file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34884E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34288E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33709E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33147E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32601E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32071E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31555E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31054E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30566E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30091E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29629E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29179E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28741E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28314E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27897E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27492E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27096E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26710E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26334E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25967E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25608E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25258E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24917E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24583E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24256E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23938E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23626E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23322E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23024E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22732E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22447E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22168E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21895E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21628E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21366E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21110E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20860E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20614E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20373E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20137E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19906E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19679E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19457E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19239E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19025E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18815E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18610E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18408E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18210E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18015E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17824E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17637E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17453E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17272E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17095E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16920E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16749E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16581E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16415E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16253E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16093E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15936E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15781E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15630E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15480E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15333E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15189E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15047E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14907E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14769E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14634E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14500E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14369E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14240E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14113E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13988E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13864E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13743E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13623E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13505E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13389E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13275E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13162E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13051E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12942E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12834E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12728E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12623E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12520E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12418E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12317E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12218E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12121E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12024E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11929E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11836E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11743E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11652E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11562E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11473E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11386E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11299E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11214E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11130E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11047E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10965E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10884E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10804E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10725E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10647E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10570E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10494E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10419E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10344E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10271E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10199E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10127E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10057E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99870E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99181E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.98500E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97827E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
1 2656 29th Street,
Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA
90405
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@s
wape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G.,
* C.Hg**
Geologic and Hydrogeologic
Characterization, Investigation
and Remediation Strategies
Expert Testimony
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Professional Certifications:
*Professiona
l Geologist
**Certified Hydrogeologist
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt St ate University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ( RCRA) and Attachment D
2 Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998)
Educational:
• Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
Private Sector:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to
3 hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities.
• Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an
4 operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, an Orange County‐based not‐for‐profit water‐quality organization, led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Direc tors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.
Worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot.
Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used
5 analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
6 • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large
7 hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifer tests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
• Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National
8 Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water.
Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater.
Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in
9 Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S.
EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
10 Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
SOIL WATER AI R PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
525 Broadway Avenue, Suite 203
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Tel: (310) 795-2335
Fax: (310) 434-0011
Email: [email protected]
SWAPE 1 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment And Remediation Spec ialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld is the environmental chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containin
g, petroleum, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi‐volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor. Significant projects performed by Dr. Rosenfeld include the following:
Litigation Support
Client: Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Charleston, South Carolina)
Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released.
Client: Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Serv
ing as expert in catalyst release and refinery emissi ons cases against BP Texas City. One case settled regarding worker exposure, but ongoing litigation remains involving ~21,500 plaintiffs who have health claims and are seeking remediation from chemicals released from BP facility.
Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Attachment C
SWAPE 2 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for ~600 individuals and ~280 properties in Carson, California, where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell.
Client: Brent Coon Law Firm (Cleveland, Ohio)
Served as expert calculating an enviro nmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven Ohio. Ran AERMOD to calculate cumulative dose.
Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Served as expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure to a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron.
Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene.
Client: Lundy Davis (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representin g the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulfur, Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips, but leased by Yellow Rock, a small oil firm.
Client: Cox Cox Filo (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Serving as testifying expert on multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of wo rkers and residents. Prep ared air model and calculated dose. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms.
Client: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (San Francisco, California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria, California. Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas, Texas) & Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY) Serving as consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation (MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground water data, created maps for test cases, constructed damage model, evaluated taste and odor threshold levels.
Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C. (Los Angeles, California) Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California.
Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbo n contaminated water and air, and expe rienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. Dallas Texas and Korein Tillery (Madison, County) Illinois, Private Wells Analysis: Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks to support litigation noti ng that private well owners should be compensated for MTBE testing.
Client: Orange County District Attorney (Orange County, California)
SWAPE 3 Rosenfeld CV
Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney’s prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/Drummond Co for polluting a community with PAHs, benzene, particulate matter, heavy metals, and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersions models and conducted attic dust sampling, exposure modeling, and risk assessment for plaintiffs.
Client: Masry Vitatoe (Westlake Village, CA), Engs trom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, CA) & Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas).
Served as consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit file d against the major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries which contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110 million dollars in injunctive relief.
Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin, Texas)
Served as expert evaluating groundwat er contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Interpreted drinking water contamination and community exposure.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Sher Leff (San Francisco, California) Serving as consulting expert for several California cities which have filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Korein Tillery (Madison County, Illinois) Serving as consulting expert for a Class Action defective product Atrazine claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufactures. The plain tiff class representative is Holiday Shores Water System which is evaluating health issues associated with atrazi ne, costing out treatment for filtration of public drinking water supplies.
Client: Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY)
Serving as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance clai ms resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping, and the EPA fined the landfill $10,000,000 dollars.
Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas)
Serving as consulting expert for a groundwater contam ination case in Pensacola Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)
SWAPE 4 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as an expert on property damage, medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 12,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper’s operations in East Sauget, Illinois.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater cas e when Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost, and flaws with the proposed on site remedy.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides.
Client: Omara & Padilla (San Diego, Califorinia)
Served as testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville California with no odor control devices.
The facility has undergone significant modifications including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical mon itoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop Louisiana, Prattville, Alabama, and Georgetown South Carolina.
Client: Estep and Shafer (West Virginia)
Served as expert running various air models to calculate acid emissions dose to residents resulting from emissions from a coal fired power plant in West Virginia.
Client: Watts Law Firm (Austin, Texas), Woodfill Pressler (Houston, Texas), Woska & Ass. (Oklahoma) Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a BNSF and Kopper’s Facility in Somerville, Texas. Conducted field sampling, risk assessment, dose assessment and air modelling to quantify exposure to workers and community members.
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, an d dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs.
Client: Sanders Law (Colorado Springs, Co) and Vamvoras & Schwartzberg (Lake Charles, Louisiana) Serving as expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles, Louisiana, at the Conoco Phillips Refinery.
Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
SWAPE 5 Rosenfeld CV
Served as consulting expert in a defective product laws uit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States.
Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo (NY, NY) and The Cochran Firm (Dothan, MS) Served as expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/furans from the burning of Ford Paint Sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood, New Jersey.
Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Oakland. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demons trate that each facility emits diesel pa rticulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.
Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual fac ility in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as the defendant. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.
Client: Graham & Associates (Calabasas, CA)
Served as expert in a case in which Ge neral Motors is the plaintiff and BP Arco is the defendant. Conducted air models to demonstrate that sulfur emissions from the BP Arco facility formed sulfuric acid, destroying paint on over 350 automobiles.
Client: Rose, Klien Marias (Los Angeles, CA) and Environmental Law Foundation (San Francisco, CA) Served as expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips fo r acrylamide concentration an d found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels.
Client: Gonzales & Robinson (Westlake Village, CA)
Served as testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron (Ortho) for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Creat ed air dispersion models, soil vadose zone transport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food.
Client: Environment Now (Santa Monica, CA)
Served as expert for Environment No w to convince the State of California to file a nu isance claim against the automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs.
Client: Trutanich Michell (Long Beach, California)
Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion, particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment.
Client: Azurix of North America (Fort Myers, Florida)
SWAPE 6 Rosenfeld CV
Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.
Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-lade n landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.
Risk Assessment And Modeling
Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-a rt enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis.
Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents an d hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District.
Client: Covanta (Susanville California)
Prepared human health risk assessmen t for Covanta Energy focu sing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer.
Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distan ce and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk asse ssment for a confidential client focusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC.
Client: San Diego State University (San Diego California) Measured CO 2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker’s exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.
SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, comp aring site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child re sident and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.
Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California) Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.
Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State) Measured PM10 and PM 2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations.
Client: King County, Seattle, Washington.
Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wast ewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.
Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.
Client: California Biomass (Victorville, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution- to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.
Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona, California, reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Jeff Gage, (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.
SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington) Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.
Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting fac ility and ran EPA dispersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.
Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation
Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop.
Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.
Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if bi osolids application impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.
Client: MCP (Walnut, California)
Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sediment from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track.
Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen re leasing compound (ORC) and mo lasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.
SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV
Client: King County, Washingon
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control.
Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matter-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.
Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.
Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading.
Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digest ers at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.
Client: BLM (Kremmling Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines.
Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.
Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root-penetration into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.
Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puen te Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.
SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV
Client: City of Escondido (Escondido California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coas tal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido, California.
Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coas tal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas, California.
Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California) Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.
Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.
Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifyi ng the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.
Publications
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention an d Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):113-125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health 73(6):34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention an d Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention an d Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). ‘Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States’, in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:
SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV
Proceedings of the S eventeenth International Confer ence on Modelling, Monitori ng and Management of Air Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, P. E. Rosenfeld (2007) “Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility” Environmental Research. 105, pp 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J . J . J . C l a r k , A . R . H e n s l e y , M . S u f f e t . ( 2 0 0 7 ) “ T h e U s e o f a n O d o r W h e e l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities” –Water Science & Technology 55(5): 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007) “The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment ” Water Science & Technology 55(5): 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2007) “Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In Press.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) ( 2007) “The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities.” Water Science And Technology, In Press.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” (2004). WEFTEC 2004.
New Orleans, October 2 - 6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids" Water Science and Technology. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.
SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004) Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76 (4): 310-315 JUL-AUG 2004.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle, March 2002, Page 42.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). “Compost Dem onstration Project, Sacramento, California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. April 2002.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 173-191
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2000. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. 2001. Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73: 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants Water Environment Research, 73: 388-392.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.
P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.
SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.
P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Contro l of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Tr ees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Cont rol Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD
Presentations
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Go nzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-S tack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wall er, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Rosenfeld, P.E . (2009) “Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulf onate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) “Cost to Filter Atrazine Contaminati on from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants Fr om A Releasing Facility” Platform Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Cont aminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. “Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP)” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007
Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PA H, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” – Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’s C8/PFOA Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. ” Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. September 26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA an d Related Chemicals.” International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicolo gy of PFOA and Relate d Perfluorochemicals”. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005.
Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation.” 2005 National Gr oundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Gro undwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.
May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Cont amination of the Colorado River.
Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.
California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Prop erties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwa ter Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. February 20-21, 2003. Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel. Anaheim California. February 6-7, 2003.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Sc ience Society Annual Conferen ce. Indianapolis, Maryland.
November 11-14.
Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.
Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.
Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000 . Wood ash and biofilter control of compost o dor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California
Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000 . Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Ame ndments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California.
SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Gr ass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 1999. An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell, Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. 1 997. Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America, Anaheim California.
Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to present; Lecturer (Asst Res) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
SWAPE 17 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental He alth (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focuses on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Wa ter Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course In Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Wa ter Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5 2002 Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for severa l courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded
California Integrated Waste Management Board . $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California : $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal:
investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State . $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon : $10,000 grant was awarded to in vestigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Servic e, Tahoe National Forest : $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993.
Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony
In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil action No. CV 2008-2076
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153
rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299)
In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM)
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants Case No CV 146344
In the District Court of Texas 21
st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
From: Adam Frankel
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Public comment inquiry
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 3:39:11 PM
Attachments: 2022.04.13 SAFER Supp. Comments re Alta Cuvee Project Recirculated MND-FINAL.pdf WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.
Dear Ms. Troyan:
Thank you for providing me that information. Please find attached in support of SAFER's appeal its earlier comments to the Planning Commission which are still applicable to the City Council's consideration of this matter.
I would appreciate if you could please provide copies of these comments to the council members in advance of Wednesday's hearing but please let me know if you would like me to bring printed copies.
Best,
Adam
Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.836.4200
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information.
Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: ITEM G1 - 7/20/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Via Email
April 13, 2022
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440)
Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”).
SAFER submitted comments on the original Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) on October 1, 2021. SAFER’s October comment was prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Based on these expert reviews, we concluded that the IS/MND failed as an informational document, and that there was a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
The City prepared and published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to adopt the RIS/MND on February 9, 2022. According to the NOI, the City recirculated the IS/MND for the proposed Project to clarify changes that have risen during or since the public review period. After reviewing the RIS/MND, we also conclude the RIS/MND also fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request once more that the City prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to CEQA, PRC section 21000, et seq.
This supplemental comment on the RIS/MND has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm SWAPE. Mr.
Offerman’s comment on the original IS/MND and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood’s comment is attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE’s comment and the consultants’ curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. SAFER’s October 1, 2021 comments on the original IS/MND are attached as Exhibit D hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
DISCUSSION
I. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the RIS/MND and relevant documents regarding the proposed Project’s indoor air emissions, and concluded that his Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A) regarding the IS/MND, submitted by SAFER on October 1, 2021, still apply to the RIS/MND. Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr.
Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic.
Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.
Even after receipt of SAFER and Mr. Offerman’s October 1, 2021 comments on the IS/MND, which identified the Project’s significant health risk impact from its indoor air emissions from formaldehyde, the RIS/MND does not evaluate the human health risks as a result of the Project’s formaldehyde emissions. As SAFER’s previous comments noted, the failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
II. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.
After review of the RIS/MND, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments on the IS/MND and curriculum vitae are included as Exhibit A in SAFER’s October 1, 2021 comments attached hereto as Exhibit D. Dr.
Smallwood’s expert comments on the RIS/MND are included at Exhibit B.
A. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the RIS/MND is still woefully inadequate.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special-status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.
Dr. Smallwood asserts that the RIS/MND does an “only” “slightly better job of characterizing baseline conditions of the site,” because it includes lists of species that were detected during the City’s only reconnaissance-level survey that the IS/MND originally omitted. (Ex. B, p. 1.) According to Dr. Smallwood: “what was not improved, and what warranted an improvement, was a follow-up survey (or multiple surveys) at an appropriate time of day for wildlife.” (Ex. B, p. 1.) Dr. Smallwood further explains:
The RIS/MND ignores Noriko’s survey results and what they mean to the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the likelihoods of special-status species occurrences. The RIS/MND misleadingly reports, “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” This reporting is misleading not only because it ignores the special-status species that Noriko detected, but also attempts to pass off the AECOM survey effort as sufficient for detecting special- status species. It was not. No reconnaissance-level survey effort is capable of detecting all the species that use a site, including those that use it seasons and times of day other than when the reconnaissance-level survey was performed.
Furthermore, no biologist is perfect at detecting the species of wildlife that are available to be detected at the time of the survey. For these reasons, to characterize the wildlife community at a site, multiple methods and multiple surveys are needed. (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
Hence, RIS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts continues to be inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site. (See, Ex. B, pp. 1-5.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that: “A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately assess occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as part of the characterization of the current environmental setting.” (Ex. B, p. 6.)
In conclusion, the RIS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.
B. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.
Neither the original IS/MND nor the RIS/MND assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. Instead, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding habitat loss to breeding birds. (Ex. B, p. 6.) Specifically, Dr. Smallwood’s prediction that the proposed Project “would deny Californian’s of 116 birds per year.” (Ex. B, p. 6.) This potential loss of birds every year following construction of the Project easily qualifies as a significant, unmitigated impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact.
C. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife movement.
The RIS/MND, like the IS/MND, fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) In doing so, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s “comments regarding wildlife movement and how, in its analysis, the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard centered on whether the site is part of a wildlife movement corridor.” (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) As Dr. Smallwood points out, “[t]he CEQA standard does not rely on whether the site is part of a corridor.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Therefore, the RIS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement. Such impacts to wildlife movement from the Project’s construction and operation should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly.
D. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions.
Dr. Smallwood’s comments conclude that the Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. (See, Ex. B, p. 7.) But neither the IS/MND nor the RIS/MND express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special-status bird species. Rather, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding bird-window collision mortality, which he “predicted would be 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329).” (Ex. B, p. 7.) As Dr. Smallwood points out, “this level of mortality would qualify as a
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
significant, unmitigated impact.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Thus, an EIR needs to be prepared to appropriately analyze the impacts of bird-window collisions, and mitigate accordingly.
E. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.
Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. (Ex.
B, p. 7.) Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife” across North America. (Ex. D, p. 17 [citing Forman et al. 2003].) In the United States alone, estimates for “avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.” (Ex. D, p. 17 [citing Loss et al. 2014].) The RIS/MND ignores Dr.
Smallwood’s comments regarding mortality caused by project-generated traffic. Dr. Smallwood predicted that “the Project’s traffic would cause 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) The original IS/MND also failed to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, “this level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity as a result of vehicle-wildlife collisions, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.
F. The RIS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.
The RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding cumulative impacts on wildlife from the Project. (Ex. B, p. 7.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments argue that the IS/MND and RIS/MND both fail to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by applying “a false CEQA standard for determining whether the project would contribute cumulatively to impacts to wildlife.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) However, the RIS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. The IS/MND also misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife.
G. The pre-construction and burrowing owl surveys identified in the RIS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site.
Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigations identified in the RIS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-3), and burrowing owl surveys (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-2). (Ex. B, p. 7.) Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for burrowing owls surveys and pre- construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site; he notes that burrowing owl surveys and pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds, including burrowing owls, and bats. (Ex. B, p. 7.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
The RIS/MND splits the original mitigation measure BIO-1 into two measures, BIO-1 and BIO-3, but doing so did not address any of the issues I raised in my comment letter of 26 September 2021. Whereas I concur these preconstruction surveys should be performed, I again point out that only small fractions of the surveys’ targets would be found and salvaged before the site’s habitat is destroyed. The habitat of bats and birds would be permanently destroyed, thereby decreasing the numerical capacities of birds and bats in the area. Habitat elsewhere is already occupied, and would be incapable of absorbing birds and bats displaced from this project. (Ex. B, p. 7.)
In discussing Mitigation Measure BIO-2 regarding burrowing owl surveys, Dr.
Smallwood states that he:
…concur[s] with the implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, but this needs to happen prior to the circulation of an EIR. The surveys need to inform the public and the decision-makers of the project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls and whether and to what degree those impacts can be mitigated. (Ex. B, p.
7.)
By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird’s and bat’s reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within sixty days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the RIS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Furthermore, burrowing owl surveys need to be conducted prior to construction and included and circulated in EIR.
Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.) In addition to detection surveys and pre-construction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of pre-construction surveys will be reported, while burrowing owl surveys should be performed prior to and circulated in that EIR. (Ex. B, p. 7.)
III. The RIS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.
The RIS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-9; Ex. C, pp. 1-2.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
provided in the RIS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Ex. C, p.
2.) SWAPE’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The particular errors identified by SWAPE in the RIS/MND include the following:
1. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.)
2. Underestimated Parking Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 3-4.)
3. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors. (Ex.
C, pp. 4-5.)
4. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values. (Ex. C, pp. 5-6.)
5. Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages. (Ex. C, pp. 6-8.)
6. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates. (Ex. C, pp. 8-9.)
7. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values. (Ex. C, pp. 9-
10.)
8. Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation. (Ex. C, pp. 10-12.)
9. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures. (Ex. C, pp. 12-14.)
Because the RIS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. These errors should be corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project.
IV. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gasses and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects:
aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.
The RIS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a proper quantified operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). (Ex. C, pp. 14-17.) Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the RIS/MND’s justification is that “operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations” because the Project “does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.” (RIS/MND, p. 4-15.)
However, SWAPE’s review of the RIS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the RIS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified operational HRA. (Ex. C, pp. 14-17.) SWAPE concluded that the RIS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health impacts, as well as the less-than- significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C, pp. 15-17.)
First, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA fails to account for the third trimester of pregnancy or infant receptors, as required by OEHHA guidance. (Ex. C, p. 15 [citing “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf,] p. 2-5.) By not accounting for the first two age groups, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA is not “protective of children.” (Id.) In addition, SWAPE states that “because parameters for child and adult receptors are less than the parameters for the third trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors, such as Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”), the RIS/MND’s calculated carcinogenic risks are underestimated. (Ex. C, p. 15.)
Second, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA utilizes an incorrect Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) value of 0.72 for the child receptor. (Ex. C, pp. 15-16 [citing RIS/MND, p. 4- 15, Table 4.3-4].) In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, the HRA should have used a FAH of 1 for the child receptor. (Ex. C, p. 16.) Thus, in utilizing an incorrect FAH value, the RIS/MND’s construction HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction. (Ex. C, p. 16.)
Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex. C, p. 16.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Ex. C, p. 16 [citing RIS/MND, p. 4-10].) Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex.
C, p. 16; see also, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.)
Fourth, the RIS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. (See, “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.) OEHHA recommends
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Ex. C, p. 16.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Ex.
C, p. 16.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. (Ex. C, p. 16.) An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Ex. C, p. 16.)
Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without evaluating the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together, SWAPE found that the RIS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C, p. 17.) Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an updated assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should be conducted.
V. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.) SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.)
SWAPE found that the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 89.59 in one million. (Ex. C., pp. 19-20.) The risks to lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C., pp. 17-19.)
SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants.
VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (RIS/MND, p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1.) Furthermore, the RIS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
than-significant GHG impact. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-37–4-39. However, SWAPE concludes that the RIS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C, pp. 20-23.)
First, as SWAPE points out, the RIS/MND’s GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. (Ex. C, p. 21.) As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Second, the RIS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project’s GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. (Ex. C, p. 21.)
Third and Fourth, SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. (Ex. C, pp. 21-23.) As such, SWAPE recommends that an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines, to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Ex. C, pp. 21-23.)
SWAPE’s analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. To reduce the Project’s emissions, SWAPE also recommends consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”). (Ex. C., pp. 23-29.) In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis.
VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact.
Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the RIS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. (See, Ex. D, pp. 30-31.)
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the RIS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Ann Yundt
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
CHRISTIAN GARCIA
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
July 15, 2022
VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
RE: Foothill Blvd. and Etiwanda Ave. (APNs 022931114 and 15) Design Review DRC202000440 and Mitigated Negative Declaration To the City Council:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the project at Foothill Blvd. and Etiwanda Ave. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. We have reviewed the record and we are writing to inform you that (1) the City is required to approve the project under the Act, (2) the City’s environmental review of the project was adequate, and (3) the appeal before you is therefore meritless. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project.
The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).
The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: ITEM G1 - 7/20/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 15, 2022
complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A);see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).
Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.
For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve such a project even if it fails to meet the City’s objective land use standards. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes, market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus , 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).
When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
July 15, 2022
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application. In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed- use residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
In other cases, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
Sincerely,
Christian Garcia
DATE:July 20, 2022
TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director
Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager
Michelle Cowles, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Fire District's General Fund Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23. (RESOLUTION FD 2022-023) (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Fire Board approve a Resolution adopting the General Fund Final Budget for FY 2022-23 in the amount of $61,659,150, which is a combination of $41,331,380 General Fund operational expenditures and $20,327,770 Fire Protection Capital Fund expenditures.
BACKGROUND:
The Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 13890 et seq, requires that Fire Protection District:
1. Adopt a preliminary budget;
2. Publish a notice regarding a public hearing for final budget adoption; and
3. On or before October 1 st of each year, the Board shall adopt its final budget.
ANALYSIS:
In compliance with the above requirements, the Fire Board of Directors has:
1. Conducted a public budget workshop on June 2, 2022, and adopted the preliminary budget on June 16, 2022;
2. Published on two (2) occasions in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin notices regarding the public hearing for consideration of final budget adoption; and
3. Submitted a proposed resolution adopting the General Fund Final Budget during the Board meeting scheduled for July 20, 2022.
The preliminary budget has been available for public inspection in accordance with the Health and Safety Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The actions taken by the Fire Board will establish the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s final spending plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
1 3
6 4
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item brings together portions of the Council's vision and core values. The delivery of vital fire and life safety services to residents, visitors, and businesses, through an innovative combination of risk reduction and emergency response programs, promotes and enhances a safe and healthy community for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. FD 2022-023, General Fund Final Budget for FY 22-23
Resolution No. FD 22-xxx – Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. FD 22-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A FINAL
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2022 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District adopted its General Fund Preliminary Budget on June 16, 2022, and made said preliminary budget available for inspection by interested taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors noticed a time and place for a public hearing regarding the preliminary budget; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District conducted said hearing in accordance with requirements set forth in the Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEREBY RESOLVES, to adopt the General Fund Final Budget for the District for Fiscal Year 2022/23 in the amount of $61,659,150 which is a combination of $41,331,380 General Fund operational expenditures and $20,327,770 Fire Protection Capital Fund expenditures. The General Fund Final Budget is on file in the office of the Finance Director.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022.
DATE:July 20, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Noah Daniels, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Resolutions Confirming the Diagrams and Assessments and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance Districts; Street Lighting Maintenance Districts; and Park and Recreation Improvement District No.
PD-85 for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-114, 2022- 115, 2022-116) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolutions to confirm the assessment diagrams, and order the levy of assessments for the following (collectively the “Districts”) for Fiscal Year 2022/23:
1. Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3B, 4-R, 5, 6-R, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (“LMD”),
2. Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (“SLD”), and
3. Park and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85 (PD-85) BACKGROUND:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga administers the Districts, including setting the assessment rates paid by property owners. Property owners pay these annual assessments through their property tax bills for the maintenance and operations of parks, landscaping, and street lights within their communities.
To set the assessment rates the upcoming fiscal year, the City Council levies the assessment and reconfirms the Districts by a series of resolutions and a public hearing. The process, which is set by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "1972 Act"), includes the following steps for the Districts:
1. City Council orders the preparation of the Annual Engineer's Report;
2. City Council accepts the preliminary Annual Engineer's Report;
3. City Council declares their intention to levy annual assessments and sets the time and place for a public hearing; and
4. City Council conducts a public hearing, and takes action to confirm the Districts and levy assessments for the upcoming fiscal year.
On June 15, 2022, the City Council adopted resolutions ordering and approving the preparation of the preliminary Annual Engineer's Reports for the levy of annual assessments for each District.
On that date, the City Council also adopted resolutions setting a public hearing for July 20, 2022.
1 3
7 6
At this time, the 1972 Act requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing, and after the conducting the public hearing to receive public comment, the City Council may consider adoption of a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as recommended. Upon final adoption, the Districts will be reconfirmed for upcoming fiscal year and the assessment will be posted to the County of San Bernardino tax rolls before the deadline in August. These assessments will appear as a separate item on the property tax bill for each parcel.
The recommended rates were developed during the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget process and are included in the budgeted revenues for each District.
ANALYSIS:
The staff report for June 15, 2022, provided analysis for the recommended Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessment rates for the Districts. There have been no changes to those recommended Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessment rates or the content provided in the Annual Engineer’s Reports.
The table below provides a summary of the maximum assessment rate, the current Fiscal Year 2021/22 assessment rate, and the recommended the Fiscal Year 2022/23 rate based on the analysis performed during the budget process for the Districts:
District / Name Maximum
Fiscal Year
2021/22
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Notes
LMD 1
(General City)
$92.21 $92.21 $92.21 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
LMD 2
(Victoria
Neighborhood
Parks)
$562.85 $503.80 $518.88 3.0% increase to reflect
planned future capital
projects.
LMD 3B
(Commercial
Industrial)
$352.80 $282.24 $282.24 No change recommended.
LMD 4-R
(Terra Vista Planned
Community)
$499.32 $397.15 $397.15 No change recommended.
LMD 5
(Andover)
$113.29 $56.65 $56.65 No change recommended.
LMD 6-R
(Caryn Planned
Community)
$475.93 $462.07 $475.93 3.0% increase to reflect an
increase in operational costs.
LMD 7
(North Etiwanda)
$307.05 $307.05 $307.05 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
LMD 8
(South Etiwanda)
$151.45 $151.45 $151.45 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
LMD 9
(Lower Etiwanda)
$644.01 $311.92 $311.92 No change recommended.
LMD 10
(Rancho Etiwanda)
$1,021.79 $781.48 $804.92 3% increase to reflect an
increase in operational costs.
SLD 1
(Arterials)
$17.77 $17.77 $17.77 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
1 3
7 6
District / Name Maximum
Fiscal Year
2021/22
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Notes
SLD 2
(Local Streets)
$39.97 $39.97 $39.97 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 3
(Victoria Planned
Community)
$47.15 $47.15 $47.15 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 4
(Terra Vista Planned
Community)
$28.96 $28.96 $28.96 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 5
(Caryn Planned
Community)
$34.60 $34.60 $34.60 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 6
(Commercial
Industrial)
$51.40 $51.40 $51.40 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 7
(North Etiwanda)
$33.32 $33.32 $33.32 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
SLD 8
(South Etiwanda)
$193.75 $30.60 $30.60 No change recommended.
PD-85
(Red Hill and
Heritage Parks)
$31.00 $31.00 $31.00 A rate increase would require
voter approval.
In Fiscal Year 2022/23, the to the following Districts will receive "General Benefit Equivalent" contributions from the City's General Fund. The City Council approved these contributions with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget to support Districts which are operating at a deficit, lacks the resources for necessary maintenance or has insufficient operating reserves. Per City policy, the amount of the General Benefit Equivalent will not exceed 11% of the adjusted total budget based on general benefit components determined for similar neighborhood parks. $64,290, or 5% of the adjusted total budget, for LMD 1 $40,120, or 7% of the adjusted total budget, for LMD 6-R $26,980, or 3% of the adjusted total budget, for operations of Red Hill and Heritage Parks in PD-85
The City’s General Fund also provides subsidies to certain SLDs and the Red Hill Water Feature in PD-85, in order to provide the appropriate financial resources. The amount of subsidy provided is at the discretion of the City Council. This year, these subsidies are as follows:
$85,110, or 17% of the total budget for SLD 2
$25,160, or 44% of the total budget for SLD 5
$39,240, or 23% of the total budget for SLD 7
$150,350, or 100% of the total budget for the Red Hill Water Feature in PD-85. The Council may recall that operating costs for the Water Feature are now funded through the General Fund because of its citywide benefit as a unique community amenity enjoyed by all.
Additionally, the City’s General Fund will make its "General Benefit Contribution” to LMD 2. This contribution is required by the 2013 ballot measure and quantifies the dollar value of a general benefit provided to the community at large by LMD 2. For Fiscal Year 2022/23, LMD 2 is budgeted to receive $318,570 in General Benefit Contribution in accordance with the voter-approved measure.
1 3
7 6
FISCAL IMPACT:
Assessment revenues collected for each District are used for the maintenance and operations for only that District. The estimated costs of administration, maintenance and operations, and capital improvements in the Districts are described in the Annual Engineer's Report prepared for each District. As noted previously, certain Districts receive some support from the City General Fund due to either legal requirements (General Benefit Contribution) or due to City policy (General Benefit Equivalent). These amounts are budgeted and approved by the City Council through the budget approval process.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council's core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by complying with reporting requirements for assessment revenues to provide public services and facilities to the Districts. Additionally, by conducting a public hearing, the City Council is actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input by allowing the public an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process for the financial sustainability of the Districts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 1
Attachment 2 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 2
Attachment 3 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 3B
Attachment 4 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 4-R
Attachment 5 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 5
Attachment 6 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 6-R
Attachment 7 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 7
Attachment 8 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 8
Attachment 9 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 9
Attachment 10 – Annual Engineer's Report LMD 10
Attachment 11 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 1
Attachment 12 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 2
Attachment 13 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 3
Attachment 14 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 4
Attachment 15 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 5
Attachment 16 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 6
Attachment 17 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 7
Attachment 18 – Annual Engineer's Report SLD 8
Attachment 19 – Annual Engineer's Report PD-85
Attachment 20 – Resolution LMDs Ordering the Levy and Collection of Special Assessment Attachment 21 – Resolution SLDs Ordering the Levy and Collection of Special Assessment Attachment 22 – Resolution PD 85 Ordering the Levy and Collection of Special Assessment
ATTACHMENT 1
Annual Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2022/23
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
(General City)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
(GENERAL CITY)
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: 909.477.2700
Fax: 909.477.2845
CITY COUNCIL
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem
Ryan A. Hutchison, Council Member
Kristine D. Scott, Council Member
CITY STAFF
John R. Gillison, City Manager
Lori E. Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer William Wittkopf, Public Works Director
Noah Daniels, Finance Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENGINEER’S LETTER 1
INTRODUCTION 3
Reason for Assessment 3
Process for Annual Assessment 3
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4
Description of the Boundaries of the District 4
Description of Improvements and Services 4
Map of Improvements 20
ESTIMATE OF COSTS 21
District Budget 22
Definitions of Budget Items 24
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 25
Overview 25
General Benefit 26
Special Benefit 26
Method of Assessment Spread 27
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 28
ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ANNEXATIONS 30
Assessment Roll 30
Annexations 30
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
ENGINEER’S LETTER
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”), under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”) adopted its Resolution No. 2022-081, a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Levy of Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the Resolution Initiating Proceedings directed staff to prepare and file an Annual Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 pursuant to the requirements of the 1972 Act.
The Annual Engineer’s Report presents the plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, a diagram for the District showing the area and properties proposed to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefit received; and NOW THEREFORE, the following assessment is proposed to be authorized in order to pay the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the proposed assessment.
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Budget
Expenditures
Personnel Services 43,550$
Operations and Maintenance 1,399,700
Capital Expenditures 398,130
Transfer Out 90,000
Total Expenditures Budget 1,931,380
Revenues
Taxes:
Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies 1,256,110 Anticipated Prior Year Delinquencies Collection 12,220
Subtotal - Taxes 1,268,330
Other Revenues 57,880
Transfer In 203,330
Total Revenues Budget 1,529,540
Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance (401,840)$
Total District EBU Count 13,621.67
Actual Assessment per EBU 92.21$
Maximum Allowable Assessment per EBU 92.21$
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
In making the assessments contained herein pursuant to the 1972 Act:
1. I have identified all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them from the improvement described in the Special Benefit Section of this Annual Engineer’s Report (the “Specially Benefited Parcels”). For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram, a copy of which is included in this Annual Engineer’s Report.
2. I have evaluated the costs and expenses of the improvements upon the Specially Benefited Parcels. In making such evaluation:
a. The proportionate special benefit derived by each Specially Benefited Parcel from the improvements was determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance costs of the improvements;
b. No assessment has been imposed on any Specially Benefited Parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on such parcel from the improvements; and
c. Any general benefits from the improvements have been separated from the special benefits and only special benefits have been assessed.
I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Annual Engineer’s Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I certify that the Annual Engineer’s Report and Assessment Diagram included herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Assessment Law. _________________________________________________________ Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
INTRODUCTION
Reason for Assessment
Approval of the assessment covered by this Engineer’s Report will generate the revenue necessary to:
Provide for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements described in this Engineer’s Report. Maintenance may include, but is not limited to, all of the following: the upkeep, repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement or facility such as paseos, community trails, fencing and irrigation systems, and providing for the growth, vigor and care of the trees and landscape plant materials. Servicing means the furnishing of electricity, gas or other illuminating energy for the lighting of landscape or appurtenant facilities. This shall also include material, vehicle, equipment, capital improvements and administrative costs associated with the annual administration and operation of the District.
Process for Annual Assessment
The City cannot levy and collect annual assessments within the District without complying with the procedures specified in the 1972 Act. On an annual basis, an Engineer’s Report must be prepared which contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
The City Council must also adopt a resolution of intention which:
Declares the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within the District for the fiscal year stated therein.
Generally describes the existing and proposed improvements and any substantial changes proposed to be made in existing improvements.
Refers to the District by its distinctive designation and indicate the general location of the District.
Refers to the Engineer’s Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District. Gives notice of the time and place for public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the proposed assessment.
States whether the assessment is proposed to increase from the previous year.
If the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than the maximum assessment amount approved, the City Clerk shall give notice by causing the resolution of intention to be published. Any interested person may, prior to the conclusion of the public hearing, file a written protest which shall state all grounds of objection. The protest shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the property owner filing the protest. During the course or upon
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 4 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report, including the improvements, to the zones within the District, and the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment.
The City Council, upon conclusion of the public hearing, must then adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment, either as originally proposed or as changed by it. The adoption of the resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year referred to in the assessment.
If the assessment to be levied exceeds the maximum assessment amount previously approved, the City must comply with the procedures specified in Article XIII D and Proposition 218. The voters in the State of California in November 1996 added Article XIII D to the California Constitution imposing, among other requirements, the necessity for the City to conduct an assessment ballot procedure to enable the owners of each property on which assessments are proposed to be enacted or increased, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to, the proposed assessment or increase in such assessment.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The District provides for the administration, maintenance, operations, and servicing of various improvements located within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District.
Description of the Boundaries of the District
The District is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California. The boundaries of the District are generally described as that area of the City which is not located within the City's planned development communities. The District is made up of various landscaped sites throughout the City. As such, the parcels within the District do not represent a distinct district area as do the other landscape maintenance districts within the City. Typically parcels have been annexed to the District as they have developed.
Reference is also made to the Assessment Diagram included in this Report.
Description of Improvements and Services
The improvements maintained by the District include the paseos, community trails, trees, landscaped sites and appurtenant facilities that are throughout the District. These improvements are located within the street right-of-ways and dedicated public easements which are within the boundaries of the District. The landscaping maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the pruning, fertilizing, mowing, weeding, pest control, removal of trash/debris, and irrigation of the trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, and turf. Maintenance of associated improvements and facilities, such as community trails, fencing and irrigation systems, includes but is not limited to, grading and replacement of trail surfacing, trail fence repair and replacement, steel fence painting, repair and replacement, and irrigation systems control, adjustment, trouble-shooting, repair and
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 5 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
replacement. Services include personnel, materials, contracting services, utilities, capital projects and all necessary costs associated with the maintenance, replacement and repair required to keep the improvements in a healthy, vigorous and satisfactory condition. In addition, it is the City's intention to continue to use cost effective materials, including the future ability to replace landscaping with drought resistant or low water use plants, in order to lower expenses of the District. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows:
Parks: Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park, and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park.
Site # Descriptive Location
A-1 The north and south side of Wilson Ave from Hellman Ave to Amethyst Ave.
Ground Cover area: 22,982 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,694 square feet
A-2 The east side of Hellman Ave from 326 feet south of Pepperidge Ln to 73 feet north of Pepperidge Ln.
Ground Cover area: 5,810 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,600 square feet
A-3 The south side of 19th St from 62 feet east of Mayberry Ave to 173 feet east of Mayberry Ave.
Ground Cover area: 1,680 square feet
Hardscape area: 440 square feet
A-4 The south side of Wilson Ave from Amethyst Ave to Archibald Ave; the planters and cutouts on the west side of Archibald Ave from Wilson Ave to 105 feet south of Cottonwood Way.
Ground Cover area: 5,625 square feet
A-5 The north and south side of Diamond Ave from Klusman Ave to Diamond Ave.
Ground Cover area: 3,143 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,864 square feet
A-6 The parkway on the north side of Wilson Ave from 348 feet east of Morning Canyon Way to Alder Ridge Pl.
Ground Cover area: 5,700 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,760 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 6 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-7 The cutouts and vines on the south side of Wilson Ave from the Alta Loma Channel to 240 feet east of Zapata Pl.
Ground Cover area: 911 square feet
A-8 The east side of Broken Star Ct from 80 feet south of Highland Ave to Highland Ave; the north side of Highland Ave from Amethyst Ave to Broken Star Ct including wood chip area north of sidewalk, the south side of Highland Ave from Broken Star Ct to Amethyst Ave; the west side of Amethyst Ave from 140 feet south of Highland Ave to 265 feet south of Highland Ave.
Ground Cover area: 6,545 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,554 square feet
Mulchscape area: 14,005 square feet
A-9 The south side of Highland Ave from Hellman Ave to Broken Star Ct.
Ground Cover area: 7,865 square feet
A-10 The south side of 19th St from 170 feet west of Pilgrim Ct to 167 feet east of Pilgrim Ct.
Ground Cover area: 1,808 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,084 square feet
A-11 The east side of Amethyst Ave from Lemon Ave to 230 feet north of Apricot Ave.
Ground Cover area: 2,115 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,438 square feet
A-12 The west side of Sapphire St from 710 feet north of Hillside Rd to Hillside Rd.
Ground Cover area: 4,500 square feet
A-13 The south side of Victoria St from 110 feet west of London Ave to Ramona Ave.
Ground Cover area: 2,705 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,480 square feet
A-14 The west side of Archibald Ave from 273 feet north of La Gloria Dr to Lemon Ave; the La Gloria Dr median from Archibald Ave to Jadeite Ave; the north and south side of La Gloria Dr from Archibald Ave to 53 feet east of Jadeite Ave; the north side of Lemon Ave from Archibald Ave to 55 feet east of Klusman Ave.
Ground Cover area: 12,880 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,030 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 7 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-15 The planters and cutouts on the east side of Archibald Ave from 610 feet south of Cottonwood Way to Wilson Ave; the south side of Wilson Ave from Archibald Ave to Alta Loma Channel.
Ground Cover area: 2,110 square feet
A-16 The cutouts and planters on the east side of Archibald Ave from Banyan St to 190 feet north of Sunflower St.
Ground Cover area: 1,580 square feet
A-17 The cutouts and planters on the west side of Archibald Ave from 225 feet south of Wilson Ave to Banyan St.
Ground Cover area: 2,362 square feet
A-18 The cutouts and planters on the north side of Banyan St from Jadeite Ave to 410 feet west of Jadeite Ave.
Ground Cover area: 216 square feet
A-19 The cutouts and planters on the east side of Amethyst Ave from 192 feet south of Sunflower St to Manzanita Dr.
Ground Cover area: 4,325 square feet
A-20 The west side of Archibald Ave from 210 feet north of La Colina Dr to 230 feet south of Almond St; the south side of La Colina Dr from Archibald Ave to Jadeite Ave.
Ground Cover area: 17,120 square feet
A-21 The planter adjacent to the equestrian trail from Riverwood Pl to Raspberry Pl north of the County flood retention basin that is west of Chaffey College.
Ground Cover area: 22,832 square feet
A-22 The west side of Haven Ave from Carrari St to Vista Grove St.
Ground Cover area: 4,572 square feet
A-23 The west side of Haven Ave from 434 feet north of Manzanita Dr to 258 feet south of Manzanita Dr.
Ground Cover area: 54,258 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,581 square feet
A-24 The south side of 19th St from 286 feet east of Amethyst Ave to 166 feet west of Klusman Ave.
Ground Cover area: 5,904 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,938 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 8 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-25 The equestrian trail and planters on the east side of Hermosa Ave from 421 feet south of Whispering Forest Dr to Sun Valley Dr.
Ground Cover area: 17,529 square feet
A-26 The west side of Haven Ave from 630 feet north of Wilson Ave to Wilson Ave; the parkway on the north side of Wilson Ave from Haven Ave to Mayberry Ave; the parkway on the east side of Mayberry Ave from Wilson Ave to 382 feet north of Poplar St, and the east and west side of Cartilla Ave from Wilson Ave to Poplar St.
Ground Cover area: 10,243 square feet
Mulchscape area: 25,297 square feet
A-27 The north side of 19th St from Mayberry Ave to 93 feet east of Castle Gate Pl.
Ground Cover area: 5,145 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,870 square feet
A-28 The east side of Hermosa Ave from 360 feet south of Manzanita Dr to Manzanita Dr, and the south side of Manzanita Dr from Hermosa Ave to Raspberry Pl.
Ground Cover area: 7,421 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,712 square feet
A-29 The south side of Wilson Ave from 240 feet west of Timbermist Pl to Hermosa Ave; the west side of Hermosa Ave from Wilson Ave to 213 feet south of Oakgrove Dr.
Ground Cover area: 11,184 square feet
A-30 Site was removed from contract and water service cancelled January 1, 2017.
A-31 The south side of Lemon Ave from London Ave to Calle Hermoso.
Ground Cover area: 4,404 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,800 square feet
A-32 The north side of Lemon Ave from the Alta Loma Channel to London Ave; the east side of London Ave from Lemon Ave to Cypress Ct.
Ground Cover area: 4,463 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,375 square feet
A-33 The parkway on the east side of London Ave from 158 feet north of Banyan St to 310 feet north of Banyan St.
Ground Cover area: 1,029 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,160 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 9 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-34 The south side of Alta Loma Dr from Mayberry Ave to Revere Ave.
Ground Cover area: 2,772 square feet
A-35 The west side of Hermosa Ave from Lemon Ave to 125 feet north of Highland Ave, the parkway on the south side of Lemon Ave from 621 feet west of Hermosa Ave to Hermosa Ave.
Ground Cover area: 10,494 square feet
Hardscape area: 9,207 square feet
Mulchscape area: 2,370 square feet
A-36 The south side of Lemon Ave from 385 feet west of Mayberry Ave to Cartilla Ave.
Ground Cover area: 4,850 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,915 square feet
A-37 The south side of Hillside Rd north and south of the equestrian trail from Beryl St to 203 feet east of Eastwood Ave.
Ground Cover area: 4,900 square feet
A-38 The median in the 9200 block of Monte Vista St.
Ground Cover area: 500 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,380 square feet
A-39 The south side of Almond St from Henry St to Sapphire St. The west side of Sapphire St from Almond St to 255 feet south of Bella Vista Dr.
Ground Cover area: 6,926 square feet
A-40 The parkway on the east side of Jasper St from Hunter Dr to Highland Ave. The parkway on the south side of Highland Ave from Jasper St to Carnelian St. The west side of Carnelian St from Highland Ave to 210 feet south of Highland Ave.
Ground Cover area: 14,858 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,040 square feet
A-41 The west side of Sapphire St from 236 feet north of Thoroughbred St to Banyan St.
Ground Cover area: 1,784 square feet
Hardscape area: 812 square feet
A-42 The parkway on the west side of Beryl St from 132 feet north of Sunflower St to Banyan St.
Ground Cover area: 4,735 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,772 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 10 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-43 The north side of Base Line Rd from Topaz St to the Cucamonga Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 4,563 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,890 square feet
A-44 The cutouts on the west side of Sapphire St from Banyan St to Marble Ave.
Ground Cover area: 7,300 square feet
A-45 The mainline for this site was connected to A-46 on September 8, 1999.
A-46 The south side of Banyan St from Northstar Pl to Zircon Ave.
Ground Cover area: 7,448 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,890 square feet
A-47 The cutouts and vines on the north side of Banyan St from 180 feet east of Zircon Ave to 186 feet west of Vineyard Ave.
Ground Cover area: 1,300 square feet
A-48 The parkway on the west side of Beryl St from 452 feet north of Cielito St; 158 feet south of Cielito St and the easement between 9063 and 9073 Cielito St from Cielito St to 170 feet south of Cielito St.
Ground Cover area: 6,916 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,440 square feet
A-49 The east side of Carnelian St from 662 feet south of Banyan St to Banyan St; the south side of Banyan St from Carnelian St to Northstar Pl.
Ground Cover area: 5,906 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,972 square feet
A-50 The north side of Almond St from Sapphire St to Crestview Pl; the east and west side of Skyline Rd from Almond St to 595 feet north of Almond St.
Ground Cover area: 17,600 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,680 square feet
A-51 The planter adjacent to the equestrian trail; from Haven Ave to Riverwood Pl, north of County flood retention basin, west of Chaffey College. The west side of Haven Ave from 400 feet north of Amber Ln to 270 feet south of Amber Ln, and the north and south side of Amber Ln from Haven Ave to San Felipe Ct.
Ground Cover area: 37,977 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,458 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 11 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-52 The east side of Riverwood Pl, from 188 feet south of Charwood Ct to 193 feet north of Charwood Ct.
Ground Cover area: 2,750 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,698 square feet
A-53 The west side of Jasper St from Hunter Dr to Highland Ave. The south side of Highland from Jasper St to 308 feet west of Sard St. The east and west side of Sard St from Highland Ave to Hunter Dr.
Ground Cover area: 7,445 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,740 square feet
A-54 The west side of Beryl St from 233 feet north of Mignonette St to Mignonette St.
Ground Cover area: 2,637 square feet
Hardscape area: 932 square feet
A-55 The north side of 19th St from Cartilla Ave to Mayberry Ave. The east side of Mayberry Ave from 19th St to Heather St.
Ground Cover area: 8,410 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,060 square feet
A-56 The east side of Beryl St from 410 feet north of Wilson Ave to Wilson Ave. The north side of Wilson Ave from Beryl St to 731 feet west of Buckthorn Ave. The south side of Wilson Ave from Buckthorn Ave to Beryl St.
Ground Cover area: 19,708 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,436 square feet
A-57 The east side of Hermosa Ave from 115 feet north of Coca St to 451 feet north of Coca St. The trail north of water retention basin from Hermosa Ave to 619 feet east of Hermosa Ave.
Ground Cover area: 9,406 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,794 square feet
A-58 The west side of Haven Ave from 510 feet south of Victoria St to 1005 feet south of Victoria St.
Ground Cover area: 7,301 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,790 square feet
A-59 The east side of Archibald Ave from 820 feet south of Lemon Ave to 448 feet south of Lemon Ave and continues from 275 feet south of Lemon Ave to 185 south of Lemon Ave.
Ground Cover area: 4,777 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,041 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 12 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-60 The south side of Lemon Ave from 290 feet east of Archibald Ave to London Ave. The west side of London Ave from Lemon Ave to Orange St.
Ground Cover area: 2,569 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,122 square feet
A-61 The north side of Carrari St from London Ave to Archibald Ave.
Ground Cover area: 25,152 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,698 square feet
A-62 The east side of Archibald Ave from Carrari St to 505 feet north of Meadowood Dr.
Ground Cover area: 8,626 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,824 square feet
A-63 The south side of Almond St from Carriage Rd to Almond St.
Ground Cover area: 3,342 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,600 square feet
A-64 The east side of Beryl St from Cottonwood Way to Wilson Ave. The south side of Wilson Ave from Beryl St to 437 feet east of Beryl St. The north side of Wilson Ave from Cousins Pl to 474 feet east of Cousins Pl.
Ground Cover area: 11,973 square feet
Hardscape area: 9,949 square feet
A-65 The east side of Archibald Ave from La Gloria Dr to 328 feet north of La Gloria Dr.
Ground Cover area: 2,279 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,411 square feet
A-66 The east side of Hermosa Ave from Waterford Ln to 500 feet north of Waterford Ln.
Ground Cover area: 4,695 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,947 square feet
A-67 The south side of 19th St from 220 feet east of Sapphire St to Via Serena.
Ground Cover area: 3,208 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,158 square feet
A-68 The west side of Haven Ave from Hillside Rd to 783 feet south of Hillside Rd.
Ground Cover area: 3,492 square feet
A-69 The north side of Hillside Rd from 27 feet west of Mayberry Ave to 191 feet west of Mayberry Ave.
Ground Cover area: 1,002 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,605 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 13 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
A-70 The south side of 19th St from 365 feet west of Amethyst Ave to Amethyst Ave. The west side of Amethyst Ave from 19th to Hedges Dr.
Ground Cover area: 6,435 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,015 square feet
A-71 The west side of Archibald Ave from Hillside Rd to Wilson Ave. The north side of Wilson Ave, south of the trail fence area from Archibald Ave to 467 feet west of Archibald Ave.
Ground Cover area: 9,265 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,609 square feet
A-72 The south side of Banyan St from 420 feet west of Archibald Ave to Archibald Ave. The west side of Archibald Ave from Banyan St to 389 feet south of Banyan St.
Ground Cover area: 10,270 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,673 square feet
A-73 The west side of Beryl St from 300 feet north of San Simeon Dr to 130 feet north of San Simeon Dr.
Ground Cover area: 1,200 square feet
Hardscape area: 600 square feet
A-74 The south side of Highland Ave from Beryl St to Hellman Ave.
Ground Cover area: 11,603 square feet
A-75 The south side of Highland Ave from Amethyst Ave to 612 feet east of Archibald Ave.
Ground Cover area: 106,409 square feet
Hardscape area: 60,608 square feet
A-76 The west side of Archibald Ave from 635 feet north of Hillside Rd to Hillside Rd. The north side of Hillside Rd from Archibald Ave to 770 feet west of Archibald Ave.
Ground Cover area: 8,859 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,389 square feet
A-77 The east side of Carnelian St from Brilliant Ln to Wilson Ave including the irrigation cut- outs along trail. The south side of Wilson Ave from Carnelian St to 745 feet east of Arabian Dr. The irrigation cut-outs on the north side of Wilson Ave from Carnelian St to 775 feet east of Arabian Dr.
Ground Cover area: 5,101 square feet
Hardscape area: 11,322 square feet
B-1 The median on Blue Gum Dr from Etiwanda Ave to Blue Gum Dr.
Ground Cover area: 5,100 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 14 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
B-2 The north side of Highland Ave from the Deer Creek Channel to San Benito Ave. The north side of 19th St from San Benito Ave to Palm Dr. The west and east side of Alameda Ave from 19th St to Ring Ave. The east side of Palm Dr from 19th St to Ring Ave.
Ground Cover area: 47,397 square feet
Hardscape area: 26,285 square feet
B-3 The paseo from Sutter Ct to Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 294 square feet
Hardscape area: 400 square feet
B-4 The north side of Banyan St from Deer Creek Channel to 355 feet west of Fredericksburg Ave.
Ground Cover area: 9,200 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,834 square feet
B-5 The north side of Lemon Ave from Semillion Pl to 188 feet west of Terracina Ave.
Ground Cover area: 14,472 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,894 square feet
B-6 The north side of Lemon Ave from Barsac Pl to Semillion Pl.
Ground Cover area: 15,784 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,780 square feet
B-7 The south side of Banyan St from Cabernet Pl to 414 feet east of Cabernet Pl.
Ground Cover area: 18,814 square feet
B-8 The south side of Banyan St from Callaway Pl to Muscat Pl.
Ground Cover area: 10,505 square feet
B-9 The east side of Haven Ave from Banyan St to 240 feet north of Banyan St. The north side of Banyan St from Haven Ave to Merlot Ct.
Ground Cover area: 24,975 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,356 square feet
B-10 The east side of Haven Ave from 400 feet south of Banyan St to Banyan St. The south side of Banyan St from Haven Ave to Callaway Pl.
Ground Cover area: 14,548 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,348 square feet
B-11 The south side of Banyan St from Muscat Pl to Cabernet Pl.
Ground Cover area: 33,282 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 15 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
B-12 The north side of Lemon Ave from Barsac Pl to 135 feet east of Valinda Ave.
Ground Cover area: 13,464 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,098 square feet
B-13 The south side of 19th St from Inyo Pl to 585 feet east of San Benito Ave. The parkways on the east and west side of San Benito Ave from 19th St to San Mateo Pl. The east side of Inyo Pl from 19th St to paseo south of 19th St and the paseo running east from Inyo Pl to Sonora Ave.
Ground Cover area: 20,950 square feet
Hardscape area: 14,192 square feet
B-14 The paseo from San Benito Ave and Sonora Ave to the Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 2,000 square feet
Hardscape area: 540 square feet
B-15 The paseo from Stanislaus Pl and La Vine St to the Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 1,040 square feet
Hardscape area: 428 square feet
B-16 The paseo from Inyo Pl to Mendocino Pl.
Ground Cover area: 225 square feet
Hardscape area: 184 square feet
B-17 The paseo from Yuba Ct to Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 918 square feet
Hardscape area: 420 square feet
B-18 The south side of Wilson Ave from 377 feet west of Canistel Ave to 1032 feet east of Canistel Ave.
Ground Cover area: 6,762 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,454 square feet
B-19 The east side of Haven Ave from the Southern Pacific Railroad to 341 feet south of Victoria St.
Ground Cover area: 6,415 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,865 square feet
B-20 The east side of Haven Ave from 341 feet south of Victoria St to Victoria St; the south side of Victoria St from Haven Ave to 237 feet east of Mango St.
Ground Cover area: 16,900 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,767 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 16 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
B-21 The south side of 19th St from Valinda Ave to Inyo Pl.
Ground Cover area: 3,900 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,700 square feet
B-22 The south side of Lemon Ave south of the sidewalk from 188 feet west of Terracina Ave to 284 feet north of Marbella Dr. The parkway on the south side of Lemon Ave from 188 feet west of Terracina Ave to 517 feet north of Marbella Dr. The turf in the parkway at the end of the cul-de-sac on Sonterra Ct. The parkway on the north side of Lemon Ave from 188 feet west of Terracina Ave to 526 feet south of Terracina Ave. The north side of Lemon Ave north of the sidewalk from 188 feet west of Terracina Ave to 562 feet south of Terracina Ave. The turf in the parkway at the end of the cul-de-sac at Serena Pl.
Ground Cover area: 17,688 square feet
Turf area: 6,390 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,928 square feet
B-23 The parkway on the east side of Lemon Ave from 129 feet south of Marbella Dr to 526 feet south of Terracina Ave. The slope on the east side of Lemon Ave east of the sidewalk from 129 feet south of Marbella Dr to 562 feet south of Terracina Ave. The west side of Lemon Ave west of the sidewalk from 284 feet north of Marbella Dr to 129 feet south of Marbella Dr. The parkway on the west side of Lemon Ave from 517 feet north of Marbella Dr to 129 feet south of Marbella Dr.
Ground Cover area: 22,531 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,468 square feet
B-24 The south side of Highland Ave from 327 feet west of Deer Creek Channel to Deer Creek Channel. The paseo from Los Osos Way to Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 4,946 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,099 square feet
B-25 The south side of Banyan St from 152 feet west of Cantabria Ave to 930 feet east of Cantabria Ave.
Ground Cover area: 16,693 square feet
B-26 The north side of Wilson Ave from 590 feet west of High Meadow Pl to 187 feet east of High Meadow Pl.
Ground Cover area: 4,628 square feet
Hardscape area: 390 square feet
B-27 The east side of Haven Ave from 467 feet north of 19th St to 650 feet north of 19th St.
Ground Cover area: 3,483 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,235 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 17 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
C-1 The north side of 26th St from Andover Pl to Hermosa Ave. The east side of Hermosa Ave from 26th St to 331 feet north of Concord Dr.
Ground Cover area: 22,227 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,532 square feet
C-2 The entry monument on the northeast and northwest corners of 4th St and Archibald Ave.
Ground Cover area: 6,337 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,998 square feet
C-3 The south side of Base Line Rd from Ramona Ave to 128 feet east of Cambridge Ave.
Ground Cover area: 17,262 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,865 square feet
C-4 The south side of Base Line Rd from 440 feet west of Ramona Ave to Ramona Ave.
Ground Cover area: 6,198 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,200 square feet
C-5 The south side of Base Line Rd from 340 feet west of Center Ave to 103 feet east of Center Ave.
Ground Cover area: 8,850 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,215 square feet
C-6 The south side of Base Line Rd from Ivy Ln to 105 feet west of Marine Ave.
Ground Cover area: 8,080 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,475 square feet
C-7 The parkway on the north side of Church St from 142 feet east of Teak Way to 230 feet west of Teak Way.
Ground Cover area: 1,813 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,650 square feet
C-8 The west side of Hermosa Ave from 524 feet north of Palo Alto St to 142 feet south of Palo Alto St.
Ground Cover area: 2,650 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,996 square feet
C-9 The parkway on the west side of Hermosa Ave from 163 feet north of Ironwood St to 145 feet south of Ironwood St.
Ground Cover area: 1,500 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,848 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 18 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
C-10 The entry monument parkway on the south side of Base Line Rd from the western city limit to Alta Cuesta Dr.
Ground Cover area: 9,756 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,380 square feet
C-11 The parkway on the east side of Beryl St from Alder St to 135 feet north of Culpepper St.
Ground Cover area: 3,400 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,600 square feet
C-12 The parkway on the east side of Hellman Ave from Tryon St to 665 feet north of Tryon St.
Ground Cover area: 8,280 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,325 square feet
C-13 The parkway on the west side of Hellman Ave from 500 feet north of Church St to Church St.
Ground Cover area: 2,416 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,000 square feet
C-14 The east side of Archibald Ave from 196 feet north of Palo Alto St to 530 feet north of Palo Alto St.
Ground Cover area: 4,262 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,374 square feet
C-15 The north side of San Bernardino Rd from Summerlin Pl to 225 feet west of Summerlin Pl.
Ground Cover area: 1,660 square feet
Hardscape area: 710 square feet
C-16 The south side of Base Line Rd from 286 feet west of Hermosa Ave to Hermosa Ave.
The raised planter on the southwest corner of Base Line Rd and Hermosa Ave.
Ground Cover area: 4,190 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,320 square feet
C-17 The east side of Hellman Ave from 775 feet south of 6th St to 6th St. The south side of 6th St from Hellman Ave to Golden Oak Rd. The west side of Golden Oak Rd from 6th St to Foxbrook Dr.
Ground Cover area: 9,058 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,387 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 19 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
D-1 The east side of Rochester Ave from Church St to Base Line Rd.
Ground Cover area: 27,920 square feet
Hardscape area: 17,301 square feet
D-2 The east side of Rochester Ave from 146 feet south of Chervil St to Church St.
Ground Cover area: 21,858 square feet
Hardscape area: 13,263 square feet
D-3 The south side of Base Line Rd from Rochester Ave to 600 feet east of Rochester Ave.
Ground Cover area: 2,180 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,121 square feet
D-4 The north and south sides of Church St from Rochester Ave to 150 feet east of Hyssop Dr.
Ground Cover area: 6,340 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,887 square feet
D-5 The landscape along the Edison corridor from Arrow Rt. To Foothill Blvd.
Ground Cover area: 23,392 square feet
H-9 The Haven Ave median from the 210 freeway to Alta Loma Dr.
Ground Cover area: 2,207 square feet
H-10 The Haven Ave median from entrance of Haven Village to Amber Ln.
Ground Cover area: 6,968 square feet
Converted 5,131 square feet of turf to ground cover effective April 1, 2013. Area listed is the 50% maintained by LMD 1. An equal amount is maintained by General Fund as of March 25, 2013
H-11 The Haven Ave median from Amber Ln to Olive Way.
Ground Cover area: 5,026 square feet
Converted 3,475 square feet of turf to ground cover effective April 1, 2013. Area listed is the 50% maintained by LMD 1. An equal amount is maintained by General Fund as of March 25, 2013
H-12 The Haven Ave median from Olive Way to 712 feet north of Wilson Ave.
Ground Cover area: 6,734 square feet
Converted 3,933 square feet of turf to ground cover effective April 1, 2013. Area listed is the 50% maintained by LMD 1. An equal amount is maintained by General Fund as of March 25, 2013
H-13 The Haven Ave median from 19th St to the 210 freeway.
Ground Cover area: 12,514 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 20 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
FH-18 The Foothill Blvd median from East Ave to 453 feet east of Cornwall Ct.
Ground Cover area: 5,450 square feet
Parks, ground cover, shrubs and turf areas that make up parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company.
Map of Improvements
The following page shows the map of landscaping improvements, including irrigation sites and community trails, to be maintained using District funds.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 21 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 22 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The estimated costs of administration, maintenance, operations, and servicing the improvements as described in the Plans and Specifications are summarized below. Each year, as part of the District levy calculation process, the costs and expenses are reviewed and the annual costs are projected for the following fiscal year.
District Budget
Fiscal Year 2022/23 BudgetExpendituresPersonnel Services: Regular Salaries 18,720$ Part-time Salaries 11,940 Fringe Benefits 12,890 Subtotal - Personnel 43,550 Operations and Maintenance: Operations and Maintenance: O & M/General 83,750 O & M/Facilities 2,300 Emergency Equipment and Vehicle Rental 5,800 Equipment Operations and Maintenance 3,000 Subtotal - Operations and Maintenance 94,850 Contract Services: Contract Services/General 608,810 Contract Services/Facilities 7,410 Contract Vehicle Maintenance/Repair 2,000 Tree Maintenance 145,780 Subtotal - Contract Services 764,000 Utilities: Telephone Utilities 1,890 Water Utilities 380,530 Electric Utilities 42,100 Subtotal - Utilities 424,520 Assessment Administration 43,290 Admin./General Overhead 72,380 Other Expenses 660 Subtotal - Operations and Maintenance 1,399,700 Capital Expenditures: Captial Outlay - Equipment 7,130 Captial Outlay - Improvements Other Than Building 69,000 Captial Project 322,000 Subtotal - Capital Expenditures 398,130 Transfer Out: Transfer Out - LMD #1 Capital Reserve Fund 90,000 Total Expenditures Budget 1,931,380$
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 23 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
Fiscal Year2022/23 BudgetRevenuesTaxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies 1,256,110$ Anticipated Prior Year Delinquencies Collection 12,220 Subtotal - Taxes 1,268,330 Other Revenues: Interest Earnings 16,620 Other Rental/Lease Income 28,270 Park Maintenance Fees 3,050 Sports Field User Group Rentals 110 Sports Lighting Fees 9,730 Other Revenue 100 Subtotal - Other Revenues: 57,880 Transfer In: Transfer In - General Fund 64,290 Transfer In - LMD #1 Operating Fund 90,000 Transfer In - CFD Empire Lakes 49,040 Subtotal - Transfer In: 203,330 Total Revenues Budget 1,529,540
Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance (401,840)$
Total Gross Estimated Assessments 1,256,106.10$ Total District EBU Count 13,621.67Actual Assessment per EBU - Fiscal Year 2022/23 92.21$ Maximum Allowable Assement per EBU - Fiscal Year 2022/23 92.21$ The maximum allowable assessment per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) listed in the District budget above, is the amount which was approved in 1996/97 and subsequent District annexations. Each year, prior to the assessments being placed on the tax roll, the City will review the budget and determine the amount needed to maintain the improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The actual assessment per EBU will be based on the estimated costs of maintenance, available fund balance and maximum allowable assessment with the goal of maintaining the improvements in a satisfactory and healthy condition. The actual assessment amount may be lower than the maximum allowable assessment; however, it may not exceed the maximum unless the increase is approved by the property owners in accordance with Proposition 218.
It is the intent of the City to maintain an Operating Reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 of the fiscal year, or when the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2016/17 the City will maintain a Capital Reserve Fund to be used for deferred maintenance and pending capital projects. The reserve balance information for the District is as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 24 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
Operating Capital TotalReserve Reserve ReserveEstimated Reserve Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $1,306,447 $415,783 1,722,230$Contribution to/(Use of) Reserve - Fiscal Year 2022/23 (340,730) (61,110) (401,840)Estimated Reserve Fund Balance, June 30, 2023 $965,717 $354,673 1,320,390$ Definitions of Budget Items
The following definitions describe the costs and expenses included in the District Budget:
Personnel Services: This item includes the costs attributed to the salaries of all full-time and part-time employees dedicated to maintenance of the District improvements. Additionally, this includes benefits available to City employees.
Operations and Maintenance: This item includes the costs of City staff to perform maintenance duties within the boundaries of the District.
Contract Services: This item includes the contract costs of a landscape maintenance company responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the District improvements.
Utilities: This item includes the costs to furnish electricity, water, and telephone services, as required, for the operation and maintenance of the sprinklers and irrigation controllers in the District.
Assessment Administration: This item includes the cost of all particular departments and staff of the City, as well as consultants, for providing the administration, coordination and management of District services, operations, and incidental expenses related to the District. This item also includes creation of an annual Engineer's Report, resolutions and placing the assessment amounts onto the County tax roll each year, along with responding to any public inquiries and future Proposition 218 balloting proceedings.
General Overhead: This item includes the costs of all central services departments of the City for providing the coordination of District services, inspections, annual bid management, responding to public concerns, public education, accounting, auditing and procedural matters associated with the District. This item also includes an allocation for general City staff time for administrative functions and systems that provide for a functional and operational District within the City's administrative structure.
Capital Outlay: This item includes new improvements to further enhance the level and quality of service provided within the boundaries of the District. This may include new monuments, irrigation systems, and other large improvements.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 25 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
Other Revenues: This includes other revenues that are not levied through the annual assessments that support the District operations. These other revenues may include: interest earnings, other rental/lease income (cell site tower leases), Park Maintenance Fees, Sports Field User Group Rentals, and parking permits (Metrolink Station paid parking).
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Overview
Pursuant to the 1972 Act and Article XIII D, all parcels that have a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements and services shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of improvements.
The 1972 Act, permits the establishment of assessment districts for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping improvements.
Section 22573 of the 1972 Act requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 commencing with Section 5000) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].
Section 22547 of the 1972 Act also permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement." Article XIII D, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIII D also provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways.
The net amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels. Proposition 218, approved by
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 26 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
the voters in November 1996, requires the City to separate general benefit from special benefit, where only special benefit is assessed.
General Benefit
Section 4 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to impose assessments on property has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed, the local agency must next "separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred," and only the special benefits can be included in the amount of the assessments imposed.
In this District, the improvements being financed consists of the maintenance of local improvements located within the boundaries of the District and include paseos, street trees, landscaped areas, Parks - Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park, and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park and appurtenant facilities that are located throughout the General City and were installed to create a common landscape theme and neighborhood identity for parcels within the District. The improvements are situated within the public rights-of-way of the internal local street network within the General City which provides ingress and egress for parcels within the District to access the City’s system of arterial streets. City residents and traffic from parcels not within the District do not use the internal local street network or paseos except for the express purpose of accessing properties located within the District, and therefore do not benefit from the improvements. Only parcels which are within the District and proximate to the improvements and within the District are being assessed. Accordingly, there is a direct physical and visual nexus between each parcel being assessed and the improvements to be funded by the assessment that does not exist for parcels outside of the District boundary and that is particular and distinct from that shared by the public at large. Under these circumstances, all of the benefits conferred are direct and local in nature, and provide a benefit to only those parcels located within the boundaries of the District.
Based upon this, it has been determined that there is no quantifiable general benefit to the surrounding community and the public in general from the maintenance of the improvements within the boundaries of the District, and therefore no portion of the project costs should be attributed to general benefit.
Special Benefit
The maintenance and servicing of the improvements within the District (which are described in the Description of Improvements and Services Section of this report) are for the benefit of the properties within the District and, as such, confer a special and direct benefit to parcels within the District by:
improving the livability, appearance, and desirability for properties within the boundaries of the District, and
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 27 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
ensuring that improvements do not reach a state of deterioration or disrepair so as to be materially detrimental to properties within the District, and providing beautification, shade and overall enhancement to properties within the District.
The above mentioned items affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share. They contribute to a specific enhancement of the properties within the District. Since these improvements, including the community trails, were installed and are maintained specifically for the properties within the District, only properties within the District receive a special benefit and are assessed for said maintenance.
Method of Assessment Spread
Each of the parcels within the District is deemed to receive special benefit from the improvements.
Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the maintenance and operation of improvements is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire costs of the maintenance and operation of the improvements.
When the District was formed, Article XIII D and Proposition 218 had not yet been passed. Upon the passage of Article XIII D and the subsequent passage of the Proposition Omnibus Implementation Act, new rules were put into place. Due to the changes in legal requirements, as property annexed to the District after the passage of the Assessment Law, the description of the method of assessment became more refined; however, the assessment per parcel has remained the same since Fiscal Year 1996/97. Further, no parcel included in the District formation or annexations prior to when the language was refined are now being levied differently than they were at the time the District was formed or the parcels were annexed.
To assess special benefit appropriately, it is necessary to relate the different type of parcel improvements to each other. The EBU method of apportionment uses the single-family home as the basic unit of assessment.
A single-family home equals one EBU. Every other land-use is converted to EBUs based on an assessment formula that equates to the property's specific development status, type of development (land-use), and size of the property, as compared to a single-family home. The following table provides the weighting factors applied to various land-use types, as assigned by County use code, to determine each parcel's EBU assignment.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 28 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
Land-Use Equivalent Dwelling Units
Property Type (County Use Code) EBU Value Multiplier
Single Family Residential 1.00 Parcel
Multi-Family Residential 0.50 Unit
Non-Residential 2.00 Acre
The use of the latest County Assessor's Secured Roll shall be the basis for the Property Type determination and units/acreage assignments, unless better data is available to the City. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, the Property Type and EBU assignment shall be based on the correct parcel number and/or new parcel number(s) County use code and subsequent property information. If a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the EBU assignment and assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels will be recalculated rather than spread the proportionate share of the original assessment.
The following table summarizes the Fiscal Year 2022/23 maximum allowable assessment rates for the District:
Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate per EBU
Actual Assessment Rate per EBU Total Units/Acres Total EBUs Single Family Residential $92.21 $92.21 8,413.00 8,413.00 Multi-Family Residential 92.21 92.21 10,382.00 5,191.00 Non-Residential 92.21 92.21 8.83 17.67
The total amount of maintenance and incidental costs for maintaining the landscaping and community trail improvements is assessed to the individual parcels of real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received by such parcels of real property. The proposed individual assessments are shown on the assessment roll in this report.
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
An Assessment Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the San Bernardino County Assessor Office, at the time this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Engineer's Report.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 29 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 30 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 1
ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ANNEXATIONS
Assessment Roll
The assessment roll is a listing of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2022/23 apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino.
The following table summarizes the Fiscal Year 2022/23 actual assessments for the District:
Property Type (County Use Code)
Actual
Assessment
Rate Per EBU
Total Units/
Acres Total EBUs Total Assessment
Single-family Residential $92.21 8,413.00 8,413.00 $775,762.73 Multi-family Residential 92.21 10,382.00 5,191.00 478,714.02 Non-residential 92.21 8.83 17.67 1,629.35
Total 18,803.83 13,621.67 $1,256,106.10
A copy of the full assessment roll is available for review in the City Clerk's office.
Annexations
The following annexations are effective for Fiscal Year 2022/23:
APN Annexation Date Project Name Total Units/Acres Total EBUS Property Type 1077-881-13 02/03/21 DRC2016-00593 92.00 46.00 Multi-family Res 0201-182-33 02/03/21 PMT2020-04723 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 0201-163-05 04/21/21 PMT2020-05213 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 1061-351-11 04/21/21 PMT2020-03289 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 1074-451-12 04/21/21 PMT2020-04586 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 1062-131-28 08/04/21 PMT2021-00438 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 0209-101-08 11/03/21 PMT2021-01562 1.00 1.00 Single-family Res 0208-091-44 11/03/21 SUBTPM20101 3.00 3.00 Single-family Res
ATTACHMENT 2
Annual Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2022/23
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Landscape Maintenance District No. 2
(Victoria Neighborhood Parks)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Landscape Maintenance District No. 2
(Victoria Neighborhood Parks)
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: 909.477.2700
Fax: 909.477.2845
CITY COUNCIL
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem
Ryan A. Hutchison, Council Member
Kristine D. Scott, Council Member
CITY STAFF
John R. Gillison, City Manager
Lori E. Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer William Wittkopf, Public Works Director
Noah Daniels, Finance Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENGINEER’S LETTER 1
INTRODUCTION 3
Reason for Assessment 3
Process for Annual Assessment 3
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4
Description of the Boundaries of the District 4
Description of Improvements and Services 4
Map of Improvements 22
ESTIMATE OF COSTS 24
District Budget 24
Definitions of Budget Items 26
BENEFITS FROM IMPROVEMENTS AND QUANTIFICATION 27
Benefits from Improvements 27
Quantification of Benefit 29
Sidewalks and Community Trails 30
Street Landscaping 32
Neighborhood Parks 37
Collective General Benefit 39
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 39
Overview 39
Apportioning of Special Benefit 40
Rate per Benefit Unit 47
Method of Assessment Spread 47
Applying the Method of Assessment Spread 47
Proposed Maximum Assessment Rates 50
Cost of Living Inflator 50
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 51
ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ANNEXATIONS 53
Assessment Roll 53
Annexations 53
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
ENGINEER’S LETTER
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”), under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”) adopted its Resolution No. 2022-081, a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Levy of Annual Assessments Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Neighborhood Parks) (hereafter, referred to as the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the Resolution Initiating Proceedings directed staff to prepare and file an Annual Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 pursuant to the requirements of the 1972 Act.
The Annual Engineer’s Report presents the plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, a diagram for the District showing the area and properties proposed to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations and servicing of the improvements, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefit received; and NOW THEREFORE, the following assessment is proposed to be authorized in order to pay the estimated costs of maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the proposed assessment.
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Budget
Expenditures
Personnel Services 987,310$
Operations and Maintenance 3,202,990
Capital Expenditures 2,140,240
Total Expenditures Budget 6,330,540
Revenues
Taxes:
Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies 3,846,420 Anticipated Prior Year Delinquencies Collection 27,410
Subtotal - Taxes 3,873,830
Other Revenues 30,760
Transfer In 318,570
Total Revenues Budget 4,223,160
Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance (2,107,380)$
Total District EBU Count 81,554.33
Actual Assessment per EBU 47.18$
Maximum Allowable Assessment per EBU 51.18$
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
In making the assessments contained herein pursuant to the 1972 Act:
1. I have identified all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them from the improvement described in the Special Benefit Section of this Annual Engineer’s Report (the “Specially Benefited Parcels”). For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram, a copy of which is included in this Annual Engineer’s Report.
2. I have evaluated the costs and expenses of the improvements upon the Specially Benefited Parcels. In making such evaluation:
a. The proportionate special benefit derived by each Specially Benefited Parcel from the improvements was determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance costs of the improvements;
b. No assessment has been imposed on any Specially Benefited Parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on such parcel from the improvements; and
c. Any general benefits from the improvements have been separated from the special benefits and only special benefits have been assessed.
I, the undersigned, respectfully submit the enclosed Annual Engineer’s Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I certify that the Annual Engineer’s Report and Assessment Diagram included herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Assessment Law. __________________________________________________________ Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
INTRODUCTION
Reason for Assessment
Approval of the assessment covered by this Engineer’s Report will generate the revenue necessary to:
Provide for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements described in this Engineer’s Report. Maintenance may include but is not limited to, all of the following: the upkeep, repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement or facility such as paseos, community trails, fencing and irrigation systems, and providing for the growth, vigor and care of the trees and landscape plant materials. Servicing means the furnishing of electricity, gas or other illuminating energy for the lighting of landscape or appurtenant facilities. This shall also include material, vehicle, equipment, capital improvements and administrative costs associated with the annual administration and operation of the District.
Process for Annual Assessment
The City cannot levy and collect annual assessments within the District without complying with the procedures specified in the 1972 Act. On an annual basis, an Engineer’s Report must be prepared which contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
The City Council must also adopt a resolution of intention which:
Declares the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within the District for the fiscal year stated therein.
Generally describes the existing and proposed improvements and any substantial changes proposed to be made in existing improvements.
Refers to the District by its distinctive designation and indicate the general location of the District.
Refers to the Engineer’s Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
Gives notice of the time and place for public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the proposed assessment.
States whether the assessment is proposed to increase from the previous year.
If the assessments are to be levied in the same or lesser amounts than the maximum assessment amount approved, the City Clerk shall give notice by causing the resolution of intention to be published. Any interested person may, prior to the conclusion of the public
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 4 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
hearing, file a written protest which shall state all grounds of objection. The protest shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the property owner filing the protest.
During the course or upon conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report, including the improvements, to the zones within the District, and the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment.
The City Council, upon conclusion of the public hearing must then adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment, either as originally proposed or as changed by it. The adoption of the resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year referred to in the assessment.
If the assessment to be levied exceeds the maximum assessment amount previously approved, the City must comply with the procedures specified in Article XIII D and Proposition 218. The voters in the State of California in November 1996 added Article XIII D to the California Constitution imposing, among other requirements, the necessity for the City to conduct an assessment ballot procedure to enable the owners of each property on which assessments are proposed to be enacted or increased, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to the proposed assessment or increase in such assessment.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The District provides for the administration, maintenance, operations, and servicing of various improvements located within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District.
Description of the Boundaries of the District
The District is located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California. The boundaries of the District are generally described as that area located south of the 210 Freeway, west of Etiwanda Ave, southwest of the I-15 Freeway, and east of Haven Ave, also known as the Victoria Neighborhood Parks and Landscape Maintenance District, and are more particularly in the diagram of the District included herein.
Reference is also made to the Assessment Diagram included in this Report.
Description of Improvements and Services
The improvements located in and serviced and maintained by the District generally include: the landscaping and associated landscape lighting and irrigation systems installed along the roadways, medians, and community trails; sidewalks; and six neighborhood parks that are of direct and special benefit to the parcels within the District. These improvements are located within the public right-of-ways and dedicated public easements which are within the boundaries of the District. The landscaping maintenance includes, but is not limited to, pruning, fertilizing, mowing, weeding, pest control, removal of trash/debris/graffiti, and irrigation of the trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, and turf. Maintenance of associated improvements, including the
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 5 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
parks and irrigation systems, includes but is not limited to, the upkeep, repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of the improvement or facility; grading and replacement of trail surfacing; trail fence repair and replacement; and irrigation systems control, adjustment, repair and replacement. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of landscaping, the furnishing of electricity, gas or other illuminating energy for the lighting of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. This shall also include materials, vehicles, equipment, capital improvements and administrative costs associated with the annual administration and operation of the District. Services include personnel, materials, contracting services, utilities, and all necessary costs associated with the maintenance, replacement and repair required to keep the improvements in a healthy, vigorous and satisfactory condition. In addition, it is the City’s intention to continue to use cost effective materials, including the future ability to replace landscaping with drought resistant or low water use plants, in order to lower expenses of the District. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows:
Parks: Ellena Park, Kenyon Park, Victoria Arbors Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park, and Windrows Park
Site # Descriptive Location
2-1 The west side of Arbor Ln from the traffic circle to Church St. The Arbor Ln median from Church St to the traffic circle. The east side of Arbor Ln from Long Meadow Dr to Church St. The paseo from the west side of Arbor Ln to Day Creek Blvd. The paseo from the west side of Arbor Ln to Saintsbury Pl. The north side of Winery Dr from Arbor Ln to 214 feet west of Arbor Ln. The south side of Long Meadow Dr from Freestone Ct to Duck Creek Pl.
Ground Cover area: 93,639 square feet
Hardscape area: 59,041 square feet
2-2 The northwest corner of Day Creek Blvd and Church St. The north side of Church St from Day Creek Blvd to 1,152 feet west of Hess Pl. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Dry Creek Dr. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Pineridge Pl. The west side of Hess Pl from the north side of Church St to Dry Creek Dr. The south side of Church St from 145 feet east of Hyssop Dr to 896 feet east of Hyssop Dr.
Ground Cover area: 24,018 square feet
Hardscape area: 26,617 square feet
2-3 The west side of Day Creek Blvd from 250 feet north of Appellation Dr to Church St.
The east side of Day Creek Blvd from Church St to Madrigal Pl. The Day Creek Blvd median from Church St to Base Line Rd. The south side of Madrigal Pl from Day Creek Blvd to Round Hill Pl.
Ground Cover area: 35,420 square feet
Hardscape area: 42,671 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 6 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
2-4 Victoria Park Ln from Base Line Rd to the east entrance of Victoria Arbor Park. The southwest corner of Victoria Park Ln and Base Line Rd. The southeast corner of Victoria Park Ln to 445 feet east of Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 36,482 square feet
Turf area: 3,874 square feet
Hardscape area: 32,927 square feet
2-5 The east and west side of Victoria Park Ln and the medians from Mosaic Dr to Church St.
Ground Cover area: 56,358 square feet
Hardscape area: 20,390 square feet
2-6 The north side of Church St from Arbor Ln to Day Creek Blvd. The northwest corner of Church St and Arbor Ln. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Wilson Creek Dr.
Ground Cover area: 21,616 square feet
Hardscape area: 15,159 square feet
2-7 The north side of Church St from Victoria Park Ln to Arbor Ln. The northwest corner of Victoria Park Ln and Church St. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Elk Cove Ct. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Freestone Ct. The northeast corner of Arbor Ln and Church St.
Ground Cover area: 16,609 square feet
Hardscape area: 13,730 square feet
2-8 The paseo from the west side of Etiwanda Ave to Silver Rose Ct. The north side of Church St from Etiwanda Ave to Victoria Park Ln. The east side of Iron Horse Pl from Church St to Wild Horse Pl. The paseo from the north side of Church St to Cloudy Bay Ct. The medians from Iron Horse Pl to Etiwanda Ave.
Ground Cover area: 35,122 square feet
Hardscape area: 28,473 square feet
2-9 The landscaped slope behind existing landscape of site 2-5 on the west side of Victoria Park Ln from 475 feet north of Long Meadow Dr to Long Meadow Dr. The landscape slope and curb adjacent parkway from Victoria Park Ln to 685 feet west of Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 26,213 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,617 square feet
VW-1 Base Line Rd median from Victoria Park Ln to 830 feet west of Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 4,514 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,474 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 7 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VW-2 The north side of Base Line Rd 300 feet east and 200 feet west of Swanson Pl. The east and west sides of Swanson Pl from Base Line Rd to Province St. The paseo from the intersection of Swanson Pl and Province St to Atwood St with outlet to Dunmore Pl. The paseo from Atwood St to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The north side of Saratoga St from Powell Pl to Dunmore Pl. The paseo from Saratoga St to Etiwanda Ave. The south side of Atwood St from Victoria Park Ln to Travis Pl. The north side of Atwood St from Walcott Pl to Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 18,753 square feet
Turf area: 73,931 square feet
Hardscape area: 22,615 square feet
VW-3 The Victoria Park Ln median and the west and east side parkways from Base Line Rd to the entrance to Victoria Village.
Ground Cover area: 27,090 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,214 square feet
VW-4 The Victoria Park Ln median and the west and east side parkways from Victoria Village entrance to Atwood St.
Ground Cover area: 40,937 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,428 square feet
VW-5 The Victoria Park Ln median and the west side and east side parkways from Atwood St to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 49,513 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,467 square feet
VW-6 The paseo running north from 12732 Farrington St to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 285 square feet
Hardscape area: 679 square feet
VW-7 The paseo running north from 12840 Farrington St to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 266 square feet
Hardscape area: 552 square feet
VW-8 The Victoria Park Ln median and the west side parkway from the Southern Pacific Railroad to South Victoria Windrows Loop. The Victoria Park Ln east side parkway from the Southern Pacific Railroad to Zinnia Ct.
Ground Cover area: 40,548 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,150 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 8 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VW-9 The Victoria Park Ln east side parkway from Barberry St to North Victoria Windrows Loop at Windrows Park.
Ground Cover area:
Turf area:
40,004 square feet
11,779 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,720 square feet
VW-10 The west side of Victoria Park Ln from South Victoria Windrows Loop to Dahlia Ct.
The Victoria Park Ln median from Zinnia Ct to Dahlia Ct. The east side of Victoria Park Ln from North Victoria Windrows Loop at Windrows Park to Dahlia Ct.
Ground Cover area: 50,620 square feet
Turf area: 11,878 square feet
Hardscape area: 11,400 square feet
VW-11 The east side parkway on South Victoria Windrows Loop from Silktassel Dr to Victoria Park Ln. The parkway on the south side of Victoria Park Ln from the intersection of South Victoria Windrows Loop and North Victoria Windrows Loop to Dahlia Ct. The Victoria Park Ln median from the intersection of North and South Victoria Windrows Loop to Dahlia Ct. The parkway on the north side of Victoria Windrows Loop from the intersection of North and South Victoria Windrows Loop to Dahlia Ct.
Ground Cover area: 27,053 square feet
Turf area: 20,216 square feet
Hardscape area: 6,988 square feet
VW-12 The Victoria Park Ln median from the intersection of North and South Victoria Windrows Loop to 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd. The parkway on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from the intersection of North and South Victoria Windrows Loop to 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd. The parkway on the west side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Silverberry St to Victoria Park Ln. The parkway on the south side of Silverberry St from 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd to North Victoria Windrows Loop.
Ground Cover area: 166,249 square feet
Turf area: 21,603 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,868 square feet
VW-13 The parkway on the south side of Victoria Park Ln from 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd to South Victoria Windrows Loop. The west side of South Victoria Windrows Loop from Victoria Park Ln to Snapdragon St.
Ground Cover area: 20,068 square feet
Turf area: 16,476 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,200 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 9 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VW-14 The parkway on the west side of South Victoria Windrows Loop from Snapdragon St to Victoria Park Ln. The parkway on the north and south side of Sugar Gum St from South Victoria Windrows Loop to 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd. The parkways on the east and west sides of Basswood Pl from Sugar Gum St to Blazing Star Ct. The parkway on the north side of South Victoria Windrows Loop from Victoria Park Ln to Silktassel Dr.
Ground Cover area: 21,466 square feet
Turf area: 10,335 square feet
Hardscape area: 27,560 square feet
VW-15 The parkway on the north side of Bougainvillea Way from Peach Pl to North Victoria Windrows Loop. The parkway on the east side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Bougainvillea Way to Citrus Pl. The parkway on the north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Locus Ave and following that curb line to Silverberry St. The parkway on the north side of Silverberry St from North Victoria Windrows Loop 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd. The paseo from North Victoria Windrows Loop at Silverberry St to Nasturtium Dr. The paseo from North Victoria Windrows Loop at Locus Ave to Pistache St and continuing to Bougainvillea Way.
Ground Cover area: 45,929 square feet
Turf area: 12,207 square feet
Hardscape area: 23,630 square feet
VW-16 The south side of Highland Ave from 455 feet east of Day Creek Blvd to 534 feet east of Locus Ave. The east and west side of Locus Ave from Highland Ave to North Victoria Windrows Loop. The parkway on the south side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Citrus Pl east to Bougainvillea Way. The parkway on the north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Twinspur Pl to Locus Ave.
Ground Cover area: 26,577 square feet
Turf area: 23,922 square feet
Hardscape area: 19,203 square feet
VW-17 This site was modified and added to VW-16 on January 5, 1999.
VW-18 The south side of Highland Ave from 12583 Highland Ave to Rockrose Ave.
Ground Cover area: 2,800 square feet
Turf area: 8,515 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,325 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 10 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VW-19 The north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Rosemary Ct to Rockrose Ave.
The east side of Rockrose Ave from North Victoria Windrows Loop to Highland Ave.
The south side of Highland Ave from Rockrose Ave to Etiwanda Ave. The horse trail from Highland Ave and Etiwanda Ave to the Fire Station.
Ground Cover area: 21,027 square feet
Turf area: 32,266 square feet
Hardscape area: 11,298 square feet
VW-20 The parkway on the south side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Victoria Park Ln to Plum Way. The parkway on the west side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Plum Way to Rosemary Ct. The paseo from Tipu Pl east to the open field.
Note: The area in front of Windrows Park is watered by the VW-20 water meter, but it is maintained by City crews.
Ground Cover area: 2,110 square feet
Turf area: 16,411 square feet
Hardscape area: 9,132 square feet
VW-21 The east side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Rosemary Ct to the trail south of Kalmia St. The trail and paseo from North Victoria Windrows Loop south of Kalmia St to Etiwanda Ave and north to the Fire Station. The south side of Basil St from North Victoria Windrows Loop to Santolina Pl.
Ground Cover area: 49,187 square feet
Turf area: 36,461 square feet
Hardscape area: 19,600 square feet
Mulchscape: 21,071 square feet
VW-22 The paseo from North Victoria Windrows Loop at Rockrose Ave to the northeast corner of Windrows Park and from that corner to Plum Way.
Ground Cover area: 13,689 square feet
Turf area: 19,953 square feet
Hardscape area: 9,489 square feet
VW-23 The west side of Rockrose Ave from Highland Ave to North Victoria Windrows Loop.
The parkway on the north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Rockrose Ave to Twinspur Pl. The parkway on the south side of North Victoria Windrows Loop from Bougainvillea Way to Rosemary Ct.
Ground Cover area: 18,299 square feet
Turf area: 3,452 square feet
Hardscape area: 10,352 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 11 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VW-24 The Metropolitan Water District easement from Jasmine Ct and Ironbark Dr to Sweetgum Dr.
Ground Cover area: 475 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,730 square feet
VW-25 The north side of Base Line Rd from 384 feet west of Wanona Pl to Etiwanda Ave.
The west side of Etiwanda Ave from Base Line Rd to Craig Dr. The Base Line Rd median from Swanson Pl to Etiwanda Ave.
Ground Cover area: 20,934 square feet
Turf area: 3,079 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,799 square feet
VW-26 The paseo from Grape Pl to 630 feet west of Grape Pl.
Ground Cover area: 7,021 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,548 square feet
VW-27 The south side of Base Line Rd from 251 feet west of Swanson Pl to Etiwanda Ave.
The Base Line Rd median from Victoria Park Ln to Swanson Pl.
Ground Cover area: 18,816 square feet
Hardscape area: 17,233 square feet
VG-1 The turf and ground cover on the south side of Highland Ave from the Deer Creek Channel to Fairmont Way. The turf and ground cover from Highland Ave on the west side of Fairmont Way to Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover on the north side of Victoria Park Ln south of the horse trail from 475 feet east of Milliken Ave to Fairmont Way. The turf on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from 275 feet east of Milliken Ave to Fairmont Way. The turf in the parkway on the east side of Fairmont Way from Victoria Park Ln to Highland Ave.
Ground Cover area: 21,573 square feet
Turf area: 47,604 square feet
Hardscape area: 17,300 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 12 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-2 The turf on the east side of York Pl from Delaware St to Fairmont Way. The ground cover on the south side of Fairmont Way from York Pl and continuing on that curb line to Victoria Park Ln. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Victoria Park Ln west of Milliken Ave from Fairmont Way to Milliken Ave. The parkway on the west side of Milliken Ave from Victoria Park Ln to Fairmont Way. The Milliken Ave median from Fairmont Way to Victoria Park Ln. The turf on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from 273 feet west of Milliken Ave to Milliken Ave. The ground cover on the north side of Victoria Park Ln south of the horse trail from 468 feet west of Milliken Ave to Milliken Ave.
Ground Cover area: 53,416 square feet
Turf area: 49,587 square feet
Hardscape area: 20,173 square feet
VG-3 The turf and ground cover north of the sidewalk on the north side of Fairmont Way from Nova Ct continuing on that curb line to York Pl and the turf south of the sidewalk on the north side of Fairmont Way from Armstrong Pl continuing on that curb line to York Pl. The ground cover on the west side of York Pl from Fairmont Way to Delaware St and the ground cover on the east side of York Pl. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Fairmont Way from Emerson St continuing along that curb line to Armstrong Pl. The turf and ground cover on the east and west sides of Biola Pl.
Ground Cover area: 57,189 square feet
Turf area: 38,343 square feet
Hardscape area: 26,848 square feet
VG-4 The turf and ground cover on the south side of Fairmont Way from Armstrong Pl to Milliken Ave. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Milliken Ave from Fairmont Way to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The Milliken Ave median from Fairmont Way to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The ground cover on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad from Deer Creek Channel to Rochester Ave including the paseo to Baylor St. The ground cover on the north side of Fairmont Way from Milliken Ave to Nova Ct. The turf on the north side of Fairmont Way from Milliken Ave to Armstrong Pl.
Ground Cover area: 202,163 square feet
Turf area: 19,751 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,278 square feet
VG-5 The paseo from Biola Pl to Amarillo St to Delaware St at York Pl.
Ground Cover area: 12,448 square feet
Turf area: 44,896 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,992 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 13 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-6 The paseo beginning at the northeast corner of Victoria Groves Park and Fairmont Way and extending to the Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 73,442 square feet
Turf area: 74,778 square feet
Hardscape area: 16,629 square feet
VG-7 The paseo that begins on the south side of Donnelly St at Fairmont Way and continues to the Deer Creek Channel including the southward extension on the west side of Albright Pl from Donnelly St to Pacific and the paseo from Pacific to Charleston St.
Ground Cover area: 43,427 square feet
Turf area: 51,765 square feet
Hardscape area: 15,806 square feet
VG-8 The ground cover on the west side of Milliken Ave from 566 feet north of Victoria Park Ln to Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover and turf north of the horse trail on Victoria Park Ln from Milliken Ave to Fairmont Way. The ground cover on the east side of Fairmont Way from Victoria Park Ln to 156 feet north of Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 21,614 square feet
Turf area: 8,614 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,281 square feet
VG-9 The ground cover on the east side of Fairmont Way from 156 feet north of Victoria Park Ln to Kenyon Way. The ground cover on the south side of Kenyon Way from Fairmont Way to 197 feet east of Fairmont Way. The turf on the south side of Kenyon Way from Fairmont Way to 316 feet east of Fairmont Way. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Baltimore Dr from Fairmont Way to Baltimore Ct.
The turf and ground cover on the north side of Baltimore Dr from Fairmont Way to Vanderbilt Pl. The turf and ground cover on the east side of Vanderbilt Pl from Baltimore Dr to Brown Dr. The paseo from Vanderbilt Pl and Brown Dr to Kenyon Way.
Ground Cover area: 48,481 square feet
Turf area: 11,357 square feet
Hardscape area: 13,542 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 14 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-10 The ground cover on the south side of Kenyon Way from 197 feet east of Fairmont Way to Milliken Ave. The turf on the south side of Kenyon Way from 316 feet east of Fairmont Way to Milliken Ave. The ground cover on the west side of Milliken Ave from Kenyon Way to 566 feet north of Victoria Park Ln. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Capitol Pl from Brown Dr to Bethany Dr. The paseo from Capitol Pl and Brown Dr to Kenyon Way.
Ground cover area: 34,241 square feet
Turf area: 11,031 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,320 square feet
VG-11 The east and west side parkways and median of Milliken Ave from Base Line Rd to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The north side of Base Line Rd from 542 feet east of Milliken Ave to Milliken Ave.
Ground Cover area: 31,367 square feet
Turf area: 17,264 square feet
Hardscape area: 25,524 square feet
VG-12 The turf and ground cover on the south side of Fairmont Way from the southeast corner of Milliken Ave and Fairmont Way along the curb line to Victoria Park Ln. The turf and ground over on the west side of Fairmont Way from the southwest corner of Victoria Park Ln and Fairmont Way (located east of Milliken Ave) and continuing along the curb line to Milliken Ave. The turf on the east side of Milliken Ave from the Southern Pacific Railroad to 730 feet south of Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover on the east side of Milliken Ave from the Southern Pacific Railroad to 766 feet south of Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 53,068 square feet
Turf area: 36,431 square feet
Hardscape area: 27,004 square feet
VG-13 The paseos from Victoria Park Ln to Verona Dr, Verona Dr to Napoli Dr, and Genova Rd to Tivoli Pl.
Ground Cover area: 17,993 square feet
Turf area: 16,344 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,376 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 15 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-14 The Base Line Rd median from Milliken Ave to Ellena East. The turf and ground cover on the north side of Base Line Rd from Ellena East to Ellena West. The turf and ground cover on the east side of Ellena West from Base Line Rd and following the curb line to Kenyon Way. The north side of Ellena West from Kenyon Way to Casoli Pl. The turf and ground cover on both sides of Casoli Pl from Ellena West to Candela Dr. The turf and ground cover on both sides of Crema Pl from Ellena West to Candela Dr.
Ground Cover area: 89,456 square feet
Turf area: 62,999 square feet
Hardscape area: 44,826 square feet
VG-15 The turf and ground cover on the west side of Rochester Ave from the Southern Pacific Railroad to Base Line Rd. The turf and ground cover on the north side of Base Line Rd from Rochester Ave to Ellena East. The Base Line Rd Median from Rochester Ave to Ellena East. The turf and ground cover on the east side of Ellena East from Base Line Rd and continuing along that curb line to 275 feet north of Berra Rd. The turf and ground cover on both sides of Berra Rd from Ellena East to Comiso Way.
Ground Cover area: 58,588 square feet
Turf area: 57,306 square feet
Hardscape area: 36,014 square feet
VG-16 The paseo from Base Line Rd to Ellena West with entrances to Amelia Dr and Pavola Dr.
Ground Cover area: 9,661 square feet
Turf area: 11,529 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,804 square feet
VG-17 The paseo from Fairmont Way to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The paseo from Fabriano Pl to Martano Pl.
Ground Cover area: 35,351 square feet
Turf area: 40,291 square feet
Hardscape area: 16,394 square feet
VG-18 The paseo from Rapallo Dr to Gandino Dr and south to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 4,281 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,308 square feet
VG-19 The paseo from Tolentino Dr to Pizolli Pl and to Tolentino Dr.
Ground Cover area: 12,555 square feet
Turf area: 17,856 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,380 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 16 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-20 The turf on the east side of Milliken Ave from 730 feet south of Victoria Park Ln to Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover on the east side of Milliken Ave from 766 feet south of Victoria Park Ln to Victoria Park Ln. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Victoria Park Ln from the southeast corner at Milliken Ave heading east to Fairmont Way. The turf and ground cover on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from Parma Pl to the northeast corner of Milliken Ave and Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover on the west side of Parma Pl from Victoria Park Ln to Lomello Way. The Victoria Park Ln median from Milliken Ave to Pandino Ct. The Milliken Ave median from Victoria Park Ln to 440 feet south of Kenyon Way. The parkway on the west side of Milliken Ave from 420 feet south of Kenyon Way to Victoria Park Ln.
Ground Cover area: 96,750 square feet
Turf area: 77,461 square feet
Hardscape area: 22,177 square feet
VG-21 The ground cover on the east side of Parma Pl from Victoria Park Ln to Lomello Way.
The ground cover on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from Parma Pl to 653 feet east of Kenyon Way. The turf on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from Parma Pl to 547 feet east of Kenyon Way. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Victoria Park Ln from Fairmont Way to 422 feet east of Kenyon Way. The turf and ground cover on the east and west sides of Kenyon Way from Victoria Park Ln to the Southern Pacific Railroad. The paseo from Kenyon Way to Rapallo Dr. The paseo from Kenyon Way to Bari Dr. The Victoria Park Ln median from Pandino Ct to Portofino Dr.
Ground Cover area: 85,865 square feet
Turf area: 41,994 square feet
Hardscape area: 34,478 square feet
VG-22 The ground cover on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from 653 feet east of Kenyon Way to Rochester Ave. The turf on the north side of Victoria Park Ln from 547 feet east of Kenyon Way to Rochester Ave. The Victoria Park Ln median from Portofino Dr to Rochester Ave. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Victoria Park Ln north of the sidewalk from Kenyon Way to the east side of Vintage Park. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Victoria Park Ln from the east side of Vintage Park to Rochester Ave. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Rochester Ave from Victoria Park Ln to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 115,144 square feet
Turf area: 57,927 square feet
Hardscape area: 20,863 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 17 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-23 The turf and ground cover on the east side of Kenyon Way from Victoria Park Ln to 409 feet west of Grimaldi Rd. The ground cover on the south side of Portofino Dr from Kenyon Way to Bergano Pl. The turf and ground cover on the north and south side of Lark Dr from Kenyon Way to the west property line of Rancho Cucamonga High School. The ground cover on the east and west side of Matera Pl from Lark Dr to Pescara Rd. The ground cover on the north and south side of Grimaldi Rd from Kenyon Way to Brindisi Ct. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Kenyon Way from Lark Dr to Victoria Park Ln. The ground cover on the north and south side of Marcello Way from Kenyon Way to Landriano Pl. The paseo from southwest corner of Kenyon Park to Kenyon Way.
Ground Cover area: 63,733 square feet
Turf area: 82,565 square feet
Hardscape area: 39,297 square feet
VG-24 The north side of Kenyon Way from Autumn Glen Ct to Woodruff Pl. The east side of Woodruff Pl from Kenyon Way to 403 feet north of Kenyon Way.
Ground Cover area: 8,447 square feet
Turf area: 5,320 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,622 square feet
VG-25 The paseo west of Torino Rd from Kenyon Way to Highland Ave. The turf and ground cover on the south side of Highland Ave from the northwest corner of Tract 13440 to the east end of Tract 13440.
Ground Cover area: 40,800 square feet
Turf area: 24,134 square feet
Hardscape area: 14,353 square feet
VG-26 The paseo from Brindisi Ct to Messina Pl. The turf and ground cover on the north side of Brindisi Ct to the end of the cul-de-sac. The turf and ground cover on the west side of Messina Pl from the paseo to Treviso Way.
Ground Cover area: 18,905 square feet
Turf area: 1,141 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,615 square feet
VG-27 The Milliken Ave median from 440 feet south of Kenyon Way to Highland Ave. The parkway on the west side of Milliken Ave from 420 feet south of Kenyon Way.
Ground Cover area: 4,030 square feet
Turf area: 3,006 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,222 square feet
VG-28 The east side of Rochester Ave from Victoria Park Ln to Highland Ave.
Ground Cover area: 60,902 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,593 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 18 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-29 The north side of Kenyon Way from Milliken Ave to Fairmont Way. The groundcover on the east side of Fairmont Way, east of the sidewalk, from Kenyon Way to the 210 freeway.
Ground Cover area: 20,178 square feet
Turf area: 16,877 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,736 square feet
VG-30 The south side of Tresenda Dr from Santo Pl to Sappada Pl. The paseo from Sappada Pl to Carano Pl. The south side of Montella Dr from Carano Pl to Trivento Pl.
Ground Cover area: 6,797 square feet
Turf area: 2,462 square feet
Hardscape area: 4,860 square feet
VG-31 The east side of Brienza Pl from Larino Dr to Letini Dr. The west side of Tindari Pl from Letini Dr to Larino Dr. The greenbelt on the south side of Marconi Pl from Trivento Pl to Comiso Way. The east side of Comiso Way from Scalea Pl to Santo Pl.
Ground Cover area: 23,419 square feet
Turf area: 18,351 square feet
Hardscape area: 13,764 square feet
VG-32 The north side of Candela Dr from Terni Pl to Bettola Pl.
Ground Cover area: 20,172 square feet
Turf area: 8,190 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,292 square feet
VG-33 The paseo at the north end of Sapri Pl to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 894 square feet
Hardscape area: 318 square feet
VG-34 The paseo at the north end of Bronte Pl to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 894 square feet
Hardscape area: 318 square feet
VG-35 The east side of Rochester Ave from 555 feet south of Palmi Dr to Victoria Park Ln.
The south side of Victoria Park Ln and median from Rochester Ave to east side of Deer Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 53,646 square feet
Turf area: 11,150 square feet
Hardscape area: 17,555 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 19 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-36 The north side of Victoria Park Ln from the east side of Deer Creek Channel to Rochester Ave.
Ground Cover area: 55,780 square feet
Turf area: 10,500 square feet
Hardscape area: 8,004 square feet
VG-37 The paseo at the end of Ardmoor Ct to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 1,350 square feet
Hardscape area: 950 square feet
VG-38 The east side of Milliken Ave from 106 feet north of Victoria Park Ln to Kenyon Way.
The north and south side of Spring Mist Dr from Milliken Ave to Summerstone Ct. The south side of Kenyon Way from Milliken Ave to Kenyon Park.
Ground Cover area: 28,051 square feet
Turf area: 4,533 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,879 square feet
VG-39 The north side of Victoria Park Ln from Kenyon Way paseo to 132 feet east of Milliken Ave. The Kenyon Way paseo from Victoria Park Ln to Fairwinds Ct. The paseo from Victoria Park Ln to the south west corner of Kenyon Park.
Ground Cover area: 55,089 square feet
Turf area: 13,120 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,676 square feet
VG-40 The south side of Highland Ave from 413 feet west of Highland Ave paseo to Highland Ave paseo. The east side of Highland Ave paseo from Highland Ave to Kenyon Way.
The north side of Kenyon Way from Highland Ave paseo to Autumn Glen Ct.
Ground Cover area: 56,553 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,314 square feet
VG-41 The west side of Rochester Ave from 294 feet south of Highland Ave to Lark Dr. The north side of Lark Dr from Rochester Ave to 1230 feet west of Rochester Ave.
Ground Cover area: 31,413 square feet
Hardscape area: 13,338 square feet
VG-42 The south side of Highland Ave from 1,314 feet west of Rochester Ave to Rochester Ave. The west side of Rochester Ave from Highland Ave to 294 feet south of Highland Ave. The north side of Highland Ave from Rochester Ave to Woodruff Pl.
Ground Cover area: 40,346 square feet
Hardscape area: 15,445 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 20 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-43 The north side of Victoria Park Ln and the median from Day Creek Blvd to Day Creek Channel. The east and west side of Kensington Pl from Victoria Park Ln to Stratford Dr.
Ground Cover area: 70,669 square feet
Turf area: 7,888 square feet
Hardscape area: 18,426 square feet
VG-44 The west side of Day Creek Blvd from 572 feet north of Silverberry St to Day Creek Blvd. The south side of Silverberry St from Kensington Pl to Day Creek Blvd.
Ground Cover area: 36,835 square feet
Hardscape area: 24,376 square feet
VG-45 The west side of Milliken Ave and the Milliken Ave median from the 210 freeway to Kenyon Way.
Ground Cover area: 10,658 square feet
Turf area: 610 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,589 square feet
VG-46 The Base Line Rd median from 657 feet east of Virginia Pl to Rochester Ave. The north side of Base Line Rd from 278 feet east of Virginia Pl to Rochester Ave. The paseo from the northeast corner of Rochester Ave and Base Line Rd to Huntley Dr.
The east side of Rochester Ave from Base Line Rd to 105 feet north of Shenandoah Dr.
Ground Cover area: 35,823 square feet
Hardscape area: 23,645 square feet
VG-47 The north side of Base Line Rd from 400 feet east of Day Creek Blvd to Day Creek Blvd. Base Line Rd median from Day Creek Blvd to 595 feet east of Day Creek Blvd.
Ground Cover area: 9,515 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,926 square feet
VG-48 The east side of Day Creek Blvd and median from Base Line Rd to Victoria Park Ln.
The south side of Victoria Park Ln from Day Creek Blvd to 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd.
Ground Cover area: 50,318 square feet
Turf area: 3,234 square feet
Hardscape area: 29,217 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 21 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-49 The north side of Victoria Park Ln and median from 390 feet east of Day Creek Blvd to Day Creek Blvd. The east side of Day Creek Blvd from Victoria Park Ln to Highland Ave. The south side of Highland Ave from Day Creek Blvd to 440 feet east of Day Creek Blvd.
Ground Cover area: 51,459 square feet
Turf area: 3,930 square feet
Hardscape area: 32,296 square feet
VG-50 The west side of San Carmela Ct from 389 feet north of Base Line Rd to Base Line Rd. The north side of Base Line Rd from Carmela Ct to 264 feet west of Durness Pl.
Ground Cover area: 18,043 square feet
Hardscape area: 12,383 square feet
VG-51 The Paseo south of Saxon Dr to Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 1,398 square feet
Hardscape area: 969 square feet
VG-52 The north side of Sugar Gum St from Milliken Ave to Kensington Pl. The south side of Sugar Gum St from Milliken Ave to 111 feet east of Suffolk Pl.
Ground Cover area: 4,362 square feet
Hardscape area: 3,325 square feet
VG-53 The south side of Victoria Park Ln from 296 feet west of Kensington Pl to Milliken Ave.
The west side of Day Creek Blvd from Victoria Park Ln to 397 feet south of Sugar Gum St.
Ground Cover area: 28,532 square feet
Turf area: 11,070 square feet
Hardscape area: 7,720 square feet
VG-54 The east side of Rochester Ave from Shenandoah Dr to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 6,864 square feet
Hardscape area: 5,136 square feet
VG-55 The paseo north of Westhaven Pl to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Ground Cover area: 1,775 square feet
Hardscape area: 2,575 square feet
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 22 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
VG-56 The south side of Highland Ave from 1,317 feet west of Day Creek Blvd to 1,085 feet west of Day Creek Blvd including the non-irrigated slope on the south side of the sidewalk.
Ground Cover area: 5,274 square feet
Hardscape area: 1,761 square feet
VG-57 The north side of Highland Ave from Fairmont Way to the Day Creek Channel.
Ground Cover area: 16,157 square feet
Hardscape area: 17,405 square feet
VG-58 The south side of Kenyon Wy from the Kenyon Park paseo entrance to Lark Dr. The south side of Lark Dr. from 568 feet west of Kenyon Wy to Kenyon Wy. The paseo east of Kenyon Park from Kenyon Wy to the east/west paseo of site VG-23.
Ground Cover area: 24,072 square feet
Hardscape area: 9,807 square feet
Ground cover, shrubs and turf areas that make up parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews.
Map of Improvements
The following page shows the approximate location (for reference only – may not include all) of landscaping improvements, including irrigation sites, and parks and community trails to be maintained by the District.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 23 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 24 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The estimated costs of maintenance and servicing of the improvements as described in the Plans and Specifications are summarized below. Each year, as part of the District levy calculation process, the costs and expenses are reviewed and the annual costs are projected for the following fiscal year.
District Budget
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Budget
Expenditures
Personnel Services:
Regular Salaries 603,190$
Overtime Salaries 1,090
Part-time Salaries 62,900
Fringe Benefits 320,130
Subtotal - Personnel 987,310
Operations and Maintenance:
Operations and Maintenance:
O & M/General 90,300
Emergency Equipment and Vehicle Rental 200
Subtotal - Operations and Maintenance 90,500
Contract Services:
Contract Services/General 1,368,240
Tree Maintenance 263,320
Contract Vehicle Maintenance and Repair 5,000
Subtotal - Contract Services 1,636,560
Utilities:
Water Utilities 952,430
Electric Utilities 51,160
Subtotal - Utilities 1,003,590
Assessment Administration 24,760
Admin./General Overhead 364,420
Interfund Allocation 83,160
Subtotal - Operations and Maintenance 3,202,990
Capital Expenditures:
Captial Outlay - Equipment 28,790
Captial Outlay - Improvements Other Than Building 25,000 Captial Projects 2,086,450
Subtotal - Capital Expenditures 2,140,240
Total Expenditures Budget 6,330,540$
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 25 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
Fiscal Year
2022/23 Budget
Revenues
Taxes:
Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies 3,846,420$ Anticipated Prior Year Delinquencies Collection 27,410
Subtotal - Taxes 3,873,830
Other Revenues:
Interest Earnings 29,800
Park Maintenance Fees 960
Subtotal - Other Revenues: 30,760
Transfer In:
Transfer In - General Fund 318,570
Total Revenues Budget 4,223,160
Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance (2,107,380)$
Total Gross Estimated Assessments 3,847,733.29$
Total District EBU Count 81,554.33
Actual Assessment per EBU - Fiscal Year 2022/23 47.18$
Each year, prior to the assessments being placed on the tax roll, the City will review the budget and determine the amount needed to maintain the improvements for the upcoming fiscal year.
The actual assessment per Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”) will be based on the total amount of funds needed to maintain the improvements in a satisfactory and healthy condition. The actual assessment amount may be the same or lower than the maximum allowable assessment; however, it may not exceed the maximum after the application of the cost of living inflator, as defined in this report, unless the excess increase is approved by the property owners in accordance with Proposition 218.
It is the intent of the City to maintain an Operating Reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing of the improvements prior to December 10 of the fiscal year, or when the City expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the County, whichever is later. The reserve balance information for the District is as follows:
Operating Reserve
Estimated Reserve Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 4,043,122$ Contribution to/(Use of) Reserve - Fiscal Year 2022/23 (2,107,380) Estimated Reserve Fund Balance, June 30, 2023 1,935,742$
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 26 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
Definitions of Budget Items
The following definitions describe the costs and expenses included in the District Budget for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements:
Personnel Services: This item includes the costs attributed to the salaries of all full-time and part-time employees dedicated to maintenance of the District improvements. Additionally, this includes benefits available to City employees.
Operations and Maintenance: This item includes the costs of City staff to perform maintenance duties within the boundaries of the District.
Contract Services: This item includes the contract costs of a landscape maintenance company responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the District improvements.
Utilities: This item includes the costs to furnish electricity, water, and telephone services, as required, for the operation and maintenance of the sprinklers and irrigation controllers in the District.
Assessment Administration: This item includes the cost of all particular departments and staff of the City, as well as consultants, for providing the administration, coordination and management of District services, operations, and incidental expenses related to the District.
This item also includes creation of an annual Engineer's Report, resolutions and placing the assessment amounts onto the County tax roll each year, along with responding to any public inquiries and future Proposition 218 balloting proceedings.
General Overhead: This item includes the costs of all central services departments of the City for providing the coordination of District services, inspections, annual bid management, responding to public concerns, public education, accounting, auditing and procedural matters associated with the District. This item also includes an allocation for general City staff time for administrative functions and systems that provide for a functional and operational District within the City's administrative structure.
Capital Outlay: This item includes new improvements to further enhance the level and quality of service provided within the boundaries of the District. This may include new monuments, irrigation systems, and other large improvements.
Other Revenues: This includes other revenues that are not levied through the annual assessments that support the District operations. These other revenues may include: interest earnings, other rental/lease income (cell site tower leases), Park Maintenance Fees, Sports Field User Group Rentals, and parking permits (Metrolink Station paid parking).
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 27 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
BENEFITS FROM IMPROVEMENTS AND QUANTIFICATION
Benefits from Improvements
The improvements previously defined are expected to confer certain special benefits to parcels within the District. The benefits are described below.
Sidewalks and Community Trails
People walk for a variety of reasons, whether the reason is to commute to work or school, run errands, shop, leisure activities, fitness, or some other purpose. To enhance the overall walking experience, pedestrians seek out and utilize sidewalk facilities and community trails that are in close proximity to their property and provide a safe place to walk as well as an environment that provides a certain amount of visual interest. Sidewalks and community trails serve as a critical component in the transportation network providing users access to parks and recreational areas, schools, commercial areas, and neighbors. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sidewalks provide many benefits including safety, mobility and healthier communities (FHWA, n.d). Improved Aesthetics: A survey conducted by DMB (an Arizona based commercial developer) found that there was a strong demand for communities characterized by pedestrian access, a sense of connection, and a sense of community and diversity (Urban Land Institute, 2006). According to the Urban Land Institute report Creating Walkable Places: Compact Mixed-Use Solutions, people want their neighborhoods to provide more opportunities to walk (Urban Land Institute, 2006). A survey sponsored by the Surface Transportation Policy Project found that 55% of respondents would like to walk more, 63% would like to run errands on foot and walk to stores, and 79% would like sidewalks and other places to walk and exercise (Urban Land Institute, 2006). The continued maintenance of the inter-connecting sidewalks and community trails improves the livability and appeal for properties within the District. Increased Safety: According to the FHWA, sidewalks reduce roadway accidents, including pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents. In addition, roadways without sidewalks are more than twice as likely to have pedestrians involved in accidents compared to sites with sidewalks on both sides of the street (FHWA, n.d.). In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National Pedestrian Crash Report identified California as one of the states with the highest number of pedestrian deaths (NHTSA, 2008).
Economic Activity: Uniform and well-maintained sidewalk and community trail improvements create cohesion throughout the District. This cohesion enhances both the residential and retail experience as well as encourages maximum use of building and lot area. According to Active Living Research (2010), economic benefits of walkable developments include enhanced marketability and faster sales or leases than conventional development. The National Complete Streets Coalition notes that street
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 28 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
design that is inclusive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for and access to existing businesses, but also is a proven method for attracting new development (Pugliese, 2008).
Street Landscaping
The overall appeal and safety of an area is enhanced when landscaping improvements are in place and kept in a healthy and satisfactory condition. Conversely, appeal and safety decreases when landscaping is overgrown, unsafe or destroyed by the elements or vandalism. Improved Aesthetics: Street landscaping improvements improve the livability, commercial activity, appearance and desirability for properties within the boundaries of the District. Regular maintenance ensures that the improvements do not reach a state of deterioration or disrepair so as to be materially detrimental to properties adjacent to or in close proximity to the improvements within the District. According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011), streetscapes have a significant effect on how people view and interact with their community. With streetscapes that are safe and inviting, people are more likely to walk, which can help reduce automobile traffic, improve public health, stimulate local economic activity and attract residents to the community. Increased Safety: Safety for pedestrians involves not only a degree of protection from vehicular accidents, but also from criminal activity. Well maintained areas mitigate crime, especially vandalism, and enhance pedestrian safety. A recent study has found that after landscape improvements were installed, there was a 46% decrease in crash rates across urban arterial and highway sites and a second study reviewed found a 5% to 20% reduction in mid-block crashes after trees and planters in urban arterial roads were put in place. In addition, there is less graffiti, vandalism, and littering in outdoor spaces with natural landscapes than in comparable plant-less spaces (Wolf, 2010). The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011) has found that streetscapes reduce traffic speeds, and when combined with improved pedestrian crossing conditions, can significantly reduce collisions. Furthermore, maintained sidewalks and trails increase pedestrian safety by reducing the number of trips and falls from those using the improvements.
Economic Activity: Well-maintained street landscape improvements not only make adjacent properties appear more stable and prosperous, but can spur investment in the property. According to the FHWA, landscaped sidewalks create an inviting place for customers to shop and do business (FHWA, 2001).
Parks
Park facilities enhance the overall quality of an area and are an important component of complete and sustainable neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks offer both active and passive recreational opportunities: a place to play, exercise, spend time with neighbors, or relax. The parks within the District are developed and maintained to appeal to all age groups and interests,
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 29 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
and promote a healthy community. Recreation and park facilities have proven to be a potent factor in maintaining a high standard of livability in the community. Improved Aesthetics. The park improvements provide beautification, shade and enhancement to properties, which creates a sense of community for the parcels within the District. The overall appeal and desirability of an area is enhanced when public parks and recreational facilities are in place, improved, operable, safe, clean and maintained. Conversely, appeal and desirability decrease when park and recreational facilities are unsafe or destroyed by the elements or vandalism. According to The Trust for Public Land, Corporate CEOs say that employee quality of life is the third most important factor in locating new businesses (Harnik and Welle, n.d.). Economic Activity: Parks attract both businesses and residents to communities.
According to The Trust for Public Land, small company owners say recreation, parks and open spaces in close proximity to properties used for business purposes are the highest priority in choosing a new location for their businesses.
As a result of the collective improvements (sidewalks, community trails, street landscaping and parks) being maintained, the overall livability for properties within the District will increase.
Livability encompasses several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area.
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011) expands on the concept of livability and the various benefits associated with that designation:
The livability of an area increases property desirability and business activity. Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources.
Quantification of Benefit
As a result of the District maintenance and servicing activities, there will be a level of general benefits to people that do not live in or intend to conduct business within the District. In order for property within the District to be assessed only for that portion of special benefits received from the District maintenance and servicing activities, general benefits provided by the ongoing maintenance and servicing of the improvements needs to be quantified. The amount of general benefit that is provided from the District maintenance activities cannot be funded via property owners’ assessments.
The District currently consists of 5,890 single family residences, 972 condominium units, 729 multi-family (apartment) units, 57.97 acres of commercial property, 4 schools, 1 Church, 1 fire
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 30 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
station, and 16.97 acres of undeveloped property. Properties are classified by their land use code as shown on San Bernardino County’s latest secured roll.
Sidewalks and Community Trails
The City is comprised of many smaller communities located throughout the City. Most of the communities have parks and schools that are proximate to and serve the residents in their immediate vicinity. There are four schools in addition to the six parks within the District. Two of the four schools have school District boundaries that are only within the District. However, two of the schools include areas outside of the District as part of their school district boundaries.
The primary reason persons living outside the District would enter the District would be to access the schools. Therefore, we must consider the school district boundary areas outside of the District when analyzing the pedestrian traffic that may use the sidewalks and community trails within the District.
The Summary of Travel Trends, 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2011) analyzed the number of person trips by various modes of transportations such as private vehicle, transit, walking or some other means of transportation. According to the Pacific Division data extracted from the 2009 NHTS database, of the annual 181,703 (in millions) total person trips, 21,252 (in millions) or 11.70% of those person trips were made by using walking as their mode of transportation (FHWA, 2011).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the average household size in the City is 2.98 persons. Based on this average household size, and considering there are 6,957 residential units within the District, there are approximately 20,732 people residing within the District boundaries. There are an estimated 12,000 residential units within the school district boundaries that are not within the boundaries of the District. Based on the City’s average household size, there are approximately 35,760 persons residing outside of the District boundaries, but within the school district boundaries. The following shows the estimated number of residential units and persons within the school district boundaries and either within or outside the District boundaries:
School District Population
Estimated
Number of
Residential Units
Estimated
Number of
Persons
Within District Boundaries 6,957 20,732
Outside District Boundaries 12,000 35,760
Total Population 18,957 56,492
In order to determine the estimated total number of persons who are within close proximity to the sidewalk and trail improvements, and would utilize walking as their mode of transportation, we applied the 11.70% of person trips reported from the NHTS Pacific Division study, to the total number of persons within District and school district boundaries (56,492). There are
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 31 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
approximately 6,610 people within proximity of the District that utilize walking as their mode of transportation.
Applying the 2009 NHTS walking trip percentage to the District population (20,732), we estimate that of the 6,610 persons who are within close proximity of the District and use walking as their primary mode of transportation, 2,426 people are within the District boundaries. Therefore, the total surrounding neighborhood area population, located outside of the District boundaries, but in close proximity to the sidewalk and trail improvements, who use walking as their primary mode of transportation is estimated to be 4,184 people.
School District Population
Estimated Number
of Persons
Within District Boundaries 2,426
Outside District Boundaries 4,184
Total Population – uses walking as
primary mode of transportation 6,610
In order to obtain a better picture of the overall level of general benefit provided by the sidewalk and community trail improvements, the pedestrian traffic that utilizes walking as the mode of transportation that will seek out and use sidewalks and community trails within the District’s boundaries, but live outside of the District, must be considered. The 2009 NHTS further details the purposes of the 21,252 (in millions) reported walking trips. Based on the property types within the District, people utilizing the sidewalks and community trails within the District would most likely do so for the following reasons: walking to school, day care or religious activity, social or recreational activities, and shopping or running errands.
The following details the number of walking trips, based on the 2009 NHTS study, for each of the activities that are the most likely reasons people outside of the District would use the sidewalk and community trail improvements within the District:
Trip Purpose
Number of Walking
Trips (in millions)
School/Daycare/Religious Activity 872
Shopping/Errands 5,820
Social/Recreational 2,268
Don’t know/Other 139
Total 9,099
Of the total number of walking trips reported, 9,099 (in millions) or 42.81% are for purposes that persons outside of the District would utilize the sidewalk and trail improvements within the District. Applying this percentage (42.81%) to the number of people using walking as their mode of transportation and that live outside of the District (4,184), but use the sidewalks and community trails within the District, there are approximately 1,791 people using the maintained sidewalks and community trails for general benefit purposes. The persons engaging in general benefit activities represents 3.17% of the total school district population (56,492), and is therefore considered to be District general benefit.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 32 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
School District Boundary General
Benefit 3.17%
Given the location and nature of the improvements, it is very unlikely the public at large would seek out or use the sidewalks and trails within the District, but would use those proximate to their own properties. The City has regional trails that connect different areas of the City, and those trails do appeal to and attract other residents of the City as well as residents that live outside the City. Nevertheless, it is likely that certain members of the public at large use the sidewalks or community trails within the District. As such, we have assigned a 1.00% general benefit for the sidewalk and community trails to the public at large.
Public at large General Benefit 1.00%
Based on the above calculations, the general benefit portion of the improved aesthetics, increased safety, and economic activity benefits resulting from the sidewalk and trail improvements is estimated to be 4.17% and the special benefit is estimated to be 95.83%.
Sidewalk and Trail General Benefit 4.17%
Street Landscaping
Based upon the City’s General Plan (2010) Roadway Hierarchy, the streets within the District are classified into one of the following categories: arterial, collector, or local (minor) streets.
The majority of street landscaping is located along roads classified as collector and local streets and primarily situated within the public right-of-ways of the internal local street network. A portion of the maintained landscaping is, however, located along the arterial streets, and, as such, provides some general benefit to pass-through traffic.
Local Streets
For purposes of determining general and special benefits, all streets within the District other than the specific streets listed as collector and arterial streets below are considered local streets. The local streets within the District were intended to serve individual neighborhoods and not to be pass-through streets, but cul-de-sacs or loop roads to reduce through traffic (Victoria Community Plan, 1980). In addition, according to the City’s General Plan (2010), the primary intended purpose of local streets is to serve fronting properties.
From a visual inspection of the layout of the District one must conclude that the purpose of the local streets is exclusively intended for the benefit of the parcels on such streets. There is no local street that provides a direct or efficient means of traveling from one place to another such that one could reasonably expect a driver to purposefully choose the District’s local streets as the best route for travel unless necessary because the route either began or ended with a parcel in the District. A route beginning or ending with a parcel within the District does not include the “general public” for purposes of determining general benefit.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 33 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
However, one can imagine a minimal degree of pass through traffic even on something such as a cul-de-sac. As expressed by the Court in Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010), “... courts of this state have long recognized that virtually all public improvement projects provide general benefits."
Given the location to the schools, parks, and shopping in the City, there are bound to be drivers that make use of the local streets for no other reason but to turn around or go back from where they came, especially if they are dropping their children off at one of the schools. Additionally, given the nature of the street landscaping, one could imagine a small degree of “residential tourism” wherein drivers are in fact simply “passing through” to enjoy the beautiful views of the homes, the natural surroundings or visiting friends. A conservative estimate of 1.00% for each scenario would result in the general benefit portion of the improved aesthetics, increase safety, and economic activity benefits resulting from the street landscaping improvements on local streets to be 2.00% and the special benefit is estimated to be 98.00%.
Local Street General Benefit 2.00%
Collector Streets: Victoria Park Ln, Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave and Church St Because of the similarities in use, layout, type, and designation, the benefits of Victoria Park Ln, Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave and Church St are considered to be equal. Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave and Church St border the District and are used as the main access to and from properties within the District. Victoria Park Ln serves as the main access point to each of the four schools and is the connector street running through the District. Victoria Park Ln, Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave and Church St connect the various neighborhoods, schools and parks within the District in addition to providing circulation between the local streets and the arterial network. As such, we must also consider the neighborhoods that surround the District and are within the school district boundaries, but not within the actual District when analyzing vehicle traffic that may use the streets within the District. The City’s Traffic Study (2009) does not include the traffic volume and number of daily trips on the connector streets within the District. As such a study is unavailable at this time we have use the NHTS Pacific Division data in order to estimate the number of drivers who use the streets within the District.
According to the Pacific Division data extracted from the NHTS database, of the annual 181,703 (in millions) total person trips, 152,827 (in millions) or 84.11% of those trips were made using a personal motor vehicle (FHWA, 2011). According to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, household file, U.S. Department of Transportation (2001), the mean drivers per household is 1.75. Based on the drivers per household average, and considering the 6,957 households within the District, there are approximately 12,175 drivers within the District. There are an estimated 12,000 residential units within the school district boundaries that are not within the boundaries of the District. Based on the drivers per household average, there are approximately 21,000 additional drivers that reside outside of the District boundaries, but are in close proximity to the District.
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 34 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
School District Population
Estimated
Number of
Residential Units
Estimated
Number of
Drivers
Within District Boundaries 6,957 12,175
Outside District Boundaries 12,000 21,000
Total 18,957 33,175
Applying the percentage of vehicle trips (84.11%) reported from the NHTS Pacific Division study to the District and school district boundaries area outside of the District population sets (33,175), approximately 27,903 people are within proximity of the District that utilize a private vehicle as their primary mode of transportation. Applying the 2009 NHTS vehicle trip percentage to the estimated number of drivers within the District (12,175) approximately 10,240 people within the District boundaries use a personal vehicle as their primary mode of transportation. Therefore, the total surrounding neighborhood area population, located outside of the District boundaries, that uses a vehicle as their mode of transportation is estimated to be 17,663 people.
School District Population
Estimated Number
of Persons
Within District Boundaries 10,240
Outside District Boundaries 17,663
Total Population – uses personal vehicle
as primary mode of transportation 27,903
In order to obtain a better picture of the overall level of general benefit provided by the improvements, the vehicle traffic that will seek out and use the collector streets to access parcel’s within the District, but live outside of the District, must be considered. The 2009 NHTS further details the purposes of the 152,827 (in millions) reported vehicle trips. Based on the property types within the District, people utilizing the collector streets to access properties within the District would most likely do so for the following reasons: attend school, day care or religious activity, social or recreational activities, and to shop or run errands.
The following details the number of vehicle trips for each of the activities that are the most likely reasons people outside of the District would use the collector streets to access properties within the District:
Trip Purpose
Number of Vehicle
Trips (in millions)
School/Daycare/Religious Activity 6,470
Shopping/Errands 30,998
Social/Recreational 16,185
Don’t know/Other 688
Total 54,341
Of the total number of vehicle trips reported, 54,341 (in millions) or 35.56% are for purposes that persons outside of the District would most likely utilize the collector streets within the District.
Applying this percentage to the number of people using vehicles as their primary mode of
____________________________________________________________________________ Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 – City of Rancho Cucamonga 35 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMENT 2
transportation and live outside of the District (17,663), but would use Victoria Park Ln, Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave or Church St as a connector to their destination within the District, there are approximately 6,281 people using the maintained streets for general benefit purposes. The persons engaging in general benefit activities represents 18.93% of the total estimated drivers (33,175), and is therefore considered to be District general benefit.
As previously mentioned, the local street special benefit has been estimated at 98.00% and, as such, the estimated minimum special benefit of Victoria Park Ln, Etiwanda Ave, Highland Ave and Church St should be reduced by 2.00% to account for that portion of traffic using local streets representing general benefit.
Based on the above calculations, the general benefit portion of the improved aesthetics, increased safety, and economic activity benefits resulting from the street landscaping improvements on collector streets is estimated to be 20.93% and the special benefit is estimated to be 79.07%.
Collector Street General Benefit 20.93%
Arterial Streets: Milliken Ave, Base Line Rd, Day Creek Blvd and Rochester Ave Arterial streets are intended to provide a higher degree of mobility and generally serve longer vehicle trips. The arterial streets with landscape improvements serve not only residents in the immediate vicinity, but persons who live outside of the District and are passing by. The City’s Traffic Study (2009) does not identify the percentage of traffic on arterial streets, which is pass- through traffic.
Before we determine and allocate the percentage of special and general benefit for the arterial streets, we must first compute the estimated pass-through traffic. In lieu of having a study that identifies the pass-through traffic on the arterial streets, the estimated number of special benefit trips on the collector streets has been used since in order to enter or exit the District, a vehicle must travel on one of the arterial streets listed below. Per the City’s General Plan (2010), collector streets have an estimated 5,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day, for an average of 12,500.
Taking the 12,500 average daily trips for collector streets, 2,616 trips (20.93%) are for general benefit purposes, and 9,884 trips (79.07%), is deemed to be for special benefit purposes.
Estimated
Number of Trips
Collector Street Special Benefit – 79.07% 9,884
Collector Street General Benefit – 20.93%1 2,616
Total 12,500
(1) The 20.93% general benefit percentage already includes the 2.00% general benefit to account for the portion of traffic using for local streets.
The City’s Traffic Study (2009) does provide an estimated number of daily trips for specific areas within the District. When the City’s Traffic Study (2009) did not provide the estimated number of daily trips the average number was derived from the estimates provided in the City’s General Plan.