HomeMy WebLinkAbout631 - Ordinances ORDINANCE NO. 631
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 pedinent part,
as follows:
"The Legislature finds and declares that:
a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can
result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and
other developments to the consumer, and discourage investment
in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make
maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic
cost to the public.
b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon
approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project
in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and
subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public
planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of
development."
2. California Government Code Section 65865 provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"Any city...may enter into a Development Agreement with any person
having a legal or equitable interest in rea1 property for the
development of such property as provided in this article..."
3. California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides, in part, as follows:
"A Development Agreement shall specify the duration of the
Agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density of intensity
of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
The Development Agreement may include conditions, terms,
restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions,
provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements
for discretionary actions shall not prevent devetopment of the land for
the uses and to the density of intensity of development set forth in the
Agreement..."
Ordinance No. 631
Page 2 of 68
4. "Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein
by this reference is proposed Development Agreement 00-02, concerning
that property generally located north of Highland Avenue, east of Day Creek
Channel and west of Hanley Avenue, and as legally described in the attached
Development Agreement. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the Development
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is referred to as the "Development
Agreement."
5. On 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 addendum to the EIR and SEIR as certified by the
County of San Bernardino and augmented by an addendum
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.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 3 of 68
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
Oh{ario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September.
AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatab, Dutton, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Wi ~am J. Alexa er a or ~ ', Y
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams,~C,
Ordinance No. 631
Page 4 of 68
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 16th day of August 2000, and was
passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the
6th day of September 2000.
Executed this 7th day of September 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
belb'Fa J. Adams{,,/CMC, City Clerk
Ordinance No. 631
Page 5 of 68
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City Clerk
City ofRancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
(Space above for Rccorder's Use Only)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
By and Between
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
and
U.C.P. INCORPORATED, a Califorma corporation
Dated: ,2000
Ordinance No. 631
Page 6 of 68
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 __th day of__, 2000, by
and between U.C.P. Incorporated, a Califomia corporation ("U.C.P.") and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a
municipal corporation (the "CITY") pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California
Government Code. U.C.P. and its successors and assigns, if any, are referred to collectively hereinafier as the
"Property Owner." The CITY and U.C.P. a~e collectively referred to herera as the "Parties."
RECITALS:
A. To provide more certa/nty 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 fights with respect thereto.
B. Section 65865(b) of the California Government Code authorizes the CITY to emcr into a binding
development agreement with respect to real property which is in unincorporatcd 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. Properly Owner owns fee title to approxnnately 250.67 acres of real property located entirely
within the County of San Bernardino (the "County") and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
(the "Project Site"). Previously, the Project Site was subject to land use entitlements resulting from the Connty's
approval in 1991 of the University/Crest Project PIned Development, PUD No. W 121-49 (the "University/Crest
PD"). The University/Crest PD entitlernents 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 "Project").
The requested modifications included:
I. Separating the University portion of the University/Crest PD from the Crest portinn;
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 umts from 578 to 685;
4. Modifying the location ofcorrwnercial 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 street alignments, lot designs and increased lots sizes;
7. Extending Banyan/Sumn'nt Avenue westerly over Day Creek Channel, to connect to Rochester;
8. Transferring to the County of San Bemardhio, in fee, 86 acres (one-half of a 172 acre parcel) of off-
site land for permanent open space, along with funding in the amount orS110,000.00, to provide for
long-term maintenance of such off-site land; and
~ "~:'~ "~'~ - I -
Ordinance No. 631
Page 7 of 68
9. Eliminating the 675-acre open space area from the Project, as it had already been uansferred to the
County by the Meu~opolitan Water Disn'ict
E. On October 26, 1999, the County appmved the Revised University Project, namely Revised
Preliminary Development Plan W121-49, and a Minor General Plan Amendment and zone change for the former
SCE property (the "Revised University Project Entitlemerits"). In accordance with the rules, regulations and
policies of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the County's Development Code, the County
certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with the Revised University Project Entitiements {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 Overriding 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 furst 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 ( l ) 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 suppor~ the Statement of Overriding
Considerations; {4) the County failed to consider and apply the CITY's land use and zoning standards when it
epproved 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-Annexation, and Tolling
Agreement between them, dated April __, 2000 (the "Settlement and Pre-Aunexation Agreement"). As a condition
of entering into the Settlement and Pre-Anncxation Agreement, the CITY and Property Owner have agreed to enter
into a development agreement, substantially in the form of this Development Agreement, subject to compliance with
all applicable legal requirements fornotice, hearing and findings. In addition to providing a vehicle for senlement
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 a"~'compliance with
the terms and conditions set, forth herein by the Panics hereto: (i) is in the best interest of the CITY; (it) will
promote the public convenience general welfare, and good land use practices in the CITY; (iii) wilt 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.
ARtcement
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:
Ordinance No. 631
Page 8 of 68
Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Effectiveness of Development A~reement
Notwithstanding the effective date of the Enacting Ordinance, this Development Agreement shall
only become operative and the rights 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 Properly 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 Selllement 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 of ten (10) years thereafrer (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 attributable to the "force majeure'
c ircurnstanees described in Section 2D5 hereof or by mutual written consent of the Parties.
· Following the expiration of the Term, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terrmnated and of no
further force and effect; provided, however, that such termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from
project entitlements granted prior to, coneurrentiy 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 smictures shall continue to be governed by this Development Agreement for purposes of ensunng, for land use
purposes, that those strtlelures continue to be legal conforming su'uctures and that those uses continue to be legal
conforrmng uses.
C. Assi~,nment
Subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, Property Owner shall have the right to
convey, assign, sell, lease, sublease, encumber, hypotheeate or otherwise u'ansfer (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 Seedon 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 ~'ansferee owner with
respect to any term and condition of this Development Agreement, or by the transferor with respect to any portion of
the Project Site not sold urTransferr~d, such noncompliance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by that
transferee or Iransferor, 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
transfer 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 this Development Agreement,
the instrument of conveyance used for such reservation or dedication, or other form of agreement with such public
agency,
Ordinance No. 631
Page 9 of 68
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 transferee, and the material terms of such contemplated Transfer.
D. Amendment of Aereement
This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties
in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. Notwithstanding anything stated
to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the Parties may enter into one or more implementing agreements, as
set forth below, to clarify the intended application or interpretation of this Development Agreement, without
amending this Development Agreement
Property Owner and the CITY acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a
close degree of cooperation between Properly Owner and the CITY and that, in the cotuse of the development of the
Project Site, it may be necessary to supplement this Development Agreement to adch'ess 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 Parties may do so through one or more in~lemcnting agreements (the "Implementing Agreement"),
which shall be executed by the Community 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 part 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 Community Development Director (on behalf of the
CITY), if the Community Development Director has deterrmned that such implementing agreements arc not
materially inconsistent with this Development Agreement, and the applicable ordinances, rules, regulations and
official policies of the CITY in effect at the time of execution of this Development Agreement. Any changes to this
Development Agreement which would impose additional obligations on the CITY beyond those which would be
deemed to arise under a reasonable interpretation of this Development Agreement, or which would purporl 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 Califorma
Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868.
SeCtion 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
A. ~
The land use enti~ements appruved 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 pertained uses for the Project, or any portion thereof, the density and intensity of use, zoning,
maximum height and size ofpruposed 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
Uinversity Project, shall be those set forth in the Revised University Project Entitlemerits as amended by this
Development AgreemanL The specific terms of this Development Agreement shall supercede and be controlling
over any conflict and/or inconsistency with the Revised University Project Entitlcments.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total number of lots in the approvcd tracts total 685
lots and that lots may be shifted between tracts without increasing the overall number of lots and be in substantial
conformity with the Revised University Project Entitlemants as amended by this Development Agreement. The
CITY Planner shall exercise his reasonable discretion to review transfers of lots between tracts and make the
determination of substantial compliance.
Other certain specific modifications of the Revised University Project Entitlements to which the
Parties agree are set forth below. All Exhibits attached hereto coustirute material provisions of the Development
Agreement, and are incorporated herein.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 10 of 68
B. Rules and Regulafion~
Pursuant to Califorma Government Code Section 65856 and except as otherwise explicitly
provided in this Development Agreement, the ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies governing
permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of such uses, and design, improvement, and consunction
standards and specifications applicable to development of the Project, shall be the Revised University Project
Entitlements and those ordinances of the CITY, as implemented by this Development Agreement, roles, regulations
and official policies and General Plan provisions in force at the time of the effective date of this Development
Agreement, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the Revised University Project Entitlemerits, as
modified and/or amended by this Development Agreement (the "Existing Laws"), except that the CITY's sn'eet
improvement, lighting, storm drain, and Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") 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, roles, 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, roles, 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 offand 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
requtrements for the conslxuction 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 hi this Development Agreement;
(ii) prevent the Properly Owner from obtaining all necessary approvals, permats, 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 fi'om comnaencing, continuing and finishing on a
timely basis the consrcuction 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 suncrate on
the Project Site a non-conforming structure.
C. Design and Infrastnacture Issues
1. Commercial. Park and School Sites
The County's approved land uses in the Revised University Project are depicted on
Exhibit "B". Despite these approved land uses, the CITY and Property Owner desire that Property 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. Con~_ercial Site._._____~s
(i) The latex Properties Commercial Site
The CITY desires that the commercial site located on the northwest comer of Banyan
Avenue a~d Day Creek Boulevard be enlarged and have a minimum depth nfthree hundred (300) feet. If a larger
commercial development is not feasible, then this site should be considered for residential development. However,
fl'fis commercial site is owned by latex Properties, and not by Property Owner and, therefore, Property Owner has no
legal ability to make an agreement about the future development of this commercial site. Nevertheless, Properly
Owner shall use good faith, diligent efforts in negotiations with latex Properties to accommodate the CITY 's desires
Ordinance No. 631
Page 11 of 68
to provide for a commercial site ofg. 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 Propchins, then Property Owner may proceed with residential
development of Tract 14494 of its project site, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D'. If a larger commercial
development is not possible, then the Intex 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 endtlements 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 sueet to connect to Banyan Avenue in conformity
with CITY standards.
(ii) Area 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 Panics 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 development criteria shall comply with the
applicable development standards of the CITY. Should commercial development under these criteria be infeasible,
then the use of Area G will revert to residential, which may include a minimum of 26 lots for single farrally, 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 Site~
The CITY and Property Owner agree to use diligent, good faith efforts to obtain the
Etiwanda School District's agreement for reciprocal fights to shared parking facilities and use of the park site and
school site.
2. Day Creek Boulevard Streetscapes
The CITY desires that the design of Day Creek Boulevard streetscapes be modified from
that approved as pan 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 streetscapes in
substantial conformity with Exhibit "F-I'. With the exception of grading and hartscape requirements, the
improvements for Day Creek Boulevard shall be substantially consistent with the CITY's approved Day Creek
Boulevard Master Plan however, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the median width shall be a maximum of
10 feel 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 "G" and "G-I' and with the "Entry Monument Consstructions Documents" on
file with the CITY on October 1, 1999.
3. Banvan/Summit Avenue From SCE Easement to Rochester Avem~r
The CITY desires that Banyan Avenue, west of Day Creek Boulevard, be fully extended from the
existing Southern California Edison easement, which 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 C1TY's circulation plan. The CITY
acknowledges and agrees that such extension is not a pan 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 unprovementa to Banyan Avenue through to
~'~""""~: :=~""'~ -6-
Ordinance No. 631
Page 12 of 68
Rochester Avenue, including all construction drawings and plans. The CITY agrees that witnin thU'ty (30) days of
the receipt of final drawings and required completed applications, it will apply to the County of San Bernardinn and
any other local, State or Federal agencies with jurisdiction for all necessary perr~ts to complete such improvements
(the "Penrots"). 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, ProperW Owner agrees to make
such approved improvements To Banyan Avenue, in substantial conforn'uty 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 dis~ct created pursuant to Section 2K, below. Artached as Exhibit "H-l" is
the "Banyan Offsite Full Width Conswuction" costs estimate.
4. Dry Utilities
The Revised University Project Entitlcments do not require that Bttrd vaults be installed
and the CITY and Property Owner agree that no Butd vaults will be required tha'oughout the Project Site.
5. .S!opes
Grading plans depicting slopes in all landscape maintenance districts CLMDs") shall be
reviewed and approved by the CITY. The goal of such review is to minirmze 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; bardscape confonTnng 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
witkin the Project Site are depicted on Exhibit "I". Proposed specific slope treatments which shall be applied to the
slopes in excess of 12.5 feet are depicted on Exhibits "I-I" through "1-6".
6. Area H - with 68 Future Lots
The Revised University Project Entitleinches include a densily of 68 lots on lots of a
minimum size of 10,000 square feet for Area H, as depicted on Exhibit "B'. Propert~ Owner proposes to develop
Area H as generally depicted on Exhibit 'T'. The Proper~ 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 safely issues preclude approval of the
necessary grading to allow the density as approved in the Revised University Project Entirlements. The CITY
further agrees that any future approvals for Area H will rely upon the Revised University Project Entitlemerits,
including the SEIR. In all other respects, Area H shall be reviewed and approved in compiiance with the CITY's
then applicable roles and regulations. The CITY acknowledges that the property now owned by the Etiwanda
School Dislrict, identified as Area I in paragraph 7 below, may allow for residential development and provide
alternate access to Area H. In the event that such development of Area I is approved, the Property Owner shall alter
its development to accommodate the additional point of access.
7. Area I - Etiwanda School District Property
The Parties acknowledge that the Etiwanda School District CDismct") 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 uact map for residential development in Area I which will propose the development of 30 lots in
accordance with the Etiwanda 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. Paseos.
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 paseos to provide
access to the ttails provided in CITY. The CITY and Property Owner agree that the number ofpaseos to be required
n...x.,._.~ ,,__ ~ - 7 -
Ordinance No. 631
Page 13 of 68
within the Project Site and the location of the paseos shall be approved by the CITY's Trails Commirtee. The
CITY's Staff accepts eight (8) foot maximum widths for consu'uction of the paseos in substantial conforrruty with
the drawing attached as Exhibits "L' and "L-1 ",
9. Circulation Issues and Fees
a. Hanson A~areRates
(i) .Access. The Revised University Project Entitlemcnts require that Property Owner
provide to the Hanson Aggregates operation located west of the Project Site, interim and permanent access along
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 conSm~cted in substantial conformity to the depiction on Exhibit "M-1 ".
(it) Disclosure. Property Owner agrees to provide a disclosure statement to all
pttrchasers stating that the Hanson Aggregates operations has rights of access for its truck txaffic along Banyan
Avenue from the operation to Day Creek Boulevard, and to the interchange at State Highway Route 30.
b. Transportation Fee/Traffic Impacts Analysi~
Circulation improven~nts 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
conslruction of infras~ucture in excess of Property Owner's fair share. The fee shall be calculated on a per-acre
basis, with the cost of the infras~n~cture allocated to the benefiting properties. Exhibit "N-I" depicts the benefitrag
properties and their respective fair share. Exhibit "'N-2" through "N-5" depict the estimated costs of the
mfrastrdcture. 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 orS0 feet in width, curb to curb, from Banyan
SU'eet to the School District's north property line in order to provide left turn pockets and overflow parking for the
school as depicted on Exhibit "O".
(it) 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 submined plans to
the State of California which depict the conslrdctinn 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 oft he one-hundred and fiftieth (150'~) building permit, whichever
first occurs. The other traffic signals shall be installed by the end of the Project development, or when warranted,
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.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 14 of 68
(v) Banyan Street from Harticy 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 westem
boundary of Tract 14494 to the existing terminus of Wilson Avenue located west of Haniey 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 Trnct 13527, except one lane north of the median shall be installed to allow
for traffic circulation. 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
HartIcy Avenue. Any other median breaks must be approved by the CITY Engineer. The westerly terrmnua 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-huncireth ( 10¢h) building permit, except that the
Parties acknowledge this construction cannot be completed without the cooperation of third panics who own the
properties on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard above Route 30 or condenmation of a right of way along these
properties. If, for any reason outside the control of the CITY and the Property Owner, Property Owner cannot
timely complete the constraction 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 restrictions 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 acconntmg for the use of funds by the CITY to complete the construction and to a refund of monies not used for
such conslnlction.
d. Reimbursement to Propercy Owner from The CITY's Street Improvement
Denosits
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 Sum nut 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 will
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.
According to the Revised University Project Entitlements, 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 frrst certificate of occupancy of any unit tributary 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."
Ordinance No. 631
Page 15 of 68
D. Timin~ of Development and Fees
1. Development of Circulation Improvements
a. Banvan/Sumrmt Avenue - Hanley Avenue to Rochester Avenn~
Propert~ 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 umts.
However, if, for any reason not within the control of the CITY or the Property Owner, the CITY cannot obtain the
Pertnits so that Proper~ 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
lener of credit equal to two-hundr'ed percent (200%) of the projected actual cost, either total or partial, of the
construction of the mrprovements in full and complete satisfaction of its obligation, and to be relieved of any further
resu'ictions on the issuance of building permits. If the CITY is required to consn'uct these improvements because of
the Propert70w'ner'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. DayCreek Boulevard
Propen~ Owner agrees to construct Day Creek Boulevard north to Wilson Avenue
concth-rently with Phase 1 (as defined in the Revised University Entitlements) 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 consl~ucted as development of the adjacent n'acts occurs.
2. Development of the Park Site
Property Owner agrees to consn'uct 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 conformance with
ADA standards, except that the Pardes agree that the Park will be constructed with up to four (4) lit basketball courts
and lwo (2) lit ball fields. The Park improvements will be substantially complete no later than issuance of the one-
hundredth (1 00t~) building permit in the Project. The Pardes agree that the product specifications 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-Y' and any remaining issues
shall conform to CITY standards. The CITY agrees to promptly process all applications and permits consistent with
its usual and cnstornary procedures. The CITY agrees that through dedication of 10 acres and construction 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 completion. The CITY reserves the fight to name the Park.
3. Develonment of Remainder of Profeet Site
Neither Property Owner nor CITY can presently predict when or the rate at which phases
of the Project Site shall be developed, since aneh decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the
conuol of Property Owner including, without limitation, market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption,
competition, and other factors.
The Panics acknowledge and agree that Property 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 exercise of the Property Owner's business judgment. The CITY further acknowledges that Property Owner
may desin 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 judgemerit of
subsequent owners of the Project Site.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 16 of 68
4. CITY's Cooneration
CITY shall use good faith, diligent efforts to promptly process and take final action on
any applications for permits or approvals filed by Property Owner with respect to the Project. Such cooperation
shall inchidc, 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 21 below. Without limiting the effect of any other provision of this Development Agrecmcnt, any rutuse
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 Ow'ner's vested rights to develop the Project under
this Deveinpmcnt Agreement and shall, to that extent, not apply to the development of the Project.
Processing and review of development proposals shall be subjcct to cstablishcd
procedures in effect in the entire CITY, including Development and Design Review, as specified in thc Existing
Laws. However, the criteria used in the evaluation of each dcvclopmcnt proposal shall bc based on the objectives,
policies and specific dcvclopment standards specified herein.
5. Force Matcure
Notwithstanding anyfixing to the contrary contained in this Development Agrccmcnt,
Property Owner and CITY shall be excused fxom performance of thcix obligations under this Dcvclopmcnt
Agreement during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, nots, 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 conlxol of CITY or Property Owner, as applicable. The time of pcrformance of such
obligations as well as the term of this Development Agreement shall automatically be extended by the period of
such delay hcrcundcr.
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 designing
these improvements and will incur additional costs, including but not limited to consmlctinn, installation, permit and
mspection (the "Costs"), as depicted in Exhibits "O_l" and "O.2." ThcPardcsagrecandacknowledgcthatthc
Costs are esthnates, and ultimately, Pwperty 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 Inffic/circula~on improvements consistent with Section 9.b. hereof. This will provide
the sole source of funds to rehnburse 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 Property Owner has been fully 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, after which the obligation shall cease.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 17 of 68
F. Future Entitlements
With respect to any entirlements that Property Owner may require in the filmre, including, without
limitation, tentative tract and parcel map approvals, conditional use permits, and Development/Design Review
related to the Park Site, Commercial Sites and Area 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 Agreement and the CITY may only impose
conditions upon such discretionary entitlemerits which are consistent with the Revised Unlvcrsirv Project
Emitlements 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 University Project Entitlemerits (and any additional filmre 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 comemplated 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 anal adopt the SEIR and other existing envh'onmcntal reports and studies as adequately
adckessmg the environmental impacts of such matter or matters, without requinng new or supplemental
environmental documentation. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the CITY may
impose additional measures (or conditions) m mitigate, as pernutted by CEQA, the adverse environmental impacts
of such filtu~re 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 Future Policies; and
(ii) The CITY agrees and acknowledges that the TIA incorporated in the SEIR has fully
analyzed the uaffic projected to be generated fi'om the Revised University Project, and, in accordance with all
applicable legal requirements including, without limitation, the T[A Guidelines set forth in the San Bernardino
County Congestion Managemere Plan ("CMP'), no additional traffic impact analysis shall be rcquil-ed for
development of the Project Site as long as the number of vehicle trips generated do not exceed the vehicle u'ips
evaluated in the TIA analysis. In the event and at such time as the Project generates more vehicle u'ips than
analyzed in the TIA, the CITY may require a new tnffic impact analysis in accordance with such CMP standards as
may exist at such time. Except in such event (and except for such tnffic circulation/site-access analysis as may be
reasonably required to determine the configuration and alignment of Streets 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 Mand~t~: bv State or Federal Law~
The Paxties 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
three categories: (a) fees for processing land use and consU'uction pernut 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 comemplated under ordinances or resolutions in effect as of the date
of this Development Agreement and which pu~ort to defray all or a portion of the cost of trapacts to certain public
facilities, improvements and other amentries f'com 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 filmre by the CITY for purposes ofdefzaymg all or a portion of the cost of public facilities,
improvements, or amentries related to development projects, but excluding the Existing Fee Categories ("Other
Fees"). The Property. Owner's obligation to pay Fe~s shah be specifically governed by the following provisions:
m,.~--.,~j, ,,-2~,, - 12 -
Ordinance No. 631
Page 18 of 68
1. Processin~ Fees. The CITY may charge Processing Fees '.,rich are in force and effect on
a CITY-wide basis at the time of Property Owner's application for a land use entitlement or a construction permit.
The amount of any Processing Fees shall be determined by the CITY in accordance with all applicable laws
including, without limitation, Government Code Sections 66013, 66014 and 66017-66018 .S (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. Existin Fee Care ories. As set forth above, the CITY agrees that certain fee categories,
(including, without limitation, Transportation Improvement fees, storm drain improvement fees, and commumty
park fees) have been or will be met by Property Owner through the consu'uction 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 unposed 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
rcferrcd to hcrcinaficr as the "Fee Limitation Period."
3. Other Fees. In consideration of thc Property Owncr's agreement to modify the Revised
University Project Entiticmcnts 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 Fccs, any such Other Fccs shall be limitcd
to Property Owncr's fair share cun~ibution to finpacts 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 bomc by property Owncr or the Project
through in-lieu construction.
4. Fiscal IrnDact Analysis. In consideration of the Property Owncrs' agrccmcnt to modify
· the Revised University Project Entitlernents as specifically set forth in this Devclopment Agrccment and to
implement the timing of development and improvements in accordancc with the terms set forth above, and including
the additional improvements the Properly Owner has agreed to construct, including but not limited to, the cxtcusion
of Banyan Avenue from the SCE Easement to Rochester Avenue, the CITY hcreby waives any requirement which it
could impose of the Properly Owner or the revised University Project to complcte a fiscal analysis for any approvals
or pewnits that the CITY might issue under this Development Agreement.
I. Non-Discretionary Permits
The Parties acknowledge that in the course of implementing thc Reviscd University Project,
Property Owner will, from time to time, apply to the CITY for various ministerial pertmrs, licenses, consents,
certificates, and approvals, including, without limitation, non-discretionary subdivision approvals, grading perrmts,
construction permits, certificates ofoccupuncy and permits required to cormcct the Project to utility systems under
the CITY's jurisdiction (collectively, the "Non-Discretionary pcnmts"). Property Owner shall have the right to
apply for any such Non-Discretionary Penmrs in accordance with the Existing Laws (and any applicable Future
Policies under Section 2B, above). The CITY shall issue to Propcny Owner, upon such applications, all required
Non-Discretionary Permits, subject only to compliance with the terms of this Developmcnt Agreement, the CITY's
Existing Laws (and any applicable Furore Policies under Section 2B above) and payment of CITY's usual and
cnstomary 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-Discrctionasy Pernuts (the "Approvcd
Plans"), all further entitlemerits, approvals and consents requircd from the CITY to unplcmcnt the Project which are
consistent with and further implement such Approved Plans, shall be expeditiously processed and approved by the
CITY in accordance with this Development Aguemerit.
~.~,.~.~.__~-~o - 13 -
Ordinance No. 631
Page 19 of 68
J. Cooperation
1. Coooeration With Other Public Aeencies
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 infraslructure. 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 Dislfict. and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and shall provide any documents or
certificates reasonably required to process and obtain such permits and approvals.
2. Cons~'uction of Off-Site Inmrnvements
To the extent that Property Owner is required to consmace any off-site improvements as a
c?ndilion of ~eveloping the Project. the Property Owner shall make good faith, diligent efforts to acquire any off-
s~te properly roterases required to construct such public improvements. If Property Owner fails to do sn, Property
Owner shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the f'u'st final 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 Properly Ownar'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
consn'uction of any substantial infrasl~ucture 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 Nilest extent possible in
obtaining reimbursement ur 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 bene~ted
property owners upon such owners' contribution, on a fair share, pro-rata basis, to the construction costs of such
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 construction and
related costs incurred in providing such improvements to the extent legally permissible.
3. ~
The Pardes 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 complying
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 infrasmacture improvements. The unplementation of such plan may include, without limitation, the
formation of one or more assessment dis~'icts, or Mello-Roos community facilities districts, 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 powera agreement with CITY, for school facilities fees, the Park improveraents,
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 Owner subject to
reimbursement by the Community Facilities Dish'ice.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 20 of 68
K. Creation of the Landscape and Street Li~htin~ Maintenance Districts
The CITY agrees to promptly form the necessary Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Dismen
CLMD") pursuant to California Su'eeta and Highways Code Sections 22500 et seq. (the "Landscaping and Lighting
. Act of 1972") for the Revised University 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 LIVIDs. The Parties agree that the LMD's must be established no later than
recordation of the final t~act 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 thi'ough 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 REVIE__W
A. Good Faith Comblianee
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 armnal review, Property Owner shall provide such
information as may be reasonably requested by the CITY in order to determine whether any provisions of th~s
Agreement have been breached by Property Owner. If at any time prior to the review period there is an issue
concerning a Properly 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 consu'uctive record notice
of compliance. Property Owner may record the Certificate of Compliance in the Official Records of the County of
San Bernardino.
C. ~
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 concertorig 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 perforraance under this Development Agreement. The notice shall specify in detail the grounds
and all facts allegedly demonstrating such noncompliance, so Property Owner may address the issues raised on a
peint-by-ponit bash. Property Owner shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice to file a written
response with the Community Development Director. Within 10 days after the expiration of such 20-day response
period, the Community Developmere 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
Property Owner to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of
the Notice of Default, and which shall be reasonably related m the time necessary to bring Property Owner's
performance into good faith compliance.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 21 of 68
D. Ri~,ht to Aooeal
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 wrilten notice of appeal
with the Ci~ 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 Cr'fY's Development Code.
At the hearing, Properly 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
~eterr~nes on the basis of substantial evidence that Properly Owner is in Default, then the Civf Council shall specify
m writing to Properly Owner the instances in which Properly Owner has failed to con~ly and the terms under which
compliance can be obtained, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Propervf Owner to meet the terms of
compliance, which time shall not be less than ~ {30) days from the date of such writing f-/om the City Council
and which shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to bring Property Owner's performance into good faith
compliance.
E. Proner~ Owner's Cure Ris, hf~
If Property Owner is in Default under this Development A~reement, 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
W otherwise amend or limit Properly Owner's rights under ~is Development A~reement. 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 ~han 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 b Either Pa
Subject to all requirements mandated by applicable state or federal or other law, this Development
Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the Parlies.
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 extem otherwise pertrotted herein and in Government Code Section 65864 et
seq. or any successor laws and regulations), to enforce any covenant or agreement herein in this Development
Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, including suits for declaratory relief, specific
performance, and relief in the nature ofmandamus. 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 pwvisions of this Development Agreement and are not intended to provide additional remedies not otherwise
pertained by law.
C. Attorneys' Fees
In any legal proceedings brought by either party to enfurcc any covenant or any of the Parties'
rights or rereadits under this Development Agreement including, without limitation, any action for declaratory or
equitable relief, the prevailing party shall bc entitled to recover reasonable a~tomeys' fees and all reasonable costs,
cxpemcs and disbursements in connection with such action. Any such allomeys' fees and other expenses incurred
by either of the Panics in enforcing a judgment in its favor under this Development Agrcemeni, shall bc ncovcrablc
separately from and in adthlion to any other arnonnt included in such judgment, and such anomcys' fees obligation
is intended to b~ severable from the other provisions nfthis Developmcnt Agreement and to survive and not bc
merged into any such judgmenL
Ordinance No. 631
Page 22 of 68
Section 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Successors and Assigns
Subject to the provisions of Section 1C above, the terms of this Devchipment Agreement shall be
binding upon and inurc to the benefit of the Parries, and their successors and assigns. insolaf as this Dcvelopmcnt
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 Underrakin~
It is specifically understood and agreed by and bet%vccn 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 cach of the Parries is an independent con~xacdng entity with respect to the terms,
covenants and conditions contained in this Development Agreement. No parmcrship, joint venture or other
association of any kind is formed by this Devclopment Agreement. The only relationship between the CITY and
Property Owner is ~hat of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such
private property.
C. Cantions
The captions of this Development Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall in
no way define, explain, modify, consuue, 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 Agrecmcnt shall not prevent or lirrnt
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 UnivcrsiD/Project, by
any morrgagc, deed of n'ust 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 DefauJ_t. 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
licn of any mortgage or deed of~nst. Despite the foregoing, breach of any provision of this Development
Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Morrgage made in good faith and for
value.
3, Mon~,a2ee NoI Obligated Notwithstanding anylhing in this Development Agreement to
the conn'ary, (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 forcclnsuxc, deed in lieu of forcclosure, or
otherwise, and such Morrgagee shall not have any obligation under this Development Agreement to consu-uct, fund
or otherwise perform any affxrmativc obligation or afftrmative covenant of Property Owner hereunder or to
guarantee such performance, and Mortgagcc may, aficr acquiring title to all or any porrion of the Projcct as
aforesaid, assign or otherwise U'ansfcr the Project or any such portion thereof to any person or entity, and upon the
giving of notice of such assignment or transfer to the CITY and the assumption by the assignee or u'ansferee of the
obligations of the Properly Owner with respect to the Property or portion thereof so acquired which arise or accrue
from and after the date of assignment or ~xansfer, Mortgagee shall be relieved and discharged of and from any and
all further obligations or liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to thc Project or portion thereof
so assigned or ~xansfcrfcd; and (b) the consent of CITY shall not be required for the acquisition of all or any porrion
of the Project by any purchaser at a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the terms of any Morrgage, and such
purchaser shall, by virtue of acquiring title to the Project or such portion thereof, be deemed to have assumed all
obligations of Properry Owner with rnspcct to the Project or porrion thereof so acquired which arise or accn~e
Ordinance No. 631
Page 23 of 68
subsequent to the date of purchase, but such purchaser shall not be responsible for an~ prior defaults of Property
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 granting of a specific benefit or to
the performance of a specific covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent
to the CITY's granting of such benefit and performance of such covenant hereunder.
4. Notice of Default to Mortl~a~:ee: P-j~;ht of Mort~a~;ee to Cure. Ira Mortgagee files with
the CITY Clerk, a wrinen 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 this Development Agreement or is
otherwise in Default under this Development Agreement. Each such Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the
obligation) for a period ofthhly (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
tlm. ty (30) day period, and thereafter diligently pursues and completes such remedy or cure. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if the Default is of a nature which can only be cured by Mortgagee by obtaining possession, such
Mortgagee shall be deemed to have remedied or cured such Default if such Mortgagee shall, witbAn such thrny (30)
day period, commence efforts to obtain possession and carry the same forward with diligence and continuity through
implementation of foreclosure, appoinnnent of a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure or
commence to remedy or cure the Default within the cure period specified in Section 3E above.
5. Bankruntcv. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5D4 above, if a Mortgagee is
prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature thereof to
obtain possession of the Project Site by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by
any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Property Owner, Mortgagee
shall for the purposes of this Development Agreement be deemed to be proceeding with diligence and continuity to
obtain possession of the Property duxing the period of such prohibition if Mortgagee is proceeding diligently to
terminate such prohibition.
6. Amendment to Develonment A~reement. The CITY and Property Owner agree not to
~nodify or amend this Development Agreement or to allow this Development Agreement to be modified or amended
m any way, or cancel this Development Agreement, without the prior wnnen consent of each Mortgagee, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding anything stated above to the contrary, the
CITY and Property Owner shall cooperate in including in this Development Agreement, by suitable implementing
agreement from time to time, any provision which may reasonably be requested by a proposed Mortgagee for the
purpose of implementing the mortgagee-protection provisions contained in this Development Agreement and
allowing such Mortgagee reasonable means to protect or preser,,e 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 UniversiP/Project Entitlements and the Existing Laws.
E. Consent
Where the consent or approval of any of the Panics is required in ur necessary under this
Development Agreement, unless the context otherwise indicates such consent or approval shall not be unxeasonably
withheld. ' '
F. ~
This Development Agreement and the documents artached to and referred to in this Development
Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject ma~er of this
Development Agreement.
~A,____~,,~ - 18 -
Ordinance .No. 631
Page 24 of 68
G. Further Actions and Instruments
Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent
comemplated 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. Govemin~ 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. Reeordinl,~
The CITY Clerk shall cause a copy of this Development Agreement to be recorded in the office of
the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino no later than ten ( I 0) 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 Parties at any time to seek redress for any violation of this Development
Agreement or any applicable law or regulation or to insist upon the sn'ict performance of any term or condition shall
not prevent any subsequent act or omission of the same or similar natur~ which would have originally constituted a
breach of or default under this Development Agreement from having all the force and effect of an original breach or
default, and such subsequent act or omission may be proceeded against to the fullest extent provided by this
Development Agreement. No provision of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a
party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by any of the Parties.
L. Partial Invalidity
If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Development Agreement is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Development
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
M. Notices
All notices between the CITY and Property Owner and any transferee under this Development
Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, mail or facsimile. Notice by personal
delivery or facsimile shall be deemad effective upon the delivery of such notice to the pan'y for which it is intended
at the address set forth below (or, in the case ofa u'ansferee, at the address specified by such ~ansferee in a w~nen
notice to CITY). Notice by mail shall be deemed effective upon receipt or rejection of the addressee. The Panics'
current address are as follows:
To CITY: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Arm: Community Development Director
Ordinance No. 631
Page 25 of 68
With copies to: Mr. James Markman
City Altomey
Richarts, Watson & Gershon
One Civic Center Circle
Brea, California 92821
To Property Owner: U.C.P., Inc.
5109 La Palma, Suite D
Anaheim Hills, California 92807
Arm: Mr. Bruce Elieft
Mr. Ben Anderson
With copies to: Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden
600 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 300
San Bernardino, 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, attorueys, 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 Agreeruent; provided, however, that Property Owner's obligations under this Section
are subject to and condifioned 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 will be entitled to coordinate and direct the prosecution and defense of such claim,
action, or proceeding, and Property Owner shall retsth settlement authority with respect thereto. The CITY and
Propeny Owner agree not to unreasonably withhold or delay their approval of such joint defense agreement.
IN WITNESS Vd-IEREOF, the Panics have duly executed this Development Agreement as of the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA U.C.P., Inc.
a Califorma corporation
By: By:
Mayor Name: Bruce Elieft
Its:
AliaSTED TO:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ordinance No. 631
Page 26 of 68
City Anomcy
Atlorneys for U.C.P., Inc.
Ordinance No. 631
Page 27 of 68
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 ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29
AND THE NORTH ~ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF
SECTION 29 AND THE SOUTH ',/a OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST
¼ OF SECTION 29 EXCEPTING THE WESTERLY 330 FEET, ALL IN TOWNSHIp 1 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN SAN BERNARIDNO COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
EXHIBIT "A"
Ordinance No. 631
Page 28 of ~ "'
LEGEND
SINGLE FAMILY
(7.200 SF = MINIMUM LOT SIZE)
PUBLIC (PARK & ELEM. SCHOOL)
CO{~MERC[AL
RANCHO ETIWANDA
ADOPTED UNIVERSITY
"': PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ALLARD ENGINEER[NO
;'-"~-~' ,~, EXHIBIT 8 j
.... ' ' · ' Ordinance No. 631
Page 29 of 68
I
RANCH0 ETIWANDA.:~.:?:..,:,
I -n~c-r :~.~.94'-
BANYAN COMMERCIAL SITE '
I"'" 9.1 ACRE OPTION :' """"'
~GJT~E~I~G .... "'
· '
-::i.'.'
Ordinance No. 631
Page 30 of 68
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
TRACT !'!.d94
BANYAN CffiOMMERCIAL SITE
RE,DENTaL OFRON
Vl ::)rdinance No. 631
Page 31 of 68
65' 88' 63'
97' ~'- 106'
98'
~ 3
99'
100__'
as_Z_'
1o6,
107' .
~ 9 ~ s2' ~'
- - -- 108'
16
100'
~ ~' "~
Ordinance No. 631
Page 32 of 68
Wt:5"f E,L~T
'~2' ,12'-~002'' ,',2' ' 16' I g. LAND<,
~2' ~ 321_4.'
ROUTE 30 TO VINTAGE DRIVE
N.T,$,
· ' 1 ' ' GLrFrEj 9' LANDS
,~,~.~ '!o '~ . ~ ' . ·
VINTAGE DRIVE TO WILSON AVENUF
WILSON AVENUE TO NORTH PROPERTY LINF
N .T.S.
RANCHO ETIWAND~z
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD
STREET CROSS SECTION
EXHIBIT F
Ordinance No. 631
Page 33 of 68
FIOUTE 80 TO VINTAGE DRfvi:= WILSON AVENIJE TO NORTH PROPERTY UM=
N.T.S.
TREt
WASH IGTON IA
ROBUSTA
I
.~'~ SHRUBS &
,~ GROUND COV'!
7:1 ~../'~
4' WALK
10' WALK
JS &
GROUND COVER
CANOPY TREE
RIVER ROCK PYRUS CALLERYANA ~
VINTAGE ~ TO ~ AVENL,'F
RLNCI--IO ETIWA_ND.A_
STREETSCAPE EXHIBIT
EXHIBff F-1
Ordinance No. 631
Page 34 of 68
10' WALK
MEDIAN
DAYCREEK BLVD. BUS STOP SECTION
EAST SIDE
,//~.2' 36" HIGH -
RETAINING WALL
't',l VINES @ 25'
10' WALK ° ~ ~ ' 10' WALK
7 7~ 36' HIGH
~ RETAINING WALL
~ 15 GALLON
I~' I~ , SHRUBS ~ 42' O.C.
LOT ~35 LOTS 16, 17
.DAYCREEK BLVD. LOTS 16, 17, & 35
EAST SIDE
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
· - STREETSCApE EXHII3|T
EXHIBIT F-2
Ordinance No. 631
Page 35 of 68
MAJOR ENTRY MONUMENT
3NDARY ENTRY MONUMENT
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
~ -_.-. I INTERSECTIONS
EXHIBIT G
Ordinance No. 631
Page 36 of 68 f ,,'.,'
'~'~'~~~ REFER TO ENTRY MONUMENT
"~""~"~ ~,,~, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ON
~,. L ,..,=..~.,.,,.,...,.~ FILE WITH CITY FOR EXACT
QNE/GF{ROR.HOOD ENT!~.y (~ MA$OR. D,~'~Y
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
INTERSECTIONS
EXHIBIT G-1
Ordinance No. 631
Page 37 of 68
I ~ :j o
I .......... .%_5 ..........~' '
Ordinance No. 631
Page 38 of 68
Banyan Offsite Full Width Construction
UCP Incorporated
Rancho Etiwanda
685 LOTS 250 ACRES
DATE ESTIMATED: 2/22J00
DATE PRINTED: 4/8/00
ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineenng
PRICE ] 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 I EA. $200,000.00 $200,00,
72' RCP 130 LF $282.00 $36,66~
HEADWALL 2 EA. $20,000.00 $40,00~
RIPRAP 14,000 TON $15.00 $210,00~
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 PENCE 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,
PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION 8% $88,19,.t
CONTINGENCY 20% $220,48E
TOTAL FULL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION $1,532,39;
Notes:
Box Culvert costs are market projections
EXHIBIT H-1
L
Ordinance No. 631
Page 39 of 68
LEGEND
.~ SLOPES HIGHER THAN 12+ ~
BXl-IIl~"r H
I
EXHIBFF I-6
EXHIBIT FZ
I-5
EXHIBIT I-4
~" EXHIBIT I-3
,,,,,, RANCHO ETIWAND~
~ LIVID SLOPES EXHIBIT
~ eegem~ ~ ~]Gh'WAy
Ordinance No. 631
Page 40 of 68
RIVER ROCK
36" HIGH CRIB WALLS OR :
RETAINING WALLS AS APPROVED ,...~
BY CITY ENGINEER. __ ~; i_ _
4' WALK -- .~
WILSON AVENUE
RANCHO ETIWANDA
LIVE:) SLOPES EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT I-I
Ordinance No. 631
Page 41 of 68
4' WALK
.DAYCREEK BLVD
WEST SIDE
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
----' EXHIBIT F2
4' WALK
VINTAGE DRIVE
RANCHO ETIWANDA
LIVID SLOPES EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT I-3
Ordinance No. 631
Page 43 of 68
RIVER ROCK --
36" HIGH · I ""~'
RETAINING WALL - ~ -- __
10' WALK -
DAYCREEK BLVD.
EAST SIDE
RANCHO ETIWANDA
LJvD SLOPES EXHIBIT
-'---. EXHIBIT I-4
Ordinance No. 631
Page 44 of 68
3~ .'/
.. IRETAINING~
WALL :
4' WALK
HANLEY AVENUE
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
Lk~ SLOPES EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
Ordinance No. 631
Page 45 of 68
TALL NARROW, ,,,~,~
UPRIGHT TREE ,
FLOWERING MEDIUM SHRUB
CASCADING GROUND COVER
/,/ZL 4' HIGH RETAINING
WALLS (2)
t ~ 10' WALK
+~ _
· ,
.PRIVATE SLOPE EXHIBIT
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
PRIVATE SLOPE EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT I-6
Ordinance No. 631
Page 46 of 68
s .c .~.
Intermediate
School Site
~I Wilson Avenue _ J~
'I'm, r il~'~r"~l~l ~ RANCH0 ETIWANDA
Ordinance No. 631
Page 47 of 68
I e~ICLL(:;)ES 30 LO'i'S OWNED BY
ET'IWANDA SCI'-K:X::L DIST'R}CT
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
~,~u~D ~r~ 715 LOT' LOTliNG EXHIBIT
,,,~,, ,, ,~ ,,.~, __ . EXHIB~' K
I
Ordinance No. 631
Page 48 of 68
W,DE MAx. LEGEND
PASEO
,/~ PASEO LOCATION
WIDE MAX.
PASEO
WiJson Avenue
8' WIDE MAX.
PASEO
8' WIDE MAX. '~
PASEO
8' WIDE MAX.
PASEO
20' WIDE STORI
DRAIN
AND
Elementary
Schoo[ Site
8' WIDE MAX
lntex
PASEO
PASEO
8' WIDE MAX
PASEO
20' WIDE
PASEO
8' WIDE
PASEO
~' w, oE .... RANCH0 ETIWAND~
PASEO .~A~ mGH~AY
":
Ordinance No. 631
Page 49 of 68
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
PASEO CROSSECTION
EXHIBIT L-1
Ordinance No. 631
Page 50 of 68
0
J~ J:: 0
U
~ ~
-~ = ~ d
Avenue
~ f j(
TRAFFIC SIGNAL (tO
BE INSTALLED BY '
. HANSEN AGGREGATE)
ge Drive
J ;tote Highway
~ ~te. 30 ROW--
/
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
HANSEN AC.-~_~:~
j~_~...~,~ ~.,~{~ HAUL F~AD
Ordinance No. 631
Page 51 of 68
~-' __
SCALE: 1 "= 'i 00'
I I: .' ,' , .' ..,.'. i:-v ,~ ',..;L.'.:': "., "'. ~,::,~,:!/',;'. ', ~ a.
' ' ~' ' : I ~ ' ' ; "4:a' ""
I "
..; '..::..'.1
.--
~ ~ I. ~':.::'~{~":: .' ::::~ :":".
· ~: I: ., .. , ..: :~ ..
~o~t~r S~Bem~o ~ ' *' ~ Summit Avenue
.; . .;
"' RANCHO ETIWANDA
'l :':"'; ~u':,.. ~ ~; .
a~ .I '1".;.;,: ~ ,'.[..::.iF i :' .
..... ~ . : .~ .:
.,o, ~ _. [ ~ I...--,-.'~. I ' "' ': ' ~ANSPO~A~ON
Transportation Impact Fee Analysis - City of Rancho Cucamonga
DAY CREEK AREA - Etiwanda North
Rancho Etlwanda
DATE ESTIMATED: 4115~00
DATE PRINTED: 4/21100
ESTIMATED BY: Allard Engineering
Total Transportation Costs $3,028,800.00
Total Area 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 232 685 46% $5,962.20 ' $1,383,231.50 No school or park
Crest 240 660 47% $5,962.20 $1,430,929.13 660 lois exclude Park
School Lots 12 30 2% $5,962.20 $71,546.46 30 lots
IntexCommerclal 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 R0
"o~
Total 508 100% $3,028,800.00 ~a ~
Ordinance No. 631
Page 54 of 68
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
ITEM UNIT UNiT
ITEM QUANTITY MEASUR PRICE AMOUNT
FACILITY
I ETIWANDAAvenue-25thstreettoLADWp 1320 LF $240.00 $316,800.O
2 DAY CREEK BLVD - RL30 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 o Day Creek to Rochester 1320 LF $155.00 $204,600.OI
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
Ordinance No. 631
Page 55 of 68
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 Engineenng
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT
NUMBER ITEM QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
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 & 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
EXHIBIT N - 3
Ordinance No. 631
Page 56 of 68
Transportation Impact Fee Analysis o 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 ESTIMATI UNIT UNIT
ITEM QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE AMOUNT
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 S90.00
1' AC Cap 60.0 SF S0.40 $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 S F $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 $020 $12.00
5" AC over 12" AB 60.0 SF $1.50 $90.00
1" AC Cap 60.0 SF $040 $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
Ordinance No. 631
Page 57 of 68
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 I I
N~T~ER ITEM MEASURE PRICE AMOUNT
BANYAN AVENUE - Day Creek to Rochester
Excavation 1,3 CY $1.60 $2.08
Fine Grade 44.0 SF $020 $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 S7.50 $1500
4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF $1,50 S0,00
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 $10938
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 & Striping 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 AJlowance (10%) $12.70
Contingencies 30% $38.09
TOTAL $177.77
Estimated Cost Per Linear Foot "USE" $180.00
EXHIBIT N - 5
Ordinance No, 631
Page 58 of 68
SECTION A
SECTION B
· .:--.,...
SECTION C
SECTION D
SEC~ON E
~ ~ ~sPo~A~
~G~ IMPACT ~ AN~YSIS
~ ~" ~ ~ ~, -- EX~B~ N-6
Ordinance No. 631
Page 59 of 68
Tract 14497
............... r-
· Not a Pad /
Park Site ~ School Site
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
J~ ~c~c HANI I=Y AVENUE
.~.~ ~x~ o
Ordinance No. 631
Page 60 of 68
Tract 14497
................................... c- "r""
.....
Not a Pad
...............
Park Site ..........
School Site
'_:: :_- SummitAvenue
RANCH0 ETIWANDA
J "' ,~v~z~v~ SIDEWALK EXHIBIT
2,,:,..-,~, ,-,.- ExHie~ P
Ordinance No. 631
Page 61 of 68
Tract 13527
//// Conditioned to build
Avenue Half Wi~h !mprovements
including the median
Tract 12659
Centex Homes
$'148,152.40 in
City of Rancho
Cucamonga Account
14120
Conditioned to build
Full Width (66' ROW)
Improvements
Park 13812
Panda Development
$200,000.00 in
City of Rancho
Cucamonga Account
~ct 13812
Panda Development
$25,000.00 in
City of Rancho
Cucamonga Account
RANCHO ETIWANDA
~c.zN~c STREET IMPROVEMENT DEPOSIT
EXHIBIT O
Ordinance No. 631
Page 62 of 68
Storm Drain Cost Sharing Proposal - City of Rancho Cucamonga
DAY CREEK STORM DRAIN
Rancho Etiwanda
DATE ESTIMATED: 4115/00
DATE PRINTED: 4/21/00
ESTIMATED BY: Aliatel Engineenng
This proposal allows for the UCP project to participate in the cost of the
Basehne 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 Cost/Acre Fair Share
K & B - Baseline 21.1 $3.81971 $80.595.97
RDA Parcel 19.8 $3,819.71 $75.630.34
Horrero 28.3 $3,819,71 $108.097,91
K&BVictoria 19.1 $3.819.71 $72,956.54
Lyon 26.3 $3,819,71 $100.458.48
UCP 60.0 $3,819.71 $229,18285
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 yenfled after construenon
EXHIBIT R
Ordinance No. 631
Page 63 of 68
Rancho Etiwanda Park Site
RANCHO P.'7]ZWAi',,TDA
PARK SITE
EXHIBIT S
Ordinance No. 631
Page 64 of 68
~' Note: Product Specifications
are per City of Rancho
~u; Cucamonga Standard=
BA CHO
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
EXHIB~ S-1
Ordinance No. 631
Page 65 of 68
· ,~* ,,,.~,,..,.,Note: Product Specifications
are per City of Rancho
Cucamonga Standards
R~C~O gT~W~ND~
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
EXHIB~ S-2
Ordinance No. 631
Page 66 of 68
Rancho Etiwanda
DATE ESTIMATED: 4/15/00
DATE PRINTED 4/21/00
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 Monciel 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
Lonicera 24,572 SF
Myoporum 5.684 SF
Star Jasmine 1,662 SF
Tuff - 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 I EA
Lighted Basketball Courts 4 EA.
Parking stalls with access to school parking 65 EA.
Restroom Building (per plan) I EA.
Entry Monumentation with Signage 1 EA.
Picnic Tables (1 HDCP) 14 EA.
Two-Bin Trash Enclosure 1 EA.
Ddnking Fountain 2 EA.
BBQ Gdll 12 EA.
Trash Receptacles 2 EA.
Bench 8 EA.
1,200 sf Wood Arbor Structure 2 EA.
EXHIBIT S - 3
Ordinance No. 631
Page 67 of 68
RANCHO ETIWANDA OPEN SPACE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NORTHERLY PORTION:
THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHlEAST 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 NORTFIVv'ESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY AND
NORTFIX,VESTERLY 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 31, 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 I 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 SLFRVEYOR 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 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAiD
NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE N 89°54'57"W. A DISTANCE OF 132281 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST.
SOUTHERLY PORTION:
THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP I 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 SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF TFI~ SOUTHERLY AND
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND BEING 85 FEET WIDE
AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHtERN
CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 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
Ordinance No. 631
Page 68 of 68
_.~ c- 0
o
F-- CS
~ C)
c)~ LL
C C..)
::, C.) L.~
LLI C/~
Avenue
ACTIVATED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL (TO
BE ~NSTALLED BY
HANSEN AGGREGATE)
Vintage Drive
;tote Highway
~te. 30 ROW-3
RANCHO ETIWANDA
.. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
'~°'".'--~-". ~ EXHIBITD