of controlling wind borne soil erosion. 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures as defined in District Rule 403. b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune. 2. Afier clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: a. Spread soil binders. b. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. c. Sweep streets should silt be carried over the adjacent public thoroughfares. 3. During construction: a. Use water trucks or sprinkle[ systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. c. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. 4. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 4b. The dust control measures shall be required for both the grading period and for long-term control of dust once Fading has been completed and prior to building construction. 4c. Grading shah be restricted during high velocity sustained wind conditions exceeding 25 mph in accordance with the requirements established by the Inland Empire Conservation District. 4d. Soil binders and stabilizers which are non-hazardous shall be used. 19 Facts in Support of the Finding: Grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. It is anticipated that peak grading days would generate larger amounts of air pollutants than during peak construction building erection days. The project will be required by law to comply with regional rules, which would assist in reducing the short-term air pollutant emissions. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques as required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM~0 component) by 50 to 75 percent. Building erection or construction would have different types of equipment being used on the project site. Similarities do exist in terms of equipment exhaust emissions and fugitive dust emissions. However, it is anticipated that emissions during building erection phase would be below peak grading day emissions. Therefore, mitigation implemented for the peak grading day emissions would be adequate to reduce emissions during the building erection phase. Emissions associated with architectural coating can be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, water- based or low-VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. Compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations for architectural coatings would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, a significant and unavoidable air quality impact remains. b. Increased Vehicle Emissions Significant Unavoidable Impact: Vehicular trips associated with the Revised University Project would produce emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutant of CO, ROC, and NOx. Finding: Issues associated with the Revised University Project's impact on air quality are discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to the 1991 Final EIR would not reduce the criteria pollutant emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx associated with vehicle emissions of the Revised University Project to a less than significant level. This air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations The following measure from the 1991 Final EIR and SE1R is still applicable, but will not mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. 39. Transit improvements, such as bus shelters, bike and storage facilities, benches and bus pockets in the streets, if recommended and approved by the City, the County Transportation Department and the local transit authority, shall be included in the project design and shown on the final Development Plan. Bus turnouts and shelters shah be included in the commercial and public use areas, where feasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: Although emissions of these criteria pollutants would be 11 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991, mobile source emissions associated with the Revised University Project would exceed daily thresholds established by SCAQMD (550 ppd CO, 75 ppd ROC, and 100 ppd NOx), and is an impact which remains significant and unavoidable. c. Cumulative Impacts Significant Unavoidable Impact: Cumulative short-term air quality impacts from grading/construction and long-term impacts from increased vehicle emissions. Finding: Cumulative impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR and SEIR determined that the site is located within a non-attainment, that is, ambient air quality exceeds EPA standards for the air basin. The development of the Revised University Project will result in a locally and regionally significant unavoidable impact to air quality. These impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in the 1991 air quality analysis and confirmed in the SEIR, the project would contribute less than 0.03 percent of criteria pollutants to the entire South Coast Air Basin projected for the year 2000. Although this appears to be insignificant for the regional air quality, grading and construction emissions for NOx and P~0, as well as operational emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx would exceed the daily thresholds established by the SCAQIVID, and would contribute curnulatively to local and regional air quality degradation which is significant. and unavoidable. 3. BIOLOGICAL AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES a. Loss ofAlluvial Sage Scrub Significant Unavoidable Impact: Implementation of the Revised University Project development would result in the loss of mature and intermediate alluvial fan sage scrub. The loss of the alluvial fan sage scrub represents a 21 significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally limited resource. Finding: Impacts to Biological and Open Space resources are discussed in Section 4.3 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final E1R and SEIR determined that cumulative impacts to biological resources, specifically, the loss of natural alluvial sage scrub habitat, would remain significant. Based on the whole record, project development, which will result in the loss of intermediate alluvial fan scrub is a significant and unavoidable impact. The loss of this resource within the proposed project site will still contribute to a significant adverse unavoidable cumulative impact within the region. The cumulative loss of open space will remain significant and unavoidable. The Addendum recognizes that the Project proponent has committed additional off-site land to be set aside in perpetuity for conservation purposes. This additional off-site land consists of 135-acres of land located in the foothills, noah and east of the project site. This off-site mitigation land and an $150,000 endowment is being delivered to Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs to be held and maintained for open-space and conservation purposes in perpetuity. These impacts remain significant and unavoidable but are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. The Addendum also recognizes that additional biological surveys were conducted by Harmsworth Associates after certification of the SEIR. These surveys concluded that the entire Revised University Project site did not support suitable habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), a recently federally listed endangered species. In addition, biological surveys of Area "H", as identified in the Development Agreement, did not find on site either the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (federally designated as "threatened") or the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (federally listed as "endangered"). No federally or state listed plant species were detected during these biological surveys. Because biological surveys conducted prior and subsequent to certification of the SEIR did not identify any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species on site, impact development of the project site as entitled, and subject to applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, will not result in impacts related to this issue. 1. Any sycamores and oaks removed for the project shah be replaced either on site or in the mitigation site in a sufficient ratio to guarantee replacement. A tree removal and replacement plan for native trees or plants shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. In addition, the removal of any vegetation within 200feet of the bank of a stream or indicated as a protected riparian area on a community or specific plan shall be subject to a tree removal permit. 4. .,Ill graded and disturbed surfaces remaining outside developed areas following construction shall be revegetated as soon as feasible. Landscape design and plant selection in areas directly adjacent to open space shah conform to the composition of surrounding vegetation. The use of native trees and shrub species shall closely match those already present in the alluvial fan scrub on-site. 7. The potentially adverse effects of night lighting on surrounding open space areas shah be mitigated by implementing one of the following alternatives: low intensity street lamps at the development edge 22 · low elevation lightingpoles · shielding by internal silvering of the globe or external opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized should be dependent upon the distance of the light source from the urban edge. 4.3. IA. The long-term preservation of a one-half interest of the 172-acre parcel is the principal mitigation included in the proposed project. This off-site property has been acquired jointly by U. C.P. Inc. and the new owners of the Crest properties. Eighty-six acres along with funding to maintain the open space area shall be offered as mitigation for project impacts related to the loss of open space. 4.3.1B. Deed restrictions to future development shah be placed on the 172-acre parcel in order to ensure that it retained as natural open space. 4.3.1C. Until such time as biological habitat studies determine otherwise, the northerly 30 acres of the former SCE easement are presumed to be potential habitat for species protected by the California and federal endangered species act, and no development of that area may be permitted. Facts in Support of the Finding: The biological habitat impacts of development within the southerly portion of the University/Crest PD, encompassing the University properties is unchanged from the existing, certified 1991 Final EIR. The addition of the SCE easements to the Revised University Project represents a loss of an additional 64 acres of this plant community. The principal impact of the Project is the conversion of land from undeveloped open space to mixed residential, commercial, and community uses. Riversidian alluvial fan scrub habitat is designated by California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) as a plant community requiring a high priority status for preservation. The conversion of alluvial fan scrub represents .a significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally limited resource. In addition to the one-half interest in the 172-acre parcel, the project proponent has agreed to pay the sum of $100,000 as an endowment for this mitigation property, and has acquired another 135-acre parcel along with an endowment of $150,000 which will with be set aside in perpetuity for conservation and preservation purposes. Despite implementation of the above stated mitigation measures, project development will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological and open space resources. b. Cumulative Impacts Significant Unavoidable Impact: The cumulative loss of intermediate alluvial fan scrub and open space. Finding: The cumulative impact to biological and opens space resources is discussed in Section 23 4.3 of the SEIR. The 1991 Final EIR and SEIR determined that the cumulative impacts to biological resources, specifically, the loss of natural alluvial sage scrub habitat, would remain significant. In addition to the one-half interest in the 172-acre parcel as specified in the SEIR as off-site mitigation for loss of natural open space, the project proponent has agreed to pay the sum of $100,000 as an endowment for this mitigation property. The Addendum recognizes that the Project proponent has committed additional off-site land to be set aside in perpetuity for conservation purposes. This additional off-site land consists of 135-acres of land located in the foothills, north and east of the project site. This off-site mitigation land and an $150,000 endowment is being delivered to Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs to be held and maintained for open-space and conservation purposes in perpetuity. The Revised University Project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact to these resources. These impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the statement of overriding considerations. Facts in Snpport of the Finding: The 1991 Final EIR concluded that the conversion of Riversidian alluvial fan scrub community to urban uses would add to the cumulative loss of this regionally significant resource. The cumulative loss of such habitat was considered an unavoidable, significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1991 Final EIR was determined to reduce all remaining biotic impacts to a less than significant level. In the time since the certification of the 1991 Final EIR for the University/Crest PD, the county has established the North Etiwanda Open Space Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area. The Revised University Project is within the NEOSHPP area. The NEOSI-IPP was adopted by the Cotmty to aid in the future preservation of open space and sensitive biological habitat in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation measure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the San Bumardino plan is only in its early formative stages. Although the Project applicant has set aside off-site mitigation lands with endowment funding, this cumulative impact remains significant and unavoidable. V. PROJECT ALTERNAIIVES Three project altematives are discussed in Chapter 6 of the SEIR and the potential significance for all of the alternatives are analyzed in Section 6 of the Draft SEIR. The City has considered these altematives for the development of the Revised University Project and makes the following findings. Previously Approved Project Alternative This alternative includes the implementation of the previously approved University/Crest PD in accordance with the County's entitlements. The previously proposed project consists of approximately 1,100 acres in the West Foothills Planning Area in unincorporated San Bernardino County. The property is comprised of parcels under different ownership and is divided into two discrete elements. The larger of these encompasses 675 acres in Day Canyon, north of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), and extends approximately 2 miles into the San Bernardino National Forest. This element had bean proposed to be set aside for open space preservation. The southern element of the previously proposed project is located adjacent to the northem limits of the City and is completely within the City's sphere of influence. Planned development within the southern element consists of 1,238 single-family residential units on 377.79 acres. The addition of commercial areas (12.66 acres), a school site (4.66 acres), parkland (7.30 acres), and necessary acreage (31.25) required for landscaping and drainage brought the total acreage in this southern element to 433.66 acres. The 675-acre northern element which was owned by Etiwanda Highland Properties in 1991, was required as a condition of approval for the 1991 project to be dedicated through an easemant to the County of San Bernardino for open space, recreational, scenic purposes. In the time since approval of the University/Crest PD, this property has been sold to individuals not associated with the University/Crest PD project. Eventually, the 675 acres was acquired by MWD and has since been committed to permanent open space as environmental mitigation for its Inland Feeder Project. Under this alternative, significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially the loss of natural alluvial sage scrub would remain after mitigation. The implemantation of the previously approved project would result in the loss of approximately 425 acres of natural alluvial plant and animal communities. The previously approved project would generate a total of 26,980 average daily trips (ADT) and 2,530 trips at the PM peak hour. This is approximately 14.0 percent of the traffic expected with developmant of the entire traffic study area. Project related impacts can be fully mitigated by the implementation of the improvements idantified in the 1991 Final EIR. Cumulative development anticipated in the vicinity of the proposed project as previously approved, would result in unacceptable levels of service (LOS) at two future intersections. The implementation of regional mitigation measures will reduce this potential cumulative impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of the University/Crest PD would result in increased stationary and mobile source emissions in the air basin. The project emissions would be expected to be 0.03 percent of the total air basin emissions forecast for the year 2000. Although the previously approved project is consistant with AQMD, cumulative impacts would be significant. Impacts associated with noise, cultural resources, and sewer facilities would be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the measures stated in the 1991 Final ErR. Finding: The Previously Approved Project Alternative was rejected as an alternative to the Revised University Project because the removal of the area set aside for opan space purposes alters the status of the University/Crest PD approval. Compliance with the conditions of approval is now impossible; therefore, implementation of the previously approved University/Crest PD as an alternative to the proposed project is not possible. Project With SCE Easement Used To Increase Park And Open Space Alternative The Revised University Project as proposed contains 8.0 acres for an elementary school and 10.00 acres of parkland. Under this alternative the amount of acreage for parks would increase by 2.38 acres for a total of 12.23 acres by adding additional park area long Day Creek Boulevard. This alternative would 25 also increase the school site from 8.0 acres to 10 acres and reduce the single-family units by 85. The overall residential density would increase from 3.09 to 3.11 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would also provide for 30.07 acres of on-site open space as the northern portion of the SCE easement would never be developed, and one-half interest in a 172-acre off-site parcel for open space. This alternative would generate approximately 17,458 daily tripswhile the Revised University Project would generate 18,289 daily trips. Thus, this altemative would generate 831 less daily trips than the proposed project. The Revised University Project would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts by the installation of roadway improvements such as street widening, traffic signals, and stop signs. Cumulative traffic impacts would be mitigated by fair share costs to provide future roadway improvements. This altemative would be required to provide the same mitigation because the reduction in trip generation is not substantially less than that generated by the Revised University Project. Therefore, impacts to traffic from this alternative are substantially the same. With implementation of the Revised University Project, emissions of the three criteria pollutants (NOx, ROC and CO) by mobile sources associated with the modified development on the University property would remain greater than the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Emissions of these criteria pollutants would be 11 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991. This altemative would reduce the number of daily trips by 0.88 percent and therefore, reduce the amount of pollutants from mobile sources by about 0.88 percent. The reduction in emissions would be minimal and the impact to air quality from development of this altemative would remain significant. Under this alternative, the northern portion of the SCE Easement would remain as open space. In the 1991 Final EIR, the quality of habitat in the SCE Easement was found to be degraded, and would not be quality habitat for wildlife, nor would it serve as a wildlife corridor because of urban development, which surrounds the Easement. Under this alternative, impacts to biological resources would remain significant although they would slightly diminished. Finding: The Project With SCE Easement Used To Increase Park And Open Space Alternative was rejected because the significant unavoidable impacts of the Revised University Project on the cumulative impacts to traffic, air quality and biological resources would not be avoided nor substantially lessened with development of this alternative. Project With SCE Easement Converted To Open Space Alternative This alternative would propose leaving the 64-acre SCE easement in permanent open space. In leaving the SCE easement in permanent open space the amount of acreage for residential, commercial, and parkland would be reduced. This alternative would reduce the Revised University Project's residential units by 144 units and residential area by 48.10 acres, for a total of 541 units (685 residential units are proposed in the Revised University Project on 433.43 acres). A total of 14.95 acres of commercial land is proposed with the Revised University Project, but this alternative would reduce the commercial land to 4.4 acres. Park acreage would be reduced from 10.00 acres with the proposed Project to 4.64 acres with this alternative. This alternative would also provide one-half interest in a 172-acre off-site parcel for open space. This alternative would retain the elementary school acreage at 8.0 acres and not increase the elementary school acreage to a minimum of 10 acres that has been requested by the State Department of Education and the Etiwanda School District. This altemative would have fewer impacts on schools, traffic generation, air quality, and open space than the Revised University Project. Impacts to biological resources would remain similar to those of the Revised University Project due to the degraded nature of the SCE easement and its low quality as habitat for wildlife. Impacts to parks would increase, but still remain less than significant, with a reduction in acreage allotted to active park space. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation measure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the MSHCP is only in its early formative stages. The Revised University Project is providing one-half interest in a 172 acre off site parcel for open space, which is located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project on biological resources because the majority of the 250.67-acre site would be developed with the exception of 26.8 acres within the SCE easement. This alternative would generate approximately 10,226 daily trips while the Revised University Project would generate 18,289 daily trips. Thus, this alternative would generate 8,063 less daily trips than the Revised University Project. The Revised University Project would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts by the installation of roadway improvements such as street widening, traffic signals, and stop signs. Cumulative traffic impacts would be mitigated by fair share costs to provide future roadway improvements. This alternative would be required to provide the same mitigation even through l~ip generation is less than the Revised University Project because traffic generated under this alternative would still have a significant impact on roadways in the project area. With implementation of the Revised University Project, emissions of the three criteria pollutants (NO~, ROC and CO) by mobile sources would remain greater than the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD. However, emissions of these criteria pollutants would be 11 percent less than those associated with the original development plan analyzed in 1991. This alternative would reduce the number of daily trips by 44 percent and, therefore, reduce the amount of pollutants from mobile sources by about 1.8 percent. Construction emissions would also be reduced because the 64-acre site would not be Faded. These reductions in emissions would be minimal however, and the impacts to air quality would remain significant. The Revised University Project was determined to have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on biological resources. The loss of Riversidian sage scrub within the proposed development area will still contribute to a significant adverse unavoidable cumulative impact within the region. The cumulative loss of open space will also not be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of required mitigation measures. Potential mitigation for cumulative impacts includes participation in a regional mitigation plan (i.e., the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan). However, the participation in the plan as a mitigation measure is speculative at this time as no such plan is yet in place and the San Bernardino plan is only in its early formative stages. The Revised University Project is providing one-half interest in a 172-acre off- site parcel for open space. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project on biological resources because the majority of the 250.67-acre site would be developed with the exception of 64 acres within the SCE easement. Finding: The Revised University Project With SCE Easement Converted To Open Space Alternative would have less impacts on schools, traffic, air quality and open space, than the Revised University Project. However, this alternative does not have the benefits of the proposed project, which will provide orderly residential and commercial development and provide additional acreage for the school site. Alternative Site to the Revised University Project An alternative site was not considered because the University/Crest Project is an approved and entitled project. The Revised University Project simply modifies the existing, entitled project; therefore, relocating the proposed project to another site is impossible. An alternative site would not accomplish the objectives of the proposed project that is to amend the original approved plan and was, therefore, rejected from further consideration. VI. PROJECT BENEFITS The benefits from the approving the Development Agreement for the Revised University Project are related to the establishment of a residential and commercial planned development that will provide a new, high quality residential community within the City. The benefits of the Revised University Project will result in a well-designed urban type development that provides for some major backbone infrastructure that would not be made available to the community without this Project's development. The following benefits will occur as a result of project implementation: 1. Construction of Banyan/Summit Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue will provide an east/west corridor north of future SR 30. This will allow Hanson Aggregates, located west of Day Creek Channel, access south of Highland Avenue after the completion of SR- 30. This is also identified by the City as a major east-west corridor and an essential element in the City's txaffic and circulation planning through the Development Agreement, the improvements to Banyan Street and Summit Avenue through to Rochester Avenue will conform to the City's standards. 2. Relocating planned commercial development near the future interchange of Day Creek Boulevard and future SR-30, which will provide amenities to travelers on SR-30 and to future residents north of SR-30 and Highland Avenue. 3. Providing continuous, compatible development by integrating the former utility easement into the Revised University Project. 4. Providing a substitute off-site permanent conservation area to replace the prior off-site acreage, which is now unavailable for the University/Crest PD. 5. Implementation of the Revised University Project will provide additional housing, in addition to that approved in the University/Crest PD to meet housing demands in the City. The Project provides for a well-developed and adequate infrastructure, which complements existing and proposed development in the area, and is in substantial conformante with the City's approved Etiwanda North Specific Plan standards as well as the Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan. 6. Implementation of the Revised University Project will result in new sources of income to the area through new property taxes, and through the creation of new jobs, both short-term construction and long-term commercial and retail jobs. 7. The commercial component of the Project provides new job oppommities and provides shopping amenities closer to the housing components to reduce some of the vehicular trips of residents. 8. The joint use of the park and school site will benefit both the community and the school district. 9. The adoption of the Development Agreement makes certain substancial modification to the design and timing of construction of certain traffic improvements and substantially conforms development to the City's adopted plans. VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and Addendum, specifically (1) traffic and circulation related to (a) off-site Development Plan roadway impacts, (b) levels of service along freeway segments on 1-10 and 1-15 in the peak direction, and (2) air quality related to (a) temporary increases in PMi0, NOx emissions from construction, (b) increased local and regional air pollutant emissions from future development, (c) contribution to increased CO concentrations at one intersection and (3) biological resources including project related cumulative impacts of loss of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub and loss of open space of the project when combined with other projects in the vicinity. This section of findings specifically addresses the requirements of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts and to determine whether the impacts are acceptably overridden by the project benefits. The City finds that the previously stated major project banefits, see Section V and VI above, of the University Project, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed development to be governed by the planned development cited in Section V above, is hereby determined to be, in itself and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR, and Addendum and in these fmdings. The City's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether there are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the proposed Project. The 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and Addendum present evidence that implementing the development of the Revised University Project will cause significant adverse impacts, which cannot be substantially mitigated to 29 nonsignificant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above and the City makes the following finding: Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the Revised University Project to construct the planned development, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the 1991 Final EIR, SEIR and Addendum, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the Revised University Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts described above. The reasons for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the Revised University Project as developed in accordance to the Development Agreement against its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks. Furthermore, the City has considered the alternatives to the project, and makes the following finding: Finding: Feasible alternatives to the Revised University Project which are capable of reducing identified impacts have been considered and rejected because the altematives offer a reduced level of benefit when compared to the Revised University Project. The City further finds that the Revised University Projecfs benefits are substantial and override each unavoidabl.e impact of the project, as follows: 1) Findings Regarding Traffic and Circulation Impacts Offsite traffic circulation impacts resulting from Project-related traffic are significant, despite numerous modifications to the circulation system of the Revised University Project, and despite offsite traffic improvements to be constructed by the project applicant and the project's contribution to fair share expenses of other off-site improvements. Implementation of the identified traffic mitigation measures cannot be ensured since future development projects will be required to make "fair share" contn'bution toward needed improvements, but that will not guarantee that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. The Revised University Project's impacts to fleeway segments remain significant and unavoidable because there is no mechanism for individual projects to contribute fmancially to freeway mainline improvements. Operating levels at three intersections, as specifically analyzed in Chapter 4.4 of the EIR and in the Traffic Impact Analysis, cannot be mitigated - Day Creek Boulevard at Highland Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue at Summit Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. Operating levels at Milliken Avenue and Highland Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Avenue will require additional land improvements to maintain satisfactory operations. The applicant will provide funds on a fair-share basis for improvements to the roadway intersections; however, the City cannot ensure that adequate funding will be available to construct the improvements at the time development occurs. Since additional mitigation measures are technically and economically infeasible, this impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Revised University 3°o7qC) Project. The Revised University Project will also contribute to deficiencies along the following freeway sections; SR-30 Eastbound - Euclid Avenue to 1-15 and Cherry Avenue to Beech Avenue; SR-30 Westbound - Beech Avenue to Cherry Avenue and 1-15 to Euclid Avenue; 1-15 Northbound - 1-10 Freeway to SR-30 Freeway; and 1-15 Southbound - SR- 30 Freeway to 1-10 Freeway. Widening of the freeways to improve levels of service is not feasible mitigation, and there is no mechanism for a private project to contribute a pro rata fair share, which could likely be economically infeasible. Since additional mitigation measures are technically and economically infeasible, this impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Revised University Project. 2) Findings Regarding Air Quality Impacts Construction activities occurring in the Revised University Project area, including mass grading, will result in short-term increases in air emissions that exceed applicable thresholds of the SCAQMD, despite the imposition of mitigation measures. Short-term increases in air emissions from construction can be mitigated but are not entirely avoidable, as construction activities within this region will continue to provide necessary and vital housing. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Revised University Project. The impacts from the Revised University Project on air quality will increase local and regional pollutants despite the imposition of several mitigation measures and implementation of Best Available Control Technology. Increases in local and regional pollutants are not entirely avoidable, as development activities within this region will continue to provide necessary and vital housing. This impact is also overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Project. The Revised University Project related traffic may contribute to increased CO concentrations at one intersection which already exceeds the State's threshold of significance. The EIP, identified no feasible mitigation to control traffic flow at the impacted intersection, and it remains a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the Revised University Project. 3) Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts The Revised University Project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts including short-term impacts to air quality during construction or other major projects in the area and on a long term basis as a source of vehicle emission from the Revised University Project and other projects in the region contributing to an increase in pollutants. Since the South Coast Air Basin is a nonattainment area for federal air quality standards, cumulative increases are considered significant and unavoidable. This impact is overridden by the new housing and jobs provided by the project. The Revised University Project will also contribute to the cumulative loss of mature and intermediate alluvial sage scrub on a regional basis. The conversion of alluvial fan sage scrub represents a significant addition to the ongoing loss of this regionally significant limited resource. The loss of open space will also contribute to the cumulative loss of open space in the Rancho Cucamonga area. These impacts are overridden by the Revised University Project benefits. While the prior proposed off-site conservation area was substantially larger, 675-acres, no permanent funding was provided under the prior approval, and that land is now set aside as permanent conservation for a project built ~y the Metropolitan Water District. The undivided one-half interest in the 172-acre amemty site and the dedication of now proposed as a part of the Revised University Planned Development project provides for permanent conservation of land located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program G',rEOSHPP) area, consisting of a portion of alluvial fan draining into San Sevaine Canyon. This amenity site has the potential for endangered species or species of special concern, and if protected from encroachment, Riversidean sage scrub can be re-established to support a diverse habitat. The chaunelization of Day Creek, near the project site, diminishes the biological value of the project site, which is no longer subject to flooding and natural regeneration. The long-term commitment to provide $100,000 of endowment funding for the amenity site represents a positive action towards preservation and conservation of regional open space. Additionally, the Project applicant has acquired another 135-acre parcel for permanent conservation including $150,000 of endowment funding. As the CEQA Responsible Agency for the 1991 Final EIR and SEIR and Lead Agency for the Addendum to the SEIR and Development Agreement, the City has reviewed the project description and the SEIR and fully understands the Project proposed by U.C.P. Inc. for its development in accordance with the Revised University Project. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been identified in the SEIR and Addendum, the 1991 Final EIR and public testimony. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section VI above. The City also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the SEIR and this document, Section VI above, and that no feasible alternatives which substantially lessen project impacts are available for adoption. The City has identified economic and social benefits and important public policy objectives, Section V above, which will result from implementing the Resied University Project through the Development Agreement. The City has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the region, from developing the Revised University Project undre the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the City finds that the benefits identified herein override the unavoidable environmental effects. Califomia Public Resources Code 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social, and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency...." 32 Finally, Califumia Administrative Code, Title 14, 15093(a) states: "If the benefits of a proposed project out~veigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable." VIH. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires the City adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program, included as Chapter 5 in the Final SEIR, (MMCP) is adopted by the City as modified, because it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements: a) The MMCP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation; and b) Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. 33 PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ADDENDUMTOENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTANDDEVELOPMENTAGREEMENT 00-02 - U.C.P., INC. - A request to recommend approval for a development agreement for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue- Tentative Tract Map 14493 through 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, and 15902. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified on October 26, 1999. An addendum to the EIR is being prepared because the project description did not include a development agreement or the construction of full improvements to the extension of Banyan Street from Day Creek Channel to Rochester Avenue, or full improvements to the segment of Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Avenue and SR 30. The addendum is being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Continued from July 12, 2000) Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why the property being set aside for habitat conservation is not contiguous to the already approved habitat. Mr. Henderson replied that the applicant may have had trouble finding an owner willing to sell in that area. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ben Anderson, Senior Vice President, Sun Cal Companies, 5109 East La Palma, Anaheim, stated the experience of working with the City had been positive. He indicated the property is bordered on three sides by the City. He gave a brief background of the history of the project. He indicated a 13 acre school site should be open when the homes are built. He said they modified their transportation element and made circulation improvements to address the City's concerns and fit into the Foothill Freeway design and have a 1 O-acre park in the center of the project adjacent to the elementary school site. He stated they incorporated the City's design into the trail system. He supported staff's recommendations. Doug Cla~en, Etiwanda School District, 6061 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they fully support the project, He indicated they have mitigation agreements with respect to the school site and are under construction and anticipate being open in September 2001, John Kavak, property owner within the project, 1317 Avenida Colima, San Dimas, stated he and his partners support the project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing, Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is a win/win situation for the City~ the developer, and the residents who move into the new neighborhood. He supported the changes in circulation. Commissioner Stewart agreed. She felt the benefits outweigh any problems. Commissioner Macias supported the project. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 26, 2000 Chairman McNiel noted that the City had many concerns regarding the previously proposed University Crest project and this project is a marked improvement. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated the School District has been a great partner in the project. He , said there are also discussions regarding an intermediate school site. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council affirm the EIR and SEIR certified by the County of San Bernardino as augmented by an addendure prepared by the City and approve Development Agreement 00-02. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MANNERINO - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SE PERMIT 99-49 - EVERGREEN/DEVCO - The development of a drugstore with prescription orders consisting of a 13,813 square foot building on a 1.52 acres parcel i~ Office Professional (OP) District, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue Loma Drive - APN: 201-262-37. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 99-37. Debra Meier, Contract Planner presented the staff report and indicated staff hl a letter from the Homeowners Association for the adjacent residential corn project. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the triangular piece of property project will be included with the project as a lot line adjustment. Ms. Meier replied that it will be handled through Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Sharon Douglas, Douglas Develo represents Walgreen. She thanked staff for working closely with them. She indicated resolved issues raised by the neighbors by making the building smaller and adding She stated the wall adjacent to the residential complex will also be higher than ori ' y proposed. She requested clarification regarding Engineering Conditions 1 is covered by the "Other" street improvements on Haven Avenue as noted under Standard ( tition P1. Heather Balzer, Evergreen 2920 East Camelback Road, Suite 100, Phoenix Arizona, stated they have an agreement wi Loma Gardens to allow ingress and egress access in exchange for providing g complex and installation and maintenance of landscaping along the Cal Trans She felt the matter could be handled through an easement rather than a lot line adjus Hearing no fur estimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Betty MilIE Engineer, noted that the resolution calls for a lot line adjustment. Regarding Conditions 1 and 2, she indicated they were written that way because staff was not sure I i far along Caltrans would be when this project is developed. She indicated the "Other" Standard Condition P1 refers to such things as stop signs, etc. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 26, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. DLP-ld/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AFFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND AS AUGMENTED BY AN ADDENDUM PREPARED BY THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR THE UNIVERSITY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT A. Recitals. 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino (Board) previously certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the University Development Project in 1991 (SCH #88082915). The project was never constructed. Subsequent to the 1991 approval, a portion of the University Development Project was purchased, and in 1996 the new owners made application to the County for approval of the Revised University Project (Project), severing the University portion from the Crest portion of the original University Development Project. The Board was presented with the Project and certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on October 26, 1999 (SCH #98121091). In its Statement of Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, dated October 26, 1999, the Board found that the SEIR had been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects that would result from the development of the proposed modifications to the Project in accordance with the requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines). No judicial determination to the contrary has been issued. 2. On November 29, 1999, the City of Rancho Cucemonga commenced a judicial challenge to the Board's certification of the SEIR by filing an action entitled "The City of Rancho Cucamonga v. the County of San Bernardino and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, et al" Consolidated Case No. SCVSS 62412, (the Action). The Action challenged the adequacy of the SEIR for the Project on a number of grounds, of which the primary concerns included inadequate traffic impacts analysis, inadequate open space analysis, and improper application of the City's zoning standards applicable within its sphere of influence. The City, Board, and the Project proponent have entered into a conditional settlement agreement as it pertains to the Action. The primary benefits to the City arising from the settlement agreement are (a) the Project proponent's agreement to enter into a development agreement as it pertains to the Project and (b) the addition of further clarifying language into the SEIR pursuant to an Addendum, as the same is defined in Section 15164 of the Guidelines. Through the settlement agreement, the City and the Project proponent have addressed the City's concerns about potential traffic impacts, and have agreed to modify certain traffic elements, primarily design and timing of construction issues, which address the City's concerns. The City has been advised that the Project proponent is acquiring additional off-site land for perpetual use as open space that addresses the City's other primary concerns. Finally, of additional benefit is the proposal that the Project be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, thus providing further benefits to the City and through the settlement agreement addresses concerns about the City's zoning standards as applied to the Project. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is identified as a responsible agency regarding the development of the Project pursuant to CEQA and the Notice of Preparation of the SEIR was served on the City as such responsible agency. However, the City is the lead agency as CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DA 00-02 - U.C.P. INC. August 16, 2000 Page 2 pertaining to the processing of the development agreement. This Resolution is intended to satisfy all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines in regards to the Project as amended by the settlement agreement and in regards to the development agreement as set forth in the related Addendum. Upon annexation, the City will become the lead agency for all CEQA purposes pertaining to the Project. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been completed as required by law. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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. This City Council makes the following findings in regard to the addendum prepared for, and which augments the EIR and SEIR, for the Project as regulated by the settlement agreement and the development agreement; a. The City, as a responsible agency under CEQA for the Project and as lead agency for the development agreement, has prepared an addendure to the SEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 and 15164 to address the refinements to the Project as set forth in the development agreement. b. The decision not to prepare a further subsequent environmental impact report or a Supplement to the SEIR is explained and supported by substantial evidence in the Initial Study/addendum attached hereto as Attachment 1. The City Council expressly finds that through the settlement agreement which settles the Action and through the adoption of the development agreement the Project has been sufficiently modified in terms of certain design, construction timing, circulation issues, and zoning concerns, affecting the development of the Project, that the issues alleged in the Action have been resolved and the City can now support the Project. The modifications have not substantially altered the previously identified significant environmental impacts and/or related mitigation measures, as reflected in Attachment 1. c. That on the basis of the facts and evidence set forth in Attachment 1, an addendum is the adequate further environmental analysis that is required as authorized by Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the Guidelines. d. That the addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA. e. In reaching its decision concerning the development agreement, the City has considered the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the EIR, the SEIR and the addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(f), prior to approving the development agreement, which will govern development of the Project. f. That the EIR, SEIR, and addendure collectively reflect the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. CITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION DA 00-02-U.C.P. INC. August16,2000 Page 3 3. The City Council, pursuant to the requirements of Guidelines Section 15096(h) hereby makes the findings required by Section 15091 of the Guidelines as shown on Attachment 2 and the findings required by Section 15093 of the Guidelines, as shown on Attachment 3 hereto. 4. The City Clerk shall cause the notice of determination required by Section 15094 and Section 15096(i) of the Guidelines to be filed as required by law. AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 00-02, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U.C.P. INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN APPROXIMATELY 250-ACRE SITE WITH UP TO 685 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND UP TO 'TWO COMMERCIAL AREAS, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, BETWEEN DAY CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF HANLEY AVENUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14493 THROUGH 14498, 14522, 14523, 15838, AND 15902. A. Recitals. 1. California Government Code Section 65864 now provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that: a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housin9 and other developments to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public plannin9 process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." 2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property as provided in this article..." 3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows: "A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildingsl and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditionsl termsl restrictions, and requirements for discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the Agreement..." 4. "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is proposed Development Agreement 00-021 concerning that property 9enerally located north of Highland Avenuel east of Day Creek Channel and west of Hanley Avenue, and CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE DA 00-02-U.C.P. INC. August16,2000 Page 2 as legally described in the attached Development Agreement. Hereina~er in this Ordinance, the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development Agreement." 5. On July 12, and continued to July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed hearing concerning the Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date and recommended approval through adoption of its Resolution. 6. On August 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Development Agreement. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, this Council has reviewed an addendure to the EIR and SEIR as certified by the County of San Bernardino and augmented by an addendure prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as legally sufficient for the University Planned Development Project. ,SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above-referenced public hearing on August 16, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a) The location, design, and proposed uses set forth in this Development Agreement are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity. b) This Development Agreement shall not become effective until General Plan Amendment 00-03, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment 00-01 have been reviewed and approved by the City Council. SECTION 4: It is expressly found that the public necessity, general welfare, and good zoning practice require the approval of the Development Agreement. SECTION 5: This Council hereby approves Development Agreement 00-02, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (Space above for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA and U.C.P. INCORPORATED, a California corporation Dated: ,2000 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CrfY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U.C.P. INCORPORATED CONCERNING THE REVISED UNIVERSITY PROJECT This Agreement (the "Development Agreement") is made and entered into this __~ day of ,2000, by and between U.C.P. Incorporated, a Califomia corporation CU.C.P.") and the City ofRancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (the "CITY") pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Califumia Government Code. U.C.P. and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Property Owner." The CITY and U.C.P. are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS: A. To provide more certainty in the approval of development projects, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted Sections 65864, et seq. of the California Government Code, thus authorizing the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property, in order to establish development rights with respect thereto. B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to enter into a binding development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporated territory but also within CITY's sphere of influence, provided that the effectiveness of the development agreement is conditioned upon the annexation of such real property to the CITY within the period of time for annexation as specified in the Development Agreement. C. Property Owner owns fee title to approximately 250.67 acres of real property located entirely within the County of San Bemardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit "A' attached hereto (the "Project Site"). Previously, the Project Site was subject to land use entitlemerits resulting from the Connty's approval in 1991 of the University/Crest Project P larmed Development, PUD No. W 121 --49 (the "University/Crest PD'). The University/Crest PD entifiements combined two separately owned properties with 1,238 residential units, commercial development, school, park and open space of 1,111.29 acres. The Project Site is the University portion of the University/Crest PD. D. In 1998, Property Owner applied to County for approval of revisions to the University/Crest PD, to modify the previous entitlements related to the Project Site (the "Revised University Project" or the "Projecf'). The requested modifications included: 1. Separating the University portion of the University/Crest PD from the Crest portion; 2. Adding 64 acres to the University portion, formerly owned by Southern California Edison which had bisected the Project Site; 3. Increasing the number of dwelling units firore 578 to 685; 4. Modifying the location of commercial uses and adding a net 2.3 acres of commercial development; 5. Increasing the proposed school and park sites by 6.0 acres; 6. Revising the project design with s~eet alignments, lot designs and increased lots sizes; 7. Extending Banyan/Sumrmt Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel, to connect to Rochester; 8. Transferring to the County of San Bernardino, in fee, 86 acres (one-halfofa 172 acre parcel) of off- site land for permanent open space, along with funding in the amount of $ 110,000.00, to provide for long-term maintenance of such off-site land; and 9. Eliminating the 675-acre open space area from the Project, as it had already been transferred to the County by the Metropolitan Water District. E. On October 26, 1999, the County approved the Revised University Project, namely Revised Preliminary Development Plan W 121-49, and a Minor General Plan Amendment and zone change for the former SCE property (the "Revised University Project Entifiements'). In accordance with the roles, regulations and policies of the Califorma Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the County's Development Code, the County certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with the Revised University Project Entitlemerits (the "SEIR") as being accurate, adequate and complete in the environmental evaluation of the impacts associated with the Revised University Project and adopted Findings and a Statement of Ovetridnig Considerations. F. On November 29, 1999, the CITY filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief challenging County's approval of the Revised University Project and certification of the SEIR (the "Litigation"). The CITY filed a farst amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on February 3, 2000 (the "Petition"). In the Petition, the CITY alleged, inter alia, that (1) the County should have prepared a new, or subsequent EIR for the approval of the Revised Project due to the requested changes in the Project; (2) the SEIR is inadequate; (3) the Findings did not support the Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) the County failed to consider and apply the CITY's land use and zoning standards when it approved the Revised University Project; (5) the County's finding of conformity with the CITY's land use and zoning laws was not supported by substantial evidence; and (6) the County's general plan amendment related to spheres of influence was invalid. G. On March 20, 2000, U.C.P. filed its answer and response to the Petition, denying each and every allegation. H. On March 24, 2000, the County filed its answer and response to the Petition, denying each and every allegation. I. Subsequent to initiation of the Litigation, the CITY and Property Owner have resolved their differences, as memorialized in a transaction which is the subject of a Settlement, Pre-Annexatinn' and Tolling Agreement between them, dated April __, 2000 (the "Settlement and Pre-Aunexation Agreement"). As a condition of entering into the Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement, the CITY and Property Owner have agreed to enter into a development agreement, substantially in the form of this Development Agreement, subject m compliance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, hearing and findings. In addition to providing a vehicle for settlement of the Litigation, this Development Agreement will enable the CITY to realize recreational, commercial, residential and regional benefits and facilities. The development of the Project at the earliest practicable date will enhance the quality of life of present and future residents of the CITY. J. As further set forth in Ordinance No. __ enacted by the CITY on __, 2000 (the "Enacting Ordinance"), the execution of this Development Agreement and the performance of and compliance with the terms and conditions set, forth herein by the Parties hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (ii) will promote the public convenience general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) will promote preservation of land values: (iv) will encourage the development of the Project by providing a level of certainty to the Property Owner; and (v) will provide for orderly growth and development of the CITY consistent with the CITY's General Plan. A~reement NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants of the Parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Effectiveness of Development Agreement Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall only become operative and the fights and obligations of the Parties shall only arise, if all of the following have occurred before March 01, 2001, unless that date is mutually extended in writing by Property Owner and the CITY: (i) The Project Site has been annexed to the CITY and said annexation is final as to any and all administrative actions, and is not then subject to judicial challenge; and (ii) The Parties have performed all of their respective obligations under the Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement. B. Term The term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the enacting Ordinance and shall extend for a period often (10) years thereat~er (the "Term"), unless this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Development Agreement, including, without limitation, the extensions provided below and any extension amibutable to the "force majeure" circumstances described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Panins. · Following the expiration of the Term, this Development A~'eement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any fight or duty arising from project entitlements granted prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Development Agreement and the slructures that are developed in accordance with this Development Agreement and the use of those sla-uctures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensuring, for land use purposes, that those structures continue to be legal conforming struclures and that those uses continue to be legal conforming uses. C. Assignment Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall have the right to convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer (for purposes of this Development Agreement, "Transfer") the Project Site, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement, and to the extent of each such Transfer, the transferor shall be relieved of its legal duty to perform such obligations under this Development Agreement at the time of the Transfer, except to the extent Property Owner is in Default, as defined in Section 3C hereof, of any of the terms of this Development Agreement when the Transfer occurs. If all or a portion of the Project Site is Transferred and there is noncompliance by the transferee ovmer with respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of the Project Site not sold or Transferred, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that transferee or transferor, as applicable, but shall not be deemed to be a breach hereunder against other persons then owning or holding any interest in any other portion of the Project Site and not themselves in breach under this Development Agreement. Any alleged breach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3C hereof. In no event shall the reservation or dedication of a portion of the Project Site to a public agency cause a nvansfer of duties and obligations under this Development Agreement to such public agency unless specifically stated to be the case in this Development Agreement, any of the exhibits attached to titis Development Agreement. the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public agency. Property Owner shall notify the CITY not less than sixty (60) days before any such Transfer, and such notice shall contain all material information regarding the contemplated Transfer, including but not limited to the identity of the uansferee, and the material terms of such contemplated Transfer. D. Amendment of A~reement This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parries in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the Parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending this Development Agreement. Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of tins Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Property Owner and the CITY and that, in the course of the development of the Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to address the details of the Panics' respective performance and obligations, and to otherwise effectuate the purposes of this Development Agreement and the intent of the Parties. If and when, from time to time, the Parties find that it is necessary or appropriate to clarify the application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without amending the Development Agreement, the Panics may do so through one or more implementing agreements (the "Implementing Agreement"), which shall be executed by the Cornmuinty Development Director of CITY (the "Community Development Director") and by an authorized representative of Property Owner. After execution, each Implementing Agreement shall be attached as an addendure and become a pan of this Development Agreement, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary. Such Implementing Agreement shall not require the approval of the City Council of the CITY and shall only be executed by the Cqmmunlty Development Director (on behalf of the CITY), if the Community Development Director has determined that such implementing agreements are not materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and the applicable ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of tins Development Agreement. Any changes to this Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purport to change land use designations applicable to the Project Site under the Revised University Project Entitlements, shall be considered "material" and require amendment of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. SeCtion 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROTECT A. Land Use Entitlements The land use entitlements approved by the County are depicted on Exhibit "B". The Panics acknowledge that, without being obligated to do so, Property Owner plans to develop the Project Site in substantial conformity with the Revised University Project Entitlements as amended by this Development Agreement. During the Term, the permitted uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, building and yard setback requirements, provisions for reservations or dedications, design and performance standards and other terms and conditions of development of the Revised University Project, shall be those set forth in the Revised University Project Entiflements as mended by this Development Agreement. The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Revised University Project Entitlemerits. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approved tracts total 685 lots and that lots may be shifted between tncts without increasing the overall number of lots and be in substantial conformity with the Revised University Project Entitlemeuts as amended by this Development Agreement. The CITY Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion to review transfers of lots between tzacts and make the determination of substantial compliance. Other certain specific modifications of the Revised University Project Entitlements to which the Panics agree arc set forth below, All Exhibits attached hereto constitute material provisions of the Development Agreement, and are incorporated herein. -4- B. Rules and Regulations Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, the ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project, shall be the Revised University Project Entitlemerits and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, rules, regulations and official policies and General Plan provisions in force at the time of the effective date of this Development Agreement, ,bnt only to the extent that they are consistent with the Revised University Project Entitlements, as modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement (the "Existing Laws"), except litat the CITY's street improvement, lighting, storm drain, and Americans With Disabilities Act CADA") standards shall be followed, and the landscape standards applicable shall be those specified in this Development Agreement, and/or the CITY's standards. In the event of any conflict between the CITY's ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies and General Plan and the Existing Laws, then the Existing Laws shall control. The CITY shall not be prevented in subsequent actions applicable to the Project, from applying new ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies in effect ("Future Policies") to the extent that they do not conflict with the Existing Laws. Such conflict shall be deemed to occur if, without limitation, such Future Policies: (i) modify the permitted types of land uses, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height or size of proposed buildings on the property, building and yard setback requirements; or impose requirements for the construction or provision of on-site or off-site improvements or the reservation or dedication of land for public use, or the payment of fees or the imposition of exactions, other than as are in each case specifically provided for in this Development Agreement; (ii) prevent the Property Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements at such dates and under such circumstances as the Property Owner would otherwise be entitled under this Development Agreement; (iii) prevent or inhibit Property Owner from coma'nencing, continuing and finishing on a timely basis the construction and development of the Revised University Project or timely satisfaction of Property Owner's obligations under this Development Agreement, in the manner contemplated by this Development Agreement; and/or (iv) render any conforming use of the Project Site a non-conforming use or any structure on the Project Site a non-conforming structure. C. Design and Infrastrucntre Issues 1. Commerciall Park and School Sites The County's approvcd land uses in the Revised Unive~'sity Project are depicted on Exhibit "B". Despite these approvcd land uses, the CITY and Property Owner dcsirc that Propcrty Owner modify certain of the approved commercial sites, and provide for the joint use of the Park and School site in conformity with this Development Agreement. a. Commercial Sites (i) The Intcx Properties Commercial Site The CITY desires that the commercial site located on the northwest comer of Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard be cniargcd and have a minimum depth of three hundred (300) feet. If a larger commercial development is not feasible, then this site should bc considered for residential development. However, this commercial site is owned by Intex Properties, and not by Property Owner and, therefore, Property Owner has no legal ability to make an agreemcnt about the future development of this commercial site. Nevertheless, Property Owner shall use good faith, diligent eftorB in negotiations with Intex Properties to accommodate the CITY's desires to provide for a commercial site of 9.1 acres in substantial conformity with Exhibit "C". The CITY recognizes that the commercial development depicted on Exhibit "C" does not meet the CITY's usual 10-acre minimum site. Should these negotiations result in an agreement to develop a larger commercial site, Property Owner agrees to make application to the CITY to modify its Entitlements and to use diligent, good faith efforts to cause an application to be made to the CITY for the entitlements to develop the larger commercial site. Should the negotiations not result in an agreement with Intex Properties, then Property Owner may proceed with residential development of Tract 14494 of its project site, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D". Ira larger commercial development is not possible, then the Imex Properties Site may be considered for development with residential development or other CITY-approved commercial uses allowed under the low residential district of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. In that case, the approved entitlemerits of Tract 14494 will be modified to extend the street south to Banyan Avenue, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D" and the CITY agrees to participate in any required condemnation proceeding to allow the construction of the new street to connect to Banyan Avenue in conformity with CITY standards. (ii) Axes G Property Owner may apply to the CITY for development of the commercial site located within Area G of the Project Site Plan (see Exhibit "B") in accordance with the Revised University Project Entitlements and the CITY agrees to consider, in good faith, such application. The Parties acknowledge that the design criteria for this commercial development shall be those contained in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, except the commercial site will be approximately 6.77 acres. All other developmen'; criteria shall comply with the applicable development standards of the CITY. Should commercial development under these criteria be mfeasible, then the use of Area G will revert to residential, which may include a minimum of 26 lots for single family, detached homes, with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet as depicted in Exhibit "E". Upon final decision by the CITY that commercial development of Area G is not feasible, the Property Owner shall initiate a zone change and General Plan amendment for residential development of the site within 120 days of such final decision. b. Park and School Sites The CITY and Property Owner agree to use diligent. good faith efforts to obtain the Etiwanda School District's agreement for reciprocal rights to shared parking facilities and use of the park site and school site. 2. Day Creek Boulevard Streetscanes The CITY desires that the design of Day Creek Boulevard streetscapes be modified from that approved as part of the Revised University Project Entitlements, to accommodate a wider landscape setback along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard, and that the walls, pilasters and landscapes be modified to be substantially consistent with the development of Day Creek Boulevard south of the Project Site. Property Owner agrees to modify the design of Day Creek Boulevard as depicted on Exhibit "F", to build said slxeetscapes in substantial conformity with Exhibit "F-I". With the exception of grading and hardscape requirements, the improvements for Day Creek Boulevard shall be substantially consistent with the CITY's approved Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan however, the Panics acknowledge and agree that the median width shall be a maximum of 10 feet. and the parkway on the east side of Day Creek Boulevard shall be 25 feet in depth from curb face, except as shown on Exhibit "F-2". The monuments at the intersections on Day Creek Boulevard shall be constructed in substantial conformity with Exhibits "(3" and "(3-1" and with the "Entry Monument Constructions Documents" on file with the CITY on October 1, 1999. 3. Banyan/S~rnmit Avenue From SCE Easement to Rochester Avenue The CITY desires that Banyan Avenue, west of Day Creek Boulevard, be fully extended from the existing Southern California Edison easement. wl~ich parallels the western boundary of the Project Site, through to Rochester Avenue on the west as this is identified as a vital link in the CITYs circulation plan. The CITY acknowledges and agrees that such extension is not a part of the Revised University Project Entitlements, and is not required for traffic circulation related solely to the Revised University Project. Property Owner hereby agrees to provide the funding, and/or, construction necessary to build the improvements .to Banyan Avenue tluough to -6- Rochester Avenue, including all cons~'uction drawings and plans. The CITY agrees that within thirty (30) days of the receipt of final drawings and required completed applications, it will apply to the County of San Bernardino and any other local, State or Federal agencies with jurisdiction for all necessary permits to complete such improvements (the "Permits"). Property Owner shall have no obligation to obtain the Permits, but agrees to cooperate as necessary with the CITY to obtain such Permits. Once the CITY has obtained the Permits, Property Order agrees to make such approved improvements to Banyan Avenue, in substantial conformity with the improvements depicted on Exhibit "H". The CITY agrees that it has requested that landscaping, including irrigation, be installed along the south side of the extension of Banyan Avenue, west of the propeny line of the Project site, and the CITY agrees that it will be responsible for the cost of maintenance of this landscaping, which may include, at the CITY's option, inclusion in any landscape maintenance distxict created pursuant to Section 2K, below. Attached as Exhibit "H-I" is the "Banyan Offsite Full Width Consauction" costs estimate. 4. Dry Utilities The Revised University Project Entitlemerits do not require that Burd vaults be installed and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Burd vaults will be required thxoughout the Project Site. 5. Slopes Grading plans depicting slopes in all landscape maintenance distxicts CLMDs") shall be reviewed and approved by the CITY. The goal of such review is to minimize the slopes within the LMD project site areas. 2H: 1V slopes may be permitted for up to 12 feet, six inches (12.5 feet) in height; hardscape conforming to the CITY's standards above the 12,5 feet height may be used upon review and agreement with CITY Staff and with retaining walls and/or crib walls as approved by the CITY Engineer. The location of slopes in excess of 12.5 feet within the Project Site are depicted on Exhibit "I". Proposed specific slope u'eatments which shall be applied to the slopes in excess of 12.5 feet are depicted on Exhibits "I-l" through "I-6". 6. Area H - with 68 Future Lots The Revised University Project Entitlemerits include a density of 68 lots on lots of a minimum size of 10,000 square feet for Area H, as depicted on Exhibit "B". Property Owner proposes to develop Area H as generally depicted on Exhibit "J". The Property Owner shall cooperate with the CITY to address transportation and circulation issues. The CITY agrees that this density will be applied to Area H, including the agreement to allow grading to achieve this density, unless public health and safety issues preclude approval of the necessary grading to allow the density as approved in the Revised University Project Entitlemerits. The CITY further agrees that any future approvals for Area H will rely upon the Revised University Project Enti~ements, including the SEIR. In all other respects, Area H shall be reviewed and approved in compliance with the CITY's then applicable r~les and regulations. The CITY acknowledges that the property now owned by the Etiwanda School Dis~ct, identified as Area I in paragraph 7 below, may allow for residential development and provide aRemate access to Area H. In the event that such development of Area I is approved, the Property Owner shall alter its development to accormnodate the additional point of access. 7. Area I - Etiwanda School Dislrict Pro~}ertv The Parties acknowledge that the Etiwanda School District ("District") owns the area depicted as Area I on Exhibit "K". Representations have been made to the Parties that the District is prepared to submit a tentative tract map for residential development in Area I which will propose the development of 30 lots in accordance with the Etiwands North Specific Plan. The CITY and Property Owner agree to use diligent, good faith efforts in considering the development of Area I in conjunction with the Revised University Project. 8. Puscos In accordance with the previous Settlement Agreement among CITY, COUNTY and Property Owner's predecessors-in-interest, the Project Site is to include seven (7) additional puscos to provide access to the trails provided in CITY. The CITY and Property Owner agree that the number of paseos to be required within the Project Site and the location of the paseos shall be approved by the CITY's Trails Committee. The CITY's Staff accepts eight (8) foot maximum widths for construction of the paseos hi substantial conformity with the drawing attached as Exhibits "L' and "L-1 ". 9. Circulation Issues and Fees a. Hanson A~RreRates (i) Access. The Revised University Project Entitlements require that Property Owner provide to the Hanson Aggregates operation located west of the Project Site, interim and permanent access glong Banyan Avenue to the Day Creek Boulevard interchange at State Highway Route 30. CITY and Property Owner agree that such access shall be provided in accordance with the Revised University Project Entitlements and as depicted on Exhibit "M". Furthermore, the Parties agree that the intersection of Banyan Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard will be constructed in substantial conformity to the depiction on Exhibit "M-I". (ii) Disclosure. Property Owner agrees to provide a disclosure statement to all purchasers stating that the Hanson Aggregates operations has fights of access for its lruck traffic along Banyan Avenue from the operation to Day Creek Boulevard, and to the interchange at State Highway Route 30. b. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impacts Analysis ' ' Circulation improvements necessary to serve the area in and around the Project Site, not currently within the CITY, are generally depicted on Exhibit "N." The Parties acknowledge that the Property Owner plans to build improvements that exceed the Project Transportation requirements. The CITY agrees to establish a circulation fee for the area depicted on Exhibit "N" as a mechanism to reimburse the Property Owner for consh'uction of infrastructure in excess of Property Owner's fair share. The fee shall be calculated on a per-acre basis, with the cost of the infrastructure allocated to the benefiting properties. Exhibit "N-I" depicts the benefiting properties and their respective fair share. Exhibit "N-2" through "N-5" depict the estimated costs of the infrastructm'e. Exhibit "N-6" depicts the street cross-sections. c. Other Circulation Improvements The CITY has requested and the Property owner has agreed to make the following changes to the Revised University Project: (i) Hanley Avenue shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width, curb to curb, from Banyan Street to the School District's north properly line in order to provide lefl turn pockets and overflow parking for the school as depicted on Exhibit "O'. (ii) Property Owner shall construct sidewalks on the west side of Hanley Avenue from Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue, except for the portion of fee property depicted as "N.A.P." on Exhibit "P". As to this portion, the Parties acknowledge that the School District owns this portion and has already submitted plans to the State of California which depict the construction of a sidewalk on this portion. (iii) Traffic signals shall be installed on Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue, Banyan Avenue, and Vintage Drive, the traffic signal at the intersection of Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard shall be operational when warranted, or by the issuance of the one-hundred and fiftieth (150th) building permit, whichever first occurs. The other traffic signals shall be installed by the end of the Project development, or when wan'anted, whichever first occurs. (iv) A raised median shall be provided on Day Creek Boulevard from Wilson Avenue to the Route 30 Freeway. Median island openings shall be allowed on Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue, the intersection located one-half distance between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, Banyan Street and Vintage Drive. (v) Banyan Street from Hanley Avenue to Rochester and Day Creek Boulevard from the Route 30 Freeway to the north project limit; shall be posted "no parking any time". (vi) Wilson Avenue shall be fully improved by Property Owner from the western boundary of Tract 14494 to the existing terrmnus of Wilson Avenue located west of HaRley Avenue, except for the north side of Wilson Avenue from Hanley Avenue to the point that is approximately 330' east of Day Creek Boulevard which is the responsibility of Tract 13527, except one lane north of the median shall be installed to allow for traffic circnlation. Wilson Avenue shall be constructed with 72 feet of paved width, from curb to curb. A raised medium shall be constructed on Wilson Avenue, with median breaks allowed only at Day Creek Boulevard and HunIcy Avenue. Any other median breaks must be approved by the CITY Engineer. The westerly terminus of Wilson Avenue shall include a suitable turn-around area for vehicles. (vii) Wilson Avenue shall be open to public traffic, but not necessarily fully improved, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. (viii) Property Owner shall construct Day Creek Boulevard from Route 30 to Vintage Avenue, as depicted on Exhibit "F", by the issuance of the one-hundreth (100th) building permit, except that the Parties acknowledge this construction cannot be completed without the cooperation of third parties who own the properties on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard above Route 30 or condemnation of a right of way along these properties. If, for any reason outside the control of the CITY and the Propeny Owner, Property Owner cannot timely complete the construction of this portion of Day Creek Boulevard, then Property Owner shall be entitled to deposit with the CITY a sum of cash or a letter of credit equal to two-hundred percent (200%) of the projected actual costs, either total or partial, of such construction in full and complete satisfaction of its obligation, and to be relieved of any further res~ctions on the issuance of building permits. If the CITY is required to construct these improvements because of the Property Owner's failure or inability to do so, then Property Owner shall be entitled to an accounting for the use of funds by the CITY to complete the consu'uction and to a refund of monies not used for such construction. d. Reimbursement to Property Owner from The CITY's Street Irnurovement Deposits The CITY acknowledges that it has received deposits from other surrounding property owners or projects, including, but not limited to, Centex Homes (Tract 12659, $148,152.40), and Panda Development (Tract 13812, $225,000.00), and may collect other fees for construction along Hanley and/or Wilson Avenues (Tract 14120) (as more fully depicted on Exhibit "Q") (the Street Improvement Deposits). The CITY agrees that it will cooperate with Property Owner to require such surrounding property owners or projects to complete such Street improvements so that the improvements on Summit Avenue and Hanley Avenue, on Vintage Drive and on Wilson Avenue are completed at the same time as Property Owner's adjacent development. Alternatively, the CITY will complete the construction of these Street Improvements using the Street Improvement Deposits, or the CITY agrees that Property Owner may elect to complete construction of all or a portion of the street improvements, limited to curb, gutter, street paving and striping, and street lights and CITY further agrees it wi]l reimburse Property Owner from the Street Deposits upon the CITY Engineer's acceptance of the Street Improvements and review and of Property Owner's costs of construction, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 10. Storm Drains According to the Revised University Project Entitlemerits, the regional portion of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine drainage fee is $114,000.00, which Property Owner shall pay to the County, if required. The Property Owner shall also reimburse Kaufman & Broad and The Lyon Company on a per-acre basis for the construction of storm drain systems in Day Creek Boulevard south of Highland Avenue in the form of payments at the time of the f~rst certificate of occupancy of any unit n'ibutary to the storm drain systems. The per-acre basis calculation and Property Owner's fair share of the total cost of the construction of the storm drain systems set forth herein is contained in Exhibit "R." D. Timing of Development and Fees 1. Development of Circulation Improvements a. Banyan/Summit Avenue - HartIcy Avenue to Rochester Avenue Property Owner agrees to promptly make such improvements for acceptance by the CITY Engineer before the issuance of any building permit for a housing unit over and above one-hundred (100) such units. However, if, for any reason not within the control of the CITY or the Property Owner, the CITY cannot obtain the Permits so that Property Owner can complete the improvements prior to the issuance of the building permit for the one-hundred and first such unit, Property Owner shall be entitled to either deposit with the CITY a sum of cash or a letter of credit equal to two-hundred pement (200%) of the projected actual cost, either total or partial, of the consreaction of the improvements in full and complete satisfaction of its obligation, and to be relieved of any further restrictions on the issuance of building permits. If the CITY is requi~ed to construct these improvements because of the Property Owner's failure or inability to do so, then Property Owner shall be entitled to an accounting for the CITY's use of the funds to complete the improvements, and to a refund of monies not used for such improvements. b. Day Creek Boulevard Property Owner agrees to construct Day Creek Boulevard north to Wilson Avenue concurrently with Phase 1 (as defined in the Revised University Entitiements) and that such improvements will be substantially complete no later than issuance of the one-hundredth (100m) building permit in the Project. The CITY agrees to promptly process all applications and permits consistent with its usual and customary procedures. Streetscape improvements from the curb will be consreacted as development of the adjacent tracts occttr~. 2. Development of the Park Site Property Owner agrees to construct the Park (as defined in the Revised University Project Entitlements) at the park site in substantial conformity with the depiction on Exhibit "S" and in conformsnee with ADA standards, except that the Parties agree that the Park will be constructed with up to four (4) lit basketball courts and two (2) lit ball fields. The Paik improvements will be subslantially complete no later than issuance of the one- hundredth (100th) building permit in the Project. The Parties agree that the product specificationi for the park amenities are listed on Exhibits "S-I" through "S-2" and that such amenities shall conform to CITY standards. The quantities and sizes of the amenities and materials shall be as depicted on Exhibit "S-3" and any remaimng issues shall conform to CITY standards. The CITY agrees to promptly process all applications and permits consistent with its usual and customary procedures. The CITY agrees that through dedication of 10 acres and cons~'uetion of the Park, Property Owner will exceed, through its construction costs, all requirements of the CITY's parks fees and applicable standards. The CITY waives any requirement for payment of a Park fee against the Revised University Project. Property Owner shall dedicate the Park to the CITY and the CITY shall accept the dedication promptly upon cornpletion. The CITY reserves the fight to name the Park. 3. Development of Remainder of Project Site Neither Properly Owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases of the Project Site shall be developed, since such decisions depend upon numerons factors which are not within the control of Property Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, competition, and other factors. The Parties aclmowledge and agree that Properly Owner retains flexibility under this Development Agreement to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as are appropriate within the exemise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owner may desire to market, sell, or otherwise arrange for disposition of some or all of the Project Site, prior to development, and that the rate at which the Project develops will likely depend upon the business judgement of subsequent owners of the Project Site. 4. CITY's Cooperation CITY shall use good faith, diligent effort~ to promptly process and take fmal action on any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, (a) using good faith, diligent efforts to process subsequent Development/Design Review in accordance with state regulations; and (b) promptly processing all ministerial permits in accordance with Section 2I below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agreement, any future regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Project Site or the extent thereof, shall be deemed to conflict with Property Owner's vested rights to develop the Project under this Development Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project. PrOCessing and review of development proposals shall be subject to established procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in the Existing Laws. However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each development proposal shall be based on the objectives, policies and specific development standards specified herein. 5. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, Property Owner and CITY shall be excused from performance of their obligations under this Development Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other party, economic consideration or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of CITY or Property Owner, as applicable. The time of performance of such obligations as well as the term of this Development Agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of such delay hereunder. E. Reimbursement Provision 1. Reimbursement Mechanism As set forth herein, pursuant to the Revised University Project Entitlements, the Property Owner will construct certain traffic/circulation improvements which will benefit other property owners and developments adjacent to or surrounding the Project Site. The Property Owner has incurred the costs of desighing these improvements and will incur additional costs, including but not limited to construction, installation, permit and inspection (the "Custs"), as depicted hi Exhibits "O-l" and "O-2." The partius agree and acknowledge that the Costs are estimates, and ultimately, Property Owner will submit its actual costs to the CITY, and the CITY's calculation of Property Owner's reimbursement shall be based upon such actual costs. The CITY' further acknowledges and agrees that as a part of the approvals of each of the projects referenced herein, it will condition such projects to pay fees for traffic/circulation improvements consistent with Section 9.b. hereof. This will provide the sole source of funds to reimburse Property Owner for its Costs. The Property Owner, upon application to the CITY made by the Property Owner not more frequently than once a calendar quarter, will be entitled to recover from the CITY the fees so collected as reimbursable Costs. The CITY finds it reasonable and appropriate to provide for a mechanism for reimbursement to the Property Owner for these Costs. However, the CITY's reimbursement obligations shall be limited to the extent that the CITY can collect such funds. 2. Term of Reimbursement Provision The CITY agrees to collect the funds identified and to use those funds to reimburse the Property Owner, without interest thereon, pursuant to this provision. This reimbursement provision shall continue in effect until the Properly Owner has been f~lly reimbursed as set forth herein, and shall survive the Term of this Development Agreement, unless the obligation is sooner satisfied by the payment in full of all reimbursable Costs due and owing to the Property Owner, afier which the obligation shall cease. F. Future Entitlemerits With respect to any entitlements that Property Owner may require in the fuRtre, including, without limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and Development/Design Review related to the Park Site, Commercial Sites and A~ea H, the CITY shall retain its discretionary review authority and the CITY's applicable ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies. However, any such discretionary review shall be expressly subject to the provisions of this Development A~reemem and the CITY may only impose 'conditions upon such discretionary entitlemerits which are consistent with the Revised University. Project Entitlemerits as amended by this Development Agreement, except as otherwise specifically required by state or federal law. G. Environmental Review Other than the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in the SEIR and the Revised Uinversity Project Entitlemerits (and any additional future mitigation programs contemplated therein), no other mitigation measures for environmental impacts created by the Revised University Project, as presently approved and as evaluated in the SEIR, shall be required. In connection with the CITY's issuance of any further entitlement (as contemplated in Section 2F above), which is subject to CEQA, the CITY shall promptly commence and diligently process any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA, and to the extent pertained by CEQA, the CITY shall use and adopt the SEIR and other existing environmental reports and studies as adequately addressing ~h~ environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requiring new or supplemental environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may impose additional measures (or conditions) to mitigate, as permitted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts of such future entitlemerits, which were not considered at the time of approval of the Project; provided, however, that: (i) Unless required by state or federal law, no new or additional mitigation measures shall be imposed as a result of any Futore Policies; and (ii) The CITY agrees and acknowledges that the TIA incorporated in the SEIR has fully analyzed the traffic projected to be generated from the Revised University Project, and, in accordance with all applicable legal requirements including, without limitation, the TIA Guidelines set forth in the San Bemardino County Congestion Management Plan CCMP"), no additional traffic impact analysis shall be required for development of the Project Site as long as the number of vehicle trips generated do not exceed the vehicle trips evaluated in the TIA analysis. In the event and at such time as the Project generates more vehicle trips than analyzed in the TIA, the CITY may require a new ~affic impact analysis in accordance with such CMP standards as may exist at such time. Except in such event (and except for such t~affic circulation/site-access analysis as may be reasonably required to determine the configuration and alignment of Sl~eets adjacent or internal to the Project), no further traffic impact analyses shall be required by the CITY with respect to implementation of the Project. H. CITY Fees and Mandates bv State or Federal Laws The Parties acknowledge and agree that the fees and impositions which may potentially be imposed by the CITY on the Revised University Project and Property Owner (collectively, "Fees") fall within one of tlu'ee categories: (a) fees for processing land use and construction permit applications which are not otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 66000 of the Government Code (but which are subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 66013, 66014 and 66016-66018.5 of the Government Code) (collectively, the "Processing Fees"); (b) fees or other monetary exactions which are contemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date of this Development Agreement and which purport to defray all or a portion of the cost of impacts to certain public facilities, improvements and other amenlties from development projects, including any fees described in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (collectively, the "Existing Fee Categories") (the Existing Fee Categories include any increases, decreases, or other modifications to existing fees, so long as such modified fees relate to the same category of impacts identified in the Existing Fee Categories); and (c) fees or other monetary exactions which may be imposed in the future by the CITY for purposes of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities, improvements, or amenlties related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("Other Fees"). The Property Ow'aer's obligation to pay Fees shall be specifically governed by the following provisions: 1. Processing Fees. The CITY may charge Processing Fees which are in force and effect on a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property Owner's application for a land use enti~ement or a construction permit. The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance v4th all applicable laws including, without limitation, Government Code Sections 66013, 66014 and 66017-66018.5 (or any successor laws, as applicable). Unless otherwise agreed by Property Owner and the CITY, the Processing Fees assessed Property Owner shall be the same as those imposed upon other development projects throughout jurisdictional limits of the CITY. 2. Existing Fee Catetories. As set forth above, the CITY agrees that certain fee categories, (including, without limitation, Transportation Improvement fees, storm drain improvement fees, and community park fees) have been or will be met by Property Owner through the construction of improvements. In consideration of the construction costs to be borne by Property Owner, CITY waives its right to collect a Beautification Fee from the development of the Revised University Project. Neither Property Owner nor the Project shall be subject to any additional CITY imposed feeS, impositions or monetary exactions with respect to any Existing Fee Categories, for a period often (10) years following the effective date of this Agreement. The period during which fees within any Existing Fee Categories are limited as described in this section (and as further applied in paragraph 3 below) is referred to hereinafter as the "Fee Limitation Period." 3. Other Fees. In consideration of the Property Owner's agreement to modify the Revised University Project Entitlements as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and implement the timing of development in accordance with the terms set forth above, no Other Fees shall be imposed upon Property Owner or the Revised University Project during the applicable Fee Limitation Period, except as may be specifically required to carry out any state or federal law or mandate enacted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, as necessary to mitigate environmental impacts of the project in accordance with Section 2G above. Even in those cases where Property Owner or the Project may be required to pay Other Fees, any such Other Fees shall be limited to Property Owner's fair share contribution to impacts created by the Project, shall not discriminate against Property Owner (as compared to other property owners in the CITY) and shall not duplicate any Exactions or other mitigations or fees contributed or paid by Property Owner or the Project, or borne by property Owner or the Project through in-lieu construction. 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis. In consideration of the Property Owners' agreement to modify · the Revised University Project Entitlemerits as specifically set forth in this Development Agreement and to implement the timing of development and improvements in accordance with the terms set forth above, and including the additional improvements the Property Owner has agreed to construct, including but not limited to, the extension of Banyan Avenue from the SCE Easement to Rochester Avenue, the CITY hereby waives any requirement which it could impose of the Property Owner or the revised University Project to complete a fiscal analysis for any approvals or permits that the CITY might issue under this Development Agreement. I. Non-Discretionary Permits The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing the Revised University Project, Property Owner will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial permits, licenses, consents, certificates, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading permits, construction permits, certificates of occupancy and permits required to connect the Project to utility systems under the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively, the "Non-Discretionary permits"). Property Owner shall have the fight to apply for any such Non-Discretionary Permits in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2B, above). The CITY shall issue to Property Owner, upon such applications, all required Non-Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the CITY's Existing Laws (and any applicable Future Policies under Section 2B above) and payment ofCITY's nsnal and customary fees and charges for such applications and Non-Discretionary Permits (subject to the provisions of Section H above). The CITY further agrees that upon its approval of any plans, specifications, design drawings, maps, or other submittals of Property Owner in connection with such Non-Discretionary Permits (the "Approved Plans"), all further entitlemerits, approvals and consents required from the CITY to implement the Project which are consistent with and further implement such Approved Plans, shall be expeditionsly processed and approved by the CITY in accordance with this Development Agreement. J. Cooperation 1. Cooperation With Other Public AGencies The CITY acknowledges that Property Owner may apply from time to time for permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Revised University Project, in connection with the development of or provision of services to the Project, including, without limitation, approvals in connection with developing and implementing a tertiary water system, potential transportation improvements and other on-site and off-site infrastructure. The CITY shall cooperate with Property Owner in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals from such agencies (including, without limitation, the Cucamonga County Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and shall provide any documents or certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals. 2. Construction of Off-Site Improvements To the extent that Property Owner is required to construct any off-site improvements as a condition of developing the Project, the Property Owner shall make good faith, diligent efforts to acquire any off- site property interests required to conslruct such public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do so, Property Owner shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the first fmal subdivision map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements under Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the CITY acquires the property interests required for the public improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by Property Owner of all costs incurred by the CITY to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of those costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount stated in an appraisal report obtained by Property Owner, at Property Owner's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the CITY prior to commencement of the appraisal. To the extent that such off- site improvements, or the construction of any substantial infrastructure on-site, substantially benefit other property owners or other portions of the jurisdiction of limits of the CITY, the CITY agrees to assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in obtaining reimbursement or other fair share contribution by such other benefited property owners. Such assistance may include, without limitation, conditioning the approval of development projects proposed by such benefited property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rats basis, to the consauction costs of s,',ch improvements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CITY agrees that with respect to the ' infrastructure improvements identified in Section 2E above, which are adjacent to and benefit other properties (whether such properties are undeveloped or developed), any further discretionary approvals sought by such property owners shall be conditioned to require fair share reimbursement to Property Owner for consauction and related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible. 3. Public Financing The Parties hereby acknowledge that substantial public improvements must be . constructed in order to develop the Park Site and the School and the remainder of the Project Site and that public financing of a substantial portion of these improvements will be critical to the economic viability of the ReviSed University Project. Subject to the CITY's ability to make all findings required by applicable law and compl)~ing with all applicable legal procedures and requirements, the CITY agrees to cooperate .with and assist Property Owner to the fullest extent possible in developing and implementing a public financing plan for the construction of the public infrastructure improveurenis. The implementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the ' formation of one or more assessment districts, or Mello-Roos community facilities disU'icts, or the issuance of bonds, certificates of participation, or other debt securities necessary to implement such plan. The Parties acknowledge that it is Property Owner' s intention to request that the Etiwanda School District act as the lead agency for the plan, possibly with a joint powers agreement with CITY, for school facilities fees, the Park improvements, the storm drain improvements, and other CITY facilities. If the Etiwanda School District declines to act as the lead agency, CITY agrees to act in that capacity. All formation costs shall be borne by Property Ovnaer subject to reimbursement by the Community Facilities District. K. Creation of the Landscape and Street Lighting Maintenance Districts The CITY agrees to promptly form the necessary Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts ("LMD") pursuant to California Slreets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq. (the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972') for the Revised Uinversity Project development to encompass the Project Site as well as the area being annexed by the CITY in accordance with the Settlement and Pre-Annexation Agreement. The Property Owner shall pay for the formation of the LMDs. The Parties agree that the LMD's must be established no later than recordation of the final tract map and that the CITY may create LMD's which allow annexation of other areas. The Panics also acknowledge that assessments for LMD's are collected annually in June, and to the extent that assessments are not collected through the LMD for the period ending June 2001, the CITY may request, and Property Owner agrees to provide, a reasonable cash deposit to fund the LMD. The CITY shall promptly upon receipt of assessments the following June reimburse Property Owner for any such cash advances to fund the LMD's. Section 3. ANNUAL REVIEW A. Good Faith Comoliance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1, the CITY shall, once every twelve (12) months during the term of this Development Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that it is intended that this review shall apply to the Project Site as a whole, as opposed to each individual Property Owner who may own a parcel comprising the Project Site. In connection with such annual review, Property Owner shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of this Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. lfat any time prior to the review period there is an issue concerning a Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, the provisions of this Section 3 will apply. B. Certificate of Compliance If Property Owner is found to be in compliance with this Development Agreement after annual review, the Community Development Director shall, upon written request by Property Owner, issue a certificate of compliance ("Certificate of Compliance') to Property Owner stating that based upon information known to the CITY, the Development Agreement remains in effect and Property Owner is not in default. The Certificate of Compliance shall be in recordable form and shall contain such information as shall impart constructive record notice of compliance. Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of San Bemardino. C. Finding of Default If, upon completion of the annual review, the Community Development Director intends to find that Property Owner has not complied in good faith with the material terms of this Development Agreement (a "Default"), he shall first give written notice to such effect to Property Owner. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of all staff reports, staff recommendations and other information concerning Property Owner's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement as the CITY may possess and which is relevant to determining Property Owner's performance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds and all facts allegeally demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a point-by-point basis. Property Owner shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a written response with the Commumty Development Director. Within l0 days after the expiration of such 20-day response period, the Community Development Director shall notify Property Owner whether he has determined that Property. Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement {"Notice of Default"). Such Notice of Default shall specify the instances in which Property Owner has allegedly failed to comply with this Development Agreement and the terms under which compliance can be obtained. The Notice of Default shall also specify a reasonable time for ProperW Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty {30) days from the date of the Notice of Defauh, and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. D. Right to Appeal Upon receipt of a Notice of Default, Property Owner may appeal the Community Development Director's decision directly to the City Council. Such appeal shall be initiated by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days following Property Owner's receipt of the Notice of Default. The hearing on such appeal shall be scheduled in accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the CITY's Development Code. At the heating, Property Owner shall be entitled to submit evidence and to address all of the issues raised by the Notice of Default. If, after considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the City Council finds and deterfrancs on the basis of substantial evidence that Property Owner is in Default, then the City Council shall specify in writing to Property Owner the instances in which Property Owner has failed to comply and the terms under which compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of such writing from the City Council and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith compliance. E. Pronefly Owner's Cure Rights If Property Owner is in Default under this Development Agreement, it shall have a reasonable period of time to cure such Default before action is taken by the CITY to terminate this Development Agreement or to otherwis~ amend or limit Property Owner's rights under this Development Agreement. In no event shall such cure period be less than the time set forth in the finding of Default made under Sections 3C or 3D above (as applicable) or less than the time reasonably necessary to cure such Default. Any such cure period shall be extended by the force majeure circumstances described in Section 2D5 above. Section 4. ENFORCEMENT A. Enforceable by Either Parry Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the Parties. B. Cumulative Remedies In addition to any other rights or remedies, any of the Parties may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default (to the extent otherwise permitted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development Agreentent or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific performance, and relief in the nature ofmandamns. All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. The provisions of this Section 4B are not intended to modify other provisions of this Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise permitted by law. C. Attorneys' Fees In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enforce any covenant or any of the Parties' rights or remedies under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or equitable relief, the prevailing paw/shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by either of the Panics in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agreement, shall be recoverable separately from and in addition to any other amount included in such judgment, and such attorneys' fees obligation is intended to be severable from the other provisions of this Development Agreement and to survive and not ha merged into any such judgment. Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Successors and Assirons Subject to the provisions of Section IC above, the terms of this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Panics, and their successors and assigns. Insofar as this Development Agreement refers to Property Owner, as defined herein, if the rights under this Development Agreement are assigned, the term "Property Owner' shall refer to any such successor or assign. B. Proiect as a Private Undenakin~ It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Revised University Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect under this Development Agreement, and that each of the Panics is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any ldnd is formed by this Development Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and Property Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. C. Captions The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in no way define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement. D. Mortgagee Protection 1. Discretion to Encumber. This Development Agreement shall not prevent or limit Property Owner, in any manner, at Property Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Revised University Project or any portion of the Revised University Project or any improvement on the Revised University Project, by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to all or any pan of the Revised University Project or any improvement thereon (a "Mortgage"). 2. Effect of Default. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any Mortgage subsequently placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Development Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. 3. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding anything in this Development Agreement to the contrary, (a) any holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage ("Mortgagee") may acquire title to or possession of all or any portion of the Revised University Project or any improvement thereon pursuant to the remedies provided by its Mortgage, whether by judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise, and such Mortgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to consreact, fund or otherwise perform any affu'mative obligation or affirmative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to guarantee such performance, and Mortgagee may, after acquiring title to all or any portion of the Project as aforesaid, assign or otherwise transfer the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the giving of notice of such assignment ur transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or transferee of the obligations of the Property Owner with respect to the Property or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue from and after the date of assignment or transfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to the Project or portion thereof so assigned or transferred; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any portion of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Mortgage, and such purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all obligations of Properly Owner with respect to the Project or portion thereof so acquired which arise or aceme subsequent to the date of purchase, but such purchaser shall not be responsible for any prior defaults of Propert3' Owner; provided, however, that in either of the instances referred to in clauses (a) and (b) above, to the extent any obligation or covenant to be performed by Property Owner is a condition to the gaming of a specific benefit or to the performance of a specific covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder. 4. Notice of Defanlt to Mortgagee: Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If a Mortgagee files with the CITY Clerk, a written notice requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Property Owner under this Development Agreement and specifying the address for delivery thereof, then the CITY shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with delivery thereof to Property Owner, any notice given to Property Owner with. respect. to any claim of the CITY that Property Owner has not complied with the terms of tins Development Agreement or ~s otherwise in Default under tins Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall 'have the right (but not the obligation) for a period of thirty (30) days after the expiration of any cure period given to Property Owner with respect to such Default, to cure such default; provided, however, that if any such Default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) day period, then such Mortgagee shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to remedy or cure such Default, if such Mortgagee commences to remedy or cure within such thirty (30) day period, and thereafier diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Default is of a nature winch can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default if such Mortgagee shall, within such thirty (30) day period, commence efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through implementation of foreclosure, appointment of a receiver or 'otherwise, and shall therealter remedy or cure or commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3E above. 5. Bankmntcv. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above, if a Mortgagee is proinbited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner, Mortgagee shall for the purposes of tins Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to obtain possession of the Property during the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to terminate such proinbition. 6. Amendment to Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to modify or amend this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended in any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior written consent of each Mortgagee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contzary, the CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in tins Development Agreement and allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preserve the lien of the Mortgage on the occurrence of a default under the terms of this Development Agreement. The CITY and Property Owner each agree to execute and deliver (and to acknowledge, if necessary, for recording purposes) any implementing agreement necessary to effect such request; provided, however, that any such implementing agreement shall not in any material respect adversely effect any rights of the CITY under this Development Agreement or be materially inconsistent with the substantive provisions of this Development Agreement, the Revised Uniyersity Project Enti~ements and the Existing Laws. E. Consent Wh~re the consent or approval of any of the Panics is required in or necessary under this Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably with_held. F. Entire Agreement This Development Agreement and the documents attached to and referred to in this Development Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject mailer of this Development Agreement. G. Further Actions and Instruments Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated under this Development Agreement in the performance of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. H. Governing Law This Development Agreement including, without limitation, its existence, validity, construction and operation, and the rights of each of the Parties shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. I. Recording The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bemardino no later than ten (10) days following the effective date of this Development 'Agreement. J. Time Time is of the essence in this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition of this Development Agreement. K. Waiver The failure of any of the Par~ies at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition shall not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar nature which would have originally constituted a breach of or default under this Development Agxeement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullcst extent provided by this Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties. L. Partial Invalidit',' If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to bc invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. M. Notices All notices between the CITY and Property Owner and any txansferee under this Development Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal delivery or facsimile shall bc deemed effective upon the delivery of such notice to the party for which it is intended at the address set forth below (or, in the case of a transfcrce, at the address specified by such transferce in a written notice to CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the adclressee. The Parties' current address arc as follows: To CITY: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Atm: Community Development Director With copies to: Mr. James Markman City Attorney RAchards, Watson & Gershon One Civic Center Circle Brea, California 92821 To Property Owner: U.C.P., Inc. 5109 La Palran, Suite D Ariahelm Hills, California 92807 Arm: Mr. Brace Elieft Mr. Ben Anderson With copies to: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden 600 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300 San Bernardtho, California 92401 Arm: Mr. Mark Ostoich Ms. Penny Alexander-Kelley Either of the Parties may change its mailing address or the person to whom notices are to be sent at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other of the Parties in the manner provided above. N. Indemnification Property Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY and its Council members, representatives, agents, officers, attorneys, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Development Agreement; provided, however, that Property Owner's obligations under this Section are subject to and conditioned upon the CITY and Property Owner entering into a mutually satisfactory joint defense agreement under which the CITY shall cooperate fully with Property Owner in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, Property Owner x,All be entitled to coordinate and direct the prosecution and defense of such claim, action, or proceeding, and Property Owner shall retain settlement authority with respect thereto. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to unxeasonably withhold or delay thei~ approval of such joint defense agreement. FN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · U.C.P., Inc. a California corporation By: By: Mayor Name: Brace Elieft Its: A'VFESTED TO: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Attorneys for U.C.P., Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE U.C.P. owned property is described as follows: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SECTIONS 20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDION BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Excepting therefrom the Intex owned properties further described as follows: THE SOUTH ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/. OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST '/. OF SECTION 29 AND THE NORTH ~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29 AND THE SOUTH ~ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29 EXCEPTING THE WESTERLY 330 FEET, ALL IN TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN SAN BERNARIDNO COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXHIBIT "A" LEGEND (?.200 SE = MINIMUM LOT SIZE) PUBLIC (PARK & ELEM.' SCHOOL) RANCHO ETI~ANDA A~PTED 'UNI~RSI~ P~NNED DE~LOPME~ I ~D ENGiNEER[NO ~"" ~"'"'~"~ - ~"~ ~'~"'"' EXHIBIT B School Site l~tez I RANCH0 ETIWANDA ~" 'IP, ACT 14494 I BANYAN COMMERCIAL SFFE · ,: 9.1 ACRE OFRON ~Y~J~D .E'NGZNF_~_,gIN'G .,0, ~-- EXH:Br c oFT~ RANCH0 ETIWAND_A TFIA~T ~A94 BANYAN COMMERCIAL BITE RESIDENTIAL OPTION 1~ LOT~ EXHBn' D ~7~ ~ 1 ~ ~n 26 ,, 97' ~ 106' ~ 3 99' 2 ~ 4 ~ ~ 100' 83' 106' ' ~ 5 106' O' 107' - ~ 9 ~ 82' 8~' - - 108' ~ 16 100' ~a' ~ ~ ~ ~ RANCH0 ~TIWAND~ ~A G LO~ O~N ROUTE 30 TO VINTAGE DFIIVF 32' 10',, 32' 16' 9' LANDS SETBACK VARIES Gt/TT'E~ SIDe'WALK ~AGE DR~ TO ~LSON A~NUF W~."~i I R/W EAST ~i j R.0.W. VARtES 9' LANDSCAPE ' 0 ' ' . 12'. RIES .. i 41 EASEMENT LANDSCAPE MEANDERING SL:'T'BACK VARIES SIDEWALK WILSON AVENUE TO NORTH PROPERTY LINF N.T.S. RANCH0 ETIWANDt .: DAY CREEK BOULEVARD ~,_4j.~£ Z~r~ZNF_~7~ STREET CROSS SECTION ,-,...--,, .:r-.,._,.--- EXHsrr. ~7~ RQLrT~ 30 TO VINTAGE ~ W~! ~ AVENUE TO P,K::)RTH I=ROPER'~ lINE N.T.,..~ N,T.~. I~' ' ' ~" TREE WASHIGTONIA ROBUSTA SHRUBS & GROUND COV'I ¢' WALK ~ 10' WALK & GROUND COVER __ CANOPY TREE -- RIVER ROCK PYRUS CALLERYANA VINTA(:~E ~ TO WILSON AVENUi= RANCH0 ETIWANDA STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT ---"' EXHIBIT F'I , 10' WALK ~ I MEDIAN DAYCREEK BLVD. BUS STOP SECTION EAST SIDE ~2 ~/ 2' 36' HIGH - //~' RETAINING WALL , 15 GALLON . I 10' WALK 'd", 7 '7~ 36" HIGH "' RETAINING WALL , SHRUBS @ 42" O.C. LOT #35 LOTS 16, 17 DAYCREEK BLVD. LOTS 16, 17, & 35 EAST SIDE RANCHO ETIWANDA STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT E×H,B,T ~-~ ,~ MAJOR ENTRY MONUMENT SECONDARy ENTRY MONUMENT RANCH0 ETI'WANDA ' ' -~-. ~ INTERSECTIONS EXHIBIT G ~~_~~ _NOTE: REFER TO ENTRY MONUMENT · CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ON ~ ~- ~'-,',.~,~=,~-,~.,~ FILE WITH CITY FOR EXACT =,.=,.~,o.,.~.,~,=,.~,.~.~.,-~.~. DESIGN AND DIMENSIONS. ,,~ ~,,,,o,,~,,~,=~.~,~,,~ PLANS DATED 10/1/99 RANCH0 ETIWANDA_ INTERSECTIONS 1/4 SEC. LINE AND ,/w ..~. 1520' 240' S.B. CO. FLeD COBOL PROPER~ ~ ~ ~ SCE ~ EXiSTiNG ~6" ~ CORRIDOR PROPOSED ~ ~ CCWD WATERLINE ~ ~ MWD PIPELINE ~ W/CHAI~D D A GATE o 200' A c&c BANYAN LU ". PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN Z "'.,.. PROPOSEDTRAIL ,v, 2~ "- ' Row sTRE ,,, . LIGHT PROPOSED CATCH BASIN [~: WITH LOCAL DEPRESSION (.J: " ~rO n "0 8.B. CO. FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY 4: n r~rO 0 RANCHO gT:[WANDA .; BANYAN AVENUE ~ AU,,IdtD ENGINEERING FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS CMI Englneerfnf - Land Planning I ' ..o..,._,~...,_,~: ..... ] / Banyan Offsite Full Width Construction UCP Incorporated Rancho Etiwanda 685 LOTS 250 ACRES DATE ESTIMATED: 2/22/00 DATE PRINTED: 418/00 ESTIMATED BY: AIlard Engineering PRICE I AMOUNT CONSTRUCTION AC PAVING 56.200 S.F. $2.00 $112,40 CURB AND GUTTER 2,610 LF $10.00 $26,10 SIDEWALK 5.440 S.F. $3.00 $16,32 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 15,520 S.F. $3.00 $46.56, 10' x 8' x 130' BOX CULVERT 1 EA. $200.000.00 $200.00, 6' x 4' x 130' BOX CULVERT 1 EA. $200,000.00 $200.00, 72" RCP 130 LF $282.00 $36.66~ HEADWALL 2 EA. $20,000.00 $40,004 RIPRAP 14,000 TON . $15.00 $210,0OI CATCH BASIN 2 EA. $5,000.00 $10,00{ CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 450 SF $5.00 $2.25( AC DRIVEWAY (TO PL) 3,720 SF $5.00 $18,60( 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE 2,190 LF $15.00 $32,85( 6' x 12' CHAIN LINK GATE 6 EA. $1,000.00 $6,00( SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ROW 105,600 SF $1.00 $105.60( STREET LIGHTS 7 EA. $1,500.00 $10,50( LANDSCAPING 7,150 SF $4.00 $28,60( Sub Total Full Width Construction $1,102,44( ENGINEERING 6% $66,14( SURVEY 5% $55,12; PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION 8% $88,19.= CONTINGENCY 20% $220,481E TOTAL FULL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION $1 '532'39'- Notes: Box Culvert costs are market projections EXHIBIT H-1 _ L! .! .! ,! ,{ ,! ,!,~,LEGEND (llllltll Wilson Avenue EXHIBIT I-6 I-5 EXHIBIT I-4 EXHIBIT I-3 .,~ RANCHO ETIWAND~ -= LUD SLOPES ExHsrr eso~ ~ -~'TAT~ ]~GhlAY ,.-, .---,, ,.. <.-, .o,.,~ ~o .o,, EXHBITI RIVER ROCK 36" HIGH CRIB WALLS OR RETAINING WALLS AS APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER. ~ :{ 4' WALK WILSON AVENUE RANCHO ETIWANDA LJvD SLOPES EXHIBIT ..__-. EXHIBIT H 4' WALK _DAYCREEK BLVD. WEST SIDE RANCHO ETIWANDA LIvD SLOPES EXHIBIT ---' EXHIBIT I-2 ~::~7~;7 I ! VINTAGE DRIVE RANCHO ETIWANDA LMD SLOPES EXP~BFF EXHIBIT I-3 c::;~B>' RIVER R K. 10' WALK · DAYCREEK BLVD. EAST SIDE RANCH0 ETIWANDA LJVD SLOPES EXHIBIT --- ExH~srr F4 ~ ;t_~ 4' WALK HANLEY AVENUE RANCH0 ETIWANDA_ LMD SLOPES EXHIBIT .---. EXt-.err ~-5 ~gD TALL NARROW_ ,,,~,~ UPRIGHT TREE , FLOWERING MEDIUM SHRUB tv"~ ~L :. CASCADING GROUND COVER / 4' HIGH RETAINING WALLS (2) ~ 10' WALK '- ~r,~,~,-~ ,, PRIVATE SLOPE EXHIBIT RANCHO ETIWANDA PRIVATE SLOPE EXHIBIT Corr%&°r 5 .C .~-'- Intermediate School Site Wilson Avenue .~ RANCH0 ETIWANDA '"'~ ~ "-"" EXHIBIT '-'--""'""'-""--' INCLUDES 30 LOTS OWNED BY E'i n~VANDA SCFK:)OL DISTRICT I RANCH0 ETIWANDA J ~ ~"~_z~r~ 715 LOT LOTI'ING EXHIBIT ,,,,,~ ~ ,,.-,- EXHIBIT K W.>E .~. LEGEND PASEO PASEO LOCATION WIDE MAX. PASEO PA'~ WLbon Avenue 8' WIDE MAX. PASEO 8' WIDE MAX. "= PASEO 8' WIDE MAX. PASEO 20' WIDE STORt, DRAIN AND PAS Elementar~ School Site 8' WIDE Xntez PASEO PASEO WIDE PASEO PASEO 8' WIDE PASEO a' w, Ds .A~ ..... RANCHO ETIWAND,, PASEO -STATS ": .ours 3o .o. PASEO EXHIBIT i.-, -,-::,~ ,. ,.., ..-.,.---- EXHIBITL RANCHO ETIWANDA ~ PASEO CROSSECTION ---. ~HIB~ L-, ~ -o _ o c o : 8on 'on Avenue ~ [1 L/ ~~,~ Ill ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL BE I~STALLED BY HANSEN AGGREGATE) ge Drive ~tote Highwoy ~te. 30 RANCHO ETIWANDA MANSEN AC_.r__,-~EGATE ,": HAUL ROAD ~ ENGINEERING ,..mm,mu ,,..-re.u, / SCALE: 1 "= 100' _.~ ~'m mmm RANCHO EI'IW ANDA I": ~ s,~/suuMrr AvE. ~m'EmEC~C A~'.r.4.RD ~'HG. DV~Z,,RiJ~ZG ,~I '"'~...~. - '--' ~ AT DAY CREEK BLVD. , ,~,, -,-=,, ,- c,~, =,-=,, --- EXHIBIT M-1 c~ ? 7 " l' :: · '/."' .,:'. "'-~'.," ¢':""""I .......,' ' ~,¢." .......... .. ~ , ~; ~.' b : .. " i?'.;.-RANCHO ETIWANDA Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15~00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21100 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering Total Transportation Costs $3,028,800.00 Total ~'ea Acres 508 Fee Per Acre $5,962.20 PER ACRE BASIS Parcel APN Acres Lots % of Project Fee Per Acre Fair Share Amount Comments UCP 2~2 685 46% $5,962.20 $1,383,231.50 No school or park Crest 240 660 47% $5,962.20 $1,430,929.13 660 lots exclude Park School Lots 12 30 2% $5,962.20 $71,546.46 30 lots IntexCommercial 225-101-34 5 15 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Intex Lots 225-161-45 5 15 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Kolo 225-161-66 5 20 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Chun 225-161-65 5 20 1% $5,962.20 $29,811.02 Chang 225-161 - 13 4 16 1% $5,962.20 $23,848.82 Total 508 100% $3,028,800.00 EXHIBIT N - 1 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT NUMBER ITEM QUANTITY E PRICE AMOUNT FACILITY I ETIWANDAAvenue -25th streetto LADWP 1320 LF $240.00 $316,800.O 2 DAY CREEK BLVD - Rt.30 to Wilson 4300 LF $240.00 $1,032,000.O 3 DAY CREEK BLVD - North of Wilson 800 LF $225.00 $180,000.0 4 WILSON AVE. - East of Day Creek 1400 LF $240.00 $336,000.0, 5 WILSON AVE. - West of Day Creek 1050 LF $220.00 $231,000.O~ 6 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Rochester 1320 LF $155.00 $204,600.O! 7 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Hanley 1380 LF $180.00 $248,400.0( 8 Traffic Signals 3 EA $160,000.00 $480,000.0( TOTAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS $3,028,800.0( EXHIBIT N - 2 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering MEASURE I UNIT MAJOR ROAD ETIWANDA Avenue - 25th street to LADWP Corridor Excavation 2.2 CY $1,60 $3.52 Fine Grade 78.0 SF $0.20 $15.60 5" AC over 12" AB 60.0 SF $1,50 $90,00 1" AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24,00 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15,00 8" Curb Only 2.0 LF $6.00 $12,00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Median Landscaping SF $3.00 $0,00 Signing &Striping 4.0 LF $0.50 $2.00 Fog &Seal Coating 60.0 SF . $0.15 $9.00 Sub Total $171.12 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $17.11 Contingencies 30% $51.34 TOTAL $239.57 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $240.00 DAY CREEK BLVD - Rt.30 to Wilson & WILSON AVE. - East of Day Creek Excavation 2.2 CY $1.60 $3.52 Fine Grade 78.0 SF $0,20 $15.60 5" AC over 12" AB 60.0 SF $1.50 $90.00 1" AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24,00 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15.00 8" Curb Only 2.0 LF $6.00 $12,00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Median Landscaping SF $3.00 $0.00 Signing & Stdping 4.0 LF $0.50 $2.00 Fog &Seal Coating 60,0 SF $0.15 $9.00 Sub Total $171.12' Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $17.11 Contingencies 30% $51.34 TOTAL $239,57 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $240.00 EXHIBIT N - 3 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga · DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering I I I DAY CREEK BLVD - North of Wilson Excavation 2.2 CY $1.60 $3,52 Fine Grade 78.0 SF $0,20 $15.60 5" AC over 12" AB 60.0 SF $1,50 $90.00 1" AC Cap 60,0 SF $0.40 ' $24.00 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7.50 $15,00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1,50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2,50 $0.00 Signing &Striping 4.0 LF $0,50 $2.00 Fog &Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0,15 $9.00 Sub Total $159.12 Utility/Right 'of Way Allowance (10%) $15.91 Contingencies 30% $47.74 TOTAL $222.77 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $225.00 WILSON AVENUE - West of Day Creek Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 60.0 SF $0.20 $12.00 5" AC over 12" AB 60.0 SF $1.50 $90.00 1" AC Cap 60.0 SF $0.40 $24,00 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7,50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing & Striping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog &Seal Coating 60.0 SF $0.15 $9.00 Sub Total Collector $153.58 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $15.36 Contingencies 30% $46.07 TOTAL $215.01 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $220.00 EXHIBIT N - 4 Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering MEASURE I UNIT PRICE I AMOUNT BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Rochester Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 44,0 SF $0.20 $8.80 5" AC over 12' AB 40.0 SF $1.50 $60.00 1" AC Cap 40.0 SF $0.40 $16.00 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7,50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing &Striping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog &Seal Coating 40.0 SF $0.15 $6.00 Sub Total Collector $109.38 Utility/Right of Way Allowance (10%) $10.94 Contingencies 30% $32.81 TOTAL $153.13 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $155.00 BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Hanley Excavation 1.3 CY $1.60 $2.08 Fine Grade 50.0 SF $0.20 $10.00 5" AC over 12" AB 48.0 SF $1.50 $72.00 1" AC Cap 48.0 SF $0.40 $19.20 8" Curb &Gutter 2.0 LF $7,50 $15.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1.50 $0.00 Parkway Landscaping SF $2.50 $0.00 Signing & Stdping 3.0 LF $0.50 $1.50 Fog &Seal Coating 48.0 SF $0.15 $7.20 Sub Total Collector $126,98 Utility/Right of Way Adlowance (10%) $12.70 Contingencies 30% $38.09 TOTAL $177.77 Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $180.00 EXHIBIT N - 5 R/W T' R/W SECTION A ~r~ N,T.S, DAy CR~B( BOULEVARD - ~ 30 TO WILSON WILSON AV~:NUE - ~ OF DAY CRE:EX BOUI.,D/ARD R/W f., R/'W 64' SECTION B N.T.S. R,/W ~_ S(XJ'TH R/W ~CURB & SECTION C "~' R,/W ~_ SOUTH R/W RANCHO ETIWANDA, ~-~D ~c_~c, HANLEY AVENUE '-'""". """,- '~ EXHIBIT 0 ~=~7~ ' Tract 14497 --' "' "~' "' - Not a Pad ............................. i "r- I ~: .... Park S~te School Site RANCH0 ETIWANDA SIDEWALK EXHIBIT EXHIBIT P Tract 13527 L. v2~w / Conditioned to build E~ ilson Avenue Half Width Improvements / . _'Centex Homes $148,152.40 in ' Cucsmonga Account 14120 Conditioned to build Full Width (66' ROW) Improvements I_~ Park 13812 Pande Development $200,000.00 in City of Rancho ' Cucamonga. Account , .'..::.'-::-::.-: .-..- ....: . .:';"..:-':--.~':";"~';';'-:' """ ' ....Tract 13812 · ·: ..............'~t.nda Development ""; :-.-+.--.: .........· .........:::$ ,000.00 in . ........: .....:'.. .........5 o anc o .... ty f R ~ccount ............. .-Cucamonga ~, d,.," '- RANCH0 gT]:WANDA I~';.r-~D ~v~zya~P3~ STREET IMPROVEMENT DEPOSIT. ---.-~..= ---. EXHIBIT O Storm Drain Cost Sharing Proposal - City of Rancho Cucamonga DAY CREEK STORM DRAIN Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering This proposal allows for the UCP project to participate in the cost of the Baseline Avenue and Victoria Storm Drain Systems. Costs and acreage assumptions are preliminary from the developers and are subject to further review and approval. Facility Baseline Ave System $230,349.96 Victoria System $335,260.00 UCP $196,805.00 Total $762,414.96 Total Acres 199.60 Cost Per Acre $3,819.71 Property Acres CostJAcre Fair Share K & B - Baseline 21.1 $3.819.71 $80,595.97 RDA Parcel 19.8 $3,819.71 $75,630.34 Horrero 28.3 $3,819.71 $108,097.91 K&B Victoria 19.1 $3,819.71 $72,956.54 Lyon 26;3 $3,819.71 $100.458.48 UCP 60.0 $3,819.71 $229.182.85 Intex,Kolo etc. 25.0 $3,819.71 $95,492.86 TOTAL 199.6 $666,922.10 Note: Actual Master Planned Limits and Construction Costs to be verified after construction. EXHIBIT R CONNECTION Rancho Etiwanda Park Site RANCH0 ETIWANDA PARK SITE EXHIBIT S . ~-.~,...,-.A, ~'~"~""'~"'""'~'~' ':"~'~ Note: Product Specifications ~ ~,.~ .._.~..~.~ are per City of Rancho ~" ~" "~ ~" ~ u~ Cuca monga PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS '~+ EXHIB~ 8-1 .o..,-..~.,.,~Note: Product Specifications · *~ '*~""'~""~"~. are per City of Rancho -- Cucamonga Standard5 ' R~CHO ETIWANDA PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS -~ E~IB~ S-2 ~// Rancho Etiwanda DATE ESTIMATED: 4115~00 DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00 I MEASURE Park Sortscape Per 10-19-99 Plans 24" Box Tipu Trees 8 EA. 24" Box Elms 31 EA. 24" Box Evergreen Pear 19 EA. 24" Box Plum 11 EA. 15 Gallon Plane Tree 54 EA. 15 Gallon Pine Mondel 43 EA. 48" Box Pine Canary 25 EA. 36" Box Crepe Myrtle 11 EA. 24" Box Flame Tree 13 EA. 24" Box Camphor 43 EA. Shrub/Ground Cover Lonicere 24,572 SF Myoporum 5,684 SF Star Jasmine 1,662 SF Turf - per City of Rancho Cucamonga seed mix 314,298 SF Cobble 30,657 SF Park Hardscape Per 10-19-99 Plans Tot Lot area with 1,500 sf ADA rubber surface 1 EA. Lighted Basketball Courts 4 EA. Parking stalls with access to school parking 65 EA. Restroom Building (per plan) 1 EA. Entry Monumentation with Signage I EA. Picnic Tables (1 HDCP) 14 EA. Two-Bin Trash Enclosure I EA. Ddnking Fountain 2 EA. BBQ Grill 12 EA. Trash Receptacles 2 EA. Bench 8 EA. 1,200 sf Wood Arbor Structure 2 EA. EXHIBIT S - 3 RANCHO ETIWANDA OPEN SPACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION NORTHERLY PORTION: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, LYING NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND BEING 85 FEET Vf[DE AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 3 l, 1969, IN BOOK 7363, PAGE 582, OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4, SAID POINT BEING N 00°05'03'' E, 344.33 FEET FROM THE SOUTI-IEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE N 89°54'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 1322.gl FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 22, TOX,VNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST. SOUTHERLY PORTION: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY TI-EE SURVEYOR GENERAL, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 1885, LYING SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND BEING 85 FEET WIDE AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER l, 1969, IN BOOK 7363, PAGE 582, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 50 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1949, IN BOOK 2464, PAGE 510, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXHIBIT C x O Ban 'an' Avenue JCK ACTIVATED [ ] TRAFFIC SIGNAL (TO BE INSTALLED BY ge ~a~e Highway ~te. 30 RANCH0 ETIWANDA SE'I'rLEMENT AGREEMENT ENGINEEPjNG "'- ~ ~ EXHIBIT D Rancho Cucamonga Staff Report DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ANNEXATION 00-01 - A request to approve the Tax Revenue Exchange for annexation proceedings (LAFCo No. 2864) between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for approximately 504 acres of the San Bernardino County unincorporated area, generally located north of Highland Avenue between Hanley Avenue and Rochester Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution approving the Tax Revenue Exchange between the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The Tax Revenue Exchange negotiation is part of the annexation proceedings before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the University Planned Development and surrounding properties, located in the unincorporated area of the County (Exhibit 'B"). This annexation is scheduled for public hearing before LAFCo on September 21, 2000. Approval of the Property Tax Revenue Exchange by the City and the County is a prerequisite of the annexation proceedings. The County of San Bernardino, uses a formula to determine property tax allocation for annexations. The estimated property tax revenue to be received by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for this area is 5.179552%. The formula for the tax is consistent with all prior tax rate exchanges previously agreed to and adopted by the City Council for other annexed projects. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ANNEXATION 00-01 August 16, 2000 Page 2 Additionally, in order to ensure a neutral fiscal impact to the City, all maintenance costs for all public improvements within the project area, the developer is required to form a Community Facilities District (CFD). The CFD will ensure financing for storm drains, Park Improvements and acquisition, school facilities, construction of neighborhood monuments at major entry points as well as landscape maintenance for all major streets, and other related costs. CONCLUSION Adoption of the attached Resolution is required to proceed with annexation proceedings for the subject properties. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB: SS\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A"-Vicinity Map Exhibit "B"-Tax information Resolution Determining the Amount of Property Tax Revenue to be Exchanged between the City and the County CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Annexation 00 - 01. ~' 1 ~ F'I \ L '---' ~ / ,,' I' I !" merchan~bilil,/andfiln~sforapa~cularpurpo~e. TneCityofPancho 500 0 500 '1000 Feet ,TUL-20-2000 09:08 FROM AUDITOR/CONTROLLER TO 95875891 P.01/11 INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: July 20, 2000 PHONE: 386-8831 FROM: LARRY ROSS Office of the Auditor Controller TO: KATHY MCDONALD LAFCO SUBJECT: ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE SUBJECT TO A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN SENATE BILL 180 AMENDING SECTION 99 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, THE ENCLOSED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR LAFC # 2864 /E~/-//~/7' ~" JUL-20-2000 09:09 FROM AUDITOR/CONTROLLER TO 93895871 P.03/11 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND PROPORTIONS BY AGENCY AS ESTIMATED BY THE AUDITORJCONTROLLER PER SENATE BILL 180, SECTION 99(B) t -3 LAFCO# 2864 ANNEXATION TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVENUE % IN MAJOR TRA: 5.179552% TRA # 70007 ASSESSED VALUE $1,091,61 '1 TAX REVENUE $10,916 FY 1999-2000 ESTIMATED CURRENT COUNTY AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE GENERAL OPERATIONS 15.048860% LIBRARY 1,643 FLOOD ZONE # 1 2.621474% 286 FLooDcoNTRoLADM,No.18..o,o ;00 1.463705% 1 COUNTY REVENUE TOTAL $2,109 FY 1999-2000 ESTIMATED CURRENT OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE RANCHO FIRE DISTRICT 12.439524% 1,358 CSA 70 - COUNTY WIDE 2.708096% 296 INLAND EMPIRE WEST RCD 0.184794% 20 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY 1.544047% 169 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY 2.935558% 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER AGENCIES TOTAL $2,t 63 REVENUE GRAND TOTAL $4,272 PREPARED BY: LARRY ROSS DATE: JULY 18, 2000 N/S/ z' ' " JUL-20-2000 09:09 FROM AUDITOR/CONTROLLER TO 9Z~875871 P.04/11 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND PROPORTIONS BY AGENCY AS ESTIMATED BY THE AUDITORJCONTROLLER PER SENATE BILL 180, SECTION 99(B) 1-3 LAFCO# 2864 ANNEXATION TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVENUE % IN MAJOR TRA: 5.179552% TRA # 70008 ASSESSED VALUE $3,890,183 TAX REVENUE $38,902 FY 1999-2000 ESTIMATED CURRENT COUNTY AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE GENERAL OPERATIONS t5.047492% 5,854 FLOOD ZONE # 1 ..... 2.621750% 1,020 FLOOD CONTROL ADMIN 0/186500% 73 LIBRARY '1.463872% 569 COUNTY REVENUE TOTAL $7,516 FY t999-2000 ESTIMATED CURRENT OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES TAX DISTRIBUTION % TAX REVENUE RANGHO FIRE DISTRICT 12.440933% 4,840 CSA 70 - COUNTY WIDE 2.708471% '1,054 INLAND EMPIRE WEST RCD 0.174229% 68 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY 1.544268% 601 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGCY 2.935752% 1,142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER AGENCIES TOTAL $7,704 REVENUE GRAND TOTAL $15,220 PREPARED BY; LARRY ROSS DATE: JULY 18, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMININING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE EXCliANGED BETVVEEN AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESULTING FROM THE JURISDICTION CHANGE DESCRIBED BY LAFCO NO. 2864. SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds and determines that: a. Pursuant to Section 99 of the Tax Revue and Taxation Code, prior to the issuance of a certificate of filing by the Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer, the governing bodies of all local agencies whose service area of service responsibilities will be altered by a proposed jurisdiction change shall negotiate and determine by resolution the amount of properly tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such agencies. b. Except as provided in Section 99.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, in the event that a jurisdiction change would affect the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.shall, on behalf of the district(s), negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues. c. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino have determined the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged as a result of the following jurisdictional change: LAFCo No. 2864 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolved and orders that: a. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenues between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, resulting from the above-described jurisdictional change is hereby approved and accepted. b. The annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdictional change and attributable to the local agencies whose service area of service responsibilities will be altered by the proposed jurisdiction change shall be allocated in future years pursuant to the provisions of Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the passage of this Resolution and to cause a certified copy to be sent to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of San Bernardino. ANNEXATION TO EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LAFCO 2884 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PERCENT IN MAJOR TRA 5/119652 TRA # 70007 # 70008 ASSESSED VALUE $ t.091,61t $ 3,890,183 TAX REVENUE $ 10,916 $ 38.902 CHANGE 3N CI-tANGE IN BASE YEAR BASE YEAR 1999-00 1999-00 TOTAL COUNTY GeneralOps. $ (55) $ (196) $ (251) Flood Control Flood Zone $ Ubtary* $ '(160) $ (Bg) $ (729) TOTAL COUNTY $ (215) $ (765) $ (980) OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES'* CSATOC~m,mide $ (2ee) $ (1,o54) $ (1,350) Total Armcted Agencies $ '(296) $ (1,054) $ (1,350) TOTAL $ (511) $ (1,819) $ (2,330) Transfer to Clty $ 511 $ 1,819 $ 2,330 TOTIlL P. O~. T H E C ITY OF I~ANCIlO CUCAMONGA DATE August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kid A. COury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as permitted uses on property of 35 acres or larger subject to the approval of a Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS At its April 26, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as permitted uses within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6). The issue is in response to a request by the applicant, Charles Joseph and Associates, who is interested in constructing warehouse distribution buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet on the south side of 6th Street between the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Haven Avenue. At its July 26, 2000 meeting, the Commission determined by a vote of 3-1 (with I absentee) that the amendment would not conflict with the currently allowed land use mix or the stated purpose of Subarea 6, based on the property size and Master Plan requirements. The descending vote expressed concerns of building the mentioned "Medium" uses in an Industrial Park District while available vacant land exists in other Subareas where the "Medium" uses are currently permitted. With a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes of the July 26, 2000, meeting are attached. FACTS FOR FINDING The proposed amendment is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES August16,2000 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners in Subarea 6 and within 300 feet thereof. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:KC:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report of July 26, 2000 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 2000 Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-78 Recommending Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02 Ordinance approving Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02 TH CITY OF ,,,~ - .~y..,~'-~x~-~:~=~ ~ ~ . RANCHO C1JCAFIONGA St3:ffReg rt DATE: July 26, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Kirt A. Coury, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Development Code Chapter 17.30, to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution" as permitted uses on parcels of 35 acres or larger, subject to the approval of a Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: At the April 26, 2000, meeting, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as permitted uses within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6). The issue is in response to a request by the applicant, Charles Joseph and Associates, who is interested in constructing warehouse distribution buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet on the south side of 6th Street between the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel and Haven Avenue (see Exhibit "C"). "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" are defined as follows: Medium Manufacturinq: '71ctivities typically include, but are not limited to: manufacturing, compounding of materials, processing, assembly, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent large container truck traffic or rail traffic, or the transport of heavy, bulky items ..... " EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 2 Medium Wholesale, Storaqe and Distribution: '~ctivities typically include, but are not limited to: wholesale, storage and warehousing services. Included are multi-tenant or speculative buildings with over 50,000 square feet of warehouse space ..... " ANALYSIS: The Industrial Area Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive plan for the development of the industrial area. The Specific Plan is divided into Subareas based upon five major land use categories which range in intensity from lightest to heaviest as follows: Industrial Park, General Industrial, Mixed Use, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. Each Subarea has distinct land use regulations and development standards. Subarea 6 is designated as Industrial Park and has a Haven Avenue Overlay District to encourage office uses within 300 feet of Haven Avenue. The proposed amendment would include a 16-acre parcel fronting Haven Avenue, which is subject to the Haven Avenue Overlay. This amendment would not impact the requirements of the Overlay District. "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" are not allowed in any of the five Industrial Park Subareas 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17. They are permitted uses within the General Industrial, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, and Heavy Industrial Subareas 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, and conditionally permitted uses in Subareas 1, 2, and 3 (see Exhibit "A"). Subarea 6 lies generally along Haven Avenue between 4th Street and Arrow Route. Portions of Subarea 5 (General Industrial), where the previously mentioned "Medium" uses are a permitted use, surround the subject property to the north and west. The applicant proposes to include the referenced "Medium" uses on properly 35-acres or larger subject to a Master Plan. The intent of a Master Plan is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review process. Through the Master Plan process, there are opportunities to coordinate the efforts of single or multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal development. The applicant has prepared a Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "G"), which is being reviewed as a separate application. Requirements of a Master Plan for property 35-acres or larger would limit the possibility of this type of development occurring throughout Subarea 6. Master Plan approval will ensure comprehensive quality development while allowing the property full use of a unique development oppodunity. Further, approval of the amendment will not reduce or impact the existing requirements of the Haven Avenue Overlay. 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. 1 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners in Subarea 6 and within 300 feet thereof. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this amendment by the City Council through adoption of the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:KC\ma Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Subarea Map Exhibit "B" - Subarea 6 Map Exhibit "C"- Location Map Exhibit "D": Proposed Summary of Land Use Types Exhibit "E" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Minutes dated April 26, 2000 Exhibit "G"- Conceptual Master Plan - Cabot Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council 7 ARROW ~ ~ ~ ~ 4'" ST. ' % ' 4'~ S] ~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL - ' ~ R~NCRO C~~ Revised: 9/17186 2/17/88 9/07/88 10/03/90 III- 6 10/17/90 6/17/97 City of Rancho Cucamonga Section 17.30.080 FIGURE 17.30.080-H **Deletion of Center Street, South of 6th Street. 17.30~78 6/99 Location Map DFIAFT liar Discussion Purpose-,q C;r:.,~/ Rancho CucarnonSa Development Code Section 17. 30. 030 Table 17.30.030 - Use Regulations for Industrial Districts SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA LAND USE IP GI GI GI GI GI IP IP GI Mi/HI GI GI IP GIGI HI IP IP;MU/OS USE TYPES SUBAREAS HO I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MANUFACTURING ~ustom p P J P P P P P P P P P P P C P Light P P ~ p P P P P P P P P P P C P Medium C C C P P* C P P P P P P Heavy p ; Vlinimum Impact Heavy p p DFFICE PROFESSIONAL, DESIGN & RESEARCH ~Administrative &Office P P P P Professional/Design Services P P P P I P P P C P C C p p _1 Research Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P WHOLESALE, STORAGE, & DISTRIBUTION Public Storage C C P C C P C C C C P 134 Light p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p Q, Medium C P P C p p, p p p p p p p Heavy C P C P MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES Processing Facilities C C C C C C C Scrap Operation C CIVIC 0 Administrative Civic Services p p p p p p p p p; p p p p I-- Convention Centers C C C Cultural P C C P C i C U, 144 Day CareFacility C C C C C C C C C C C C jC C C C Extensive Impact Utility Facilities C C C C C C C Flood Control/Utility Corridor p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p Public Assembly C C C C C C C C C C C C C Public Safety&UtilityServices C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Religious Assembly C C C C - C iC C C C C C C C Schools C C C C C C C JC C C C C C C C C NOTES: IP - Industrial Park P - Permitted Use HO - Haven Avenue Overlay District C - Conditionally Permitted Use Gr - General Industrial [] - Non-Marked Uses not permitted MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial A - Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit Required HI - Heavy Industrial MU/OS - Mixed Use/Open Space P* - Permitted with Master Plan Approval for 35 acres minimum DRAFT Ir~rf Discussion Purposes 17.30-7 6/99 Charles J iates pUBLIC/PRiVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES June 21,2000 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Amendment to Industrial Specific Plan-Subarea 6 to allow Medium Industrial Uses Chairman and Planning Commission: Our client, Cabot Industrial Trust is interested in development of properties on the south side of Sixth Street, west of Haven Avenue. Currently, Subarea 6 zoning does not allow medium industrial uses in the area. The companies who would lease the proposed buildings would require the "Medium" use designation in buildings larger than 50,000 square feet. A formal application was made on March 28, 2000, to amend the Specific Plan to allow such uses. Enclosed please find a preliminary site plan we are considering for the property. The proposed amendment would include the 16-acre parcel fronting Haven Avenue, which is subject to the Haven Avenue Overlay. This amendment would not impact the requirements of the Overlay District. In response to conversation with Planning staff, we are suggesting a revision to the development standards to allow Medium Manufacturing, Medium Wholesale and Storage and Distribution to be permitted subject to a Master Plan for an area in excess of 35 acres. Several property owners to the south of our project site have contacted us regarding proposed development of these properties and expressed a concern that Center Street not be connected through the property. Their concern is that truck traffic from the proposed project, as well as the existing industrial users to the north of Sixth Street would negatively impact the primarily office development that currently extends north from Fourth Street. We are requesting deletion of Center Street, south of 6m Street to be responsive to these concerns.. In order for us to proceed in our planning and discussions with potential companies who would occupy the facilities, we respectfully ask for your consideration and support of the foregoing. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, Chades J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Enclosures Office 909e481e1822 800*240e1822 Fax 909,481o1824 City Center · 10681 Foothill BIrd., Suite 395 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA * 91730 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Com 'ssioner Stewart noted t'~h~condition had been' posed in July 1999~. She questioned why '~otion: Moved Macias, seconded by~ nnedno, to continue odification to Conditional Use NEW BUSINESS E. INDUSTRIAL AR~ SPECIFIC P~N AMENDMENT 0~02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATE~ - A request to consider initia~tion of te~ changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to add "Medium Manufacturing~ and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as conditionally petitted uses in Subarea ~ Coup, Associate Planner, presented the staff repo~ and indicated a letter had been revived from Riverside Commercial Inves~to~ in suppoM of the request, Chai~an McNiel asked how many a~es in the Ci~ are currently available for the ~pe of use being sought, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, r~sponded staff had prepared an exhibit of the vaunt land but had not ~lculated the exact acreage,, He indicated it is in the 400s of acres, Chai~an McNiel noted the conceptual plan does not indicate any building intrusion into the Haven Oreflay Dist~ct, Mr, Cou~ responded that was ~e~, He said the appli~nt had initially plotted buildings going into the Oreflay Dist~cl but that had been changed, Chai~an McNiel obse~ed the w~rehouse buildings sho~ on the plan are cu~ent~ not allowed in the subarea. Mr. Cou~ con~ed that was tm~, Commissioner Mannerino asked if effoMs would be made to coordinate the proposed change ~th the General Plan Updale Task F~rce, He thoyght there may be some changes proposed in the revised Land Use plan in this area of town. Mr, Coleman responded that the ~referred Land Use Plan submitted by the General Plan Update ~nsultant had been reviewed by the Task Force and no ~anges were recommended in this area, Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 26, 2000 Charles Buquet, Chades Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was requesting text changes. He said he represents Cabot Industrial Trust from Boston and they are seekin~g to build a high quality, high tech facility. He commented he had been on the City Council when the Industrial Area Specific Plan was adopted. He did not believe they thought they would see any 'warehouses larger than 50,000 square feet. He thought the motive was to limit the potential of sm~lkestack industries in the corridor. He stated that Scripto Toka, Lowes, and GATX are in excess of the square footage. He said they excluded the area in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and if a0y buildings intrude, they would be an office product. Chairman McNiel asked why this; particular site was chosen when there is so much available land which is zoned for this use. Mr. Buquet replied it was choser'~ because of the proximity to other projects under Cabot's control. He said that Sparkletts would oc:cupy 660,000 square feet to the west. He stated they wish to be in an industrial park area rather l'han a heavy industrial area. Hearing no further testimony, Ch'airman McNiel closed the public hearing. He noted there are very few smokestack industries in town even in the Heavy Industrial area. Commissioner Mannedno said h{'! saw nothing wrong with allowing the application to move fortNard. Motion: Moved by Mannedno. s:;econded by Stewart. to direct staff to process an amendment to Subarea 6 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel stated he didn't disagree with allowing staff to process the amendment, so long as it was understood that this achon did not imply acceptance, it merely allows staff to prepare an analysis. Motion carried by the following vc/te: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERIN'O, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ' ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated there was no new information. ADJOURNMENT I Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carded 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 26, 2000 .A MASTER PLANNED CORPORATE' PARK CABOT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT HPA b~' RESOLUTION NO. 00-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO INCLUDE "MEDIUM MANUFACTURING" AND "MEDIUM WHOLESALE, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTION" AS PERMITTED USES ON PROPERTY OF 35 ACRES OR LARGER SUBJECT TO A MASTER PLAN, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. Chades Joseph and Associates has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er, in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of Apdl 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga initiated this amendment through minute action. 3. On the 26th day of July 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 26, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property within the city; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment will allow refinement of the list of allowed uses in Subarea 6. 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 Industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for development, within Subarea 6, in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with ralated development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-78 ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES July 26, 2000 Page 2 b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industdal Area Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of Subarea 6; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 153061b.1 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 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 00-02, amending Table 17.30.030 (Exhibit "D") as attached. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE City of RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~" ~arryi~_,~eil, Chairman A'FTEST: I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 26th day of July 2000, by the following vote-to-wit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MANNERIN0 F. CONE ~ERMIT 00-11 - PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS - The development of a wireless ~ consisting of a 60-foot stealth co-location "monopalm" and two cabinets housing tran on 500 square feet of leased area on a 5.64 acre parcel of land in the Sunrize Shopping ~ the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 8647 Base Line Road - APN: 207-022-14. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated a necessary in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit. He reported the Variance a be heard on August 23, 2000, and he requested the Conditional Use Permit a that meeting to be heard in conjunction. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There was no testimony. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to continue Conditional Use Permit to August 23, 2000. Motion carried by the following vote: H. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Development Code Chapter 17.30, to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution" as permitted uses on parcels of 35 acres or larger, subject to the approval of a Master Plan, within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff reporL Chairman McNiel asked if all the property that is being master planned is under one owner. Brad Bullet, City Planner, replied it is not. Mr. Coury believed the other property owners are in agreement with the proposal. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Chades Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his clients envision a master planned corporate park. He felt the master planning of a minimum 35-acre parcel creates a unique criteria and said there are no other areas in Subarea 6 that would meet this criteria. He stated they are working with Cabot Industrial Trust on the project and he felt it will be an enhancement to the City and compatible with the Haven Avenue Overlay District. He said his client was in escrow to acquire the other properties other than the Haven Avenue piece. Chairman McNiel asked if the owner of the Haven Avenue parcel had been contacted. Mr. Buquet responded affirmatively and indicated they had shown what they propose doing. Chairman McNiel commented that the City has no idea what will be developed on Haven Avenue or when it will occur. He observed the proposed buildings will be visible from Haven Avenue and said ~ey must be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 26, 2000 Mr. Buquet felt confident that would not be a problem because of the prior track record with Cabot Industrial Trust. Mr, Bullet said the applicant had been very cooperative. He stated they had been shown the Catellus Master Plan as an example. He commented that any frontage that will be visible from Haven Avenue should be of the same quality. Headrig no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing, Commissioner Tolstoy did not favor changing the zoning when there is a lot of available property in the City that will accommodate the use, He did not support a land use change merely because an applicant wants it. Chairman McNiel felt it could work. He did not feel it will make a groat deal of difference to the community. Mr. Bullet felt Commissioner Tolstoy raised a good question. He said staff had looked at the request and what has been developed. He said that staff asked what was accomplished with the 50,000 square foot limitation that could not be accommodated at 100,000 square feet. He felt the same level of quality could be maintained. He stated the applicant maintains that industrial users who used to be in 50,000 square feet are now looking at 100,000 square foot facilities. He felt having a master plan would assure the aesthetic quality. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-02. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: MANNERINO - carried G. CONDITIONALUSEPERMIT00-14-PACIFICBELLWiRELESS-Theinstallation high "monopalm" wireless telecommunications facility in the Tetra Vista Village Center in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Tetra Vista Community F at 7629 Haven Avenue - APN: 1076-481-31. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. that a Vadance will be needed and the applicant will be proposing alternate desi recommended that the item be continued to an unspecified date and indicated re-noticed. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded b' onal Use Permit 00-14 to an unspeci~ed date. Motion carded by the vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MANNERINO - carded applicant will be able to do what they want. may not. Macias indicated that when the matter was considered by the Design Review the members felt a monopalm would be out of place. He stated a monopalm does not noted there are no other palm trees on the site. He said they indicated they ~matives. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 26, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO INCLUDE "MEDIUM MANUFACTURING" AND "MEDIUM WHOLESALE, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION" AS PERMITTED USES ON PROPERTY OF 35-ACRES OR LARGER SUB.JECT TO A MASTER PLAN, WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 6) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. `1. Charles .Joseph and Associates has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 00-02, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter, in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of ,luly, 2000, 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. 00-78; thereby, recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. On the 'lGth day of August, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said hearingl adopted Resolution No. 00-78. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B..Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found~ determined, and resolved bythe 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, Par~ A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on August '16, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the properly within the city; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment will allow refinement of the list of allowed uses in Subarea 6. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs '1 and 2 abovel this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for development, within Subarea 6, in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ISPA 00-02 - CHARLES JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES August 16, 2000 Page 2 b. ThisamendmentpromotesthegoalsandobjectivesofthelndustdalAreaSpecificPlan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, orwelfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of Subarea 6; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Ordinance is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 153061b.1 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 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 No. 00-02, to Modify Chapter 17.30 of the Development Code to include "Medium Manufacturing" and "Medium Wholesale, Storage and Distribution" as permitted uses on property of 35 acres or larger subject to the approval of a Master Plan within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. RANG h O C UCAMON GA iii7 '1"1TM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S'affReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP ,City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 - LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to modify the design of Wilson Avenue from Wardman Bullock Road to approximately 1400 feet west of Wardman Bullock Road. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-01 by approving the attached Ordinance and issue a Notice of Exemption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The area north of the proposed amendment to Wilson Avenue is controlled by San Bernardino County Flood Control and is within the County. It is zoned very low residential, 2 or less dwelling units per acre. The area south of the proposed amendment to Wilson Avenue is also controlled by San Bernardino County Flood Control within the City. The zoning is both low residential on the east, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and flood control/utility corridor on the west. B. General Plan Designations: The proposed designation for Wilson Avenue is a Special Design Secondary Street. C. Site Characteristics: The planned location for the street is currently undeveloped land covered with light vegetation, gently sloping to the southeast. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 August 16, 2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS On November 10, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14759. Engineering Special Condition # 11 reads as follows: An Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment shall be processed to reduce the southerly parkway of Wilson Avenue from Wardman Bullock Road to 1400 feet west of Wardman Bullock Road, where the Metropolitan Water District feeder line moves to the south side of Wilson Avenue, prior to approval of the Final Map. The parkway shall be reduced from 65 feet to 38 feet and maintain the proposed meandering bike path and equestrian trail. If denied, an amended Tentative Tract Map shall be processed to indicate the required Wilson Avenue right-of- way and the new lot layout. The Etiwanda Specific Plan indicates the ultimate right-of-way for Wilson Avenue shall be 155 feet. The south side of the street bears the majority of the burden with a required right-of-way of 104 feet from the centerline of the street. Upon review of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the alignment plans for the Metropolitan Water District's Rialto Pipeline, staff has determined that the 65 foot wide parkway to accommodate the water line is not necessary until the line crosses to the south side of Wilson Avenue, approximately 1400 feet west of Wardman Bullock Road. In an effort to comply with the City's proposition 218 reduction in maintenance areas and still provide a generous parkway, staff is supporting the developer's application to process an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment that will reduce the parkway width from 65 feet to 38 feet, from Wardman Bullock Road to approximately 1400' feet westerly, for an overall right-of-way width of 130 feet. Staff believes the 38 foot parkway width will successfully reduce the maintained area yet continue to provide the amenities of the trail and bike path. The visual impacts of the transition between the two widths will be so~ened through landscaping when the area is developed. The transition will occur where Metropolitan Water District (MWD) ownership/easements cross to the south side of the street. Additionally, the windrow reflected at the back of the parkway (see Exhibit B) has been moved to the private rear yard (see exhibit D). The shifting of the windrow is consistent with construction of the parkway that has occurred on the south side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Blue Grass Street. Shifting the windrow to the private yards will allow for greater horizontal movement of the equestrian trail/bicycle path and larger planting areas. It will also lend to the overall continuity of the ultimate street- scape design approved within the MWD property. The developer has submitted an application to process the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. Figures 5-31A and 5-32A reflect the changes to the parkway. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 August 16, 2000 Page 3 References to 24th Street on the affected exhibits will be corrected to read Wilson Avenue per Planning commission Resolution 95-25, approved June 14, 1995. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the City Council can make the following findings regarding this application: A. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned road and is categorically exempt per section 15305, class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. B. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully Sub~mitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:DJ:dlw Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map Exhibit B - Figure 5-32, existing Exhibit C - Figure 5-33, existing Exhibit D - Figure 5-32A, proposed Exhibit E - Figure 5-33A, proposed Exhibit F - Section of Wilson Avenue from City Approved Landscape Drawing #1656 Exhibit G - Ordinance Recommending Approval of ESPA 00-01 WILSON AVENUE !l -5-31 (~) WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD m~ ,VE. ' (~) YOUNGS CANYON ROAD ~ II e Freeway Access Major Arterial Secondary Arterial Special Design / :- / Collector / ~N Local ./.:~:: ~l~F Streets F-~3thlll bird, S.P. t STREETSYSTEM 5-6 CITYOF ITEM: ESPAO0-01 RANCHOCUCAMONGA TITLE: VicinityMap EXHIBIT: "A" ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ STREET PARKWAY (WEST OF LOOP) FIG. 5-32. ITEM: ESPA 00-01 EXHIBIT: "B" ~/-/'~, FIG. 5-33j,-/7 windrow, style columnar tree t~lFc, A "---- informal emaii round ~= mix 5 WILSON AVENUE PARKWAY (From Wardman Bullock Road to 1400 feet west) FIG. 5-32A pV~ f'~CL Revised 411/9 ITEM: ESPA OO-OI EXHIBIT: "D'j~ sidewalk - ~ ..... ~ ' . ~...~,. '.' ,. ..~ ~ ~. . ~ - ~ ~., ",, .. ~ ~'~ ~.,. · . ~ Pl~nlin~ ~i~lin~ Street Trees (in p~blic ROW): per cross-section & ~ree schedule ~Tree A, 15 gal. plant per table 5-41 ~Tree B, 15 gal. plant in clusters, ~ 14 trees per 330' Tree C, 15 gal. plant in clusters, ~ 8 ~rees per 330' ,.~:,~ Tree D, 10 gal. plant in clusters, ~ 11 trees per 330' ~ ~ree W, 5 gal. plant 8' O.c./per section 5-41-500 I~f~: t~ ~-~ Streetscapes shall be s~pplemented ~ appropriate shrubs and gro~ndcover ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA $PECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-0`1, TO MODIFY THE PROPO$ED WIL$ON AVENUE $TREET $ECTION BY REDUCING THE SOUTH PARKWAY WIDTH FROM 65 FEET TO 38 FEET FROM WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY '1400 FEET WEST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND MAKING FINDING$ IN $UPPORT THEREOF A. RECITAL$. '1. The developer of Tentative Tract '14759, Rancho Summit 1, LLC, has filed an application for the amendment described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda $pecific Plan amendment is referred to as "the application". 2. On the 23rd day of February 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. On the 16th day of August, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO GUGAMONGA DOE8 HEREBY DETERMINE AND ORDAIN A8 FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced public hearing on February 23, 2000, and to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on August 16, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the future Wilson Avenue extending westerly from Wardman Bullock road to the location where the Metropolitan Water Oistrict's Rialto Pipeline crosses from the north side of the street to the south side of the street. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01 August 16, 2000 Page 2 b. The land is presently undeveloped land occupied by only the MWD pipeline. c. The expanded parkway was intended to provide an aesthetically pleasing cover for the MWD pipeline. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows a. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned road and is categorically exempt per section 15305, class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. b. Wilson Avenue was planned with a 65-foot parkway to provide a completed landscaped area over the MWD Rialto Pipeline. c. The MWD pipeline does not transition to the south side of Wilson Avenue until 1400 feet west of Wardman Bullock Road. d. The proposed Amendment continues to provide an expanded parkway to accommodate the scheduled amenities of a trail and bicycle path. e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council 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 there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, the City Council hereby a proves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-01 to amend the Wilson Avenue (24~ Street) Parkway Section, Figure 5-32 and Wilson Avenue (24th Street) Parkway Plan, Figure 5-33, as shown on exhibits D and E attached hereto. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. 7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Clerk of the Board FROM: City ofRancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County P.O. Box 807 Auditor/Controller-Recorder 385 North Arrowhead, 2"a Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 San Bernardino, CA 92415 ATFN: Engineering Division Y'roject Title Etiwanda specific plan amendment 00-01 Project Location - Specific City of Ranch_~_~_~o Cucamonga San Bernardino Project Location - City Project Location - County Amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to modi~ the design of Wilson Avenue pore Wardman Bullock Road to approximately 1400feet west of Wardman Bullock Road Descriptionie, Purpose, and Beneficiar~ City of Rancho 'Cucamonga Name of P~ Lennar Homes Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Projeci' Exempt Status (Ch~ Ministerial (See. 15073) Declared Emergency (See. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (See. 15071 (b) and (c)) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. Reasons why project is exempt Contact Person Area Code Teleph~ Extension l'{'~led by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice ofexemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Date Received for Filing Signature RANG hO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S ffReport DATE: August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP ,City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Laura J. Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner SUBJECT: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to update street trees. Staff has prepared a Notice of Categorical Exemption. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-02 by approving the attached Ordinance and issue a Notice of Exemption. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In light of current development activity throughout the Etiwanda area, staff is seeking to update street trees and references to reflect the current planting designations. The Etiwanda Specific Plan was originally adopted in1983. Since that time, public landscaping practices have been refined significantly. Subsequent to a review of the figures and sections, it is proposed that the following be revised to reflect the current practices while allowing for the rural character of Etiwanda to be preserved: > Figure 5-17 - Local Street Tree Schedule - Rename Figure as Local Street, Front Yard Tree Palette, remove reference to local street trees from text and add Figure 5- 17 A, titled Local Street Tree Schedule. > Figure 5-25 - Revise note for existing Silk Oaks to read "supplement existing Silk Oaks with type A planting. ~ Section 5.32.200.205 - Local Street Trees - Revise text to reference Figure 5-17 A. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 August 16, 2000 Page 2 ~' Figure 5-41 - Street Tree Schedule - Revise species to reflect current recommendations for public right-of-way, add detail to description and plant spacing as necessary. ~ Section 5.41.200.201 - Revise text that reads "shall be replaced with 15 gallon size Eucalyptus Maculata" to read "shall be replaced with maximum 15 gallon size (unless otherwise noted) Eucalyptus Maculata. This allows the public right-of-way to be planted with the standard 5 gallon size tree for this species or customization where necessary. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the City Council can make the following findings regarding this application: A. The proposed modification is a minor alteration to a planned road and is categorically exempt per section 15305, class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The proposed amendment conforms with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advedised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were posted at key locations. Respectfully Submi. tted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map Exhibit B - Fig. 5-17, Proposed Exhibit C - Fig. 5-17A, Proposed Exhibit D - Fig. 5-25, Proposed Exhibit E - Fig. 5-41, Proposed Ordinance Recommending Approval of ESPA 00-02 CITY OF ITEM: ESPA 00-02 TITLE: VicinityMap BANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT:"A' ENGINEERING DIVISION ~,.~_. SI~GGE~ED TREE SPECIES: COMMMEN'I~: DECIDUOUS: Bauhinia variegeta o Needs staking and pruning to Purple Orchid tree achieve form. Koelreuterie panniculata Goldenrain tree Pistecia chinesis o Needs careful staking and Chinese Pistaehe pruning to achieve form. Sapium Sebiferum o Select when in fall eelor for Chinese Tallow best results. Needs training for single trunk. Sophera japonica Japanese Pagoda tree Ze/kova serrat~ Sawleaf Zelkova EVERGREEN: Angophore castate Gum Myrtle Brachychiton popu/neus o Do not plant in a parkway next Bottle tree to a curb. Cinnamomum camphera o Needs root spaeel do not plant Camphor tree in narrow parkways. Gei]era parvifolia Australian Willow M. Stypheloides o Best trained with multiple Black Tea tree trunks. Tristenia conferta Brisbane Box Plantin~ Guicl~!ines All trees shall be 15 gallon minimum size, staked and irrigated. Trees recommended for planting adjacent to south and west building facades should be deeidious to provide summer shade and winter solar gain. LOCAL STREET ITEM: ESPAOO-02 TITLE: FIGOBE5-17 FRONT YARD Fig.5-- 17 rB0r0SEO TREE PALETrE BI [] BIT: APPROVED STREET TREES FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA Cerds eccidenlalls Brach~chiton ~ceffi~olius Cellj~ sinehale Western Redbud - ~' O.G. · Au~li~n Fla~ T~ - ~0' O.C. · Chinese H~k~ - ~0' O.C. Bronze Loquat Tr~ - 25' O.C. I ~ T~ - 25' O.C. t ~mphor T~ - 30' O.C. bgem~emia indi~ Euu~us ~anthe~ * Eu~ly~us camldulensl Cra~ My~e - 20' O.C. · Slier ~lar Gum - 30' O.C. · ~ Gum - ~ O.C. · Ma~olia gmndffio~ 'St. Ma~ Euca~ptus mdi * Euca~s ~culal * NCN - 20' O.C. · Swamp Gum - ~' O.C. · i ~ Eu~lyp~s - 25' O.C. · Pmnus blimiana Euuly~us sidero~l~ * K~lmte~ bipinna~ NCN - ~' O.C. · R~ Imnba~ - 35' O.C. · Chinese Flame T~ - ~' O.C. ~ms b~uladoli 'Paradise' Euca~us nbholli * K~lm~eda ~nicul~ Dan~rF~dngPear-~'O.C. · N~s~~-~O.C. · GoldsminTs- 35'O.C. ~s ~lle~ana '~st~ Gel~ pawi~o~ ~uidam~r ~cl~ua NCN - 20' O.C. 1 ~s~alian ~llow - ~ O.C. · ~ed~n ~ Gum - 2~ O,C. ~s calle~ana 'B~dfo~' Ginkgo bilo~ 'Fal~u~ Liquidam~r ~cffiua 'F~val' B~ Pear - 20' O.C. · M~denh~ T~ - 35' O.C. · NCN - 25' O.C. ~s ~kaml Pisfficia chlne~is Uquidam~r ~ci~ua 'Palo ~o' Evelyn Pear - 20' O.C. · Chin~e ~ - ~ O.C. t NCN - 2~ O.C. Qu~us ilex Li~idam~ ~r~ffiua 'R~ndil~' Hdly Oak - 40' O.C. · NCN - 2~ O.C. ~us lancea ; Magnolia g~ndi~o~ A~can Sum~ - 20' O.C. · Sou~em Mag~lia - 30' O.C. · ~pho~ ~nica Pinus ~nad~sls Japan~ Pag~a T~ - ~' O.C. · ~na~ Island Pine - 25' O.C. · Pla~nus acedfolia London Pla~ Tree - 30' O.C. · Note: ~ of October 1 ~9, d~ to ~e severe Psyllid Le~ infes~ons in Eucalyp~s, use of ~e s~ies is dis~urag~ Pl~nus un~B previously designat~ or r~ui~ ~r windrow replacement ~l~mia S~om - 3~ O.C. Qu~us agffiolia ~ ~ Oak - 40' O.C. · Que~us su~r ~ Oak - ~' O.C. · Quemus vi~iniana ~em U~ Oak - ~' O.C. · LOCAL STREET Fiig. 5-17 A !ITEM: ESPA00-02 ; TITLE: FIGUBE 5-17 A TREE SCHEDULE ~ PBOPOSED EXHIBIT: "C"~;~ ETIWANDA AVENUE North of Baseline / South of SPRR FIG.' 5-25 ITEM: ESPAO0-02 TITLE: FIGUBE5-25 PBOPOSED EXHIBIT: "r ~5'~ TREE PLANTING SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND PLANT TYPE SPACING A Eucalyptus camaldulensis Large, columnar, ~a:~.-~ei~.414~t Red Gum 30 feet on center minimum spacing B Lagerstroemia indica 'Rubra" Round-headed Crape Myrtle On ,~4~-Str-eel Wilson Avenue Parkway, plant according to Figures 5-32 & 5-33 C Platanus acefifolia Broad columnar, ~ London Plane Tree 30 feet on center minimum spacing except as follows: On Etiwanda Avenue, plant according to Figure 5-26 On 24%str-eel Wilson Avenue parkway, plant according to Figure 5-33 D Pinus _"!d2r~_~2 "M. cnd2!! P!.".2"Columnar conifer, 25' on center ~ minimum spacing except as follows: Pinus canariensis On Etiwanda Avenue, plant according to Canary Island Pine Figure 5-26 On 2.4"--slFeel Wilson Avenue parkway, plant according to Figure 5-33 F Q,_'er_~,_'_- .;!_-2.'f Round-headed, f~ plant 30 1~ feet on center Pistacia chinerisEs Chinese PEstache Tree W Eucalyptus maculata Windrow planrings, See Section 5.41 Spotted Gum Plantin9 Guidelines: All trees shall be 15-gallon minimum size, staked and irrigated, unless otherwise noted. Trees within the public right-of-way are public street trees and subject to street tree planting standards as established by the City Engineer. In isolated instances, an alternate species compatible with the original design intent, will be selected by the Engineering Division, where there is inadequate room within the right-of-way for the designated tree species (such as small planting area, sight distance and/or utility conflicts). STREET TREE SCHEDULE FIGURE 5-41 ITEM: ESPA00-02 TITHE: fi60RE541 PROPOSED feelniT- ";" 8/16/00 Please announce that under item F5 (Advertised Public Heanngs) that Resolution No. 00-163 should be an Ordinance with the number of 635 for first reading. Thanks. Deb cc: Jack Lam AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, TO UPDATE STREET TREE REFERENCES AND RELATED FIGURES AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed and application for the amendment described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter throughout the Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of June 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. On the 16th day of August, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY DETERMINE AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced public hearing on June 14, 2000, and to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on August 16, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the whole of the area encompassed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. b. Some of the designations and spacings for street trees are not consistent with current best horticultural practices. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 August 16, 2000 Page 2 a. The proposed amendment is a minor alteration to a planned road. b. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council 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 there is no possibility the proposed amendment will have an effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed amendment is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, the City Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-02 to update street tree references and spacings to current street tree designations and amend all pedinent exhibits and figures within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, 7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days affer its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. JL / NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: X Clerk of the Board FROM: City of Raneho Cucamonga ~ San Bemardino County P.O. Box 807 Auditor/Controller-Recorder Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 385 North/~rrowhead, 2"d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 ATTN: Engineering Division Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-02 Project Title The entire Etiwanda area Project Location - Specific City of Rancho Cucarnonga San Bernardino Project Location - City Project Location - County Update street tree references in Specific Plan Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project City of Rancho Cucamonga Name of Public Agency Approving Project Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer, City of Rancho Cucatnonga Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project Exempt Status (Check One) Ministerial (See. 15073) Declared Emergency (See. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (See. 15071 (b) and (c)) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. 15305 Class 5 Minor Alteration X in Land Use Limitations City is changing type of trees designated for right-of-way planting,- there is effectively no net change Reasons why project is exempt Maria Perez (909) 477-2740 4024 Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice ofexemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Date Received for Filing C,tyE. g,.eer Title RAN C HO CUCAM ONGA COMMUNITY ~EI~VICES Staff Report TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst Ill DATE: August 16, 2000 SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Subsection 12.04.01B of Section 12.04.010 of Chapter 12.04 of Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Regarding the Possession of Alcoholic Beverages. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance amending Subsection 12.04.01B of Section 12.04.010 of Chapter 12.04 of Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code regarding the possession of alcoholic beverages. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The existing municipal code section governing the possession of alcoholic beverages on City park and recreation facilities allows for the possession or consumption of beer and wine only within the interior of stadium building located in the spods complex on the west side of Rochester Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard (the Epicenter). Occasionally staff receives requests from non-profit groups conducting community events to permit the consumption of beer and/or wine in other areas of the sports complex. Such a request is currently under consideration for the 2000 Grape Harvest Festival that is conducted by the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. In order to allow the possession of alcoholic beverages within other areas of the sports complex it is necessary to amend the existing municipal code. It is staff's recommendation to allow beer and wine to be sold within the parking lot/special event area(s) of the sports complex when City Council has authorized community events at which alcoholic beverages will be offered, that are conducted and sponsored by Rancho Cucamonga community based, non-profit entities and co- sponsored by the City. It is further recommended, that such community events would need to CiTY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF MUNICIPAL CODE AUGUST 16, 2000 meet the criteria of promoting heritage, cultural and/or commercial attributes of the City. The proposed modification would also authorize the City Council to impose restrictions and conditions of use of the facility including, but not limited to, specific location, hours of operation, type of alcoholic beverages permitted, security, traffic control, sanitation and insurance requirements. The attached ordinance is presented for first reading and will authorize the necessary changes to the municipal code to allow for the possession of alcoholic beverages within the parking IotJspecial event area(s) of the sports complex. It is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the modifications as noted and set the matter for second reading at the September 3~ City Council meeting. Respec 12.~ : le Community Services Director Attachment hICOMMSERV~Council&BoardslCityCouncil~StaffReportstAIcoholOrdinanceChange8. 16.00. doc -2- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SUBSECTION 12.04.010B OF SECTION 12.04.010 OF CHAPTER 12.04 OF TITLE 12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. Be it ordained by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council as follows: Section 1. Subsection 12.04.010B.1 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: "B.1. Possess or consume alcoholic beverages excepting only: "(a) beer or wine sold within the interior of the stadium building located in the sports complex on the west side of Rochester Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. "(b) Beer or wine sold within the parking lot/special event area(s) of the sports complex when the City Council has authorized community events at which alcoholic beverages will be offered, conducted and sponsored by Rancho Cucamonga community based, non-profit entities (as defined by State and Federal statues) and co-sponsored by the City, where the community event is for the purpose of promoting the heritage, culture and/or commercial attributes of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council may impose restrictions and conditions of use of the facility including, but not limited to, specific location, hours of operation, type of alcoholic beverages permitted, security, traffic control, sanitation, and insurance requirements. "(c) For purposes of this chapter, the term 'alcoholic beverages' shall have the meaning set forth in Section 23044 of the California Business and Professions Code as Section 23044 presently exists or as the same may be amended from time to time." Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each sections, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. Section 3. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of ,2000. Mayor I, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of ,2000, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga h~C~MMSERV~C~unci~&B~ardstCityC~unci~Sta~Rep~r~s~A~c~h~rdinanceChanagereGrapeHarvest.d~c RANCHO CU CAMONGA ADHINI~TRATIVE SERVICE& DATE August 16, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager FROM: Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approve an Amendment to the City's Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Coundl approve an amendment to the City's Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual - 13.25 Method of Disposition and Surplus - to allow the surplus and disposition of City property to include schools and other tax- exempt non-profit agencies. Back,qround: Currently the City's Purchasing Division is guided in the surplusing of obsolete material by the City's Policy and Procedure Manual which cefis for property disposition through trade-ins, disposition by bid, sale by auction, sale as scrap or salvage and retiring the material that has no fair market value to donations. Staff prepares an agenda item for Council to review and approve every time the surplus of obsolete City material becomes available. in some instances, staff has recommended that bulk items such as obsolete computer equipment or vehicles be donated to other tax supported governmental agencies, schools or non-profit 501© agencies. Recently staff has received additional requests from non-profit agencies to be included for donation for equipment, material and vehicles that would otherwise have little or no fair market value by auction, trade-in or scrap disposition. Staff recommends that Coundl approve adding schools and non-profit tax-exempt agencies to the purchasing list of those eligible for donation of material, equipment and/or vehicles. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director -2- RANCh 0 C UCAMON GA COMMUNITY ~EI~.VIOEg TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, ACIP, City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner Paula Pachon, Management Analyst III DATE: August 16, 2000 SUBJECT: Parks, Recreation Facilities and Community Services Update BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Etiwanda Creek Park: · The Grand Opening of the Dog Park was held on Sunday, July 23rd. Many dogs and their owners were on hand for the occasion. Park personnel helped install park benches for the Grand Opening. Crews also trimmed trees, weeded and performed general clean up for the event. · Lines for football have been sprayed with a non-selective herbicicle in preparation for Pop Wamer. The fenca came down Wednesday, July 26th . Golden Oak Park: · The park is in the turf maintenance period. Estimated completion date is late summer. Mountain View Park: · The park is in the turf maintenance period. Estimated completion date is late summer. CII~ COUNCIL/V~EETING PARKS, J~ECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNI1X SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 Trails: · Approximately 400-500 volunteers from the L.D.S. Church helped to construct a trail from Beryl and Hillside along the Demens Channel to Almond Street on Saturday, July 22"u. The trail is already in use and final inspection of trail by the County will be completed by the week of August 7th. It is anticipated that landscape improvements along the northerly part of the trail will be completed next fiscal year. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Seniors: · Old Fashioned Ice Cream Social and Magic Show, Wednesday, August 2, at 1:00 p.m. After lunch seniors enjoyed a special day at the Senior Center with our Summer Ice Cream Social and Magic Show. The "Amazing Dana" performed his incredible magic. Not only were seniors entertained, but they also received their fill of several flavors of free ice cream. · Western Hoe Down, Thursday, August 24, at 10:00 a.m. at the Senior Center. Please join us for a foot-stomping, bull-riding western "Hoe Down." This event includes refreshments, entertainment and door prizes. This special event is co-sponsored by the V.I.P. Club. · Anti-Crime Prevention Program. The Rancho Cucamonga Police Department continues to offer a series of free workshops at the Senior Center that covers crime prevention. The program is aimed at educating the public, particularly seniors. The goal is to reduce crime against seniors. The workshops combine lectures, video, role-playing and hands-on practice. Over 50 seniors attended the July workshop on Frauds and Scams. Residential Safety will be held on August 21, at 9:30am. · The Senior Center was recently re-keyed to require access by Cardkeys. This will result in a more secure facility. · Faciliim~ments for the Senior Center include new cabinets, which are scheduled to be installed in the kitchen in early August. · Senior Legislature Elections, August 8, 2000. The San Bernardino County Department of Aging and Adult Services, in conjunction with the Senior Affairs Commission, conducted an election for one Senior Senator and three Senior Assembly Representatives as delegates to the California Senior Legislature. The election was held on August 8, 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center that was selected as a polling site. The Senior Advisory Committee provided the necessary manpower at the poll site. · Senior Advisory Committee. The Committee will hold a special meeting in August to discuss ideas relating to the possible future development of a new senior center. · A free Skin Care Seminar was presented by skin care consultant, Nancy De Fina. This fun filled presentation took place on Tuesday, August 8t~ , 1:30pm. · Attendance at the Senior Center for the second quarter in 2000 was 38,275, which represents 4,283 hours of activities. This is a 21% increase from the 2"d quarter of 1999. -2- CITY COUNCIL IV~EETING PARKS, J~ECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 Human Services: · Homeowners and Renter's Assistance is rescheduled at the Senior Center each Tuesday through August 29th . To qualify for the assistance a homeowner or renter must meet income requirements, be 62 years or older, blind or disabled. · The Doctor Is In - During the month of August, Dr. Harvey D. Cohen, M.D. will present a free health lecture at the Senior Center on Tuesday, August 15th , at noon. The topic is 'Lumps and Bumps on Your Body--Are They Serious?" Dr. Cohen will also present an evening lecture on Wednesday, August 16th at 7:00 p.m. The topic of this lecture is 'Hot Flashes and Menopauso Do You Have to Suffer?." · Luncheon ~--Delicious and nutritious hot meals are served Monday through Friday at the Senior Center by the Oldtimers' Foundation. Participants must be 60 years of age or older and a suggested donation of $2.00 per meal is requested. A limited homebound delivery program is also available. During the second quarter, 10,783 total meals were prepared at the Senior Center. Congregate meals at the Senior Center were served to 5,317 and home delivered meals totaled 5,466. These totals are 10% higher than the same quarter in 1999. · Commodity Distribution~n the first Monday of every month, USDA surplus food that is provided by the County Food Bank, is distributed by volunteers and staff to low income residents of Rancho Cucamonga on a first-come, first-serve basis at the Senior Center. During this reporting period, 2,235 individuals, representing 1,474 households, received * commodities. This is an increase of 22% over the same period in 1999. During July 2000, 675 individuals representing 452 households received commodities. · Take Off Pounds Seriously (T.O.P.S.) meets each Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Senior Center for the common purpose to lose weight safely. Trips and Tours: · Catalina island, August 1 gth. The quaint town of Avalon, with its cobblestone streets, offers young and old alike the chance to enjoy shopping, dining, snorkeling, and a variety of tours. Cost is $65 per person. (Seats still available · Danish Days in Solvan,q, September 16th Danish Days have been held annually since 1936. Learn to bake Danish pastries or watch cloggers dance. Lunch is in your own so you can sample the local street fare or try an authentic smorgasbord at one of the popular restaurants. (Seats still available) · Palm Springs Follies, November 8. Step back to the 30's and 40's for a fabulous musical review in the tradition of the Ziegfeld Follies! You will have time prior to the show to enjoy a lunch on your own. (Seats still available) · During this past year, the Senior Center received $71,967 in revenue for multi-day trips. Some of the trips that customers enjoyed included Bronson Showtime, Galaxy Coastal Alaska Cruise, Arizona Rail, Panama Canal Cruise, Yosemite in the Fall, Hearst Castle Holiday, California Wine Country, Yosemite in the Autumn, Sierra Christmas, Death Valley, -3- CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 San Francisco Chinese New Year Celebratjon, Lake Powell and Canyonland, Hawaiian Big Band Cruise, Grand Canyon Adventure, Grand Kids Wonder Valley, California Aretrek Odyssey, Ense~ada Serenade Cruise, Barging the Ohio and New England and Cape Cod. · Revenue from our sinqle day trips totaled $20,550 this past year. Volunteers: · During August the Volunteer Coordinator will be developing plans for youth and adult volunteer recruitment for events that are scheduled for after Labor Day. · The Volunteer Coordinator js logging all fingerprint information on volunteers from the new live-scan process. · The Volunteer Coordinator is scheduled to relocate from City Hall to the Senior Center in August. · The table below summarizes departmental usage of volunteers for the months of June, 2000: Administration 6 15 $210 Sports 120 720 $10,080 Senior &Human 45 203 $2,842 Services Special Events 42 175 $2,450 Youth Programs 25 180 $2,520 Total 238 1 ~293 $18~102 *Dollar value based on $14.00 per hour. Teens: · The Teen Center is in full swing for the summer and is open from 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays, and until 9:00 p.m. on Fridays. Over 1,200 teens attended during the month of July, with daily attendance between 70 - 90 teens. · The Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) is operating snack bars Mondays through Fridays at the swimming pool at Alta Loma High School and at Movies and Concerts in the Park. Proceeds go directly back to the program for special activities and equipment, such as a new customized canopy that was recently purchased. · The Teen Learning Center is has placed approximately 50 teens in vadous volunteer positions throughout Community Services including Day Camp, Play Camp and Kid Explorers. The teens will volunteer over 2,000 hours dudng the course of the summer. · The teen trip program offered teens the opportunity to go to the beach, Knott's Berry Farm, Universal Studios and Magic Mountain. The highlight will be the end of summer camping trip to Campland on the Bay in Mission Bay. -4- CITY COUNCIL j~EETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILII'IES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES LIPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 Youth Activities: · Play Camp began its 8-week summer schedule on June 26th. Classes are offered for children ages one to five at Lions Center East. Over three hundred and fifty (350) children were enrolled. · Day Camp and Kinder Camp began on June 26u~ at Carnelian Elementary School. Weekly field trips, swimming, arts and crafts and games make this a popular camp. Approximately 150 children ages 4 - 6 enrolled in Kinder Camp and approximately three hundred forty (340) children ages 6 - 12 enrolled in Day Camp. Due to recent, unplanned renovations at the school, Day/Kinder Camp has relocated to Lions West Community Center for weeks 6-8 of the program. · The Kid Explorers program began on July 10th at two sites: Lions Center East and Victoria Groves Elementary School. The program meets two mornings a week for theme oriented activities. Approximately two hundred and thirty (230) children have participated in the Kid Explorers program to date this summer. Grapevine: · The fall issue of The Grapevine was distributed to residents in August. The cover theme focused on historic preservation. The winter issue begins production in September and will be published in December. Classes: · Contract classes will end the summer season on August 25th. The fall session registration began August 21st with the session opening on September gth. YOUth Sports: · The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting period: ;iris Football Youth Basketball 680 & Girls 72 · The Aquatics Learn to Swim Program continues through August 30, 2000. As of Session Ill (July 24-August 4) a total of three thousand two hundred (3,200) youngsters have registered for classes at both pools. Open swim, private swim lessons and pool parties are also offered. -5- CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 The Summer Youth Sports Camp series has been going very well. Seventy-two (72) boys · th and girls ages 6-17 participated in the Youth Basketball Camp between July 10-14 at the Sports Center. Youth Soccer Camp had 20 youngsters participate at Bear Gulch Park between July 24-28th. The Youth Volleyball Camp has 28 boys and girls ages 6-16 enrolled. Organized Youth Sports: · Bi-annually, the Community Services Department, through the Sports Advisory Committee allocates sport fields for non-profit organized youth sport leagues throughout the City. The table that follows indicates participation figures for the month of July 2000 per day. Facility use noted only notes City facilities. A number of groups also used school sites. ~,Yso 98 1,007 92% 1,510 Bear Gulch Park Beryl East Park Beryl West Park Etiwanda Creek Park ACE Youth 41 434 91% 651 Red Hill Park Softball* Spruce Park Nindrows Park ACE T-Ball 20 235 80% 351 Beryl Park Alta Loma 32 399 100% 599 Hedtage Park Little League* CYSA 32 443 75% 665 Church Street Park Bear Gulch Park Citrus Little 31 364 96% 546 Red Hill Park League Cucemonga 3 34 79% 51 Red Hill Park Dodgers Windrows Park Deer Canyon 23 294 100% 441 Coyote Canyon Park Little League Hermosa Park Rancho Little 33 377 97% 566 Milliken Park Old Town Park League Epicenter & Sports Complex RC Pony 5 59 100% 89 Old Town Park Heritage Park RC Spirits 3 57 72% 86 Red Hill Park Windrows Park RC Softball* 28 327 80% 491 Red Hill Park Vineyard 40 501 98% 752 Ellena Park Windrows Park Little League Kenyon Park * Includes )ost-season tournaments, additional area teams and spectators. RC Family Sports Center: · Activities at the Sports Center for the reporting period are summarized in the table below: 110 Adult/Males 11 teams -6- CITf COUNCIL IIV~EETING PARKS, F~ECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 Adult/Males 7 teams Adult/Males 1 league · The table below provides ~ participation at the R.C. Family Sports Center for the reporting period: Adult Basketball 565 Youth Basketball 531 Adult Racquetball 453 Youth Racquetball 49 Adult Volleyball 87 Youth Volleyball 17 Jazzercise 900 · Between January, 2000 and July 2000 eighty-seven (87) monthly, yearly, seasonal passes have been sold for the Family Sports Center. Adult Sports: · The table below summarizes adult sports participation during the reporting period: 41 Soccer 512 Adult/Male &Female 32 teams Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy: · Workshops - A little over one hundred (100+) audience members enjoyed a recital that was held on July 18th at Lions West Community Center, showcasing the talents of thirty (30) participants of the Vocal Expression and Performance Workshop. Television Commercial, Vocal Expression & Performance and Musical Workshops will continue on a five-week basis throughout the fall at Lions Community Center West. Special Events: · Concerts in the Park - Our exciting and entertaining Concarts in the Park series has gained greater attendance as the weeks passed by. Between 600 and 1,500 people of all ages were dancing and singing along to some of their favorite tunes. Charter Communications has been on site each week capturing the fun on film for their Channel 54 production. -7- CITY COUNCIL jV~EETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 The series kicked off the season on July 8th with the country & top 40 sounds of the "Silveredo's". Also featured throughout the series were the classic rock group "Head Fi~t" on July 13th, "Ernie Marchain's Big Band Jazz Orchestra"on July 20~h, the Pop/Rock band "Forte"on July 27th, Jazz greats "Raging Sun"on August 3'd and the swing sounds of.the "Blue Falcons" on August 10th. Calypso, Reggae and Island music by "Steel Parade on August 17"~ and the Rock'n sounds of 'q'he Servilles Band" on August 24"' will bring an awesome close to a great season of music in the park. The series was made possible through generous contributions from the following businesses and individuals: Target Stores, The Sign Shop, Cucamonga District Host Lions, The Rancho Cucamonga Professional Firefighters Association, Vince's Spaghetti, Teresa Kauffman, Club Kiwanis of Rancho Cucamonga, USA Waste of California, the Rancho Cucamonga Women's Club, Charter Communications and Hometown Buffet. · Movies in the Park - The Movies in the Park series ran this summer from July 11th through August 18th. The movies took place at Milliken Park on Tuesdays with a little over 400 audience members in attendance. Over 550 residents enjoyed the flicks at Windrows Park on Wednesdays and between 1,000 and 1,500 movie-goers watched on enthusiastically at Red Hill Community Park on Fridays. The free family movies shown this year included blockbuster hits such as Inspector Gadget, Tarzan, Stuart Little, Toy Story 2, Pokemon and the Iron Giant. Each week 50-80 contestants competed in a variety of games and activities before the start of the movies. Donations from Hometown Buffet and Mimi's Caf~ provided prizes for the winners. · A Night of Magic- Sensational illusions, fearless fire-throwers and amazing escape artistry are just some of the incredible acts that will be unveiled during the "Night of Magic". This event, the last in the family entertainment Festival 2000 Series, will take place at the Epicenter Stadium on Saturday, August 19' 2000 starting at 7:30 p.m. Please join us for a fun-filled, magical evening of entertainment! · The Founders Day Parede and Celebration, scheduled for November 11th, is in the planning phase. The theme for the parede this year will be "American Heroes." The parade will follow the same route as last year (Base Line, from Archibald to Vineyard) and the Celebration will be held at Red Hill Park. Facilities: · Park openings for our two newest parks, Golden Oak Park and Mountain View Park, are in the planning stage. Staff has tentatively reserved the dates of September 9th and September 16"~ for these events. We are monitoring the progress of the tuff in order to determine which park will open first. · Heritage Park Eauestrian Center - The Equestrian Center is used continually by the resident equestrian clubs. The table on the following page summarizes scheduled use of the facility during the reporting period. -8- CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 July 5 Alta Loma Riding Club - Board Meeting 7:30-g:00 p.m. July 18 4-H/ICC Dressage Show 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. August 2 Alte Lomb Riding Club Board Meeting 7:30-g:00 p.m. August 12 Alta Lomb Riding Club - Night Ride 8:30 p.m. -g:30 p.m. August 28 4-H Ice Cream 8oci81 8:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. September 8 Alta Lomb Riding Club Board Meeting 7:30 p.m.-g:00 p.m. September g 4-H Fashion Show 3:00 p.m. - g:00 p.m. September t 0 RSET Schooling Dressage 8:00 e.m. - 5:00 p.m. September 17 Alta Lomb Riding Club Playday 8:00 8.m. - 5:00 p.m. September t8 4-H General Meeting 7:00 p.m. - g:00 p.m. Park Reservations: · The breakdown for park reservations for the month of ,July are as follows: Red Hill 4,375 71 resident 73 338 $3,088.50 2 non-resident Coyote Canyon 300 5 resident 6 32 $ 245.00 1 non-resident Heritage 891 21 resident 21 94 $ 813.00 0 non-resident Hermosa 565 14 resident 14 68.5 $ 447.00 0 non-resident Civic Courtyard 200 Police 1 3 NIC Total 6,33'1 '111 resident 115 535.5 $4,593.50 3 non-resident Park and Recreation Commission: · The Jul 20 2000 meetin of the Park and Recreation Commission was cancelled due to lack of substantial items for discussion. Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation: · The following items were discussed at the Foundation's Au ust8 2000 meetin: · Sub-committee update reports and discussion regarding the Founder's Night Gala 'An Evening of Elegance' to be held November 4, 2000. · Election of Officers - Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. · Consideration of a request from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation for support of the Inland Empire Race for the Cure event to be held October 22, 2000. · The Community Foundation will be holding a special meetinq on Tuesday, August 29, 2000, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. to review and discuss the Foundation's Action Plan. -9- , ,Z7 CITY COUNCIL IV~EETING PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNI1T SERVICES UPDATE AUGUST 19, 2000 Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter: · The following activities took place at the Epicenter during the reporting period: · ProVantage Used Car Tent Sale - July 27-31, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot. · Staff is working with representatives of the following organizations for future bookin_g~ at the Epicenter: · Automania - Used Car Tent Sale - August 10-14, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot. · Community Services Department - Night of Magic - August 19, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Quakes/McDonald's Basebailers Against Drugs - Youth Baseball Clinic- August 29, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Calvary Chapel Rancho Cucamonga - Skate Demonstration and Outreach Ministry- September 23, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot. · Rancho Cucamonga Professional Firefighters Association - Celebrity Softball Game - September 24, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Leiko Smith - Olympic Boxing - September 30, 2000, Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce - Grape Harvest Festival- October 4- 9, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot. · DGU/M-3 Entertainment - Boys II Men Concert- October 8, 2000 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Inland Empire Colts - Semi-Professional Football- Fall 20001 - Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium. · Staff is in the process of developing a comprehensive marketing plan for the Epicenter that has been designed to: maximize dollars spent to create an awareness of the Epicenter; increase rentals; reach new markets; maintain communication with current users of the complex; seek expanded promotional opportunities; and to measure internal processes, policies and fees for a greater degree of customer service. Re ectfully~ubn~itted, Kev~~n~~..~ R z .~ rdle Cos nmuniW~'[~e~lopment Director Community Services Director hlCOMMSERVICouncil&Boards~CiiyCouncillStaffRePottsiuPdate8. 16.00. doc -10-