Chino City Council
September 6, 2022

TASK 2: Utility Research and Notification
BKF will contact the City and utility (water, sewer, storm, and PG&E) companies that serve the site or have utilities within the adjacent streets. We will gather the available record drawings and/or block maps to depict the record location of the utilities superimposed onto the topographic survey. BKF will develop and maintain a record of utility notifications including contact numbers, dates or transmittals, and materials transmitted in a Utility Response Matrix.

Based on our experience with tract development and water main replacement projects, we feel that the project can be successfully completed using field observations and as-built data in place of completing potholing over the water main. We anticipated that the existing water main will need to remain operational during installation of the replacement main and re-establishment of the new water services.

Flexibility in the water service connections typically allow contractors to easily connect services either over or under existing mains without knowing the exact depth of the existing main prior to breaking ground.

Removing the potholing effort from the project presents a significant cost savings to the City. In the event that the City would like to pursue potholing, we can provide this as an optional service.

TASK 3: Field Survey / Right of Way Investigation
BKF will provide the field work to prepare a Topographic Map of the project limits within the right of way.

The limits of the topographic survey will be the improved width of Russell Avenue from the north edge of Terry Avenue to the south edge of Walnut Avenue. The topographic survey will be comprised of identified visible site features such as curbs, pavements, fences, traffic signals, lights, utility poles, trees 4-inches and larger in diameter and visible utility infrastructure. We will obtain a succession of spot elevations to define the general terrain of the site and immediately adjacent improvements to produce mapping at a 1-foot contour interval.

Utility infrastructure within the mapping limits, including manholes, valves, hydrants, meter boxes, storm drain and marked utilities, if encountered during the course of our field survey, will also be identified. The basic routing, inverts and orientation of the on-site gravity utilities will be identified based on field evidence and any available plans provided if to BKF prior to commencement of the survey BKF will produce the mapping in a reproducible hard copy and electronic format. The signed Topographic Map will be an instrument of service.

The mapping will locate and delineate survey monuments encountered during the field survey.

Monuments at risk of disturbance will be quantified for line item bid forms and the project specifications.

The mapping will be collected electronically, processed utilizing AutoCAD Civil 3D software and is anticipated to be compiled at 1” = 20’.

The vertical control for the survey will be tied to the most recent City of Chino benchmarks in the project vicinity and related to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), unless otherwise agreed upon in writing prior to commencement of the survey.

The horizontal location and rotation of the mapping is anticipated to be on an “assumed” coordinate system otherwise agreed upon in writing prior to commencement of the survey.

Based on a cursory review of recent transfer deeds and other available public records, it appears that the right of way and boundary lines along the project corridor are shown on the tract map recorded in Book 81, Pages 85-86, San Bernardino County Records. BKF will locate primary monumentation, evidence and witness monuments thereof to locate the lines on said map relative to the topographic base mapping. It

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 189 July 26, 2021

is assumed that the record map will be able to be retraced and plotted without requiring a Record of Survey as required by section 8762 of the California Professional Land Surveyor’s Act. Should a Record of Survey be required, BKF will coordinate with the City to discuss the appropriate next steps as it relates to a boundary survey.

TASK 4: Geotechnical Investigation and Report
BKF’s geotechnical sub-consultant, RMA Group, Inc. (RMA) will perform a geotechnical investigation of the project location and alignment to determine the conditions of the existing subgrade soils and provide recommendations for the design of the proposed waterline improvements. The geotechnical investigation will also identify any critical geotechnical conditions that may need to be addressed during construction activities.

The geotechnical investigation will include a background geotechnical review of readily available geotechnical reports from nearby and adjacent projects, regional geologic maps, in-house aerial photographs, and in-house geotechnical maps. The investigation will also include a subsurface geotechnical evaluation consisting of three 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger borings along the project alignment. Each boring will be excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 15 feet below the existing surface or to refusal. RMA will collect relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of the existing materials encountered in the borings and will evaluate the samples to determine the engineering characteristics of the on-site materials. RMA will summarize their findings in a Geotechnical Report that will include evaluations of site seismicity and corrosion potential of concrete and metal in contact with onsite soils.

This task includes obtaining a no-fee encroachment permit from the City of Chino including the preparation and processing of a traffic control plan.

TASK 5: Preliminary Engineering Design
BKF will coordinate with City staff to establish recommended design criteria for the water main replacement and to understand the age and condition of the residential water services along the roadway.

BKF will lead a field walk with City staff to discuss ancillary improvements associated with the water main replacement, such as meter upgrades and water service replacements/upgrades.

It is anticipated that the existing water services are ½-in services and are not large enough to support a residential fire sprinkler system, which would be required upon significant remodeling of a residence.

Additionally, BKF will identify any appurtenances on private or public ROW that might affect design and propose alternatives for design issues and bring to the attention of the City.

It is assumed that the new main should be installed while the existing main remains in services; as such, BKF will need to ensure that Division of Drinking Water Title 22 standards for main separations are met, or that a Waterworks Standards Main Separation Alternative Form be filed with the Division of Drinking Water for approval is an alternative configuration needs to be pursued.

Following the trenching work, the street will need to be rehabilitated to prolong the lifespan of the new trench, as well as to deal with existing longitudinal and fatigue cracking. Based on our observations, we believe that a grind and overlay following the utility work will address the pavement condition issues at the site. BKF will discuss this approach with the City prior to its incorporation into the bid documents for the project. All work is anticipated to be within City Right-of-Way and will not require any temporary or permanent easements being prepared by BKF.

Water main replacement plans will be submitted to the City for review at the 30%, 65%, 90% and 100% level of completion. BKF will prepare 40-scale plan and profile sheets for the water main replacement and will reference public standards for installation and appurtenance details. We are expecting to prepare the following drawings to illustrate the project improvements:

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 190 July 26, 2021

• Cover Sheet (1 sheet)
• Notes & Legend (1 sheet)
• Demolition Plan (1 sheet at 40-scale)
• Water Main Plan and Profile (1 sheet at 40-scale)
• Paving Plan (1 sheet at 40-scale)
• Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan (1 sheet at 40-scale) • Construction Details (2 sheets)
TASK 6: Engineer’s Quality and Cost Estimate
BKF will prepare an Engineer’s Quantity and Cost Estimate based on a template document provided by the City. We will base our unit costs off of data received from other recent, relevant project bids. In additional to construction materials, this Estimate will also include costs associated with anticipated permitting and OSHA shoring requirements and removal and disposal of the existing asbestos transite pipe. Under this task, BKF will also prepare a Bid Schedule to be included in the Specifications based on the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Green Book”) itemizing the quantities and bid items. It is understood that City staff will prepare the standard “front end” specifications, Special Provisions, Technical Specifications, and will assemble the project Specifications. Specifications for specialty work items, if needed, can be prepared by BKF.

TASK 7: Plan Interpretation and Bidding Assistance
BKF, at the request of the City, will provide construction plan interpretation and consultation during the bidding phase of the project. If necessary, BKF will assist the City in preparing bid addenda as required to provide clarification to drawings and provide responses to Request for Information (RFI) and requests for clarification during the bidding phase.

TASK 8: Construction Support and Submittal Review
BKF can provide construction phase support services to support the City during the construction phase of the project. Anticipated services include written responses to RFIs, review of submittals, and drawing revisions as needed.

TASK 9: Meetings
BKF will schedule regular progress meetings to discuss the status of the project, upcoming efforts, issues, coordination items, and other relevant information. Agendas, action logs, updated project schedules, and meeting minutes will be prepared and distributed. We will also maintain frequent and timely communication with City staff throughout the duration of the project. We recommend that page-turn review meetings be held with the City following each milestone submittal so that design intention and City feedback can be discussed and quickly incorporated into the next milestone deliverable. We have allocated ten (10) hours of combined staff time for meetings.

TASK 10: Project Closeout
Following completion of construction, BKF will prepare record drawings based on the Contractor’s asbuilts to document the final location of the improvements. Additionally, BKF will provide an ESRI GIS shape file of the final water main alignment, for the City to incorporate into their GIS database.

OPTIONAL TASK 1: Potholing
In the event that the City would like to pursue potholing during design, BKF can support the City by soliciting the services of a general contractor and completing a potholing plan to identify the location of pothole data needed. Following potholing, BKF will update the potholing plan to document the encountered utility depths below ground surface, then relate those depths to elevations based on our

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 191 July 26, 2021

topographic survey. Potholing coordination, contractor mobilization, and completion of the first pothole can be completed for $8,000, with each subsequent pothole increasing the total task fee by $2,000. This task will not be completed unless specifically authorized by the City.

SCOPE QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
BKF Engineers’ services are limited to those expressly set forth in the scope. We understand that BKF will have no other obligations or responsibilities for the project except as provided in this proposal letter, or as otherwise agreed to in writing. BKF will provide the scope of services consistent with, and limited to, the standard of care applicable to such services. Any participation in non-adversarial procedures, or other right to repair items, is considered as additional services. For the scope of work identified, we have assumed the following:
a) Existing Utilities: Unless otherwise indicated or provided by others, any existing utilities identified on BKF’s drawings/plans are based on information obtained by BKF, or provided to BKF, and may not be accurately documented in their horizontal location or vertical profile. Other utilities may be present that were not disclosed. BKF highly recommends that critical facilities be underground service alert (USA) located and potholed during design or prior to construction. b) Potholing: Potholing services are not included in this proposal unless specifically identified. c) Existing Utility Capacities: Unless otherwise addressed, existing utilities have adequate capacity and a utility system capacity study is not required.
d) Utility Location Services: BKF has not included fee to contract with an underground utility location consultant to locate private utilities within the site. If needed, BKF can provide this service as an amendment to our agreement.
e) QSD/P Services: We have assumed that the project is exempt from obtaining a Construction General Permit; therefore, no SWPPP document nor QSP services during construction will be needed. f) Traffic Control Plan and Construction Haul Route Plan: These will be prepared and coordinated by the Contractor. BKF can provide this service as an additional scope item at your request. g) Construction Staking: These services are assumed to be contracted directly with the general contractor and are not included.
h) Meetings: We have not included attendance at regularly scheduled construction meetings as part of the scope of services.

SCHEDULE
Please see Exhibit ‘B’ for our proposed design schedule. We have made several assumptions in development of this schedule and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the City to bring into alignment with expectations.

COMPENSATION
BKF proposes to provide the services on a time and materials basis. Please See Exhibit ‘A’ for the full breakdown of our fee.

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 192 July 26, 2021

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your review and consideration. As always, we strive to capture the scope of work per the RFP, site visit, and implement answers to our questions. If in your review you feel we missed any part of the scope of work we would like to discuss those items and modify the fee and schedule accordingly, if necessary.

We look forward to continue our relationship with the City of Chino. Please contact me at (925) 989-6544 if you have any questions or need any clarifications. Thank you and stay healthy and safe! Respectfully,
BKF Engineers
Chris Rideout, PE
Principal/Vice President

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 193 ID Task Name Duration Start
1 Contract Execution (assumed) 1 day Mon 9/12/22
2 Notice to Proceed 1 day Mon 9/12/22
3 As-Built Research, Investigation and Review 2 wks Mon 9/12/22 4 Request and Review Data 2 wks Mon 9/12/22
5 Site Visit 1 wk Mon 9/19/22
6 Utility Research and Notification 3 wks Mon 9/19/22
7 Request and Review Data 2 wks Mon 9/19/22
8 Utility Response Matrix 2 wks Mon 9/26/22
9 Field Survey / Right of Way Investigation 15 days Mon 9/19/22 10 Field Work 1 wk Mon 9/19/22
11 Mapping and Investigation 2 wks Mon 9/26/22
12 Geotechnical Investigation and Report 30 days Mon 9/19/22 13 Field Work 1 wk Mon 9/19/22
14 Lab Work and Report 5 wks Mon 9/26/22
15 Preliminary Engineering Design 85 days Mon 10/10/22
16 30% Design and QC 4 wks Mon 10/10/22
17 30% Submittal to City 0 days Fri 11/4/22
18 65% Design and QC 4 wks Mon 11/14/22
19 65% Submittal to City 0 days Fri 12/9/22
20 90% Design and QC 4 wks Mon 12/19/22
21 90% Submittal to City 0 days Fri 1/13/23
22 100% Design and QC 2 wks Mon 1/23/23
23 100% Submittal to City 0 days Fri 2/3/23
24 Engineer's Quality and Cost Estimate 70 days Mon 10/31/22 25 30% Estimate 1 wk Mon 10/31/22
26 65% Estimate 1 wk Mon 12/5/22
27 90% Estimate 1 wk Mon 1/9/23
28 100% Estimate 1 wk Mon 1/30/23
29 Plan Interpretation and Bidding Assistance 4 wks Mon 3/6/23 30 Construction Support and Submittal Review 12 wks Mon 4/24/23 31 Meetings 66 days Fri 11/11/22
32 30% Page-Turn Review with City 1 day Fri 11/11/22
33 65% Page-Turn Review with City 1 day Fri 12/16/22
34 90% Page-Turn Review with City 1 day Fri 1/20/23
35 100% Page-Turn Review with City 1 day Fri 2/10/23
36 Project Close-Out 10 days Mon 7/31/23
37 Record Drawings 2 wks Mon 7/31/23
38 Shapefiles 1 wk Mon 8/7/23
Contract Execution (assumed)
Notice to Proceed
As-Built Research, Investigation and Review
Request and Review Data
Site Visit
Utility Research and Notification
Request and Review Data
Utility Response Matrix
Field Survey / Right of Way Investigation
Field Work
Mapping and Investigation
Geotechnical Investigation and Report
Field Work
Lab Work and Report
Preliminary Engineering Design
30% Design and QC
11/4
30% Submittal to City
65% Design and QC
12/9
65% Submittal to City
90% Design and QC
1/13
90% Submittal to City
100% Design and QC
2/3
100% Submittal to City
Engineer's Quality and Cost Estimate
30% Estimate
65% Estimate
90% Estimate
100% Estimate
Plan Interpretation and Bidding Assistance
Construction Support and Submittal Review
Meetings
30% Page-Turn Review with City
65% Page-Turn Review with City
90% Page-Turn Review with City
100% Page-Turn Review with City
Project Close-Out
Record Drawings
Shapefiles
8/21 8/28 9/4 9/11 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9 10/16 10/23 10/30 11/6 11/13 11/20 11/27 12/4 12/11 12/18 12/25 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/28 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 September October November December January February March April May June July August Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress

Project: Russell Avenue Water M
City of Chino
CIP No. WA223
City of Chino Department of Public Works
Russell Avenue Water Main Replacement Project
CIP No. WA223
Exhibit "B"
Proposed Schedule

10.17.a
Professional Services Agreement - Engineering and Packet Pg. 194 Revenue: Expenditure:

Transfer In: Transfer Out:

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: NICHOLAS S. LIGUORI, AICP, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT - TANG & SUNG INVESTMENT LLC (WING LEE FARMS).

RECOMMENDATION
1) Approve a Public Improvement Agreement and securities with Tang & Sung Investment LLC (Wing Lee Farms) for the construction of public improvements associated with PL18-0038 Special Conditional Use Permit; and 2) authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The recommendation detailed above furthers the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Positive City Image
• Responsible Long-Range Planning

10.18 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 195
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT - TANG & SUNG INVESTMENT LLC (WING LEE FARMS)
PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
Wing Lee Farms (WLF) has been operating a poultry processing facility in the M2 (General Industrial) zone since 2007 located at 13625 Yorba Avenue (Exhibit A - Location Map).

WLF purchased the vacant property and building and obtained Planning Commission approval in June 2002 to expand the old building and establish a poultry processing facility use. At the time of approval, there were concerns about odors associated with the proposal for a processing facility, but after considerable evaluation, the project was approved. This permitted the business to expand the existing building to accommodate 9,374 square feet of office and storage space and process a maximum of up to 2,500 chickens per day. The building construction was completed in 2006 and the facility has been operating without incident since 2007.

In 2017, the City became aware that WLF had been processing more chickens than originally permitted. At that time, the applicant informed staff that they had inherited the business and were not aware of the limitations placed on the operations by the City. Due to increased production, WLF was required to either scale back its operations to what was previously approved or submit a new application to request approval to expand its processing operation.

Subsequently, on April 19, 2021, the Planning Commission approved WLF’s request to expand its poultry processing operations from 2,500 chickens per day to 13,000-15,000 chickens per day at its existing 30,197 square foot main processing building and a 2,414 square foot receiving building within the M2 (General Industrial) zoning district.

The Conditions of Approval for this project require WLF to enter into a Public Improvement Agreement with the City and post the necessary securities to ensure the timely delivery of the public improvements on Yorba Avenue. In alignment with promoting a positive city image, the public improvements to infrastructure include sidewalk reconstruction, driveway approaches and parkway landscaping meeting all accessibility requirements to best serve the public. Upon completion and City acceptance, the required improvements will support the City’s efforts to ensure responsible long-range planning.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
To guarantee the completion of said improvements, the developer has submitted the Public Improvement Agreement and necessary bonds to the City. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement and bonds.

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15332, Infill Development Projects.

Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Public Improvement Agreement

10.18 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 196
Exhibit A
Location Map
A-1

10.18.a
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 197 01225.0006/367559.3 Updated 10-2020

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
by and between

CITY OF CHINO
and

TANG AND SUNG INVESTMENT LLC

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 198 01225.0006/367559.3

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF CHINO
AND

TANG AND SUNG INVESTMENT LLC
Agreement Date: September 6, 2022
Name: TANG AND SUNG INVESTMENT LLC
Description: Expand operations of the Wing Lee Farms poultry slaughterhouse consisting of an existing 30,197 square foot main processing building and a 2,414 square foot receiving building within the M2 (General Industrial) zoning district.

Project No.: PL18-0038 (Special Conditional Use Permit) Estimated Total Cost of Improvements: $86,500.00
Security:

Bond No.: 100675117
Surety: American Contractors Indemnity Company

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 199 01225.0006/367559.3
Designees for the Service of Written Notice:

CITY: DEVELOPER:

Jesus Plasencia
Assistant City Engineer
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
(909) 334-3417
[email protected]
Tang and Sung Investments LLC
Cindy Tang
Owner
13625 Yorba Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
(909) 536-1886

CITY PROJECT INSPECTOR SURETY
Isaac Ortega
Permit & Inspection Supervisor
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
(909) 334-3501
[email protected]
American Contractors Indemnity
Company

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 200 01225.0006/367559.3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Construction Obligations

1.1 Works of Improvement

1.2 Other Obligations Referenced in Conditions of Approval

1.3 Intent of Plans

1.4 Survey Monuments

1.5 Performance of Work

1.6 Changes in the Work

1.7 Defective Work

1.8 No Warranty by City

1.9 Authority of the City Engineer

1.10 Documents Available at the Site

1.11 Inspection

1.12 Compliance with Law; Applicable Standards for Improvements

1.13 Suspension of Work

1.14 Erosion and Dust Control and Environmental Mitigation

1.15 Final Acceptance of Works of Improvement

1.16 Vesting of Ownership

1.17 Developer’s Obligation to Warn Public During Construction

1.18 Injury to Public Improvements, Public Property or Public Utility

2. Time for Performance

2.1 Commencement and Completion Dates

2.2 Phasing Requirements

2.3 Force Majeure

2.4 Continuous Work

3. Labor

3.1 Labor Standards

3.2 Nondiscrimination

3.3 Licensed Contractors

3.4 Workers’ Compensation

4. Security

4.1 Required Security

4.2 Form of Security Instruments

4.3 Developer’s Liability

4.4 Letters of Credit

4.5 Release of Security Instruments

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 201 01225.0006/367559.3

5. Cost of Construction and Provision of Inspection Service

5.1 Developer Responsible for All Related Costs of Construction

5.2 Payment to City for Cost of Related Inspection and Engineering Services

5.3 Payment of Development Impact Fees

6. Acceptance of Offers of Dedication

7. Warranty of Work

8. Default

8.1 Default by Developer

8.2 Remedies

8.3 Remedies Not Exclusive

8.4 Attorney’s Fees and Costs

8.5 Waiver

9. Indemnity/Hold Harmless

10. Developer’s Indemnity of Project Approval

11. Insurance Requirements

12. Environmental Warranty

13. General Provisions

13.1 Successors and Assigns

13.2 No Third-Party Beneficiaries

13.3 No Vesting Rights

13.4 Developer is Not Agent of City

13.5 Time of the Essence

13.6 Notices

13.7 No Apportionment

13.8 Severability

13.9 Captions

13.10 Incorporation of Recitals

13.11 Interpretation

13.12 Entire Agreement; Waivers and Amendments

13.13 Counterparts

14. Authority

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 202 01225.0006/367559.3
1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into this 6
th day of September, 2022, by and between the CITY OF CHINO, a municipal corporation, organized and existing in the County of San Bernardino, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, (“CITY”), and TANG AND SUNG INVESTMENT LLC (“DEVELOPER”).

RECITALS
A. Developer is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Chino, County of San Bernardino, State of California (the “Property”), as described on Exhibit “A”, which Developer proposes to develop and construct certain works of improvement thereon, as hereafter set forth.

B. Developer has applied for and received conditional approval from the City to expand operations of the Wing Lee Farms poultry slaughterhouse consisting of an existing 30,197 square foot main processing building and a 2,414 square foot receiving building within the M2 (General Industrial) zoning district., located at 13625 Yorba Avenue (the “Project”).

C. The City desires to assure that said improvements proposed for the Project will be constructed in a good workmanlike manner and in accordance with all applicable laws, statues, ordinances, resolutions and regulations now in force and effect in the City of Chino and the State of California, all of which are incorporated herein.

D. The Developer acknowledges familiarity with the various requirements for public improvements contained in the Chino Municipal Code and agrees to comply therewith.

COVENANTS
Based upon the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by reference and in consideration of City’s site plan or other entitlements for the Property and permitting development of the Property to proceed, Developer agrees to timely perform all of its obligations as set forth herein.

1. Construction Obligations.

1.1. Works of Improvement. Developer agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to construct or install, or cause to be constructed or installed the street, drainage, domestic water, landscaping, and other improvements more fully described as Exhibit “B” attached hereto (the “Works of Improvement”), as the same may be supplemented and revised from time to time as set forth in this Agreement (said plans and specifications, together with all related documents, the “Plans”). The estimated construction cost for the Works of Improvement is $86,500.00

1.2. Other Obligations Referenced in Conditions of Tentative Map Approval. In addition to the foregoing, Developer shall satisfy all of the other Conditions associated with the

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 203 01225.0006/367559.3
2 Project and the Property. The Conditions associated with the Map are included in Exhibit “B” attached hereto.

1.3. Intent of Plans. The intent of the Plans referenced in Section 1.1 is to prescribe a complete work of improvement which Developer shall perform or cause to be performed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer, (or designee), and in full compliance with all codes and the terms of this Agreement. Developer shall complete a functional or operable improvement or facility, even though the Plans may not specifically call out all items of work required for Developer’s contractor to complete its tasks, incidental appurtenances, materials, and the like. If any omissions are made or information necessary to carry out the full intent and meaning of the Plans, Developer or its contractor shall immediately notify its design engineer who will seek approval of the City Engineer for furnishing of detailed instructions. In the event of any doubt or question arising regarding the true meaning of any of the Plans, reference shall be made to the City Engineer whose decision thereon shall be final.

Developer recognizes that the Plans consist of general drawings. All authorized alterations affecting the requirements and information given on the Plans shall be in writing and approved by the City Engineer. The Plans shall be supplemented by such working or shop drawings as are necessary to adequately control the work. Without the City Engineer’s prior written approval, no change shall be made by Developer or its contractor to any plan, specification, or working or shop drawing after it has been stamped as approved.

1.4. Survey Monuments. Before final approval of street improvements, Developer shall place survey monuments in accordance with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Chino, and any other applicable law. Developer shall provide security for such obligation as provided in Section 4.1(a)(iii) and, after setting the monuments, Developer shall furnish the City Engineer written notice of the setting of said monuments and written proof of having paid the engineer or surveyor for the setting of said monuments.

1.5. Performance of Work. Developer shall furnish or cause to be furnished all materials, labor, tools, equipment, utilities, transportation, and incidentals required to perform Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.

1.6. Changes in the Work. The City Engineer, without invalidating this Agreement and without notification to any of the sureties or financial institutions referenced in Paragraph 4, may order extra work or may make changes by altering or deleting any portion of the Works of Improvement as specified herein or as deemed necessary or desirable by the City Engineer as determined necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. The City Engineer shall notify Developer or its contractor in writing (by Correction Notice) at the time a determination has been made to require changes in the work. No field changes performed or proposed by Developer or its contractor shall be binding on City unless approved in writing by the City Engineer. The City and Developer may mutually agree upon changes to the Works of Improvement, subject to the security requirements in Section 4.

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 204 01225.0006/367559.3
3 1.7. Defective Work. Developer shall cause its contractor to repair, reconstruct, replace, or otherwise make acceptable any work found by the City Engineer to be defective.

1.8. No Warranty by City. The Plans for the Works of Improvement have been prepared by or on behalf of Developer or its consultants or contractors, and City makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to Developer or to any other person regarding the adequacy of the Plans or related documents.

1.9. Authority of the City Engineer. In addition to the authority granted to the City Engineer elsewhere in this Agreement, the City Engineer shall have the authority to decide all questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of materials furnished and work performed, and all questions as to the satisfactory and acceptable fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement by Developer and its contractor.

1.10. Documents Available at the Site. Developer shall cause its contractor to keep a copy of all approved Plans at the job site and shall give access thereto to the City’s inspectors and engineers at all times.

1.11. Inspection. Developer shall have an authorized representative on the job site at all times during which work is being done who has full authority to act for Developer, or its design engineer, and Developer’s contractor(s) regarding the Works of Improvement.

Developer shall cause its contractor to furnish the City with every reasonable facility for ascertaining whether or not the Works of Improvement as performed are in accordance with the requirements and intent of this Agreement, including the Plans. If the City inspector requests it, the Developer’s contractor, at any time before acceptance of the Works of Improvement, shall remove or uncover such portions of the finished work as may be directed which have not previously been inspected. After examination, the Developer’s contractor shall restore said portions of the work to the standards required hereunder. Inspection or supervision by the City Engineer (or designee) shall not be considered as direct control of the individual workmen on the job site. City’s inspectors shall have the authority to stop any and all work not in accordance with the requirements contained or referenced in this Agreement.

The inspection of the work by City shall not relieve Developer or its contractor of any obligations to fulfill this Agreement as herein provided, and unsuitable materials or work may be rejected notwithstanding that such materials or work may have been previously overlooked or accepted.

1.12. Compliance with Law; Applicable Standards for Improvements. In addition to the express provisions of this Agreement and the Plans, Developer shall cause construction of the Works of Improvement to be completed in accordance with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. In addition, without limiting the foregoing, the Developer shall, at its expense, obtain and comply with the conditions of all necessary permits and licenses for the construction of the Works of Improvement. The Developer shall also give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes as required by law.

Developer shall construct the improvements in accordance with the City standards in effect at the time of the adoption of this Agreement. City reserves the right to protect the public safety or welfare or comply with applicable Federal or State law or City zoning ordinances.

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 205 01225.0006/367559.3
4 1.13. Suspension of Work. The City Engineer shall have authority to order suspension of the work for failure of the Developer’s contractor to comply with law pursuant to Section

1.12. In case of suspension of work for any cause whatsoever, Developer and its contractor shall be responsible for all materials and shall store them properly if necessary and shall provide suitable interim drainage and/or dust control measures, and erect temporary structures where necessary.

1.14. Erosion and Dust Control and Environmental Mitigation. All grading, landscaping, and construction activities shall be performed in a manner to control erosion and prevent flooding problems. The City Engineer shall have the authority to require erosion plans to prescribe reasonable controls on the method, manner, and time of grading, landscaping, and construction activities to prevent nuisances to surrounding properties. Plans shall include without limitation temporary drainage and erosion control requirements, dust control procedures, restrictions on truck and other construction traffic routes, noise abatement procedures, storage of materials and equipment, removal of garbage, trash, and refuse, securing the job site to prevent injury, and similar matters.

1.15. Final Acceptance of Works of Improvement. After Developer’s contractor has completed all of the Works of Improvement, Developer shall then request a final inspection of the work. If items are found by the City’s inspectors to be incomplete or not in compliance with this Agreement or any of the requirements contained or referenced herein, City will inform the Developer or its contractor of such items. After the Developer’s contractor has completed these items, the procedure shall then be the same as specified above for the Developer’s contractor’s initial request for final inspection. If items are found by City’s inspectors to be incomplete or not in compliance after two (2) “final” inspections, the City may require the Developer or its contractor, as a condition to performing further field inspections, to submit in writing a detailed statement of the work performed subsequent to the date of the previous inspection which was found to be incomplete or not in compliance at that time. Developer shall be responsible for payment to City Engineer of re-inspection fees in the amount necessary to cover the City’s costs for additional final inspections, as determined by the City Engineer.

No inspection or acceptance pertaining to specific parts of the Works of Improvement shall be construed as final acceptance of any part until the overall final acceptance by the City Engineer is made. The City Engineer shall make a certification of completion and acceptance on the Works of Improvement by recordation of a Notice of Acceptance on behalf of the City.

Final acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by the City Engineer of defective work subsequently discovered.

The date on which the Works of Improvement will be considered as complete shall be the date of the Notice of Acceptance.

1.16. Vesting of Ownership. Upon recordation of the Notice of Acceptance, ownership of the Works of Improvement shall vest in the City.

1.17. Developer’s Obligation to Warn Public During Construction. Until recordation of the Notice of Acceptance, Developer shall give good and adequate warning to the public of any dangerous condition of the Works of Improvements and shall take reasonable actions to

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 206 01225.0006/367559.3
5 protect the public from such dangerous condition. Until recordation of the Notice of Acceptance, Developer shall provide forty-eight (48) hours’ advance written notice to all neighboring property owners and tenants affected by Developer’s operations or construction of the hours, dates and duration of any planned construction activities.

1.18. Injury to Public Improvements, Public Property or Public Utility. Until recordation of the Notice of Acceptance of the Works of Improvement, Developer assumes responsibility for the care and maintenance of, and any damage to, the Works of Improvements. Developer shall replace or repair all Works of Improvements, public property, public utility facilities, and surveying or subdivision monuments and benchmarks which are destroyed or damaged for any reason, regardless whether resulting from the acts of the Developer, prior to the recordation of the Notice of Acceptance. Developer shall bear the entire cost of such replacement or repairs regardless of what entity owns the underlying property. Any repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval, of the City Engineer.

Neither the City, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, occurring to the work or Works of Improvements prior to recordation of the Notice of Acceptance of the work or improvements.

2. Time for Performance.

2.1. Commencement and Completion Dates. Subject to Sections 2.2 and 2.3 below, Developer shall (i) commence with construction and installation of the Works of Improvement thirty (30) days following City’s approval of the Plans (“Commencement Date”); and (ii) complete or cause to be completed all of the Works of Improvement within two (2) years after the Commencement Date. In the event good cause exists as determined by the City Engineer, the time for commencement of construction or completion of the Works of Improvement hereunder may be extended by up to three (3) additional one-year periods. Extensions shall be executed in writing by the City Engineer. The City Engineer in his or her sole discretion determines whether or not the Developer has established good cause for an extension. As a condition of such extension, the City Engineer may require Developer to furnish new security guaranteeing performance of this Agreement, as extended, in an increased amount to compensate for any increase in construction costs as determined by the City Engineer. If Developer requests and is granted an extension of time for completion of the improvements, City may apply the standards in effect at the time of the extension.

2.2. Phasing Requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.1, the City reserves the right to control and regulate the phasing of completion of specific Works of Improvement as required to comply with applicable City ordinances, regulations, and rules relating to the timely provision of public services and facilities. In addition to whatever other remedies the City may have for Developer’s failure to satisfy such phasing requirements, as the same now exist or may be amended from time to time, Developer acknowledges City’s right to withhold the issuance of further building permits on the Property until such phasing requirements are satisfied. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall provide satisfactory evidence that all applicable requirements that are a condition to issuance of building permits have been satisfied. Such requirements may include the payment of fees, construction of improvements, or both. Final inspections or issuance of Certificates of

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 207 01225.0006/367559.3
6 Occupancy may be withheld from the Developer by the City, if, upon a determination by the City Engineer, completion of specific Works of Improvements or other requirements associated with the development of the Property have not been completed to the City Engineer’s satisfaction.

2.3. Force Majeure. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.1, Developer’s time for commencement and completion of the Works of Improvement shall be extended for the period of any enforced delay caused due to circumstances beyond the control and without the fault of Developer, including to the extent applicable adverse weather conditions, flood, earthquakes, strikes, lockouts, pandemics, acts or failures to act of a public agency (including City), required changes to the scope of work required by City, and similar causes; provided, however, that the period of any enforced delay hereunder shall not include any period longer than five (5) days prior to City’s receipt of a written notice from Developer or its contractor detailing the grounds for Developer’s claim to a right to extend its time for performance hereunder. The City Engineer shall evaluate all claims to Force Majeure and make a reasonable determination regarding the length of any extension of time for commencement and/or completion of the Works of Improvement and the City Engineer’s decision shall be final.

2.4. Continuous Work. After commencement of construction of the Works of Improvement (or separate portion thereof), Developer shall cause such work to be diligently pursued to completion and shall not abandon the work for a consecutive period or more than thirty (30) days, events of Force Majeure excepted.

3. Labor.

3.1. Labor Standards. This Agreement is subject to, and Developer agrees to comply with, all of the applicable provisions of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, the wage and hour, prevailing wage, worker compensation, and various other labor requirements in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, including section 1720 to 1740, 1770 to 1780, 1810 to 1815, 1860 to 1861, which provisions are specifically incorporated herein by reference as set forth herein in their entirety. Developer shall expressly require compliance with the provisions of this Section in all agreements with contractors and subcontractors for the performance of the Works of Improvement.

3.2. Nondiscrimination. In accordance with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code Section 12940 et seq., Developer agrees that Developer, its agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractor performing any of the Works of Improvement shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Developer shall expressly require compliance with the provisions of this Section in all agreements with contractors and subcontractors for the performance of this Agreement.

3.3. Licensed Contractors. Developer shall cause all of the Works of Improvement to be constructed by contractors and subcontractors with valid California Contractors’ licenses for the type of work being performed. All of Developer’s contractors and subcontractors shall

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 208 01225.0006/367559.3
7 obtain a valid City of Chino business license prior to performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Developer shall provide the City Engineer with a list of all of its contractors and subcontractors prior to initiating any work, and all valid Contractor’s licenses and business licenses issued thereto as a condition of constructing the Works of Improvements.

3.4. Worker’s Compensation. Developer shall cause every contractor and subcontractor performing any of the Works of Improvement to carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and shall cause each such contractor and subcontractor to submit to City a Certificate of Insurance verifying such coverage prior to such contractor or subcontractor entering onto the job site.

4. Security.

4.1. Required Security.
(a) At the time Developer executes this Agreement, Developer shall furnish to City the following bonds, letters of credit, instruments of credit (assignment of deposit account) or other security acceptable to City in its sole and absolute discretion and satisfying the requirements of the applicable provisions of this Section 4 below (hereinafter “Security Instruments”):
(i) A Security Instrument securing Developer’s faithful performance of all of the Works of Improvement (“Faithful Performance Security Instrument”), in the amount of $86,500.00 equal to 100% of the estimated construction cost referenced in Section 1.1.
(ii) A Security Instrument guaranteeing the payment to contractors, subcontractors, and other persons furnishing labor, materials, and/or equipment (“Labor and Materials Security Instrument”) with respect to the Works of Improvement in an amount equal to $43,200.00 equal to 50% of the estimated construction cost referenced in Section 1.1.

This Agreement shall not be effective for any purpose until such Security Instruments are supplied to and approved by City in accordance herewith. (b) Required Security Instrument for Maintenance and Warranty. Prior to the City Council’s acceptance of the Works of Improvement and recordation of a Notice of Completion, Developer shall deliver a Security Instrument warranting the work accepted for a period of one (1) year following said acceptance (“Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument”), in the amount of $8,600.00 equal to 10% of the estimated construction cost set forth in Section 1.1 or a suitable amount determined by the City Engineer.

4.2. Form of Security Instruments. All Security Instruments shall be in the amounts required under Section 4.1 (a) or 4.1(b), as applicable, shall meet the following minimum requirements and otherwise shall be in a form provided by City or otherwise approved by the City Attorney:

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 209 01225.0006/367559.3
8 (a) Bonds. For Security Instruments provided in the form of bonds, any such bond must be issued and executed by an insurance company or bank authorized to transact surety business in the State of California. Any insurance company acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of A-IX, as rated by the current edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide published by A.M. Best’s Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, 08858. Any bank acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of AA, as rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s.
(b) Letters of Credit. For Security Instruments which are letters of credit, any letter of credit shall be an original separate unconditional, irrevocable, negotiable and transferable commercial letter of credit issued by a financial institution with offices in the State of California acceptable to City. Any such letter of credit shall specifically permit City to draw on same by unilateral certification of the City Engineer of the City that Developer is in default under its payment or performance obligations hereunder or in the event Developer fails to deliver a replacement letter of credit not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration of any such letter of credit and shall further be subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.
(c) Instrument of Credit. For Security Instruments which are Instruments of Credit, any Instrument of Credit shall be an assignment of deposit account assigning as security to City all of Developer’s interest in funds on deposit in one or more bank accounts with financial institutions acceptable to City. (d) General Requirements for all Security Instruments.
(i) Payments under any Security Instruments shall be required to be made (and, with respect to bonds, litigation shall be required to be instituted and maintained) in the City of Chino, State of California (and the Security Instrument shall so provide).
(ii) Each Security Instrument shall have a minimum term of one (1) year after the deadline for Developer’s completing the Works of Improvement, in accordance with Section 2.1 (other than Instruments of Credit, which shall have no defined term or expiration date).
(iii) Each Security Instrument shall provide that changes may be made in the Works of Improvement pursuant to the terms of this Agreement without notice to any issuer or surety and without affecting the obligations under such Security Instrument. (iv) If the Developer seeks to replace any security with another security, the replacement shall: (1) comply with all the requirements for security in this Agreement; (2) be provided by the Developer to the City Engineer; and (3) upon its written acceptance by the City Engineer, be deemed a part of this Agreement. Upon the City

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 210 01225.0006/367559.3
9 Engineer’s acceptance of a replacement security, the former security shall be released by the City.

4.3. Developer’s Liability. While no action of Developer shall be required in order for City to realize on its security under any Security Instrument, Developer agrees to cooperate with City to facilitate City’s realization under any Security Instrument, and to take no action to prevent City from such realization of any Security Instrument. Notwithstanding the giving of any Security Instrument or the subsequent expiration of any Security Instrument or any failure by any surety or financial institution to perform its obligations with respect thereto, Developer shall be personally liable for performance under this Agreement and for payment of the cost of the labor and materials for the improvements required to be constructed or installed hereby and shall, within ten (10) days after written demand therefor, deliver to City such substitute security as City shall require satisfying the requirements in this Section 4.

4.4. Letters of Credit.
(a) In the event a letter of credit is given pursuant to Section 4.2(b), City shall be entitled to draw on any such letter of credit if a replacement letter of credit (expiring in not less than one (1) year, unless City agrees to a lesser term in City’s sole and absolute discretion) is not delivered not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the original letter of credit, such substitute letter of credit being in the same amount and having the terms and conditions as the initial letter of credit delivered hereunder, issued by a financial institution acceptable to City as of the date of delivery of the replacement letter of credit. (b) In the event of draw by the City on a letter of credit, the City may elect, in its sole and absolute discretion, to apply any such funds drawn to the obligations secured by such letter of credit or to hold such funds in an account under the control of the City, with no interest accruing thereon for the benefit of the Developer. If the City elects to hold the funds in an account pursuant to the foregoing, City may thereafter at any time elect instead to apply such funds as provided in the foregoing. Developer agrees and hereby grants City a security interest in such account to the extent required for City to realize on its interests therein and agrees to execute and deliver to City any other documents requested by City in order to evidence the creation and perfection of City’s security interest in such account.

4.5. Release of Security Instruments. The City shall release all Security Instruments consistent with Government Code Sections 66499.7 and 66499.8, Section 19.09.010 of the Chino Municipal Code, and as follows:
(a) City shall release the Faithful Performance Security Instrument and Labor and Materials Security Instrument when all of the following have occurred:
(i) Developer has made written request for release and provided evidence of satisfaction of all other requirements in this Section 4.5; (ii) the Works of Improvement have been accepted;

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 211 01225.0006/367559.3
10 (iii) Developer has delivered the Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument; and
(iv) after passage of the time within which lien claims are required to be made pursuant to Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code of the State of California. If lien claims have been timely filed, City shall hold the Labor and Materials Security Instrument until such claims have been resolved, Developer has provided a statutory bond, or otherwise as required by applicable law.
(b) City shall release the Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument upon Developer’s written request upon the expiration of the warranty period, and settlement of any claims filed during the warranty period. (c) The City may retain from any security released, an amount sufficient to cover costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

5. Cost of Construction and Provision of Inspection Service.

5.1. Developer Responsible for All Costs of Construction. Developer shall be responsible for payment of all costs incurred for construction and installation of the Works of Improvement. In the event Developer is entitled to reimbursement from City for any of the Works of Improvement, such reimbursement shall be subject to a separate Reimbursement Agreement to be entered into between Developer and City prior to construction of the Works of Improvement.

5.2. Payment to City for Cost of Related Inspection and Engineering Services.

Developer shall compensate City for all of City’s costs reasonably incurred in having its authorized representative make the usual and customary inspections of the Works of Improvement. In addition, Developer shall compensate City for all design, plan check, evaluating any proposed or agreed-upon changes in the work. The procedures for deposit and payment of such fees shall be as established by the City. In no event shall Developer be entitled to additional inspections or a final inspection and acceptance of any of the Works of Improvement until all City fees and charges have been fully paid, including without limitation, charges for applicable penalties and additional required inspections.

5.3. Payment of Development Impact Fees. Developer shall pay Development Impact Fees pursuant to and in accordance with Chino Municipal Code Chapter 3.40 and Chapter

3.45, as applicable.

6. Acceptance of Offers of Dedication. The City Council shall pass as appropriate resolution or resolutions accepting all offers of dedication shown on the approvals for the Project, with acceptance to become effective upon completion and acceptance by City of the Works of Improvement.

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 212 01225.0006/367559.3
11 7. Warranty of Work. Developer shall guarantee all Works of Improvement against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance. If any of the Works of Improvement should fail or prove defective within said one (1) year period due to any reason other than improper maintenance, or if any settlement of fill or backfill occurs, or should any portion of the Works of Improvement fail to fulfill any requirements of the Plans, Developer, within fifteen (15) days after written notice of such defects, or within such shorter time as may reasonably be determined by the City in the event of emergency, shall commence to repair or replace the same together with any other work which may be damaged or displaced in so doing. Should Developer fail to remedy defective material and/or workmanship or make replacements or repairs within the period of time set forth above, City may make such repairs and replacements and the actual cost of the required labor and materials shall be chargeable to and payable by Developer. The warranty provided herein shall not be in lieu of, but shall be in addition to, any warranties or other obligations otherwise imposed by law.

8. Default.

8.1. Default by Developer. Default by Developer shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) Developer’s failure to timely commence construction of Works of Improvement under this Agreement;
(b) Developer’s failure to timely complete construction of the Works of Improvement;
(c) Developer’s failure to perform substantial construction work for a period for 20 consecutive calendar days after commencement of the work; (d) Developer’s insolvency, appointment of a receiver, or the filing of any petition in bankruptcy, either voluntary or involuntary, which Developer fails to discharge within 30 days;
(e) The commencement of a foreclosure action against the Property or a portion thereof, or any conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or (f) Developer’s failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement.

8.2. Remedies. The City reserves all remedies available to it at law or in equity for a default or breach of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement. The City shall have the right, subject to this Section, to draw upon or use the appropriate security to mitigate the City’s damages in the event of default by Developer. The City’s right to draw upon or use the security is in addition to any other remedy available to City. The parties acknowledge that the estimated costs and security amounts may not reflect the actual cost of construction of the improvements and, therefore, City’s damages for Developer’s default shall be measured by the cost of completing the required improvements. The City may use the sums provided by the securities for the completion of the Works of Improvement in accordance with the plans. In the event the Developer fails to cure any default under this Agreement within 20 days after the City mails a notice of such default to the Developer and the Developer’s surety, Developer authorizes the

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 213 01225.0006/367559.3
12 City to perform the obligation for which Developer is in default and agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by the City. The City may take over the work and complete the Works of Improvement, by contract or by any other method City deems appropriate, at the expense of the Developer. In such event, City, without liability for doing so, may complete the Works of Improvement using any of Developer’s materials, appliances, plans and other property that are at the work site and that are necessary to complete the Works of Improvement.

8.3. Remedies Not Exclusive. In any case where this Agreement provides a specific remedy to City for a default by Developer hereunder, the Developer agrees that the choice of remedy or remedies for Developer’s breach shall be in the discretion of the City. Additionally, any remedy specifically provided in this Agreement shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, City’s right to pursue any other administrative, legal, or equitable remedy to which it may by entitled.

8.4. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event that Developer fails to perform any obligation under this Agreement, Developer agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing performance of such obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of Developer’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement or under any of the Security Instruments referenced herein, the prevailing party in such action, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Such attorney’s fees and cost shall include fees and costs on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees and costs shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs incurred in investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, retaining expert witnesses, and all other necessary and related costs with respect to the litigation. All such fees and costs shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of the action and shall be enforceable whether or not the action is prosecuted to judgment.

8.5. Waiver. No waiver by the City of any breach or default by the Developer shall be considered valid unless in writing, and no such waiver by the City shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default by the Developer.

9. Indemnity/Hold Harmless. City or any officer, employee or agent thereof shall not be liable for any injury to persons or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. Developer further agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officials, boards and commissions, and members thereof, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of, or arising out of, acts or omissions of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement, except for such claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss arising out of the sole active negligence of the City, its officials, boards, commissions, the members thereof, agents and employees, including all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss because of or arising out of, in whole or in part, the design or construction of the improvements. This indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of said Project, and the public improvements as provided herein, and in addition,

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 214 01225.0006/367559.3
13 to adjacent property owners as a consequence of the diversion of waters from the design and construction of public drainage systems, streets and other improvements. Recordation of the Notice of Acceptance by the City of the Works of Improvements shall not constitute an assumption by the City of any responsibility for any damage or taking covered by this Section.

City shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the property to be dedicated or the improvements pursuant to the approved improvement plans or map, regardless of any negligent action or inaction taken by the City in approving the plans or map, unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by City over written objection by Developer submitted to the City Engineer before approval of the particular improvement design, which objection indicated that the particular improvement design was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternative safe and feasible design.

After recordation of the Notice of Acceptance, the Developer shall remain obligated to eliminate any latent defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design or construction defect for a period of one (1) year; however, Developer shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. It is the intent of this section that Developer shall be responsible for all liability for design and construction of the improvements installed or work done pursuant to this Agreement and that City shall not be liable for any negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in approving or reviewing any work or construction. The improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this Paragraph.

Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including but not limited to fees and charges of architects, engineers, attorneys, and other professionals, and court costs, incurred by City in enforcing this Section.

10. Developer’s Indemnity of Project Approval. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning the Project. The City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event City fails to promptly notify the Developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the Developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing in this Section prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs and defends the action in good faith. Developer shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Developer.

11. Insurance Requirements. Developer, at Developer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of this Agreement and any extensions thereto, shall obtain and maintain all of the following minimum insurance requirements in a form approved by the City’s authorized designee for Risk Management prior to commencing any work:
(a) Commercial General Liability policy with a minimum $1 million combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage providing all of the following minimum coverage without deductibles:

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 215 01225.0006/367559.3
14 (i) Premises operations; including X, C, and U coverage; (ii) Owners’ and contractors’ protection;
(iii) Blanket contractual;
(iv) Completed operations; and
(v) Products.
(b) Commercial Business Auto policy with a minimum $1 million combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, providing all of the following minimum coverage without deductibles:
(i) Coverage shall apply to any and all leased, owned, hired, or nonowned vehicles used in pursuit of any of the activities associated with this Agreement; and
(ii) Any and all mobile equipment including cranes which are not covered under the above Commercial Business Auto policy shall have said coverage provided under the Commercial General Liability policy.
(c) Workers Compensation and Employers’ Liability policy in accordance with the laws of the State of California and providing coverage for any and all employees of the Developer:
(i) This policy shall provide coverage for Workers’ Compensation (Coverage A); and
(i) This policy shall provide coverage for $1,000,000 Employers’ Liability (Coverage B).
(ii) Pursuant to Labor Code section 1861, Developer by executing this Agreement certifies: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake selfinsurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
(iii) Prior to commencement of work, the Developer shall file with the City’s Risk Manager a Certificate of Insurance or certification of permission to self-insure workers’ compensation conforming to the requirements of the Labor Code.
(d) Endorsements. All of the following endorsements are required to be made a part of each of the above-required policies as stipulated below:

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 216 01225.0006/367559.3
15 (i) “The City of Chino, its officers, employees and agents are hereby added as additional insureds.”
(ii) “This policy shall be considered primary insurance with respect to any other valid and collectible insurance the City may possess, including any self- insured retention the City may have and any other insurance the City does possess shall be considered excess insurance only.”
(iii) “This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy has been written for each. This, however, will not act to increase the limit of the insuring company.” (iv) “Thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation shall be given to the City of Chino in the event of cancellation and/or reduction in coverage, except that ten (10) days prior written notice shall apply in the event of cancellation for non-payment of premium.” Such notice shall be sent to the Risk Manager at the address indicated in Subsection f below.
(v) Subsection d(iv) hereinabove “Cancellation Notice” is the only endorsement required of the Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability policy.
(e) Admitted Insurers. All insurance companies providing insurance to the Developer under this Agreement shall be admitted to transact the business of insurance by the California Insurance Commissioner.
(f) Proof of Coverage. Copies of all required endorsements shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance which shall be provided by the Developer’s insurance company as evidence of the coverage required herein and shall be mailed to:

City of Chino
Risk Management
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710

12. Environmental Warranty.

12.1. Prior to the acceptance of any dedications or Works of Improvement by City, Developer shall provide City with a written warranty in a form substantially similar to Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, that:
(a) Neither the property to be dedicated nor Developer are in violation of any environmental law, and neither the property to be dedicated nor the Developer are subject to any existing, pending or threatened investigation by any federal,

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 217 01225.0006/367559.3
16 state or local governmental authority under or in connection with the environmental laws relating to the property to be dedicated. (b) Neither Developer nor any other person with Developer’s permission to be upon the property to be dedicated shall use, generate, manufacture, produce, or release, on, under, or about the property to be dedicated, any Hazardous Substance except in compliance with all applicable environmental laws. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Hazardous Substances” shall mean any substance or material which is capable of posing a risk of injury to health, safety or property, including all those materials and substances designated as hazardous or toxic by any federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule, regulation or policy, including but not limited to, all of those materials and substances defined as “Toxic Materials” in Sections 66680 through 66685 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 30, as the same shall be amended from time to time, or any other materials requiring remediation under federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or policies. (c) Developer has not caused or permitted the release of, and has no knowledge of the release or presence of, any Hazardous Substance on the property to be dedicated or the migration of any hazardous substance from or to any other property adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the property to be dedicated. (d) Developer’s prior and present use of the property to be dedicated has not resulted in the release of any hazardous substance on the property to be dedicated.

12.2. Developer shall give prompt written notice to City of:
(a) Any proceeding or investigation by any federal, state or local governmental (b) authority with respect to the presence of any hazardous substance on the property to be dedicated or the migration thereof from or to any other property adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the property to be dedicated. (c) Any claims made or threatened by any third party against City or the property to be dedicated relating to any loss or injury resulting from any hazardous substance; and
(d) Developer’s discovery of any occurrence or condition on any property adjoining or in the vicinity of the property to be dedicated that could cause the property to be dedicated or any part thereof to be subject to any restrictions on its ownership, occupancy, use for the purpose for which it is intended, transferability or suit under any environmental law.

13. General Provisions.

13.1. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon all successors and assigns to Developer’s right, title, and interest in and to the Property and any portion

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 218 01225.0006/367559.3
17 thereof. Developer hereby consents to City recording this Agreement as official records of San Bernardino County, affecting fee title interest to the Property to provide constructive notice of the rights and obligations incurred by Developer in the City’s approval of this Agreement. In the event the Property is subsequently conveyed by Developer to a third party prior to completion of the Works of Improvement, whereby the third party is intended to assume Developer’s responsibilities with regard to this Agreement, (the “Replacement Developer”), the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall transfer to the Replacement Developer; however, the Security Instruments required pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement, and furnished by Developer as a condition of the City’s approval of this Agreement, shall remain Developer’s responsibility to maintain until such time as Developer and its Replacement Developer enter into a Transfer and Assignment of Public Improvement Agreement, (the “Transfer Agreement”), to acknowledge the transfer of fee title to the Property from the Developer to its Replacement Developer, and to acknowledge the rights and obligations associated with this Agreement upon the Replacement Developer, including Replacement Developer’s responsibility to furnish replacement Security Instruments meeting the City’s approval pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement. Until such time as a Transfer Agreement, meeting the City’s approval, is executed by Developer and its Replacement Developer, and replacement Security Instruments meeting City’s approval are furnished by the Replacement Developer, Developer retains sole responsibility for maintaining all Security Instruments required pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement.

13.2. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended to benefit only the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Neither City nor Developer intend to create any third-party beneficiary rights in this Agreement in any contractor, subcontractor, member of the general public, or other person or entity.

13.3. No Vesting Rights. Performance by the Developer of this Agreement shall not be construed to vest Developer’s rights with respect to any change in any zoning or building law or ordinance.

13.4. Developer is Not Agent of City. Neither Developer nor Developer’s agents, contractors, or subcontractors are agents or contractors of the City in connection with the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.

13.5. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of Developer’s performance of all of its obligations under this Agreement.

13.6. Notices. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date is delivered in person, or, if mailed, on the date of deposit in the United States Mail.

Notice shall be provided to the persons listed on Pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement by the parties for this purpose.

Either party may provide a new designated representative and/or address by written notice as provided in this Section.

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 219 01225.0006/367559.3
18 13.7. No Apportionment. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude City from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the parties, or from entering into agreements with other Developers for the apportionment of costs of water and sewer mains, or other improvements pursuant to the provisions of the City ordinances providing therefore. Nor shall anything in the Agreement commit City to any such apportionment.

13.8. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual written consent of the parties.

13.9. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.

13.10. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals to this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the terms of this Agreement.

13.11. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

13.12. Entire Agreement; Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein, or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or part of the subject matter hereof, except as may be expressly provided herein. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of both parties.

13.13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall be deemed one original.

14. Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties warrant the (I) party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into of this Agreement does not violate any provisions of any other agreement to which said party is bound. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 220

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 221

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 222 Exhibit A
Location Map
A-1

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 223 01225.0006/367559.3 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT
A. Removal of undesirable, dangerous and dead plant materials and roots.

B. All onsite and offsite grading as specified on the approved grading plan.

C. Relocation of all public utility structures as necessary to properly construct the required improvements.

D. Storm drain facilities as required and shown on the approved construction plans and in accordance with City Standards.

E. Water mains, valves, hydrants, services, meters and appurtenances to serve each lot as shown on the approved construction plans and in accordance with City Standards.

F. Disposal of all rocks and debris located within any public right-of-way within said development or on the boundary streets thereof.

G. Installation of concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, cross gutters, driveways and intersections as shown on approved construction plans and in accordance with City Standards.

H. Installation of asphalt concrete or Portland Cement Concrete street pavement on base material as shown on approved construction plans and in accordance with City Standards.

I. Installation of approved landscaping (plants and materials).

J. Setting monuments as required by the State Code.

The Developer shall also perform all work and furnish all materials necessary, in the opinion of the Director of Development Services or his designee and on his order, to complete the improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications on file as hereinbefore specified, or any changes required or ordered by said Engineer which, in his opinion, are necessary or required to complete this work.

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 224 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

STREETS
EA Tree Removal $ 800.00 $ -
32 CY Concrete Removal $ 325.00 $ 10,400.00
3 CY AC Pavement Removal $ 100.00 $ 300.00
CY Imported Common Fill (Incl. Compaction) $ 34.00 $ -
1300 SF Preparation of Subgrade, Sidewalk and Paving $ 1.00 $ 1,300.00 LF PCC 8" Curb & 24" Gutter on 6" AB $ 26.00 $ -
130 LF PCC 6" Curb & 24" Gutter on 6" AB $ 24.00 $ 3,120.00 LF PCC Curb Only $ 20.00 $ -
LF 8" A.C. Berm $ 20.00 $ -
1300 SF 4" PCC Sidewalk $ 5.80 $ 7,540.00
800 SF 6" PCC Thick Drive Approach on 6" AB $ 12.50 $ 10,000.00 SF 8" PCC Thick Drive Approach on 6" AB $ 15.00 $ -
LF 2" x 6" Redwood Header $ 7.50 $ -
1 EA Street Sign and Post $ 475.00 $ 475.00
1 EA Traffic Sign and Post $ 400.00 $ 400.00
EA Reflector Sign and Post $ 175.00 $ -
EA Painted Legend $ 6.50 $ -
SF Prime or Tack Coat $ 0.08 $ -
TON AC Variable - <300T $ 130.00 $ -
TON AC Variable - >300T $ 120.00 $ -
TON CAB Variable - <300T $ 100.00 $ -
TON CAB Variable - >300T $ 90.00 $ -
EngCostEstimate Page 1 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 225 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

STREETS
EA Adjust Sewer Manhole to Grade $ 950.00 $ -
EA Adjust Sewer Cleanout to Grade $ 500.00 $ -
EA Adjust Water Valve and Can to Grade $ 525.00 $ -
EA Street Light (City Owner) $ 7,700.00 $ -
EA Electrical Pedestal $ 6,500.00 $ -
EA Lot Monument Setting Fee $ 550.00 $ -
132 LF Sawcut A.C. $ 3.00 $ 396.00
LF Sawcut Concrete $ 3.00 $ -
SF Cold Plane A.C. 2" Thick $ 0.28 $ -
LF Signing & Striping for
Arterial $ 19.00 $ -
Collector $ 13.00 $ -
Local $ 7.00 $ -
EA Traffic Signal (8 - Phase Controller) $ 350,000.00 $ - EA Modify existing Traffic Signal per Quadrant $ 75,000.00 $ - LF Chain Link Fence
4 foot Residential Grade (Add $7.00/LF for Removal
of Existing Fence) $ 25.00 $ -
6 foot School fence (Add $9.00/LF for Removal of
Existing Fence) $ 35.00 $ -
EA Utility Poles
Transmission $ 11,500.00 $ -
Distribution $ 8,000.00 $ -
Service $ 3,000.00 $ -
EngCostEstimate Page 2 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 226 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

STREETS
860 SF
Landscape (Including shrubs, Hardscape, Irrigation,
Ground Cover, Lighting, Installation Labor and Connection to Existing Systems) $ 15.00 $ 12,900.00
LF
14 foot Median with Landscape, Irrigation, Lighting,
Hardscape, Curb, Gutter & Pavement $ 300.00 $ -
Rail Road Crossing
LS
Safety Equipment (Complete Including Crossing
Gates, Signs, and Lights) $ 500,000.00 $ -
SF Track Crossing (Concrete) $ 175.00 $ -
SF Approach $ 4.00 $ -
EA S.W. Ramps (A.D.A. Compliant) $ 4,000.00 $ -
EA Traffic Signal Loops $ 600.00 $ -

STREETS
STREET SUBTOTAL $ 46,831.00
LS Mobilzation (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 2,341.55
LS Traffic Control (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 2,341.55 LS Clear & Grub Site (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 2,341.55 LS Excavation (Clean Material) (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 2,341.55 GRAND TOTAL STREETS ONLY $ 56,197.20
EngCostEstimate Page 3 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 227 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item
WATER
LF Trench Support/Shoring (6 foot depth) $ 15.00 $ -
CY Pipe Bedding & Compaction (Imported) $ 90.00 $ -
LF
6" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 80.00 $ -
LF
8" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration. $ 100.00 $ -
LF
12" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation,
bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 135.00 $ - LF
18" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation,
bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 175.00 $ - LF Removal, Disposal of ACP and Backfill $ 150.00 $ -
EA 6" Gate Valve $ 2,000.00 $ -
EA 8" Gate Valve $ 2,600.00 $ -
EA 12" Gate Valve $ 4,500.00 $ -
EA 18" Gate Valve $ 7,500.00 $ -
EA Fire Hydrant Assembly per City Std. $ 7,500.00 $ -
EA Blow-off Assembly 4" per City Std. $ 8,600.00 $ -
EA 2" Air Relief Assembly $ 4,500.00 $ -
EA 1" Water Service/Meter $ 3,500.00 $ -
EA 2" Water Service/Meter $ 4,500.00 $ -
1 EA 3" Water Service/Meter $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00
1 EA Backflow Preventer Relocation $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 WATER
WATER SUBTOTAL $ 7,000.00
LS Mobilzation (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 350.00
LS Traffic Control (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 350.00 GRAND TOTAL WATER ONLY $ 7,700.00
EngCostEstimate Page 4 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 228 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

RECYCLED WATER
LF Trench Support/Shoring (6 foot depth) $ 15.00 $ -
CY Pipe Bedding (Imported) $ 90.00 $ -
LF
6" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 80.00 $ -
LF
8" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration. $ 100.00 $ -
LF
12" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation,
bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 135.00 $ - LF
18" Pipe & Fittings Installed, including excavation,
bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 175.00 $ - EA 6" Gate Valve $ 2,000.00 $ -
EA 8" Gate Valve $ 2,600.00 $ -
EA 12" Gate Valve $ 4,500.00 $ -
EA 18" Gate Valve $ 7,500.00 $ -
EA Fire Hydrant Assembly per City Std. $ 7,500.00 $ -
EA Blow-off Assembly 5" per City Std. $ 8,600.00 $ -
EA 2" Air Relief Assembly $ 4,500.00 $ -
EA 1" Water Service/Meter $ 3,500.00 $ -
EA 2" Water Service/Meter $ 4,500.00 $ -

RECYCLED WATER
RECYCLED WATER SUBTOTAL $ -
LS Mobilzation (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ -
LS Traffic Control (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ -
GRAND TOTAL RECYCLED WATER ONLY $ -
EngCostEstimate Page 5 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 229 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item
SEWER
LF Trench Support/Shoring $ 15.00 $ -
LF
4" V.C.P Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $75.00 $ -
LF
8" V.C.P Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $93.00 $ -
LF
10" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $103.00 $ -
LF
12" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $123.00 $ -
LF
15" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $143.00 $ -
LF
18" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $163.00 $ -
LF
21" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $193.00 $ -
LF
24" V.C.P. Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $208.00 $ -
EA Sewer Saddle $450.00 $ -
EA Wyes 4" x 8" Typical $225.00 $ -
EA 48" Sewer Manhole $4,700.00 $ -
EA 60" Sewer Manhole $7,500.00 $ -
EA Sewer Cleanout $1,800.00 $ -
SEWER
SEWER SUBTOTAL $ -
LS Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ -
LS Traffic Control (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ -
GRAND TOTAL SEWER ONLY $ -
EngCostEstimate Page 6 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 230 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

STORM DRAIN
LF 24" X 36" C.M.P.A. (10 Gauge) $ 230.00 $ -
LF 27" x 43" C.M.P.A (10 Gauge) $ 250.00 $ -
EA Storm Drain Manhole #1 $ 10,000.00 $ -
EA Junction Structure #2 (24" or larger) $ 8,850.00 $ - EA Junction Structure #4 (24" or smaller) $ 4,000.00 $ - 1 EA Outlet Structure $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
EA Catch Basin 3.5' Width $ 7,200.00 $ -
EA Catch Basin 7' Width/L.D. $ 7,900.00 $ -
EA Catch Basin 10' Width/L.D. $ 9,950.00 $ -
EA Catch Basin 14' Width/L.D. $ 11,000.00 $ -
EA Catch Basin 21' Width/L.D. $ 13,000.00 $ -
LF
18 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 200.00 $ -
LF
24 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 240.00 $ -
LF
27 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 260.00 $ -
LF
30 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 280.00 $ -
LF
33 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 295.00 $ -
LF
36 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 310.00 $ -
LF
39 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 320.00 $ -
LF
42 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 330.00 $ -
LF
45 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 360.00 $ -
LF
48 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 385.00 $ -
LF
54 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 440.00 $ -
LF
60 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 500.00 $ -
EngCostEstimate Page 7 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 231 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

STORM DRAIN
LF
66 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 560.00 $ -
LF
72 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 625.00 $ -
LF
78 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 690.00 $ -
LF
84 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 765.00 $ -
LF
90 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 830.00 $ -
LF
96 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 920.00 $ -
LF
102 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,000.00 $ -
LF
108 inch RCP Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,075.00 $ -
LF
7' x 6' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 700.00 $ -
LF
7' x 8.5' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 820.00 $ -
LF
7' x 9.5' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding, backfill and pavement restoration $ 870.00 $ -
LF
8' x 11' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,000.00 $ -
LF
8' x 13' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,100.00 $ -
LF
9' x 9' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,000.00 $ -
LF
9' x 12' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 1,100.00 $ -
LF
4' x 6' RCB Installed, including excavation, bedding,
backfill and pavement restoration $ 680.00 $ -

STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN SUBTOTAL $ 7,000.00
LS Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 350.00
LS Traffic Control (5% of Construction Cost) 5% $ 350.00 GRAND TOTAL STORM DRAIN ONLY $ 7,700.00
EngCostEstimate Page 8 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 232 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item
DIRECT COSTS GRAND TOTAL STREETS ONLY $ 56,197.20
GRAND TOTAL WATER ONLY $ 7,700.00
GRAND TOTAL RECYCLED WATER ONLY $ -
GRAND TOTAL SEWER ONLY $ -
GRAND TOTAL STORM DRAIN ONLY $ 7,700.00

GRAND TOTAL (FOR PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION FEE
DETERMINATION) $ 71,597.20
PROJECT ADDITIVES Project Contingencies 10% $ 7,159.72
Construction Staking 3% $ 2,147.92
Soils Testing 1% $ 715.97
Material Testing 1% $ 715.97
Construction Inspection 4.8% $ 3,436.67
Contract Administration 1% $ 715.97
GRAND TOTAL (FOR BOND AMOUNTS) $ 86,489.42
EngCostEstimate Page 9 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 233 RESOLUTION NO 2020-080

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF CHINO

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO:

LOCATION : 13625 Yorba Avenue Chino, CA
By: Kimley-Horn
DATE: 12/20/2021
Quantity Unit Item Unit Total Cost
Price Per Item

BY ENGINEER
Prepared By: Rafael Chavez
R.C.E. Number: 87228
Expiration: 9/30/2023
Place R.C.E. Stamp and Signature Here (required)

BY CITY
Faithful Performance Bond (100% of Construction Cost) $ 86,500.00 Labor & Material Bond (50% of Construction Cost) $ 43,200.00 Warranty Bond (10% of Construction Cost) $ 8,600.00
EngCostEstimate Page 10 of 10 Effective Date: January 1, 2021 T
I
C
F
A T
O E
R N
O

I V I L

C A L I F
O

RAFAEL CHAVEZ
PR
SI GER
ET
S
RED
I E N
G EN
R A
L

FESS IONA
RCE NO. 87228
T
I
C
F
A T
O E
R N
O

I V I L

C A L I F
O

RAFAEL CHAVEZ
PR
SI GER
ET
S
RED
I E N
G EN
R A
L

FESS IONA
RCE NO. 87228

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 234

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 235

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 236

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 237

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 238

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 239 01225.0006/367559.3 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
PL18-0038

TANG AND SUNG INVESTMENT LLC

ENVIRONMENTAL WARRANTY
As a condition precedent to acceptance of the dedications and public improvements to be conveyed by the above-named Developer to the City of Chino for the above-referenced Subdivision, Developer hereby warrants to the City of Chino that:

1. Neither the property to be dedicated nor Developer are in violation of any environmental law, and neither the property to be dedicated nor the Developer are subject to any existing, pending or threatened investigation by any federal, state or local governmental authority under or in connection with the environmental laws relating to the property to be dedicated.

2. Neither Developer nor any other person with Developer’s permission to be upon the property to be dedicated has used, generated, manufactured, produced, or released, on, under, or about the property to be dedicated, any Hazardous Substance except in compliance with all applicable environmental laws. For the purposes of this warranty, the term “Hazardous Substances” shall mean any substance or material which is capable of posing a risk of injury to health, safety or property, including all those materials and substances designated as hazardous or toxic by any federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule, regulation or policy, including but not limited to, all of those materials and substances defined as “Toxic Materials” in Sections 66680 through 66685 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 30, as the same shall be amended from time to time, or any other materials requiring remediation under federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or policies.

3. Developer has not caused or permitted the release of, and has no knowledge of the release or presence of, any Hazardous Substance on the property to be dedicated or the migration of any hazardous substance from or to any other property adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the property to be dedicated.

4. Developer’s prior and present use of the property to be dedicated has not resulted in the release of any Hazardous Substance on the property to be dedicated.

5. All persons executing this warranty hereby represent and warrant to the City of Chino, and Developer hereby represents and warrants, that the signators hereto have the legal power, right and authority to execute this warranty on behalf of the Developer and that the signators hereto have sufficient knowledge or expertise, either personally, through reasonable inspection and investigation of the property, or through reasonable reliance upon the investigation and professional opinion of Developer’s environmental experts, to make the representations herein, and that no consent of any other party is

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 240

10.18.b
Public Improvement Agreement PL18-0038 - Tang & Sung Packet Pg. 241 Revenue: Expenditure: 3207100-43640
Transfer In: 3201000-50000 Transfer Out: 2201000-40001

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: NICHOLAS S. LIGUORI, AICP, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT & FINAL ACCEPTANCE

OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - COLLEGE PARK TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INTERCONNECT IMPROVEMENTS TRACT MAP NO.16838.

RECOMMENDATION
1) Appropriate $477,647 from the unappropriated reserves of the Transportation Fund; 2) schedule a corresponding year-end transfer from the Citywide Streets, Signals and Bridges Development Impact Fee Fund; 3) accept the traffic signal interconnect improvements constructed by LS College Park, LLC as complete and initiate the warranty period; 4) approve an immediate reimbursement to LS College Park, LLC for the traffic signal interconnect improvements in College Park in the amount of $477,647; and 5) authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
Requires an appropriation from the unappropriated reserves of the Transportation Fund in the amount of $477,647 with a corresponding year-end transfer from the Citywide Streets, Signals and Bridges Development Impact Fee Fund in the same amount. There is sufficient fund balance in fund 220 for this transaction.

Upon completion and final acceptance, the traffic signal interconnect improvements shall become the sole exclusive property of the City to operate and maintain. There are sufficient funds included in the FY 2022-23 Transportation Operating Budget to cover costs associated with these improvements.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES The recommendation detailed above furthers the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Financial Stability
• Responsible Long-Range Planning
• Public Service Excellence through Internal and External Partnerships

10.19 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 242
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT & FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - COLLEGE PARK TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT IMPROVEMENTS TRACT MAP NO.16838
PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
As part of the Conditions of Approval for the College Park project, the developer was required to construct the College Park Traffic Signal Interconnect improvements (Project), which include traffic signal Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) devices, interconnect conduits, pull boxes, copper conductors and fiber optic cable. The improvements connect to the City’s existing traffic signal system, new traffic signals and new ITS devices, as depicted in Exhibit A of the attached Construction Reimbursement Agreement. City staff and the developer stayed engaged and achieved public service excellence though internal and external partnerships throughout the course of the Project to ensure its timely delivery. The Project has been satisfactorily constructed to meet City specifications and all punch list items have been addressed.

Additionally, in support of responsible long-range planning, this master plan project is included in the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program and is eligible for DIF credit/reimbursement per the Chino Municipal Code, Chapter 3.40.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
City staff and its consultant (DTA) reviewed the final accepted/approved "as-built" plans, specifications and supporting documentation and determined that $477,647 is eligible for DIF reimbursement per the terms of the construction reimbursement agreement approved by the City Council on December 3, 2019. The reconciliation for this Project guarantees the financial stability and integrity of the DIF program moving into the future. Thus, the documented “actual costs” will be incorporated into the next DIF update for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

Additionally, City staff has completed a detailed review of the DIF credits issued to the developer for its multiple development projects in College Park. The developer exhausted all its transportation DIF credits for the construction of other eligible transportation projects in College Park. Therefore, the developer is entitled to a cash reimbursement for the validated costs authorized by the City.

Security for a one-year warranty period has been submitted by the developer. Under the warranty bond obligation, the developer will correct any defects found within one-year of City Council’s acceptance of the project. Also, upon completion and final acceptance, the public improvements shall become the sole exclusive property of the City to operate and maintain.

Sufficient funds are included in the City’s Operating Budget to cover costs for maintenance of said facilities.

Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation to the City Council to accept the Project as complete, initiate the warranty bond and approve an immediate reimbursement to the developer in the amount of $477,647.

Attachment: Exhibit A - Construction Reimbursement Agreement

10.19 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 243
Contract No.: Zeto - /SZ.

Approval Date: l'Z. l:S / "/.ol-f -If""'/

CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT IMPROVEMENTS IN COLLEGE PARK This CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (''Agreement" i ' entered into this 3' · day of December, 2019 ("Effective Date"), by and belween ffY OF CHl , a California municipal corporation ("City"), and LS COLLEGE PARK, L C a Delaware 11mited liability company ("Developer"). City and D veloper are sometimes hel"eina.fter referred to individually as "Party" and jointly as "Parties" .

RECITALS
A. Developer owns ce.rtain real prope.rty consisting of 24 lots on approximately l03.5 acres generally .located outh of dison Avenue between the yprcss and agno!ia hannels .ind north of Eucalyptus A venue, within the College Par ' Specific Pl n area in the City of Chino, oumy of • an Bernardino; Cali .ornia "Projed''). This is the fourth and final phase of Tract Map No. 168 8, which was tentat1v ly nd condjtionally approved by the City of Chino Planning Commission on J·une 21, 2004. The il:yCouncllsubsequentlyapprovedtbrreephaseso tbislract(TM 16838-1, TM 16838-2andTM 16838- 3).

B. Develop I has reque ·ted from City certain entitlements andlot permits ··or the Project and 'ify has granted lhe e11titlemonts nd/or p nnits-subject t certain conditfons of approval which will requfre oertain public impl'ove.ments to b constructed in e ces of those pplicable to lhe Proj t (' onditi n of Approv.111").

C. The Conditions of Approval also require Developer to pay Development Impact Fees ("DIFs"), as established in Chapter 3.40 of the Chino Municipal Code ("DIF Ordinance"). The DIFs have been established by City to finance public facilities in furtherance of the goals and objectives of City's general plan, various facility master plans, capital improvement p.lans. and the nexus reports described iu the DIF Ordinance "Ne. u Reports• .

D. Developer has elected to construct certain public improv ments in excess o thos spec.ifically required by the Conditions of Apprnval as depkted in Exhtbi A "Public Improvement,").

E. The DI Orclina11ce provides that if. a · a condiHon a:ppmvaJ of a development projoc a d veloper con . b·ucts a publi facBity identified. in h exus Report-;. for which a development impact fee is imp sed, D vefoper hall be eligible to receive a fe credit toward the DI s imposed on the Project or the same type ofpublio facility so constrncted, and sh II be entitled to reimbursement for el' gible cos:ts of on tructing the pubHc aciHty pr vi:ded that developer compfi.es with the rcquircmen~ o th DIF Ordinance al H may be amended from time to time. The DIF Ordimm e s ecificaUy requires that tb~ developer nd City ente1· into a credit and/ol' reimbursemenl agr em nt.

F. Pursuant to the DIF Ordinance and the Conditions of Approval, Developer has satisfied the DIFs for the Project.
ity and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement f r the following purposes: i to pro ide for lhe timely onstructiOJl and on1pktion of the Public Im l'Ovements, 'i) to ensure . hat construction of the Public lm rovements i undertaken in accordanc with the Plans and · peclficath:ms, and the Jaws and ordinances pert ining to the cons ruct:ion f public improveme11 ~. iii to pro lde • he Exhibit A 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 244 methodology for establishing the reimbursement amounts to which Developer may be entitled after completion of the Public Improvements ("Reimbursement"); and (iv) the requirements for Developer's transfer or application of all or any portion of the Reimbursement to third party.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the purposes set forth herein, Developer and City hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Parties hereby affirm the facts set forth in the Recitals above and agree to the incorporation of the Recitals as though fully set fotth herein.

2. 1. on ·tm ion of Public Impro t 1neJ!1ts. Unle s extended b a wr(tten ext nsio1t executed by th P,ruties, within one 1} y1:,iu of the issuance of a building permit for tbe Project, Developer shall construct or have constructed, at its own cost and expense, the Public Improvements J:n accordance with the Plans and Specificatio and the provi ions of this Agreement Developer shall provide all equipment, tools, materials, labor, tests, design work, and engineering services necessary to fully and adequately complete the Public Improvements.

2.1 P1• -aQptoyat of Plan ' and necilicaHon . Developer is prohibited from commencing work n any portion of the Public lmpmvem.en until al.I pla sand pecification · for the Pt1blic lmprov - ent bav been ubmitted to and approved in Wl'itl.ng by ity f Plans and pec-ificH1 tions"). . pproval by City shall not relieve D _ velop r from ensuring that all Public lmprnvements conform to all applicable laws, ordinances and regulation under California and federal law. 2-.2 P:ermits and Notices. Prior to commencing any work, Developer through it..s co,utroctors) shall. at i sole cost and expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses and give all necessary and incidental notices required for the lawful construction of the Public Improvements and perfo1mance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement. Developer shall conduct the work in full compliance with the regulations, rules, and other requirements contained in this Agreement, any applicable law, and any permit or license issued to Developer.
2:.3 Public Worl ;s Reg uiremcn ts. Developer shall ensure tha[ the bidding a war din , and construction o tbe Public lmprovemcnts are unclerlaken as if such Public mprovements wee constructed as a public works project under the. di rec 10111 an.;i authority of City. pursuant tQ U provisions •Of la applicable to go ernmental entities. Developer shall also comply with the requiremenls of City's Blddi1\g and ontract Requirements or Pub!' Improvements Poliey as adopted by ity Council, h .reb incorporated by r fererrce and m de a part of hereof as may be amended from rime to time . (a) Prior to soliciting or awarding the bid for any portion of the Public Improvements, Developer shall submit the bid packet and a set of construction drawings lgned by Developer or another authorized repre'5entative designated by Developer for the work being bid ro Cft Engineer or his or her designee for review and approval, which apprnval hall · granted or denied within fifteen ( 15) cale1Jdar days after submjssion o sucll bid acket. [f City Engineer deuies approv l of such bid pack.et and oonstructi 11 drawings City Engineer shall specify the reasons or such dhapproval and Devel per shall r.esu mit a revlsL:Jd bid packet or revi•ew and approval \I • ti! sn h appr val i obtained. (b) Developer shall obtain bids for the construction of the Public Improvements in a manner which has been approved by City Engineer. Developer shall pr vide i :y Engineer with copies of all bids received from California Jicen!!1e<l contractors and a bid sum1nary in a form approved by · ity Engineer to assur that the ontractor/subcon:lmc!!ors adhere t the applicable legal 1·equirements for public wo:rks projec,ts. The contract or contracts for the construction of the Publfc lmp:rov,enients shall be awarded to the resp nsihle biddel' s ubmtuing the lowest r ponsiv bid(s -or th 2 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 245 construction of the Public Improvements. Developer shall enter into a construction contract with each contractor selected to perform work on the Publi Improvem n (after competitive bidding as set forth above), ( each, a "Construction Contract") for the performance of the work set fo1th in the selected bid, and the terms of each Construction Contract entered into by Developer and each contractor/subcontractor shall be reasonably acceptable to City Engine r. De eloper shall submit to City a copy of each execut.Bd Construction Contract for the Public Improvements within fifteen (15) days after execution thereof. (c) Developer's general contractor for the construction of the Public Improvement ("General Contractor") shall pay prevailing wages (in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 of the Labor Code) and otherwise comply with applicable provisions of the Labor Code, the Government Code, the Civil Code, and the Public Contract Code relating to public works project of cities and as required by the pro~e"ures and standard of ir W1 respect to he construction of its public works projects or as otherwise directed by City Engineer. ( d) All contractors shall be required to provide proof of insurance coverage throughout the term of the construction of the Public Improvements which they will construct in conformance with Section 5 of this Agreement.

2.4 Standard of Performance. Developer and its contractors shall perform all work required, constructing the Public Improvements in a skillful and workmanlike manner, and consistent with the standards generally recogni zed as being empl yed by professionals: in th same discipline in the tate of California. Developer represents and maintains that it or its contractors shall be skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work. Developer warrants that all of its employees and contractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the work assigned to them, and that they shall have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the work, and that such licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement.

2.5 Alterations to Public Improvements. All work shall be done and the Public Improvements completed as shown on the Plans and Specifications, and any subsequent alterations thereto mutually agreed upon by City and Developer. If Developer desires to make any alterations to the Plans and Specifications it shall provide written notice to City of such pr posed It rations, Ci Ly shall have t n (10) bnsines.s days after receipt of uch written notice to a.tlministm.tiy ly approve or disapprove such alterations. which appm ,al shall not be Ll lli'eascmably withheld.,. conditioned or delayed. If City fails to provide writlen notice to Developer ofit.s approval o disapproval oflhc alterations \.vithin ucb ten · 10) busb1 ~s day period ity will be di:emed to have di appr ed S\lch alterat' ons to the Plans and pecHication . Any and all alterations in the PlaM and Specifications and the Public Improvements to be completed may be accomplished without first giving prior notice thereof to Developer's surety for this Agreement.

2.6 Force Majeure. Developer agrees that the time within which it shall be required to pe fo1.rn any act under thi Agreement shall not be e t,ended ,cept as follows: (i) Developer is delayed by City (including, without limitation, restrictions on priority, initiative or referendum, or moratoria), in which case Devefop~r shaU provide written notice to Chy specifically describing the nature and extent of the delay caused by City and Developer's detailed effo1ts to avoid such delay, which references this Section and deliver such notjce within twenty (20) days of discovering such delay, and Developer's obligations shall be extended for such time as Cit. deems reasonable as a re ult of the delay if and only if Developer provides such written notice to City within such time; or (ii) Developer is delayed due to war, i:nsun e tion, strike , lock~outs, riots flood , earthqu kes, fires, casualties, naturnl disasters, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, processing with any governmental agencies, unusually severe weather, or any other similar causes beyond the control of Developer or without the fault of Developer. An extension oftime for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay equal to the number of days during which Developer's performance was delayed and shall commence to 3 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 246 nm from the time of the commencement of the cause, if written notice by Developer claiming such extension is sent to City within twenty (20) days of knowledge of the commencement of the cause.

3. , ecuril'v: ... urety_ Honch. Prior to the commencement o any work on the Public .Improvements Developer or i conrract 1· shall provide ity with uret.y bonds in the amounts and under the terms · et forth below or, at City' reqU:es1, in Heu of sLrrety bonds, a let •er of credit or lette of credit i ·sued by a banking institution\ •ith a rating to be approved by ity and in tbe form a.nd upon t nns approved by lty ' , ccurU ''), ~he an, unto the ... curity hall b based on the e11tim .ted actual co t {"'Est.inu,ted Cos ') to construct th Pubrc Improvements as determined b ity aft .i' Developer has award d a ontract fi r constn.tcdon u the Public Improvements to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in accordance with this Agreement. If City determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the Estimated Costs have changed, Developer or its contractor shall adjust the Security in the amount requested by City.

Providing the Security shall not release Developer of its indemnification obligation in Section 4.

3.1 Performance Bond. To guarantee the construction of the Public Improvements and faithful performance of all the provisions of this Agreement, to protect City if Developer is in default as defined in Section 14, and to secure the Warranty of the Public Improvements pursuant to Section I 0, Developer or its contractor shall provide City a faithful performance bond in an amount which sum shall be not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Estimated Costs. City may, in its reasonable discretion partially l'ele~ ·ea portion rpoiiion.s f the ecurlty provided unde1· this section as the Public improvements are accepted by City, provided that Developer is not in default on any provision of this Agreement and the total remaining security is not less than twenty percent (20%) of the Estimated Costs. AU security provided under this section shall be released at the end of the Warranty period, provided that Developer is not in default of this Agreement.

3.2 Labor & Material Bond. To secure payment to the contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and other persons furnishing labor, materials, or equipment for pertbrmanc of the Public Improvements imd lhis Agreement . Devel per _ r i.ts contractor shall provide City a lab r and materials bond in an amount which sum shall not be less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Estimated Costs. The security provided under this section shall be released by City six (6) months after the date City accepts the Public Improvements, provided there are no outstanding stop payment notices.

3.3 Additional Requirements. The surety for any surety bonds provided as Security shall have a current A.M. Best rating of at least "A" and FSC-VIII, shall be licensed to do business in California. As part of the obligation secured by the Security and in addition to the face amount of the Security, Developer and it contractor or the surety shall se ure the• osts nd reaoonab1e expenses and fees,. including reasonable attorneys' foes and c-0sts incurred by City in er forcing he bllgations of t.hi.s Agreement. Developer and its conlmctor and tll.e surely shall stipulate and agree that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of this Agreement, the Public Improvements, or the Plans and Specifications shall in any way affect its obligation on the Security.

4.. Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify,. and hold harmless City, its lected official , employee ,md agents. from any and all actual or alleged claims, demands, causes of action, liability, loss. <.hunage, or lr~jury to property or pei:-sons. including wrongful death, whether iinposed by a ourt law o · by administrative ac-tion of an- fed r l. state, or local govemm ntaJ agency arising out of or incldent to ny acts, omissions. neglig-en e r wi!Ifu1 misconduct of Devel per in connection with the per.fimnance of this Agreer nt (''Clahn ' . his. indemnification include , wtth ul limit tion lhe payment of all penaltie , fines, judgments awards, decn::e.s atto1.11eys foe:;, and related co ts or expenses, a, d the reimbursement f Cicy its elected officials, mployee.s. and/or agents for all legal expense and costs incurred by each of them. This indemnification excludes only such p01tion of any Claim which is caused solely and exclusively by the negligence or willful misconduct of City, as determined by a comt or administrative body of competent jurisdiction. Developer's obligation to indemnify shall survive the 4 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 247 expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by City, its elected officials, employees, or agents.

5. Insurance.

5.1 Types; Amounts. Developer shall procure and maintain, and shall require its contractors to procure and maintain, during performance of this Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below ("Required Insurance"). If any of the Required Insurance contains a general aggregate limit, such insurance shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the specified occurrence limit.

5.1.1 General Liability. Occurrence version general liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage.

5.1.2 Business Automobile Liability. Business automobile liability insurance, or equivalent form, with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the insured or for which the insured is responsible.

5.1.3 Workers' Compensation. Workers' compensation insurance with limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occun-ence, at all times during which insured retains employees.

5.1.4 Professional Liability. For any consultant or other professional who will engineer or design the Public Improvements, liability insurance for errors and omissions with limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence, shall be procured and maintained for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Improvements. Such insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability.

5.2 Deductibles. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either: (a) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (b) Developer and its contractors shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims, and administrative and defense expenses.

5.3 Additional Insured; Separation of Insureds. The Required Insurance, except for the professional liability and workers' compensation insurance, shall name City as an additional insured with respect to work perfo1med by or on behalf of Developer or its contractors, including any materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection therewith. The Required Insurance shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions, and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to City, its elected officials, officers, employees, or agents.

5.4 Primary Insurance; Waiver of Subrogation. The Required Insurance shall be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City, its elected officials, officers, employees, or agents. The policy required for workers' compensation insurance shall provide that the insurance company waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against City in connection with any damage or harm covered by such policy.

5.5 Certificates; Verification. Developer and its contractors shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage for the Required Insurance. The

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 248 certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by City before work pursuant to this Agreement can begin. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

5.6 Term; Cancellation Notice. Developer and its contractors shall maintain the Required Insurance for the term of this Agreement and shall replace any certificate, policy, or endorsement which will expire prior to that date. All policies shall, to the extent available from commercially reasonable insurance providers, be endorsed to provide that the Required Insurance shall not be suspended, voided, reduced, canceled, or allowed to expire except on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to City.

5.7 Insurer Rating. Unless approved in writing by City, all Required Insurance shall be placed with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a current A.M. Best rating of at least "A-" and FSC-VIII.

6. Maintenance of Improvements. City shall not be responsible or liable for the maintenance or care of, and shall exercise no control over, the Public Improvements until such Public Improvements are accepted by City. Developer shall have no obligation to make the Public Improvements available for public use at any time before the Public Improvements are accepted by City. Any use by any person of the Public Improvements, or any portion thereof, shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of Developer at all times prior to City's acceptance of the Improvements. Developer shall maintain all of the Public Improvements in a state of good repair until they are completed by Developer and accepted by City, and until the security for the performance of this Agreement is released. It shall be Developer's responsibility to initiate all maintenance work, but if it shall fail to do so, it shall promptly perform such maintenance work when notified to do so by City. If Developer fails to properly prosecute its maintenance obligation under this section, City may, upon written notice and Developer's failure to remedy as provided in Section 14, do all work necessary for such maintenance, and the cost thereof shall be the responsibility of Developer and its surety under this Agreement. City shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or injury of any nature in any way related to or caused by the Public Improvements or their condition prior to acceptance, except to the extent such damage or injury is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its elected officials, employees, and/or agents.

7. City Inspection of Public Improvements. Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, and at all times during construction of the Public Improvements, maintain reasonable and safe facilities and provide safe access for inspection by City of the Public Improvements and areas where construction of the Public Improvements is occurring or will occur. Developer shall give notice to City when the construction of all or a p01tion of the Public Improvements is complete. Upon receiving such notice, City may inspect the Public Improvements and request any modifications or corrections as may be deemed reasonably necessary by City Engineer, in his or her sole discretion, to bring the Public Improvements into confonnity with the Plans and Specifications, including any approved revisions thereto. Developer or Developer's contractors shall make all such modifications and conections requested by City Engineer.

8. Liens. Developer shall not permit any liens to be filed against the Public Improvements and indemnifies City with respect to any such liens. Upon the expiration of the time for the recording of claims of liens as prescribed by Sections 8412 and 8414 of the Civil Code with respect to the Public Improvements, Developer shall provide to City such evidence or proof as City shall reasonably require that all persons, firms, and corporations supplying work, labor, materials, supplies, and equipment to the construction of the Public Improvements have been paid, and that no claims ofliens have been recorded by or on behalf of any such person, firm, or corporation. Rather than await the expiration of the said time for the recording of claims of liens, Developer may elect to provide to City a title insurance policy or other security acceptable to City guaranteeing that no such claims of liens will be recorded or become a lien upon any of the prope1ty.
6 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 249

9. Acceptance of Improvements; As-Built or Record Drawings. If the Public Improvements are completed by Developer in accordance with the Plans and Specifications, as determined by City Engineer, City shall be authorized to accept the Public Improvements. City may, in its reasonable discretion, accept fully completed portions of the Public Improvements prior to such time as all of the Public Improvements are complete, which shall not release or modify Developer's obligation to complete the remainder of the Public Improvements. Upon the total or partial acceptance of the Public Improvements by City, Developer shall file with the Recorder's Office of the County of San Bernardino a notice of completion for the accepted Improvements in accordance with California Civil Code Section 9204 ("Notice of Completion"), at which time the accepted Public Improvements shall become the sole and exclusive property of City without any payment therefor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may not accept any Public Improvements (or the applicable portion thereof) unless and until Developer provides two (2) sets of"as-built" or record drawings or plans to City for all such Public Improvements (or the applicable portion thereof). The drawings shall be certified and shall reflect the condition of the Public Improvements as constructed, with all changes incorporated therein.

10. Warranty and Guaranty. Developer warrants and guarantees all the Public Improvements against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished in the performance of this Agreement, including the maintenance of the Public Improvements, for a period of one (1) year following completion of the work and acceptance by City ("Warranty"). During the Warranty, Developer shall repair, replace, or reconstruct any defective or otherwise materially unsatisfactory po1tion of the Improvements, in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. All repairs, replacements, or reconstruction during the Warranty period shall be at the sole cost and expense of Developer, and shall not be eligible for reimbursements. As to any Public Improvements which have been repaired, replaced, or reconstructed during the Warranty, Developer hereby agree to provide a wan-anty for a one (1) year period following City acceptance of the repaired, replaced, or reconstructed Public Improvements. Nothing herein shall relieve Developer from any other liability it may have under federal, state, or local law to repair, replace, or reconstruct any Public Improvement following expiration of the Warranty or any extension thereof. Developer's warranty obligation under this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
u. DIF Reimbursement.

11.1 Calculation of Eligible Costs. Upon or prior to completion of the Public Improvements by Developer, Developer shall submit to City Engineer such information as City Engineer may require to calculate the actual costs incurred by Developer to construct the Public Improvements ("Actual Costs").

11.2 Reimbursement Limits. The reimbursement amount owed to Developer for construction of the Public Improvements ("Reimbursement Amount") shall be equal to the Actual Costs, subject to the following limitations:

11.2.1 Reasonable Soft Costs. City Engineer shall, in his or her sole reasonable discretion, determine the amount of reasonable soft costs eligible for reimbursement under the DIF Ordinance. Such amounts may include professional engineering and design services, construction management, soils testing, permits, plan check fees, and inspections, but shall not include interest or attorneys' fees. For soft costs to be reimbursable to Developer pursuant to this Agreement, City must be able to verify that such soft costs are specifically attributable to the specified Public Improvements for which reimbursement is being made, by reference to separate subcontract(s) or by another means approved by City in writing. The total amount of the soft costs shall not exceed fifteen percent ( 15%) of the Reimbursement Amount. City Engineer may, in his or her reasonable discretion, reduce or disallow reimbursement for any costs he or she finds excessive or unreasonable. 7 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 250

11.2.2 Nexus Report Costs Estimates. The Reimbursement Amount shall not exceed the cost estimates for the Public Improvements included in the Nexus Reports, unless approved by City council.

11.2.3 DIF Categories. Developer acknowledges that DIFs are imposed in various separate categories to fund specific public facilities. Reimbursement from DIFs may only be for eligible improvements identified in the specific DIF category.

11.3 Conditions Precedent to Final Reimbursement. City's obligation to provide reimburnements for the Public lmprovements pursuant to thi Agreement is conditioned upon be prior sati fa tion by Developer r writte11 waiv r b City Manager of each o the fo!Jowing ondition P:N<cedea t wi1hin tho tim- desjgnated below:
ll.3.1 Corople ion of Con. n:,u __ ti 1J11.. Developer , h II have completed h co ti' ction oftbe Public Lmprnvements a:cceplable to City, and thirly 30 days have elapsed since notices of completion ha e be:en recol'ded in r I tion to the Public Improvements, in accord n e with California Civil ode ections 9204 and/or 8182 as applic<'lble . The purpo. e o tMs provision i-. to ensure that th~ Publk Improvemen wm be independently fu nctional and lO maimain consistency wifh vesting rights. and nothio[}- h~rein shall be deemed to make any part o ~ the Project a public work other han the Public Improvements.

11.3.2 Submission of Documents. Developer shall have made full and complete payment of all undisputed claims for work performed on the Public Improvements, or in the event of a dispute between Developer and the General Contractor or a subcontractor, Developer shall have obtained a commercially reasonable bond reasonably satisfactory to City to release any applicable mechanics' lien or stop notice, and Developer shall have submitted and City shall have approved a written request for the reimbursement, including copies of all bills and/or invoices evidencing the costs of constructing the Public Improvements actually incurred by Developer and any other documents reasonably required by City.

11.3.3 As-Built Drawings. Pursuant to Section 9, Developer shall have submitted two (2) sets of final as-built drawings for the Public Improvements to City Engineer.

11.3.4 ~ cc~ptance of Reguh:'etl Public Impr_ __ ~ !l!- nui by City. The City Council shall have accepted title to the Public Improvements.

11.3.5 No Default. Developer shall not be in default in any of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement, and all representations and waiTanties of Developer contained herein shall be true and correct in all material respects.

U.3.6 omplianc i.b, DIF Ordin,3n _- ,rn.d Condition. of Appro .ol ..

Developer shall be in compliance with all requirements of the DIF Ordinance and the Conditions of Approval.

12. DIF Reimbursement.

12.1 Reimbursement. City shall reimburse the Actual Costs to Developer in accordance with the provisions of the DIF Ordinance.
12 .. 2 A ignment of Reimbursement AmoJJn . Developer shall have the righ Ill assign all or po1tions of the Reimbursement Amount, which assignment will require City's written acknowledgement. Developer understands that strict compliance with the assignment restrictions is critical to allow City to track the total Reimbursement Amount and Developer's failure to comply with the assignment requirements may result in delays in the processing ofreimbursement assignments by the City. s

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 251

13. Assignment. Prior to completion of the Public Improvements, Developer may assign this Agreement to a third party ("Assignment"), subject to the approval of City's Director of Development Services ("Director") in his/her reasonable discretion. If Developer desires to assign this Agreement, Developer shall provide detailed information as to the proposed assignee ("Assignee") as requested by City including but not limited, evidence of Assignee's right to acquire the property, its background and financial information evidencing the ability of Assignee to complete the Public Improvements. Any assignment of this Agreement shall not release Assignor.

14. Default; Notice; Remedies.

14.1 oti~e. l Developer negle t , re use or fails to fu lfil l• r timely complete any obligati 11 term or cond:ition of thi ,greement, or tf ity determine there i a viola.ti n of any federal, state, or local law, ordinance, regulation or code, City may at any time thereafter declare Developer to be in default or violation of this Agreement and make written demand upon Developer or its surety, or both, to immediately remedy the default or violation ("Notice of Default"). Developer shall substantially commence the work required to remedy the default or violation within five (5) business days of the Notice of Default. If the default or violation constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, City may provide the Notice of Default verbally, and Developer shall substantially commence the required work within twenty-four (24) hours thereof. Immediately upon City's issuance of the Notice of Default, Developer and its surety shall be liable to City for all costs of construction and installation of the Public Improvements and all other administrative costs or expenses, as provided for in Section 15 of this Agreement.

14.2 Failure to Remedy; City Action. If the work required to remedy the noticed default or violation is not commenced within the time required under Section 14.1 of this Agreement and diligently prosecuted to completion, City may complete all remaining work, arrange for the completion of all remaining work, and/or conduct such remedial activity as in its reasonable discretion it believes is required to remedy the default or violation. All such work or remedial activity shall be at the sole and absolute cost and expense of Developer and its surety, without the necessity of giving any further notice to Developer or surety. In the event City elects to complete or arrange for completion of the remaining work and the Public Improvements, City may require all work by Developer or its surety to cease in order to allow adequate coordination by City.

14.3 Other Remedies. No action by City pursuant to this Section 14 shall prohibit City from exercising any other right or pursuing any other legal or equitable remedy available under this Agreement or any federal, state, or local law. City may exercise its rights and remedies independently or cumulatively, and City may pursue inconsistent remedies. City may institute an action for damages, injunctive relief, or specific performance.

15. Administrative Costs. If Developer fails to construct and install all or any part of the Public Improvements, or if Developer fails to comply with any other obligation contained herein, Developer and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable to City for all administrative expenses, fees, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred in obtaining compliance with this Agreement or in processing any legal action or for any other remedies permitted by law.

16. Miscellaneous.

16.1 Relationship between the Parties. The Paities hereby mutually agree that this Agreement shall not operate to create the relationship of paitnership, joint venture, or agency between City and Developer. Developer's contractors are exclusively and solely under the control and dominion of Developer. Nothing herein shall be deemed to make Developer or its contractors an agent or contractor of City.

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 252

16.2 Authority to Enter Agreement. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer represents and warrants that he or she has the legal power, right and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Developer and that this Agreement is binding upon Developer.

16.3 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication either Party desires or is required to give to the other Party or any person shall be in writing and either served personally, communicated electronic mail (with a receipt requested), or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set fmih below. Notice shall be deemed communicated immediately upon personal delivery, fax or email receipt, or forty-eight ( 48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section:

To City:

With Copy to:

To Developer:

City of Chino
13220 Central Ave.

Chino, CA 9 I 710
Attn: Director of Development Services
Email: [email protected]
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
188881 Von Kannan Ave., Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: Fred Galante, Esq.

Email: fgalante@awattomey,.c m
c/o Geoffrey Smith
Director of Operations
Lennar Homes of California Inc.
980 Montecito Dr., Suite 206
Corona CA 92879
geoffrey [email protected]

16.4 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate, or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.

16.5 Construction; References; Captions. The Parties agree that the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Pruiy.

Any term referencing time, days, or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days, unless specified therein. All references to Developer include all personnel, employees, agents, and contractors of Developer, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various aiiicles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.

16.6 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amend-mint of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and executed by both Parties. 10 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 253

16. 7 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual right by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

16.8 Binding Effect. Each and all of the covenants and conditions shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties, and their successors, heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.

This section shall not be construed as an authorization for any Party to assign any right or obligation.

16.9 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

16.10 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a comt of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

16.11 Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any legal action or proceeding brought to interpret or enforce this Agreement, or which in any way arises out of the Parties' activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, shall be filed and prosecuted in the appropriate California State Cou1t in the County of San Bernardino, California.

16.12 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and the Paities agree to execute all documents and proceed with due diligence to complete all covenants and conditions.

16.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument.

16.14 City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Developer or any successors in interest in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount that may become due to Developer or any successor(s) in interest or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. No officer or employee of Developer shall be personally liable to City or any successor(s) in interest in the event of any default or breach by Developer or for any amount that may become due to City or their successors in interest or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

16.15 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between City and Developer and supersedes any prior oral or written statements or agreements between City and Developer.

16.16 Exhibit. The following exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:

Exhibit A - College Park Traffic Signal Interconnect
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
l l

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 254 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

DEVELOPER:

LS COLLEGE PARK, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
BY: LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California corporation
Its Managing Member
By:v{P2:~
Its: ~ UO ~T
DATED: No~ £t1•1J._, , 2019
Its Managing Member
By: ~~
Its: fkJ v.,h Qt!:.Ltf.c/ ijcr~+
DATED: ud 2019
--=,_._-"'-=-- '
CITY:

CITY OF CHINO, a municipal corporation
DATED: l'v-W , 2019
DATED: \ 2.. · 2-t:::> , 2019
APP OVED AS TO CONTENT:
ori
Director of Dev Jopment Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
By: _______ _
Fred Galante, City Attorney
DATED: ____ , 2019
DEVELOPER: TWO PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY THE APPLICABLE ENTITY FORMATION DOCUMENTS SHALL EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. COPIES OF APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CITY.

DEVELOPER SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE

ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FORMATION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ENTITY.
12 10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 255 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3653D27F-512B-46CF-B295-D4C160E3ABBA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

DEVELOPER:

LS COLLEGE PARK, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
BY: LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., a California corporation
Its Managing Member
By: £JJ2{]4 r
I ts: WJ'l,\,::,fl-1."'Zfl) ~
DATED: NDV-()7'1,'/,-,..' 2019
Its Managing Member
By : ~~ -
Its: - ~ -=- v ..:.... fJ,.:....: ho..:...:rt. .,ct~· ....,.,___,_,___,_.,_,_.,~ DA TED: Jlci . JU" , 2019
CITY:

CITY OF CHINO, a municipal corporation
By: _______ _
Matthew C, Ballantyne
City Manager
DATED: ____ . 2019
ATTEST:

Angela Robles, City Clerk
DATED: ____ , 2019
guori
Director o · Development Services
DATED: Jt.{-l , 2019
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
By•~~' f'rerl Galf).nre, "ettiX1fo mcy·
DATED: ____ , 2019
DEVELOPER: TWO PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY THE APPLICABLE ENTITY FORMATION DOCUMENTS SHALL EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. COPIES OF APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CITY.

DEVELOPER SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE

ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FORMATION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ENTITY.
l2

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 256 0 1225
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACK.NOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE§ 1189 ~b~m".1'1£ola::i'.EaGl::ml'El'ltt.Yia00CW';~gj001.lgli3 A nota,y pwlic .or other ,al!icer completing this certificate verifies only the Identity of the individual who signed the dO.::ullient !owl1ioh this cor11ficate Is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

Gou
before me, ..--,------.....,,.L->0\1'<
personally appeared ______ W_, \~~hl-"'LJI.......__.....,,,~-,~~,....£..._--------- Oil
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person<.e(whose name<sYis/~ subscribed to the within instrum8!J,t. and acknowledged to me that he/~y executed th7same in his~eir authorized capacityp.t,s), and that by his/h.e!:4Reir signature(li(on the instrument the perso~ or the entity upon behalf of which the perso'%acted, executed the !fi"sirument.

JODIE ATHA
Notary Public - California
Riverside County
Commission # 2230896
My Comm, Expll~ ~I!' ! 1, 2021.
i
..

Place Notary Seal Above
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
- --------------OPTIONAL - ------------- Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document, Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: ____________ Document Date: _______ _ Number of Pages: _ _ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ____________ _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: ___________ _ Signer's Name: ___________ _ □ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ______ _ □ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ______ _ □ Partner - □ Limited D General D Partner - D Limited D General □ Individual D Attorney in Fact □ Individual D Attorney in Fact D Trustee D Guardian or ConseNator D Trustee D Guardian or Conservator 0 Other: _ ____________ _ □ Other: _ ____________ _
Signer Is Representing: ________ _ Signer Is Representing: _ _______ _ =~Ul't=B,ll.li:V~~~~~~f,11,!l;()Q!;~~::itll.l'~~ID:.>::JIOrue1~~~·=~!1:I ©2014 National Notary Association• www.NationalNotary.org • 1-800-US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5907

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 257

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.

State of California R. V~t5tf!f
County of \, 1 · ~ ,
On
personally appeared , , •
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence o be the pers;;~hose name ls/ate subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ · . y executed e saine in his/he~r authoriz_ed capacity(il$), and_ that by his/~r signatllre(..r'on the Instrument the person( , or the entity upon beff'alf of which the perso~ acted execdie'd the lnstr1.1ment.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __ Qu!J _ .__. .~i · ...... ..... O.__Q~~ ...... ~-"'-· ...... ·· , __ _ (Seal) JQOlEATH/1
Notary liubllc - Californla
F!:ive.rt'o~ Coonty ~
(omml:s.$ion ~· 2230896
My Comm. bplres Feb 11, 2022_

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 258 Central Ave. Scope
Continues to Chino City Hall
per Central Ave. Plans
Lmll! !f Ri A":iii.

Scope at Existing Hub
Legend
Edison Avenue Plan Set
■ . College Park Scope of Work
■ -Edison Avenue West Scope of Work
to be Done by Others
Central Avenue Plan Set
fl • Central Avenue Scope of Work
College Park Traffic Signal JOB NAME: College Park
Interconnect Scope of Work JoB NUMBER: 430-1aorn

EXHIBIT A
AUTHOR: Collin Pratt
DATE: 4/2/19
ADDENDUM· ______ _ MuRowlcM

CONSTRUCTION DYERSIGHT CONSULTANTS

10.19.a
Reimbursement Agreement & Acceptance of Traffic Signal Packet Pg. 259 Revenue: Expenditure:

Transfer In: Transfer Out:

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: NICHOLAS S. LIGUORI, AICP, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL - EL POLLO LOCO (PL20-0025).

RECOMMENDATION
1) Accept public improvements as complete for Administrative Approval PL20-0025; and 2) authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The recommendation detailed above furthers the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Positive City Image

10.20 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 260
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL - EL POLLO LOCO (PL20-0025)
PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
In November 2006, the Chino Planning Commission approved the Stater Bros. Plaza, a 118,230 square-foot shopping center including a grocery store, restaurants, and other retail space, located on the south side of Schaefer Avenue between Fern and Euclid Avenues. Over time, The Evans Group (developer) has been leasing out the undeveloped parcels to different users who would build-to-suit in conformance with the conceptual footprint and architectural elements of the shopping center.

On November 2, 2020, the Chino Planning Division approved an application submitted by the developer to modify a previously approved Special Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of drive-thru restaurants permitted in the Stater Bros. Plaza from two (2) to three (3).

This allowed the construction of a new 2,400 square-foot El Pollo Loco drive-thru restaurant within the Stater Bros. Plaza, located in the Village Commercial Land Use District (VC) East Chino Specific Plan. The project is located at 6981 Schaefer Avenue (Exhibit A).

The conditions of approval required off-site, accessibility and other public improvements along Schaefer Avenue including, but not limited to pavement, sidewalk, driveway reconstruction, signing and striping, curb and gutter, landscaping and a water service lateral, which necessitated a Public Improvement Agreement that was approved at the May 18, 2021 City Council meeting (Exhibit B).

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The public improvements are substantially complete and have been constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The public improvements that are being accepted by the City include pavement, sidewalk, driveway reconstruction, signing and striping, curb and gutter, landscaping and a water service lateral.

These improvements were made to bring the pedestrian facilities up to accessibility standards and contribute to a positive city image by providing a safe pedestrian access to include the replacement of nonconforming sidewalks, driveway approach, curb ramps, and crosswalks. The improvements that are being accepted have been satisfactorily constructed to meet City and all applicable accessibility requirements.

All required development related fees have been paid and security for a one-year warranty period has been submitted. Under the warranty bond obligation, the developer will correct any defects found within one-year of City Council’s acceptance of the project.

Attachments:

Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Fully Executed Public Improvement Agreement & Bonds

10.20 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 261

S C H A E F E R A V E N U E

F E R N A V E N U E

E U C L I D A V E N U E

R E D B U D L A N E

PROJECT
SITE
EXHIBIT "A"
AA 20-0025 SITE APPROVAL
SCALE: 1"=200'
NA CIVIL, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING
22672 LAMBERT STREET, SUITE 606
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
949.753.0600
LEGEND

10.20.a
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 262

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 263

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 264

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 265

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 266

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 267

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 268

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 269

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 270

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 271

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 272

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 273

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 274

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 275

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 276

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 277

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 278

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 279

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 280

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 281

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 282

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 283

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 284

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 285

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 286

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 287

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 288

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 289

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 290

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 291

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 292

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 293

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 294

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 295

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 296

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 297

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 298

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 299

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 300

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 301

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 302

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 303

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 304

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 305

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 306

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 307

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 308

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 309

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 310

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 311

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 312

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 313

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 314

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 315

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 316

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 317

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 318

10.20.b
Final Acceptance of Public Improvement - El Pollo Loco Packet Pg. 319 Revenue: Expenditure: 5407360-48009-SD211, 3207100-48009-ST183 3277102-48009-ST183
Transfer In: Transfer Out:

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: AMER JAKHER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION: RIVERSIDE DRIVE REHABILITATION AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFCIATION PROJECT (ST183) AND 11TH STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT (SD211).

RECOMMENDATION
1) Accept the Riverside Drive Street Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Modification Project (ST183) and 11th Street Storm Drain Project (SD211), Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Brea, Ca., Contract No. 2021-026, as complete; 2) release the retention funds following the 35-day lien period; and 3) authorize the Director of Public Works to file the Notice of Completion.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project was completed within the Council approved established budget for ST183 and SD211.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The recommendation detailed above furthers the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Positive City Image
• Responsible Long-Range Planning

10.21 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 320
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION: RIVERSIDE DRIVE REHABILITATION AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFCIATION PROJECT (ST183) AND 11TH STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT (SD211)
PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2020, City Council awarded a construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Brea, CA, in the amount of $6,197,250.50 for the Riverside Drive Street Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Modification Project (ST183) and Storm Drain Project- 11th StChino Ave to Riverside Dr (SD211). Additionally, the City Council authorized expenditures of up to $619,725.05 for project contingencies, bringing the total construction contract to a not-toexceed amount of $6,816,975.55. On July 19, 2022, City Council appropriated $19,080.54 from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation (RMRA) Funds for additional project contingencies, bringing the total construction contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $6,836,056.09.

Several change orders were approved and issued over the duration of the project, encompassing a wide scope. This included completed quantity and balancing changes for the construction.

The completed work included reconstruction and overlay of the entire street section on Riverside Drive from Central Avenue to Oaks Avenue, pedestrian accessibility improvements including curb ramps, sidewalk, curb, curb and gutter, traffic signal modifications at the intersections of Riverside Drive at Tenth Street, Benson Avenue and Oaks Avenue, and a storm drain segment on 11th Street from Riverside Drive to Chino Ave, as well as signage and striping improvements. All the improvements within the project scope have been successfully constructed. It was noted that some rutting has occurred within the project limits since its completion. This is normal for a road heavily traveled by large and heavy trucks. The solution is to develop a standard to provide concrete paving where heavy truck loads are anticipated. Staff is currently working with the traffic Division to develop and implement said standard going forward. However, it should be noted that this same standard will also be applied to this current project to mitigate any rutting that has occurred.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
All work has been completed per the terms of the original contract and successive approved change orders. The following is a brief summary of the final accounting of construction costs for the project:

Original Construction Contract Amount $6,197,250.50
Contract Change Orders No. 1 - No. 19 $638,805.59
Final Construction Contract Amount $6,836,056.09
Construction Contingency Balance $0
Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Brea, CA, has complied with the terms of the contract. A Notice of Completion has been prepared for filing with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. The retention funds will be released following the 35-day lien period.

Attachment: Notice of Completion - Projects ST183 & SD211

10.21 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 321

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City of Chino
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 667
Chino, CA 91708

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
City Clerk
City of Chino
P.O. Box 667
Chino, CA 91708-0667
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF CHINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described.

2. The full name of the undersigned is City of Chino

3. The full address of the undersigned is 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710

4. The nature of the title of the undersigned is: In fee (If other than fee, strike “In fee” and insert, for example, “purchaser under contract of purchase” or “lessee”)

5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned are:

Names Addresses

N/A N/A

6. The names of the predecessors in interest of the undersigned, if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvement herein referred to:

Names Addresses

N/A N/A
(If no transfer made, insert “none”)

7. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on June 24, 2022

8. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was:

Sully-Miller Contracting Company
(If no contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert “none”)

9. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Chino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and is described as follows:

Riverside Drive Street Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Modification Project (ST183) and 11th Street Storm Drain Project (SD211)

10. The street address of said property is Riverside Drive from Central Avenue to Oaks Avenue and 11th Street from Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue, at City of Chino (If no street address has been officially assigned, insert “none”) SIGNATURE OF OWNER NAMED IN PARAGRAPH 2: DATE:

Amer Jakher, Director of Public Works

CERTIFICATION FOR NOTICE OF COMPLETION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )ss

CITY OF CHINO )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the Assistant City Manager for the City of Chino. I have read the foregoing Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on , at City of Chino, California Amer Jakher
Director of Public Works

10.21.a
Notice of Completion: Projects ST183 and SD211 Packet Pg. 322 Revenue: Expenditure: 5207310-48005-WA19C
Transfer In: Transfer Out:

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: AMER JAKHER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION-OFFSITE DUAL 6" DIAMETER BRINE LINE DISCHARGE LINE, EASTSIDE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (EWTF).

RECOMMENDATION
1) Accept the Offsite Dual 6" Diameter Brine Line Discharge Line, Eastside Water Treatment Facility (EWTF) Project WA19C, construction contract 2022064, by Norstar Plumbing and Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA as complete; 2) authorize the Director of Public Works to file the Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the release of the retention 35 days after acceptance; 4) authorize the release of Faithful Performance and Labor and Material bonds and accept a Maintenance Bond; and 5) authorize the Director of Public Works to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project was completed within the established project budget. The remaining funds will return to fund balance.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The recommendation detailed above furthers the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Financial Stability
• Responsible Long-Range Planning

10.22 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 323
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION-OFFSITE DUAL 6" DIAMETER BRINE LINE

DISCHARGE LINE, EASTSIDE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (EWTF) PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
The WA19C Capital Improvement Project consisted of two construction contracts. One project was for the expansion of the existing treatment capacity at the EWTF, and one for the construction of dual brine pipelines to convey the brine waste resulting from the treatment process from the EWTF to a lateral connecting to the Santa Ana Watershed Protection Agency’s Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL). The lateral is owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The City currently hauls off the brine waste for the existing EWTF and owns one (1) brine capacity unit, which allows the City to discharge up to 15 gallons per minute. With the expansion of the EWTF, it will no longer be feasible to haul off the brine waste and will require a brine disposal pipeline.

On January 19, 2021, City Council awarded a construction contract for the primary component of the project, Eastside Water Treatment Facility (EWTF) Expansion Project (WA19C). Field construction is in progress on the first component of the project.

On July 20, 2021, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Offsite Dual 6" Diameter Brine Line Discharge Line for the EWTF Project. Additionally, the City Council also approved the purchase of two (2) additional brine capacity units, which allow the City to discharge up to 30 additional gallons per minute, and the pre-purchase of PVC conduit due to shortage concerns from the COVID-19 pandemic.

On May 17, 2022, the City Council authorized an additional appropriation in the amount of $166,255.20 for contingency expenditures related to unforeseen conditions.

As of June 7, 2022, the offsite dual brine line project was considered to be substantially complete. Staff is currently in progress of establishing the permitting amendments necessary to operate and discharge the waste of the existing and proposed expansion facility.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
During construction, several unforeseen items were identified in the field and addressed as modifications to the project. These modifications included revised scope of work along Merrill Avenue to permit night work, actual reimbursement costs for permitting fees, and associated work to conduct work with respective jurisdictions, repairs and protection of unknown storm drain facilities, provide flood protection to manhole lids in areas where street improvements are not yet in place, and handle unsuitable soils. The final contract quantities placed during construction were less than originally estimated therefore, the final change order included the balancing statement of the project. The balancing quantities resulted in a decrease in the amount of ($104,182.00).

All work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the final accounting of costs for the project:

Budget Amount: $5,885,000.00
Design (Hazen): $261,020.00 $261,020.00
Design Amendment (Hazen): $9,890.00
Environmental Monitoring (GPA): $91,809.60
Construction Management (TRC): $581,747.16

10.22 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 324
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION-OFFSITE DUAL 6" DIAMETER BRINE LINE

DISCHARGE LINE, EASTSIDE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (EWTF) PAGE 3
Additional Project Management Services (PM,
Environmental, Legal, etc):
$157,522.50
Permitting Fees (Ontario): $133,072.30
Contract Amount (Norstar): $3,331,276.00
Total Change Order Amounts (Norstar): $563,310.69
Inland Empire Brine Line Capacity Units (IEUA): $430,000.00 Pre-Purchased Material (Dangelo): $45,347.67
Total Project Amount: $5,604,995.92
Norstar Plumbing & Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, has complied with the terms of the contract and the required warranty bond is on file with the City. A Notice of Completion has been prepared for the filing with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office. Additionally, staff requests to release the Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond. At the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in the materials and workmanship, the Maintenance Bond may be released upon approval of the Director of Public Works.

Attachment: Notice of Completion (WA19C-BL)

10.22 CONSENT CALENDAR Packet Pg. 325

10.22.a
NOC-Offsite Dual 6" Diameter Brine Line Discharge Line, Packet Pg. 326 Revenue: Expenditure:

Transfer In: Transfer Out:

M E M O R A N D U M

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
TO: LINDA REICH, CITY MANAGER
FROM: NICHOLAS S. LIGUORI, AICP, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT COLLEGE PARK.

RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) adopt Resolution No. 2022-056, granting the appeal and thereby approving PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit), and PL21- 0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348), and adding a condition of approval to provide for a driveway approach to the project off of Eucalyptus Avenue; and 3) determine the scope of the frontage improvements for which the developer shall be responsible as part of the project and adopt revisions to the conditions of approval.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the project will result in increased valuation for the property which will raise property tax revenues, as well as potential sales tax revenues from future retail sales in the commercial center.

If the developer is not required to fix the existing improvements along the frontage of the project that do not meet current accessibility requirements, then the City may be required to repair these improvements in the future using City funds, funds provided by the Master Developer, or a combination. The cost of such improvements is currently estimated at approximately $200,000.

CITY OF CHINO MISSION / VISION / VALUES / STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The recommendation detailed above will further the City’s values and strategic issues that serve as key pillars on which identified priorities, goals, and action plans are built, by fostering:
• Positive City Image
• Responsible Long-Range Planning

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 327
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 2

BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request from United Trust Realty Corporation (“developer”) for approval of the following applications for construction of The Campus at College Park development located on 7.53 acres of land within the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation of the College Park Specific Plan:
• PL21-0004 (Site Approval) - A request to construct three two-story buildings, totaling 50,630 square feet of commercial retail, office, and restaurant space, and one single story 27,000 square foot community scale church on the project site. • PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) - A request to conditionally permit a community scale church on the project site.
• PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348) - A request to subdivide the 7.53-acre project site into two parcels.

The project includes a commercial center component and a church. The proposed project is located north of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-251-01). The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are attached to this report.

After extensive discussion and deliberation, including discussions with the developer, the Planning Commission denied the project, specifically by failing to adopt any motion for or against approval of the project. Because no motion was passed, no findings were made and no resolution was adopted. The applicant then appealed to the City Council by filing a timely appeal on June 30, 2022, which is attached. The applicant also requested that the appeal hearing be postponed until September 6, 2022 to allow both the applicant and staff time evaluate the issues brought up at the Planning Commission hearing.

Although the Planning Commission did not adopt a written resolution explaining the reasons why the project was not approved, two primary concerns were discussed during the Planning Commission’s deliberations:

Traffic/Pedestrian Safety: The first concern regarded traffic and transportation-related issues, including but not limited to traffic flow, the design of the roundabout adjacent to the project, and the safety of pedestrians walking to the project site, especially those coming from Chaffey College.

Frontage Improvements: The second concern, and the primary concern of the developer, was whether the applicant would be responsible for fixing existing frontage improvements adjacent to the project that do not comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Both of these issues are discussed in more detail below.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Traffic Concerns
Some of the traffic concerns raised by the Planning Commission included the following (for more detail, see the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, attached):

1. Concerns about the ability of Notre Dame Avenue (a two-lane street with on-street parking) to handle the increased traffic flow from the project;

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 328
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 3

2. Concerns about whether the intersection at Notre Dame Avenue and Satterfield Way should be turned in to an all-way stop (it is currently a two-way stop and is proposed to remain a two-way stop);

3. Concerns about the design of bike lanes and bike routes, and related signage, especially in the vicinity of the roundabout at the intersection of Oaks Avenue, College Park Avenue, and Eucalyptus Avenue;

4. Concerns about the safety of the roundabout itself; and

5. Concerns about whether there should be a driveway approach from the project to Eucalyptus Avenue between Oaks Avenue and Satterfield Way (no driveway approach was proposed at the time this project was considered by the Planning Commission).

Staff believes that all traffic and safety concerns were adequately addressed in the design of and conditions imposed on the project as presented to the Planning Commission. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the proposed commercial center is smaller than what was originally envisioned by the College Park Specific Plan, and will therefore result in less vehicle traffic than previously planned for being generated from the site.

However, upon further consideration following the Planning Commission meeting, staff is now recommending that a driveway approach to the development be added from Eucalyptus Avenue in order to aid traffic flow. Staff’s understanding is that the developer is in favor of adding the additional driveway approach. Therefore, staff is recommending that the following changes be made to the table in Engineering Division Condition of Approval 2.7 for the project (additions shown in bold underline):

Street Names
Oaks
Avenue(1)
Eucalyptus
Avenue(1)
Notre
Dame
Avenue
(1)
Satterfield
Way(1)
Driveway Approaches (5) X(6) X
(5) Proposed driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Std. No. 250 with 5-ft sidewalks.

Minimum width shall be 30-ft. Minimum radii per City and Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD) requirements.
(6) Proposed driveway on Eucalyptus Avenue shall be restricted to right-in/right-out only.

Frontage Improvements
Apart from the traffic concerns, the primary issue of concern was the frontage improvements, and specifically the requirement to reconstruct existing improvements that do not meet ADA standards. The original conditions of approval (specifically, Engineering Division Conditions 2.7 and 2.8) require the developer to evaluate existing frontage improvements around the perimeter of the project to determine whether the existing improvements are compliant with ADA standards, and to repair or upgrade any non-compliant improvements. The full text of these Engineering Division Conditions are included in the Planning Commission staff report attached hereto.

As further stated in the appeal, the applicant objects to these requirements because (a) the College Park Specific Plan Phase 2 Design Guidelines state that these improvements are the

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 329
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 4
responsibility of the master developer, rather than the applicant, and (b) the applicant does not believe it should have to re-do work that was already performed by the master developer, especially because the City still holds valid performance bonds that cover the required repairs.

The developer’s objections and staff’s response to the objections are provided below:

1. Inconsistent with College Park Specific Plan. State law requires that land use approvals and requirements must be consistent with any specific plan governing the project. The College Park Specific Plan Phase 2 Design Guidelines allocate responsibility for constructing public improvements between the master developer and the guest builder. In this case, United Trust Realty Corporation - the appellant - is the guest builder.

Section F.2 of the Design Guidelines states: “The Master Developer/Developer shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of backbone infrastructure while the Builder shall be responsible for in-tract improvements and in-tract entries.” Backbone infrastructure includes streets, sidewalks, and traffic signals and related equipment. Once built, the City is responsible for the maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and traffic signals, per the Design Guidelines.

The appellant’s argument is that requiring the developer to repair defects in the backbone infrastructure is inconsistent with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and is therefore an illegal condition on the project. In response, staff contends that the City did require the master builder to construct the backbone infrastructure, and the City is not requiring the developer to reconstruct all of the backbone infrastructure from bare dirt. Instead, the City is requiring the developer to reconstruct specific sections or elements of the project-adjacent backbone infrastructure that do not comply with ADA standards.

While the Specific Plan Design Guidelines are clear about who should be responsible for the original construction of the backbone infrastructure, they simply do not address what should be done if the originally constructed improvements do not meet State accessibility requirements.

This is a unique situation that was not foreseen when the Specific Plan Design Guidelines were adopted. Therefore, staff does not believe that the Specific Plan prevents the City from requiring the developer to reconstruct existing improvements, adjacent to the project, that are not ADA compliant, as originally conditioned. Indeed, nothing in the Specific Plan states that the obligation to repair backbone improvements cannot be imposed on the guest builder when there are deficiencies.

2. Performance Bonds. The appeal notes that the City still holds performance bonds sufficient to cover the non-compliant improvements and suggests that this matter is really a dispute between the City and the master developer, which the guest builder should not be involved in. The improvements are, in fact, covered by a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) from 2012 between the City and the master developer - LS College Park, LLC - and the City does still hold the performance bonds connected with this agreement.

While pursuing remediation of the existing improvements through the performance bonds or through other avenues with the master developer may be an option for the City, these options do not tie the City’s hands and prevent it from pursuing other avenues for remediating the noncompliant improvements. In other words, the City is not required to enforce the SIA or pursue remediation through the performance bonds.

Chino Municipal Code Chapter 12.08
Section 3.2 of the College Park Specific Plan states that “Any development regulation not directly addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City’s adopted regulations in place at the time of the individual request.” As stated above, staff does not believe the Specific Plan

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 330
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 5
directly addresses what should be done when the existing backbone infrastructure adjacent to a project is not ADA compliant. Consequently, the applicable standards are those found in the Municipal Code.

Sections 12.08.020 and 12.08.030 of the municipal code state as follows:

12.08.020 - Responsibility of person in charge of construction or development.

Any person constructing, or causing to be constructed, any building, dwelling, private, public or semipublic parking lot, or developing any residential, commercial, or industrial areas in the city shall provide for the construction of, at his own cost, concrete curbs, gutters, asphalt concrete street pavement, sidewalks and streetlights in accordance with the requirements, standards and specifications of the city and in accordance with the streets portion of the master plan of the city.

12.08.030 - Location of improvements.

The improvements referred to in section 12.08.020 shall be constructed along all public street frontage adjoining the lot upon which the building, dwelling, private, public or semipublic parking lot or residential, commercial, or industrial development is to be constructed, unless adequate curbs, gutters, sidewalks, asphalt concrete street pavement and streetlights already exist in accordance with the requirements referred to in such section 12.08.020 along such street frontage. When the area of the lot is one-half acre or more, the improvements required by this chapter need not extend a greater distance along such street frontage than such areas as may be used as an accessory to the principal use of the buildings thereon with the minimum distance being the minimum lot width required by the zoning ordinance of the city for the zone in which such area is located: for corner parcels in such areas, the minimum frontage need not extend a greater distance than the side and rear yards as defined in the zoning ordinance of the city.

Staff believe these provisions require the guest builder both to construct new improvements where none currently exist, and to reconstruct existing improvements that do not comply with existing City standards and specifications. This was the basis for originally imposing Conditions of Approval 2.7 and 2.8 on the project.

Exception for Unusual Situations
Section 12.08.070 of the municipal code allows the City Council to modify the requirements discussed above in some circumstances, and the guest builder has specifically requested such a modification:

12.08.070 - Modification of provisions.

In unusual conditions or when compliance with the provisions of this chapter would constitute an extreme hardship or would be impractical, the City Council may, upon written request of the property owner, modify the requirements contained in this chapter as it may deem fit.

Notably, modifications to these requirements can only be made by the City Council, and therefore this option was not available to the Planning Commission. However, now that this matter is before the City Council, the City Council may decide to modify the requirements in Chapter 12.08 as they apply to the project.

There are arguably unusual conditions applicable to this project that would justify such a modification - specifically, the previous history surrounding the existing non-compliant improvements, the fact that the existing improvements are covered by performance bonds still

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 331
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 6
held by the City, and the fact that the City is involved in ongoing negotiations with multiple developers to address the remediation of right-of-way improvements that do not comply with ADA standards, including in the College Park Neighborhood.

Furthermore, the guest builder claims in the appeal that reconstructing the non-compliant improvements would be an “extreme hardship” and would be impractical.

Optional Revisions to Conditions of Approval
Staff has prepared optional revisions to the Conditions of Approval to remove the requirement that the developer reconstruct existing improvements that are not ADA compliant. These optional revisions are attached to the proposed resolution. The developer has reviewed these optional revisions and does not have any objections to them.

Evaluation of the Project
Setting aside the issues of frontage improvements, the project as a whole meets the development standards and subdivision requirements in the Municipal Code, as further detailed in the staff report from the Planning Commission meeting. It is also important to note that the construction of the proposed mixed-use development consisting of retail/office buildings and a community church will further the City’s Positive City Image and Responsible Long-Range Planning strategic plan values by creating a visibly appealing development and community gathering space for residents and visitors to enjoy that is consistent with what is envisioned for the site by the College Park Specific Plan.

Addressing Accessibility Issues
Granting the applicant’s appeal and approving the project will not in any way act as an approval or acceptance of existing improvements that do not meet accessibility standards in the College Park Specific Plan area.

If the City Council chooses not to require the guest builder to reconstruct the non-compliant improvements, then staff will continue to work with the master developer to resolve these issues and provide ADA-compliant facilities for the Chino community.

Direction Needed
In conclusion, the City Council is being asked to decide three questions:

1. Should the project be approved or denied?

2. Should a driveway approach be added to the project off Eucalyptus Avenue?

3. Should Engineering Division Conditions of Approval 2.7 and 2.8 be revised to remove the requirement that the guest builder reconstruct existing non-ADA-compliant improvements, or should this requirement remain in place?

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been determined to be within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan - Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 332
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THE CAMPUS AT

COLLEGE PARK
PAGE 7
through 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments:

1. Staff Report from Planning Commission Meeting on June 20, 2022

2. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting on June 20, 2022

3. Appeal

4. Proposed Resolution Including Conditions of Approval with Revisions

11.23 PUBLIC HEARING Packet Pg. 333
For reference, the plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 20, 2022 can be viewed at www.cityofchino.org/agendas under June 20, 2022 7:00 PM Planning Commission - Plans. http://chinocityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2515&Inline=True

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348)

LOCATION MAP

6.3 Packet Pg. 48

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 334

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) DATE: June 20, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CITY OF CHINO
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2022
PROJECT NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) APPLICANT: United Trust Realty Corporation
REQUEST: A request for approval of the following applications for construction of The Campus at College Park development located on 7.53 acres of land within the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation of the College Park Specific Plan:

PL21-0004 (Site Approval) A request to construct three two-story buildings, totaling 50,630 square feet of commercial retail, office, and restaurant space, and one single story 27,000 square foot community scale church on the project site.

PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) A request to conditionally permit a community scale church on the project site.

PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348) A request to subdivide the 7.53-acre project site into two parcels.

LOCATION: North of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-251-01)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-011, approving PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) and PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval.

SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE:

Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning District
Project Site - Vacant Mixed Use (MU) College Park
Specific Plan
North - Multi-Family Mixed Use (MU) College Park
Specific Plan
East - Multi-Family Mixed Use (MU) College Park
Specific Plan
South - Chaffey College Mixed Use (MU),
Public Schools (PS)
College Park
Specific Plan
West - Chaffey College,
Vacant
Recreation/Open
Space (R/OS)
College Park
Specific Plan

6.3 Packet Pg. 49

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 335

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) DATE: June 20, 2022

BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16838, a subdivision of 553 acres that was divided into 21 lots for the development of Phase II of the College Park Specific Plan (CPSP), which includes mixed use, residential, public school, open space, landscaping, and park facility uses. The College Park specific plan area is mostly built out except for various portions of the Chaffey College property, the school site off Mountain Avenue, and one remaining mixed-use site that is the subject of this application. The master developer, Lennar Homes, is in the process of completing final offsite public improvements along Edison and Oaks Avenues.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348
A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the 7.53-acre project site into two parcels for the development of The Campus at College Park project that consists of a commercial center and a community church. The proposed commercial center component will be located on the northwest side of the project site on a 3.74-acre parcel, with the church being located on a 3.79- acre parcel on the southeast side of the project site. To ensure all common access points and shared parking and maintenance areas are maintained properly in a cohesive manner, covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) will be required to be prepared and recorded with the final map for the project. All previous Engineering Division conditions of approval for original Tentative Tract Map No. 16838 related to the backbone streets that pertain to this project shall apply, which require dedications and public improvements for access, streets, drainage, and utility systems.

Site Plan
The Campus at College Park project is proposed on the last remaining mixed-use property within the College Park Specific Plan area. The commercial center component is comprised of three two-story buildings (Buildings A, B & C), designed to front along Oaks Avenue, the roundabout, and a small portion of Eucalyptus Avenue. In addition, outdoor dining areas are provided for Building A on the first floor and upper second floor deck of the building. The church site is comprised of three single-story buildings surrounding an interior courtyard to accommodate the relocation of Gateway Karis Church to this location. Access is provided into the project site from three driveway approaches off Notre Dame Avenue. A 12-foot-wide sidewalk is provided along Oaks Avenue, the roundabout, and a portion of Eucalyptus Avenue and narrows down to a 5-foot-wide sidewalk for the remainder of the project site per the College Park Specific Plan.

The construction of the project is proposed to occur in two phases. The first phase will be dedicated to the construction of the church and Building A within the commercial center. The second phase of the project will include the remaining commercial buildings (Buildings B & C).

The applicant anticipates construction of the first phase to begin by the end of this year and the second phase to occur 12 to 24 months later. Per the College Park Development Agreement (DA), a minimum of 40 percent of the commercial center is required to be built as part of the first phase of construction. Building A is 23,810 square feet in size, which is 47 percent of the total commercial square footage and satisfies the DA requirement.

6.3 Packet Pg. 50

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 336

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) DATE: June 20, 2022
Project statistics are as follows:

Item Proposed
Project Area - 7.53 gross acres

7.32 net acres
No. Lots - 2
Lot Area - Parcel 1(Commercial Center) 3.74 gross
acres/3.59 net acres
Parcel 2 (Church) 3.79 gross acres/3.73
net acres
No. of Buildings - Commercial Center 3
Church - 3
Building Area - Commercial Center 50,630 square feet
Church 27,000 square feet
Lot Coverage - N/A
Landscape Coverage - 19%
Parking (proposed/required) - Project Site 415 proposed/367 required Commercial Center 235 proposed
(includes 28 shared parking spaces)/234
required
Church 208 proposed/133 required
Architecture
The commercial center is a contemporary interpretation of the Santa Barbara architectural style that is primarily comprised of white stucco walls. Tower elements are provided at the ends of all the buildings and at the center of Building A to create architectural interest and establish visual focal points. Buildings A and B are connected by a bridge with a decorative wrought-iron railing and pot shelves that will include plants that will grow along the side of the bridge. Metal brows and accents of tile and concrete paneling are provided along all the first-floor store fronts of the buildings. In addition, wrought iron elements such as awnings, railings, and trellises are provided on all the buildings, mainly concentrated along the front elevations at the store fronts, second floors, and upper decks. All the windows and store fronts are recessed within rectangular and arch openings and red tile and cornice caps are provided at the roofs of all the buildings. Ornate lighting consistent with the architectural style is being provided on all elevations to further enhance the building designs.

The community church campus includes a contemporary interpretation of the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style that complements the proposed commercial center. The buildings incorporate smooth stucco walls with neutral, earth tone colors and standing metal seam roofs.

Horizontal and vertical reveals, recessed arches, recessed windows, and glazing are used to enhance the building elevations. The front of the church (east side) includes a custom metal cross and stone veneer concentrated at the gateway paseo main arched opening. To further enhance the front of the church, a wooden trellis with circular columns is provided underneath the front entrance of the gateway paseo that leads into the interior courtyard. In addition, a 6- foot-high stucco wall with a decorative cap is proposed along the north and south sides of the

6.3 Packet Pg. 51

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 337

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) DATE: June 20, 2022
site that connect the three church buildings together creating an interior courtyard and giving the church the appearance as one building.

Landscaping & Amenities
The project is providing a total of 19% landscape coverage, which exceeds the CPSP minimum requirement of 15%. The landscaping throughout the development has a drought tolerant design, concentrated along street frontages, the roundabout, street corners, and in front of the church. An open space area (0.52 acre), known as the Plaza is provided at the roundabout, designed as a space for social gatherings comprised of an open lawn, stage, public art piece, planter walls, and an outdoor dining area with tables, chairs, and umbrellas. In addition, raised planter beds, potted plants, benches, chairs, trash receptacles, and bike racks are provided throughout the development, mainly concentrated at the store fronts, church frontage, and the along the store fronts and plaza to enhance the pedestrian spaces.

Design Review Board
On May 26, 2022, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project. Overall, the project was well received. The DRB members had a few questions and comments regarding traffic and safety, the long-term maintenance of the outdoor furniture, the location of pet waste stations, and functionality of the outdoor event space. The DRB requested the commercial center project include durable outdoor furniture, pet waste stations, and decorative metal gates at the stairways to prevent people from accessing the second floor during non-business hours. The project has been conditioned to address all three requests from the DRB as outlined in the Special Conditional Use Permit
Gateway Karis Church has been in operation at 5885 Schaefer Avenue for 58 years offering not only prayer service, but several community activities that range from martial arts, tutoring, youth events and music lessons. The activities occur all throughout the week ranging from 25 to 200 attendees, except for Sunday prayer services ranging from 30 to 250 attendees. The applicant is working with the church to process a special conditional use (SCUP) application to relocate the existing church operation to a new modernized campus facility at The Campus at College Park site. The church intends to operate generally the same as they currently do at their new location in terms of number of parishioners, hours and events.

Parking
The project includes a total of 415 parking spaces off-street parking requirement of 367 parking spaces for the proposed commercial center and future Gateway Karis Church uses. Based on the parcel configuration and the amount of retail and office space proposed, the commercial center is required to have a minimum of 234 parking spaces; however, only 207 parking stalls are provided on the commercial site. Conversely, the church site has 208 parking spaces proposed with only 133 required. As a result, the church site has enough surplus parking to provide 28 shared parking stalls between the church and commercial center use to meet the center s minimum parking requirement of 234 spaces. The proposed shared stalls will be located on the east side of the church site nearest the commercial center.

Both property owners will enter into a shared parking agreement as identified in Planning Condition of Approval 3.1.2.

6.3 Packet Pg. 52

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 338

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) DATE: June 20, 2022
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant held a total of three neighborhood meetings for the project. The meetings were held on December 9 and 12, 2020 via zoom, and in person on April 13, 2022 at the existing Gateway Karis Church location to discuss the proposed project. The main comments and concerns that were raised included the following:

Traffic and street parking concerns
Safety concerns due to vehicles speeding at the roundabout and Satterfield Way A 4-way stop needed at the intersection of Notre Dame Avenue and Satterfield Way Concerned about truck deliveries taking access only off Notre Dame Avenue Driveway entrance off Eucalyptus Avenue needed to relieve vehicle and truck traffic taking access off Notre Dame Avenue
Timing of project approval and construction
Project phasing and marketing strategies
ADA compliance
The applicant explained the project and addressed the issues that were brought up at the neighborhood meeting, specifically traffic and parking related concerns. The applicant mentioned the commercial center is smaller than what was originally envisioned by the CPSP, which will result in less vehicle traffic. In addition, the applicant confirmed the project will meet all City development requirements and standards.

Public Noticing
A 10-day notice was mailed to all property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Notices were also mailed to all residents within the adjacent Ivy Rental Community that are outside of the 300-foot radius. In addition, a copy of the public hearing notice was posted inside the Ivy Rental Community recreation building, and one freestanding 4-foot by 8- foot sign with public hearing information was posted on the project site facing Oaks Avenue, near Notre Dame Avenue. Additionally, a notice was published in the Chino Champion on June provided information to residents at The Preserve office hours on March 10, 2022. The notice exceeds legal noticing requirements. In response to the public notice, staff received a letter from Katherine Irvin, which is attached to this report as Attachment A.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been determined to be within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of the CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments: Attachment A Letter from Katherine Irvin

6.3 Packet Pg. 53

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 339

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Attachment A - Letter (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 340

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Attachment A - Letter (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 341

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Attachment A - Letter (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 342

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Attachment A - Letter (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 343 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PL21-0004 (SITE APPROVAL), PL21-0005 (SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) AND PL21-0028 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20348) TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.53-ACRE

PROJECT SITE INTO TWO PARCELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A COMMERCIAL CENTER, TOTALING 50,630 SQUARE FEET OF

COMMERCIAL RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE, AND
TO DEVELOP AND CONDITIONALLY PERMIT A 27,000 SQUARE

FOOT CHURCH IN THE MIXED USE (MU) LAND USE DESIGNATION

WITHIN THE COLLEGE PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH

OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, WEST OF SATTERFIELD WAY, SOUTH

OF NOTRE DAME AVENUE, AND EAST OF OAKS AVENUE
(APN: 1026-251-01).

WHEREAS, the
on September 7, 2004; and
application with the City for approval of PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) and PL21-0028 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20348) to subdivide a

7.53-acre project site into two parcels and develop a commercial center, totaling 50,630 square feet of commercial retail, office and restaurant space, and to develop and conditionally permit a 27,000 square foot church in the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation within The College Park Specific Plan, located north of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-251-01)
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 through 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chino has completed its study of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for the Project in compliance with law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the California Government Code and Chino Municipal Code, entertained the written and oral report of staff, and took public testimony on the Project.

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 344 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Chino, California, does hereby FIND, DETERMINE, and RESOLVE as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.

B. Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings and takes the following actions on PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) and PL21-0028 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20348):

1. PL21-0004 (Site Approval)
a. The proposed P
adopted General Plan and/or applicable specific plan(s). General Plan, Goal LU-1 and CC-3, encourages pedestrian oriented commercial development that will support and enhance vibrant commercial areas and serve existing neighborhoods. The Project will serve the surrounding neighborhoods and has been designed for pedestrian use by providing 12-foot-wide sidewalks along the commercial storefronts along Oaks Avenue, the roundabout, and Eucalyptus Avenue. In addition, an open space area (0.52 acre), known as the Plaza is provided at the roundabout, designed as a space for the pedestrians as a space for social gatherings comprised of an open lawn, stage, public art piece, planter walls, and outdoor dining area. Further, the Project is located in The College Park Specific Plan and is in compliance with The College Park Specific Plan development standards and Design Guidelines;
b. The proposed Project is permitted within the zoning district in which it is Ordinance. The Project is permitted in the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan and complies with all the applicable provisions College Park Design Guidelines;
c. The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the type and intensity of development proposed, as all minimum zoning requirements governing parcel size, shape, access, type of intensity of development have been met or exceeded. The proposed Project is consistent with the development standards and guidelines for uses within the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan, The College Park Design Guidelines, and the City Zoning Ordinance;
d. The subject site relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed Project, in that Oaks and Eucalyptus Avenues

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 345 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

are designed as primary arterial streets and access to the project site is provided from three driveway approaches off of Notre Dame Avenue that have been designed to carry the type of traffic expected to visit the site; e. The proposed Project is compatible with those on abutting properties and in the surrounding neighborhood in that the project site is surrounded by Chaffey College to the west and southwest, and multi-family residential to the north, east, and southeast, where a 56-foot right-of-way for Notre Dame Avenue and a 76-foot right-of-way for Satterfield Way separates the existing residential uses from the proposed Project;
f. The proposed location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare, as the Project is consistent with the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan and existing surrounding uses. In addition, certain safeguards have been required of the proposed Project, which the Planning Commission deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These safeguards (Conditions of Approval) are g. The proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as the Project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan - Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines; and h. The minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed Project and have been imposed as conditions of Project approval by the Planning Commission. In addition, certain safeguards have been required of the Project, which the Planning Commission deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These safeguards (Conditions of Approval) are development standards and policies pertaining to commercial and church uses in the City and The College Park Specific Plan.

2. PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit)
a. The proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's adopted General Plan and/or applicable specific plan(s). Goal CC-2, that encourages development that creates community identity and supports -town character in that the proposed community scale church provides community identity and a small-town feel. In addition, a community

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 346 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

scale church is conditionally permitted in the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan and the proposed use meets all applicable development standards set forth;
b. The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the type and intensity of use proposed, as all minimum zoning requirements governing parcel size, shape, access, type of intensity of development have been met or exceeded. The proposed church development is consistent with the development standards and guidelines for uses within the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan, The College Park Design Guidelines, and the City Zoning Ordinance;
c. The subject site relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use, in that Oaks and Eucalyptus Avenues are designed as primary arterial streets and access to the project site is provided from three driveway approaches off of Notre Dame Avenue that have been designed to carry the type of traffic expected to visit the site; d. The proposed use is compatible with those on abutting properties and in the surrounding neighborhood in that the project site is surrounded by Chaffey College to the west and southwest, and multi-family residential to the north, east, and southeast, where a 56-foot right-of-way for Notre Dame Avenue and a 76-foot right-of-way for Satterfield Way separates the existing residential uses from the proposed community scale church use; e. The proposed location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare, as the community scale church use, with the approval of a Special Conditional Use Permit, is consistent with the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan and existing surrounding uses. In addition, certain safeguards have been required of the proposed Project, which the Planning Commission deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These safeguards (Conditions of Approval) are ;
f. The proposed use will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as the Project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan - Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 347 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

g. The minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed use and have been imposed as conditions of Project approval by the Planning Commission. In addition, certain safeguards have been required of the Project, which the Planning Commission deems necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These safeguards (Conditions of Approval) are Project meets all required
development standards and policies pertaining to commercial and church development in the City and The College Park Specific Plan.

3. PL21-0028 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20348)
a. Consistency with plans. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with General Plan and The College Park Specific Plan, which designates the Project site for commercial and church uses. The Project is a proposal to subdivide a 7.53-acre project site into two parcels for the development of a commercial center and church in the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan;
b. Consistency with zoning. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the Chino Zoning Ordinance and The College Park Specific Plan as the parcel map will meet the standard requirements of the MU land use designation of The College Park Specific Plan. Additionally, there are no minimum lot size, width or depth requirements in the MU land use designation;
c. Suitability. The site is physically suitable for commercial and church development because all required on and off-site improvements are necessary to accommodate such development will be provided in accordance with City requirements. The site is flat and does not have any development constraints that would hinder commercial and church development, and the parcel map being created is of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate such use in accordance with the requirements of The College Park Specific Plan;
d. Environmental damage. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Project is within scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan - Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120);
e. Wastewater. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into a community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code);

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 348 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

f. Water service. The review of the City Engineer or water service agency indicates that there is sufficient water to provide for the tenants of the subdivision. The EIR considered the capacity of existing water system and found it adequate;
g. Soils and geology. There are no adverse soil or geological conditions, according to a soils report provided within the previously certified College Park Specific Plan - Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines; h. Public Health. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not cause serious public health problems because full public improvements will be provided and will also be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards as well as applicable State and federal regulations; i. Easements. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required to be recorded with the final map and will include provisions for reciprocal agreement to assure maintenance of all common areas, including landscaping, site access points and off-street parking areas, and to assure common ingress and egress between parcels;
j. Environmental documentation. The environmental documentation is adequate and conforms with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines; and k. Agricultural suitability. The proposed subdivision will not result in the subdivision of agricultural parcels to a size too small to sustain agricultural use under the conditions for denial listed in Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act as the project is not currently encumbered with any Williamson Act contracts.

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 349 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

4. Special Findings of Fact
a.

Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) and the applicable provisions of ance, in that the proposed Project is located within
Aviation Safety Zone III, and the proposed use, which consists of commercial and church development, is considered a normally acceptable use within these zones;
b. The Project complies with the provisions of the College Park Specific Plan including the Traditional Neighborhood Design Guiding Principles listed in Section 1 Introduction, which are: the Project creates a community with a central focus that combines commercial and cultural uses; the Project creates a Main Street environment by designing a pedestrian oriented development with storefronts oriented towards the streets; and the Project creates a space for social gatherings by providing an open space area (0.52-acre), known as the Plaza, which is located at the roundabout; c. Areas intended for public use, such as public plazas, trails, sidewalks, schools, recreational facilities and paseos, are coordinated among neighborhoods and that the streetscape, landscape, hardscape and public amenities are mutually compatible;
d. The development proposal complies with the applicable design guidelines of the College Park Specific Plan, any applicable subsequent design guidelines, and is compatible with the surrounding areas including, but not limited to, building design and placement, colors, materials, height, massing and the design of paseos, trails, and other public facilities; and e. Consideration and application of public safety and security are incorporated into the project design, in that decorative gates will be installed at the stairways on the first floor of the commercial buildings to prevent people from accessing the second during non-business hours. In addition, lighting will be provided throughout the project site to properly illuminate the site during dusk to dawn.

5. CEQA Findings. The environmental documentation is adequate and conforms with the provisions of CEQA. The Project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. The EIR satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Sections 15080 thru 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 350 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

6. Approval of PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) and PL21-0028 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20348). The Planning Commission hereby approves PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) and PL21-0028 (Tentative Tract Map No. 20348) subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for implementing and complying with all conditions set forth in Exhibit . 7. Actions by the Planning Commission Secretary. The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed to attest to the adoption of this Resolution as of the date set forth below and forthwith transmit a copy of this Resolution, by regular mail, to the Applicant at the address of record set forth in the Application.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022.

PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:

SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 351 RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-011

State of California )
County of San Bernardino ) §
City of Chino )
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Chino Planning Commission at a meeting held on the 20th day of June 2022 and entered in the minutes of said Commission.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
Attachment: Exhibit A Conditions of Approval

6.3.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: PC2022-011 [Revision 3] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 352

EXHIBIT A

DEPARTMENTAL

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DATE: June 20, 2022
PROJECT FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) & PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348)
LOCATION: North of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-
251-01)
APPLICANT: United Trust Realty Corporation
The departments listed below have reviewed the above referenced application. Those ed conditions of approval to be imposed on
the project.

Development Services Department
[X] Planning Division
[X] Development Engineering Division
[ ] ADA Accessibility Division
[X] Chino Valley Independent Fire District
[X] Police Department
[ ] Finance Department
[ ] Community Services

6.3.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: UNIFORM COA COVER SHEET (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 353

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DATE: June 20, 2022
PROJECT FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) & PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348)
LOCATION: North of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-
251-01)
APPLICANT: United Trust Realty Corporation

1.0 TIME LIMITS:

1.1. The above referenced Site Approval and Special Conditional Use Permit shall expire on October 8, 2023, consistent with the life of the College Park Development Agreement as amended, if building permits are not obtained and/or the approved use has not commenced. The expiration date may be extended upon written request by the applicant on a City application form. The request must be received by the Director of Development Services at least 30 days prior to expiration of the application.

1.2. The above referenced Tentative Map shall expire on June 20, 2024, if the final map has not been recorded. The expiration date may be extended upon written request by the applicant on a City application form. The request must be received by the Director of Development Services at least 30 days prior to expiration of the application.

2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

2.1. The project shall proceed only in accordance with Planning Commission approved plans on file with the Development Services Department, the conditions contained herein and the Chino Municipal Code.

2.2. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall be deemed just cause for revocation of project approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 354

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

2.3. The Director of Development Services shall have the authority to approve minor deviations in the site plan, architecture and/or landscape providing the total approved building area is not exceeded.

2.4. In the event that any condition contained herein is determined to be invalid or legally unenforceable, all remaining conditions shall remain in force.

2.5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any section of the Chino Municipal Code, or any other applicable City ordinances, or applicable specific plan provision.

2.6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, upon approval of the project, the applicant has a 90-day period in which to protest the fees, dedications, reservation or other exaction imposed on this project through the conditions of approval.

2.7. In the event that any condition imposing a fee, exaction, dedication, or other mitigation measure is challenged by the applicant and/or other parties in an action filed in a court of law, which action is brought within the time period provided for by law, this approval shall be suspended pending dismissal of such action, the expiration of the limitation period applicable to such action, or final resolution of such action. If any condition is invalidated by a court of law, the applicable section of the entire project shall be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed.

2.8. The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or other decision-making body, or staff action concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition.

2.9. All conditions of approval imposed on Tentative Tract Map No. 16838 and 20348 shall be complied with.

2.10. The applicant shall comply with all the provisions of the recorded CC&Rs for the College Park development.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 355

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

2.11. Whenever there is a conflict between the site approval, tentative parcel map, or the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan requirements shall prevail.

2.12. The applicant shall be responsible for making arrangements with Waste Management for disposal of any/all construction debris or trash generated.

Waste Management can be reached at 1-800 423-9986.

2.13. All proposed signs shall be designed to conform with the City s Sign Code (Chino Municipal Code, Title 16 Signs) and shall require separate application and approval by the Director of Development Services prior to installation.

2.14. Any change in the project shall be reviewed by the Development Services Department for compliance with CEQA.

2.15. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21089 and Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4, the developer shall provide those fees marked [X] below in the form of a check made payable to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within 5 days of Planning Commission approval. Project approval shall not be complete until the required fee(s) is (are) paid:
[X] $50 for the Notice of Determination filing fee.

3.0 PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:

3.1. Three copies of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the subdivision shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the Planning Division, Engineering Division, and the City Attorney. The approved CC&R s shall be recorded concurrently with the final map and a recorded copy submitted to the Planning Division. The following items shall be included in the final CC&R s:

3.1.1. Reciprocal agreement to assure maintenance of all common areas, including landscaping, site access points and off-street parking areas, and to assure common ingress and egress between parcels. o assure that the entire project is
designed and maintained in a uniform and comprehensive manner.

3.1.2. An agreement to for twenty-eight parking stalls along the church s northwest property line that shall be shared with the commercial center.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 356

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

4.0 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT:

4.1. The applicant/developer shall pay development impact fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to, new construction fee, park or open space fees, school fees, drainage fees, sewer fees, building permit and plan check fees.

4.2. A detailed on-site exterior lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services. Plans shall be designed pursuant to Chino Municipal Code Section 20.10.090 (Outdoor Lighting) and shall identify fixture design, illumination (photometric), location, height and method of shielding, so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.

4.3. Final revised plans, incorporating all conditions of approval, shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services.

4.4. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency.

4.5. The applicant/developer shall submit two sets of structural plans/construction documents. The plans shall include one set of structural calculations, one set of Title 24 energy calculations, and one soils report. The applicant/developer shall also submit the above documents in digital format to the Building Division once approved.

4.6. A construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services. The plan shall coordinate and address construction activities that may impact residents and/or surrounding businesses in adjacent areas. Elements of the plan shall contain, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Routing of construction equipment
b. Hours of operation
c. Dust control
d. Vector control
e. Vehicle, equipment, and personnel staging
f. Pre-construction meetings
g. Contractor/subcontractor acknowledgement, obligations, and penalties h. Traffic control and coordination
i. Security and interim fencing
j. Signs posted on the site with a contact number for the job site construction manag ode Enforcement Division. Signs
shall measure at least four feet by eight feet and shall be posted along every street frontage. The developer shall contact the City immediately upon any change in contact numbers.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 357

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

k. Construction phasing. The plan shall show all buildings that will be completed in each phase. It shall also show how each completed phase will be closed from the phases under construction so as to minimize conflict between construction vehicles, construction equipment, employees and residents.

4.7. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, four (4) sets of detailed on-site landscaping and irrigation construction drawings along with a copy of the Planning Commission approved conceptual landscape plans and a copy of the conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. A grading permit will not be issued until th one review of detailed
landscape and irrigation plans for the development. Payment of the Landscape & Irrigation Plan Review Fee shall be due at the time of submittal. Plans shall be prepared to comply with the C Landscape Ordinance, adopted on October 6, 2015, Ordinance No. 2015-008, meet the requirements for a Landscape Documentation Package in accordance with Section 20.19.030 of the Landscape Ordinance, and shall bear the seal of a landscape architect registered with the state of California. If the site includes areas proposed to be placed within a City-maintained Landscape Maintenance District, then five (5) sets of plans shall be submitted, and the plans shall be prepared on City of Chino, Engineering Division base sheets, and shall bear the seal of a landscape architect registered with the state of California. Original mylars shall be submitted to the City upon approval of plans by the City Engineer.

4.8. All ground-mounted utilities, including but not limited to cable television facilities, and telephone/fiber optic facilities, shall be undergrounded.

Equipment that that is not placed underground such as SCE transformers, backflow prevention devices, irrigation valves and controllers used for common landscape areas shall be placed in areas out of public view and sufficiently screened. The location and method of screening shall be reflected in a plan and shall be subject to the review and approval by the Director of Development Services.

4.9. All electrical panels and cabinets shall be completely screened. All electrical panels and cabinets shall be fully enclosed and integrated into and architecturally compatible with the building to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The locations of the electrical panels and cabinets shall be reflected on a site plan and elevation(s) to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services.

4.10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the approved grading plans shall be attached to the construction plan set. The project shall be built

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 358

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

according to the plans approved by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2022, as prepared by GK Pierce Architects, J7 Architecture, Seaboard Engineering Co., and United Trust Realty Corporation. Any substantial modification to the project shall require Planning Commission review and approval. If minor in nature, the modification may be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director.

4.11. Upon submittal of construction drawings to the Building Division for plan check review, all departmental conditions of approval for the project shall be included on the sheet following the title sheet, or the first sheet of the plans. A site plan shall also be attached to all sets of construction drawings. The condition shall be a minimum requirement for acceptance of construction drawings for the Building plan check review.

4.12. Special Conditions:

4.12.1. A Water Quality Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with County of San Bernardino requirements and submitted and approved by the City.

4.12.2. Approval of the conceptual landscape plan by the Planning Commission does not constitute final approval. The final landscape approval (during the plan check process and/or following installation) shall be subject to the review and approval of t Landscape Architect Consultant and the Director of Development Services. The City Landscape Architect or Director of Development Services may require additional/fewer trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover as necessary, based on final site conditions during the landscape plan check process or field review process in order to mitigate any site conditions that were not apparent during either the Planning Commission review or plan check review process.

4.12.3. To minimize damage to paved areas due to tree root growth, trees located within five (5) feet of any paved surface area shall be provided with root barriers unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, that the root growth characteristics of the type of tree proposed does not warrant their installation.

4.12.4. Three hard copies and one electronic copy of the recorded CC&R's shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 359

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

5.0 PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION:

5.1. The final landscape and irrigation plans for the development shall be approved by the Director of Development Services.

5.2. A pre-construction meeting, scheduled with the Building Division, shall be held with all applicable City staff members, developer, contractor, superintendent, and all applicable subcontractors.

5.3. The approved construction management plan shall be distributed to all contractors and subcontractors and shall be maintained on-site through the duration of construction.

6.0 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:

6.1. All conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

6.2. The fee for review of the landscaping and irrigation plans by both the City and the City landscape architect shall be paid by the developer.

6.3. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved Planning Commission plans on file with the Development Services Department, and irrigation systems fully operational. In addition, all hardscaped and landscaped areas shall be free of trash and debris.

6.4. A licensed landscape architect or contractor, or other licensed certified professional in a related field shall conduct a final field inspection and shall prepare a certificate of completion, which shall be filed with the Director of Development Services. The certificate of completion shall be prepared in accordance with Section 20.19.030.J of the Landscape Ordinance and shall specifically indicate that plants were installed as specified by the landscape design plan, that the irrigation system was installed as specified by the irrigation design plan, and that an irrigation audit has been performed. All landscape and irrigation audits shall be conducted by a landscape irrigation auditor. Landscape audits shall not be conducted by the person who designed the landscape or installed the landscape.

6.5. A landscape maintenance program for the entire project site shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. The maintenance program shall include general landscape maintenance provisions for pruning, trimming, the replacement of any dead, decayed, or diseased vegetation, ongoing weed abatement, and replacement/repair of the irrigation system, when necessary. The landscape maintenance

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 360

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

program shall be included with the contract with the landscape maintenance company to ensure they implement the maintenance program. In addition, the maintenance program should include provisions for periodic inspections to ensure the irrigation system is working properly, and all landscaping is being properly maintained.

6.6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final building, any construction office buildings/trailers shall be removed from the site.

6.7. The project site shall be clean and free of trash and construction debris, and all construction equipment shall be removed from the site.

6.8. The applicant shall submit a Sign Program to the Development Services Department for review and approval prior to the first occupancy.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES:

7.1. Comply with all mitigation measures identified in the attached Summary of Impacts for the College Park Specific Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) which identifies each environmental mitigation measure, the time in which it will be implemented and the responsible party for monitoring its implementation (Attachment A).

8.0 OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

8.1. The applicant shall disclose to all potential tenants or owners of units or buildings that the businesses/uses must be consistent with the standards of the land use designation/zoning district in which the project site is located.

8.2. The project site shall be cleared of all trash, debris, weeds, and other discarded items within two weeks of Planning Commission approval.

Approval of this application shall be deemed null and void upon failure of the applicant to comply with this condition within the aforementioned time period.

8.3. All signs, including subdivision and/or realty signs proposed for this development shall be designed to conform to the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning and Building Divisions prior to installation.

8.4. A coating that will facilitate the removal of graffiti shall be applied over the complete height of one side/both sides of walls and/or fences, and to a height of eight feet on building walls. If a coating is not provided, the

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 361

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

owner of the property shall paint the buildings and/or walls to remove graffiti within 72 hours of notice.

8.5. Building and Site Design:

8.5.1. Exterior building color shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. Colors shall be coordinated between structures, utilizing compatible hues and intensities.

Final review and approval of paint colors utilizing a color test may be required prior to painting any structure, if determined necessary in the field by the Director of Development Services.

8.5.2. Samples of the stucco finish applied to the buildings shall be reviewed by the Planning Division in the field for approval prior to applying the stucco to the rest buildings. A smooth to medium sand finish is required for the architectural styles proposed.

8.5.3. Provide building material and paint samples for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation and painting of the buildings.

8.5.4. All building drainage gutters, downspouts, vents, etc., located on the exterior walls shall be architecturally compatible with the exterior building design and color, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, or shall be completely concealed from view. They shall not be located on the exterior of building walls near office areas or other prominent locations on the building(s).

8.5.5. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances of any type (including, but not limited to, electrical cabinets, HVAC equipment, skylights, stack vents or fans) whether located on rooftops, ground level or anywhere on the building structure, shall be completely screened so as not to be visible from any public street and/or adjacent property, subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. The parapet wall should serve as the primary method of screening, or the facilities shall be enclosed within the structure of the building. Such enclosure of facilities shall be of compatible design related to building structure for which such facilities are intended to serve.

8.5.6. Returns for parapet walls shall not be visible from public view and shall be evaluated in the field during construction, and modified if

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 362

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

necessary so as not to be visible. All parapet returns shall be a minimum of 4 feet deep.

8.5.7. New ladders for roof access shall be mounted on the inside of the building within the commercial and industrial projects.

8.5.8. All new overhead doors, mechanical doors and/or man doors shall be color coordinated with the building.

8.5.9. All landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section 20.19 of the Chino Municipal Code.

8.6. Parking and Lighting:

8.6.1. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be installed in accordance with plans on file with the Development Services Department and shall be fully operational prior to occupancy.

8.6.2. All building-mounted light fixtures within public areas shall be decorative in nature and architecturally compatible with the building. Building-mounted light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services prior to i ll- dized exterior lighting
shall not be permitted within public areas.

8.6.3. All parking and loading areas shall be paved and double-striped in accordance with plans on file with the Development Services Department, Chino Municipal Code Chapter 20.18 (Parking) and the disabled parking and accessibility requirements of state law (see the CalDAG California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook).

8.6.4. Drive surfaces contiguous with planter areas shall have a 6-inch raised curb separation.

8.6.5. All parking spaces, aisles, entrances and exits shall be doublestriped per City standards.

8.6.6. All parking spaces for compact cars shall be clearly identified as "Compact Car Only" on the pavement, at the opening of the space. Compact parking spaces shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking area, subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 363

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

8.7. Refuse and Recycling:

8.7.1. Separate receptacles (bins) for the collection of refuse and recyclable materials shall be provided. An adequate number of bins to allow for the collection of both refuse and recyclable materials generated by the development shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
. 8.7.2. Refuse and recyclable materials bins shall be enclosed by a 6-foot- high (1.83 m) wall with solid roof that is designed to be architecturally compatible with the building(s), with solid view obstructing gates fitted with self-closing door devices, and be designed with cane bolts in front of the block walls to secure the gates when in the open position. The gates should also be equipped with rod locks and corresponding rod holes in both the open and closed gate positions. Bins containing recyclable materials shall be provided protection from adverse environmental conditions that might render the collection materials
unmarketable.

8.7.3. No refuse/recycling enclosure shall be located within any required setback area.

8.7.4. All refuse and recyclable material bin enclosures not located in private yard areas shall be screened with landscaping on all sides, with the exception of the gate area. All sides of the enclosure, with the exception of the gate area, shall be surrounded by a m anter area for the purpose
of providing landscape material.

8.7.5. Refuse storage and recycling areas shall not be used for the storage of materials other than that for which it is designed (refuse and recyclable materials). The premises shall be kept in a neat and orderly condition, and in good repair and appearance at all times.

8.8. Phased Projects:

8.8.1. All required street improvements and a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping on private property shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project. The landscaping within this area shall be included in the landscape maintenance program.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 364

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

8.8.2. Prior to the first occupancy permit, all undeveloped building pads shall be improved according to the following requirements:

8.8.3. For an undeveloped building pad located adjacent to the street or main drive aisle of the site, the area shall be landscaped with a planting scheme consisting of a low-maintenance drought tolerant erosion control mix of Cucamonga brome (20 lbs/acre), tomcat clover (4 lbs/acre and small fescue (8 lbs/acre) at a minimum of 85% PLS (pure live seed). The irrigation system shall consist of low precipitation sprinkler heads and/or drip system. In addition, shrubs may be required to provide screening from the street, if determined needed by the Director of Development Services.

Said treatment shall be incorporated into the required landscape and irrigation plans.

8.8.4. For a larger phased area located on the interior of the site, a construction fence/green screen may be provided in lieu of the landscape treatment. The fence shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

8.8.5. Approximately one-half (40% to 60%) of the total commercial area shall be included within the 1st phase of construction.

8.9. Per Section 15.45.070 of the Chino Municipal Code, demonstrate consistency with the Chino Climate Action Plan by implementing one of the following three options:
a) Exceed the mandatory California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 standards in effect at the time of application submittal by 5%; or b) Achieve an equivalent reduction through voluntary measures in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) in effect at the time of application submittal; or
c) Provide other equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through measures including but not limited to, non-vehicle transportation infrastructure, transit, ZEV (zero emission vehicle) infrastructure or other incentives, waste diversion, water conservation, tree planting, renewable energy option packages, or any combination of these or other measures such that GHG emissions are reduced by 0.74 MT CO2e per residential dwelling unit per year and/or per TSF of commercial/industrial use per year.

Applicants that choose Option a described above will be required to verify that their project meets the 5% improvement above the mandatory standards through the appropriate certificate of compliance form for

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 365

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

residential construction (CF-1R) or for commercial/industrial construction (PERF-1C). Applicants that choose Options b or c described above will be required to utilize the GHG Performance Standard Checklist developed by the City, or provide other valid documentation, such as CalEEMod or other methodologies, as verified by the Director of Development Services to demonstrate the required GHG reductions consistent with the City's CAP.

8.10. Development Agreement:

8.10.1. A minimum 50,000 square feet of retail and office space shall be developed.

8.10.2. A maximum of 15,000 square feet of said 50,000 square feet allocated for retail and office space shall be developed for college related uses.

8.10.3. Office uses shall only be located on the 2nd floor of structures such that commercial and retail uses are developed on the 1st or 2 nd floor of structures.

8.10.4. Drive-thru freestanding fast-food restaurants shall not be developed.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION SITE SECURITY:

9.1. Each site shall be completely encircled by a minimum 6' tall securityquality chain link fence once precise grading has been completed or as determined by the Deputy Director of Development Services.

9.2. Tennis court or similar screening material shall be securely attached for the length of the fence, excluding gates and 10' on either side of gates.

9.3. Each site shall have only one entry/exit gate, or as approved by the Planning Division.

9.4. Gate hinge pins shall be spot-welded or altered in such a way as to prevent easy removal.

9.5. Each gate shall have a casehardened lock and chain, or other equivalent security hardware.

9.6. all be attached to the exterior of the fence at a
minimum distance of a third of a mile and at all entrances.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 366

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

9.7. On or near the exterior of each gate will be a sign with the address of the site in no less than 6" letters. Both the number and street name will be listed on the sign. The address posted will be used for the entire site until the fence is removed and individual addresses assigned.

9.8. Office trailers and tool bins shall be placed adjacent to gates inside the property to allow observation from outside.

9.9. Lighting on trailers and bins is desirable but shall be directed into the property so as not to impede outside observation or endanger nearby traffic with glare.

9.10. Tool bins shall be secured with casehardened locks, preferably with lock guards.

9.11. A sign stating that theft is not acceptable on the site and will be reported to the police, or wording to that effect, will be displayed prominently near each entrance.

9.12. Each site will have an assigned Crime Prevention Manager who is responsible for the following:
a. Providing his/her name and 24-hour telephone access number to the Chino Police Department.
b. Have available at all times the names and 24-hour contact numbers for all subcontractors.
c. Have the authority to speak for the development/owners on matters concerning trespassing and other criminal matters.
d. Complete routine fence inspections and arrange for prompt repairs or removal of any damage, graffiti, or loose screening. e. Ensure that no work or maintenance of construction equipment is being performed on the site between 8 PM and 7 AM.
f. Ensure that all above security requirements are complied with, and that all security hardware, fencing, and lighting are maintained in working order.
g. Ensure that thefts are immediately reported to the police department and that reasonable steps are taken, if evident, to prevent future similar incidents.

10.0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONDITIONS:

10.1. Pet waste stations shall be provided throughout the project site. The number and locations of the pet waste stations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services.

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 367

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

10.2. Outdoor furniture shall be long lasting and comprised of durable material, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services.

10.3. Decorative gates shall be provided at the stairways along the first floor to prevent people from accessing the second floor during non-business hours. The gates shall be architecturally compatible with the building design, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services.

11.0 THE FOLLOWING USE SHALL BE OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

11.1. All operations shall not create a nuisance due to noise, odor, dust, mud, smoke, steam, vibration or other similar causes.

11.2. The operation or activity shall not cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, or other forms of air pollution that can cause damage to human health, vegetation, or other forms of air pollution that can cause excessive soiling on any other parcel. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District or the requirements of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City of Chino.

11.3. The operation or activity shall not emit odorous gases or other odorous matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable to a level that is detectable with or without the aid of instruments at or beyond the project site boundary.

11.4. The operation shall not discharge, at any point, into any public or private street, public sewer, storm drain, private stream, body of water, or into the ground, any material which can contaminate any water supply, interfere with bacteriological processes in sewer treatment, or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or offensive elements, except in accordance with the standards approved by the California Department of Public Health, or any other federal, state or local government agency.

11.5. No operation or activity shall emit heat or cold that would cause a temperature increase or decrease on any adjacent parcel in excess of 100F (5.560C).

11.6. No operation or activity shall cause any impermissible source of electronic disturbance that adversely affects persons or the operation of any

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 368

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

equipment on any other parcel that is not in conformance with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Impermissible interference for the purposes of this document shall mean any interference that violates the rules and regulations of the FCC and/or the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

11.7. No operation or activity shall be permitted to cause a steady state, earthborne oscillation which is continuous and occurring more frequently than 100 times per minute beyond the project site. Ground vibration caused by moving vehicles, trains, aircraft, or temporary construction or demolition is exempted from this requirement.

11.8. Noise emanating from the project site, and which is received by adjacent land uses, shall not exceed the levels specified below, except that loudspeakers, bells, gongs, buzzers or other noise attention or attracting devices shall not exceed a maximum daytime dBA level of 60 and nighttime dBA of 40, measured anywhere beyond the boundaries of the property within which the noise is created.

11.9. 11.10. Place of Worship, Community Scale PL21-0005 (SCUP):

11.10.1. The SCUP is approved for a community scale place of worship facility, operating in general accordance with the list of activities, as attached (Attachment B). The proposed use has the flexibility to modify the time and date of activities, provided it does not:
1) increase the overall hours of operation of the facility (5:00 a.m. 11:00 p.m.); 2) increase the intensity of the project as it relates to traffic and parking; or 3) create a negative impact on surrounding land uses, as determined by the Director of Development Services.

The Director of Development Services shall have the authority to approve minor modifications to the proposed use, other than those outlined in Attachment B. If at any point the worship facility Maximum Time of
Exposure
Noise
Metric
Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
30 Minutes/Hour L50 55 dBA 50 dBA
15 Minutes/Hour L25 60 dBA 55 dBA
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 65 dBA 60 dBA
One Minute/Hour L1.7 70 dBA 65 dBA
Any Period of Time Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 369

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

proposes to change its operation (i.e. hours, types of uses, etc.), the applicant shall submit a request to the Director. At such time, the Director shall review the request to determine if the change in operation meets the intent of the SCUP or creates any potential new impacts. If necessary, the Director may refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for final determination.

11.10.2. Any special events shall require approval of a Special Event Permit by the City and the Police Department prior to commencement of the event as defined in Chapter 10.64 of the City of Chino Municipal Code.

11.10.3. No activities shall be permitted on the project site that would reduce the number of parking spaces available or could not be parked onsite, unless specifically approved by the Director of Development Services as a special event, and in compliance with the Municipal Code.

11.10.4. Should it be determined at any time by the Director of Development Services that there are parking issues associated with the proposed use, then the applicant shall work with staff to address the parking problem, which may include, but not limited to modifying the hours of operation, reducing the number of events to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

11.10.5. The applicant or its successor(s) shall be required to provide the necessary soundproofing of the lease space or other measures to mitigate the noise and/or vibration created on site, if noise and/or vibrations exceed what is permitted under the Chino Municipal Code or create a nuisance to the surrounding developments. Said soundproofing or other measures shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

11.10.6. Should it be determined by the City that noise measurement or a noise analysis of the use is needed, the applicant and its successor(s) shall bear all costs for said measurements and/or study.

Attachment A MMRP
Attachment B List of Activities

6.3.d
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: PLNG COAs [Revision 10] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 370

6.3.e Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 371

6.3.e Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 372

6.3.e Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 373

6.3.e Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 374

6.3.e Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 375

6.3.e Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 376

6.3.e Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 377

6.3.e Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 378

6.3.e Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 379

6.3.e Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 380

6.3.e Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 381

6.3.e Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 382

6.3.e Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 383

6.3.e Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 384

6.3.e Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 385

6.3.e Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 386

6.3.e Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 387

6.3.e Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 388

6.3.e Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 389

6.3.e Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 390

6.3.e Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 391

6.3.e Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 392

6.3.e Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 393

6.3.e Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 394

6.3.e Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 395

6.3.e Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 396

6.3.e Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 397

6.3.e Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 398

6.3.e Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 399

6.3.e Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 400

6.3.e Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 401

6.3.e Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 402

6.3.e Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 403

6.3.e Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 404

6.3.e Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 405

6.3.e Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 406

6.3.e Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 407

6.3.e Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 408

6.3.e Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 409

6.3.e Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A to Exhibit A - CPSP MMRP (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 410 Condtional Use Permit Input - Anticipated Facility Usage - Gateway Karis Church Schedule of Services / Events 8/16/2021
Tpe of Service / Event Day(s) Time(s)
Duration of each
service/event
Anticipated #
of people
Prayer Sunday 8:00am 1 hour 30
Korean Worship Sunday 9:00am 1 hour 150
English Worship Sunday 10:00am 1 hour 250
English Worship Sunday 11:00am 1 hour 250
Lunch Buffet Fellowship Sunday 12:00 noon 1.5 hours 150 Spanish Worship Sunday 1:00pm 1 hour 150
Martial Arts Sunday 1:00pm 1 hour 25
Hindi Worship Sunday 2:00pm 1 hour 150
Youth Events Sunday 6:00pm 2 hours 100
Prayer Monday-Friday 5:00am 1 hour 75
Home School Hub Monday-Friday 9:00am 6 hours 150
Staff Monday-Friday 9:00am 8 hours 15
Community Ministry Groups* Monday-Friday 6:00pm 2 hours 15 Board Meeting Tuesday 6:00pm 5 hours 15
Midweek Bible Study Wednesday 7:00pm 2 hours 100
Family Worship Friday 7:00pm 4 hours 200
Community Events** Saturday 8:00am 12 hours 200
*Community Ministry Groups may include:

Grief Counselling
AA Meetings
Guitar Group
Piano Training
Tutoring
Overeaters Anonymous
Dave Ramsey Debt Relief
**Community Events generally are several hours in daytime or early evening but could last all day

6.3.f
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B to Exhibit A - List of Activities [Revision 1] (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 411

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Reviewed/Approved By: JP Date: 6/15/22
PARCEL MAP NO. 20348
DATE: June 15, 2022 PC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2022
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A subdivision of a 7.53 acre lot with a proposed Commercial/Retail/Restaurant/Office Buildings and Church PROJECT LOCATION: e/o Oaks Ave/Eucalyptus Ave, w/o Notre Dame Ave, n/o Satterfield Wy APPLICANT: United Trust Realty Group PROJECT ENGINEER: Isidro Abreo

PRIOR TO THE FOUR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT EVENTS, THE APPLICANT SHALL SATISFY AND FULFILL ALL CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL SHALL BE DEEMED JUST CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF PROJECT APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HOWEVER, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHALL HAVE

THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MINOR DEVIATIONS IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND ALL PLANS INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.

1.0 PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION:

1.1 Provide a preliminary Title Report no older than 60 days.

1.2 Submit a preliminary soils report to the project engineer for review and approval in accordance with Government Code, Section 66434.5.

1.3 Confirm dedications and easements have been made in accordance with Tract Map No. 16838-2 and the College Park Specific Plan for Eucalyptus Avenue, Oaks Avenue, Notre Dame Avenue, and Satterfield Way.

1.4 Prepare and record necessary drainage easements to implement the project in accordance with drainage law.

1.5 Provide and record a reciprocal use agreement to assure common ingress and egress and joint maintenance of all common access, parking areas and drives.

1.6 Provide a set of proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) for review and approval.

The proposed CC&Rs shall contain the Association’s/Owner’s maintenance obligations with respect to various facilities including, but not limited to, right-of-way landscaping, private streets, sidewalks, utilities, street lights, and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) features. This document must be submitted to and approved by the City before it is submitted to any other governmental entity.

1.7 Execute a Subdivision Agreement and submit security in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to guarantee construction of the public improvements listed in 2.8. All security must be accessible to the City at any time and in a form acceptable to the Assistant City Manager, pursuant to Government Code, Section 66499.

1.8 Provide a Monumentation Bond in an amount specified in writing by a Registered Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor of Record.

1.9 Comply with all applicable requirements of the City Municipal Code.

1.10 Provide a Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan that labels and indicates the path location and conceptual design of the following structures and facilities:

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 412 PARCEL MAP NO. 20348 2 June 20, 2022
a. Sidewalks and walks (public right of way sidewalk, walks within the development); b. Curb ramps must be directional; except where indicated in the Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan.
c. Vehicular crossings (at driveways);
d. Crosswalks (marked, unmarked, signalized); and
e. Path from right-of-way to recreation facilities (parks, restroom) and each feature pad area or commercial building pad

1.11 The Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan requested in 1.10 should clearly indicate structures that are proposed with this site and future per other phases and/or site plans. Pedestrian facilities (privately or publicly owned) that are open to the public shall comply with accessibility standards in the CBC and ADA regulations per Part 36 of Title 28, which include the 2010 (ADA) Standards

1.12 Pay all applicable fees pursuant to City Municipal Code including, but not limited to, plan check fees.

2.0 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY LOT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION/ PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS:

2.1 Record Parcel Map No. 20348 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with City Municipal Code. Provide a duplicate photo Mylar of the recorded map to the City Engineer's office.

2.2 All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer and submitted to the project engineer for review and approval. All project plans must be approved by the City Engineer's office before a Building Permit will be issued. All maps, studies, calculation sheets, reports, etc. must be on and/or folded in an 11-inch x 8 1/2-inch standard format.

2.3 Prepare and submit a drainage study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the project engineer for approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution and shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system connection points and all downstream drainage-mitigating measures.

2.4 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with Appendix J of the California Building Code, latest edition.

2.5 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City approved grading plan.

2.6 Design and install a monitoring manhole (per City Standard No. 530) on each domestic sewer lateral connection from any industrial building into the City's main sewer or into a private sewer main that is tributary to the City's main sewer. In addition, design and install a sampling Wye on a stubbed-out sewer lateral connection into the main sewer for each industrial building in this development.

2.7 Design full public improvements for all impacted and interior streets/facilities in accordance with the City Municipal Code, Standards and Specifications. Such public improvements may include, but not be limited to the following: (Please coordinate and verify all requirements with the project engineer.)

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 413 PARCEL MAP NO. 20348 3 June 20, 2022
Street Names
Oaks
Avenue(1)
Eucalyptus
Avenue(1)
Notre
Dame
Avenue
(1)
Satterfield
Way(1)
Curb & Gutter (Offset from Centerline) X(29’)(2)
Sidewalk (Width) X (12’) X (5’) X (5’) X(5’)
Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Aggregate Base
(Width from Centerline)
Asphalt Concrete Overlay(3) X X X X
Street Lights(4) X X
Median Island and Landscaping Parkway Landscaping(5) X X X X Striping and Traffic Controls(6) X X X X
Traffic Signal Interconnect Traffic Signal Modification(7) X X
Conduit System for CATV Sewer
Storm Drain(8)
Domestic Water(8)
Recycled Water(8)
Fire Hydrants as required by CVIFD
Driveway Approaches (9) X
(1) Remove and/or repair any damaged, broken, abandoned or sub-standard improvements resulting from the project.
(2) New curb and gutter to be installed as part of the required removal the existing bike ramp. A bike lane facility shall be provided continuing northbound from the existing bike lane on Eucalyptus Ave. (3) The extent of the overlay shall cover the areas where there are required street improvements along the fronting streets which includes, but not limited to, curb & gutter, crosswalks, driveway approaches and curb ramps.
(4) The existing street lighting along Oaks Ave and Eucalyptus Ave may require enhancement due to poor lighting at the pedestrian facilities that are to be remediated for accessibility. Adequate lighting is required for both the pedestrian and bike facilities. A photometrics study shall be submitted, evaluating the current lighting conditions and determine the areas of deficiency. Streetlights, where required, shall be designed and constructed per Chino standards.
(5) The parkway maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Master HOA per the College Park Specific Plan. (6) Extent of the signing & striping plan will be along the perimeter streets for the project, as dictated by the Transportation Manager.
(7) As part of the reconstruction of sidewalk and curb ramps work, traffic signal modification may be required to accommodate the accessibility requirements at the corner for the existing signalized intersection of Oaks Ave & Notre Dame Ave.
(8) Proposed service connections to the existing Public Main Utilities shall be constructed using revised as-built plans and following City standards for street trenching backfill and repair. (9) Proposed driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Std. No. 250 with 5-ft sidewalks. Minimum width shall be 30-ft. Minimum radii per City and Chino Valley Independent Fire District (CVIFD) requirements.

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 414 PARCEL MAP NO. 20348 4 June 20, 2022

2.8 Existing pedestrian facilities on the frontage of the development, open to the public within the development, shall be evaluated for accessibility. The street frontage includes all adjacent pedestrian facilities, including crosswalks, created by, prolongated from, or connected to any required sidewalk improvements. The frontage may include sidewalks, curb ramps, connecting crosswalks (marked and unmarked), connecting curb ramps and their associated pedestrian facilities (on-street parking space, etc.).
a. The following existing improvements shall be made compliant with accessibility regulations as a part of this project:
i. sidewalks/walks along Notre Dame Ave, Satterfield Way, Oaks Ave and Eucalyptus Ave.
ii. shared-use paths/multi-purpose paths
iii. curb ramps as depicted in the approved Pedestrian Accessibility Route Plan iv. crosswalk pavement and associated pedestrian facilities (pedestrian push buttons, maneuvering, clear space)
v. driveway approaches crossings
b. Improvements that are non-compliant with the accessibility standards in effect at the time of construction or alteration, shall be brought up to current accessibility standards. This work shall be incorporated into the scope of this project and shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City.
c. Improvements that are compliant with the accessibility standards in effect at the time of construction shall be documented on a separate construction plan with detailed specifications (running and cross slopes of all pedestrian walking surfaces, locations and dimensions and slopes of maneuvering spaces and landings, width of sidewalk, width, and vertical clearance from obstructions). The accessibility of existing improvements will be verified by City inspection staff upon completion of the project.

Discrepancies between documented existing conditions and existing conditions as measured by City staff shall be remedied and brought up to accessibility standards as part of the project.

2.9 All improvements shall comply with federal, state, and local accessibility regulations and standards.

The review or approval of plans and specifications by the City does not permit the violation of any section of the federal law, state law, building code, or local ordinance. Where accessibility standards are contradictory, the provision that provides the most accessible (restrictive) condition shall apply. Where the project’s conditions of approval conflict with accessibility regulations and standards, the prevailing provision shall be determined by City’s Accessibility Coordinator and City Engineer.

2.10 Pay all applicable fees pursuant to City Municipal Code including, but not limited to, the Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Sewage Facilities Development Fee (SFDF). The actual amount of fees due to the City will be based on the fee schedule in place on the date that the fees are due, or the date that they are paid, whichever occurs last. The fee amount stated in this notice is subject to change based on (1) annual adjustments for inflation, pursuant to Chino Municipal Code, Chapter 3.40.100 or 3.45.100, (2) revisions to the Chino Municipal Code, and (3) updates to the fee studies and nexus reports adopted by the City.

Developer is solely responsible for remaining informed about changes in the fee amounts. City shall have no obligation to inform Developer of changes in the fee amounts unless Developer requests notice of such changes, pursuant to Government Code Section 66019(b) and Chino Municipal Code Chapter 3.40.080(B) or 3.45.080(B).

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 415 PARCEL MAP NO. 20348 5 June 20, 2022

2.11 All projects developing one (1) acre or more of total land area, or which are part of a larger phased development that will disturb one acre of land, are required to obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Proof of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB for coverage under this permit is required. A copy of the Waste Discharger’s Identification Number (WDID), issued by the SWRCB, must be submitted to the Project Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. More detailed information regarding this General Permit, applicable fee information and the necessary forms to complete the NOI are available by calling (916) 341-5537 or on the SWRCB web site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml

2.12 Pursuant to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036, prepare a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and submit to the project engineer for review and approval. To address NPDES Permit requirements to the maximum extent practicable, the project shall be designed to specify preferential use of Low Impact Development Best Management Practices that reduce pollutants and runoff volume through structural measures (e.g. infiltration, harvesting, and bio-treatment) and non-structural measures (e.g. preserving natural areas, clustering development, and reducing impervious areas). The WQMP shall conform to the requirements of the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, 2013 WQMP Technical Guidance Document.

2.13 Any future maintenance and repair of domestic or fire service and sewer laterals to the project site shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant/property owner in accordance with City Code, Chapter 13.04.175 and 13.12.150.

2.14 City staff shall determine the type of water (potable or recycled) to be used for grading operations, dust control activities, and common area/public landscape irrigation at the time of permit issuance.

2.15 All public street corners shall have a minimum curb radii per City Municipal Code, Chapter 19.06 and City Standards and Specifications.

2.16 Provide adequate sight distance (per City Standard No. 865) for each project driveway and at all intersections. Landscaping type and height shall be maintained to ensure sight distance requirements are perpetuated.

2.17 Design and construct public improvements identified as project specific mitigation measures in the final Traffic Impact Analysis.

2.18 Submit to the City electronic files, in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, of all submittals, including reports, studies, improvement plans and City redlines of previous submittals.

3.0 PRIOR TO REQUEST AND RELEASE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMITS:

3.1 Construct and secure Development Services Department approval of all public facilities enumerated under Section 2.8 above (per Resolution No. 88-23).

3.2 The applicant’s Civil Engineer shall field verify that all BMPs are designed, constructed, and functional in accordance with the approved WQMP. BMPs shall also be inspected by Public Works Environmental staff. Coordinate inspection with staff and submit a completed City of Chino BMP field verification form for review and approval

3.3 Provide and record a reciprocal use and maintenance agreement to assure common ingress and egress and joint maintenance of all common access, parking areas and drives.

3.4 Pay all remaining applicable fees pursuant to City Municipal Code.

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 416 PARCEL MAP NO. 20348 6 June 20, 2022

4.0 PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE/PROJECT CLOSEOUT:

4.1 Complete all Conditions of Approval listed under Sections 1-3 above.

4.2 Slurry seal along all streets impacted by the development as directed by City staff. Install signing and striping per approved plans.

4.3 Submit to the City a letter from the surveyor indicating monuments required for the map have been set and they have been fully paid for their services.

4.4 Submit to the City, electronic files of Tract/Parcel Map and “as-built” improvement plans in AUTOCAD, Ersi GIS shape and Adobe Acrobat PDF formats. AUTOCAD files shall be submitted as an etransmitted zip file of the CAD drawings with all base files attached. Scanned resolution of PDF shall be a minimum of 360 dpi.

6.3.g
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 417 Rev. 6/15/2222

CITY OF CHINO

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION

ITEMS REQUIRED FOR FIRST PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL
TRACT MAP NO. 20348
PROJECT ENGINEER: Isidro Abreo
DATE: 6/9/2022

A COPY OF THIS CHECK LIST MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FIRST PLAN CHECK 1 Copy of Development Engineering Division Conditions of Approval 2 Sets of Maps (Subdivision Only)
2 Copies of preliminary Title Report (no older than six months) (Subdivision Only) 2 Copies of Closure Calculations (Subdivision Only)
1 Set of Referenced Maps (Subdivision Only)
2 Copies of Preliminary Soils Report (no older than sixty days) 2 Copies of lot line adjustment certificate
2 Copies of lot merger
2 Copies of right-of-way dedication
4 Sets of Rough Grading Plans
5 Sets of Precise Grading Plans- with onsite storm drain improvements 4 Sets of Storm Drain Plans- revisions to the Storm Drain as-built plans 2 Copies of Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations with Backup Data (Signed and Sealed by a Registered Civil Engineer)
2 Copies of Engineering Cost Estimate (On City Forms) with Engineer’s Wet Signature and Stamp 3 Sets of Street Improvements Plans
3 Copies of Cross-Sections (if street plans are required) at 50’ intervals and extended a minimum of 100’ beyond limits of improvements
2 Sets of Sewer Plans
3 Sets of Domestic Water Plans- revisions to the Dom. Water as-built plan for service connection 2 Sets of Recycled Water Plans- revisions to the Public Sewer as-built plan for service connection 2 Sets of Street Light Plans including a Photometric Diagram 2 Copies of Voltage Drop Calculations (Signed and Sealed by a Registered Engineer) 2 Sets of Signing and Striping Plans
1 Sets of Traffic Signal Interconnect Plans
2 Sets of Traffic Signal Plans- revisions to the as-built record drawings 2 Water Quality Management Plan
1 6.3.g
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 5.PW COAs - PL 21-0028 (TM 20348)& PL21-0005 (SA) (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 418 Special Districts Leadership Foundation - District of Distinction Since 2008 June 8, 2022
It is a recommendation of the Fire District that the developer of every new construction project facilitate a preconstruction meeting. The meeting is to be scheduled with the Fire District Inspector for said project.

The following are the conditions of the above referenced permit/project. All conditions shall be adhered to, failure to comply with said conditions may result in the revocation of said permit and/or punitive fines as outlined in the Fire District fee schedule.

We look forward to a cooperative working relationship throughout the project. Should you have any questions regarding the project, including the conditions as set forth herein, please feel free to contact our office at (909) 902-5280. 1.0 THE ITEMS BELOW ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ARE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION:

1.1 Fire access roads shall be designed and plans submitted to the Fire District for approval.

Fire access roads shall be constructed of an all-weather hard surface, such as, asphalt or concrete, and be a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet. The road grade shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) maximum. An approved turn around shall be provided at the end of each roadway in excess of 150 feet in length. Aerial access shall be provided for Access roads
shall comply with Fire District Standard No. 111.

Chino Valley Fire District
14011 City Center Drive
Chino Hills, CA 91709
(909) 902-5260 Administration
(909) 902-5250 Fax
Chinovalleyfire.org
2021-00000116
Fire Protection Requirements

UNITED TRUST REALTY / JOHN KILEY
3 POINTE DR #217
BREA, CA - California 92821
Project Name: Commercial & Church APN
1026-251-01 PL 21-0004 PL 21-0005
Project Address: Eucalyptus/Oaks/Notre Dame
Chino, CA. 91710
Board of Directors
Sarah Ramos-Evinger
President
Mike Kreeger
Vice President
John DeMonaco
Harvey Luth
Winn Williams
Fire Chief
Tim Shackelford

6.3.h
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Fire - PL21-0004-05_COA (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 419 Special Districts Leadership Foundation - District of Distinction Since 2008

1.2 The development and each phase shall have two (2) points of vehicular access during construction. Fire District Standard No. 111 shall be complied with.

1.3 Water systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow of this development and be approved by the Community Risk Reduction Division. Buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet shall have a minimum of two (2) connections to a public main. The developer shall furnish the Community Risk Reduction Division with three (3) copies of the water system working plans done by the installing contractor for approval, along with the Fire Flow Availability Form completed by the water purveyor prior to recordation. The required fire flow shall be determined by using the California Fire Code, current adopted edition. For all private systems, the water systems shall comply with Fire District Standard Nos. 101, 102, and 103. In areas without water-serving utilities, fire protection water systems shall be based on NFPA Pamphlet 1231. For water connections and work conducted in the public right of way, please refer to separate plans reviewed and approved by the water purveyor.

1.4 Fire hydrants shall be six-inch (6") diameter with a minimum one four-inch (4") and one two and one-half inch (2-1/2") connections. All fire hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of three hundred feet (300') apart. Private water systems shall comply with Fire District Standard Nos. 101, 102, and 114. All hydrants shall be installed with pavement markers to identify their locations.

1.5 Access drives which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R's, access easements or reciprocating agreements and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties. Copies of the recorded documents shall be provided at the time of Fire District plan review.

1.6 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R's, easements, or reciprocating agreements addressing the use and maintenance of the mains and hydrants and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties. Copies of the recorded documents shall be provided at the time of Fire District plan review.

2.0 THE ITEMS BELOW ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ARE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:

2.1 Fire access roads shall be constructed and approved by the Community Risk Reduction Division prior to combustibles being brought onto the site.

2.2 Approved street signs shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, as well as a job site address.

2.3 Fire Protection water systems shall be tested, operational, and approved by the Community Risk Reduction Division prior to combustible materials being brought to the site.

2.4 All flammable vegetation shall be removed from each building site for a minimum distance of thirty feet (30') from any flammable building material including all structures.

6.3.h
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Fire - PL21-0004-05_COA (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 420 Special Districts Leadership Foundation - District of Distinction Since 2008

2.5 A detailed site plan of the development is required to be submitted in electronic (pdf.) format. The plan must show and be limited to: locations of property lines, buildings, and equipment and hazards for emergency response purposes. Please refer to Fire District Standard No. 143. Additional or revised files may be required during construction and/or prior to final signoff.

2.6 The Developer shall submit, as an electronic file, a drawing of the new streets in pdf format to the Fire District with the building construction plans. Format must contain and be restricted to the following layers: A. Right of way; B. Parcel Lines; C. Street Names; D. Address numbers; E. Fire Hydrants. Additional or revised files may be required during construction and/or prior to final signoff.

3.0 THE ITEMS BELOW ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ARE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY:

3.1 An automatic protection fire sprinkler system is required for all buildings 5,000 sq. ft or greater. and/or when used for allowable area increase, if applicable. This system shall comply with NFPA Standard No. 13 and Fire District Standard No. 110. An electronic/PDF set of detailed plans along with hydraulic calculations and material specifications shall be submitted to the Community Risk Reduction Division. The system shall be installed, tested and approved prior to system final. Fire sprinkler systems shall be installed by a licensed C-16 contractor.

3.2 An automatic fire alarm system is required. An electronic/PDF set of detailed plans shall be submitted showing the design, system components, signaling devices, fire alarm power supply, control panel and auxiliary devices and functions of the alarm system. Please refer to Fire District Standard No. 133 and current adopted editions of the California Building Code, as well as NFPA Standard 72.

3.3 An automatic fixed fire extinguishing system may be required. An electronic/PDF set of detailed plans shall be submitted to the Community Risk Reduction Division for approval.

System shall comply with current adopted edition of the California Fire Code, NFPA Standard 17-A, and UL 300. Please refer to Fire District Standard No. 112.

3.4 Insulated liquid carbon dioxide systems with more than 100 pounds (45.4 kg) of carbon dioxide used in beverage dispensing applications shall comply with CFC, Section 5307.3.1., and shall be provided with mechanical ventilation or a gas detection system.

3.5 A maximum occupant load sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location neat the main entrance/exit of the room, if occupant load is greater than 49 people. Such sign shall be legible.

3.6 Hand-held portable fire extinguishers are required to be installed. The location, type and cabinet design shall be approved by the Community Risk Reduction Division.

3.7 Smoke and Carbon Monoxide alarms are required to be installed per Section 310 of the California Building Code, current adopted edition. Locations shall be in accordance with code requirements.

3.8 Exits, doors, signs and approved path marking shall be installed in accordance with the

6.3.h
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Fire - PL21-0004-05_COA (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 421 Special Districts Leadership Foundation - District of Distinction Since 2008 current adopted edition of the California Building Code, Section 1007

3.9 "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be installed in interior access drives at locations designated by the Community Risk Reduction Division. Curbs shall be painted red at locations designated by the Community Risk Reduction Division. Please refer to Fire District Standard No. 121.

3.10 An approved recessed Fire Department "KNOX" brand key box is required. The key box shall be located at or near the main entrance(s), and shall be provided with a tamper switch and shall be monitored by an approved central station monitoring service. Please refer to Fire District Standard No. 117.

3.11 An approved key switch is required on each automatic electric security gate. All automatic gates shall be provided with a manual override. Fire District Standard No. 116 & 117 shall be complied with.

3.12 Commercial, industrial, and multi-family building addresses shall be posted with a minimum eight inch (8") numbers, visible from the street and during the hours of darkness they shall be internally or externally electrically illuminated. Posted numbers shall contrast with the background used and be legible from the street.

Where building set back exceeds 100 feet from the roadway, additional non-illuminated six inch (6") numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrance. These numbers shall also contrast with the background used. Fire District Standard No. 122 must be complied with.

3.13 Hot work areas shall not contain combustible materials or shall be provided with appropriate shielding to prevent sparks, slag or heat from igniting exposed combustibles. The hot work area shall have no cracks or cracks shall be tightly covered in the flooring, walls, ducts or shafts to prevent the passage of sparks to adjacent combustibles. If partitions are used to separate the hot work area, they shall be noncombustible, in fixed hot work areas, partitions shall be securely connected to the floor such that no gap exists between the floor and the partition. The hot work area shall have a noncombustible surface.

Hot work areas shall maintain good housekeeping; the floor area shall be kept clean.

In the event, hot work needs to be performed close to automatic sprinklers, noncombustible barriers or damp cloth guards shall shield the individual sprinkler heads and shall be removed when the work is completed. If the work extends over several days, the shield or cloth shall be removed at the end of each work day.

Hot work areas shall be provided with the following warning signs:

CAUTION

HOT WORK IN PROGRESS

STAY CLEAR
A fire watch shall be provided during the hot work operation and shall continue for a minimum of 30 minutes after the conclusion of said work. hall me maintained on site for 48 hours after hot work

6.3.h
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Fire - PL21-0004-05_COA (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 422 Special Districts Leadership Foundation - District of Distinction Since 2008 is completed. The prework check shall include the following:
a). Ensure that hot work equipment to be used is in satisfactory operating condition and in good repair.
b). Ensure hot work site is clear of combustibles or combustibles are protected, including exposures.
c). Ensure any openings are protected and floors are clean. d). Fire watch is assigned.
e). Care has been taken to prevent accidental activation of fire sprinklers or other life safety systems.
f). The fire extinguisher for the hot work area is not blocked and accessible.

A minimum of one portable fire extinguisher with a rating of 2-A:20-B:C shall be readily accessible within 30 feet of each hot work area.

All compressed gas cylinders used shall be properly secured against accidental dislodgement and against access by unauthorized personnel. Compressed gas cylinders shall be protected from physical damage by an approved means.

Pressure relief devices shall be arranged to discharge upward and unobstructed to the open air in such a manner as to prevent any impingement of escaping gas upon the container, adjacent structures or personnel.

The storage area of the compressed gases shall be properly marked with an NFPA 704 placard as well as a sign reading: COMPRESSED GAS.

The storage area shall be provided with adequate lighting.

3.17 An electronic/PDF set of plans shall be submitted separately for each of the following listed items to the Fire District for review, approval and permit prior to any installation or work being done. Approved plans must be maintained at the worksite during construction. Fees are due at the time of submittal.

a) Building Construction, includes tenant improvement work b) Private (onsite) Underground Fire Protection Water Systems, if applicable c) Fire Sprinkler Systems, designed by C16 contractor or registered engineer d) Fire Alarm Systems or Sprinkler Monitoring Systems designed by a C7, C10 contractor or registered engineer.
e) Knox box and/or security gate locations.
f) Gas detection systems
g) Emergency Radio Coverage Systems
Applicable Standards:
101, 102, 103, 110, 111, 114, 117, 121, 122, 133, 141, 143 CVFD Standards available online at http://www.chinovalleyfire.org

6.3.h
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Fire - PL21-0004-05_COA (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 423 Modified 12/21/2021

CHINO POLICE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DATE: June 20, 2022
PROJECT FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) & PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348)
LOCATION: North of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-
251-01)
APPLICANT: United Trust Realty Corporation

1.0 ACCESS CONTROL:

1.1. Clearly mark public paths. Make private areas harder for non-employees to access.

1.2. All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per CVC 22658(a), to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner’s/manager’s request. Signs shall be no less than 17 by 22 inches with lettering not less than one inch in height and shall contain the phone number of (909) 628-1234 for the Chino Police Department.

1.3. Prevent easy access to the roof or fire escapes from the ground.

2.0 NATURAL SURVEILLANCE:

2.1. Avoid landscaping that might create blind spots or hiding places.

2.2. Properly select and install landscaping so that it allows unobstructed views of vulnerable doors and windows from the street and other properties.

2.3. A peephole or vision panel shall be installed on all office, administration, cash count or cash room doors to allow for visibility.

2.4. Consider using convex mirrors to allow employees to monitor blind spots and unmonitored areas located inside and outside of the building.

2.5. Fully illuminate the exterior of the buildings and grounds at night.

6.3.i
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 7.PD COAs (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 424

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE NO.: PL21-0004 (SA), -0005 (SCUP), & -0028 (TTM) DATE: June 20, 2022

2.6. Lighting is needed at property entrance, along sidewalks, parking lots, trash enclosures, and perimeter – including driveways.

2.7. Design loading areas to avoid creating hiding places for people and merchandise.

2.8. Maintain clear visibility from the store to the street, sidewalk, parking areas, and passing vehicles.

2.9. Install and adequately position security cameras to cover door entrances (directed towards faces), register area (directed towards customers), driveways, rear of the retail building, parking lots, and safe storage locations. Allow access to the Chino Police Department Real-Time Crime Center. In the event of a crime, the PD can gain access and relay real time information to responding officers.

2.10. Surveillance footage needs to be stored for 90 days. In the event of a criminal investigation, the surveillance footage must be turned over to law enforcement officials.

3.0 TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT:

3.1. Install paving treatments, landscaping, and architectural design features to guide visitors to desired entrances and away from any private areas.

3.2. Install walkways in locations safe for pedestrians and use them to define pedestrian boundaries.

3.3. Mark property boundaries, where possible, with hedges, low fences, or gates.

3.4. Install property address numbers at least 3” tall (preferably lit) in a highly visible location (high up on building front would be ideal).

3.5. Protect property from vandalism using protective films on glass, metal, and other non-porous surfaces.

3.6. All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs.

Signs should include no trespassing signs - PC 602. A sign authorizing the property manager to have vehicles removed from their property – CVC 22568(a). A sign prohibiting skateboarding and rollerblading – CMC

10.24.120. Signs shall be no less than 17 by 22 inches with lettering not less than one inch in height and shall contain the phone number of (909) 628-1234 for the Chino Police Department.

6.3.i
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 7.PD COAs (PL21-0004 (SA), PL21-0005 (SCUP), PL21-0028 (TPM 20348) - College Park Church/Commercial)

11.23.a
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 425

CHINO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING – CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2022 at 7:00 PM
13220 CENTRAL AVENUE
CHINO, CA 91710

MINUTES

FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Burton.

ROLL CALL

Present: Kevin Cisneroz (Chairperson), Jimmy Alexandris (Vice Chairperson), Brandon Blanchard, Curtis Burton, Lisa Fraga, Steve Lewis, Lawrence Vieira

ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes – Regular Meeting of May 16, 2022 (All Members Present).

Motion by Commissioner Blanchard to approve the Minutes from the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Commissioner Burton and carried with a 7-0 vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. PL21-0076 (Special Conditional Use Permit) – A request for approval to establish a 1,141 square-foot massage establishment in the Chino Promenade commercial center located in the CR (Commercial Regional) land use designation of the Central Avenue Specific Plan, at 5420 Philadelphia Street, Suite F (APN: 1014-601-19). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities.

CONTINUED FROM MAY 16, 2022.

Applicant: Baoxia Jin, Oak Massage
Project Planner: Brian Sitton
Project Engineer: Sylvia Ramos
Chairman Cisneroz opened the public hearing.

Brian Sitton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission and addressed the Commission’s concerns raised at the May 16, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting.

Sean Jin, interpreting for the applicant, addressed the Commission. The applicant accepted all the Conditions of Approval for this agenda item.

There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 426

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 2
Motion by Commissioner Fraga to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-009 approving Special Conditional Use Permit No. PL21-0076, based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval. Second by Commissioner Lewis and carried with a 5-2 roll call vote.

AYES: Fraga, Lewis, Alexandris, Blanchard, Cisneroz
NOES: Burton, Vieira
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

3. PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit), and PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348) – A request for approval of the following applications for construction of The Campus at College Park development within the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation of the College Park Specific Plan on 7.53 acres of land, located north of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Satterfield Way, south of Notre Dame Avenue, and east of Oaks Avenue (APN: 1026-251-01):
• PL21-0004 (Site Approval) – A request to construct three two story buildings, totaling 50,630 square feet of commercial retail, office, and restaurant space, and one single story 27,000 square foot community scale church on the project site. • PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit) – A request to conditionally permit a community scale church on the project site.
• PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348) – A request to subdivide the 7.53-acre project site into two parcels.

The project is within the scope of the previously certified College Park Specific Plan – Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2002071120) originally adopted on September 7, 2004, which adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Applicant: United Trust Realty Corporation
Project Planner: Kim Le
Project Engineer: Isidro Abreo
Chairman Cisneroz (hereinafter Cisneroz): I hereby open the public hearing. Staff report please.

Mike Hitz, Principal Planner (hereinafter Hitz): Good evening Chairman and Planning Commissioners. PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit), and PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348) is a request for approval of The Campus on a

7.53-acre parcel in the College Park Specific Plan area. This request includes the approval of three two-story commercial buildings with a 50,630 square foot commercial space and a 27,000 square foot community church. The church requires the approval of a Special Conditional Use Permit. The project also includes the approval of a tentative map to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. In 2004, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map No. 16838 to subdivide 553 acres of land into 21 parcels for the development of Phase 2 of College Park, which is basically everything west of the channel. This portion of College Park is mostly built out with the exception of this parcel, portions of Chaffey College and the school site off Mountain Avenue.

Tentative Map 20348 would allow for the subdivision of the 7.53-acre parcel to be subdivided into two parcels, one for the commercial development and one for the church site. This site would be fully accessible to all visitors to the site as you can see there, and a maintenance agreement and CC&Rs will be required to be prepared and recorded to ensure that all shared access is retained and that the common areas, shared parking lot, landscaping, etc., are maintained in a consistent manner. As mentioned, the site plan includes three two-story commercial buildings which are located here in Buildings A, B and C, and a community church

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 427

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 3
located here on the other edge near Satterfield and Eucalyptus. The commercial center is also designed to have outdoor dining and gathering areas on the ground level and additional seating areas above, which you can see in these areas here. The church consists of three single story buildings, this large one surrounding an interior courtyard and is located near the corner of Eucalyptus and Satterfield Way. Access to the site is taken from the street driveways along Notre Dame Avenue, and there is a 12-foot sidewalk around the majority of the perimeter here down to a 5-foot sidewalk on Eucalyptus Avenue and around the remainder of the site. The architecture for the commercial center is a Santa Barbara style architecture that is primarily designed with white stucco walls and feature tower elements, decorate awnings, archways, a bridge that connects Buildings A and B, and other decorative features and decorative tile. The church utilizes more of a contemporary Spanish Colonial Revival design that also has archways similar to what the retail has to keep the consistency between all the buildings, and one of the main features in the front of the church includes a custom metal cross with a stone archway that leads to the gateway paseo and courtyard. The project site is required to be constructed in two phases with the largest commercial Building A being constructed and the church being constructed in Phase 1. This is a requirement of the project as a part of the Development Agreement that at least 40% of the commercial had to be built with Phase 1, which Building A is 23,000 square feet, which exceeds that amount. The applicant is intending to build the second phase, Buildings B and C, within 12 to 24 months later. The majority of the site, as you can see on the phasing plan, will be constructed along with these two buildings. The only portion is the small, a little bit of parking here in this building will come later with Phase 2. The site exceeds the amount of required landscaping for College Park. The landscaping consists of drought tolerant plant material throughout concentrating along the street frontages, with various planters, potted plants, and open lawn area near the commercial center for gatherings and other activities. It also features tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, bike racks, and a small stage for events. The Design Review Board met on May 26th to review the project, which was wellreceived by the Board. The DRB had comments and discussion regarding the long-term maintenance of the outdoor furnishings, the use of pet waste stations, and adding metal gates to secure the stairways to the second floor. All those are part of the Conditions of Approval so they will be reviewed during the plan check process. As mentioned, the church is required to have a Conditional Use Permit. The Gateway Karis Church is currently located at Schafer and Oaks Avenue. It has been there for about 58 years. The church is proposing to relocate to this location and the church also has other services they provide, such as martial arts, tutoring, youth events, music lessons. The church services are anticipated to have approximately 250 attendees and the applicant is working with the church operators to relocate the church to this location for a more modern facility. The overall site includes a total of 415 parking spaces, which exceeds the required parking of 360 parking spaces for both uses. With the proposed configuration, the commercial center is required to have a minimum of 234 parking spaces and the church 103 parking spaces. However, because of where this property line is located, the commercial center only has 207 parking spaces on its parcel, while there are 280 spaces on the church parking site. To resolve this, there is a shared parking area of 28 spaces in this middle area here that would get the retail portion to 235 parking spaces, which exceeds the required number of parking per our municipal code. The applicant held three neighborhood meetings, with the last meeting in person in April of this year. At that meeting, several concerns were brought up, mostly related to traffic and public safety. Those are outlined in the staff report. A public notice was mailed to residents within 300 feet, and all residents within the Ivy rental community. Additionally, a sign was posted on-site and information has been sent out to the various social media platforms to inform them of this project. Two letters were received in opposition to the project. One letter did state there was already significant amounts of commercial and church projects in the area. That letter was attached to the staff report. There is

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 428

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 4
a second letter that was brought to us today via an email that was placed on the dais for you to review. The project has been determined to be within the scope of the previously certified College Park EIR (Environmental Impact Report) that was adopted in September 2004 per the CEQA Guidelines. There are two engineering conditions that need to be revised, Condition 1.7 and 3.1 reference Condition 2.8. They both need to be revised to reference Condition 2.7. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-011 approving PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit, and PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel map No. 20348) and this concludes the staff report. I am here to answer your questions, as well as the applicant.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Mike. We’re going to open it up to the Commission for questions of staff and I normally don’t go first, but I’d like to because it might answer some questions that we all have. The public meeting concerns that were addressed, is it possible that you can address those here and kind of let us know what the outcome was on those, such as traffic and street parking concerns. We know that Notre Dame is a very tight street, so I know that I would have had those same concerns as the public did with those three entrances off of Notre Dame.

There’s parking from the apartment complexes there on the east side of the street and I couldn’t see adding any more traffic congestion to the street the way it’s set up now, but perhaps you can shed some light on that as well as some of the other topics that were of concern at the public meeting.

Hitz: I do have Dennis here to help out with some of those more traffic related questions. We kind of looked at, we understand what some of those issues were so he can probably touch on some of those for you.

Cisneroz: Thanks.

Dennis Ralls, Transportation Manager (hereinafter Ralls): Thank you, Chairman and Planning Commission. I do have a couple of slides prepared in the event we needed to discuss some of the concerns brought up by the community meeting, so I will go to those now. To address first on-street parking, I prepared this exhibit to show where in green on the left there where on-street parking will remain as it currently sits with available public use parking for any public use. The red areas that I have highlighted on the edges show where parking will be restricted.

The only change from existing condition is a small area right near the entrance to driveway 1.

This is intended to be a right turn pocket into the center and currently there is about enough space for about four vehicles to park there. With the development of this site, that parking will be to be restricted so these four sites will be eliminated. Other than that, the additional off-street parking will all remain as is. Staff can review parking needs as necessary, as we do with any developed area. Should there be an issue with either students from Chaffey College using these areas for parking, or things of that nature, certainly staff can take a look at introducing parking restrictions along those areas that would help curb parking by outside uses. Certainly, the onsite parking will be managed by the property owners themselves. Whether they wish to sign their parking appropriately with either time limited parking or some kind of other restriction, that’s within their ability to do and enforce, as long as they properly post all the entrances accordingly, including towing vehicles should there be violations. And I just, on the left there, a little insert of the current parking situation on Satterfield, use a combination of parking lanes and red curb to show where parking is allowed. In addition to the parking, there was a concern about the intersection of Notre Dame and Satterfield. Currently that is a two-way stop. There was a recommendation from the community meeting to make this an all-way stop. That is not a new concern for staff. We have received that concern before from area residents who are concerned about primarily pedestrian crossing, but speeding as well. In past reviews, warrants that have typically required all-way stops have not been met yet. However, in the analysis of this

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 429

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 5
development knowing that was a previous concern by the local area, the TIA does review this intersection at both its current configuration as a two-way stop, and as an all-way stop. Both conditions operate fine. In fact, the all-way stop actually operates a little bit better, but you’re talking about LOS-A versus B, so both are superior performance in terms of delay. A review of collisions in this area only showed three collisions in the last ten years in our records, two of which were in 2020 and both were related to turning concerns which an all-way stop could help prevent. With that, while we could make the design of an all-way stop part of the development, staff could also implement an all-way stop here right now if we needed to. The only reason we haven’t yet before, like I mentioned, is because there are certain warrants that staff tries to use to help limit the proliferation of all-way stops at every intersection. As you could imagine, we get a lot of requests to put stops in to control speed. The MUTCD does specifically call out that stops shouldn’t be used for that purpose alone because what ends of happening is when there’s very light traffic on the cross streets, as you can imagine, if you’re coming down Satterfield and there’s hardly ever a vehicle coming out from Notre Dame, then you’re less likely to obey and come to a complete stop. So, for that reason, traffic volumes, in particular, are used to help warrant all-way stops and, as of yet, we have yet to see enough volume at this intersection.

Now, that could change with this development. That’s why we can always add this all-way stop as a condition of the project and install the signs there at the intersection.

There were some concerns about bike lanes. This is, the exhibit on the top right is from the California MUTCD, it was recently revised, there was a comment about how bike lanes are not permitted with inside roundabouts. That is true. Striped dedicated Class II bike lanes are not allowed inside roundabouts. However, Caltrans has allowed the use of sharrows Class II bike lanes inside roundabouts. And mostly this is because bicyclists when traveling through a roundabout often have to act like vehicles anyway. The issue here with the roundabout is with all of the yielding conditions with vehicles coming from in and out of roundabouts, it could be kind of random, and so there’s a perceived increased inherent risk to bicyclists who might be more exposed as vehicles enter and exist roundabouts. But, with the inclusion of additional signage and additional pavement markings, Caltrans in their exhibit show that that could be addressed and also included in this exhibit is an exhibit from the College Park Specific Plan showing the planned bike facilities that were intended to be installed here in College Park, and specifically along Eucalyptus and Oaks there is intended to a Class II on-street bike lane, which as we mentioned in the roundabout is not something that we like to design. So, rather than have the shared use path where a bicyclist is off the road and on a sidewalk next to pedestrians, staff feels that we should maintain the Class II as much as we possibly can, with the exception of the roundabout. Now, the current design and Conditions of Approval call for the removal of a bike route that is on Eucalyptus approaching the roundabout; however, that ramp can easily just stay in place as is. It needs to be better signed and better marked so that it’s made aware and obvious that it is for bikes and bikes alone so that they can exit the roadway. However, there is no exit ramp on Oaks as you were to come out of the roundabout, so if you can image coming down Eucalyptus here there is a bike ramp that takes you on the sidewalk, brings you around the roundabout, but there isn’t an exit one that we would then need to change the Conditions of Approval to put there. However, in its current configuration and as currently conditioned, staff is confident that bike facilities are properly and safely addressed in this site plan.

Next, there was concern about providing access on Eucalyptus Avenue between Oaks and Satterfield. The College Park Specific Plan specifically calls out this section of Eucalyptus as inserted here on the top right. That last sentence is specific for the applicability and that there is no direct vehicle access to this roadway from the adjacent parcels. The intent with this is that Eucalyptus is considered a more significant roadway than, say, Satterfield or Notre Dame, in that it provides a larger volume of traffic traveling at a higher rate of speed in that providing

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 430

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 6
access into parcels would create a potential for rear-ends and broadsides as vehicles enter and exit the shopping center. For this reason, staff in this recommendation is holding to maintaining no access on Eucalyptus at this time. As well as while, even if we did, that access would probably be limited to right in, right out. Otherwise, you would have to really interrupt that raised median to create a left turn in and left out, which staff did not feel was desirable, nor did it kind of help with the aesthetic and intent of the Specific Plan. Trucks were also mentioned, delivery trucks specifically for the commercial center. In this exhibit I’m trying to illustrate where our truck routes are. Those are currently surrounding the project on Central Avenue, Edison Avenue, and Euclid Avenue. The truck route off of Edison is the closest truck route and the vehicle code does allow trucks to leave the truck route to make a destination but has to be done so in the shortest route. The project site is about a mile from Central and almost two miles from Euclid. So, delivery trucks are expected to take their access off of Edison, down Oaks, and off of Notre Dame being the most direct and quickest route. As pointed out earlier with Eucalyptus, even if we did add a driveway there to address trucks, those trucks would still have to travel down Eucalyptus and would travel further, I’m sorry, travel down Notre Dame and in fact would have to travel farther down Notre Dame because they would have to circle the entire development to gain access off of Eucalyptus, or that truck would have to come off of Satterfield or come down Eucalyptus, neither of which are designated truck routes. So, in terms of providing the minimal impact for trucks, staff felt that it was best to maintain delivery truck access off of Oaks and Notre Dame because that would minimize the truck’s exposure to roadways that are not designated as truck routes, and it should be mentioned that with the reduced commercial and office footprint, that the number of trucks, while not particularly studied, is envisioned to be quite insignificant, meaning only one or two trucks of any consequence for deliveries based on what we’ve seen in other similar sites.

I believe that there were concerns about the roundabout, the high speeds at the roundabout.

That’s a condition that exists today with or without the project. Staff is reviewing ways to help mitigate that. Part of this project’s responsibility will be to look at signing and striping on both Oaks and Eucalyptus as it relates to the project frontage. Part of that design of signing and striping will include enhancements to help regulate speeding as it enters the roundabout; however, the roundabout itself continues on College Park Avenue, which is outside this project scope. So, it would really take an effort combined with the City, Chaffey College, the College Park HOA, and City maintenance to cohesively come up with a collaborative plan to address the roundabout in whole. Part of what the City’s efforts are doing, we have a citywide traffic sign replacement project that’s already underway in the City. It’s starting with street name signs first.

But part of that project will reassess the signing and striping throughout the City and look for areas where warning signs and signage in particular need to be update to the latest standards, and it’s through this process, as well as restriping of the roundabout and other roadways in College Park in the future, that we hope to address maintaining safe speeds in and around the roundabout.

There was concern about ADA compliance. Both the Accessibility Coordinator and the Building Division, who is responsible for ADA compliance, have all reviewed all the ADA improvements with the project and find them to be in compliance with all requirements. That’s all I have on the engineering side of the committee.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Dennis. Thanks for coming prepared. A couple more questions for you, then I have a question for Mike or Warren. In regards to Notre Dame, are there any improvements that are going to be added to Notre Dame to allow for greater traffic flow to mitigate the issue? We know, you know, what traffic looks like when a church lets out, which is a phenomenal problem to have, and the same thing with the retail shops. If we’re going to have,

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 431

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 7
what is it, 400 parking spaces, how are all of those cars going to come and go on a two-lane street? That’s my biggest concern with that area.

Ralls: And that was our concern as well. We did look at, we actually as part of the traffic impact analysis, actually studied the current location of the church and reviewed how busy they are, as well as how much cars come in and out of that project at that site currently. I have it here, give me a moment. In terms of improvements to Notre Dame, the all-way stop as what is driveway 1, I can actually get a better picture here, which is here, as currently an all-way stop, that is envisioned to either remain an all-way stop or it could be modified to just being a cross street stop allowing for greater traffic flow on Notre Dame. However, because Notre Dame is a smaller street not intended for significant traffic, the site was studied with both conditions to determine whether or not one works better than the other. The all-way stop is intended to work as is so it’s staff’s recommendation to leave it as is currently, as an all-way stop. This will help with mitigating traffic flow specifically from Oaks into the site, but certainly traffic exiting the church on Sundays will be something we’ll have to take a look at and see if there’s additional traffic measures that might be necessary, but for now the site as designed is anticipated to operate within the acceptable level of service in all conditions, including Sundays.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Dennis. I am confident that there will be some traffic issues here. It’s a two-lane street with parking where the green is, which makes it about a lane and a half, it’s going to be interesting, and I would think that some additional thought into that would be valuable. Also, last question for you, Dennis. For the College Park Plan, I know that there is a transportation summary of impacts that’s in place that has some benchmarks from the inception that we had to reach by certain timelines, I think by 2015, we’ve got one coming up, I’m sorry, 2021, we’ve got one coming up in 2025, how are we doing on those benchmarks? Ralls: Because Chaffey College hasn’t fully developed, as well as a couple of other sites are vacant, most of the streets in College Park are severely under where we thought they would be that original EIR. What comes to mind is the intersection of Fern and Eucalyptus. That intersection was envisioned to have a traffic signal that was supposed to be in the, oh, that’s at buildout, but in the EIR there was supposed to be a back-up on Eucalyptus from Edison, from Euclid, sorry, that stretched beyond Fern Avenue, and that simply has never occurred yet because the traffic volumes that were anticipated to use this area, haven’t materialized yet. So, since I’ve been here and reviewing a lot of the things in College Park, we just simply haven’t seen the volume of traffic that the original EIR of College Park predicted. In fact, I would say we’re probably about 25-30% of that traffic yet.

Cisneroz: Alright, great answer. Thank you, and I’ll move on to my questions which might be for Mike and Warren. As mentioned in the packet, this is College Park’s last mixed use piece of land, which means that it’s also their last opportunity for retail. Is there anything that we have promised or not us, but perhaps the developers promised, which I know we’re not in control of, the residents of College Park that we might be missing an opportunity to develop on this piece of land in way of retail, etc., being this our last opportunity to do so? Hitz: The only key provision in there is that the Specific Plan, either in the Specific Plan or the Development Agreement required a minimum of 50,000 square feet of commercial, which they provided. That’s really the only benchmark, or the minimum that they had to provide. Of that, there’s a certain maximum percentage that could be college related, like a bookstore or coffee shop, but that’s likely to be something in there would probably be, one of the tenants would probably meet those standards, but really the true only minimum was that they had 50,000 square feet of retail, which they do.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 432

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 8
Cisneroz: So, there was nothing that may have been promised to the College Park residents like a shopping center, you know an anchor store, or something like a grocery store? Hitz: No, it’s very much intended to be a very walkable, it’s a new urbanism concept of bringing in people from the community to talk in there, so it was always intended to be kind of smaller retail shops. The other provision too is that providing the big open area that’s directly adjacent to the roundabout to bring, potentially bring in students from the college and people from the community, so it’s been developed, if you look at the Design Guidelines and the Specific Plan, to kind of meet those standards related to how the buildings are laid out. A church is a conditionally permitted use in that mixed use zone, so it’s something that can be there. There was also talk of maybe doing units there, like units above with commercial below, but that’s not something that they’re proposing here. It was just something they could do. Or even like livework was an option potentially, but that’s not something, so it’s very broad and open on what could be there, but really the minimum 50,000 square feet was really the only thing that was sort of promised with all other kinds of uses being permitted.

Cisneroz: Excellent. Thank you, Mike. Appreciate it. Okay, enough from me. I’d like to turn it over to our Commission for additional questions. Commissioner Burton? Commissioner Curtis Burton (hereinafter Burton): I do have a couple of questions. Dennis, you said that the college hasn’t fully developed. We have vacant lots out in that area. We’ve got an apartment complex on the north, Ayala Park on the west, Chaffey College on the south, and a large development College Park on the east. I can see that in the next couple of years the traffic in this area is going to increase significantly. Have we thought about adding additional lanes onto Eucalyptus to facilitate the amount of traffic that will occur in this area? Ralls: That’s a great question. The original EIR, as I mentioned, has planned for, and I would say rather conservatively, the ultimate build-out of College Park and the surrounding areas, so even cut-through traffic is anticipated to use streets like Oaks and Eucalyptus. All of these streets at that time were built to service all of the ultimate build-out of both College Park and the area. In doing so and because we, well, that would be my answer to that questions, is that that EIR specifically looked at these areas because that roundabout functions as it does and doesn’t require a traffic signal to stop traffic and then let it go, and are able to sort of safely and easily maneuver through that intersection, it helps to increase traffic flow, so the streets here, both at Oaks, College Park, and Eucalyptus, are built to accommodate all of the future build-out of College Park and the surrounding area.

Burton: When you say facilitate, I believe vehicles would be able to travel up and down the street, but when you say that do you mean efficiently, or? Ralls: I will quantify that. So, what I mean by that is to mean that there is a standard of which we go by, a level of service which has to do with, in this case, on street segments, capacity. That each street type is envisioned to have a max capacity at which traffic will flow comfortably with little to no delay. That is the benchmark that was used in that EIR setting that capacity to that amount and traffic is envisioned to be able to operate on these facilities at or below that level of service.

Burton: So, in your opinion, in three to five years do you think we’ll have a traffic problem out there, based on what you’re telling me?
Ralls: I don’t think we’ll have a problem in 15-20 years.

Burton: Thank you.

Cisneroz: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Blanchard?

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 433

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 9
Commissioner Brandon Blanchard (hereinafter Blanchard): Good evening, Dennis, how are you?
Ralls: Very good.

Blanchard: Quite a few on the, if we go to page 4 of our packet that we have a little exploded view that I’d like to look at. In the large packet we received. It’s labeled SD 1.3, it’s actually the fourth page, but it’s I guess 3.

Ralls: Well, on the screen is the overall view, but yet.

Blanchard: Okay, but this one’s a little more exploded that’s why I drew the attention to it. My questions is, however, if we look, as we’re looking at the exploded view, if we look at the bottom of the page where Eucalyptus is and it approaches the turnabout, it goes from 13-foot street lane to 20 around the roundabout, and then back to 11 before it reaches 12 again. So, Eucalyptus all the way up to Oaks. The numbers that I’m looking at.

Ralls: I see them.

Blanchard: There’s a bike lane that runs along there. We’re talking about increasing biking in the City, it’s near College Park, the college is not built-out, just seems that we are creating a problem for ourselves there.

Ralls: I would note that this is a site plan and it is not intended to reflect the off-site improvements nor the sign and striping. During design of the sign and striping this will not be how this area looks. Eucalyptus, while it may have the 13-foot lane with the 6-foot bike lane, when it enters the roundabout that bike lane cannot be there. So, that will not occur like that.

Instead, what will be there is a Class III bike route, so that’s the shared use lane that the sharrows, that we’ve talked about I think previously, where a bicyclist entering the roundabout will have to act like any other vehicle as they are required to do my law, and then as they exit the roundabout and head north on Oaks they can then re-enter the Class II bike lane that’s shown there. Those measurements that are shown there, may not be what ends up in the final design. That will go through design, through the engineering staff.

Blanchard: Will that come back to us at any point?
Ralls: The design of the bike lanes?
Blanchard: Yes.

Ralls: No.

Blanchard: Okay. So, is it California State law or by city that bicyclists have the right of way? Ralls: State law.

Blanchard: Okay. So, with that, a bicyclist, if they think they have the right of way, cuts into traffic. Is that correct?
Ralls: Yes, if they …
Blanchard: I understand …
Ralls: If they feel comfortable entering the vehicle lane, yes.

Blanchard: Okay. Are we setting ourselves up there? I hear what you’re saying.

Ralls: No more so than any other street in the City, because even with or without bike lanes, a bicyclist can use any street in the City and has the legal right to do so as, and it is treated as a vehicle on the roadway. What bike lanes help us do is give them a dedicated part of that

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 434

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 10
roadway so that they can feel more comfortable and provide a layer of safety on such roadways.

In this particular case, we have it on Eucalyptus and Oaks going through the roundabout because of its unique character in providing those yield conditions entering the roundabout.

There are a couple of ways of handling the bike traveling through the roundabout and both of those, as I showed on the exhibit, can be accomplished with sign and striping and infrastructure.

I know it’s a little bit messy with all the highlights, I was highlighting various treatments that can be used at a roundabout to help provide safe use of that roundabout by bicyclists.

Blanchard: Thank you. How many streets in the City do we stop the bike lane and then the cars merge into a shared lane?
Ralls: Nearly all of them, specifically at intersections. What often happens is, especially in older parts of the City before bike regulation and bike design got to where it is today, we don’t often have the curb-to-curb width to fit a bike lane and a turn lane, a right turn lane for example, for a specific example, and so often what we end up having to do is terminate the bike lane before the intersection, terminating the Class II bike lane and converting it into a Class III bike lane so that it can continue through the intersection, and all really the Class III is really doing at those locations is just warning both the vehiclist and the bicyclist that now the bike lane, the added protection of the bike lane gave them has been removed and that now they have to both act accordingly, and that happens not only in Chino but in almost every city where they haven’t, where they didn’t previously have infrastructure that was capable of supporting an addition of a bike lane.

Blanchard: And the signage that you’re talking about, signage and striping in this project, do we have signage over the City where those lanes go from the Class II to Class III to identify them? Ralls: There is standard signage in the California MUTCD that helps signify that. Typically, what happens is we, there is usually the black on white sign for the bike lanes themselves. When those terminate, they convert to a white on green bike route sign and often we complement those with either a begin or an end as appropriate and the striping on the roadway changes so the bike lane terminates and then the sharrow condition begins at that point, and that’s a State design standard.

Blanchard: Going back to the design of the streets and the striping, then that would back to your department, or to the City?
Ralls: Yes.

Blanchard: Up to the discretion of your department?
Ralls: Yes.

Blanchard: What could we reasonably think that the width of the lane would be around the roundabout?
Ralls: Well, it wouldn’t, there wouldn’t be a lane around the roundabout.

Blanchard: Okay.

Ralls: So, it would be like when a bicyclist enters a signalized intersection … Blanchard: Excuse me just for the vehicle, not the bikes.

Ralls: Oh.

Blanchard: For the vehicle because it states, I understand this is not actual, it says 20-foot here, what …

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 435

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 11
Ralls: Gotcha.

Blanchard: What conceivably would that be?
Ralls: I would be guessing at this point without really going through a proper analysis, but I can see reducing it down to 14-16 feet to allow for vehicles to navigate the curve and still stay within the lines. My recommendation would be to do, what I hope to do with the future design of the roundabout, is push vehicles closer to the center of the roundabout and get them away from the outside where they’re more likely to increase speed. By pushing them into the center of the roundabout it allows them slower speeds because they have to turn sharper, which in itself is part of the whole reason for the roundabout design. It’s meant to really increase traffic flow while still maintaining safe operation. So, my recommendation here and part of what we hope to accomplish is reducing those lanes enough to where it feels less comfortable traveling at higher rates of speed than what would be deemed safe.

Blanchard: Is it possible in the signage to do illuminated signs on the street, by crosswalks, signs approaching it, that are illuminated or flash, other than someone reading? Because we know with things that go on today people are looking at their phones, not concentrating. Is there something else that’s going to bring their attention?
Ralls: Yes, enhancements to signing and striping including beacons, more reflectivity, those are things that we’re doing at other locations and there’s no reason not to do that here.

Blanchard: Can that be encouragement that we would like to have, I’m sorry, one person of the Commission would like that done at least to look at that. Again, we’re looking at the safety of the residents.

Ralls: For sure, yes.

Blanchard: Okay. One other question. If we look at the intersection of Notre Dame and Oaks, as we’re looking at that same block, it doesn’t indicate there, but I would imagine that, is that going to be where we talk about the four-way, or is there …
Ralls: Notre Dame and Oaks is currently a traffic signal, and it’s intended to stay a traffic signal.

Right now it really only serves north and south traffic on Oaks, and traffic exiting and entering Notre Dame into this project site. There is a gate on the west leg that services, I believe, Chaffey College, there’s a community center there and maybe a little bit of Ayala Park. I think we’ll be using that in the upcoming 4th of July Festival at the park, so that signal currently serves that purpose and will remain there.

Blanchard: And last question, would there be studies on that signal as build-out comes where there would be some adjustment if needed?
Ralls: I believe the signal is there currently and was built as part of the backbone infrastructure in anticipation of everything being built and be built more timely than it has been. Like I mentioned, the gate on the west leg is currently closed. It’s envisioned that at some point in the future that gate would remain open and it would just be, part of that parking lot would be a public parking lot, or used for that, and so the signal there would help with that operation as well as the traffic on Notre Dame. Does that answer your question?
Blanchard: Yes, you did answer the question. I’m still not sold. Thank you.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Brandon. Commissioners, do you have any other questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Vieira?

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 436

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 12
Commissioner Lawrence Vieira (hereinafter Vieira): Thank you for explaining, it’s very helpful.

I’ve sat in on all of the presentations for this project and the residents have continuously been concerned about parking and traffic. Notre Dame is the only access to this property. Do we have another commercial property like this in the City that has only access from a residential area? Ralls: I would have to look, I don’t know right off the top of my head.

Vieira: It seems like it was not very well thought out in the design process. That is a two lane straight. If you go there you’ll see folks that are out there walking their dogs, they’re visiting the park which is directly across the street, it is a rental community so there is quite a bit of activity that happens out there, and I will tell you that Oaks and Eucalyptus is a pitch point, it’s a bottleneck. If you go out there any morning during the week at 8 o’clock in the morning, there is a line of cars all waiting to get out of this area. Also, Satterfield as you go down is also a major thoroughfare. It goes all the way down to Mountain Avenue, so it does get a lot of traffic coming in and out of this area, and I can tell you that from the HOA’s perspective, we’ve replaced more landscaping around that fountain because of traffic accidents and yet when I go and look, there’s no traffic accidents reports. That’s because they drive through and they leave, they don’t stop. We just had one on Fern and Eucalyptus that took out trees in the park across from Fern and, again, no traffic report, no nothing, just the trees were mowed over. So, we do have a problem in that area. The residents were promised something more along the lines of a commercial establishment that would support that location, support all the folks there. This is kind of a blend between the church and residential, which I think is great, but as you’ve heard me say before, if you’re going to put a church in your community, make it a central point. This is kind of odd having it in the back kind of hidden away from everything. You would think that they would really want it up on that very front corner but is there some way or method to move some of this traffic off of that residential street either by putting direct access from the three-way light there that’s on Oaks and Notre Dame that gives direct access into the complex, or something back further on Eucalyptus which carves into the property to give access. But, I’m very concerned about the level of traffic in this area, especially in the residential area. Now, the traffic circle itself when the college is actually in session, gets a lot of traffic, a lot of foot traffic. We brought this up to the City before. It’s very dangerous at night because the lighting level in there is very, very subdued. You literally see shadows, not people. So, this whole area gives me great concern if we’re going to increase the volume of foot traffic, increase the volume of pedestrians coming in and out of this residential into the commercial areas, this area needs to have some changes done because it will become a problem without a doubt. Can you come back to us and let us know if this condition exists anywhere else in the City where we have a commercial property like this that’s being fed off of a residential street? Ralls: Yes.

Vieira: Appreciate that. Thank you.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions from the Commission? Yes.

Commissioner Jimmy Alexandris (hereinafter Alexandris): We’re going to keep Dennis very busy tonight. Thank you, Dennis. It seems like the roundabout’s big, makes things a little complicated, and the visibility and things like that, so, I believe that we can make that better and more visible and make it work. It’s going to be tough, I think. One question I do have is on Satterfield and Eucalyptus, is that going to be a stop light or just a stop sign? Ralls: It’s currently a one-way stop. It will remain that way.

Alexandris: Ok.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 437

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 13
Ralls: Satterfield is stopped approaching Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus will remain uncontrolled. There won’t be a stop there.

Alexandris: Okay. Is it going to have crosswalks there for pedestrians to cross? Ralls: Yes. There is currently none; however, both this project and Chaffey College addition are both putting in the two additional crosswalks at this T-intersection. Those crosswalks are expected to be marked, signed and enhanced such that when a pedestrian is using them, as the Commissioner alluded to earlier, there would be beacons that would illuminate when a pedestrian is crossing that way.

Alexandris: Currently, I’m sorry, currently the one that’s nearest to the school, I think which is there at the moment, does that one have the beacons that light up or not at the moment? Ralls: At this location, there is only one crosswalk that crosses Satterfield. There are no crosswalks currently that cross Eucalyptus.

Alexandris: Okay. I believe I see one right near the roundabout. Is there one right there? Ralls: There are crossings at the roundabout on all three legs.

Alexandris: Okay. Does that one currently have beacons, or it does not? Ralls: It does not. It does have signage that’s pretty vibrant and in your face. As I mentioned, some of that we do want to readdress and make sure that that signage is as good as we could make it, and that may include adding additional beacons.

Alexandris: It seems like beacons, lighting and, you know, obviously, all the precautions in place that need to be done. Another questions, if you’re on Eucalyptus, because obviously this neighborhood, these areas are made for a lot of bike riding, a lot of people walking to the park and things like that, so it’s one of those, it’s congested with people walking and taking their bikes, because I’ve ridden my bike there, I’m sure quite a few of us have. I’m not an experienced, good bike rider, so I’ve had a spill or two, so that’s why this roundabout I think can be tricky for some people. Now, if you’re heading west on Eucalyptus, which I did once to go to Chino Hills using this area, when you get to the roundabout, right when you start circling, how do you go across that, is there an area where you could go across Oaks to get to the other side? I’m sorry.

Ralls: I’m not following, I’m sorry.

Alexandris: If you’re on Eucalyptus and you’re in the bike lane and you’re heading all the way down to Central, when you had to the roundabout, how would you go through that? I’m just saying, danger wise and obviously the degree of difficulty.

Ralls: Gotcha. I would make myself conspicuous, put myself in the center of the lane on the roundabout so that I would have the most visibility to everyone coming in or out of it, so that both people in the roundabout and people entering and exiting the roundabout would see me with as much visibility as they would any other vehicle.

Alexandris: So an amateur rider like myself, it’s avoid, you’re trying to tell me. Okay.

Ralls: Which is also why there is …
Alexandris: I wasn’t trying to …
Ralls: No, no, no.

Alexandris: … put you in the position to this, but, you know, obviously there are going to be people like that, that obviously ride their bikes and they plan this out, you know they want to

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 438

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 14
maybe go to Chino Hills State Park and they want to cross the whole city to get there, and there’s some people that live in College Park, it’s beautiful, and there’s a lot of young families there, so there might be a trail of family, a father, a daughter, a son, so that’s why I’m kind of concerned about that.

Ralls: Yeah, and that’s partially why along Eucalyptus there’s a bike ramp to take you off the street and ideally, as you reach, let’s say you want to continue westerly, you can use the pedestrian crosswalks to cross Oaks and continue on down College Park Avenue. But I understand what you’re saying.

Alexandris: Yeah, I notice also at Rutgers and Eucalyptus, that’s one where the two lanes turn into one lane. This site right here, to maximize it to have two lanes on both sides, cannot be done, or could it be done or not?
Ralls: It could not be done in its current configuration. The curb-to-curb width with the raised medium would all prohibit a four-lane facility. It was designed to be a two-lane facility and with on-street bike lanes, and to modify that would mean you’re either pushing those curbs back or eliminating the raised median.

Alexandris: Okay. And, also, looking at this, I know that we have plans and we’ve had shovels in the ground for Chaffey and their expansion, did we look at that also in projecting all this out too, plus with the expansion of the college, or no?
Ralls: Yeah, in terms of traffic, ultimate traffic?
Alexandris: Yes.

Ralls: Yeah.

Alexandris: And flow, and obviously, circulation.

Ralls: Yes, the build-out of College Park including all of Chaffey College was anticipated. In fact, there’s in the original, I believe, in the EIR, there’s supposed to be a stadium in College Park that was originally envisioned. That was actually supposed to be a big generator of traffic and all of that traffic was expected to use these streets as they are currently designed.

Alexandris: Another question is Oaks, is there anything going to be done to Oaks and Edison for possibly to help alleviate traffic congestion like this, because I know, like we said earlier, it hasn’t been at the optimum ever since this whole project started about 20 years ago, College Park.

Ralls: Yeah. Actually, there’s a condition on College Park and a project that’s currently under way, it started construction earlier this year, it’s the Edison Avenue west widening project, that completes Edison Avenue from Central to Magnolia Avenue I believe. It includes the ultimate six-lane configuration and raised medians along Edison Avenue, and it includes widening of Oaks north of Edison. I think actually …
Alexandris: There have been a lot of car accidents there before and that ditch … Ralls: Yes.

Alexandris: No, that’s for sure.

Ralls: So those ditches will be going away and, in fact, if you go out there right now, they started the storm drain improvements which are the underground utilities that had to be installed as part of this. Unfortunately, they ran into some issues with another utility out there that was not known and is causing a re-design of that storm drain, so that project has been delayed. But, yes, the

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 439

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 15
improvements to Oaks, the ultimate configuration of Oaks is anticipated to be built and was already underway until the storm drain improvements caused an issue and delay.

Alexandris: Thank you, Dennis. Mike, you’ve been kind of hanging low right there. I had a question for you also. I know we’re talking about this being a two-phase project, the church and I think Building A we called it. Is that what we’re calling the first mixed use building. After those two are done, is there a condition where the other two buildings need to be done, or that could be done as they like or when they like.

Hitz: The applicant can probably answer best on their plans. The plan is when these buildings are done and completed, they would start working on constructing the other buildings. In the staff report it mentions 12 to 24 months following.

Alexandris: Okay. So that’s supposed to be a mixed-use building. The other two buildings are obviously proposed to be mixed-use also, correct?
Hitz: Yeah, mixed-use is really sort of a really open-ended term. You can mean retail and commercial. Sometimes you mean mixed-use where you could have restaurants, offices, doctors’ offices, realtor’s office. So, mixed-use means lots of different types of uses that are permitted.

Alexandris: One question is obviously I hope that Building A gets full to capacity, has everything in place and it works out great and they get to the next part of it. I’m not sure how the economy might be or whatever that stage we’ll be in, the building cycles. Could you see that maybe potentially being apartments or condos or something else? Hitz: Not the way it’s used. I mean, I guess they could come back with something different and we’d bring it back before you. Like I said, there was some contemplating, to do live-work here for up to 24 units on this particular parcel, but that’s not something they’re planning on doing.

Alexandris: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Appreciate it.

Cisneroz: Yes, Commissioner Vieira?
Vieira: Here’s one other question. You mentioned that you were going to try to slow the vehicles in the roundabout and forcing them into the center area. Would it make sense to put a three-way stop there and just stop them at each one of the crosswalks so that they have to come to a slower speed as they go into that?
Ralls: That’s not a typical design for a roundabout and it kind of defeats the purpose of the roundabout all together. As, …
Vieira: But is that’s the cause and the concern, people speeding through there, that may be one of the remedies that could be deployed.

Ralls: I’d prefer to take a progressive approach. Start with the simple low-hanging fruit, the stuff that’s lower cost, signing and striping, for example. See what kind of an impact that has first, because if we’re able to say, psychologically, have people slow down on their own, then that may be enough to address the issue. If after we go after the low-hanging fruit, we’re still experiencing higher speeds than we’d like to see, then that’s when I’d like to take a more aggressive approach at some other form of traffic control. Stops would probably be very low on the list but certainly other things to help bring attention to the roundabout and help gain compliance with safer speeds.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 440

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 16
Vieira: It is a problem throughout College Park because we have four or five of these actually, that run along the owl sanctuary and every one of them has been mowed over at least once or twice. I don’t know why, they’ve got giant signs, they’ve got reflectors, yet … Ralls: Yup.

Cisneroz: I do know that stop signs have been employed at one of our other roundabouts in the City and it definitely did make a different, so it might not be a bad idea to go straight to that effective option. Commissioners, any other questions or comments for staff? Alright, seeing none, I’d like to invite the applicant up to address the Commission. Good evening. If you would please state your name.

Henry Hong (hereinafter Mr. Hong): My name is Henry Hong and I’m a principal with the applicant. Members of the Planning Commission, after close to three years of effort, including a long, challenging period through the Pandemic, we are pleased to present this project and having another opportunity to develop in Chino again. The subject property actually sat vacant for years despite full residential build-out of the College Park Community. Master Developer and the marketing team were unsuccessful in securing any interest for commercial development there due it’s locational challenges. There was minimal interest from retailers, from restaurants and businesses due to the non-traditional location, being far from the freeway, and also not being in a typical trade area, not on a major thoroughfare. But because I live 10 minutes away from College Park and I walk my dogs at Ayala Park, I knew that although challenging, it was possible to create a unique development. So, when we first purchased the property and started the process back in 2019, we started the process by surveying everything in Chino. So, we went to every retail commercial development in Chino, and we basically said what’s missing. Given that it’s non-traditional, can we create something where it’s filling a missing gap that doesn’t exist in Chino today. So, guided by the College Park Specific Plan and informed by our market research, we decided to pursue a local neighborhood church as sort of our non-traditional anchor and, with that, we continued to design the site with the intention that it becomes sort of the living room of College Park, where people can gather and get together. The church itself has a pretty modest 3,800 square foot sanctuary so, despite what you see on the table, the tabulation saying that it’s a 27,000 square foot church, it’s actually a very small sanctuary along with classrooms and offices and other things that aren’t traffic heavy, traffic intensive. The commercial side we sort of continue the theme of e-commerce resistant type of tenancy. With the food and beverage uses, we have close to about 16,000 square feet planned and we’re going to focus our leasing efforts on service-oriented businesses and we actually ourselves will be locating our Inland Empire Office here in Building A. So, we’re going to be here long after the construction has been completed. We’re not going to be building and leaving. So, the staff did a great job putting together a summary of the project, so I’m just going to address some of the frequently asked questions that you guys have already. So, the currently adopted project in the College Park Specific Plan was estimated to have 6,006 daily two-way trips. So, I’m going to give you guys some perspective on what the difference is in what we’re proposing. Our proposed project is estimated to not only generate about 1,606 daily two-way trips, so that’s about 4,004, uh, 4,400 less trips than was previously planned for this site with the existing infrastructure. And that’s done with the traffic study of the existing Gateway Community Church at their location up the street on Schaefer and Oaks, which they’ve been there over 50 years and they’ve been in the community for over 100 years. And, we also surveyed a larger, much larger facility church in Ontario to use those counts combined to generate the estimated trip estimates. On the, and we did purposely think about this logically. We did realize that this was in the middle of a neighborhood and not on two major primary arterials. So, we purposely put together the different uses that have different traffic patterns. So, due to the different peak times

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 441

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 17
of the church, of the college, or the park, and of the commercial uses, the traffic should be more even flowing than what you would see at a typical retail center. You’re not going to have, or an office building per se, you’re not going to have that rush hour Monday thru Friday. You’re going to have more evenly, throughout the week. And, you might be wondering what about Sunday service traffic after the church. As mentioned, the sanctuary for the church itself is actually only 3,800 square feet. It’s not a huge sanctuary, it’s not a mega church as you would envision it. So, with that the other question that we get asked is, will there be enough parking? So, again, we spent a lot of time in the neighborhood. We realize that parking fills up on Notre Dame, especially with the Ivy project, and we’ve spoken to residents there, and we’re not making any changes to the existing on-street parking. The right turn pocket lane on the south side of Notre Dame, that was never intended to be parking. That was always intended to circle into this project. So, we’re not taking any parking away from the street, we’re just adding on-site parking for this project. And, because the church side actually has 75 more parking spaces than was required by Code, they generously offered to share 28 of those spaces with the commercial side to make sure that the entire project has adequate parking, and even with the shared parking, the project will still have 48 more parking spaces than what is required. The last question we get, usually around noise, since we’re surrounded by some residential and the project will be compliant with all City ordinances regarding noise. Most of the outdoor centers of activities are surrounded by buildings so that will also mitigate the noise, and, during construction, we’ll follow any required protocols to minimize dust and any noise coming from the site.

So, back on the traffic issue really quick, I think, just to put it on the record, we’re not opposed to having a driveway off of Eucalyptus if that’s what the community desires, and we’ve previously proposed a location for a driveway off of Eucalyptus. It would be a right-in, right-out off of Eucalyptus. So, if that’s something that the Planning Commission would like to implement, we are open to that suggestion. In terms of additional traffic speed reducing controls on Eucalyptus, you know, if you remember Mr. Vieira, in our first community meeting we presented what we call artful crosswalks to use as, to get people’s attention as they’re driving by and they’re also a great complement to the community as sort of an art, and I don’t have any to show here, but it’s basically a sort of art that is painted on the street that will act as the crosswalk. So, that could be, as opposed to having a speed bump, an alternative to create some attention as you may.

So, we’re open to other creative ideas if that’s some that is required, and Dennis and his team have been working closely with us and we’ve been working closely to figure out as we get into the plan check phase, what it is that needs to happen in terms of traffic mitigation. Because we’re doing this in two phases, as I’m listening to all the comments, just to assure you guys that we are committed to addressing the traffic issues, I wouldn’t be opposed to having a condition that prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 that we update the traffic study with updated counts generated by the existing center. Because we’re going to have an office out of there and I might be biking to the office myself on a daily basis, I do want this to be a functioning center with even traffic. So, with that, I want to make one request and this request came up and I had some prior discussion with staff prior to the meeting but it came up last minute so it’s not on any of your lists. If I may pass out, I’ll give you all a minute to read that if you’d like.

Cisneroz: If you want, Mr. Hong, you’re welcome to elaborate on what you just handed us.

Hong: Sure, so we are requesting that we delete the existing Engineering Division Conditions of Approval 2.7 and 2.8 and replace with the language that I’ve outlined. I’ll just read it here for the record, to replace it with: Design public improvements that are designated as the responsibility of the builder of Village Center pursuant to Section F of the College Park Design Guidelines.

Such public improvements shall include the following items on Oaks Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Notre Dame Avenue, and/or Satterfield Way including: 1) removing and/or repairing

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 442

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 18
any damaged, broken, abandoned, or substandard improvements resulting from the project; 2) asphalt concrete overlay over areas where there are required street improvements along fronting streets; 3) proposed service connections to the existing public main utilities shall be constructed using revised as-built plans and following City standards for street trenching backfill and repair; and 4) proposed driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Standard No. 250 with five-foot sidewalks, minimum width shall be 30-feet and minimum radii per City and Chino Valley Independent Fire District requirements. And the reason for this is the College Park Specific Plan and Design Guidelines already clearly delineate the responsibilities of the builder for the site. The existing Conditions 2.7 and 2.8 would essentially transfer some of the responsibility that lies with the master developer to us. The master developer being the developer who is in charge of the entire College Park Master Plan community. Our understanding is that the master developer has constructed public improvements already along all those street frontages but based on our discussions with the person who submitted one of the letters opposing the project today. Those public improvements are non-compliant and we’ve actually had this conversation previously with staff about 7-8 months ago, and I think there was some miscommunication that led us here today to this request to clarify what our responsibilities are, and the City has an existing Development Agreement with the master developer as well as performance bonds to ensure proper construction of these public improvements, and these bonds today, based on my understanding, have not yet been released. So, while we want to do our fair share and contribute, we want to propose this amendment so that it is black and white that we’re not tied into any prior disputes that anything that is ongoing gets resolved outside of the scope of our work as clearly delineated in the College Park Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. So, we make that request as a modification to the Conditions of Approval. Lastly, the comment letter by the gentleman, Stubbie Barr, I have discussed his comments with him.

He is a resident who lives across the street in College Park, and I believe he is one of the more vocal residents who as been very vocal about accessibility. We’ve talked to him about the on-site comments and we’re prepared to address all his comments during our construction drawings phase. So, we had that conversation as late as today. So, one thing he did point out that I will highlight here, is he pointed out that the sidewalk and trail along Eucalyptus and Oaks should be dedicated to the City instead of how they currently exist, which is on our property as an easement to the City, and we would be willing to comply with that if that’s the correct way to do it, provided that doesn’t affect our site design as it stands, and just looking at it prior to the meeting today, it does not look like it will affect our design, but the dedication versus easements, we would be okay with. So, with that, I guess thank you for your consideration and I have a full team here, our architect, landscape architect, and traffic engineer, as well as the church leadership if you guys have any additional questions.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Mr. Hong. I’d like to open it up to our Commission for any questions of the applicant before you leave. Questions of the applicant? Alright, then, I’ll ask you Mr. Hong if you agree to abide by the Conditions of Approval for the project.

Hong: Yes.

Cisneroz: Excellent, thank you. You can have a seat for now and thank you very much for your presentation.

Hong: With the modification that I just inserted.

Cisneroz: Yeah, we’re going to address that with staff before we make a vote. Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that. I’d now like to open this item up to the public. We don’t have any requests to speak but I see a lot of public out there. Was this an item that anybody wanted to speak on.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 443

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 19
Yes, sir, if you would please state your name. You don’t have to but we’d love for you to do so for the record.

David Frewing (hereinafter Frewing): Yeah, I’m David Frewing, a local resident, but I didn’t come here for this one but it’s kind of interesting because I have a lot of familiarity with that roundabout. I think one of the questions, and by the way, Mr. Vieira, great addressing that roundabout. That is a real problem. I guess I would ask, has there been a study done, does anybody know how many people have been hit in that roundabout? Anybody have any knowledge?
Cisneroz: We do not as a Commission and you can pose questions, we may not necessarily answer them here, but we can definitely take it into consideration as part of our decision.

Frewing: I would ask that somebody take a look at how many people have been hit in that intersection. Maybe also take a look at a study, how many kids are playing in that park on an average in a week, how many kids attend that college, and how many people are walking across that crosswalk. So, I have a lot of experience in crosswalks. We have two companies in Northern Italy, so I’m there about every three months. I’m in and out of those roundabouts frequently. This roundabout as designed typically would not see over in the European are where it’s most predominant. So, let’s say, for example, we’re cruising down Oaks Avenue, going to the south, headed to the roundabout, first of all you’ve got all that landscaping around, inside the roundabout, ok? You’ve got landscaping all around the perimeter on the sides, you even have it in an island that separates you, you want to stay on the inside to go around, to go on the inside of the roundabout or do you want to head to the, what would be to the west going doing Euclid Avenue, now, or excuse me. What is that, Eucalyptus? Eucalyptus Avenue. So, what happens is, let’s say somebody’s coming down the south, coming south, all of a sudden, and it’s dark, they’re paying attention, they’re looking at the headlights coming around, they’re looking right over there, they all of a sudden have to make that bend and immediately there’s a crosswalk, ok? If you’ve ever been through that crosswalk, these kids are coming out of school, out of college, whether there at the park or whatever, they got their hoodies up, they got their earphones in, they’re not paying attention to anything. So, unfortunately, three and a half years ago, I was coming down from the, I was coming down eastbound down Euclid, uh, Eucalyptus, and I could see there was a young man coming across, hoodie on, earplugs in, and I then glanced off to the right to see who was in front of me, I look back and the kid’s gone. Wait a minute, I just saw a kid there. And, so, all of sudden I come up to the crosswalk there and then cars started stopping. So, I get out and go look. Well, this kid got hit by a car, went head into the windshield, and then his head bounced off the curb, and so I sat with this kid for the next 10 minutes while he’s convulsing in my arms, in my hands, and nobody else would touch him. But, here, this is so simple, guys. You guys need flashers. If these kids are walking across back and forth, you gotta have those, those little pucks in the street that flash, that say “hey, there’s a kid here”. I mean, you put a college there, you put a park there, you got thousands of kids a week.

So, let’s do justice by these kids and let’s get the proper notification that says, “hey, I might have my headphones on, I might have my hoodie on, but, hey, you all should be able to see me.” And, by the way, that night the kid got hit, and I don’t know whose responsibility it is, but I have a photo of, there’s two street lights out right there on that intersection. Okay? Cisneroz: Well, thank you, sir.

Frewing: You can’t keep doing that.

Cisneroz: Thank you, David, we appreciate your comments. We will certainly take them into consideration. Any other members of the public that wanted to speak on this item? Okay, with that, I’m going to close the public hearing and open it up to the Commission for questions of

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 444

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 20
staff and, of course, staff, we would like your guidance on the proposed modification of Conditions of Approval that was presented to us by the applicant.

Jesus Plasencia, Assistant City Engineer (hereinafter Plasencia): Good evening, chair, and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jesus Plasencia, the Assistant City Engineer. So, just want to first of all point out that the applicant as of last week did acknowledge and approve the Conditions of Approval that are before you from the Engineering Department, or I should say the Engineering Division. So, we acknowledge that the public improvements that were built by the master builder, we also acknowledge that there’s a DA in place between the City and the master builder. There are bonds in place that I believe have not been exonerated.

That having been said, though, Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code is very clear that any person that’s proposing a commercial development like this is required to ensure that their frontage improvements are meeting the City standards and specifications. And, so, that means that it needs to meet ADA accessibility requirements. So, as of today, there are issues with the frontage improvements not being ADA compliant. So, while I think staff does not agree to the proposed revision by the applicant, we would be willing to make a slight tweak to the Condition so that it reads something like “the required improvements shall be designed and constructed by the applicant or others”, that way it provides there to be an opportunity that if it’s not going to be constructed by the applicant, it can constructed by the master builder prior to the issuance of occupancy permits to this applicant.

Cisneroz: Alright, thank you. Commissioner Lewis?
Lewis: This is not the same as the 1.7 and 3.1 that are revised to 2.7, right? This is something completely different?
Plasencia: That was just a clerical error because those two conditions made reference to the wrong items.

Lewis: Got it. Thank you.

Cisneroz: Any other questions for staff from the Commission? Alright, seeing no questions from the Commission, thank you very much. I ask for a motion. Any commissioners want to make a motion? We will have time for further discussion. Yes, Commissioner Lewis.

Lewis: I’ll make a motion. I’ll recommend that we adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-011, approving PL21-0004, PL21-0005, and PL21-0028, based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval with the revision of 1.7 and 3.1 revised to

2.7. Cisneroz: I’m looking for a second.

Fraga: I’ll second.

Cisneroz: Alright, we have a second from Commissioner Fraga. A Motion made by Commissioner Lewis. As part of the discussion, I would like to revisit the proposed modification that we received from the applicant. Mr. Hong, you heard the comments from staff, we have a motion and a second as presented by staff, which would include the small tweak of adding required, can’t read my own writing.

Lewis: Designed by the applicant or others.

Cisneroz: Shall be designed by the applicant or others. Is that acceptable to you rather than the proposed modification of Conditions of Approval that you provided.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 445

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 21
Warren Morelion, City Planner (hereinafter Morelion): For clarification, that includes the construction, not just design.

Cisneroz: Excellent. Thank you, Warren.

Hong: So, just to make sure I understand, the motion is to approve the project with the modification as revised to include “and/or others”, correct? Cisneroz: I believe the approval, is that correct?
Lewis: Yeah.

Cisneroz: Okay. Commissioner Lewis says that’s correct. If, I’m, so, if I’m understanding, my understanding was, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the motion and second was based on the original conditions with the small tweak. Are we accepting the modification of Conditions and tweaking that, or are we tweaking the original conditions without the modification as was mentioned by staff only making the small change of construction and design by applicant or others? That was my understanding.

Morelion: And fixing the number provisions that were identified in the staff report.

Brian Wright-Bushman, Deputy City Attorney (hereinafter Attorney): Maybe we can just ask Commission Lewis, was that your motion, you wanted to make the changes that were suggested by Mr. Hitz and you are also making the changes suggested by Mr. Plasencia? Lewis: That’s correct, with the staff changes.

Attorney: And was that the intent with the second as well, Commissioner? Cisneroz: Commissioner Fraga?
Fraga: Yes.

Cisneroz: Okay, and it’s acceptable to you, Mr. Hong?
Hong: Well, no, I want to, I want to clarify again what this is about. So, the public improvements that are existing there now, it appears to me that there’s been a dispute over what has been correctly designed or inefficiently designed, and that’s why, had we even been, having been constructed years ago, the bonds still have not been release. We’re now being put in a position to get that responsibility transferred to us, not because of what impacts are triggered by our project. This is an existing condition as non-compliance that we are now being asked to fix, and this is with the master developer again, who built 2,400 homes in the community. A billion dollar publicly traded company. We’re a local developer and a church. We’re not, you know, this is a very different scope of work that we’re supposed to be obligated to per the College Park Specific Plan. So, I ask again, that the Planning Commission reconsider my proposed amendment and modification.

Cisneroz: And if I were to understand staff, the applicant has to stand on its own for this project in way of those improvements, is that correct? So, then, we would deny your request and ask if you will consider us making approval as stands, with the conditions as presented by the Commission.

Hong: Can I get one minute?
Cisneroz: Sure.

Cisneroz: Did you have sufficient time to discuss it, or do you need more time? Okay.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 446

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 22
Hong: I wanted to make one additional clarification. This modification to the change does not in any way prevent us from or exclude us from making improvements that our project actually triggers. So, for example, the traffic impacts that we might generate, those, if we’re touching a section, if we’re putting in those driveways, we’re going to be responsible for improving and making public improvements that are affected by those areas. So, this is purely as it relates to the public improvements that are already clearly delineated again in the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines to be the responsibility of the master developer, not the builder of the Village Center site, and we are not precluding any additional public improvements that might be conditioned upon us because of our actual impacts. Not to correct the mistakes of somebody else. So, I just wanted to clarify that and then, again, we will have to stand on our position on this one due to the history of the site and the conversations we’ve had with the person who wrote the letter to the Commission earlier today.

Cisneroz: Well, seeing that staff has addressed your modification of Conditions, the proposed modification of Conditions of Approval stating that we do not accept and cannot accept, we have to stand firm at where we’re at based on the current motion and second. So, would you want us to table this and come back to an upcoming meeting so that you have more time to consider options and discuss those with staff. We can come back to the next meeting and … Hong: I, I’ll be very honest, I feel like we’ve actually been, there’s a long history with this topic and we’ve gotten to a point where we felt like, you know, the conditions were pretty good and, which, why this was sort of a last minute because our understanding of what was good is actually very different from the fact. So, we felt like we were actually denied our right to hearing in the first place for several months because of this issue, and now that we’re in front of the Commission I do not want to continue this. We do want a decision because it might be months before we can get to this point again.

Cisneroz: Okay, then what I’d like to do is just to ask you to take a seat for a moment and I’d like to open it back up to staff. Do I need to open the public hearing or are we okay to discuss further?
Attorney: I don’t think we got new information about the project there. I think it was just a question of whether they would accept the Conditions, so I don’t think there’s a need to re-open the public hearing.

Cisneroz: Thank you. I’ll turn it over to staff to address the comments from the applicant and what our options are at this point.

Morelion: I’ll let Jesus address the condition issue, but I just want to point out, if it was to be continued, we can pick a specific day. It can the next Planning Commission Meeting. It won’t be months. I just want to clarify.

Cisneroz: Excellent. Thank you, Warren.

Morelion: Or a month from now. Whatever the Commission chooses.

Cisneroz: Thank you.

Attorney: I’ll also just add one more option for you from a procedural perspective. If you approve the project but only with the Conditions which the applicant does not like, the applicant still has the ability to appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council and request different conditions.

Cisneroz: Alright. The floor is yours.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 447

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 23
Plasencia: Okay, so, again, as I mentioned earlier, the applicant accepted the Conditions as of last week so this is like a last minute issue that’s come up and, I think, the improvements that are existing, yes, there are issues related to that and if Lennar were to, the master builder, were to move forward with constructing those improvements, then that would be fine, but I think that may not occur before this applicant is looking to obtain their occupancy permit. So, therefore, like we’ve done with other projects where there’s certain improvements that need to be completed by multiple developments, we condition those improvements on each of those projects. So, whichever comes first they would be responsible for constructing the improvements. So, it could be the master builder, or it could be the applicant, depending on the timing of the project.

Cisneroz: This may be a no, but is it an option to have the master builder reimburse the applicant at a later time?
Plasencia: Yes, but that would be a private matter between the two parties.

Cisneroz: Alright. Thank you. We have a couple of options as a Commission. I will, do I need to open the public hearing to have the applicant speak again? Attorney: I don’t think you need to. If you would like to hear what the applicant has to say about that, you are welcome to.

Cisneroz: Excellent. Thank you. Yes. Thank you again, and we will call the applicant, Mr. Hong, back up.

Hong: So, again, as I mentioned this issue dates back months, to last year, and at the time we had a conference call with the City staff, with the master developer and us, and legal, respective legal counsel. At the time of that call, it was agreed upon that the master developer and us would try to figure out a way to come to a fair and equitable share of what we each should do.

At that time, after that call transpired, I had been actively following up with the master developer.

We actually got a verbal commitment that they would do a share of the work and come today, when I talked to them again, right before the Commission hearing, I was told that there’s a settlement ongoing with the master developer for the close out of the bonds, which includes three of the bonds that cover the frontage of our property and those bonds they said are going to be released. They’re going to be paying to some capital improvement projects I believe and so they can no longer be contributing to our share. So, it’s either the City is collecting money for improvements and making us do the work as well or something else. I don’t know, I don’t have those agreements in place, but that’s what has happened. We have tried to work with the master developer on this and the reason why this is coming up last minute is because the public improvements that are in question, we were under the impression that as designed based on our Conditions that they’re going to be compliant. Based on my conversation with the gentleman who submitted the letter of comments outlining what public improvements are not compliant based on our design, it is a very different scope of work than what we were told and, again, it is non-compliant work that exists that we did not trigger and what the staff mentioned earlier about conditioning projects to basically do the improvement, whoever gets there first, yes, that’s correct, but those improvements are existing. It’s not like there’s nothing there, right? If this was a vacant site and there’s no street, no sidewalks, obviously if we want it to be there prior to construction, we’d have to do it. This is an existing, finished, completed public improvement with the streets and the crosswalks and the sidewalks and the curb ramps, and the only issue is there has been no resolution on how the master developer needs to take care of this. In a letter that I was provided by the person who wrote the comment letter earlier today, it was, I think it was dated 2020, it was determined in that letter by staff, I think Nick Liguori, that the improvements that are deficient in our frontage, and it’s not the entire frontage because they

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 448

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 24
only did, I think the inspection for the section on Eucalyptus, was determined to be the responsibility of the master developer, and there have been grievances filed for this and now because we’re in the picture, I feel like all of the responsibility is getting dumped on us. Again, I don’t feel like it’s fair, I don’t feel like we’ve not tried to do our fair share and contribute. Again, this is not a last minute issue that came up. The last minute issue is what I thought was a compliant design based on staff’s recommendation is now potentially questionable and we don’t want to be in a position where we have the church built and the occupancy is ready to go but we can’t get our bonds released and we can’t get occupancy because the designs are being questioned as to their legality, whether or not they’re compliant. So, again, this was never intended to be the responsibility of the builder for the site. If you look at the College Park Specific Plan, it clearly delineates our scope of work to a certain radius of our project site, and I believe, if you have the comment letter from the person, Mr. Stubbie Barr today, you will see that very clearly. So, I wanted to clarify, there are, this is not a last minute issue, a last minute change that came up. It’s what I just described and we are not trying to walk away from our responsibilities. Again, we want to locate our offices here. The church is going to be operating here for another 100 years and we’re not going to be here and, we’re not here to sell a home and leave, right? We’re going to be here for a while. So, I ask again, Planning Commission, reconsider our modification and open to any questions.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Mr. Hong. Well stated. We appreciate your presentation and, so we have a first and a second. We can go into discussion between the Commissioners now. We have a couple of options. We can move forward with our approval and Mr. Hong and the developer can appeal the decision, or we can table this item until the next meeting, which is probably about four weeks out or so, and see if we can get the master developer to commit to taking care of those improvements. Those are my thoughts and I’ll turn it over to the Commission.

Alexandris: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the comments. I just think there’s been a lot of work done on your end and the City’s end and, so, to just let that go, you know, just vanish go away, I think it will be a loss for the community and a loss for your church obviously. I do feel that there’s a lot of transparency to be had, so if you’re worried about what kind of deals have been made, I think the City would be open to talk about what exactly is going in litigation or whatever might be. As stated earlier from Mr. Morelion, it would be, this would be expedited and you would be seen maybe in about a month, possibly, on a certain date and time to have another hearing after all this has been assessed and everything’s a little more, not say calm, but obviously more clear for everyone to know what are dealing with. Obviously, I think if were to table this it would give us a little bit more time to gather all the ideas and information and I think a lot of great things could come out of this. So, I think that’s my comments.

Cisneroz: Yeah, great comment and insight there. Yes, Commissioner Fraga.

Commissioner Lissa Fraga (hereinafter Fraga): I just think it’s important to mention this property has sat vacant for a long time and these guys are interested in bringing some life to College Park, which it’s designed to be a walking facility. We want to walk to church. We want to walk to have dinner, have, go see our kids perform there. I think the overall scope of the project is awesome. I have concerns. The church is going to run on Sundays. There is no school on Sundays, so Chaffey is out as far as the Sunday traffic goes. I just think there’s, the project itself is amazing. They put a lot of work into it. The flashing crosswalks are of great interest to me. I would like to see that somehow added to, and the applicant actually said they were open to that, and also they wanted to have the easement changed to a dedication as well, they had no issues with that as well. I think they’re, as far as the applicant goes, they’re showing us all their cards. I do see where he feels that now the buck is being passed on as far as the improvements. If the improvements are already done and they’re not compliant, then I do not think they should be the

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 449

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 25
responsibility of the applicant. They should be the responsibility of the master developer and it’s time that we start holding the master developer’s hands to the fire and they have to start making their improvements and not passing the buck. Whoever gets there first. That’s just not fair.

That’s all I have to say.

Cisneroz: Thank you, Commissioner Fraga. Comments or questions? Okay, so we have a first and second, we just had a discussion. We’re either going to remotion to table this item until the next meeting, which I think could be beneficial. That would, I think, leave it up to staff to see if they can work with the master developer in that amount of time, and I don’t think that that is a bad alternative. Otherwise, we can make the approval and he has to appeal the decision, but I personally think it would be more expeditious to table to the next meeting. That’s my opinion.

Any other questions or comments? Alright, with that, we’re going to take a vote. Or I’ll ask for a new motion to table this item to the next meeting.

Alexandris: I’d like to motion to take this item to a determined time and day.

Vieira: I’ll second that motion.

Attorney: The day would be July 18th, it’s the next meeting.

Cisneroz: What was the date?
Alexandris: Should I make the motion again with the date and time? Okay.

Cisneroz: Alright, we have a motion to table this item to the next meeting, which is July 18th. We have a second on that by Commissioner Fraga I believe it was as well, or was it Commissioner Vieira? Thank you very much. Let’s take a vote on that. Roll call please.

Vice Chair Alexandris? Yes
Commissioner Vieira? Yes
Commissioner Blanchard? No
Commissioner Burton? No
Commissioner Fraga? No
Commissioner Lewis? No
Chairman Cisneroz? No
Cisneroz: So, let’s look for, is there any motion or do we want to take a vote on the original motion, or do we want to modify the original motion, which I don’t know that we can do.

Attorney: So, the procedure is to first vote on the motion that was most recent in time, which is what just happened, and then that motion just did not pass. So, then the procedure then is to continue on to the motion that was more previous in time, which was Commissioner Lewis’ motion. So, unless there is another motion that’s made, that would be the next vote.

Cisneroz: The issue with the motion that was made is it doesn’t meet, if I’m correct, the applicant’s proposed modification of Conditions of Approval.

Attorney: Right.

Cisneroz: Which I don’t think we have the power to do.

Lewis: I went with staff recommendation.

Cisneroz: So, that’s what we have on the floor at this moment. So, we have a first and a second with the staff recommended Conditions of Approval. Roll call vote on that please.

Commissioner Lewis? Yes
Commissioner Fraga? Yes

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 450

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 26
Vice Chair Alexandris? Yes
Commissioner Blanchard? No
Commissioner Burton? No
Commissioner Vieira? No
Chairman Cisneroz? No
Recording Secretary: Motion fails 4 to 3.

Cisneroz: Okay. So, we move on to our next agenda item.

Attorney: I’m sorry, may I ask, so no action has been taken. So, is it the decision to not, you can still discuss and make another motion if you’d like, or you can just stop now and then the project is denied.

Cisneroz: I would certainly be open to …
Attorney: I just want to be clear about what’s happening.

Cisneroz: I just don’t know what we as a Commission can do based on staff’s recommendation versus the applicant’s proposed modification of the Conditions of Approval, because I don’t believe that we as a Commission have the authority to make a decision on what’s happening with the bonds and the release of those bonds. So, I’m not sure what the next motion would even look like, but I’ll open it up to the Commission.

Lewis: I wanted my original motion to pass, that’s why I voted no on the second one. So, can we bring back to table it to the next meeting. We can re-vote on that again, or since we’ve already voted on that once, we can’t do that?
Attorney: I don’t see a reason why the same motion can’t be made again.

Cisneroz: Can I make a comment to the applicant? It’s just a general comment of my opinion.

Attorney: Yes.

Cisneroz: I think you can see we’re looking for a way that we like this project as Commissioner Fraga said. We don’t have the power as the Commission to make a decision based on the bonds. So, we’re looking for a way to either buy you a little bit of time to work with staff and have staff work with the master developer in hope that they will take care of, or, you know the improvements that are needed. I think that’s our hope. Would you be interested in coming back July, I believe it’s 18th, it’s not too far off, and seeing what staff can do with the master developer. I think it would be great for you and for us.

Hong: I have an alternative. I guess, as the City Attorney mentioned, you could approve this project based on staff’s recommendation and within the next, I believe, 10 days, we will discuss with staff potential resolution. If we can’t reach that resolution, then we can simply appeal instead of having to come back and I would probably prefer that route if that would be something that you guys would do.

Cisneroz: We can bring back the motion.

Hong: Because, again, as you mentioned, you said you believe the Planning Commission as a body does not have authority over those bonds and no matter what it seems like it might need to go to Council, so I’d rather do that in the most expeditious way and not have to come back. So, if you approve the project with staff’s recommendation and we determine within the next 10 days we cannot come to an agreement, then we will appeal and we will address City Council on the matter.

Cisneroz: Commissioner Blanchard?

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 451

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 27
Commissioner Brandon Blanchard (hereinafter Blanchard): Question for the City Attorney. In essence with the denial of this project, the applicant could appeal to the City Council already. Is that correct?
Attorney: That’s correct. No matter what the Commission’s decision is tonight, to approve, to deny, to approve with conditions, the applicant can appeal to the Council.

Blanchard: And on record I believe that Chairman asked the applicant if he would like to consider a postponement before and the applicant said no, he did not want to. Is that correct? Attorney: That’s my recollection of what he said but I would defer to the applicant.

Blanchard: So, before opening back up, I would just encourage the Commissioners that we heard both sides. We allowed the applicant to bring his case forward. We heard from the community. We discussed it and there are other avenues for an appeal. I would not recommend further discussion but that’s my recommendation. That’s it.

Cisneroz: So, understanding Mr. Hong that no matter what the vote is, you’re able to go to the City Council so really you have the same option either way. Even if we just let it die on the floor today, you can still go to City Council.

Hong: Yes, but I think the difference though in this case is we go to City Council with the approval of Planning Commission with the exception of this one condition. Versus when you deny the entire project, they’re not getting a vote of confidence on the project itself with the Planning Commission, when there’s only this one condition that we’re concerned with.

Cisneroz: Yes, Vice Chair.

Alexandris: Thank you, Chair. So, it just seems to me the transparency issue and also the timeframe issue. Warren Morelion, can I ask you a question? What would be the most, best, time-efficient to come back, table this and come back in a month? Or would it be for him to take whatever decision comes down and possibly appeal it? What would be the best? Because I think that would be a better answer for you to go off of. Sorry, just putting you on the spot.

Morelion: It’s okay. So, we, the Commission can direct us to get him back in July 18th. For an appeal, we have 60 days to circle the wagons, understand the issue, develop a direction or a strategy to bring it to Council. So, that is, could potentially be a little longer than coming back to Planning Commission with it. But I also wanted to mention earlier that, and I just want to inform the Commission that even with a outcome of an application from the Planning Commission, say he gets approved, the applicant could always come back and modify a condition to the Planning Commission, so keep that in mind also. Like, if he gets approved with a condition and afterwards he believes that a condition needs to be modified, he can always come back before the Planning Commission and say, hey, this condition needs to be modified and we would bring the project back. That would be the time it takes to understand it and bring it back. So, that may be even more than the one month, but that’s also an option for the applicant.

Alexandris: Thank you. So, as you can see, we have a time and day for you in a month from now. In that avenue, in that aspect, in that situation, that could go, like you were saying, you want to do things more timely. That could be two months, it could be three months. We don’t know. But, in this situation, we table this, we get everything clarified, and you get your transparency, you get things more clarified also on your end. Like we said, sentiment wise here it feels like we’re in your corner. We really want you to succeed. So, I think tabling it is in your benefit.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 452

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 28
Cisneroz: If I may, however, Vice Chair, the only issue is that we put it to a vote and it did not pass.

Alexandris: Yes.

Cisneroz: So, we really went both options and neither one passed. So, at this point, I’m not opposed to allowing the Commission to make another motion and call for another vote, otherwise it dies on the floor and he can take it to the City Council. So, I’ll open it up one last time for a motion. Otherwise, we’ll allow it to die.

Attorney: I just want to make one comment and then I’d like to just read from one section of the Planning Commission Procedures if you don’t mind.

Cisneroz: Thank you.

Attorney: First thing, I wanted to mention is that there’s no Council meeting in August, so depending on the timing if this item could not go to the Council on appeal in July, it would then be postponed until at least September. There’s a provision which I’m not aware of having ever come up before in the Planning Commission Procedures on reconsideration of a motion, I would just like to read that really quick before …
Cisneroz: Thank you.

Attorney: … I weigh in and make sure I gave Commissioner Lewis the correct answer on that.

Cisneroz: Okay.

Attorney: Okay, I think we can go ahead and make a new motion regarding whatever you’d like.

Cisneroz: I’ll open it up to the Commission for a motion.

Fraga: I’d like to move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-011, approving PL21-0004 (Site Approval), PL21-0005 (Special Conditional Use Permit), and PL21-0028 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 20348), based upon the findings and subject to the departmental conditions of approval as written.

Cisneroz: We have a motion by Commissioner Fraga. Looking for a second.

Attorney: Sorry, can I clarify your motion. Does your motion include any of the recommended changes by staff or no?
Fraga: As presented to us here.

Attorney: So, just as presented and did you want to make the, fix the clerical errors mentioned by Mr. Hicks during his presentation?
Fraga: Yes, please.

Attorney: Okay, so the only changes to what’s in front of you would be the clerical errors mentioned by Mr. Hitz?
Fraga: That’s it.

Attorney: Thank you.

Fraga: Thank you.

Cisneroz: Thank you for the clarification. Looking for a second on that motion. Or an alternative motion. Alright, then this item dies on the floor and will allow you to take it to City Council and do know that we certainly wish you the best of luck.

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 453

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 29
Hong: Thank you.

Cisneroz: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hong.

Attorney: I just want to clarify that whenever, actually, sorry, never mind, I was thinking about something different. I take it back. Go ahead, thanks.

Cisneroz: No problem, it was confusing for us all. We did pretty good though. Team work.

4. PL22-0008 (Zone Ordinance Amendment) – A proposed amendment to Title 20 (Zoning) of the Chino Municipal Code consisting of an amendment to Chapter 20.09 (Overlay Districts). This amendment implements the Infill Industrial Development Overlay District that creates specific standards and processes for Industrial zoned properties located within the City that are north of Schaefer Avenue. The proposed standards primarily relate to regulating the size, location, height, screening, operation and various development standards for industrial developments within specific proximity to properties that are residentially zoned and/or developed with residential uses. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Applicant: City of Chino
Project Planner: Mike Hitz
Chairman Cisneroz opened the public hearing.

Mike Hitz, Principal Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission.

Brian Wright-Bushman, Deputy City Attorney, addressed the Commission and stated that staff is recommending a small change to Section B.1 of proposed Section 20.09.090, which should read as follows: “All properties zoned Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (M1), and General Industrial (M2), which are located north of Schaefer Avenue, are within the Infill Industrial Development Overlay District. All industrial development and uses, as outlined in Table 20.07-1 – Land Use Regulations for Industrial Zoning Districts, that are located within the Infill Industrial Development Overlay District shall comply with Table 20.09-4 and all other requirements of this Section.”
Residents and business owners William Paolino and David Frewing addressed the Commission in opposition of this item.

Councilmember Karen Comstock addressed the Commission and stated that she wanted to share some responsibility with this ordinance being presented. She stated she is part of the Subcommittee which asked staff to study this ordinance. She thanked staff and asked that this ordinance be looked at more closely and revisit some of the areas involved.

Commissioner Fraga stated that she feels this ordinance needs to go back to the Subcommittee to look at the industrial pockets that are being affected and find the pockets where exceptions can me made, and not just include the entire area.

Commissioner Burton would also like to make the recommendation that this item go back to staff and the Subcommittee for reconsideration, or consideration of making any amendments.

There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Fraga to send Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-012 recommending the City Council approve PL22-0008 to the City Council with the recommendation that it go back to the Subcommittee, and that the Subcommittee determine the

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 454

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 20, 2022 Page 30
pockets that they see fit to reconsider as stated on the record. Second by Commissioner Burton and carried with a 7-0 roll call vote.

AYES: Fraga, Burton, Alexandris, Blanchard, Lewis, Vieira, Cisneroz NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

5. PL22-0035 (Zone Ordinance Amendment) – A proposed amendment to Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning) of the Chino Municipal Code, including but not limited to modifications and additions to Chapter 19.04 (Parcel Map), Chapter 19.06 (Subdivision Design Standards), Chapter

19.15 (Definitions), Chapter 20.04 (Residential Zoning Districts), Chapter 20.11 (Accessory Structures), 20.18 (Parking), Chapter 20.24 (Glossary), for the purpose of addressing the requirements of Senate Bill 9 and amending the provisions for animal keeping, and making a proposed finding that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.

Applicant: City of Chino
Project Planner: Mike Hitz
Chairman Cisneroz opened the public hearing.

Brian Wright-Bushman, Deputy City Attorney, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission and explained the provisions of Senate Bill 9, which became effective on January 1, 2022. The Bill requires the approval of up to two primary units per parcel in single family residential zones, as well as the approval of lot splits in single family residential zones.

He also explained the animal keeping provisions being amended.

Resident Michael Sherman addressed the Commission in favor of increasing the number of chickens each property is allowed to have on their property.

There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Lewis to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-013 recommending the City Council approve PL22-0035 (Zone Ordinance Amendment). Second by Commissioner Burton and carried with a 7-0 roll call vote.

AYES: Lewis, Burton, Alexandris, Blanchard, Fraga, Vieira, Cisneroz NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

NEW BUSINESS
None.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. McCalla Center Oak Tree Discussion
Warren Morelion, City Planner, informed the Commission that the remaining lot at the McCalla Center has been difficult to develop due to the existing oak tree on the lot and asked if the Commission would entertain staff bringing back the project for a modification to the conditions of

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 455

11.23.b
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 456

11.23.c
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 457

11.23.c
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 458 633 West Fifth Street
64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Elisa Paster
213.557.7223
[email protected]
June 30, 2022

VIA MESSENGER

VIA EMAIL
City of Chino City Council
13220 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710

Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Denial of PL21-0004, PL21-0005 and PL21-0028 Dear Mayor Ulloa and City Councilmembers:

We represent United Trust Realty Corporation (“Applicant”) which proposes a mixed-use project consisting of a commercial component and an institutional component (i.e., church) (“Project”) on a

7.53-acre site (the “Site”) within the College Park Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) area in the City of Chino (“City”). The Project entitlements consist of a site approval, a special conditional use permit, and tentative parcel map (“TPM”) (together, the “Entitlements”). On June 20, 2022, after over 31 months of engaging the community and actively working with the City to address both public and City comments, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and denied the Project. Accordingly, we submit this appeal of the denial of the Project on behalf of our client within the 10-day appeal period provided by Chino Municipal Code (“CMC”) Sections 19.01.110.B.1 and 20.23.150.B.1.

The Planning Commission denial of the Project was in error for the following reasons:
• The Planning Commission failed to provide findings of fact or evidence to substantiate the denial. Quite the opposite: the administrative record, including the Planning Commission staff report, provides substantial evidence demonstrating how the Project complies with the relevant findings for the Entitlements. The failure to make findings constitutes an abuse of discretion and is an arbitrary and capricious decision on the part of the Planning Commission.
• The Planning Commission’s failure to make findings also violated our client’s substantive and procedural rights to due process. The Applicant is unable to fully defend itself because the Planning Commission provided no basis for its decision. Based on the lack

11.23.c
Appeal of Denial of The Campus at College Park Packet Pg. 459 City of Chino City Council
June 27, 2022