Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996/04/17 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. April 17, 1996 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City O~ce: 989-1851 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 All items submitted forthe City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander , Biane , Curatalo Guljerrez , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a Proclamation Recognizing the Rancho Cucamonga Lakers as the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation Girls Basketball Champions (ages 8-9). Presentation of a Proclamation declaring the week of April 14-20, 1996 as Library Week in Eancho Cucamonga. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring the week of April 21-27, 1996 as Victims' Week in Rancho Cucamonga. 4. Presentation of Outstanding Citizen Patrol Officer of the Year Awards - 1995 to Donna Hoover and Larry Henderson. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Minutes: April 3, 1996 Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 03/27/96 and 04/03/96; and Payroll ending 03/17/96 for the total amount of $2,299,714.57. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of March 31,1996. Alcoholic Beverage Applicalion for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Howell's Cafe, Richard A. Howell and Richard A. Howell Jr., 8733 Etiwanda Avenue. 15 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 2 m 10. Approval of PCN96-01, a request to consider making a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for a future Mobil Oil Co. mini- market to be located within the Masi Commerce Center at the south west corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive. Approval to fly P.O.W./M.I.A. flag at Epicenter along with other official flags. Approval to appropriate $10,000.00 donated by The Friends of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library into Library Expenditure Accounts. Approval to lease/purchase one (1) Athey/Mobil Model 2TE5DB Street Sweeper. REsoLuT,oN NO. 96-0, r- 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC. Approval to execute an agreement (CO 96-014) with San Bernardino County Credit Union to market an Affinity Credit Card for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of Hillside Road, submitted by H & H Homes and release of previously submitted Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Cash Monumentation Deposit accepted by City Coundl on December 6, 1989 from James Bice. RESOLUTION NO. 96-0.Z36' ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR DR 95- 30 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 6, 1989 17 23 24 25 26 27 34 36 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 3 RESOLUTION NO. 96-g,38r' ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 FOR DR 95-30 37 11. 12. Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace). RESOLUTION NO. 96-0,44~ ~_.~/' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement). RESOLUTION NO. 96-0.44" ~ 4O 41 48 5O 13. 14. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System). RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) Approval of Resolution establishing an annual levy within the Alta Loma Channel District No. 84-2, the Sixth Street Industrial Park Refund District No. 82-1R, the Rancho Cucamonga Drainage District No. 86-2 and Milliken South of Arrow District No. 89-1. 56 57 64 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96-0/{I,3/ (~0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 65 15. Approval of Resolution establishing an annual levy within Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin Area). 66 RESOLUTION NO. 96-044 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS 16. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Setting of the Public Hearing for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85). 77 RESOLUTION NO. 96-045 79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) RESOLUTION NO. 96-046 80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD- 85), FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 17. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's RepOrt and Setting of the Public Hearing for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 83 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 5 18. RESOLUTION NO. 96-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7AND8 RESOLUTION NO. 96-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Setting of the Public Headng for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. RESOLUTION NO. 96-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7AND 8 RESOLUTION NO. 96-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 86 87 90 93 94 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. RESOLUTION NO. 96-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15725, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, WEST OF BELPINE PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-091-35 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 97 137 141 City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 7 RESOLUTION NO. 96-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96- 01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 96-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 236 141 238 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No Items Submitted. City Council Agenda April 17, 1996 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They am not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (HR 2927 (Continued from April 3, 1996) (ORAL REPORT) 2. UPDATE REPORT FROM THE ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. 1. DISCUSSION OF THE CENTRAL PARK PROPERTY L. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Apd111, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours pdor to the meeting per Government Cede 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. April 3, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ReGular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, April 3, 1996, in the Coundl Chambers of the Civic Center, .located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, RDA Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Pdndpal Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Marshal Ralph Crane, Management Analyst II Michelle Bancroft, and Fire Inspector Susan De Antonio, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Lt. Joe Henry, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation designating the Week of April 1 through April 7, 1996 as National Community Development Week. Mayor Alexander pi'esented the proclamation to Brad Buller, City Planner. C1. C2. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Toni Rhodes, 10151 Arrow Route, stated she has been a resident for a year and a half and has a 26 year old daughter with cerebral palsy who attends Chaffey College. They were impressed with the sense of community here so relocated from Riverside. She stated they were concerned that there were not certain projects available for people with disabilities and approached the City. She was very happy with the response she received, and now there are a couple of things in place and more are being developed, and she wanted to thank the City for their diligence and sincerity in dealing with them and making things more accessible and creating programs. Rick Floss, 8794 Avalon, stated he read in the newspaper that they were going to talk about CDBG projects tonight and asked if this was the appropriate time to address that. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 2 Mayor Alexander stated there would be an opportunity to speak under the public hearing. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 3/13/96 and 3/20/96; and Payroll ending 3/7/96 for the total amount of $1,864,814.60. D2. Approval of plans and specifications and authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the construction of Etiwanda Cobble Stone Curb long the East side of Etiwanda Avenue, from 773' south of Victoda Street to be funded from Account No. 21-4647-8822. RESOLUTION NO. 96-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETIWANDA COBBLE STONE CURB ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, FROM 773' SOUTH OF VICTORIA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D3. Approval of extension of Comcast Cable T.V. Franchise. RESOLUTION NO. 91-012X A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FRANCHISE LICENSE WITH COMCAST CABLE T.V. FOR 90 DAYS UPON EXPIRATION OF CURRENT LICENSE WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D4. Approval of a Resolution to oppose the PUC's proposed seasonal rate increases. RESOLUTION NO. 96-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA OPPOSING THE PUC'S PROPOSED INCREASE TO THE SEASONAL RATE STRUCTURE D5. Approval of a Resolution to support SB 900. RESOLUTION NO. 96-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO IMPLEMENT AND FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DELTA TO FACILITATE THE DELIVERY OF WATER TO JOBS- PRODUCING AREAS OF THE STATE THAT DESPERATELY NEED THIS VITAL RESOURCE D6. Approval to purchase one (1) Caterpillar 35, propane powered pneumatic tire fork life truck and accessories from Hawthorne Life Systems of Fontana, California, as the lowest responsible bidder in an amount not to exceed $27,212.66, to be funded from Account No. 01-4646-7045. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 3 D7. Approval to execute an Agreement (CO 96-014) not to exceed $39,831 with Michael Brandman Associates to prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 95-03B and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-05 (Mission Land Company) which will be funded by Developer Deposit through Account No. 01-4333-6035. D8. Approval to execute an amendment to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement for Fair Housing Services with Inland Mediation Board in order to prepare the Federally required update to the City's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AIFH). The amendment to complete the AIFH, in the amount of $6,500.00, will be funded from the CDBG Fund, Account No. 28-4333-8185. D9. Approval to execute the revision to Cooperative Agreement No. 8-924 (CO 94-077) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California for the design and construction of traffic signals and safety lighting on State Route 30 (1 9th Street) at Hermosa Avenue for an increase in matching funds due to revised construction, preliminary engineering, and construction engineering cost estimates. D10. Approval to accept Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for CUP 94-07, located at the southeast corner of East and Highland Avenues, submitted by St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church. RESOLUTION NO. 96-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM ST. CLARE OF ASSISI EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME D11. Approval to accept the Base Line Road Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation, from Deer Creek Channel to V'K:toria Park Lane Project, Contract No. 95-052, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion" and approve the final contract amount of $244,012.37. RESOLUTION NO. 96-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR BASE LINE TEMPORARY WIDENING AND REHABILITATION, FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO VICTORIA PARK LANE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Gutjerrez, seconded by Williams to approve the recommendations contained in the staff reports of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No items were submitted. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES City Council Minutes Apdl 3, 1996 Page 4 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 1996-97 - The review of the federally required Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 1996-97, including the preliminary selections of projects for the Community Development Block Grant annual application, based on an estimate of $1,024,000 (current year's allocation). Staff report presented by Larry Henderson, Principal Planner. Councilmember Curatalo asked what was the total amount for the home improvement program. Larry Henderson, Pdncipal Planner, stated $283,430.00, of which $10,000.00 is allocated to the Oldtimers Foundation to do minor repairs for the elderly. Coundlmember Biane asked in regards to the City's interface with HUD agency and talking about the federal budget, was there any hope that they might receive a higher allotment. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated he has not heard any optimistic comments about additional funding. He has heard that the allocations would remain at status quo or 10% less than last year. He did not anticipate receiving any addffional funding other than a very small increment because some jurisdictions do not use their funds. Mayor Alexander asked if they have used their entire allocation for Fiscal Year 1995/96. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated the only fund they have not used is a $6,000.00 allocation to the Boys and Girls Club. He stated they had some management difficulties and a reorganization last year and weren~ able to utilize the funds. They have recommended no additional funds but to take last year's funds and allow them to use them. Mayor Alexander stated if they were to go with the recommended allocation, and then later find out that they did not receive as much funding as they were calculating, what would be the process then. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated they would have to come back to the Council and go through the Block Grant process again, as well as amending the City budget. He stated there were a number of ways they could go to reallocate the funds based on how severe the cuts may be. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the Council were: Brenda Weaver, YWCA Youth Director, thanked the Council for supporting the Y-Teen program, which has been successful the last two years with their support. She explained how this program helped young girls in the community and how she felt there was a need for the program in the City. Ruby Vasquez, perljdpant in Y-Teen program at Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, stated she liked the program and explained how it encourages them. She stated it also provided an opportunity for them to earn money so they could participate in the special activities. Elaine Espinoza, paffidpant in Y-Teen program at Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, stated she liked being in Y-Teens with her friends. She stated there were many leadership positions available so everyone had a chance to be a leader. She stated they have many guest speakers and learn a lot, and do a lot of fun activities. She stated they raise the funds for all of their activities. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 5 Tracy Aguilar, Coordinator of YWCA Teen Parent Program, presented information on their program and how it helps teen mothers learn to be self sufficient and gives options for them to follow. She stated they have helped 50 girls from Rancho Cucamonga. She explained about their mentoring program, and how they are trying to help these girls improve themselves to make a better life for themselves and their children. Bill Hobbs, President of the West End YMCA, thanked the Council. He stated as they know the Inland Empire Boys and Girls Club has been going through quite a transition, but because of the efforts of the volunteers, none of the participants were impacted. He stated three months ago the YMCA got involved and is now in partnership with them, and it is now officially merged and called the West End Kids Club. He wanted to thank them for their support through this tough transition and to look fortNard to some creative and innovative programs from the West End Kids Club. Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt and President of the Northtown Housing Development Corporation (NHDC), stated they were one of the groups that were not recommended to receive funding, but hoped that the City Council would direct staff to reconsider that recommendation. He stated this was a joint effort between the YMCA and the NHDC, and they understand the potential loss of funds from the government, so they have come up with a new proposal that would involve a three-way split of the funding. He stated the NHDC sponsored many events for the kids last year, but need the further financial help from the City in order to fund a full program. He stated the kids needed a place to go alter school, but they needed the City's help in order to provide more. He felt this cooperative program would become a model for other cities, and it will allow the NHDC to eventually take it over on their own. Sandra Maldonaldo, House of Ruth, presented information on the services they provide for battered women and their children, and stated they responded to 1,200 requests last year. She wanted to thank them for consideration of their request and for all the support they have given in the past. Dianna Lee-Mitchell, Rancho Cucamonga Family YMCA and partner with the NHDC on their request, presented further information on the program they have developed for at-risk teens. She stated it is similar to the program at Ruth Musser Middle School, and felt it was important that they provide a program for pre-teens. Mayor Alexander stated he felt the same way, but it is hard to divide up the funds. Miriam Gandel, Executive Director of Foothill Family Shelter, thanked the Council for their suppert last year and presented information on the shelter, and how they helped approximately five families from Rancho Cucamonga last year. She stated there was a need for transitional housing in this area, and that they have serviced three families from Rancho Cucamonga this year already. Betty Davidow, Inland Mediation Board, stated they have serviced 42 cases on discrimination in Rancho Cucamonga since July 1, 1995. She stated their highest caseload dealt with people with disabilities. She explained how they try to educate landlords and tenants and worked with both on eviction rights and responsibilities. She thanked the Council for illteen years of support. There Barrares, Homeless Outreach, stated their service has existed since 1988 and provides basic services to homeless families and individuals. She explained how their service works and how all the agencies work in conjunction to service the homeless and needy in the surrounding communities. Erin Layton, Homeless Outreach, explained how the Children's Enrichment Center works with the Ontario/Montclair School District to make sure the children can still get an education, and how the Center helps the children maintain their dignity. She stated they have serviced 45 children, 5 of whom were from Rancho Cucamonga. City Council Minutes Apdl 3, 1996 Page 6 Joyce Ewen, Pomona Valley Inland Council of Churches, SOVA, thanked the Council for their support over the last few years. She stated last year they fed 1,700 Rancho Cucamonga residents and explained how the program worked. She presented information on the new programs they were going to be offering to help teach people who are living in poverty to support themselves. Rick Voss, Director of Family and Friends of Murder Victims, stated he has been a resident since 1984 and his son was murdered in 1991. He explained the trauma he experienced after his son was killed and the impact on his life and how difficult it was to find a support group. He found the closest was Parents of Murdered Children in Orange County. He went to them, but rounded his own group two years ago to be able to provide other services and support that the national group could not give. He tries to educate the community at every oppodunity about his group, and also tries to educate the children of the community about what can happen if they are involved in a bad environment to try to prevent other tragedies from happening. Deborah Clark, Library Manager, presented information on the new Rancho Cucamonga Adult Literacy Program and how its primary purpose is to teach literacy to Rancho Cuca monga residents. She stated in their first three months of operation they have set up 80 teams, and in the month of March alone they have a potential 31 more students. She stated this grant will help to enclose the literacy training area in the library and provide office space for the program. Toni Rhodes, founder of Taxpayers and Taxpaying Consumers United, stated they advocate for the rights of people with specifically for people with developmental disabilities, and also people with all disabilities. She stated their main thrust is to see that state and federal funds are spent on helping families to stay together. She stated state and federal funds are passed through regional centers across the state. She stated there are some very serious problems and they are currently working with Assemblyman Aguiar's and Senator Bill Leonard's offices to pass reforms to the system. She wanted people to know her group was there to advocate for people with disabilities. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Coundlmember Biane thanked everyone who spoke and their efforts for the community. He stated he would like staff to look at any possibility of doing something with the coordinated efforts for the proposal by the YMCA and NHDC pdor to the May 15th meeting. Mayor Alexander stated they could look at that but he did not want to see a decrease to anyone else in the recommendation. Coundlmember Gutjerrez stated maybe they could look at a way to lower the administration costs. He asked if those costs were flexible at all. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the amount shown is the actual cost for administering the program. He stated they not only included staff time, but those who are also performing the projects themselves. Mayor Alexander asked if the recommendations were reviewed by a Council Subcommittee pdor to submittal to the full Council. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they have done that in the past, but tonight they were following the policies set by previous Council actions, so they did not have a Subcommittee review the recommendations first. Mayor Alexander suggested that Councilmembers Biane and Gutierrez could work with staff to see if there was some way to help out the YMCA and NHDC. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 7 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to appoint Councilmembers Biane and Gutierrez to an ad hoc subcommittee to work with staff on the final recommendation. Bred Buller, City Planner, stated staff could meet with the representatives from the YMCA and NHDC to review their new proposal and then bring back that information to the subcommittee. They could also look at using any potential new funding for a program like that. Coundlmember Williams stated perhaps another goal of the subcommittee would be to look at options on how to use any other additional funding, and conversely, how to reallocate the funding should it be cut. Mayor Alexander agreed with Councilmember Biane in that there might be some capital improvement projects that could be readjusted so that they could meet the human needs of that area. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G1. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR THE STREET WIDENING AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8939 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (APN 208-192-07) Staff report presented by Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public headng. Addressing the City Council was: Vernon Jolley, reepresen~ng the Sandhu's, requested the Council put this item over to the next meeting because Mr. Sandhu was out of the country on business and did not even know that this item was on the agenda because the notice came after he had departed. Councilmember Biane stated they looked at this item a couple of months ago, but he was not clear on whether the action they took at that time was any different than what was before them tonight. James Markman, City Attorney, stated when they approved the planning action, the acquisition of this right-of- way was necessary for the developer to meet a condition of approval. They have entered into an agreement where they are paying for this condemnation. He stated the only thing before them tonight, not withstanding the request for a continuance, is set forth in section three of the resolution. Does the public interest and necessity require the proposed project, which they have already essentially found because they conditjoned the project for this street widening. That the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, it is hard to argue that when you are widening a street, there isn't any other location that is appropriate. And the property defined is necessary for the project because the planning action already taken has made it a mandatory part of the project. He felt they should move fortNard with this. it was not abeut valua~on, that is still under negotiation. He stated he could see nothing that would be achieved by a continuance. Mayor Alexander clarified that the appropriate action if they do not con~nue the item is to approve the resolution. James Markman, City Attorney, stated yes. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 8 Vemon Jolley, Counsel to the Sandhu's, stated the issue that has been presented prior and is lacking from the resolution is not the street widening, but that the condemnation process is to the benefit of another property owner to the detriment of Mr. Sandhu by eliminating one of his driveways. They felt this was not a public need, but will only benefit Mr. Flores and his property. He stated when this agreement was entered into, Mr. Sandhu felt he was always going to be able to use beth driveways. They have always contended that if the City were to leave that driveway open, they had no problem with proceeding with the widening and the development. James Markman, City Attomey, stated this was the same argument that the Council heard before as a reason why not to approve these conditions. The Council has approved this project with these conditions. This is an implementation. If counsel wants to argue that the implementation has damaged Mr. Sandhu, he can argue that he is entitled to severance damages in addition to the take, all of which will be dealt with in the condemnation process. He stated what they have before them tonight is a resolution that talks about what part of the street you have to acquire for widening and what part is needed for a temporary construction easement. RESOLUTION NO. 96-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE PUBLIC NEED AND NECESSITY TO CONDEMN A PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 96-042. Motion carded unanimously, 5-0. G2. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF EAST AVENUE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5997 EAST AVENUE (APN 225-131-19) Staff report presented by Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer. Councilmember Williams asked if the funds would be held in an escrow fund. Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated he did not know if this would be put in a separate account. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he did not know how this hearing was noticed tonight and whether they established if there is an address they could even mail a notice to for the missing party. Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated the title company has been working on this for over six months, and they can't find any heirs at all. James Markman, City Attomey, suggested the Council continue this item to the next meeting so that Mike Olivier and his office could get together and review this. He stated if someone dies intestate, the State of California is entitled to the property. He stated he is not sure if there was anyone to send a notice to of the hearing, so he is not sure if they can proceed correctly. Mayor Alexander asked if there was anyone to speak on this issue. There was no response. City Council Minutes Apdl 3, 1996 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 96-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE PUBLIC NEED AND NECESSITY TO CONDEMN A PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to continue this to the April 17, 1996 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No items were submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (HR 2927) Councilmember Gutierrez stated he was still waiting to receive information on this legislation and requested that this item be continued. ACTION: Item to come back at the April 17, 1996 meeting. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. DISCUSSION OF A TOUR OF ROUTE 66 TO BE HELD JOINTLY WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND LOS ANGELES VISITORS BUREAUS TO BE HELD IN JUNE AS REQUESTED BY DERBY WHEELER OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA VISITORS BUREAU Bob Tollmer, member of the Board of Directors of the Route 66 Museum, stated he was filling in for Derby Wheeler who was called out of town. He believed they spoke last lime about the upcoming tour being put on by the Los Angeles Visitors Bureau which would come through Rancho Cucamonga to the museum, stop at the stadium to see the statue, and then proceed to the new speedway localion. He stated there have been articles recently in The Inland Empire Business Journal and the Ontario Convention and Visitors Bureau Guide. They felt the museum was becoming a viable attraction in the community, and stated that any help the Council can provide will be appreciated. Mayor Alexander stated the City has prepared a package for the tour group and that they were excited about the success of the museum. City Council Minutes April 3, 1996 Page 10 Bob Tollmer asked if these would be available for the tour group. Bred Buller, City Planner, stated that in the package bhere were mementos of Rancho Cucamonga, that it would be their choice of how to distribute it amongst those in attendance that day on behalf of the City Council and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Bob Tollmer stated he also understood there was some discussion about a billboard or a banner welcoming the tour to Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Alexander stated he did not recall Derby speaking about a banner. Bob Tollmer stated he and Derby have spoken about that and various items. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated if the group would like to have a banner, the City can work with them on expediting the permit process, and how they can go about doing that. It would be something that they can work with Community Services on. Bob Tollmer stated another thing might be to have some of the Councilmembers at the museum when the tour arrives to help welcome them to the City on June 9th. Mayor Alexander felt that the Council could do that for them. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn. Motion carded unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jan Sutton Deputy City Clerk Approved: rm. AO,. 41-- I U'A' I 3::-'m~ **-' I-- .v m.,- I I I I I I I l ¢ · k t~- % · %,l(~ I w I I-- · Z I I ~ · 4 I I I I I sl I 0 ~ I,- II ~ .i i · I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I 'W ~,J I I ~ N 0 'l' Iq V Lt Z I- ,~ ,w ..e V v v " =,,-.,,~"',',.-, -~3 meeemmeemeeeemeee A A A oooooooooo~~ o ~ ~ V JZ,J O. UJO, ZOZ UJ~uJ 0 "' Z ,r I-- ..J · ~,~ ,~ ,-4 _/ C;) ~..~ C;) -Q ~4ZU::),I~ e I-.~-4 A~.4:-4u'l , Z4J~)~,'~IL) mC) I~,Z4m uJ , 0 0 V Ua, i · r · ¢C2C2 I- kl tL. · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · I · · I · · I I · I · · I I I I · · · I · · I · I · · · · I · I · l · I · I · · · · I · · I IC~I 171 I~1 I,,vl I::11 · · · I · · · · · I · · · · · · · I · I · · · I · · · · I; · I · I I I · I I I I1-1 I~,,11 I,vl I~,,~1 I · i,,rl IgJI · · I | · I · · · · · I I · · · · · I · · · l · I · I I I I I I I I I · I · · · I I · · · · · · · I · · · · · · I I · lu, l I~1 I I I~1 IC~I IZI · · · eeeeeeoeeeeeese I,. .41' g'~ '1. 0 0 0 ed ,.4 4~ 'Pc V V Z V V N ~ W ~ · UU ~UWZ ZJZZ~ZZW~UW~ Z Z 0 r-,, 0 Z I,,~¢/t Zu,I H~ ~w~ Z~3 Z ~Ue ~Z ~ ZK muuuuuuuuuuuuu %, v~ d~ (1'-- I U'Zl~ (Jd~'I BC4' U' ty I,-4 C31-iG. I"" I-,I eeleeeeeee · · I I I I · · · I · · I · · · · · · I · I I · I · · · · I · I t,- I ,( I · el ,~. · ~ · ,(I I · · · l · · · · · C2 · .v · ,( · 2 I · · I I I · l · I · I · I I · · · · I I Z I ~,l I I-I o. · ~ I (,.)1 (~1 Q · · rl u.i · I,- I t-tl · · · · · · · I · I I I · · · · · · · I · · I I · I · · · I I I · I · · · I · I I · · · · · · I I · · · · · · I I · · I I ltl 1(31 IzI luJI · · wZ~o(~ O ~O~ZZ~Zw ZZO~Z~OZZZ HOZJ~ZW O~ZZZ~ 3~ ZZ Z Z J U I Z ..41.,)(x(,) · 4'(d V) Z4 I~ eto Z · e. D.. Q I-,4 U.,JH ,( NH''~' e, JU~J QCU'I-- I-,HN'(A sr N, ZN (Jg Z*Ou')4wU 3[U.f'~ I][u.le[ ~4 44 ua e,C~ aCt'"'UJ '~ eHZW ~ I.- UI,- OHV) srI--WW U::}',~ O .r mH QC Q~Z~,Z ~.t,~F-~9 oZ~ ~ (OCUO](J ( W ~;~ 04 OO..104W~W,.~ I,.)u.l,ll,-C)(wwt-.~,~ U, UC) e,~U, 4 ZHO,rmeAZu, Z),.,( e"OOP~'OO4"'(U,,IH (Jl--OZ''~ N"U'4W J,JQ4 ~ I :31--41-e~ '~eIV) H,JZX'rZ"")'e'V~V)Z I" O~:ZHZ~..4O P P ~" r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ,% f~ 4' ~v t.,,o },- · I · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · ~1 · · I · · I · · · ee I · Wl · ~1 I ~1 I ~1 · · · · el I~1 ~1~1 %1 · ~1~1 01]1 · I eel · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · eZ ~.H C) e, eft.. UJ ZH ._4 LUU,I oZI.-I(J C3~c I--~) OU 01109/1996 CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA PORTR)LIO MASTER 5U~]ARY MARCH 31, 1996 PM= l CI~ AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY-- PERCENT OF AV73~AGE DAB TO 360 365 INVESTmeNTS BO0~ VALUE PORTR)LIO TBM MATURITY EQUIVALENT BQOIVALBIT Certificates of Deposit - Bank ...............$ Loll Agency Investsent ~ds ................ Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ............... ~reasur~ Securities - Coupon ................. ~rtgage Backed securities ................... Ssall Bus. A~filiscellaneous Aqenc~ ..........$ 12,325,532.20 21.36 511 258 6.006 6.089 12,750,539.80 22.10 1 1 5.566 5.643 30,934,040.63 53.61 1,509 1,312 6.579 6.671 272,845.00 0.47 1,180 517 6.569 6.660 312,484.44 0.54 6,334 3,144 8.907 9.030 1,101,562.50 1.91 9,131 5,593 8.184 8.298 TOTAL IMVESTNE]ffS and AVERAGES .............$ 57,697,004.57 100.00% 1,132 885 6.276t 6.363J Passbook/Checkinq Accounts ...................$ 307,700.98 1.973 2.000 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase .................$ 23,937.11 IDEAL CASH and PURCHASE 1]fi'~RES? .............$ 331,638.09 I~fAL CASH and IMVESTMEWYS .................$ 58,028,642.66 MONTH ENDING FISCAL ~YrAL EARNINGS MARCH 31 YEAR TO DATE Cuffent Year $ 305,378.27 $ 2,582,544.88 AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE MIrE RATE OF RETURN $ 58,881,538.01 $ 54,212,245.33 6.111 6.321 I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comfonity with ~e investlent policy adopted August 16, 1995. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. ~e Investsent Progra, berein sho~n provides sufficient cash flow liqujdity to Met next Enth's esti,ated expenditures. 04/09/1996 CITY OF RA]OK) CUC/NONGA INVES~ENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTNE~ MARCH 31, 1996 CI~ IIIVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT CERTIFICAT~ OF D]~OSIT - 00937 FOOTHILL INDEP BANK 04/06/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.950 6.950 7.047 04/09/97 373 00930 GREAT WESTERN 02/15/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 08/16/96 137 00955 GREAT MESTERN 08/21/95 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 5.650 5.650 5.728 08/21/96 142 00965 GREAT WESTRN 01/25/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.050 5.050 5.120 01/29/97 303 00966 GREAT WESTERN 03/04/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4.700 4.700 4.765 03/04/97 337 00970 GREAT WESTEPa 03/12/96 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 4.800 4.800 4.867 09/17/96 169 00924 SANWA 12/28/94 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,OOO,O00.O0 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 270 00933 SANWA 02/23/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 329 00945 SANWA 05/02/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 396 00954 SANWA 07/31/95 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.480 5.480 5.556 07/30/96 120 00958 SANWA 11/22/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.600 5.600 5.678 11/26/96 239 SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 6.006 6.089 258 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND SUBTOTALS and AVtIRAGES 14,115,055.93 11,621,415.24 11,621,415.24 11,621,415.24 5.643 5.566 5.643 1 1,129,124.56 1,129,124.56 1,129,124.56 5.643 5,566 5.643 1 12,750,539.80 12,750,539.80 12,750,539.80 5.566 5.643 1 FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES 00964 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/16/96 00969 FEDERAL FARNQREDITBANK 03/05/96 00922 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 12/19/94 00925 FEDBRALB(IeE LOAN BANK 12/28/94 00939 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 04/06/95 00940 FEDERAL HONE LOIN BANK 04/06/95 00962 FEDRALH~E LOAN BANK 12/18/95 00971 FEDRALBO~LOANBANK 03/19/96 00938 00957 00967 00968 00921 00926 00947 00959 00960 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. C004/06/95 FEDERAL LOAN NORTO. co 11/20/95 FEDERAL HONE LOAN NORTG. C003/06/96 FEDERAL HOME LOAN NORTG. CO 02/22/96 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 12/21/94 FEDIUiAL MArl, WI'G ~ 12/29/94 FEDERAL RATL ~ ASSN 05/08/95 FDERAI,~TI, )fl~ 11/29/95 FEDERAl, NATL MTG ASSN 11/24/95 S~TOTAI_,~ and AVERAGES 30,098,254.34 2,000,000.~ 2,000,000.00 1,000,000.~ 1,065,134.38 965,156.25 942,968.75 4,000,000.00 995,312.50 1,~2,031.25 2,500,000.00 1,998,750.00 1,985,312.50 1,981,250.00 1,998,125.~ 1,500,000.~ 4,000,000.00 1,000,000.~ 30,934,040.63 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,000.000.05 1,090.000.00 1,000.000.00 1,000 000.00 4,000.000.00 1,000. 000.00 1,000. 000.00 2,500. 000.00 2,000 000.00 2,000 000.05 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.05 1,500,000.00 4,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,751 2,000,000.05 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,799 1,037,810.{)0 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 627 1,093,749.50 6.360 7.789 7.898 09/19/96 171 981,560.00 4.570 6.638 6.730 12/30/96 273 976,250.00 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 973 4,00),000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/{){) 1,722 995,312.50 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 1,082 1,019,380.{)0 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 1,270 2,500,000.00 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,691 1,9'98,750.00 5.990 6.{)05 6.~8 03/~/01 1,800 1,985,312.50 5.695 5.867 5.948 02/16/01 1,782 2,020,620.00 7.050 7.607 7.712 10/10/96 192 2,145,312.50 7.7{)0 7.752 7.859 12/10/96 2.53 1,539,375.00 7.2'70 7.270 7.371 05/08/05 1,498 4,(I)0,000.{)0 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,702 1,O00,O(N).00 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 968 31,293,432.10 31,090,000.00 6.579 6.671 1,312 04/09/1996 CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA ~ - 3 INVESTNENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTS CITY MARCH 31, 1996 CASH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED ==- YTR --- MATURITY DAYS !~!4BEN ISSUER BALANCE DATE IKK)K VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON 00903 TREASURY NOTE AVERAGES 06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 275,786.74 6.141 6.569 6.660 08/31/97 517 272,845.00 MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES 00071 FEDERAL HO~E LOAN BANK 02/23/87 00203 FEDERAL NATL WPG ASSN 09/21/87 00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL NORTO A 07/01/87 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL NORTG I 07/01/87 S~T(YI'ALS and AVERAGES 317,812.87 55,887.50 57,376.74 442,907.10 8.000 113,855.97 123,254.09 612,753.80 8.500 118,362.11 120,012.28 663,389.28 8.500 24,378.86 23,898.09 84,710.58 9.000 312,484.44 1,803,760.76 324,541.20 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 2,101 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,266 8.631 8.751 05/15/01 1,870 8.515 8.634 03/15/01 1,809 8.907 9.030 3,144 SNALL BUS. AIN/MISCELLANEOUS AGENCY 00004 SNAIL BUSINESS AI)NIN 07/25/86 1,101,562.50 1,000,000.00 1,065,142.39 9.125 8.184 8.298 07/25/11 5,593 AVERAGES 1,101,562.50 TOTAL I~S and AVG. $ 57,697,004.57 59,514,193.99 58,231,062.84 57,767,613.20 6.276% 6.363% 885 // o4/o9/19o CITY OF RANCHO CUC~ INVESIlIENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS = CASH NARCH 31~ 1996 CITY INVESTNENT AVERAGE P~RCHASE STATED ---YTN H. NATURITY DAYS NUNBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOO~ VALUE FACE VALUE NA~KET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO NAT (3BK]KIN~/SAVINGS ACO34~S 00180 BANK OF ANERICA AVERAGES 650,475.17 Accrued Interest at Purchase TOTAL CASH TOTAL CASH 307,700.98 2.000 1.973 2.000 23,937.11 $ 331,638.09 58,881,538.01 58,028,642.66 04/09/1996 CITY OF RANGHO CUCANONGA PM - 5 PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTWENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE CITY MARCH 1, 1996 'NARCH 31, 1996 CASH STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES TYPE INVESTMENT # ISSUEN RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE CERTIFICATES OF DBPOSIT - BANK BEGINNING BALANCE: 00931 GREAT WESTERN 6.250 03/04/1996 500,000.00 00963 GREAT WESTERN 5.150 03/12/1996 1,810,532.20 00966 GREAT WESTERN 4.700 03/04/1996 500,000.00 00970 GREAT WESTERN 4.800 03/12/1996 1,810,532.20 SUlYI~ALS and ENDING BALANCE 12,325,532.20 2,310,532.20 2,310,532.20 12,325,532.20 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.643 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.643 SUSTO~ALS and ENUING BALANCE BEGINNING BALANCE: 5,100,000.00 17,850,539.80 0.00 5,100,000.00 12,750,539.80 CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (Honthly Summary) 00180 BANK OF AMERICA BEGINNING BALANCE: 2,439,000.00 2,669,000.00 537,700.98 307,700.98 FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON 00969 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 6.165 00971 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 5.880 00967 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 5.990 00935 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 7.010 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE 03/05/1996 03/19/1996 03/06/1996 03/21/1996 2,000,000.00 995,312.50 1,998,750.00 4,994,062.50 BEGINNING BALANCE: 26,439,978.13 30,934,040.63 TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON BEGINNING BALANCE: 272,845.00 272,845.00 MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES 00071 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 8.000 00203 FEDERAL MATL HTG ASSN 8.500 00002 GOVERN!dENT NATIONAL NGRTG ASSN 8.500 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL NGRTG ASSN 9.000 SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE 03/15/96 03/25/96 03/14/96 03/05/96 BEGINNING BALANCE: 1,753.23 5,159.97 1,278.02 45.64 8,236.86 320,721.30 312,484.44 04/09/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIK)NGA P~ - 6 PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE CITY MAR(~ l, 1996 - MAR~ 31, 1996 CAS]] STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES TYPE INVESTMENT ~ ISSUER MATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITBI)RAWALS BALANCE S~LL BUS. AD~/NISCELLANEOUS AGENCY TOTALS BEGINNING BALANCE:$ BEGINNING BALANCE: 1,101,562.50 1,101,562.50 58,848,879.91 9,743,594.70 10,587,769.06 58,004,705.55 APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) File Number ............ 317467 Receipt Number ......... 1075874 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date 2--2796 Issued Date CA 91739 TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 4505 Allstate Drive, Suite 102 Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 782-4400 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Name of BusineSs: Location of BusineSs: Number and Street City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? If premise licensed: Type of license RIVERSIDE HOWELL'S CAFE 8733 ETIWANDA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO YES Transferor's names/license: HOWELL 304184 LiCens'e TYPe Transaction TYpe Master DUD Date Fee RICHARD A Fee TYPe 1.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W HALF FEE (-_q~T, 24072) NA YES 0 FEB 27,1996 $75.00: 2. NA NO LICENSE TYPE STATE FINGERPRINTS NA YES 0 FEB 27,1996 $39.00 : 3.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W RENEWAL FEE NA YES 0 FEB 27,1996 $205.00: TOTAL $319.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? Control Act, or regulations of the department pertaining to the Act? Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date FEB 27,1996 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: [1} Me is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the ag)plicant cor;3oration, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2} that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true: (3) that no person other ~han the applicant or applicants has any direc~ or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: that the =ransfer application or proposed transfer is not made ro satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer a~plica~.ion is filled with the Department. or to gain or establish a preference to or for any crediLor cr Cransferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that ~he transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name (s) Applicant Signature (s) ABC 211 (9/93) MA, ~ 5 1997 CITY Oi- h,,., ..... ',j CITY CLERK VC] NV/V~ 113 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NFCFSSITY 96 - 01 - A request to consider making a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for a future Mobil Oil Company mini-market, to be located within the Masi Commerce Center, at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Ddve. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by minute action a determination of "Public Need or Necessity", as provided for under Section 23958.4.(a.)(3)(b)(2) and thereby allowing the issuance of the requested ABC License. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The passage of AB No. 2897 (approved by the Governor September 19, 1994) required, that before ABC can issue a license for off-sale in a defined area where there is "undue concentration", the local governing body must determine that there is a public convenience or necessity for the use of the license. Pursuant to Section 23958.4 (a) of the Business and Professions Code reads; "... undue concentration means ... any retail license located in an area where any of the following conditions exist: The applicant premises is located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes, as defined in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported cdmes as determined from all cdme reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises is located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises is located. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PCN 96-01 - MOBIL OIL COMPANY April 17, 1996 Page 2 As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises is located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicanrs premises is located. In this case No. 3, of the previously listed state criteria, applies with ABC indicating that Census Tract 21.00 currently contains 21 existing licenses and 16 allowed within the current ratio. The boundaries of Census Tract 21.00, and the location of the subject site, are shown on Exhibit A, attached for reference. In general, the subject Census Tract is located south of Foothill Boulevard, west of Grove Avenue, east of Rochester Avenue, and north of Interstate 10 Freeway. It should be noted that normally the decision to make a PCN determination would be conducted as part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application review by the Planning Commission. In this case, the odginal CUP for the Masi Center (CUP 91-24), which included the mini-mart/service station, was approved in 1992, before the current ABC legislation was approved. Staff anticipates that most, if not all, future PCN requests will fall within the CUP process. The Applicent's representative has included several statements in support of a City Council finding of public convenience or necessity which is included in the attached letter labeled Exhibit B. In summary the letter states the following: 1. A convenience market, including beer and wine, is a common and accepted practice. Extra trips to the supermarket will be avoided for many items available while purchasing gasoline. 3. The closest similar use is about a mile away. Foothill Boulevard is a busy street and the intention is to target customers on the east end of the boulevard. Rancho Cucamonga customers should be afforded the same shopping opportunities that Mobil Stations give throughout southern California. Several facts tend to support the applicant's request in terms of public convenience. First, it should be noted that three of the licenses, although within Census Tract 21.00, are located in the City of Ontado, south of Fourth Street. All but two of the current Licenses are located west of Haven, and half of the total (11 ) is located west of Archibald. It appears that the public on the east side of the City is not as well served as on the west side. Also, as shown in Exhibit B, the two existing Mobil Stations within the Census Tract are currently licensed, further supporting the applicant's argument. FACTS FOR FINDING The term "public convenience or necessity" is undefined under the existing legislation. According to ABC staff, the legislation purposefully left the defining of the term to the local legislative body (City Council) in order to provide the greatest latitude, based on local conditions and CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PCN 96-01 - MOBIL OIL COMPANY Apdl 17, 1996 Page 3 determinations. Some of the factors the City Council may want to consider, but am not necessarily limited to, include: Proximity to sensitive receptors: e.g., daycare facilities, schools, parks, churches, community facilities, and commercial recreation land uses. Proximity to routes traveled by under-age pedestrians to and from sensitive receptor locations. c. Distance to the same, or similar, types of existing ABC licenced locations. In this case, the proposed application is located within the Industrial Specific Plan Area and therefore does not conflict with items described in sections a. and b. listed above, and is a considerable distance from similar uses. It should be noted, that although the Adult Sport Park is located within ~ mile, the proposed use is odented to Foothill Boulevard, at the southwest comer of Masi Drive and Foothill Boulevard. The subject location and access orientation should not have a negative influence on the activities at the park. CORRESPONDENCE This item does not require a public hearing and, therefore, no public hearing advertising was provided. City Planner BB:LJH:sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Census Tract and Subject Location Map Exhibit "B" - Table with the current ABC License holders in Census Tract 21.00 Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Representative Letter dated February 29, 1996 PCN 96-01 ONTARIO r-i city units !"! Census Tract 2 I. 00 /V IVbjor Streets Site Lomtions # N EXHIBIT "A" - Census Tract and Subject Lcx:ation Map PCN 96-01 CURRENT ABC LICENSES WITHIN CENSUS TRACT 21.00 EXHIBIT BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS TYPE ABC "A" LICENSE LOCATION 1 Ultbamar Inc. 4330 E. Inland Empire 20 2 Berkman 670 N. Archibald 20 3 Circle K 790 N. Archibald 20 4 Valdez, Rebelba 8847 Archibald 20 5 PNS Stores 12322 4th SWeet 20 6 Arrow Market & 10080 Arrow Hwy 21 Liquor 7 ARCO 9533 Foothill Blvd. 20 8 Carmiello 8114 Arrow Hwy 21 9 Redhill Liquor 8939 Foothill Blvd 21 10 Um Ike Kyo 10120 251h Street 20 11 Kim Eun Dono 8161 W. Foothill Blvd 21 12 Mobile 8514 Vineyard Ave. 20 13 Mobile 8477 Archibald Ave. 20 14 Wanis Ghassan 8880 Archibald Ave 21 15 Patel 10277 Foothill Blvd. 21 16 Perry 9477 Foothill Blvd. 21 17 Easy Stop Market 8694 Arrow Hwy 20 18 Dayal, Suket 9755 Arrow Hwy A-C 21 19 Haven Wine & Liquor 8401 Haven Ave 21 20 Baskets Galore 10970 Arrow Route 207 20 21 Allura Farm Dairy 8809 N. Grove Ave 20 22 Carl's Liquor 9677 Foothill Blvd 21 TYPE LICENSE: EXHIBIT "B" 20 = BEER & WINE 2 1 = GENERAL LICENSE (LIQUOR) An Rodi'iguez and Associates Liquor License Brokers and Consultants RECEIVED February 29, 1996 Mr. Larry Henderson, AICP Rancho Cucamonga Planning Deportment 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 MAR - 4 1996 Gjty of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Re: S/W/cornet of Foolhill BI. & Mad Ddve; Beer & Wine Off Site application. Dear Mr. Henderson: As you may be aware, All Etemadian, dba Rancho Mobil is applying to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control fro a BcG-'~ & Wine license for off site consumption for his station -located at the above referenced address in Rancho Cucamonga. The investigator from the Riverside ABC office has informed us that the premises are in what the Department considers an over concentrated area due to ratio of licenses and population count for that Census Tract. Because of this, the ABC is forced to deny said application unless they receive a letter from the City of Rancho Cucamonga stating that the issuance of said license wilt be a matter of The existence of a beverage department in a convenience market including bc; & wine, is a common and accepted practice. Our customers will benefit from the issuance of this license by purchasing their alcoholic beverages while they shop from the many items that will be carried by the proposed enlarged convenience store, thus avoiding extra trips to a supermarket. The closest similar use is about a mile away. The fact that Foothill Boulevard is a vow busy street, our intent is to target the customers that reside in the east side of the Boulevard. Issuance of this license will afford our Rancho Cucamonga customers the same shopping opportunities Mobil stations with convenience markets give their customers throughout Southern California. We will be extremely grateful if your Depcrtment can write such letter to the Riverside District Office of the ABC, conveying to them your opinion regarding this matter of Public Convenience. Should your Depcrtment agree to send this letter, please address it as follows: Investigator Gaff Smith Alcoholic Beverage Control 3737 Main Street, Ste. 900 Riverside, CA 92501 Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, and please call me with any questions you may have regarding this request. Very truly yours, Chris al"~n ' Agent 709 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 210 · Pasadena, CA 91101 (800) 553-7272 (818) 567-n.n.~n. Fax (818) 683-9991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., City Manager Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager REQUEST TO FLY P.O.W./M.I.A. FLAG AT EPICENTER RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the flying of a donated P.O.W./M.I.A. flag at the Epicenter during events when the large flag poles are used. BACKGROUND The City has been requested by the local veterans post to fly a P.O.W./M.I.A. flag at the Epicenter. Currently, the City flies a P.O.W./M.I.A. flag at City Hall. The flag will be donated, however, the City will need to purchase a hamess for the flag to attach it to the existing flag pole. The cost for this harness is less than $100 and would be purchased by the Engineering Department. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne 0 a Community Services Manager DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Deborah Kaye Clark, Library Manager APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $10,000 DONATED BY THE FRIENDS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC LIBRARY INTO LIBRARY EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS RECOMMENDATION Approve appropriation of $10,000 from Revenue Account 02-3901 - 1505 into Library Expenditure Account 02-4532-3900. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Friends of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, through creative merchandizing and thousands of volunteer hours, have raised through the bookstore located in the public library over $50,000 for this fiscal year. Responding to the request of the Library Manager, the Friends agreed to fund the following with the current donation of $20,000: Children's Summer Reading Program: $2,000 Ellison Poster Equipment for Displays: $2,000 Computer terminal for the Literacy Office: $3,000 Local History Support: $2,000 Best Seller Spring Releases: $1,000 Fiscal Impact: None. Through a $10,000 donation provided in April in honor of National Library Week, the Friends of the Library have placed in the Revenue Account $10,000, sufficient to cover this ropriation. ectfully submitLed, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan A. Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES. INC. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the attached resolution to enter into a lease/purchase agreement with Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc. for an Athey/Mobil model 2TE5DB street sweeper. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Council approved purchase of this street sweeper from Nixon-Egli Equipment Company at its February 21, 1996 meeting. Financing at that time had not yet been ~nalized. Through an RFP process, staff received a proposal for financing from Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc. with a 5.03 percent interest rate. Prime rate at this time is 8.25 percent. Respectfully submitted, A ~ ;ine~/r~z~e s RCD:JAK/da Attach. Director RESOLUTION NO. 96- ID./~"~ ~--SZ'I- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California ("City") is duly authorized and existing under the laws of said State; and WHEREAS, the City has entered or will enter into agreements for the acquisition of one (1) Athey/Mobil model 2TE5DB street sweeper ("Property") all in accordance with the applicable law; and WHEREAS, the governing body has determined it is in the best interests of the City and the citizens it serves to secure lease-purchase financing to provide moneys in the approximate amount of $116,327.98 necessary to pay for the Property; and WHEREAS, Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc. ("Corporation") has offered the City a cost effective lease-financing arrangement requiring periodic rental payments including principal plus interest computed at a 5.03% annual percentage rate; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has taken the necessary steps, including any legal bidding requirements, under applicable law to arrange for acquisition of such equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby directs the City Attorney to review the agreement and negotiate appropriate modifications of said agreement so as to assure compliance with state law and local statutory law, prior to execution of the agreement by those persons authorized by the City Council for such purpose; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager and/or Bob Dominguez, Administrative Services Director acting alone be hereby authorized in the name and on behalf of City to enter into binding agreements with the Corporation for leasing the Property upon such terms as may seem advisable to said officer(s), and to execute as agent for the City, all necessary agreements including, but not limited to, a lease/option agreement, acknowledgment of assignment and acceptance certificate. Each officer is also authorized to accept or direct delivery of the Property. The authority given hereunder shall be deemed retroactive and any and all acts authorized hereunder performed prior to the passage of the resolution are hereby ratified and affirmed CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CENTRAL CREDIT UNION AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR AN AFFINITY CREDIT CARD RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve entry into the attached agreement between the San Bemardino Central Credit Union and the City for purposes of establishing an Affinity Credit Card, the proceeds of which would be provided to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. BACKGROUND Last fall the City Council asked staff to investigate the possibility of the creation of an Affinity Credit Card. Any revenue derived from the use of such a credit card would be directed to the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. At virtually the same time the City of Ontario began investigating the possible development of a Affinity Credit Card for their city. Both cities recognized that the opportunity for a credit card company to enter to this geographic area would be more attractive if the population were 250,000 rather than 130,000 for Ontario or 120,000 for Rancho Cucamonga. After some preliminary discussions staff from both cities concurred that it would be in our mutual interest to solicit the credit card jointly, but recognize that each individual city would retain its identity for their specific credit card, as well as revenues derived therefrom. In December, the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga jointly issued a Request for Proposal. The proposal was sent to numerous companies locally and nationally. Virtually all expressed reluctance in offering a credit card for a public institution. However, San Bemardino County Central Credit Union submitted a preliminary proposal that appeared to contain the seeds of a viable program. Since January staff from both cities have met on numerous occasions with the Credit Union and have ultimately reached agreement on a proposal that we felt could be presented to the City Council. The attached agreement has been reviewed by the City Attomey and has been reviewed extensively by staff. Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Re: AFFINITY CREDIT CARD April 17, 1996 Page 2 The key elements of the agreement are as follows: 1. The City will have the ability to create its own design for its credit card. 2. Primary marketing will be the responsibility of the Credit Union and will include brochures and other direct mailings to residents as well as to employees of the cities. 3. The City's responsibility, in addition to designing the card, will be to market the credit card to members of the City family. The pricing for the new credit card for the first 12 months will be 7.2%, fixed rate. Thereafter, beginning in the second year, the fixed rate will be increased to 14.88%. The Credit Union will accept all responsibility for liability and responsibility for credit card accounts, unpaid balances and any other defaults or claims which may result through use of the credit card. The estimated revenues for the first year to the City would be approximately $8,000. The estimate for year two is $15,000 and for year three $38,000. The agreement calls for an increasing share of the revenues based on what is referred to as the "interchange fee" so that as revenues increase the City's share of those revenues also increase. COST The cost to the City would be "in kind" services for purposes of developing a brochure to market the card to members of the City family, and City staff time to develop camera ready art for the credit card itself. It is estimated that these costs would be approximately $1,700 and would not require any additional funding on the part of the City. The Credit Union will incur costs of approximately $63,000 for start-up and marketing costs. Respectfully submitted, RCD/rc Attachment SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CENTRAL CREDIT UNION AFFINITY CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made on April 17 , 1996, between City of Rancho Cucamonga (Sponsor) and San Bernardino County Central Credit Union, P.O. Box 735, San Bernardino, California, 92402 (Credit Union). This Agreement is designed to create a partnership between the Sponsor and the Credit Union to design, market, approve, and service consumer credit card users for revenue sharing between the Sponsor and the Credit Union. I. Responsibility: Credit Union - In the performance of the services required by this Agreement, the Credit Union shall have the following responsibilities: Credit Card: a) Upon receipt of signed Agreement, operating system will be set up on database credit card system with appropriate vendors and processors; b) Upon submission of camera ready copy from Sponsor, plastic production will begin with a minimum 5,000 plastics; c) Upon receipt of signed Agreement, plastics shall be in the user households within 120 days; d) Application for credit card will also include application for membership in Credit Union with no additional fee. Marketing: a) Brochure/slick will be developed for Sponsor to distribute to employees; b) Brochure/slick will be developed for Sponsor to distribute to utility users, permit holders, and other users of Sponsor services with regular mailings from Sponsor; c) A pre-approved listing will be purchased from TRW for potential credit card households using standard lending guidelines determined by Credit Union; d) Direct mail letter with appropriate response developed and distributed for pre-approved households. e) Year Two marketing will be based upon the success of the startup year. However, marketing activities will include: Merchant participation programs throughout mall and shopping centers; Participation marketing with the Chamber of Commerce; Newspaper advertising; Merchant incentive program for coupon redemption for purchases locally; Follow direct marketing to community households and public service users. 2. Responsibility: Sponsor - In the performance of the services required by this Agreement, Sponsor shall have the following responsibilities: Credit Card: a) Within 30 days of signing this Agreement, camera ready copy for plastic design shall be submitted to Credit Union. Marketing: a) Staff member from Sponsor shall be identified and assigned to work with Credit Union Marketing Director to identify sources of user mailings and employee distribution of brochure/slick; b) Staff member from Sponsor shall act as a liaison between various entities within Sponsor and Marketing Director and Consumer Credit Manager. 3. Revenue: The Credit Union will retain all interest revenue collected. The Sponsor will share with Credit Union interchange income from credit card usage. The Sponsor shall be paid by Credit Union each calendar quarter, 30% interchange income the first complete year after the initial plastics are issued. The Sponsor shall be paid by Credit Union each calendar quarter, 30% interchange income from credit card usage in the second complete year. The Sponsor shall be paid by Credit Union each calendar quarter, 50% interchange income from credit card usage in the third complete year. Interchange income is the fee paid to the credit card issuer when the card is used for purchases anywhere in the world. The fee paid is based on the dollar amount in sales. This fee revenue is paid to the Credit Union monthly on a one month delay basis. Should the Credit Union recover 50% or more of start up and marketing costs within the fu'st complete year, the Sponsor shall be paid by Credit Union 50% interchange income from credit card usage in the second complete year. Should the Credit Union recover 100% or more of start up and marketing costs within the first complete year, the Sponsor shall be paid by Credit Union 50% interchange income from credit card usage in the second complete year and 70% interchange income from credit card usage in the third complete year. In addition, Sponsor shall be compensated by Credit Union $1 for every credit card application approved, accepted and issued. The total sum to be paid within 30 days of the end of each complete year beginning with year one. Should either party terminate this agreement, fee will be paid by Credit Union to Sponsor for all new credit cards to date of termination. 4. Costs/Expenses: The Credit Union will assume all expenses related to set up, production, maintenance, and issuing of credit card plastics. The Sponsor shall be responsible for producing camera ready copy for plastic design. The Credit Union will be responsible for marketing design, production, printing of brochures and/or slicks. Sponsor shall reimburse Credit Union for employee portion of brochure and/or slicks. Sponsor may set a maximum cost to their portion to be no more than $500. Credit Union will be responsible for design, production, list creation, printing, delivery, and return mail of pre-approved credit card household direct mail. Sponsor will be given report of how many households selected and monthly accounting of acceptances. Sponsor shall be responsible for cost of employee liaison. Credit Union shall be responsible for cost of Marketing Director and Consumer Credit Manager. AftAgree 4/5/96 2 5. Pricing: The Sponsors' credit card will be a revolving credit, renewable every two years with no annul fee. The interest rate during the first 12 months of marketing will be 7.20% fixed rate. Thereafter, the fixed rate will be 14.88%. Late charge fee shall be $10, cash advance fee 2%, and overlimit fee $10. The Credit Union will have the Hght to change rates and fees at any time, but agrees that in no case will rates and fees on this program be any higher than Credit Union normal Visa Classic program, without the Sponsor's approval. 6. Servicing: The Credit Union will provide 24 hour, seven days a week, toll free phone number support for cardholder access. The following services will be available: · Dispute and inquiry processing · Lost/Stolen account blocking · Payment and or credit researching · Basic credit, debit and payment answers/address changes · Provide statement (Past and Present) information · Block suspicious activity accounts · Activate a newly issued account · Help determine why charge declined · Provide information on delinquent accounts · A payment processing center (Guarantees posting same day received) In addition, Credit Union Credit Card Department offers the same services as above and additionally the following during the credit union's normal business hours: · Emergency credit increases · Emergency card replacement · Name changes · Payment Extensions/Arrangements · Cardholder selected Personal Identification Number changes · Convenience check issuance * Credit Life/Disability Insurance · Payoffs to other creditors · Adding additional or joint cardholders · Automatic Payments from checking & savings 7. Maintenance: Credit Union shall be responsible for monthly statements to card users, tax reporting notices to proper agencies and card users, accepting payments and reissuing cardholder plastics. In addition, the Credit Union shall deliver to sponsor, on a monthly basis, reports which provide the # of plastics issued; # of active accounts; # of total accounts; # of closed accounts; $' s outstanding in balance; total interchange revenue. 8. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated on one hundred twenty (120) days written notice by either party, provided that applicable portions of this Agreement shall remain in effect with respect to revenue sharing and cost splitting. The revenue sharing split in effect at the time of termination shall continue until those current credit card accounts are closed. Upon termination of this agreement, no fee will be paid to Sponsor for new accounts opened. AffAgree 4/5/96 9. Contract Term: This Agreement is for a three (3) year period unless terminated according to the above. Unless notification by either party, this contract shall automatically renew for three (3) year periods upon completion of the initial term of agreement. 10. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, and may be modified or amended only by instrument in writing and signed by both parties. I 1. Liability: As issuing party of the credit card accounts, the Credit Union agrees to assume liability and responsibility for all credit card accounts issued under this agreement and holds the Sponsor harmless from default of payment, claims, damages or negligence on the part of the credit card holders and the Credit Union. All credit underwriting decisions are being made by the Credit Union and all responsibility for collections, legal actions, and losses are assumed by the Credit Union. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in the County of San Bernardino on the day and year written below. CREDIT UNION: SPONSOR: By By Its Its Date: Date: AftAgree 4/5/96 O~/1B/BG 0B:55 SBCCU/ADMIN ~ ~7284B NO.2B8 POOG REVENUES PROJF, C~',I} (l) EACH CITY: · Revenue sharing 30% of interchange fee · Revenue sharing 50% of iaterchange fee · Plus + $ I for each application accepted $ 6,081.30 Year One $ l ~,031.40Year Two $36,198,50 Year Three $ 2,000.00 per year additional income MARKETING EXPENSES EACH CITY: · Brochure/slick for employ:~s -- * City coordinator staff time = · Camera ready copy for pla.:~tic = $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,700.00 CREDIT UNION: * 15,000 direct mail preapp~ved credit cards = , Marketing management & staff time = , Brochure/slick insert for utility users $17,005.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,ooo.oo $23,005.00 (2) (1) 8a~ed on an estimated 2,000 crtdit 6ard holders in the Year Ont: 4,000 in Y~ar Two and 6.000 in Year Three per City. (2) .4ddltlonal expenses incumd for start up = $40.438; Ibr a total start up and marketing e;cl~nse to lhe Credit Union of $63,443. ' TOTAL YEAR ONE NET REVENUE PER CITY = $6,381.30 TOTAL YEAR ONE THRU YEAR THREE NET REVENUE PER CITY = $65,611.20 3/19/96 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Ap~l17,1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR DR 95-30, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, SUBMITTED BY H & H HOMES AND RELEASE OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND CASH MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 6, 1989 FROM JAMES BICE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions (1) accepting the new Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, and Monumentalion Cash Deposit, (2) ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, (3) releasing the previous Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities and authorizing the Finance Department to refund the previous Monumentation Cash Deposit, and (4) authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign and release said agreements. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of Hillside Road, in the Very Low Development district was approved by the City Planner on November 30, 1995 for the construction of four (4) single family residences. The original project Parcel Map 9431, was approved by the City Council on December 6, 1989, for the division of 2.94 acres into 4 parcels and was recorded on December 19, 1989. The property has been purchased by H & H Homes, who has submitted an agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: _/ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 95-30 - JAMES BICK April 17, 1996 Page 2 Faithful Performance Labor and Material Monumentation Cash Deposit I~evocable Letter ofCredit $72,110.00 $36,055.00 $ 2,600.00 The above mentioned securities shall replace the securities submitted by the original developer, James Bite, and accepted by City Council on December 6, 1989. By process of this agreement, H & H Homes, as the new Developer has responsibility of the project. Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office. A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County Water district. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted~ Willi~i/ City Engineer Attachments WJO:WV:dlw A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR DR 95-30 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 6, 1989. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia did consider an Improvement Agreement, related Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit, submitted by H & H Homes, as Developer, for the improvement of public fight-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of Hillside Road and release of the previously approved Improvement Agreement, securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit from James Bice. WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES that (1) said Improvement Agreement, Securities, and Monumentation Cash Deposit submitted by H & H Homes, are hereby approved, (2) the previously approved Improvement Agreement, Securities and Monamentation Cash Deposit from James Bice are released and (3) the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. RESOLUTION NO. q (.~ _ ~,~~""'~..~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR DR 95-30 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping ~d Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT'NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 ~AN YAN ,;~: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO · _:: STATE OF CALIFORNIA zPR ~>,.,4--,.~d EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: DR 95-30 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 --- S2 2 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L1 Tuff Non-Tuff Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... 8 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel DU S 1 S2 L 1 N/A 4 4 4 4 Annexation Date: April 17, 1996 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director Ingrid Y. Blair, G.I.S./Special Districts Supervisor APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) I~F~]OMM~-NDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution that establishes the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace). BACKGROUND/~N,~LYSIS On December 1, 1993, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace) authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $4,825,000. On December 15, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 518 authorizing the levy of a special tax in the district. Bonds were issued on March 15, 1994 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of certain public improvements that are required for and will permit the development of the properties within the district. Wh~e the property owners within the district approved the maximum rate for the special tax at $20,000 per acre, the tax rate that is needed to meet obligations for fiscal year 1995/96 is set at $14,670 per acre. This special tax shall be levied as long as necessary for each parcel of taxable property to pay for the facfiities and to discharge bond obligations and other debt of the district. Respectfull bmitted, Services Director RCD:IYB:jmf Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) WHEREAS, the City Counc~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982', being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Fac~ities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal year 1994-95 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A, Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; Payment of .costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services, and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 93-3 April 17, 1996 Page 2 SF-CTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, Including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Counc~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Counc~ held on the 17th day of April, 1996. Executed this 17th day of April, 1996, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra d. Adams, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE ANNUAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 1996 BACKGROUND On December 15, 1993, the electors within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $4,825,000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of the street, storm drain, sewer and water improvements. The district is bounded on the north by Foothill Blvd., on the east by Etiwanda Ave. and on the west by Interstate 15. The maximum rate has been set at $20,000 per acre. This amount can be levied at a lower rate but cannot exceed the maximum tax rate as set. FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 The first annual tax rate of $14,670 for fiscal year 1996/97 will provide sufficient funding to pay debt service in the amount of $398,000. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT PROPOSED USES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS USES: DEBT SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL OVERHEAD & LIABILITY DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS $396,310 $ 33,860 $ 0 $430,170 SOURCES: DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS INTEREST REVENUE SPECIAL TAX $14,670 PER ACRE $ 0 $ 6,000 8432.503 $438,503 IIIIII1~ I r- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director Ingrid Y. Blair, G.I.S./Special Districts Supervisor APPROVAL TO MAINTAIN LEVY FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) AT CURRENT LEVELS WITH NO INCREASE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution setting the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement). There is no increase from the current tax rate for developed properties from Fiscal Year 96/97 rates. Special Tax A - Drainage FaCilities Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class I (3590+ S.F.) II (3077-3589 S.F.) III (2564-3076 S.F.) IV (2308-2563 S.F.) V (2051-2307 S.F.) Residential Class VI (Less than 2051 S.F.) Undeveloped Property $944 $699 $524 $420 $349 $245 $1,526/acre Special Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Residential Class Tax B - Law Enforcement I (3590 + S.F) II (3077-3587 S.F.) III (2564-3076 S.F.} IV (2308-2563 S.F.) V (2051-2307 S.F.) VI (Less than 2051 S.F.) 81.00 81.oo 81.oo $1.oo $1.oo $1.oo BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On June 21, 1989, the City Council approved the formation of Community Facilities District No. 88-2 for Drainage Capital Facilities and Law Enforcement services and authorized the annual levy of special taxes to finance drainage facilities. police operations and maintenance costs. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT C.F.D. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) April 17, 1996 Page 2 The special tax being levied annually for the drainage facilities are in Special Tax A - Drainage Facilities. On April 7, 1994, City Council approved Resolution No. 94-058, authorizing the issuance of bonds. The collections from the annual levy will be used to pay debt service through the life of the bonds. The levy of special taxes annually for the Law Enforcement services are listed in Special Tax B - Law Enforcement. When the collections are received by the City, the funds are transferred to the General Fund to offset the Law Enforcement costs. Respecffu submitted, A~s~o~i+~e2rvi ces Director RD:IYB:jmf Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Map A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 {DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) WHEREAS, the City Counc~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax In a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Fac~itles Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Fac~ities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facilities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the speclfic rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 9.: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal Year 1996/97 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated Exhibit SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C, Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services. D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION C.F.D. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) April 17, 1996 Page 2 SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit 'A". SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of Aprfi, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 EXHIBIT The Resolution establishing the annual special tax refers to this Exhiblt for an explanation of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes for Fiscal Year 1996/97. SPECIAL TAX 'A' - DRAINAGE FACILITIES PROPERTY CA~RII~ There are two categories of property subject to the levy of Special Tax "~', which are identified as follows: DEVELOPED PROPERTY All property identified as a single Tax Assessors's parcel for which property a building permit has been issued as of May 31 of any year. , UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY All other property, excluding property which, as of the date of the election to authorize the levy of Special Tax 'A: , is: (i) owned by a public entity; (ti) owned by a regulated public utility and being utilized for transmission or distribution purposes; or (iii) zoned as open space. TAXING CLASSIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL TAX ",~' RATES The taxing classifications for the above Property Categories and the authorized Special Tax 'A' rates for Fiscal Year 1996/97 are as follows: Taxirig Classification Tax Rate 1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY A. Residential Class I $944 per year (More than 3,590 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * B. Residential II $699 per year (3,077-3,589 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * C. Residential III $524 per year (2,564-3,076 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * D. Residential Class IV $420 per year (2,308-2,563 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * Taxirig Classification E. Residential Class V (2,051-2,307 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * F. Residential Class VI (Less than 2,051 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * G. Commercial or industrial property Tax Rate $349 per year $245 per year $2,030 per acre per year ** UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY All Undeveloped Property $1,526 per acre per year *** *** The square footage of dwelling unit living area shall mean the square footage of internal living space, exclusive of garages and other structures not used as living space, as shown on the building permit(s) issued for the dwelling unit. The acreage of a commercial or industrial property shall mean the gross acreage exclusive of any acreage dedicated or offered for dedication to a public agency. The acreage of an Undeveloped Property shall be the gross acreage exclusive of any acreage dedicated or offered for dedication to a public agency. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPF~IAL TAX 'A' Special Tax "A" shall be levied annually on all taxable property within one of the above identified Property Categories so long as Special Tax "A" revenues are necessary to pay authorized expenses of the Community Facilities District related to the financing of authorized public facilities, which may include, without limitation, payment of debt service on any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; replenishment of any required reserve fund for any such bonded indebtedness; funding of any required sinking fund necessary to pay for future public facilities or debt service; or direct payment for public facilities {CFD Expenses"}. The annual levy of Special Tax "A" shall be apportioned as follows: STEP 1: The Community Facilities District shall estimate the amount of CFD Expenses which must be paid for from Special Tax 'A" revenues collected during the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax "A" levy is to be established (the "Required Special Tax "A" Revenue"}. STEP 2: That equal percentage of the Special Tax "A" rate, not to exceed 91% of the maximum authorized Special Tax "A' rate, applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classifications necessary to generate Special Tax "A' revenue in the Fiscal Year of the levy equal to the Required Special Tax 'A" Revenue for such Fiscal Year shall be levied on all Developed Property. STEP 3: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A' Revenue, that percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax "A' rate applicable to all Undeveloped Property necessary to generate such additional Special Tax 'A" revenue shall be levied on all Undeveloped Property. STEP 4: STEP 5: If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A' Revenue, that equal percentage of the maximum authorized Special Tax 'A' rate applicable to all Developed Property Taxing Classifications necessary to generate such additional Special Tax "A' revenue shall be levied on all Developed Property. If additional Special Tax "A" revenues are still necessary to generate the Required Special Tax "A" Revenue, the Community Facfiities District shall: Compare (i) the Special Tax "A' rate which would be levied on each Developed Property combining STEP 2 and STEP 4 above with (ii} the product resulting from multiplying the square footage of the Developed Property times the Base Maximum Special Tax 'A". The Base Maximum Special Tax 'A'° means an amount equal to $0.054 per square foot of the lot or parcel. If the product described in (ii) above exceeds the Special Tax "A' rate described in (i) above for any Developed Property, the Community Fac~ittes District shall increase the Special Tax "A" rate levied on each such Developed Property in equal percentages up to the rate not to exceed the product described in (ii) above necessary to generate the additional Special Tax 'W' revenues to equal the Required Special Tax 'A' Revenues. SPECIAL TAX 'B' - LAW ENFORCEMENT All Developed Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Tax "B" . The authorized Special Tax "B" rates for Fiscal Year 1996-1997 are as follows: Taxing Classification Tax Rate 1. DEVELOPED PROPERTY A. Residential Class I $1.00 per year (More than 3,590 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * B. Residential Class II $1.00 per year (3,077-3,589 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * C. Residential Class III $1.00 per year (2,564-3,076 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * D. Residential Class IV $1.00 per year (2,308-2,563 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * E. Residential Class V $1.00 per year (2,051-2,307 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * F. Residential Class VI $1.00 per year {Less than 2,051 square feet of dwelling unit living area) * G. Commercial or industrial property $1,000 per acre per year ** I 'I. i ~ ~,,~ aAV aAoue CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Councfi Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director Ingrid Y. Blair, G.I.S./Special Districts Supervisor APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM} WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE I~ECOMI~NDATION Staff recommends that City Counc~ levy a special tax of $297.48 per acre by adopting the attached Resolution that establishes the annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System}. BACKGROUND/~N~LYSIS In 1984 an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facfiities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) authorized the district to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal mount of $20,225,000. Bonds were issued in August of 1985 in the mount of $18,000,000 to finance the construction of the Day Creek Channel. In 1986, the area between Milliken, Rochester and Highland and the northerly city limits was annexed into the district. On April 1, 1992, the City Counc~ adopted Resolution No. 92-079 authorizing the refunding of special tax bonds for this district. The refunding bonds were issued in May, 1992 in the mount of $16,530,000. The maximum rate for the special tax was set at $550 per acre when the district was formed. Since the formation, the rate has been $350.00 per acre with additional funding being contributed by the Redevelopment Agency. However, when the refunding was done, the rate was reduced from $350 to $297.48 per acre which equated to a $52.52 per acre savings to the property owners. Respectfull ubmitted, ces RCD:IYB:jmf Director Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Annual Status Report Map A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (heretnafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said Community Facfiities District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the next fiscal year. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for the next fiscal year 1996-97 for the referenced district is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated Exhibit SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SF. CTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services. D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 84-1 April 17, 1996 Page 2 SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the Community Facilities District funds, including any bond fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The Auditor of the County is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Exhibit "A'. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certi~r that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of April, 1996. Executed this 17th day of April, 1996, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 (DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM) EXHIBIT 'A" The Community Facilities District has been divided into two zones: l. ZONE"~': General areas to be served by the drainage facilities, exclusive of Zone 2. ZONE "B": A limited area, being only partially served by drainage facilities. Zone "B': consists of those properties bounded on the south by FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, on the East by ROCHESTER AVENUE, on the North by BASELINE ROAD, and on the West by MILLIKEN AVENUE. The rate, method and formula for the levy of the special tax for the respective zones, being Zone "A" and Zone "B", is as follows, based upon an estimated bond amount of $18,000,000 payable over a period of twenty (20) years. ZONE "A": $297.48 PER ACRE. ZONE "B': $297.48 PER ACRE FOR 190 ACRES. For the purpose of defining the maximum special Tax, "ACRE" shall mean acres contained in the area of the parcel as determined using the acres as shown on the latest San Bemardino County Assessor's maps. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 84-1 DAY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANNUAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 1996 BACKGROUND On dune 26, 1984, the electors within the boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $20,225,000. In August 1985 bonds in the amount of $18,000,000 were issued to finance the construction and installation of public capital drainage facilities to serve and provide drainage protection to all properties located within the boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System). In March of 1986 the area bounded on the west by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the northerly City limits, on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by Highland Avenue was annexed into the district. The first annual special tax rate of 8350 per acre was set by City Council in Fiscal Year 1985/86. This rate has never been increased in the ensuing fiscal years. However, on May 5, 1992, the City conducted a refunding of this district. Bonds were issued for $16,530,000.00 to cover the remaining debt. The savings from this refunding were passed on to the residents and decreased the special annual tax from $350 per acre to 8297.48 per acre. Under the Loan and Pledge Agreement the Redevelopment Agency contributes sufficient funds each fiscal year, that when combined with the special tax meet the requirements of the annual debt service payment. All phases of construction for the Day Creek Drainage System are completed. The construction contract was administered by the County of San Bernardino. FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 The current rate of $297.48 per acre for fiscal year 1996/97 along with the Redevelopment Agency contribution of $1,000,000 will provide sufficient funding to pay debt service in the amount of $1,780,460. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT PROPOSED USES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS USES: DEBT SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL OVERHEAD & LIABILITY DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS $1,780,460 $ 109,120 $ 113.850 $2,003,430 SOURCES: DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS INTEREST REVENUE SPECIAL TAX REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $297.48PER ACRE $ 18,230 $ 37,000 $ 948,200 $1.000.000 $2,003,430 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: 'IX): FROM: BY: SUIMECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Councfi Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director Ingrid Y. Blair, G.I. S. / Special Districts Supervis or APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL LEVY WITHIN THE ALTA LOMA CHANNEL DISTRICT NO. 84-2, THE SIXTH STREET INDUSTRIAL PARK REFUND DISTRICT NO. 82-1R, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 86-2 AND MILLIKEN SOUTH OF ARROW DISTRICT NO. 89-1 WITHOW AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT RATE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Counc~ adopt the attached Resolution authorizing an annual levy of five dollars ($5.00) per parcel for the costs incurred in the collection of assessments within the Alta Loma Channel District No. 84-2, the Sixth Street Industrial Park Refund District No. 82-1R, the Rancho Cucamonga Storm Drain District No. 86-2 and Milliken South of Arrow District No. 89-1. BACKGROUND/,~NALYSIS Section 8682 of the Government Code authorizes cities to collect an annual assessment fee of a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of installments and not to exceed sixteen dollars per parcel assessment for costs incurred in the administration and assessment collection. Rather than calculate the fee on a percentage basis, staff recommends that the City should maintain the current rate of five dollars ($5.00} per parcel. The requested fee will allow the City to recover funds for collection and management of assessment districts that are applicable to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Rancho Cucamonga's comprehensive management program including record keeping, cost management, payoff calculations, monthly financial reports, debt senrice schedules, as well as providing information to the public are funded from this fee. This fee is in place now to pay for administration and will allow the City to maintain the current rate and level of senrice. Res ectfully sub tted, Res eejti/~z~es Director RCD:IYB:jmf Attachment: Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNI/M E-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has heretofore undertaken proceedings pursuant to the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and has continned assessments upon land within various special assessment districts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Assessment Districts"); and WHEREAS, said proceedings provided for and the City did subsequently issue bonds pursuant to the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said bonds representing unpaid assessments within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, the City does incur necessary administrative expenses in the collection of the annual installments of the assessment within the Assessment Districts; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8682 does authorize the City to establish an assessment surcharge to allow the City to recover its expenses of collection of said assessments; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish such an assessment surcharge as authorized by said Government Code Section 8682. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: Treasurer is hereby directed to add to the annual installment of assessments within the Assessment Districts a maximum of five percent (5%) of the amount of the installments and of the interest thereon, not to exceed the Treasurer's estimate of the expenses of collection, and in any case not to exceed $5.00 per lot or parcel. Said expenses of collection shall include the necessary administrative expenses of the City incurred in providing the County Auditor with current information regarding the ownership or division of the affected lots or parcels of land within the Assessment Districts to ensure the proper entry by the County Auditor in his or her assessment roll and the timely collection of the Assessment installments. SECTION 3: The above assessment surcharge, when collected, shall belong to the City and shall cover the expenses and compensation of the Treasurer incurred in the collection of the assessments, and of the interest and penalties added on to the assessments. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FRO M: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Councfi Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director Ingrid Y. Blair, G.I.S./Speclal Districts Supervisor APPROVAL TO SET ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (DAY CANYON DRAINAGE BASIN) I~COMI~m-NBATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution that establishes the annual benefit assessment for Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin). R&CK~'-ROUND/~N,~r-YSIS On November 6, 1991, City Counc~ adopted Resolution No. 91-331 for the annual levy of benefit assessments for the maintenance and/or servicing of a 27+ acre-foot desfiting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel within Drainage Area No. 91-2, Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Drainage Area No. 91-2 was a developer initiated district. Protection of the properties from the ove~and flows was necessary in order to receive development rights from the City. The costs associated with the maintenance of the district was intended to be passed onto the property owners as they would receive special and direct benefit that is distinguishable from the general public. Since the formation of the district, there has been no building activity and therefore there was no need to place this district on the tax roll. However, construction of homes are now in progress and are being placed on the market for sale. There are 350 homes that will be constructed. The total annual cost for maintenance is thirty-two thousand, two hundred and sixty dollars ($32,260) for a total cost to each home of ninety-two dollars and seventeen cents ($92.17) Director RCD:IYB:Jmf Attachments: Resolution Annual Supplement to Final Englneer's Report Map A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996- 1997 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Counc~ of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, previously undertook proceedings to authorize the levy and imposition of benefit assessments to pay for the annual drainage maintenance, including the removal of sediment and debris from the Day Canyon Channel improvements and basin, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982', being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 54703), said area of benefit being known and designated as DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 (the "Drainage Area"); and WHEREAS, at thls time there has been presented to this City Council a Supplemental Report (the "Supplemental Report") to the Final Engineer's Report Drainage Area No. 91-2 City of Rancho Cucamonga setting forth a description of the proposed service, cost estimate and assessment schedule for fiscal year 1996-1997 (the "Final Engineer's Report"); and WHEREAS, at this time this City Council desires to determine the cost of providing authorized services to be financed by the levy of a benefit assessment for fiscal year 1996-1997 and to determine and impose such benefit assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SF-CTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the Supplemental Report is hereby approved and ordered to be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open for public inspection. Said Supplemental Report generally consists of the following: A. A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived through the levy and collection of the benefit assessment; B. A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment; C. The amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel. SF-CTION 3: That the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report is hereby adopted and has been utilized as the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment to be levied in fiscal year 1996-1997. SECTION 4: That this City Council hereby determines and orders that the benefit assessments described in the Supplemental Report within the Drainage Area are hereby confirmed and levied for fiscal year 1996o1997. SECTION 5: That the above confirmed and levied benefit assessment for fiscal year 1996-1997 shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general County property taxes are collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of such County taxes shall be applicable to the collection and enforcement of these benefit assessments. ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Debra Adams, City Clerk Joe O'Neil, City Engineer APRIL 1996 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 9 1-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TABLE OF CONTENTS Engineer's Report Exhibit A - Description of Service Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Exhibit C - Assessment Schedule Map AGENCY: PROJECT: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAINAGE AREA NO. 9 1-2 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO "BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1982" This Annual Supplement to the Final Engineer's Report (the "Annual Supplement") for City of Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Area No. 91-2 is hereby submitted consisting of the following documents, pursuant to the provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703. This Annual Supplement is applicable for the ensuing 12-month period, being the fiscal year commencing July l, 1996 to June 30, 1997. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE (Exhibit "A"): A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment. COST ESTIMATE (Exhibit "B"): A listing of all costs and expenses for the next fiscal year, including incidental expenses. s BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE {Exhibit "C"): The annual assessment schedule, setting forth the following: Annual Benefit Assessment: The amount of the proposed benefit assessment for each parcel. Description of Parcel: A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment, said parcel being described by the County Assessor's parcel number. No benefit assessments shall be imposed or levied upon land owned by a Federal or State governmental agency and/or any other local agency. Any utility property and right-of-way shall be subject to assessment only to the extent that it is specifically benefitted from the proposed services. Reference is made the Final Engineer's Report as incorporated in Resolution No. 91-331 for a description of the boundaries of the Drainage Area and each parcel therein and for the method of spreading the benefit assessment. Executed this 17th day of April, 1996, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: Final approval, confirmation, and levy of the annual benefit assessment and all matters in the Annual Supplement was made on the 17th day of April, 1996, by adoption of Resolution No. by the City Council. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA A copy of said Assessment Roll and Engineer's "Report" was filed in the Office of the City Engineer and the City Clerk on the 17th day of April, 1996. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The properties within Drainage Area No. 91-2 are located within the boundaries of the Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Protection of the properties within the district from overland flows requires the construction of a 27+ acre-foot alesilting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel. The channel improvements will intercept the overland flows prior to reaching the properties and carry the storm water run off, sediment, trash, organic material, and related debris to a alesilting basin. Each year the sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris which accumulates in the desilting basin and channel must be removed and transported to an approved spoils site. The services proposed to be financed from the revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment are as follows: Monthly on-site inspections of the desilting basin and channel. B. Bi-monthly weed abatement program for the desilting basin and channel. C. Removal of accumulated sediment, trash, organic material, and other related debris from the desilting basin and channel to an approved spoils site. This service is expected to be provided annually. During times of excessive rain fall, this service may be required more frequently. EXHIBIT B COST ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1996-1997 Cost of Annual Maintenance Desilting Basin Channel Subtotal $23,000 $ 7.000 830,000 B. Incidental Expenses City Administration Subtotal $ 2.260 $ 2.260 C. Total Annual Costs $32,260 D. Contribution $0 E. Balance to Assessment $32,260 EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE WHEREAS, this City Council has previously, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703, formed Drainage Area No. 91-2 all in accordance with the provisions of said Act; and, WHEREAS, the Annual Supplement for Fiscal Year 1996-1997 consisting of certain documentation (including the amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel, a description of the parcel and a description of the service proposed to be provided) has now been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Engineer, by virtue of the power vested pursuant to said Act and by order of the legislative body, hereby makes and recommends the following benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the service proposed to be financed through the levy of assessments and revenue derived for the fiscal year 1996-1997. Said costs and expenses are generally as follows: Cost of Maintenance Cost of Improvements Incidental Expenses Total Costs Contribution/Surplus Balance to Assessment $30,000 $ 0 $ 2,260 $32,260 $ 0 $32,260 I do hereby assess and apportion the total amount of the costs and expenses upon the several parcels of land within the area of benefit in proportion to the estimated benefits received, and hereby further state as follows: The amount of benefit assessment imposed is specifically related to the benefit of the parcel which will be derived from the provision of the service to be provided. B. The annual aggregate amount of the total benefit assessment does not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service. C. The revenue derived from the benefit assessment shall not be used to pay for the cost of any service other than the service for which the benefit assessment was levied. The assessment parcels herein refer to the County Assessment Roll for a description of the lots or parcels, and said Roll shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. 74 The net amount to be assessed upon the lands has been spread and apportioned by formula as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report in accordance with the benefits received from each parcel, and in my opinion, said costs and expenses have been apportioned in direct relationship to the benefits received from the maintenance works of improvement. In the opinion of the undersigned, the benefit assessments have been spread and apportioned in accordance with the benefits to be received from the proposed work and services. Dated: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA The benefit assessments are those as confirmed different figure appears in Column II, as modified. ASSESSMENT PROPERTY AMOUNT OF NUMI~F,R DF, SCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 225o471-01 to 58 225-481-01 to 42 225-491-01 to 19 225o451-01 to 35 225-451-39 to 58 225-461-01 to 60 225-072-68 Total 350 Residential Parcels $32,260.00 $32,260.00 *When final maps are approved by City Council, spread for Division of Assessments. in Column I, unless a II,· ASSESSMENT AS MODIFIED refer to the method of CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor, Members of City Council & City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 15, 1996, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report and set the public Hearings for May 15, 1996, to levy the annual assessments and approve the Annual Engineer's Reports for the Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85) for the Fiscal Year 1996/97. The Preliminary Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: This Park and Recreation Improvement District was created to provide funds to finance the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park. Heritage Community Park is a 40 acre facility located on the southwest comer of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. Red Hill Community Park is 42 acres and is located on the southwest comer of Base Line Road and Vineyard Avenue. The District boundary includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of the Deer Creek Channel .and the Victoria and Terra Vista Planned Communities. Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, each year the City Council must adopt resolutions, giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments for FY 1996/97. The assessment rate increased from $35.00 to $52.00 during the 1991/92 Fiscal Year, this rate is recommended to remain at $52.00 for the 1996/97 Fiscal Year. Assessments for PD-85 will be levied according to the following schedule: Definition Assessment per Parcel Single Family Residential Less than 1.50 acres 3.51 acres to 7.00 acres 7.01 acres to 14.00 acres 14.01 acres to 25.00 acres 25.01 acres and Larger $52.00 $26.00 $182.00 $364.00 $728.00 $1,300.00 Respec l!y sub ' . ' Attachments: Resolutions A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD - 85). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD - 85); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and contimed. 2. That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of land in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PD-85 Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, Ci¢j Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Report PD-85 Fiscal Year 1996/97 AUTHORITY FOR REPORT This report for the 96/97 fiscal year is prepared pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways code. Provisions for this annual assessment are included in Chapter 3 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The purpose of this report is to set forth findings and the assessment analysis for the annual levy of assessments for the Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85, thereafter referred to as "the District". This District, using direct benefit assessments, has been created to provide funds to finance the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. FINDINGS Section 22573, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The 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 benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." The means of determining whether or not a parcel will benefit from the improvements is contained in the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7, commencing with Section 5000 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia). The 1972 Act also provides for the classification of various areas within an assessment district into benefit areas where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of all territory receiving substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements and may consist of contiguous or noncontiguous areas. As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax; and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA. Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state, or the federal government, are not assessable without the approval of the particular agency and, normally, are not assessed. Certain other parcels used for railroad mainline right-of-way, public utility transmission fight-of-way, and common areas are also exempt from assessment. The assessment for mobile home parks will be based upon underlying lot acreage. DISTRICT ANALYSIS A. Improvement District Boundary The improvement district includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria, Caryn & Terra Vista Planned Communities. All parcels of real property affected are more particularly described in maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which are on file in the office of the San Bemardino County Assessor in the Hall of Records, 172 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California and which are hereby made a part hereof by reference. B. District Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD - 85. C. Facilities The existing works of improvement are generally described as follows: 1.The construction of Heritage Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, restrooms, equestrian facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, athletic facilities, and walking, jogging and equestrian trails. 2.The construction of Red Hill Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, water scape, restrooms, senior citizen facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, major lighted athletic facilities, jogging trail, underground storm drain system, and adjacent public street improvements. The assessment rate for the 96/97 FY is $52.00, this rate will not increase for the 96/97 FY. It is estimated that this assessment rate will cover the districts maintenance and operation expenses for the 96/97 FY. ESTIMATE OF WORK The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 permits carrying forward surpluses or recovering deficits in subsequent fiscal years. Costs for the district will be reviewed annually. Any surplus credited against assessment or any deficits shall be included in the assessment for the following fiscal year. Proposed Maintenance Budget: Regular Payroll Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Vehicle Maintenance & Operations Maintenance & Operations - Landscaping Maintenance & Operations - Facilities Equipment Maintenance Capital Expenditures Trees, Shrub and Ground cover Replacement Heritage & Red Hill Facility - Landscape Rehabilitation Capital Outlay/Building Capital Outlay/Equipment Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equip. Rental General Liability Contract Services - Landscaping Contract Services - Facilities Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: 96/97 $257.150 $2350 $95.300 $24.000 $88.700 $19.000 $4 000 $10,000 $71,250 $23,200 $19,700 $2,000 $13,040 $22,100 $14,500 $101,490 $95,950 $1,800 $870,530 Assessment Admin. and General Overhead $253,130 Tax Delinquency $101,003 Debt Service $677.000 Subtotal: $1,031,133 Gross Revenue Required: $1,900,663 Less: 95/96 Carryover $101.003 Assessment Revenue Required: $1,683,370 METHOD OF SPREAD The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 indicates that assessments may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes costs among all lots or parcels with the District in proportion to the estimated benefits received. A. Definitions The District is divided into three categories for the purpose of determining the assessments as follows: CATEGORY A - includes parcels based on the number of existing residential units within certain ranges of parcel size. CATEGORY B - includes all parcels not defined in Category A or Category C. CATEGORY C - includes exempt parcels. Exempt parcels were discovered by searching the County Assessor's computer tapes for those parcels that are listed as exempt by the Assessor or which have an assessed value of less than $500. In conducting the search, several parcels were included as exempt that show parcel sizes in excess of 1.5 acres and type codes of, for example, residential or agriculture. These parcels were added back into the rolls and assessed. Formula The assessment formula is based on actual land use information contained in the current San Bemardino Assessor's computer files and Assessor's parcel maps. Category A: All parcels containing existing residential dwelling units and meeting the following conditions. Parcel Size Range Number of Existing Res. Dwelling Units/Parcel Less than 1.5 acres and 1.51 to 3.5 acres and 3.51 to 7.0 acres and 7.01 to 14.0 acres and 14.01 to 25.0 acres and 25.01 acres & larger and 1 or more dwelling units 2 or more dwelling units 4 or more dwelling units 8 or more dwelling units 15 or more dwelling units 26 or more dwelling units Category A is based on the number of existing residential units. The actual assessment for Bond Debt Service per existing residential dwelling unit may decrease each year as more residential units are built within the improvement district. Maintenance costs, however, are expected to increase annually and will somewhat offset the anticipated decrease in assessments due to new development. Category B: All parcel not defined in Category A or Category C. Category C: All exempt parcels as defined below: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. All properties currently tax exempt; All public ownerships; Railroad mainline rights-of-way; Major utility transmission fights-of-way; Mineral fights; Parcels so small they currently cannot be built upon; All normally assessable parcels within an assessed valuation of less than $500 and 1.5 acres or less; and Summary of Preliminary Assessment Amounts Category A: The preliminary estimated assessment rate which will be levied during fiscal year 1996/97 is $52.00 per dwelling unit for those parcels in Category A. Category A parcels containing more than one residential dwelling unit will be assessed for an amount equal to $52.00 times the number of dwelling units. Category B: The assessment which may be levied for parcels within Category B during fiscal year 1996/97 shall be according to the following schedule: Definition less than 1.50 acres 1.51 acres to 3.50 acres 3.51 acres to 7.0 acres 7.01 acres to 14.0 acres 14.01 acres to 25.0 acres 25.01 acres & larger Category C: The assessment shall be $0.00 for Category C parcels. PROJECTED 1996/97 ASSESSMENTS 22,703 Single Family Parcels 266 Multi-Family Parcels Less than 1.50 Acres (1182 Parcels) 1.5 Acres to 3.50 Acres (417 Parcels) 3.51 Acres to 7.0 Acres (203 Parcels) 22600 units at 5819 units at 1078 units at 420 units at 203 units at Assessment Per Parcel $ 26.00 $ 78.00 $ 182.00 $ 364.00 $ 728.00 $1,300.00 $52.00 $52.00 $ 26.00 $ 78.00 $182.00 = $1,180,556 = $302,588 = $28,028 = $ 32,760 = $ 36,946 7.01 Acres to 14.0 Acres (123 Parcels) 14.01 Acres to 25.0 Acres (41 Parcels) 25.01 Acres or larger (22 Parcels) 119 units at 42 units at 22 units at 30,413 units $364.00 $728.00 $1,300.00 = $ 43,316 = $30,576 = $28,600 $1,683,370 PARK AND RECREATION IMRPOVEMENT DISTRICT - 85 (PD-85) ANNEXATIONS FOR FY 96/97 May 17,1995 TR 14116 18 du Z N N~)41111M ; : L ~tAV ~IA. OHD ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO T'/~'/.,~'//G STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD - 85), FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, does resolve as follows: Description of Work. SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Park and Recreation District (PD - 85) for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the maintenance and operation and debt service payment of Red Hill Community Park and Heritage Community Park thereon dedicated for common park purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said District. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of landscape maintenance (including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for illumination of the subject area) in connection with said district. Location of Work. SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the roadway rights-of-way and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams Park and Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment Districts. SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Park and Improvement District (PD - 85), indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the territory included within the assessment district and which maps are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govem for all details as to the extent of said assessment districts. Report of Engineer. SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. has approved the annual report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report title "Annual Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. Time and Place of Hearing. SECTION 5: Notice is hereby given that A Public Hearing is hereby scheduled in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, City of Rancho Cueamonga, California, 91730. WEDNESDAY, May 15, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M. Any and all persons may appear and show cause why said Maintenance and Service for the existing Improvements and the proposed improvements should not be done or carried out or why assessments should not be levied and collected for fiscal year 1996/97 Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for the heating, and no other protests or objections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention. SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Govemment Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 1996 TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Manager, FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MAY 15,1996, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the preliminary Engineer's Reports and set Public Hearings for May 15,1996, to levy the annual assessments and approve the Engineer's Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. It is recommended there be no increase in assessment rates in these districts for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The preliminary Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, the assessment rates in all eight of the Street Light Maintenance Districts are not recommended to be increased this fiscal year. These assessments cover the actual costs of the districts. Southem California Edison, during the current fiscal year, decreased their electrical rate. This rate is expected to remain stable for the 1996/97 fiscal year. In prior years State Gas Tax Funds were used to subsidize the districts. At the present time, each district is able to stand on its own without additional funding from other sources. In some districts there is an increase in the number of street lights being maintained. However these will not effect the assessment rate at this time. Edison charges for traffic signals are also included in the applicable districts. In addition, Operations and Maintenance charges for traffic signals, will also be bome by the applicable districts. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessment revenue requirements. This policy continues for the FY 96/97 and will allow the assessment rates to remain stable. The following, in conjunction with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 96/97 rates which are not recommended for an increase from the FY 95/96 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to offset maintenance costs. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 - Arterial The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $17.77 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will still be used to keep the rate from increasing. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 - Local The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $39.97 for Fiscal Year 1996/97.. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 - Victoria Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $45.15 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 - Terra Vista Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $28.96 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 5 - Caryn Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $34.60 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 - Commercial/Industrial The assessment rate will remain at $51.40 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, the rate will remain at $33.32 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, but remain at $193.75 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. This proposed rate is higher than the average lighting district due to a disproportionate number of street lights to assessment units. As more assessment units are annexed to the district it is expected that the street light-to-assessment unit will be reduced thereby reducing the assessment rate. Respectfully submitted, William. Jo~[~~~[ffi~~ City Engineer WJO:leh Attachments: Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment Districts are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of land in said Assessment Districts in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) Fiscal Year 1996/97 William J. O'Ne',~ity Engineer Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $0.00 $17,200.00 $920.00 $60,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,560.00 $255,050.00 $339,230.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $121,640.00 $26,883.00 $148,523.00 Total Revenue Required: $487,753.00 Less: FY 95/96 Carryover <$39.701.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $448,052.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to be increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $17.77. This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 1,745.97 $17.77 2 $35.54 $62,052.00 Single Family Parcel 16,067.00 $17.77 1 $17.77 $285,511.00 Multi-Family Unit 5,655.00 $17.77 1 $17.77 $100,489.00 Total $448,052.00 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION FOR FY 96/97 April 5, 1995 TR 14208 20.00 du April 19. 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac May 17, 1995 - TR 14116 18.00 du June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 1995 DR 95-09 35.94 ac July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 12.00 du September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.10 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR 95-11 0.31 ac Resolution No. 95-036 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSIESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 F LiGHTiNG i~iAiNTENANCF... DiSTRiCT NOS. I AND 2 ~ . . . ~~.'5'.~/'/~ ,',/.///'//~/~ .. ~ ~ ' .( . ~/X 4 /~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ,. STATE OF CALIFORNIA m.~-r ~l~. ~'~e EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.NOS. I AND 6 6TH STREET Pt147_'31 p.H. 42/c~6 EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT Pr17012 P.M. 72/91 - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' A*,,..,;ESS~ENiT DIAGRA,~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 l/l/////////// ; DR 94--16 ',APN 229-131-03~ i;:I , i I Crl~ LINIIT~ j am mmm me me · * ' ~ I": ! CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA COUitTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 9446 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N(:}. 3 B STRE-=T LJGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO S. I AND 6 I =t ' ...... ,:..,, lRQ-WTE . -t F-T .,,,,, ,,.,, .....L:.: -t P/~CEL I PARCEL 2 I -~w I I I CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA" COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 If/~A, ZA/V.D A v'~: ,vu~' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ?"/~=/.~//~' STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ir/lc /' EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ~ ~rRaEr tREE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUN:Y OF SAN BERNARDINO~/~ S :ATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-107 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.._~EI S"'I'RE~ L,ICtHTING MAINTENANCE DIS'T'RICT N(::). I AND 6 Z LEGEND 4. TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 94-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~B~T "A" EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD Z i,I PAR GEL I A.P.N. 0207-05t-27 LEGEND STREET LIGHT STREET TREE 1 EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF 8AN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 APN 209-021-22 9TH · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 95-3,0 . ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ExHzT "A" EXHIBIT "A* ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 9464 BASE LINE ROAD LEGEND INSTALL STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA MD!~ qS-II Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Nei/i~~En~nee~' City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local street throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit 'this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southem California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted operating costs for SLD #2 is for electric utility charges for the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipate to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #2 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Less: FY 95/96 Carryover Assessment Revenue Required: $0 $0 $0 $2,370.00 $190.220.00 $192,590.00 $47,270.00 $15.222.00 $64,492.00 $257,082.00 <$3.378.00> $253.704.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to be increased over FY 95/96 rates. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $39.97. This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 10.68 $39.97 2 $79.94 $854.00 Single Family Parcel 5403.00 $39.97 1 $39.97 $215,958.00 Multi-Family Unit 923.00 $39.97 1 $39.97 $36,892.00 Total $253,704.00 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 ~ HI~H~,4AI~ _AV~NU~ / ,"/ de EA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO T~ 14116 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 4 ~A. 1~ ~'x. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #2 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 May 17, 1995 TR 14116 18 du July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 12 du Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: Willibm J. O'Ne~'/,~i~ty Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Back£round: Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (SLD #3) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Victoria Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Deer Creek Channel, south of Highland Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Victoria Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development proj ect's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern Califomia Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #3 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Add: Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Deficit Recovery Assessment Revenue Required: $0.00 $o.0o $0.00 $1,530.00 $118.570.00 $120,100.00 $34,480.00 $7~766.00 $42,246.00 $162,346.00 $31,812.00 $194,158.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 have not been increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $47.15. following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Land Use Type Units Commercial Acre 92.44 Single Family Parcel 3763.00 Multi-Family Unit 170.00 Total R~e $47.15 $47.15 $47.15 This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The Unit Rate/ Factor A.U, Revenue 2 $94.30 $8,718.00 1 $47.15 $177,424.00 1 $47.15 $8,016.00 $194.158.00 Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (SLD//4) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Haven Avenue, south of Base Line Road, north of 'FoOthill Boulevard, and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development proj ect's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #4 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. to operate and maintain SLD #4 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Inventory General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Add: 95/96 District Deficit: Assessment Revenue Required: The projected costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540.00 $34.370.00 $34,910.00 $19,150.00 $1,887.00 $21,037.00 $55,947.00 $38,453.00 $94,400.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 will remain at $28.96 per year. FY 95/96 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $28.96. This is the same as the rate for FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 147.33 $28.96 2 $57.92 $8,533.00 Single Family Parcel 1660.00 $28.96 1 $28.96 $48,074.00 Multi-Family Unit 2610.00 $28.96 1 $28.96 $37,793.00 Total $94,400.00 Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved:/William J. O'Nei Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (SLD #5) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Caryn Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Milliken Avenue, south of Banyan Street, north of Highland Avenue, and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Caryn Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #5 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #5 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Bud~et for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Over Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental Contract Services General Liability Capital Expenditures: Street Light Installation Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Delinquency Contingency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Less: FY 95/96 Carryover Assessment Revenue Required: $4,470.00 $500.00 $1,650.00 $12,780.00 $630.00 $500.00 $0.00 $460.00 $0.00 $23,100.00 $44,090.00 $9,260.00 $1,621.00 $10,981.00 $55,071.00 <$14,554.00> $40.517.00 Analysis: There are no substantial increases in the district's budget and no new assessment units have been annexed into the district. It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 96/97 not be increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $34.60. This is the same as the rate for FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units. Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 1.171.00 $34.60 1 $34.60 $40.517.00 Total 1,171.00 $40.517.00 Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: /~liam J. O'NeiCgrity Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but _excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities within this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #6 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #6 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Salaries Over Time Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental Contract Services General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $6,700.00 $500.00 $2,480.00 $2,500.00 $300.00 $500.00 $0.00 $450.00 $33.980.00 $47,410.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $7,710.00 $7.014.00 $14,724.00 Total Revenue Required: $62,134.00 Less: FY 94/95 Carryover <$9.558.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $77.938.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to increase. FY 95/96 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $51.40. This is the same as the rate of FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Industrial/Comm. Acre 1516.53 $51.40 1 $51.40 $77,938.00 Total $77,938.00 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #6 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 April 19. 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 2995 DR 95-09 35.94 ac September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.10 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR 95-11 0.31 ac EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.NOS. I AND 6 6TH STREET PH4731 P.M. 42156 EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT PHZO P.M. - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' A~ ,,~ESSMENT DIAGRA,.~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ; DR 94-.16 , :APN 229-131-03: 9//////kj/k~. //////////////, ~ " ~ .. c,rv..u.,~....j ~ , ~'rl~ 's/:'. : I": 1000' ~ CITY O1: RANCNO CtJCAMONGA' ...-;' COtjNTY OF SAN BERNARDiNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 94--16 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.3 I~ STREt!T LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N()S. I AND 6 z. Ld ARR_0_W ....... ! ...... ,.-,,.,,. i RQ-IJTE I 4 . PARCEL I PARCEL 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA" COUNTY OF SAN BIRNARDINO /:/~ / ,~ ,~ ~ 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A* ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 + ~ 7r~ sr ~ ~rRaEr tREE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-107 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. DISTRICT NO. ~ El STREET LIGHTI~ MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND 6 Ld Z LEGEND ~:~ STREET UGHT 8 F,A, ~ (D STF~EET TREE 36 EA. I; ~ EXISTING STREET LIGHT r~ 7~ ~'~ EXISTING S77~EET TREE 4. TH ST'REEF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA D~ ~5- O~ Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT hi(:). 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PtDR 94-I-I- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~zBzT "A" EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD LLI c/ Ill PARcEl_, -.I P,l\/I, No, 48~9 BK~ 49/Pe, 4.6~47 A.P.N. 0207-051-27 LEGEND STREET LIGHT STREET TREE 1.EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASS;SSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 APN 209-021-22 m i I' t 9TH · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 95-10 . ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~-x.z~ "~" EXHIBIT 'A* ,-' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 *' t APN 202-092-05 1 ,F, GEND INSTALL STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA MDR Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (SLD #7) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the North Etiwanda area of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Day Creek Channel and *noah of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the North Etiwanda area. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development proj ect's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southem California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #7 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #7 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Salaries Over Time Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Street Light Inventory General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $4,470.00 $1,000.00 $1,650.00 $200.00 $140.00 $15,410.00 $320.00 $11,770.00 $34,960.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $4,850.00 $8,854.00 $13,704.00 Total Revenue Required: $78,664.00 Less: 94/95 District Carryover <$58.072.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $20.592.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended in increase. No new assessment units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $33.32. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 95/96 rate The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 618.00 $33.32 1 $33.32 $20.592.00 Total 618.00 $20.592.00 c- Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: /William J. O'Neil, C'~E~'ngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (SLD #8) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the South Etiwanda area of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Etiwanda Avenue, north 'of Foothill Boulevard, and south of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the South Etiwanda area. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #8 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. Generally, a tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. There are no tax delinquencies in the district for this fiscal year. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #8 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $0.00 $130.00 $0.00 $20.00 $1.500.00 $1,650.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 Total Revenue Required: $1,850.00 Add: 95/96 District Deficit: $5.125.00 Assessment Revenue Required: $6.975.00 Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 96/97 not be increased. No new units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $193.75. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 96/97 Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate FactOr A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 36.00 $193.75 1 $193.75 $6,975.00 Total 36.00 $6,975.00 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, does resolve as follows: Description of Work. SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the maintenance and operation of those street lights, traffic signals and facilities thereon dedicated for common purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said Districts. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of street lighting maintenance (including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for illumination of the subject area) in connection with said districts. Location of Work. SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the roadway rights-of-way and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams Street Lighting Mfaintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment Districts. SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 ", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 5", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8", indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the territory included within each assessment district and which maps are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment districts. Report of Engineer. SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. _ has approved the annual report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report title "Annual Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING. SECTION 5: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARINGS IS HEREBY SCHEDULED IN THE CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 91730. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M. Any and all persons may appear and show cause why said maintenance and service for the existing imporvements and the proposed improvements should not be done or carried out or why assessments should not be levied and collected for fiscal year 1996/97. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must be dellivered to the City Clerk and said City prior to the time set for the hearing, and no other protests or obvjections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evildence that such signer is the owner of the property so described. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention. SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general Circulation published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Lucinda E. Hackerr, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 15, 1996, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER' S REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the Preliminary Engineer's Reports and set the Public Hearings for May 15, 1996, to levy the annual assessments and approve the Engineer's Reports for Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The preliminary Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, it is recommended that assessment rates not be increased in any of the Landscape Maintenance Districts for the FY 1996/97. Reasons for this recommendation include water costs savings due to water conservation efforts that include a program to computerize the irrigation systems for all of the District's maintained landscape areas. In many of the districts back taxes have been paid with interest and penalties thereby increasing the revenue in those districts. In some districts an increase in the amount of landscape area to maintain has caused an increase in the amount of maintenance and operation costs. These costs will be offset by increases in revenue. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessments revenue requirements. In some districts this is still tree and has allowed the assessment rate to remain constant. The following, along with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 96/97 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to reduce rates. A tax delinquency amount is added to each district's budget to cover anticipated delinquencies in tax payments. If the delinquencies are less than expected, funds within the district can be added to the districts fund balance. j Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 - General City It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 -Victoria Planned Community It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $422.00 for the FY 96/97. LMD #2 has the largest landscape area of any district in the City with 123.49 acres, of which 32.37 acres is parks. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 3A - Hyssop It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $413.74 for the FY 96/97 . Landscape Maintenance District No.3B -Commercial/Industrial It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80 per acre for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Complex is maintained by this district. Landscape Maintenance District No.4 - Terra Vista It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $252.50 for the FY 96/97. LMD #4 has 38.25 acres of parks. La Mission Park located at the noahwest comer of Elm Avenue and Church Street will be accepted into the District this fiscal year for maintenance. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 5- Tot Lot It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $113.29 for the FY 96/97. Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 - Caryn It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $246.97 for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $307.05 for the FY 96/97. Northeast Park located on the east side of East Avenue north of and adjacent to the Summit Intermediate School will be accepted into the district this fiscal year for maintenance of 12 acres. Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $151.45 for the FY 96/97 Respectfully Submitted, Wiltiame~O,Neil~~ City Engineer Attachments: Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. ~ (.~ ..-- 'Dq ~2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment Districts are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of land in said Assessment Districts in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. (GENERAL CITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, C~ngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD #1) represents 33.05 acres of landscape area and 38.25 acres of parks which are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, Community Trails and parks. The 38.25 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park which is 5 acres, 20 acres of East and West Beryl Park, 5 acres of Old Town Park. 6.5 acres of Church Street Pai'k and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center (formerly Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center) which consists of 1.75 acres. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 21.97 24.07 Turf 1.47 1.61 Parks 38.25 38.25 Community Trails 7.37 7.37 Total Area in LMD #1 69.06 Acres 71.30Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas of the various landscape areas and the parks are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the equestrian trails are maintained by the City's Trails and Application Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #1 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs and the maintenance of the parks. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails within the district. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #1 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part-time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Routine Vehicle Equipment Rental Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Parkway & Median Landscape Maintenance Park Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Other Maintenance Services Tree Inventory Field Data Collection Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Rebuild Softball Field Arc at Old Town Tree Shrub & Ground Cover Replacement Calsense Retrofits Mandatory ADA Study/Implementation for Parks Infield Irrigation Upgrades Capital/Equipment Outlay Capital/Building Improvements Capital/Playground Equipment Outlay - Parks Capital Vehicles Outlay General Liability Water Utilities Telephone Utilities Electric Utilities Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency $76 460.00 $1 400.00 $2 430.00 $28 340.00 $35270.00 $14 000.00 $16.990.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $299,350.00 $192,250.00 $16,500.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $69,960.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,130.00 $2,780.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $8,990.00 $138,570.00 $1,070.00 $42.000.00 $1,151,080.00 $112,590.00 $63~962.00 Subtotal: $176,552.00 Total Revenue Required: $1,327,632.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$413,895.00> Assessment Revenue Required $913.736.00 For 96/97 the Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows: $3,000 for rebuilding the softball field arc at old town park, $10,000 for tree, shrub and ground cover replacement throughout the district, $69,960 for calsense retrofits throughout the district, $3,000 for infield irrigation upgrades and $30,000 for ADA required tot lot retrofit Phase I for Bear Gulch Park.. Capital Equipment Outlay of $1,450 for 25% of a Wood Splitter, $1,380 for 25% of a Pneumatic Pruning System and $3,300 for 10% of Turf Sprayer. Capital Building Outlay of $1,280 for 25% of a Cargo Container & Concrete Pad for Nursery and $1,500 to Replace Pipe Chase Doors. Capital Playground Equipment of $10,000 to enlarge Exercise Pads to Meet ADA requirements at Church Street Park. Analysis: It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the fiscal year 1996/97. The tax delinquency represents the amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 7183 $92.21 1.0 $92.21 $662,344 Multi-Family Parcel 5452 $92.21 0.5 $46.11 $251.392 Total $913,736 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 May 17, 1995 TR 14116 Single Family - 18 du July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 Single Family - 12 du April 5, 1995 TR 14208 Multi-Family - 20 du ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 -'-X OF C / T Y-MAt/N TA/A/~D ,' ~H~ ~IB S ~ ~eo UAxD CO i t' / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO T~= i~; IIG STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 k k ~ kk~kk ® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'i COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DP 95-0~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-036 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASS;::SSMENT DIAGR,~M LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STRE:_,T i..iGHTiiqG i~Aii~j ENANC~- DiSTRiCT NOS. '; AND 2 :~ tg' ~,0~ '. F-.;-':->'>-://;/,';/.,://," ,"' :/'.~\-. h CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA -r~-r ~,~, ~,+~oe Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (LMD #2) represents landscape sites throughout the Victoria Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within Victoria and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that planned community. The sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos, Community Trails and parks. The 32.37 acres of parks in Victoria consist of Kenyon Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park, Windrows Park and Ellena Park. Ellena Park, which is 4.87 acres was accepted into this district for maintenance in March 1996. Ellena Park is located on Ellena East at Kenyon Way. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 47.99 48.68 Turf 40.13 40.61 Parks 32.37 32.37 Community Trails 3.00 3.00 Total Area in LMD #2 118.62Acres 124.96 Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Trails and Application Crew and the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #2 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails and the City's Park Maintenance Crews maintain the parks within the district. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #2 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Mileage Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Capital Improvement Projects Capital Vehicle Outlay Capital Equipment Outlay Capital Outlay./Building Improvement Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $470,370.00 $5,000.00 $5 700.00 $174 150.00 $66 730.00 $12 000.00 $10 520.00 $3 000.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $695,240.00 $10,240.00 $11,000.00 $206,000.00 $24,000.00 $50,980.00 $1,900.00 $1,200.00 $12,530.00 $276,150.00 $20,000.00 $1.500.00 $2,059,410.00 Assessment Admin. & General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $145,290.00 $69.226.00 $214,516.00 Total Revenue Required: $2,273,926.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$543,262.00> Assessment Revenue Required $1.730,664.00 For FY 96/97 the district budgeted $1,000 for Capital Outlay/Building Improvements to replace Pipe Chase Doors and $900 for 20% of a Cargo Container & Concrete Pad.; $19,000 for Capital Outlay/Equipment for 50% of a Riding Mower/Trailer, $2,500 for 50% of a Small Riding Mower, $1,000 for 50% ofa Edger, Blower and Line Trimmer, $3,500 for 50%ofa Pressure Washer, $4,000 for 50% of an Aerator, $7,500 for 50% of a Cushman Type Utility Vehicle, $1,160 for 20% of a Wood Splitter, $1,100 for 25% of a Pneumatic Pruning System, and $11,220 for 35% of a Turf Sprayer; $1,200 for Capital Outlay/Vehicle for 50% of a Crew Cab Stake bed and $12,000 for 50% of a Utility Body F-250; and $1,200 for Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment for a Lap Top Computer. Also, budgeted is $10,000 for Calsense Retrofits, $50,000 for Tree, Shrub & Ground cover Replacements, $6,000 for In~eld Irrigation Upgrades at Windrows Park and $140,000 for Phase I - ADA required retrofit for Windrows, Kenyon, Groves and Vintage Parks. Analysis: In FY 95/96, the assessment rate for LMD #2 was $422.00. It is recommended this rate not increase for the FY 96/97. Part of the reason that the rate did not increase is due to the fact that water usage is down partly due to the implementation of the Calsense Moisture Control irrigation system and patztly because of the increase of rainfall last season. FY 95/96 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate FactOr Revenue Single Family Parcel 3,764.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $1,588,408 Multi-Family Parcel 170.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $ 71,740 Commercial Acre 24.23 $422.00 2.0 $844.00 $ 20,450 Vacant Acre 474.55 $422.00 0.25 $105.50 $ 50,066 TOTALS $1,730,664 C C i"l Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3A (HYSSOP) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backffround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (LMD #3a) represents a landscape parkway on Hyssop Drive south of Sixth Street. The site is associated with an area within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Total Area in LMD #3a 95/96 96/97 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 Acres 0.14 Acres The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3a are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3a are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Landscape and Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditures Tree and Shrub Replacement General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $700.00 $40.00 $600.00 $120.00 $4,010.00 $240.00 $629.00 $869.00 Gross Revenue Required: $4,879.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$1,569.00> Total Revenue Required: $3,310.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $700.00 for tree and shrub replacement. No equipment purchases are budgeted in 96/97. Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rate for LMD #3a remain at $413.74 for the FY96/97 to cover the current maintenance costs of the district. The tax delinquency represents the estimated amount of unpaid taxes within the district. No new assessment units were annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Industrial Parcel 8 $413.74 1.0 $413.74 Revenue $3.310.00 C.) C Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3b (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: ~;illiam J. O'Neil, C~/~y' Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated .with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments and 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Park (this does not include the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building. The Metrolink Station located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Jersey Boulevard and 7th Street will be accepted into the District this fiscal year. The Metrolink Station is a 2.45 acres facility that consists of entry and perimeter drives, parking facilities, passage loading and unloading platform, ticketing facilities and landscaping. The breakdowTt of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 7.10 9.81 Turf 3.39 3.40 Parks 22.87 22.87. Total Area in LMD #3b 33.36 Acres 36.08Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas in the median island, parkways and entry monuments are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. The Adult Sports Park is maintained by City landscape and facility maintenance crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3b are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3b are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Reg. Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance - Parkways & Medians Tree Maintenance Landscape Maintenance - Sports Complex Landscape Maintenance - Metrolink Capital Expenditures Calsense Retrofits Tree Shrub & Ground cover Replacement Capital Outlay - Building Capital Outlay - Equipment Capital Outlay - Computer Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $86,180.00 $2,500.00 $9,550.00 $32,080.00 $31,630.00 $1,030.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $179,740.00 $30,060.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,650.00 $26,000.00 $110,880.00 $28,370.00 $180.00 $4,740.00 $87,000.00 $75,180.00 $1,540.00 $741,810.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency $42,880.00 $46,468.00 Subtotal: $89,348.00. Gross Revenue Required: $831,158.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$250,305.00> Total Revenue Required: $580,853.00 The 96/97 Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows: $26,000 for tree, shrub and ground cover replacement, $10,000 for calsense retrofits for the district and $650 for 35% of calsense retrofits for central/sports; for Capital Outlay/Buildings, $230 for 5% of a Cargo Container & Pad, $3.650 for Upgrading Fueling system to meet code, $4,000 to build roofs to cover Washrack, Geo-Tex Storage, and Maintenance Buildings, $3,000 for equipment carport in maintenance yard and $100,000 for ADA access to softball dugouts; for Capital outlay/Equipment $1,500 for box grader for field rake, $5,000 for 3 point hitch hydraulic linkage for Unit 53, $10,500 for 50% of a Vertidrain, $6,000 for Cushman 670, $290 for 5% of a wood Splitter, $280 for 5% of pneumatic Pruning System, $3,300 10% turf sprayer and $1,500 for a 50 gallon skid type sprayer; and for Capital Outlay Computer Equipment $180 for HP plus Printer. Analysis: It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80 for the fiscal year 1996/97. The tax delinquency represents the amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Comm/Ind Acre 1646.41 $352.80 1.0 $352.80 Other Revenue: User Fees from Sports Field Lighting Revenue $580,854 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #3B ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 April 19, 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 1995 - DR 95-09 35.94 ac September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.1 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR 95-11 0.31 ac EXHIBIT 'A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT,NOS. I AND 6 6TH STREET Prf4731 P.M. 42/~6 rd EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT FH7012 P.H, 72/91 - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' A~ ~ES$~etSNT D;IAGRA,,, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 AMF,.-RON I:N~PERT'y j V/l////////////, { ' l~ ,~', ,,.,-~ .~ .r= I CITY OF RArlCI.IO CUCAMONGA COUtItTY OF SAN BERNARDItlO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANI~SCAPE MAINTENANCI~ DISTRICT NO. 3 E5 STRE"'~T LJGHTtNG MAiNT~NANC~ DISTRICT NO S. I AND 6 I ; Z: IjJ PARCEL I PARCEL 2 I ..................... I 2 ~'/t. CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA" COUNTY OF SAN IIRNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A* ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO S :ATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-107 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIS'TI~CT NO. ~ El STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND 6 Z LEGEND SmEEr UGHT 8 EA STREET 7FeEE 36 EA. EXISnNG STREET LIGHT EXISTING STREET TRE[ 4 TH STREET ,i CrTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF C AUFORNIA Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A* ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 I 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 94-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~B~T "A" EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 39 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD F- W W Z Z n,:_ <C (D PAR CELI P, jVL No, 48,69 BK, 4g/Pc, 4Gz47 A.P.N. 0207-051-27 LEGEND · -~ STREET LIGHT (STREET TREE 1 EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSg~ENT DIAGRAIVi LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 " LPN 209-021-22 ,, ( 9TH · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NJDR 95-10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~-xHz~ "~" 4 b., EXHIBIT *A' ~" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 1 ,EGEND INSTALL STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1996/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community ) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (LMD #4) represents landscape sites throughout the Terra Vista Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. La Mission Park located at the northwest comer of Church Street and Elm Avenue will be accepted into the District for maintenance this fiscal year. La Mission is a 7.98 acre park that includes a tot lot, basketball courts, sand volley ball courts, picnic areas, exercise stations, restrooms and a parking lot. The various landscape sites in Terra Vista that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos and parks. The 38.25 acres of park consist of Coyote Canyon Park, Milliken Park, West Greenway Park, Spruce Park and La Mission Park The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 8.35 8.35 Turf 6.58 6.58 Parks 28.25 36.23 Total Area in LMD #4 43.18Acres 51.16 Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #4 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #4 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Mileage Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental General Liability Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Infield Irrigation Upgrades-Coyote & Spruce Calsense Retrofits Tree, Shrub & Ground cover Replacement Rip Rap Slopes Capital Outlay / Equipment Capital Outlay / Vehicles Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment Capital Outlay/Building Improvements Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Subtotal $321,280.00 $1,000.00 $5,370.00 $118,980.00 $56,830.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $5,790.00 $235,500.00 $12,120.00 $11,500.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $34,000.00 $49,850.00 $30,000.00 $1,200.00 $6,950.00 $106,660.00 $20,000.00 $700.00 $1,099,930.00 $89,760.00 $21,010.00 $110,770.00 Gross Revenue Required: $1,210,700.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover: <$155.705.00> Total Revenue Required: $1,054,995.00 For FY 96/97 the district budgeted $6,000 for In~eld Irrigation Upgrades at Coyote and Spruce Parks, $10,000 for Calsense retrofits, $20,000 of tree, shrub and groundcover replacement and $34,000 to rip rap slopes. Under Capital Outlay for Vehicles, $15,000 has been budgeted for 50% of a Crew Cab Stake bed for Parks and $15,000 for 50% of a Utility Body F-250 for the irrigation crews; under Capital Outlay for Equipment $19,000 has been budgeted for 50% of a riding mower w/trailer, $2,500 for 50% of a small riding mower, $1,000 for 50% of an edger, blower and line trimmer, $3,500 for 50% of a pressure washer, $4,000 for 50% of an aerator, $7,500 for a Cushman type utility vehicle $580 for 10% of a wood splitter, $550 for 10% of pneumatic pruning system, and $11,220 for 35% of a tuff sprayer; under Capital Outlay for Building Improvements $1,000 is budgeted to replace pipe chase doors, $2,500 to resurface Spruce Park restroom floor (drainage), $3,000 to install a drinking fountain in new tot lot/picnic area of Milliken Park, and $450 for 10% 'of the cargo container & concrete Pad for nursery; under Capital Outlay for Computer Equipment $1,200 has been budgeted for a lap top computer w/modem. Analysis: It is recommended not to increase for the FY 96/97. Attached is the Assessment Rate Computation Chart. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 1660.00 $252.50 $419, 150 Multi Parcel 2610.00 $222.00 $579,420 Commercial Acre 147.33 $382.99 $56.425 TOTAL $1.054.995 000 (I~ > r~r. OCD OCDC~ c~oc~ (DO0 ..,-I.-0 c0o,et. LI") I- 0 o >- 0 n~ Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5 (TOT LOT) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: " illiam J. O'Neil, C~gineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (LMD #5) represents a landscaped Tot Lot, located on the southwest comer of Andover Place and Bedford Drive. This site is associated with a group of 44 single family parcels which all have a common usage of the Tot Lot such that any benefit derived from the landscaping can be directly attributed to those particular parcels. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those specific parcels. There is only one site maintained by the district. It consists of a Tot Lot and a small amount of shrubs beds and ground cover. The quantities of maintained areas consist of: Ground Cover and Shrubs Total Area in LMD 95/96 96/97 0.33. 0.33 0.33 0.33 The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #5 are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #5 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Capital Expenditures Tree, Shrub & Ground Cover Replacement General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency $0 $0 $410.00 $70.00 $1,410.00 $1,000.00 $30.00 $280.00 $130.00 $120.00 $3,450.00 $610.00 $50.00 $1,030.00 Gross Revenue Required Add: 95/96 District Deficit: $505.00 Total Revenue Required: $4,480.00 $4.985.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $1,000 for shrub and ground cover replacement. Analysis: The FY 95/96 rate of assessment is $113.29. It is recommended that there be no increase from FY 96/97 No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate FactOr A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 44 $113.29 1.0 $113.29 $4.985.00 Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: ! William J. O'Neil, i~~E~gineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Yea/96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: ' Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (LMD #6) represents landscape sites throughout the Caryn Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in Caryn that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, community trails, street trees and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Community Trails 95/96 96/97 20.74 20.74 3.94 3.94 3.30 3.30 27.98 Ac 27.98 Ac The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #6 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #6 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Reg. Vehicle Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditure Landscape Plant Material Replacement Mt. Baldwin Ct. Playground Block Wall Mt. Baldwin Ct. Playground Lighting Calsense Retrofit Capital Outlay/Building Improvements Capital Outlay/Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Gross Revenue Required: Less: 95/96 District Carryover Total Revenue Required: $8,990.00 $520.00 $3,310.00 $7,510.00 $1,910.00 $500.00 $176,430.00 $18,620.00 $20,000.00 $10,260.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $450.00 $1,130.00 $3,060.00 $70,260.00 $2,550.00 $700.00 $344,200.00 $27,160.00 $11,568.00 $38,728.00 $382,928.00 < $93.726.00> $289,202.00 Analysis: The FY 95/96 rate of assessment is $246.97. It is recommended there be no increase for FY 96/97 No new assessment units were annexed in the district. The tax delinquency represents the projected amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Single Family Parcel 1,171.00 $246.97 1.0 $246.97 Revenue $289,202.00 I' * ~ .... [ u mfglH~H~ Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Appproved: # /William J. O'Neil, ~ngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (Etiwanda North) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.7 (Etiwanda North) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (LMD #7) represents landscape sites throughout the Etiwanda North area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. Noaheast Park, located on the east side of East Avenue and north of Summit Avenue, is due to complete construction in August of 1996. It will be accepted into the district for maintenance this fiscal year. Northeast Park is a 12 acre facility that will consist of two non-lighted football/soccer fields, tot lot, picnic area, open play area, restrooms, parking lot and multi-purpose trail. The various landscape sites in the Etiwanda North area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 7.54 7.54 Turf 4.02 4.02 Parks 0 12.00 Community Trails 2.00 2.00 Total Area in LMD #7 13.56 Ac 25.56 Ac The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails and Northeast Park are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew and the City Facility Maintenance Crew. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #7 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Over Time Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities $25,730.00 $500.00 $2,280.00 $9,570.00 $13,810.00 $1,900.00 $500.00 $1,330.00 $250.00 $89,650.00 $20,500.00 $3,400.00 $0.00 $1,760.00 $20,000.00 $1,010.00 $1,500.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Subtotal: $193,690.00 $21,760.00 $87,887.00 $109,647.00 Gross Revenue Required: $303,337.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover _ <$279.00> Total Revenue Required: $303.058.00 For 96/97 Fiscal Year no capital expenditures have been budgeted. Analysis: The FY 96/97 rate of assessment is $307.05 per unit. FY 95/96. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units. Rate Factor A.U. Single Family Parcel 987.00 $307.05 1.0 $307.05 It is recommended there be no increase from Revenue $303.058.00 Clo Preliminary ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: (vVilliam J. O'Neil, Ci~ngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda Area) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.8 (South Etiwanda Area) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (LMD #8) represents landscape sites throughout the South Etiwanda area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in the South Etiwanda area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Community Trails Total Area in LMD #8 95/96 96/97 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.37 Ac 0.37 Ac The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #8 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #8 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 96/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contingency Tree Replacement Contract Service: Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditures Landscape Plant Material Replacement Calsense Retrofits General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $0 $0 $1,100.00 $370.00 $0.00 $6,930.00 $12,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $240.00 $1,470.00 $80.00 $120.00 $29,310.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $1,790.00 $164.00 $1,954.00 Gross Revenue Required: $31,264.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover _ <$14.904.00> Total Revenue Required: $16,357.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $2,000 for landscape plant material replacement and $5,000 for Calsense retrofits. Analysis: The FY 96/97 rate of assessment is $151.45. It is recommended there be no increase from FY 95/96. No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Single Family Parcel 108.00 $151.45 1,0 $151.45 Revenue $16,3~7.00 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, does resolve as follows: Description of Work. SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 1996/97 for the maintenance and operation of those parkways, parks and facilities thereon dedicated for common greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said Districts. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of landscape maintenance (including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for illumination of the subject area) in connection with said districts. Location of Work. SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the roadway rights-of-way and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment Districts. SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 2", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3A", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 4", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 5", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 6", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 7", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 8", indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the territory included within each assessment district and which maps are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment districts. Report of Engineer. SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. _ has approved the annual report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report title "Annual Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING. SECTION 5: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARINGS IS HEREBY SCHEDULED IN THE CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 91730. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M. Any and all persons may appear and show cause why said maintenance and service for the existing imporvements and the proposed improvements should not be done or carried out or why assessments should not be levied and collected for fiscal year 1996/97. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must be dellivered to the City Clerk and said City prior to the time set for the hearing, and no other protests or obvjections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evildence that such signer is the owner of the property so described. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of Califomia designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention. SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES -A residential subdivision of 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place- APN: 1077-091-35. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Tract 15725 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project. ANALYSIS: Under the terms of the Terra Vista Planned Community, residential projects are allowed to be developed within the next higher or lower density range without going through a formal Development District Amendment (zone change). Such a request, however, does require the City Council to approve the application. Because the application is proposed at 8.7 dwelling units per acre, the development falls into the Medium Residential category (8-14 dwelling units per acre) rather than the Low-Medium Residential category (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for which the property is zoned, thereby requiring City Council approval. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application and found that the application is consistent with the original approval for the subdivision. Also, the density proposed for the project is consistent with the density of the adjoining development. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the subdivision application. The house designs were previously approved by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Part 2 of the Initial Study and determined that the application will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, staff is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration. BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 28, 1996 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated February 28, 1996 Resolution of Approval with Conditions CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: February 28, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the subdivision design, detailed site plan, and building elevations for 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 8.7 dwelling units per acre Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residential; Terra Vista Planned Community, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residential; Terra Vista Planned Community, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Single family residential; Terre Vista Planned Community, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community, elementary school C= General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site presently contains abandoned modular units that were used by the Central School District as temporary school facilities. The modulars are now abandoned and will be removed from the site. The property slopes 2 % percent from north to south. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES February 28, 1996 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Background: In August of 1986, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 12671 and the related design review application, commonly referred to as the "Calais" project. The applicant constructed the majority of the development but left a remainder parcel at the northwest corner of the site. In working with the Central School District, the applicant set aside this parcel for use as a temporary school facility. Modular classrooms were brought to the site and utilized until roughly 1994/95. With the completion of Coyote Canyon Elementary and Ruth Musser Middle Schools, the modular classrooms were no longer needed by the School District. The applicant is pursuing relocation of the modulars. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 30 single family lots on the remaining parcel from the original "Calais" tract. The lots proposed range in size from 3,543 to 6,876 square feet with an average lot size of 4,163 square feet. The subdivision will complete the street system originally planned for the area. The unit mix consists of one single-story floor plan and three two-story floor plans. The single-story units are plotted on corner lots, where possible, and paired to provide variation in the streetscape. Under the Terra Vista Planned Community requirements, single family residential development shall maintain a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet with an average lot size of 5,500. If however, the applicant proposes an "innovative" product type, the minimum and average lot size requirements can be reduced to 3,500 and 4,000 square feet, respectively. The proposals by the applicant are consistent with the "Calais" project located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway. The "Calais" project was previously recognized by the City as an innovative product and was a Design Award winner in 1989. The units provide low walls at the front of the buildings to provide greater variation along the streetscape and create small courtyard areas within the front yard. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission continue to consider the units as innovative. Design Review Committee: On January 16, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Henderson) reviewed the application. The Committee felt the architectural style maintained the innovative concept originally approved with the "Calais" project. The Committee also felt that the design of the project, as submitted, was acceptable and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. Minutes are attached (see Exhibit "H"). Technical Review Committee: Under the terms of the Terra Vista Planned Community, residential projects are allowed to be developed within the next higher or lower density range without going through a formal Development District Amendment (zone change). Such a request, however, does require the City Council to approve the application. Because the application is proposed at 8.7 dwelling units per acre, the development falls into the Medium Residential category rather than the Low-Medium Residential category for which the property is zoned. Therefore, the Planning Commission's action will be a recommendation to the City Council. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed Part 2 of the Initial Study and determined that the application will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, staff is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES February 28, 1996 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for Tentative Tract 15725 and recommends that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract 15725 through adoption of the attached Resolutions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F' Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Resolution Resolution - Site Utilization - Tentative Tract Map - Site Plan - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Conceptual Grading Plan - Building Elevations - Initial Study Design Review Committee Minutes of January 16, 1996 Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 15725 Approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 15725 ¥1NltO.=ll"lvO alO lt~lOH ~MAa'i r---->_L'?-_,_T o~ VINMO,=II'IVO'V~)NOIqVO~O OHONVUVINIIOilI"IVO ~ B~q(:~'l 81/A]'1 ~Z.L¢ 'ON ..LOYUl :IAIIVIN:JI -- T ~ V.LBIA Vt:lH91 ~ZL~.'ON J. OVB4. :IAI/VJ. Na.L ,~ 11 I o: j cz/,<;I.'oN ..LOYHI ::qAI,LV,LNqJ. V,LSIA VHEF:!,L VltlO.iFIVO ~10 Ii!tOH NV'ld q..LIS O:1"llV r:lO '- sy, lii IIi lt::lrloo SIV'IVO uJ oz:l: o zrr o1~<~ o < Z Z Z Z Z < Z _1 Z < ~.7//,e,'/" ~=-8' lo8 / / Z < VI~IA VH~3L. SHV~IH ~ SE[ClIS t. ~ E ENVIRONME.-,TAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I-Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. GENERAL INFORMATION Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: Calais - Tract 15725 Name & Address of project owner(s): Lewis Homes of California 1156 N. Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91785-0670 Lewis Homes of California Centact Person & Address: Gary Luque, Lewis Homes Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box 670, Upland, CA 91785-0670 Telephone N-mher: (909) 946-7529 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): N/A Telephone Number: N/A C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G P~OJECT INFORMATIO~ & DESCEIPTIO~ Information indicated by asterisk (*) is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. -1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) .Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and ~representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): St. TroDez Drive and M~rmande 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1077-091-35 *5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft-): 3.81 acres *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 2.86 acres 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): None S) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water, and the County Agricultural Con~nission for dust control. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures- Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i-e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Topography: 2 % - 3~% gentle slope, north to south Soils: Stable and well drained. Trees: None. Flora and fauna: No remarkable species per the Terra Vista Master EIR. Existing structures: None. 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of .the site- Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): There are no noteworthy features per the Terra Vista master EIR. Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will affect proposed uses: There is roadway noise, DrimarilV from Terra Vista Parkway. Potential impacts will be addressed bv an acoustic~] study. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail- This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment- Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: The single family detached Droiect will comprise 30 units and complete the Calais project. The four house plans will be the same as the Seville homes in Tract 15526. The Calais houses will be sold from a model comDlex in Tract 15526, and the first phase of Droduction is scheduled to start in April 1997. 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects- Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): North: sinqle familv detached residential East: single familV detached residential (Calais) South: West: single family detached residential (Calais) Future sinqle family- 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No. The project will cnmplPt~ thp cal~i.~ .~hHivi.~inn. 15) Indicate the type of short-term &nd long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses- What methods of sound proofing are proposed? Calais qenerated noise will be consistent with the noise. mainly traffic, that neiqhborinq residential con~nunities ~enerate. No soundproofing is proposed. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or -replacements of mature or scenic trees: Not applicable. There are no trees. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None. 18), Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) 18,000 b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/day) 36,000 Peak use (gal/min/ac) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) 8,100 b- Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PA~kTECTS 20) Number of residential units: 30 Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Minimum: 3,453 ~q. Ft. Maximum: 7,084 sq. ft. Averaae: 4,164 so. ft. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 2~) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ 140,000 to $ 173,000 22) Rent (per month) $ Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: Plan 483 1 story to $ 3 bedrooms 23) 24) Plan 485 2 story 3 bedroom.~ Plan 486 2 story V4 h~drc~m.~ * Plan 484 2 story 5/6 }~rtrnnm~ * * Plan offers a bedroom or den ripfinn. Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: Plan Household Size 483 2 485 3 486 3 484 4 Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: 10 b. Junior High: c. Senior High: 6 [XM4MERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITOTIONAL P~UMCTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: /17 27) Indicate hours of operation: 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) ' Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: '31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): ~T.T. PA~3JECTS 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. All agencies are able and willing to service the pro3ect. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. No 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga · Date: 11/10/95 Signature: Title: Manager of Special Projects ATTACHMENT A Water Usage Average use per ,day Residential Single Family Apt/Condo C~--~-rcial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use X 2-0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Sewer Flows Residential Single Family Apt/Condos 270 gal/day 200 gal/day Cx~mercial/Induetrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac 1000-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPt .'vIENT OF WATER RESOURCES 446 35' 447 ', I R. 7 VV (CUCAMONGA PEAK) .449 R. 6 W 32'30" ', '~, ./~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY- PART il BACKGROUND 1) Project File #/Name: 2) Related File(s): 3) Applicant: Z~'F,//~' Address: Telephone #: ,¢"f'/,.5 4) Project Description: c,~O ~/,4/~,z~4,4-?,~y/_-~' ~ ~ ¢,.5' ,4C-~'~//v' 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanation shall also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." EARTH. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions ori n changes in the geologic structure? Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil? Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream orthe bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of'people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? CITY initial study - pa~ II 12/03 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA II. III. IV. AIR. a) b) C) Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, orthe course ofdirection of watermovements, in either marine or fresh waters? Q b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Q c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Q d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? Q e) Discharge into surface waters;or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidtry? Q f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? Q g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Q h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Q i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? Q PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? Maybe Q Q No CITY initial study - part II 1293 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. Xll. XIII. Yes c) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Q d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? El NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? El b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? El LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? Q LAND USE. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Q NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? El RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limitedto: oil, pesticides, chemicals, orradiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Q b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Q POPULATION. Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? Q HOUSING. Will the proposal: a) Affect existing housing, orcreate ademand foradditional housing? El TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a) b) -C) d) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? El Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? El Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? El Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? El Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? El Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? El e) f) Maybe No ES]/ El CITY initial study - part II 12~33 OF RANCHO CUCAM,~A / Yes Maybe No XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII, XIX. PUBLIC SERVICES. Wi~ the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) C) d) e) f) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks and other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of _fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) C) d) e) f) Power or natural gas? Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard orpotential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Q Q 3/ Q Q C~/ O O ~ O O ~ El Q a/ Q Q ~ Q Q ~9/ Q El ~/ AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? El b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Q RECREATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? El b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? El CITY initial study - pan II 12/93 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA XX. XXI. Yes Maybe CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal.' a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. No a) b) c) d) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co'rh'munity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) [] [] Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) [] [] Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.) CITY OF RANCHO initial study - part II 12,93 CUCAMONGA XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls.) l,,/~?,r~r p/.,4,~',v~_z~ ~4,f,4~z,,N/z2, XXIV. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. I~ b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation m~sures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. QI c) I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... QI Signature~ Print Name For Date CITY inilial sludy - part II 12/93 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: TT 15725 - Lewis Homes 30 single family residences on 3.45 acres l ,ocated on the S/S of Terra Vista Parkway, W/O Belpine II. III. Earth: a) The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area. b) The site was previously graded to accommodate the modular buildings used for the school. Additional grading will be required to provide the lots and streets for the proposed subdivision. The grading will be conducted under the supervision of a licensed surveyor or registered geologist. The impact is not significant. c) The topography of the site will be altered slightly to accommodate the building pads and streets. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements. The impact is not significant. d) No known or unique geologic or physical features exist on this site. e) Upon completion, the site will be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion. f) The subdivision should not affect any oceans, bays, rivers, or lakes. g) The majority of Califorr~a is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is not within any known special study zone that will require additional studies or that poses a unique hazard. Air: a) b) The number of vehicles anticipated with this development is consistent with the information contained in the Terra Vista EIR. The resultant air emissions will not have a significant impact on air quality. The proposed residential subdivision will not create any objectionable odors. The proposed subdivision will not result in alteration to the climate or air movement. Water: a) The development of residential lots will not effect the currents or course of water movement. b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. A Master Plan for drainage was considered as part of the Terra Vista EIR and the mitigation outlined in the Master Plan will be implemented with the development. The impact is not significant. c) The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. d) The development of single family lots will not affect the amount of surface water in any body. Initial Study Part 2 Response TT 15725 Page 2 IV. VII. IX. e) The project will not be discharging into any surface waters. f) No alteration of groundwater is expected to occur with this project. g) No direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are proposed. h) The project will be tying into existing facilities which have already been sized in anticipation of this development. The amount of water usage is not significant. i) The project is outside of the established flood plain. Plant Life: a) All native vegetation was removed with the grading for the temporary school. Trees and shrubs were installed as part of the school construction. The applicant will remove existing vegetation and replace with comparable species. b) There are known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site. c) Landscaping introduced to the site will be compatible with existing landscaping material. The plant palette will continue the pattern of existing development in the area. d) No agricultural crops exist on-site. Animal Life: a) There are no known animals that currently occupy the site on a regular basis. b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site. c) No new species will be introduced as a result of the project. d) The project is located within the interior of the City, surrounded by development. In that no animals currently use the site on a regular basis, the development of homes will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat. Noise: a) The noise level will be less than the previous school use but greater than the existing unused site conditions. The level of noise is not significant. b) The noise levels will be no greater than the existing noise levels from adjacent development. Lie'ht and Glare: a) New light and glare will be created because the property is not in use. The amount and type of lighting is residential in nature and illuminates the immediate area. Spillover is not expected. Land Use: a) No land use alteration is proposed with the application. The homes are permitted within this area and are consistent with the Terra Vista EIR. Natural Resources: a) The number of homes proposed will not significantly increase the rate of natural resource consumption. Initial Study Part 2 Response TT 15725 Page 3 XV. Risk of Upset: a) Single family residences do not typically contain materials of the type of quantities that could lead to an explosion or the release of hazardous materials. b) The homes will not interfere with emergency response. Population: a) The project is consistent with the expected population distribution in the area and as anticipated in the Tetra Vista EIR. Housing: a) The project will not create the need for additional housing. Transportation: a) The project will generate new trips because of the new construction. The number of trips is consistent with the Terra Vista EIR and is accommodated by the existing infrastructure. The impact is insignificant. b) All required parking will be provided by garages. Visitor parking can be accommodated by the on-street parking. c) The proposal is consistent with the Terra Vista EIR and General Plan Master Environmental Assessment for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. d) The project will maintain the existing circulation patterns for the movement of goods. e) The project will not affect air, water or rail traffic. f) The application is expected to increase the risk of traffic hazards because of the new construction. Pedestrian amenities (sidewalks) will be installed as part of the project. The impact is not significant. Public Services: a) The Fire Department is currently serving the area. b) No substantial new services are expected with the project. c) The school districts having jurisdiction have notified the City of the current impaction problems. A letter is on file with the City indicating acceptance of the application because of a separate agreement between the applicant and the school district. d) The project will have no impact on existing park facilities or result in the need for additional facilities. e) The site will provide new roads as part of the development. The tract will be annexed into an assessment district and landscape and lighting district to cover the costs of maintenance. The impact is not significant. f) No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal. Enerey a) The project is not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. Initial Study Part 2 Response TT 15725 Page 4 XVII: XVIII. b) The development is not expected to result in substantial increase on the demand of existing energy sources or the need for new energy sources. Utilities and Service Systems: a) The facility will not result in the need for power or natural gas systems. b) The facility will not result in the need for new communication systems. c) The facility will use water readily available in the adjoining streets. d) The discharge from the site will be handled by the existing sewer facilities. e) All storm water drainage will be handled within the street right-of-way and conveyed to acceptable storm drain facilities. f) No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary to serve the site. Human Health: a.) The development is not expected to create any health hazard. b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards is expected. Aesthetics: a) The project will not obstruct any view or vista currently available to the public. b) The project will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City thereby eliminating any offensive site visible to the public. Recreation: a) Terra Vista currently has a park implementation plan with the City to ensure recreational amenity construction as development occurs within the planned community.. b) No known religious or sacred uses are presently conducted on-site. Cultural Resources: a) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries. b) No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries. c) The project should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values. Mandatory Findines of Sieni~cance: a) No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely impacted by the project. b) There are no known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the project. c) The project is part of the larger Terra Vista Planned Community for which an Environmental Impact was prepared and certified. The application will contribute to the cumulative impacts within the Planned Community and the City. Therefore, the application will be required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Terra Vista EIR. d) It is not anticipated that the project will have any adverse impacts on human beings. Initial Study Part 2 Response TT 15725 Page 5 EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Terra Vista Planned Community for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 5:40 p.m. Scott Murphy January 16, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the subdivision design, detailed site plan, and building elevations for 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. Design Parameters: The site is located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway on the previous site of the temporary Ruth Musser Middle School and Coyote Canyon Elementary School. On September 8, 1993, the original tract, Tract 12671 was approved by the Planning Commission. The tract was approved for 57 units but because of the needs of the School District for a temporary school site, the final 30 units were not constructed and the modular school buildings were installed. With the construction of permanent school facilities, the site is no longer needed as a school facility. As a result, the applicant is looking to complete the project with the same product type originally approved, the "Calais." Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Within the Low-Medium Residential standards of the Terra Vista Community Plan, there are two sets of development standards - those that apply to single family, detached, center plot homes and those that apply to "innovative" product types. Under the center plot requirements, the minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 5,500 square feet. Under the innovative product type, the minimum lot size may be reduced to 3,500 square feet, with an average lot size of 4,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of 3,543 square feet and an average lot size of 4,163 square feet. As previously mentioned, the original tract was approved with the Calais product type on lots of comparable size. The Calais product type was originally deemed as innovative by the Planning Commission in approving the original tract. Staff believes that the completion of the tract with comparable lot sizes and the same unit type is appropriate to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that the product type be reaffirmed as "innovative" to allow completion of the tract consistent with the original approvals and the existing' neighborhood. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee wiii discuss the following secondary design issues: Lots 21 and 22 should be reoriented to take access from Marmande Place. This will eliminate the concern of vehicles backing out of the driveway on Lot 21 in close proximity to the street comer. o Single story units should be provided on all comer lots and within long rows of units to break the two-story massing along the streetscape. DRC COMMENTS TT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES January 16, 1996 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee determine that the product type presented by the applicant constitutes an "innovative product type" consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan and forward that recommendation to the Planning Commission. Also, the appropriate conditions of approval should be attached to address any design considerations. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Scott Murphy The Committee reviewed the application and recommended approval with the condition that Lots 21 and 22 should be oriented towards Marmande Place. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried Commissioner Tolstoy observed that anytime there are in-fill projects, there will be design problems. He felt the Design Review Committee had looked at this project very closely and said he agreed with their decision. He hoped that in the future there would also be sensitivity to the design. Commissioner McNiel asked that the developer make sure that the landscaping is not as weak as the area that Commissioner Melcher mentioned. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES - Review of the subdivision design, detailed site plan, and building elevations for 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and observed that staff had received a. letter from a resident indicating support of the project, requesting that a signal be installed at Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway, and questioning when Central Park will be developed. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the buyers who purchased the original Calais project were asked to sign a disclosure that homes would be built in the area when the temporary school site was no longer needed. Mr. Murphy did not know if they were given a disclosure statement. He said he had spoken with a resident who lives just south on Calais Court and received the impression that she was aware of the ultimate completion of the tract. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Lewis Development Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated he had not worked at Lewis at the time the tract was built and he did not know if buyers had signed a disclosure regarding the homes to be built when the school site was no longer needed. He did know that there had been a planned map for the lots at the time. He said they are merely completing the street that connects the two ends of the project and he thought they probably would have indicated this area to be a future phase. Commissioner Melcher asked if the map had been recorded before. Mr. Luque stated the map had not been recorded. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher expressed support for the project. Commissioners Tolstoy and McNiel concurred. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the letter from the resident had questioned when Lewis Homes or the City would be developing central Park and he noted that Lewis Homes would not be responsible for that park. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 28, 1996 Chairman Barker asked that staff respond to the letter to answer the resident's questions. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Tentative Tract 15725 and approving the design review thereof. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Solomon, 1811 North Placer, Ontario, stated he has business at 8787 Onyx, Rancho Cucamonga, that has been put on hiatus. He reported that there had been a newspaper article in the February 28 newspaper regarding a project he will be submitting for a conditional use permit for an indoor skate park. He said he is working with the City and wanted to assure the City that his intentions are sincere. Chairman Barker observed that the Commission could not discuss the project at this time because it was not an agenda item. He thanked Mr. Solomon for his comments and suggested he work with staff. COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Barker commented that he will be meeting with Father Gaglia on Fdday, March I regarding the church bells for Sacred Heart Church. He expected that the Father would want to further meet with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that when Chaffey College first opened, it had an electronic bell which sounded at the beginning of the day and every hour during the school day. He said the people in the neighborhood objected to the bells and the bells were stopped because they could not find replacement pads after the system broke down. Chairman Barker said he understood that someone climbed the tower and cut the wire to the bells at one of the other Catholic churches. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he had called St. Peter and St. Paul Church and was informed that they have the same system, but several years back a resident cut the wire and they have not had the bells in operation since then. Commissioner Lumpp requested that someone check the timing of the traffic signal at Archibald Avenue and Tryon. He thought the timing appears to allow east/west traffic on Tryon for an unnecessary extended period of time. Commissioner Lumpp observed that a turning lane was created on Rochester Avenue to allow traffic to decelerate going north on Rochester and accelerate as it goes west on Highland. He said the lane is used during evening rush hours by vehicles using it to get past the normal traffic with no Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 28, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15725, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, WEST OF BELPINE PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-091-35. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Homes has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15725, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of February 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. After concluding said hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application to the City Council. 3. On April 17, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 17, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place with a street frontage of 388 feet and lot depth of 434 feet, and contains buildings previously used as a temporary school facility; and b. The properties to the north, south, and east of the subject site are designated for and developed with residential uses. The property west of the site is designated for park uses and is vacant; and c. The project, with the attached conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable standards of the Terra Vista Planned Community and the Development Code; and d. The application proposes development at 8.7 dwelling units per acre, which is within the next higher density range as allowed subject to City Council approval under the Terre Vista Community Plan. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. '1'1' 15725 - LEWIS HOMES April 17, 1996 Page 2 e. The property is an in~ll piece surrounded by an existing single family residential tract developed at a similar density range; hence, is a logical completion of the neighborhood. f. The application is consistent with the Medium designation of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract are consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES April 17, 1996 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Engineering Division 1) Complete the street improvements on Terra Vista Parkway across the project frontage and join the existing improvements to the east and west, pursuant to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, since the perimeter landscaping along the south side of Terra Vista Parkway will be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD), Landscape Maintenance District plans shall be prepared and the landscaping constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) The median opening on Terra Vista Parkway is to be closed and in-fill landscaping provided, along with revised landscaping for the existing median as determined during plan review, pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) Install full street improvements on Marmande Place and St. Tropez Drive to current City standards to match the existing improvements constructed per City improvement Drawing No. 1141 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street trees or easements for same will not be required 4) Revise City improvement Drawing No. 1141, Calais Court, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for the drive approaches associated with proposed Lots 27 through 30 of the Tentative Tract Map. In addition to the drive approaches other improvements may consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Street trees or easements for same will not be required. 5) Terra Vista Parkway frontage to be posted for "No Parking." 6) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. 7) The Tentative Tract has shown the development to be constructed in two phases, Phase I and II; however, all public improvements shall be completed with Phase I. All public improvements constructed with Phase I shall be completed prior to occupancy of the last lot within Phase I. 8) This project is connected to or will disrupt the existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area within the Terra Vista Parkway median island because of the in-fill landscaping required. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. TT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES April 17, 1996 Page 4 assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 9) A 5-foot public utility easement will be required and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. The driveway widths shall not exceed the City's requirement of 40 percent of the lot frontage, with the exception of Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 located along the cul-de-sac of Calais Court and Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 located on the northerly side of the knuckle of St. Tropez Drive and Marmande Place, of the Tentative Tract Map, where the driveway widths shall be 12 feet, the City's minimum. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues- APN: 208-352-62 through 69. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-0'1 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01, a request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Community Commercial, by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Denial. BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject applications, heard public testimony, and voted 3-2 to deny the applications. The Planning Commission staff report and draft minutes of the March 27, 1996 meeting are attached (Exhibits "1-1" and "1-2"). In arriving at their recommendation, the Planning Commission emphasized the following issues: It was the consensus of the Commission that the land use for all vacant parcels along the two-mile length of Foothill Boulevard, from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue, should be considered as a whole prior to further rezoning of any individual parcels. The vacant parcels include two sites in Terra Vista Town Center, at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. and all vacant land on the south side in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A & IASPA 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS April 17, 1996 Page 2 The Commission restated their concern that the wide-shallow character of the subject site is not adequate for a "Community Commercial" designation as defined in the General Plan. ANALYSIS: The vision for Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Rochester Avenues has changed over time. The original vision for the south side of Foothill Boulevard, for Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was high-end commercial development with the Barton office buildings in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan serving as the model. The vision for the north side was for a variety of commercial uses ranging from general retail, at Haven Avenue, to high-end office to the east, including a Corporate Park, a Financial Center, and a Medical Park. To date, the trend has been retail rather than office development extending the Terra Vista Town Center eastward, as well as development of a new retail center at Rochester Avenue with the Terra Vista Promenade and the Masi "Retail Recreation" developments. Between Haven and Rochester Avenues a total of 161 acres along Foothill Boulevard is zoned for retail use, including 134 acres of "Community Commercial" in Terra Vista Town Center and the 27 acres for the Masi "Retail Recreation" site in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. In the same segment of Foothill Boulevard another 207 acres, including the subject applications, have the potential to be rezoned for retail development. At the same intensity of development as has been approved, this acreage could generate 1.9 million square feet of leasable retail space. There is currently 1.5 million square feet available (including the Masi site) and 1 million square feet leased. Property owners of the vacant land have already approached the Planning Division regarding rezoning to retail. The Planning Commission is studying the goals and objectives of the General Plan in order to update the justification for approving or denying these requests. The Planning Commission is reviewing the context for the subject applications in terms of land available for development, developed retail space, and vacancies. The following information is available. In addition to the Terra Vista Town Center, Subarea 7 area discussed above, there is the old Route 66 infill to the west of Haven Avenue, which supports a variety of retail commercial development with additional vacant parcels zoned for retail development. This area is characterized by shallow-wide parcels which have the appearance of "strip commercial" development. To the east, the four quadrants of the Foothill Boulevard and I-15 Freeway are zoned for Regionally Related Commercial use. The 53-acre Foothill Marketplace anchors this important retail center. Most of the 545,040 square feet approved for the Marketplace has been built and occupied. However, approximately 45,000 square feet of retail in-line shops is vacant and available, and 33,830 square feet of buildable pads is also available. Also, the Regional Mall site is planned for 1.2 million square feet of retail development on a 93-acre site, visible from the I-15 Freeway and zoned for Regional Commercial use. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A & IASPA 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS April 17, 1996 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions resulting from the above background, analysis, public testimony, and discussion, the Commission determined that the facts in support of the amendment could not be made and found as follows: The property is not suitable for the uses permitted under the proposed land use and Development District designation in terms of access and size. The proposed amendments would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposed amendments are not in conformance with the General Plan and are not in conformance with the Development Code because of the inadequacy of the site to promote the goals and objectives for development permitted by the Community Commercial designation. CORRESPONDENCE: A letter from Peter Desforges to the Planning Commission dated April 2, 1996, has been received (Exhibit "1-3"). It was placed on the Planning Commission agenda for April 10, 1996 for discussion purposes only. ACTION: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's Resolutions to deny General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Amendment 96-01 should be approved. recommendation, the attached Industrial Area Specific Plan Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:MB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "1-1" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 Exhibit "1-2" - Planning Commission Minutes dated March 27, 1996 Exhibit "1-3" - Letter from Peter Desforges dated April 2, 1996 Resolution of Denial for General Plan Amendment 96-01A Resolution of Denial for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: March 27, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ao Action Requested by Applicant: This application is a request to change the south side of Foothill Boulevard from Industrial Park to Community Commercial retail between Spruce and Elm. No concept Master Plan has been submitted with this application. These applications are virtually the same applications as General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, which were recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1995 (Exhibits "AA and "BB") and denied by the City Council on November 1, 1995 (Exhibits "CC" and "DD"). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Partially developed with retail stores, including home electronics, linens/home accessories; craft supplies; bookstore; and coffee house; with pads for up to four restaurants - Terra Vista Planned Community: Community Commercial District. South - Developed - Hotel; and Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7: Industrial Park and Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan East - Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7: Industrial Park and Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan West - Developed - Vacant Restaurant; and Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7: Industrial Park and Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan C. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 2 General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park North - Community Commercial South -Industrial Park East - Industrial Park West --Industrial Park Site Characteristics: The site encompasses 14.45 acres of undeveloped land bounded on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the south by Eucalyptus Street, on the east by Elm Avenue, and on the west by Spruce Avenue (see Exhibit "A" under Exhibit "AA"). The site slopes gently from north to south with a drainage easement across the property just east of the mid-point between Spruce and Elm Avenues. Soil conditions are stable. The site is partially covered with old growth vineyards which appear abandoned and partially covered with weeds. The only trees on the site were planted at the intersection of Foothill and Spruce as part of the landscaping requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park site development. There are no structures on the site. BACKGROUND: On October 11, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres of land on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues and voted 4-0-1 to deny the application (McNiel absent). The Commission expressed support for commercial development on the site consistent with uses already allowed in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan (Exhibit "BB" ). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. On November 1, 1995, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the aforementioned application and voted 3-2-0 to deny without prejudice (Biane and Gutierrez voted no). Council members emphasized that this was a land use decision (Exhibit "DD"). On December 20, 1995, the City Council and the Planning Commission held a workshop on the Agajanian Market Study and the Council directed the Commission to develop policies and objectives for retail development. On January 31, 1996, the Planning Commission began their review of policies and objectives, as well as a review of the Foothill Boulevard retail corridor. Also, on January 31, 1996, at the request of Peter Desforges, representing the subject property, the Commission discussed a design workshop for the site. The consensus was that the Commission could host a design workshop as part of a Pre-Application Review process. On February 13, 1996, instead of going forward to resolve site development and design issues for a retail center through the Pre-Application Review process, the applicant submitted the subject requests for General Plan Amendment and Industrial Specific Plan amendment only. Agajanian Market Study: The Agajanian Market Study was presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission at several meetings and workshops. The Study, which was prepared in close cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, advised aggressive efforts PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 3 to attract development. It indicated development of between 400 and 550 acres of retail and office commercial development can be expected Citywide in the long term. Currently 1,714 acres are zoned for, or are under consideration for, commercial development. The Study also offered a number of general conclusions as well as specific observations for Foothill Boulevard. The Study stated (general conclusion in bold): Promote aggressive commercial development: Continue to promote commercial development along Foothill Boulevard on property which is currently zoned for retail use. Build synergy with commercial siting: Development potential of large single ownership properties as exemplified by Victoria Gardens and Terra Vista Town Center. Orient new retail toward residential growth area in north Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana: Expand sites at the Foothill Boulevard/I-15 retail node. Retain Foothill Boulevard as the principal commercial corridor: Central Foothill Boulevard, between Haven and Rochester Avenues, should continue to develop community retail stores in largely "center" settings. Frontage properties along the southern side of Foothill Boulevard should be reserved for ancillary/ business support commercial development, not retail development which competes with the north side of Foothill Boulevard. Public testimony by Mission Land Company and Western Properties supported the conclusions of the Market Study. Mission Land Company supported the Study based on a review by their market consultant. Western Properties initially questioned the conclusions, but stated full support at the January 31, 1996, meeting of the Planning Commission. Wohl Investment Company testified that the Study supports a land use change for their property opposite Town Center Square. The justification statement submitted with the subject application restates their testimony (Exhibit "GG"). However, as referenced above, the Market Study states: "The frontage properties along the southern side of Foothill Boulevard in [this study's] Subarea 2 should be reserved for commercial development, but not necessarily retail development" (p. 71). As stated above, the City Council and the Planning Commission met and discussed the Market Study at an adjourned meeting on December 20, 1995. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for long term goals and strategies for retail development. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHURANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 4 On January 31, 1996 the Planning Commission continued discussion of the Market Study (see attached minutes, Exhibit 'EE") and directed staff as follows: Move forward via the existing Industrial Area Specific Plan to add retail uses to the north side of Fourth Street opposite the Ontario Mills Mall; Build on success of the Foothill Marketplace by facilitating retail development at the Foothill Boulevard/I-15 Interchange; Defer study on the State Route 30 Freeway access ramps until the freeway design is final; Continue to study the Foothill Retail Corridor, including the potential for adding retail development on the south side of Foothill between Haven and Rochester; Work with an applicant on his initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 8 to add "automotive sales" as a conditionally permitted use. On February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission again considered the Market Study and reviewed development along the Foothill Boulevard retail corridor from Grove Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit "FF"). The Commission requested staff to return in a workshop setting when additional land use and zoning data has been obtained. The review of the Foothill Corridor between Deer Creek Channel and Day Creek Channel indicated that virtually all the property owners on the south side of Foothill Boulevard have contacted the Planning Department regarding the potential for land use change from office and industrially related retail to unrestricted retail. Retail development along this segment has progressed generally from west to east. Additionally, Western Properties indicated an interest in requesting retail for their remaining Foothill Boulevard frontage between Elm and Rochester. In response to the Commission's request for more information in vacancies, staff has found that there is approximately 466,000 square feet of retail leasable area available or with approved pads within the Terra Vista Community Plan. There is also 260,255 square feet approved in the Masi Project at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. ANALYSIS: The applicant's justification statement asserts several points to support reconsideration of the requested land use change. These points will be presented and discussed as follows: Foothill Boulevard is the Primary Retail corridor of the City: The applicant states and staff agrees that Foothill Boulevard is the primary retail corridor for the City. Foothill Boulevard extends a distance of approximately 6 ¼ miles through the City. The Market Study advised focusing on solidly anchored, single-ownership centers including the Victoria Gardens and Terra Vista Town Center, as well as projects at the I-15/Foothill Boulevard node, including the Foothill Marketplace. Testimony during review of the Market Study cautioned that opening the entire corridor to retail development from Haven Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue tq7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 5 would dilute the leasing power of the activity centers and may slow retail development. Leasing and related financing problems at the approved Masi site at Rochester and the Moore site opposite the Foothill Marketplace were also cited. The Market Study stated that the south side of Foothill Boulevard, which is zoned Industrial Park in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, should be reserved for ancillary and business support commercial development, but not necessarily retail development. The Rancho Cucamonga Business Park (of which the subject site is a part) has Master Planned the site for multi-story office and food court uses. A subsequent proposal was approved for a high-end commercial design center. The design center was to compliment and not compete with the retail activity within the retail centers along Foothill Boulevard in the Terra Vista Planned Community. With development of the hotel within the southwest quadrant of the subject site, restaurants and entertainment would be the most compatible type of uses, and are already permitted, or conditionally permitted, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Demand for substantial acreage to support retail development: The City has 1,002 acres of undeveloped commercial land and another 712 acres with potential for rezoning to commercial development. The Agajanian report concluded that the long term build out potential is for not more than 550 acres of additional office and retail development. Retail needed to serve population growth: Population growth in the City during the past four years has been slight, averaging 2.9 percent per year. During this period, retail development has been in a catch-up phase to meet the needs of population growth which occurred during the 1980s. Residential growth through the remainder of the 1990s is uncertain. New residential development is likely to increase as the economy in the Inland Empire improves, but for now remains relatively flat. For example, according to the Business Press San Bernardino County housing starts during December 1995 lagged behind housing starts in December 1994 by 32 percent, but the L.A. Times reported that in January 1996 housing permits were only 1 percent behind January 1995 in the Riverside- San Bernardino area. One dampening effect on production and sales of new product is that the price of existing homes is still declining throughout the region. Compatibility with General Plan: (see also Exhibit "AA" Land Use Analysis): The applicant states that retail use is compatible with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages retail development in a hierarchy of "Centers" defined by acreage and activity and discourages "strip development." Strip development refers to retail businesses with frontage on arterial streets which are located on individual, often non-contiguous parcels of relatively shallow depth. Strip development describes the condition along Foothill Boulevard prior to City incorporation. In the General Plan a "Center" has an acreage criteria, a gross leasable area criteria, and a market area criteria. In the hierarchy of commercial land uses, a Community Commercial Center would be between 15 and 50 acres in size and intermediary in activity between a Neighborhood Center and a Regional Center. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 6 It is unusual to receive a request for a land use change without an application for development. While a development application is not bound to a land use change, it provides a strong indication of what is intended to happen. A Community Commercial designation on the subject site without a master plan or other development parameters to avoid strip commercial could not be found consistent with the General Plan. No application for development has been received with this application for land use change. Critical mass: This term is used when a sufficient number and type of businesses are grouped together to attract consumers. Critical mass has been obtained in the Terra Vista Planned Community from Haven Avenue to Elm. The applicant's request could add retail opportunities to Terra Vista's critical mass or it could dilute the current success of the Terra Vista Center. An important consideration with a land use change is whether it can achieve an intended result. The properties to the east, west, and south of the subject site are zoned Industrial Park. An amendment to the land use midway between Haven and Milliken would not logically build on the critical mass created by the activity center expanding from Haven and would be spot zoning. The Terra Vista retail focal area is consistent with the General Plan "Centers Concept" and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan "Activity Centers" concept. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan further defines centers as follows: Activity Centers are points of intersection at major streets or landmarks along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. As such, they are points of concentrated activity which give identity to individual subareas. The "Centers" concept has proven successful in the City. The two most successful are the Terra Vista Town Center and the Foothill Marketplace. Major anchors are doing well in these locations, but in-line shops are struggling. A recent study of Inland Empire Commercial Development for CB Commercial by Alfred Gobar stated that even well-anchored centers in the Inland Empire region have a vacancy rate of 11.6 percent, "about a percentage point better than last place Dallas/Ft. Worth". The highest reported vacancy rate was for unanchored strip centers which have a 18.4 percent vacancy rate in the Inland Empire compared with a 3.4 percent vacancy rate for the leader, Minneapolis/St. Paul (Exhibit "HH"). Foothill Corridor and 4th Street Comparison: The applicant states that the addition of retail along Foothill Boulevard is the same as adding retail along 4th Street. There is an important difference between "Centers" development on Foothill Boulevard and potential retail development on 4th Street. The former is directly tied to residential development and focuses on the Rancho Cucamonga "Community" market. The latter is freeway-linked to the region, focuses on a regional market, and may pull consumers and sales tax dollars away from Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario. The Terra Vista retail center and the Foothill Marketplace development primarily serve existing residential development in the City, drawing heavily on the Terra Vista and Victoria Planned Communities, as well as new residential construction north of Foothill Boulevard PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHURANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 7 in Fontana. The Community Commercial designation is intended to draw customers from the entire City, but adjoining and nearby residential areas are the also expected to provide a substantial number of the customers for Community Commercial developments. In contrast, there is no residential development in the immediate vicinity of the Ontario Mills site. The Mills mall is intended to be a destination center drawing from the regional population. It will be dependent on those who will typically choose the mall as their destination and will arrive via the 1-15 freeway or the 1-10 freeway. Additional retail development opposite the Mall would aim to dived some of those regional customers. Further, retail sales along 4th Street in the City has the potential to bring sales tax revenue into the City which would otherwise go to the City of Ontario. Mixed Use designation: The applicant incorrectly describes the Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square as "mixed use" developments. They are designated "Community Commercial" which is a commercial retail use and not a mixed use. In the Terra Vista Community Plan there is a "Mixed Use" designation which is described as follows: Mixed use centers have the ability to provide stimulating, integrated environments that include commercial, office, entertainment and leisure time, and residential developments -- all clustered together into unified, highly identifiable developments (emphasis added.) Fiscal Impact: The applicant states that the Good Guys store would increase opportunities for comparison shopping for electronics merchandise in Rancho Cucamonga. If built, the amount of net increase in sales tax revenue is uncertain in that an increase in sales by Good Guys may result in a decrease in sales by other electronics merchandise stores in the City, for example: Montgomery Wards Electric Avenue, Circuit City, and Best Buy. With the subject applications, the applicant resubmitted the market study by Urban Research Associates: Table 3 identified the 1995 demand for electronics merchandise in the market area as 63,800 square feet with a supply of 100,600 square feet already developed in the City (Exhibit "11"). Act swiftly and aggressively to attract retail business into the city: The applicant refers to the Agajanian Market Study. The imperative in the Agajanian study is for selective effort, for example to support retail development in a "Centers" setting such as development of the Victoria Mall site, development at the 1-15 and Foothill Boulevard intersection, and development along 4th Street opposite the Mills. The applicant also refers to aggressive time lines achieved by Western Properties to develop their Town Center Square and Promenade sites. The success of those applications was due in large part to the diligence of the developer. Western properties submitted applications for development concurrently with a request for land use change, resolved site planning and design issues early in the process, and was poised to advance to plan check immediately after the City Council's decision to proceed. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 8 Design: There are no design issues to be considered with these applications, because no development project has been submitted for review. When a development package is submitted, design issues can be addressed. As with any project in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, within the limits of existing Design Guidelines and City policies, the design of the site can be controlled by the Planning Commission. Compatibility with existing and intended future development, as well as buffering of certain uses such as dock delivery areas, would be required. Market Studies: The applicant states that the Lewis (Western Properties) and Masi market studies support the requested change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial. Those studies were site specific to the Western Properties and Masi requests for land use change and did not address any other sites, including the subject site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: There has been no material change in the subject applications from previously reviewed applications for General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area 'Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. The Initial Study, Part I and Environmental Checklist, Part II, for the aforementioned applications are incorporated into this application (Exhibit "JJ"). Staff has found that no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed land use amendments. A Negative Declaration would be recommended upon approval of the subject application. CORRESPONDENCE: Wohl Investment: The attached letter and site plan schemes "A", "B", and "C" were received from the applicant on March 14, 1996 (Exhibit "KK"). A revised scheme "C" was forwarded by the applicant on March 19, 1996 (Exhibit "LL"). Again, no application for development has been received with this application and none of the schemes would be a part of an approval of the subject applications. As stated earlier in this report, staff has continued to encourage the processing of a development proposal concurrent with any General Plan application. Also, the Planning Commission and staff suggested a Pre- Application review to consider site design issues for the property. The applicant has chosen not to process development plans, but has submitted the attached schemes as development possibilities. These schemes have not been previously considered by either Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission. Lewis Homes: The attached letter from Lewis Homes Management Corporation dated March 13, 1996, discusses vacant and/or available retail space along Foothill Boulevard in Terra Vista Town Center, Town Center Square, and Terra Vista Promenade (Exhibit "MM"). Five merchants are in bankruptcy -- Home Express, Clothestime, Discovery Zone, Lingerie for Less, and Anna's Linens) -- accounting for 68,421 square feet of available space to add to the 397,578 square feet of vacant stores or available pads in the centers for a total of 465,999 square feet of vacant/available space. This is 38 percent of the total retail space in the three Centers. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO March 27, 1996 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION: These applications are virtually identical to General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 which were recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1995, and denied by the City Council on November 1, 1995. The only circumstance which has changed is completion of the Agajanian Market Study. The Study encouraged commercial development but discouraged adding retail uses in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Rochester. The Planning Commission has not completed their review of development along the Foothill Corridor. However, at the request of the applicant to expedite review of these applications and to facilitate the decision process, this item has been brought forward. Staff recommends denial and resolutions recommending denial are attached. BB:MB:sp Attachments: "BB" 'CC" - "DD" - "EE" - "FF" - "GG" - "HH" - "lr' - ,,j j,,_ "KK" "LL" "MM" - Planning Commission Staff Report - October 11, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes - October 11, 1995 City Council Staff Report - November 1, 1995 City Council Minutes - November 1, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes - January 31, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes- February 14, 1996 Applicanrs Justification Statement "Local retail vacancy rates" article, Business Press, February 19, 1996 "Table 3: Focused Market Analysis: Foothill Courtyard Retail Center Environmental Assessment Part I and Part II Applicanrs Site Plan Schemes "A," "B," and "C" Applicanrs Revised Scheme "C" Correspondence: Lewis Homes Letter, March 13, 1996 Resolution Recommending Denial - General Plan Amendment 96-01A Resolution Recommending Denial - Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' STAFF RF, PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 11, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ao South - East - West Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Partially developed with retail stores, including Home Electronics, Linens/Home Accessories, and Craft supplies; with a bookstore and coffee house under constructions; and with pads for up to four restaurants - Terra Vista Planned Community - Community Commercial Developed - Hotel; and Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan Developed - Vacant Restaurant; and Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan North South East West ,-.,~, General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park Community Commercial Industrial Park - Industrial Park - Industrial Park PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The site encompasses 14.45 acres of undeveloped land bounded on the North by Foothill Boulevard, on the South by Eucalyptus Street, on the east by Elm Avenue, and on the west by Spruce Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). The site slopes gently from north to south with a drainage easement across the property just east of the mid-point between Spruce and Elm Avenues. Soil conditions are stable. The site is partially covered with old growth vineyards which appear abandoned and partially covered with weeds. The only trees on site were planted at the intersection of Foothill and Spruce as part of the landscaping requirement for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park site development. There are no structures on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed the initial Study, Part I and completed the Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed land use amendments. Potential impacts, determined not to be significant, include: Air Quality: The proposed land use change would increase air emissions, primarily from vehicle trips, due to the intensity of retail development. However, because of the high ratio of retail uses allowed and previously approved on the site under the Industrial Park classification, including the existing hotel, the increase is below the South Coast Air Quality thresholds of significance. B. Transportation: The proposed land use change does not significantly increase traffic impacts. LAND USE ANALYSIS: A. History of the Site: The site is designated Industrial Park in.the General Plan and located in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area specific Plan (see Exhibits "B" and "C"). The Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan was approved in 1981 for the area bounded on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the south by Arrow Highway, on the 'east generally by Milliken Avenue, and on the west by Haven Avenue. The original vision for the subject site was for a continuation of the high rise office buildings to the west plus a food park. In 1987 a development proposal was approved. The proposal included a small hotel, food park, and retail stores and shops. The project was amended to provide a large hotel which was built, but the approval for the remainder of the development expired. Appropriateness of the Existing Designation. The existing Industrial Park designation includes a number of commercial uses which could contribute to a vibrant downtown area. Permitted or conditionally permitted uses include restaurants, theaters, art galleries, entertainment, athletic clubs, and indoor and outdoor commercial recreation. The site is suitable for development under the existing designation for many commercial combinations. The Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan adopted in 1981 and still valid, emphasizes office development similar to the Barton Plaza buildings to the west together with a Food Court. Each alternative incorporates the original food court concept. A 1987 approved and expired development plan emphasized retail development allowed under the PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 3 Industrial Area Specific Plan. Also, inquiries have been received for a multi-plex theater development which would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the above uses, many development options are available because many commercial uses are allowed under the existing zoning. Permitted or conditionally permitted retail uses include convenience sales (pharmacies, barber and beauty shop, cleaners, tailors, newspaper/magazine store, florist), food and beverage sales (delicatessen, doughnut shop, ice cream/yogurt shop, bakery), most retail automotive uses (sales, rentals, repairs, service station), business supply (business machines, photocopy, print shop), and building supply/home improvement (floor covering, glass, hardware, lighting, paint, window covering). Also a number of commercial services are permitted or conditionally permitted, including medical services, financial services, travel agencies, and real estate services. Not permitted under the existing designation are commercial uses such as department store/apparel/general merchandise type retail, home electronics, music and video stores, appliance sales, or furniture stores. These uses would be permitted under the proposed Community Commercial designation. Appropriateness of the Proposed Designation. The project site is 14.45 acres and proposed to support 133,515 square feet of leasable area. The site appears to be insufficient in size to support the General Plan's Community Commercial designation. A Community Commercial site generally ranges in size from 15 to 50 acres. The size of the subject site is less than 15 acres. The proposed leasable area of 133,515 square feet is within the Community Commercial range, but may be high in relation to the design parameters for the subject site. The applicant states that the population within the assumed market is 152,000, a population typically associated with a Regional Commercial designation. The General Plan sets up the hierarchy of commercial site criteria ranging from Neighborhood Commercial (the smallest) to Regionally Related Commercial (the largest). According to the General Plan, a Neighborhood Commercial site ranges from 5 to 15 acres which will support leasable floor area of from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and is intended to serve about 10,000 residents in the immediate vicinity. It is typically anchored by a supermarket. The site size of the subject application would be typical for a Neighborhood Center. General Commercial is the next level of intensity of use. Size is not specified. The K-mart Center on Haven Avenue south of Foothill has a General Commercial designation within the Industrial Area Specific Plan and was established as part of the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan. The Virginia Dare Center also has a General Commercial designation under the General Plan. Commercial development regulated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is designated General Commercial under the General Plan. It should be noted that although development standards within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan identify varying levels of intensity including a "Community Commercial" designation, none are intended to develop to the intensity of commercial use described in the General Plan as "Community Commercial." Under the General Plan designation, the prototype is the Terra Vista Town Center. PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 4 The General Plan states that the Community Commercial designation is aimed at approximately 20,000 residents within a 5 mile radius. The site size is up to 50 acres and capable of supporting leasable floor area ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. Community Commercial sites include the Town Center and Town Center Square, as well as the proposed Promenade development, all within the Terra Vista Planned Community with frontage on Foothill Boulevard. The Town Center Square located across from the subject site was approved as Community Commercial use on a 25-acre site supporting 222,600 square feet of leasable stores. The Terra Vista Promenade located west of Rochester Avenue is an application under consideration for land use change to Community Commercial for a 45-acre site supporting 457,801 square feet of leasable area. The Regional Commercial designation is at the top of the hierarchy. It is expected to serve a population base of at least 150,000 persons. An example is Foothill Marketplace located on Foothill Boulevard east of the I-15 Freeway interchange. It is a 60-acre site approved for 550,000 square feet of leasable stores. The applicant has submitted a concept plan and a justification statement with an addendum describing the proposed development (see Exhibits "D" and °'E"). In this application, the size of the site is at the upper limit of the Neighborhood Commercial designation. According to the concept plan the site will support 133,515 square feet of leasable space, including four anchor stores, five in-line shops, and two in-line food shops, one fast food drive-thru business, and one freestanding restaurant. Generally, a 15-acre site would be expected to support not more than 100,000 square feet of leasable space. The leasable area illustrated in the concept plan is within the low range of the Community Commercial designation. The proposed leasable area may be in excess of what the design criteria for the site will actually support. An analysis of the site capacity will occur at the time an application for development is submitted. However, the concept plan will be briefly discussed in this report. Good Guys, a retail electronics store, is a committed anchor tenant in a 20,250 square foot space on the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, and would be typical of a Community or Regional Commercial user. Market Demand. The Foothill Courtyard Market Study identifies the current marketing population at approximately 153,000 (see Exhibit "F"). The population to be served includes the entire City population of 117,903, as well as the approximately 35,000 persons residing in the Village of Heritage and the unincorporated County island east of the City and north of the Metrolink line. The market area analyzed is larger than the General Plan's description of area to be served, but a reasonable market area. The Foothill Courtyard Market Study references the 1993 Terra Vista Market Study for the Town Center Square application. The Terra Vista Market Study identified a primary plus secondary market area incorporating residents as far south as the 1-60 Freeway in Ontario and as far east as Sierra Avenue in Fontana. For this area it identified a 1993 population of 250,000 persons and a year 2000 population of 335,000. It identified 971 acres of commercially zoned land in the City and concluded that by the year 2000 there would be a shortfall of 143 commercially zoned acres. PLANNING COMMISSION S FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 5 Staff and the Planning Commission questioned the size of the market area, the population figures, and the need for additionally zoned commercial acreage. These questions prompted the City's Market Study which is in progress. The Foothill Courtyard Market Study considered a more realistic market area and population, but referred to the conclusion in the 1993 Terra Vista Market Study of need for additional commercially zoned land in the City by the year 2000. The City's Market Study will address reasonable market area, expected population, impacts of the Ontario Mills regional commercial development, and the City's future need for commercially zoned acreage. Review of the Courtyard Market Study indicates that it does not support a land use change based on unmet retail demand for the retail specialties on which it focuses. The focus is on Home Electronics, Fast Food, Family Restaurants, Upscale Dining, Linens/Home Accessories, and Bookstores. The Market Study does not support additional electronics-computer retail square footage based on unmet demand. The 1995 demand is stated as 63,800 square feet and the supply at 100,600 square feet, or a current excess of 36,800 square feet. Adding another 20,250 square feet of this retail speciality is justified in the report with the statement: "A commitment from The Good Guys chain to open a store in the Foothill Courtyard demonstrates that the home electronics market segment is certainly not a closed one." The Market Study emphasizes unmet demand for Fast Food/Take Out, Family Restaurants, and Upscale Dining. However, these are all permitted or conditionally permitted uses under the existing Industrial Park designation. Further, there are unbuilt pads for restaurants nearby, including up to three pads in Town Center Square. The Market Study identifies unmet demand for Linens/Home Accessories and Bookstores. However, it states that based on leasable floor area the recently completed Home Express store in Town Center Square, as well as the Barnes and Nobel bookstore under construction will fill these demands. Compatibility with surrounding Industrial Park Land Uses. The south side of Foothill Boulevard from Haven to Milliken is master planned for professional office use mixed with Food Park uses. Haven Avenue to Aspen Avenue has developed as high rise office use. The introduction of Community Commercial use between Spruce and Elm Avenues would set a precedent for additional Community Commercial development on the south side of Foothill and reduce opportunities for future professional office development. However, as stated above under the existing zoning many commercial uses would be allowed on the site other than office. Further, the application for land use change raises questions about compatibility with existing and planned development immediately adjoining the subject site. An important issue is design orientation. The applicant's concept plan is designed to face Foothill Boulevard and place in- line anchor stores and shops at the rear of the site. Loading docks and receiving areas would be situated at the rear of the buildings which would potentially face entrances of buildings on the south side of Eucalyptus Street. The proposed Good Guys store also faces Foothill with PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 6 its loading dock facing the entrance and rooms of the existing Best Western Hotel. The applicant proposes a combination of screen walls, landscaping, and design detail on the rear building faces to soften the interface. The compatibility issue is not resolved by the aforementioned design elements. The depth of the proposed Courtyard site severely restricts opportunities for landscape screening. The depth of the Courtyard ranges from approximately 270 to 505 linear feet. In comparison, the depth of the Town Center Square site ranges from approximately 660 to 880 linear feet. The Promenade site .ranges in depth from approximately 895 to 1,100 linear feet. Stores requiring loading docks may not be appropriate on this shallow site. The depth of the Courtyard site makes it difficult to buffer large stores with rear loading docks. The Foothill Boulevard setback requirements are: parking, 25 feet minimum; building, 45 feet minimum; and landscaping, 45 feet minimum. The setback requirements for Eucalyptus Street are: parking, 15 feet; building, 25 feet; and landscaping, 25 feet. Also, an adequate design relationship to the existing hotel development and to future development on the south side of Eucalyptus Street must be provided. Access to the site is somewhat constrained. Only one access will be permitted mid-block along Foothill Boulevard. (The applicant's concept plan indicates two accesses along Foothill Boulevard). Access from Spruce Avenue will be shared with the existing hotel. One of two Eucalyptus Street access drives will be shared with the hotel. An additional access will be permitted from Elm Avenue. The applicant's development concept is automobile oriented, but the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan indicates a need for a pedestrian oriented development to serve nearby office users, as well as potential hotel users. The ultimate design should open up to Eucalyptus Street by inviting pedestrian access from Eucalyptus Street and providing some building frontages on Eucalyptus Street. The applicant's Market Study reports that there is unmet demand for restaurant use in the City. Again, this is a currently permitted or conditionally permitted use for the subject site. Also, there are a number of nearby available restaurant pads in approved commercial centers. Further, there are nearby vacant restaurants, including one at Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, one in the Terra Vista Town Center, two in the Virginia Dare center, and one at the K-Mart center at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Notwithstanding the existing vacancies, there is the long term potential at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue for mutually enhancing restaurant development. For example, there is the vacant 12, 165 square foot restaurant on the southwest corner. A Boston Market is under construction on the northwest corner. There is also an available 10,000 square foot restaurant pad on the northeast corner. In contrast to a major retail anchor, a restaurant pad on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue would compliment the existing and planned restaurant development and be compatible with the existing hotel development. Compatibility with Neighboring Community Commercial Land Uses. The TOwn Center Square development on the north side of Foothill Boulevard is designated Community Commercial. With the recent land use change from Office Park to Community Commercial, the Town Center PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 7 Square development extends the Community Commercial designation along the north side of Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Elm Avenue, about three-quarters of a mile of commercial development (see Exhibit "B"). The proposed land use change would extend Community Commercial to the south side of Foothill Boulevard. While the change would mirror the Town Center Square development to the north, it would set a precedent for more intense commercial development on the south side of Foothill Boulevard (see Exhibit "C"). PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN DISCUSSION: The subject applications do not include project development. However, the applicant has included a plan which indicates their concept for Community Commercial development (see Exhibit "D"). As discussed in previous sections of this report, the concept plan proposes 133,515 square feet of leasable space on 14.45 acres. One 20,250 square foot anchor store is located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, nodh of the existing Best Western Hotel. The applicant has a commitment from The Good Guys chain to occupy that pad. Three additional anchor stores ranging in size from 18,047 to 30,090 square feet are located in a row along with seven in-line retail or food shops. The Good Guys pad and the easternmost anchor store would provide loading docks. Two additional food pads are located along Foothill Boulevard flanking the mid-block entrance. One is a drive-thru fast food pad, but it does not meet the minimum design requirements for a drive-thru. A drainage easement bisects the site just east of the mid-block entrance. The design incorporates pedestrian access to Eucalyptus Street over the drainage easement. The concept proposes two entrances along Foothill Boulevard. The applications for land use change are not accompanied by a development application, therefore the submitted concept plan is illustrative only and not part of the land use applications. Also, land use change may not be conditioned. Further, under State law a land use change should be considered on its merit independent of a proposal for development. INDUSTRIAL AREA PLAN TEXT CHANGES: On August 2, 1995, the City Council considered the applicant's request to initiate text changes to add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial use to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The Council initiated consideration of the aforementioned text changes. If the proposed land use change is approved the following text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan are proposed: Table II1-1 - SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPES BY SUBAREA - COMMERCIAL (p. 111-6) after Business Support Services insert: Community Commercial Retail and add as a Permitted (P) use for Subarea 7. Table 111-2- LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS - D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES - (p. 111-13) after Business Support Services insert: PLANNING COMMISSION ~ FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 8 Community Commercial Retail: This category permits a mix of general retail with other uses permitted in the Industrial area that will make the development lively well into the night, function as an active "people place," and serve not only the residents of the City but, by location on Foothill Boulevard, will also draw from residential areas in neighboring communities. Activities will typically include retail department stores, focused-product retail stores, and subsidiary retail shops, as well as services/repairs related to sales. Uses include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Appliance, Bicycle, Book, Catalog, Department Store, Home Electronics, Home Furnishings, Luggage, Import, Jewelry, Music, Nursery/Garden Supply, Outlet, Specialty, Sporting Goods, Toys, and Video. PART IV: OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - Subarea 7 Under Permitted uses after Business Support Services (p. IV-48) insert: Community Commercial Retail Under Special Considerations, Last paragraph (p. IV-52), insert: In order to expand opportunities along Foothill Boulevard for a mix of uses to encourage development which will function as an active "people place" and be lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Commercial Retail is added as a permitted use on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff does not believe the required facts for findings can be made. The properties are not suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and Industrial Area Specific Plan designations in terms of access and size, as evidenced by the site's location within an existing Industrial Park Master Plan of Development. B. The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, there are potential negative impacts on surrounding properties. C. The proposed amendments do not conform with the General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan goals and objectives for development. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. One letter dated July 12, 1995, has been received from Best Western commenting on the proposal (see Exhibit "G"). PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS October 11, 1995 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION: Because the facts do not support a land use change, staff can not make the required findings and recommends denial of these applications. If the Planning Commission agrees with staffs analysis, they should approve the attached resolutions recommending denial. If, however, following Public Testimony the Planning Commission can make the findings under "A," "B," and "C" above, an alternative action would be to continue the item for two weeks and direct staff to prepare resolutions recommending approval. 2r%p2~ City Planner BB:MB:mlg 'Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" Ext ,ib~_%~L_.- Exldblt Fxhibit "C" Site Plan General Plan Map Excerpt Industrial Area Specific Plan Map Excerpt Applicant's Concopt Ran Appllca~ ~t'~ Justific,-,tion Statemo,qt Foothill Cuuj tyard Market Otuety, August I q95 Correspondonce from Bcst Wcstcrn Hcritago I~n Resolution of Denial Goncral PId~ Amendment 95:02'A' · Rosolution of Dcnial Industrial A~ ~a Specific Pla~ A~i ~d~ r. cnt 95 02 COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMM. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE LOW 2-4 DU's/AC LOW- MEDIUM 4-8 DU's/AC MEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/AC MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC INDUSTRIAL 7////~ INDUSTRIAL PARK F//////~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL _c..,kiul~,c.H C1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANN]2x/G DMSION ITEM: 6'PA ':=l,..,C-o~Ai IsPA TITLE: ~F M E'r~-A~L EXHIBIT:// C COMMERCIAL HAVEN OVERLAY DISTRICT 5:.:.:.:.: · :.:-:.:.:-INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MINIMUM IMPACT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITEM:~p4~-'.o~,~) PLANNING DIVISION TITLE: ~, EXHIBFF~'C PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A - WOHL/RANCHO PA/~TNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 ENVIRONMRNT~T. ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ARRA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - WO~JRANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the status of the City's market analysis was. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the rough draft was sent back to the consultant and it should be back to the City in about two weeks and would likely be distributed to the Commission soon thereafter. ..... Commissioner-Lumpp asked if the original time line was still intact. Mr. Buller replied it was still within the time line. Mr. Lumpp asked why the setback requirements were mentioned in the staff report when the site plan had not been evaluated yet. Ms. Bratt responded that she had performed a brief review for the potential fastfood use and determined that the setback requirements had not been met for that use. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter DesForges, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 2400 Michelson Dr. #170, Irvine, CA 92715, stated that he had sent a memo to Mr. Buller yesterday addressing questions that were in the staff report and he assumed that the Commission had a copy. Mr. Buller, responded that the Commissioners had received that information. He pointed out to the Commission that a letter from Urban Research Associates, responding to the market study, had been placed in front of the Commission for this meeting. Mr. DesForges commented that Wohl Partners believes the site should be changed from Industrial to Community Commercial and explained the concept of "critical massing" of retailers related to how retail has changed since the inception of the General Plan. He stated that critical mass retailing was the clustering of similar retail businesses, in a fairly close proximity to one another, to provide customers with the convenience of comparison shopping. He further commented that this idea originated a few years ago with the introduction of auto malls. He stated that he recently read in the Business Journal that the Mills project, in Ontario, will be good competition for Rancho retailers. He said this was an excellent location for this project given the recent clustering of retail between Terra Vista and the 1-15 Freeway by adding to the critical mass that already exists here. He introduced Brad Kaye. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 11, 1995 Brad Kaye, Real Estate Manager for Good Guys Home Electronics, 7000 Marina Blvd., Brisbane, CA 94005, stated that Good Guys went public in 1986 with 12 stores and now have 64 stores with sales of over one billion dollars. He stated his job is working up demographics, determining where new stores should be located, and negotiating the deals for these stores. He commented that they do extensive analysis prior to selecting a site and the Rancho market shows a trade base of more than 400,000 people, with the good incomes, and they have no hesitation in moving into the area. He went on to state that they are the industry leader in consumer electronics sales and their sales increase last year was 29 percent (8 percent above average). He stated they were interested in locating in Rancho and at this site because they want to be where they have an attractive street frontage and in an area where their customers can conveniently cross-shop. He pointed out that their business actually generates more revenue when they are located next door or across the street from their direct competitors (i.e.; Best Buy and Circuit City). He stated that the service level and their high-end merchandise is what makes them successful. Commissioner Lumpp asked why they haven't considered locating on the north side of Foothill within Towne Square or another location in that area. Mr. Kaye stated he was not aware of an opportunity there. Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Kaye was aware of the concern expressed about the proposed location of that building; it is a large building placed up against Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Kaye stated that was no longer their location; they are in line with the other buildings. Chairman Barker asked if they moved the building location. Mr. Kaye responded affirmatively. Mr. DesForges stated that there was a revised map attached to the letter given to the Commission earlier this evening. He stated he wanted to address the issue of locating the proposed project on the south side of Foothill. He said their site offers opportunities to their potential tenants that they may not be able to get elsewhere because the site has over 14,000 square feet of frontage on Foothill Boulevard, it is convenience-oriented, and is easily accessible for ingress and egress traffic. He commented that the project has the potential to produce quite a bit of sales tax benefits for the City. He stated there will be approximately 100 extra parking spaces at the site that could be used to move buildings around if staff and Commission want. He felt the project is compatible with surrounding retail because it would broaden the scope already available. He stated that Great Western's main objection was that they thought there should be a restaurant on the corner, rather than Good Guys, and he stated Wohl Partners agreed and changed the location of Good Guys so that could occur. Chairman Barker asked for additional questions and/or speakers on the proposal. Andrew Hall, Manager, Best Western/Heritage Inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamong~ CA 91730, stepped up to address the Commission stating he was pleased to find out that Good Guys will not be locating in building J, but at the same time, he was concerned that building A could pose visibility problems for the hotel also. He was pleased to note that two restaurants are under construction currently within walking distance of the hotel and stated more restaurants and movie theaters in the area are good for their customers. He stated his desire to have the Commission consider placement of types of business that complement the hotel rather than detract from it. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 11, 1995 Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the issue of building J versus building A and the hotel's concern regarding this matter. Mr. Hall responded that street visibility on the east side of their building is still a concern as J and A are about the same size, and depending on the height of the proposed building, either has the potential to block their visibility from the approaching westbound traffic. Chairman Barker asked for additional public comments on the project, and hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp stated there were many issues to consider and it was his feeling that market studies can be manipulated any number of ways and that isn't necessarily the information he is seeking to make his decision. He commented that there are CEQA issues that need to be explored, including air quality. He stated he felt this could be a good location for this land use, but he was concerned about making a final decision on this issue before our consultant's commercial study is completed. Commissioner Melcher stated he thought the applicant had made a sincere effort but he felt he would not be able to support the project because he had not been shown yet how the land use would fit into the longer range plan (the Industrial Specific Plan). He stated the depth of the site troubled him as the parking in front of the biggest stores has to be shifted one direction or the other to ensure there will be ample parking. He did not feel what had been presented thus far was convincing enough for him to change his opinion. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought we needed to reflect on the original vision for the City, which was to have residential and associated business commercial retail uses above Foothill Boulevard and industrial and associated commercial service uses below Foothill Boulevard. He stated that this has remained true with a relatively small amount of "leakage" on Archibald Avenue and the Masi project (by the sports complex), but he felt there was no need to change that vision at this time. He stated the problems he saw were: 1) required landscape and building setbacks; 2) parking with limited access from Foothill; 3) building mass; 4) buffering of the surrounding properties; he felt there was no way to accommodate all these conditions on a site with only a 400-foot depth. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher's views on the parking situation. He told Mr. Kaye that he would like to'see Good Guys locate in Rancho, but this was a land use issue, not an issue of whether we wanted Good Guys here or not. Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the current allowable land uses and conditional uses that could have a major impact on parking, etc., at the proposed site. Mr. Buller responded that under the Industrial Specific Plan, the type of retail uses allowed are called Business Support Retail; businesses that support the business industry on the south side of Foothill. He stated this was one of the broader, more open commercial designations. The limitation is what will physically fit on the site with parking and building mass. Chairman Barker stated his question was which uses would have an impact on the elements of this project. He requested clarification on whether a movie theater is a permitted use for the site now. Mr. Buller responded that a theater is a conditionally permitted use under the existing land use. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 11, 1995 Chairman Barker asked if a theater would have similar parking or site plan problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought they would have similar problems, given the depth of the property and the potential for such a concentrated use. Commissioner Melcher stated that strip-fashion arrangement of buildings on Foothill was never the intention of the original plan. Chairman Barker stated he would like to be supportive of a plan for restaurants and movie theaters because he thought that there weren't enough theaters currently to support the present population. He asked Commissioner Lumpp for clarification on his former comments regarding the City's consultant study. Commissioner Lumpp stated that Urban Research Associates (URA) was the consultant for the original Foothill Specific Plan and they stated, at that time, there was no need for additional commercial uses in the City; now they are coming back saying that perhaps there is a need for additional commercial use. He stated he is not convinced by this market study, or other market studies, that the information is sufficient to make him comfortable approving this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to change what he had previously said by stating he now believed that a movie theater could be appropriate for this location. He stated that previously he had thought of it in a strip-fashion configuration, but with a different footprint, there could be a theater (with appropriate parking) on the property. Commissioner Melcher stated that looking at a piece of property, individually, without considering the larger, long-range plan for Foothill Boulevard seems opportunistic since there is already a developer and tenants ready to move forward; it does not mean the proposal is right for the City however. He stated he understood the benefit to the City, with regard to sales tax prospects, but his function is to determine the appropriateness of the project for that particular site. Mr. Buller commented that he had just now been informed that a resident in the audience wanted to speak to the Commission regarding this matter. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing and invited the resident to come forward. Fred Doe, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, apologized for arriving late as he did not realize this would be the first item heard this evening. He said he had just listened to the tapes from the recent City Council meeting on this project and he wanted to comment on a couple things he heard on those tapes. He complimented Commissioner Melcher on his ability to change his mind when given new or different information. He stated he agreed with what he had heard from the Commission this evening as he did not think strip malls were a positive move for the City. He also stated he was pleased to hear the Commission aligning closely with their Specific Plan and General Plan for the area, but that they are also willing to make considerations as needed. He stated that someone should look at all the strip malls currently in the City and check their vacancy rates and compare those malls to the land uses they have. He commented that consideration should be given to projects that will enhance or complement the hotel/convention operations which in turn could generate even more tax benefits to the City later. Mr. Doe did not feel there was a need for more theaters, or at least more in the same vicinity, as there just weren't that many good movies out at one time. He stated that perhaps we could consider using some vacated retail space in the City before making a land use change of this 14 acres. He Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 11, 17~~ stated there is an obligation to look at development as it comes up and to allow City staff to have the proactive advisory role that is intended to implement the long range goals and plans of the City. He ended by paraphrasing comments from Commissioner McNiel, stating that if one of these businesses does not make it because of the direct competition the other creates, we then end up with a blight on one of the most beautiful, industrial, historic areas in Rancho Cucamonga. 'Mr. DesForges stated the narrow depth of the site should not create parking problems because of the extra spaces currently available and because the building orientations could be rearranged. He commented on the other issue of strip mall versus meandering retail building placement by saying that they have found these centers are not successful. He stated people need to see the sign on the storefront and be able to get in and out conveniently. He commented that orienting any of their commercial use away from Foothill, to the south, would not be feasible for them because the traffic count in that direction is too sparse. He stated that the land use already does allow commercial uses, they are only asking to broaden those uses. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He asked for a motion. MOTION: 4-0-1, 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCNIEL Moved by Commissioner Melcher, seconded by Commissioner Lumpp, carried to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment Motion passed by the - carried il arrived at 8:25 PM. **** D. GRUBB & ELL - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add ommunity Commercial use within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific P .. Dan Coleman, Principal ted the staff report. Mr. Coleman resp a a~ld be a better definition because it is used or second-hand i' s for resale. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a store such as the Ame ' an Cancer Society would i familiar with e and that the application was for the Salvation Army. ~ Brad Buller, CIty Planner, stated that definition would include paw shops, second-hand, or'used goods. ' ' ' ' Commissioner Melcher asked for examples of General Commercial areas. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 11, 1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF RF PORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 1, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Related file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, a request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Community Commercial, by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Denial. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: At its meeting on October 11, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application, heard public testimony, and voted 4-0-1 to deny the applications· The draft minutes of the October 1 lth Planning Commission meeting, as well as the Planning staff report and additional correspondence from the applicant and consultant, have been included as Exhibits to this report. In arriving at their recommendation, the Planning Commission discussed the following issues: The Commission discussed the application's conformance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and to the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISPA). They expressed concern about the overall impact on the Industrial Area Specific Plan and specifically the adjoining properties along the south side of Foothill Boulevard to the east and west of the subject site. The Commission reaffirmed its support for the IASP and the range of uses already allowed on this site· The allowable uses were found to be the best to complement the surrounding properties. The Commission discussed the applicant's market study and previous market studies. The Commission could not find adequate justification to support the proposed amendments. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REFdRT GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS November 1, 1995 Page 2 The Commission discussed the size and shape of the parcel proposed for change. The Commission determined that the shallow depth of the site would be a problem for expanded retail uses. The shallow depth of the site and the retail uses desired created a strip commercial development. Strip commercial development is identified in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as a feature to be avoided in new development along the corridor. The Commission considered environmental impacts of the subject application. The applicant's air quality study indicated that, consistent with methodology developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, there would be no significant adverse air quality impacts resulting from the proposed change in land use. No other environmental impacts were identified. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Commission determined that with the exception of environmental impacts. the required facts for finding could not be made. !. _ The property is not suitable for the uses permitted under the proposed land use and Development District designation in terms of access and size. 2. The proposed amendments would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties. o The proposed amendments are not in conformance with the General Plan and are not in conformance with the Development Code because of the inadequacy of the site to promote the goals and objectives for development permitted by the Community Commercial designation. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project side. ACTION: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendations, as well as the analysis contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission, and believes that the proposed land use change would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, it would be appropriate for the City Council to deny General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 by adopting the attached Resolutions of Denial. ,..,,:A,ttachments:42~h!~ ,,~,, o.,.,f,, ~"~F,,',rt ~,, iF,,= PlanniF~B Cc ...... ,Pxhibit "P" - Memo to tho IPl3nning Commission datcd Octobcr 4, 1995 Exhibit "3" - Lettor from Ray Young 'dated October 5, 1995 -4S.~-'hibit "4"- Draft Planning Commission Minutos dated October 11, 1995. Resolution of Denial for General Plan Amendment 9~02A /7! City Council Minutes November 1, 1995 Page 3 DE. Approval to accept the Calaveras Avenue Street Improvement Project, located from Arrow Route to Ninth Street, Contract No. 95-026, as Complete, Release the Bonds and Authorize the City Engineer to A RESOLUTION OF THE CI~ OF ~NCHO CUCAMONG~, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR.~VERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LOCAT~B'~OM ARROW ROUTE TO NINTH STREET, CONTACT NO. 95-026..~ND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR T~RK MOT ON: Moved by ~lliams, seconded~G~tierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff repods contained in the Consent Calep~ with Curatalo abstaining from voting on the September 20 and October 4, 1995 minutes. Motio ~f~d unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS FI. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95- 02A - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - Consideration of a request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related File: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. RESOLUTION NO. 95-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-35-62 THROUGH 69 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - Consideration of a request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related File: General Plan Amendment 95-02A. City Council Minutes November 1, 1995 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 95-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN MAP FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 Staff report presented by Miki Bratt, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Peter DeForge, partner of Rancho Partners, stated they would like to think of this center as an entertainment center. He pointed o. ut what is planned for the site. He continued to explain the project and why they are attracting the tenants they have attracted so far. He felt this project would bring the City $400,000 to $500,000 in sales tax revenue. He stated the issue is what retail uses are allowed on the south side of Foothill. He stated they felt the plan was compatible with surrounding neighbors and that the project should be approved. He added they felt they could make their project very attractive. Councilmember Williams asked if the Wohl Company would be building these units. Mr. DeForge stated they would be selling the property to each business so they could build their own structure. Councilmember Willjams asked if they have any signed tenants. Mr. DeForge stated yes they did. Brad Kay, Real Estate Manager for the Good Guys, stated he felt there was a good market for their store in Rancho Cucamonga because of its proximity to entertainment activities in the City. He felt they would do better business because of the competition they would have. He felt they would have good visibility from Foothill and stated they liked the tenants that am planned for the center. He added he felt the zoning was compatible. with what was around them. He told about the differences between their store and other stores that sell electronics. Councilmember Biane asked where.they thought their sales would be if they opened in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Kay stated they are projecting $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 within five years. Councilmember Williams asked if this was 100% leased. Mr. Kay stated the key anchor slots are very interested, but that the restaurants are not. He added it is .too early to have it 100% leased. Greg Wohl, partner with Peter DeForge, stated they are currently in escrow with Good Guys. He added they are working on the deal with the bookstore. He stated he felt it would be a very positive step to change the General Plan. He stated they think they have excellent compatibility with the .Heritage Inn and that it would generate approximately $400,000 to $500,000 in tax revenue to the City. He asked for the Council's support. City Council Minutes November 1, 1995 Page 5 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff has not seen the new plan as was distributed tonight to the Council. but that he could work with the Council through the process for this project. Fred Doe, Shaw Street, stated the question is should the General Plan Amendment be made for this project, that it was not to approve the project. He stated the question was should the marketing studies be brought to the Council before a decision is made on this matter. He stated the issue before the Council tonight is should the General Plan be changed. He stated he felt this project should be stopped. Gary Kendrick stated he was here because he heard this was a slam dunk vote, just like the sprinkler ordinance was. He stated he did not think this center was needed. Brad Umansky, 7269 Thermal Place, stated he did not think the project was dealt with fairly at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated he felt there was a need for this project and felt the General Plan Amendment would be good for the City and should be changed. Charles Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, stated he was hired by the proponent to work with the City on this matter. He pointed out how this same type of situation occurred with the Terra Vista Town Center as far as zone changes. He talked about the other centers he sees throughout Southern California and the types of stores you see. He stated even though the General Plan is a plan, it is subject to change and felt this should be done for this project. He stated he likes the plan that has been revised, but agreed there was still some work that needed to be done on it. He asked if the Council was willing to step out and take a risk with this project because that is why Rancho Cucamonga is a leader in the area. Debbie Daniels, 10970 Deer Canyon, stated she welcomed the idea of having choices where to go to eat or shop in Rancho Cucamonga. She stated she liked what they are proposing and would like to see this happen. Gina Martinez, 10656 Grand View stated she felt more large stores were needed to provide income to the City so property taxes won't continue to increase. She stated she welcomed this concept. She did not think the revenue should be taken out of the City and given to another community, and stated she did not like paying taxes. Andrew Hall, Manager of Best Westem Hedtage Inn, stated he just now saw the plan for this center. He stated he thought the new plan would be better for his hotel guests than the old one. He stated he is still concerned that Good Guys is the driving force for the project. He stated he likes the idea of more restaurants in the. City and that he would have to take Mr. Wohl's word that he is committed to the project. He felt the new plan would be an indication of being a good neighbor to the hotel. Peter De Forge stated Good Guys did not want to go to the Payless site as someone had previously mentioned. He stated the only assurances that the Council made was that their project would not be held up because of the commercial study. He stated they have not received any assurances about the Council's vote tonight. Bryan Serrell, 6474 Citrine, felt the center was a good idea, but stated he was skeptical about the theaters and thought there might be too many already in the area. He felt Good Guys would be good at this particular location. Jde Maladna, 10935 Spruce. stated he agreed with the idea of this project. He felt the more restaurants the better. City Council Minutes November 1, 1995 Page 6 Councilmember Biane stated he asked if the screening would be set up to protect the location from seeing delivery trucks pulling in and so forth. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the site plan review process for the Planning Commission would address everything, i.e., compatibility, design and so forth. Councilmember Biane asked if the Council would still be able to have the power to get what it wants out of this project. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes, that the issue tonight is a land use issue. He stated any action the Council takes tonight does not guarantee the tenant mix or design. He stated it would still have to go through the development review process. Councilmember Williams asked if the theaters are allowed with a conditional use permit so that it does not require a zone change for this. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes that was correct. Councilmember W~lliams stated she felt the bookstore was quite an opportunity and asked if it had a coffee shop inside, would this be allowed with a CUP? Brad Buller: City Planner, stated Borders Books does desire to be flee standing and that he had a discussion with them as to whether they would be classified as entertainment or retail. He stated this is something they would have to talk to the Commission about. Councilmember Willjams stated she felt they would probably be allowed with a CUP to go under entertainment. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they would have to go to the Commission for a use determination. Councilmember Gutierrez stated it appears to him that every use being proposed is already approved except the Good Guys, and that it is up to the Council to determine if this is appropriate. He stated he did not think he could vote to prohibit this project. Councilmember Willjams brought up that the issue is not whether Good Guys will meet or beat the competition, that it is whether this kind of use is proper for this particular piece of land. She stated the issue is if this piece of land gets a general commercial designation. She read from page 35, the paragraph starting with "The application for land use change....". She pointed out this is a land use issue. She stated she is normally against spot zoning, but that this case is different. She did not think this should be given a blank check and then there would be no control over the project. Mayor Alexander stated this is a land use issue this evening and agreed with Councilmember Williams. He stated he would be interested in seeing what the commercial study says. He stated he would agree with the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Biane stated he felt the Council will still have control over what the City will end up with. He felt the retailers needed to know that they are needed in the City. Councilmember Curatalo stated he has not heard anything to change his mind to go against the Planning Commission. He supported their decision. He asked if a project is denied, can they resubmit in one year. 17-5 City Council Minutes November 1, 1995 Page 7 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Rancho Cucamonga's Code states that no like or similar application, once denied, can be submitted within twelve months. He added the only way around this is to deny it without prejudice which would then give the proponent the chance to come back down the road. Councilmember Curatalo stated he would like to waive that time limit. James Markman, City Attomey, stated if the Council adopts the Resolution of denial. they can specify that it be amended to be without prejudice for retiring. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Willjams to approve Resolution Nos. 95-153 and 95~154 without prejudice for retiring of application. Motion carried 3-0-2 (Biane and Gutierrez voted no). No items were submitted. , ,,~y 'reconv~nea:ar,2~j IJ'.'i"R: wtm art me~r~'p~fe.~ ..... G. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS ,-,,, I. COUNCID, BUSINESS J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Curatalo read a statement into the record which is on'file in the City Clerk's office which stated he would like to place an item on the agenda for ways in which the C~'ity can help the Etiwanda High School band because of the representing the City in the 1996 Rose Parade. ,\ K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Gary Kendrick apologized to Diane Williams. He felt the City should put on the ballot the ~ssue of consolidating school districts. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 31, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. DIRECTOR"S REPORTS A. COMMERCIAL ~ND STUDY DISCUSSION Brad Buller, City Planner, highlighted the repod and gave a brief update of the process the Commercial Study had been through and asked the Commission how they would like staff to proceed. Chairman Barker requested the discussion be limited. Commissioner Melcher said he would have to leave by 8:45 p.m. Chai~an Ba~er said he would also like to see a separate workshop on design issues for the Wohl site at a future date. Commissioner McNiel said that was acceptable if the applicant is aware that the land use issue will not be prejudiced by the design considerations. Commissioner Melcher indicted he would object to a design wo~shop because there are significant land use considerations. Commissioner Lumpp said he would like to look at the larger land use issues first. Mr. Buller said the appli~nt could apply for a Prelimina~ Review proposing uses that meet current zoning uses. / r "Ed" 177 Peter Desforges, Wohl Investment Company, 2402 Michelson, Suite 170, Irvine, stated they would like to go forward following Mr. Buller's suggestion. Commissioner Melcher said he would like to have staff sit down with the Commission and review the land use map and the allowed uses to understand how different uses fit together. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Commissioner McNiel said that the Commission needs to go carefully in order to make sound decisions. Chairman Barker said there appeared to be a consensus that the Commission would host a design workshop with Wohl so long as the issue is design and not land use. Commissioner Melcher felt that plans which conform to the zoning should proceed along with examination of what needs to be changed. Mr. Buller described the current zoning concepts and the way in which they are integrated rather than rigidly defined. Chairman Barker asked if the public would like to address the issue. Ji.m .AXtell, Mission Land Company, said they support the process of text amendment and "Master Plan" concept. He noted that the Mills project is pushing the clock and that potential sites on the south side of Foudh Street to the west in Ontario compete with the nodh side in the City. Mr. Desforges commented on the study and the fact that retail uses such as an Office Max office supply store are already permitted on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the same rhythm of retail development should be allowed starting in the west and moving east as Lewis has done on the north side. Commissioner Melcher inquired about the relative size of Mission Land frontage and the Mills frontage on 4th Street, as well as the Wohl frontage and the Terra Vista frontage on Foothill Boulevard. There was general discussion of the approximate lengths. Commissioner Melcher noted that Mission Land controls about half the frontage that the Mills project does, that Wohl has about half that of the Mission Land, and that Tetra Vista has about 1-3/4 miles. John Koenig, Lewis Homes, stated that they support the Agajanian study. He said they will be applying for another Land Use amendment to close the retail gap on Foothill between Elm Street and Milliken Avenue. He indicated Lewis has reviewed their position and now supports the Mission Land and Archibald Avenue and 4th Street recommendations in the Market Study. Mr. Buller stated that a large box office supply retail store on the south side of Foothill would require a Use Determination by the Commission and would not be automatically permitted. Commissioner Melcher thought the Commission needs to rediscover the intent of the text not just look at the use tables in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Commissioner McNiel observed that to accommodate some retail in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the concept of 20 percent for "ancillary uses" was developed. He agreed the Commission needs to revisit that concept. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 31, 1996 Chairman Barker questioned whether more office use is planned on Foothill than the market will support. Mr. Bullet indicated the intent was to encourage offices to concentrate on the Haven Avenue corridor and the south side of Foothill. He said that originally the Terra Vista frontage was planned for Mixed Commercial, majority office, and some retail. Chairman Barker said the Commission needs to look at what was intended to happen and what did happen, for example to the Victoria Mall. Commissioner Melcher expressed suppod for going forward with the Mission application on 4th Street opposite the Mills project. The Commissioners agreed unanimously and directed staff to move forward. Commissioner Lumpp said because of the high visibility and traffic volume, there appeared to be a potential for large scale retail at the 1-15 and route 30. Chairman Barker said that he and Commissioner McNiel had spent a lot of time on Route 30. He felt that large scale retail may not work out because of the two-level interchange, positioning of off ramps to favor Fontana, and the land use pattern. .... MF. BUller said that Staff and the Commission could "walk through" the freeway layout and existing zoning of the area but because the freeway completion is still a few years off, other sites may have a higher priority. Chairman Barker stated that the Commission needs to look at the zoning and uses for each of the areas. Mr. Bullet said that some applications are in process and will come to the Commission, for example an environmental impact report is being prepared for 4th Street and Archibald Avenue. Commissioner Melcher stated that the south side of Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue should be a priority for the meeting of February 14. Mr. Buller suggested review of various zones allowed along Foothill Boulevard in the various Specific Plans. Chairman Barker agreed. Mr. Bullet said there would be an initial walk through with maps and discussion of definitions. Commissioner McNiel stated his first level of priority was for 4th Street north of the Mills project, auto sales in Subarea 8, and Foothill at 1-15 because each has a high potential of benefit to the City; his second level would be for the south side of Foothill Boulevard because it is significant but more controversial and for 4th Street and Archibald Avenue; and his last priority would be for the Southern California Edison Corridor and the State Route 30/I-15 interchange. Mr. Buller felt that Foothill Marketplace at Foothill Boulevard and the 1-15 interchange i~s a success and that the City should look at strategies and incentives for this critical core. He noted that 4th and Mills and 4th and Archibald Avenue are in the works and that Subarea 8 auto sales will be back as soon as an application is received. He agreed that the south side of Foothill Boulevard will take time. He said staff would like to move towards expanding uses subject to a master plan on the Mission Land site. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- ,lanuary 31, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp said he could suppod the master plan concept as long as that when something does not work, it can be changed. Commissioner Melcher supported going forward. There was general agreement to go forward with the master plan concept. Mr. Buller indicated that staff has sufficient direction to proceed for February 14. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Desforges indicated Good Guys are willing to continue at the Wohl site but will evaluate their position at the end of February. He expressed hope that the Commission would work with this request. He then offered some observations of his views of existing city commercial corridors. He stated again that retail is really the highest and best use of the Wohl site. '_'2' "' "'~q~'~ R~J~-.I~LESS Tber.. as no additional Commission business. The Planning C~sion adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secreta~ PC Adjourned Minutes -4- January 31, 199(5 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to consider initiation of text changes to B~,~mall lot subdivision standards in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Ind~ S"'pe, Cific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Development District Amendment 95-02. o, ,o. ,.,. i Brace Stdckland, Gri~ ndustries, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, they felt they had proposed a project which d merit, but they felt it would be better to dea the project location and ~nge of land .use ' out complicating it by requesting tex I es to add small lot are now planning all 6,000 square foo ots. He said ~ had told Mr. Faller that he felt the had appeal because of the proposed innovative ~ct. Mr. Strickland said there had been many ur their original proposal which they still ........ in{end'to pursue; such as architectural ns, eatments, porches and projections he had m~ g the City's responsiveness when asked by other developers. He hoped t~ would Rancho Cucamonga's image change to a more positive one. said he would be happy to do so. OLD BUSINESS C. COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the Foothill Boulevard corridor from the western to the eastern City limits. He discussed land use designations, current utilization including vacancy problems, approved projects which have not gone forward, applications in process, and proposals in the early stages of development. He repoded that Wohl Development had resubmitted their General Plan and Industrial Specific Plan amendment applications with a letter requesting that review be expedited. Commissioner Melcher said that the Foothill corridor review was helpful. He felt a zone change without a development concept would be backwards. He cited Terra Vista Town Center as an example of a development that was Master Planned with high quality design which attracted tenants. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 14, 1996 He thought a plan should drive land use changes and not a single tenant with sales tax revenue potential. Chairman Barker praised the GIS colored map of Foothill Boulevard between Deer Creek Channel and Day Creek Channel and looked forward to seeing the rest of Foothill mapped. Commissioner Lumpp said it would be helpful to post updated aerial maps and General Plan maps for Commission meetings. Mr. Buller indicated updated aedals and maps are available, just not posted in the Council chamber. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Greg Hox'worth, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, said it has been difficult to attract tenants to their current projects because of the uncertainties of additional land along Foothill Boulevard being rezoned for retail development, for example Vestar is advedising the availability of 300,000 square feet of leased space on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He commented that a zone change without a project could make a profit for a landowner· He also stated that, if the City is to entertain rezoning the south side of Foothill Boulevard for Commercial retail, the remainder of the north side should be considered at the same time· The Commission concluded that as more data and updated maps and plans are generated, that information should be forwarded to the Planning Commission in a workshop setting· D. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 96-01 - Mark/Taylor - The review of 264 condominiums on res of land in the Medium Residential zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located in" he Vi oria Planned Community, on the north side of Baseline, one block west of Vic I ~ Park Ke r, Mark-Taylor, Inc., 6623 Nodh Scottsdale Road, Phoenix, A duced Michael .Coghlin, M.a -Taylor,, Inc., 6.623 North Scottsdale Road, P er x, Arizona, gave a brief iefiy presented project· He showed the Planning Commission a :onceptual site plan ~n response to staff comments and colored elevations of the ~roduct. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, following: staff issues and concerns which included the 1. Is the project design so outstan~ a density at the top of the Medium range? · . / · 3. y to east. 4. Site Plan . a. xtend decorative paving inside entry gate. ~nnections from parking couds into project Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 14, 1996 WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS GPA APPLICATION: FILING REQUIREMENT #3 Description of Proposed Project and Supporting Information FOOTHILL COURTYARD (Southside of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce & Elm) An amendment to the General Plan is requested by Wohl/Rancho Partners changing the land use designation for the subject parcels from Industrial to Community Commercial. Simultaneously, an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan is requested which will allow uses consistent with the uses permitted under the Community Commercial designation as def'med in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. These amendments are requested in order to allow the development of a mixed use commercial center on the 14.45 acre property located on the southside of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce and Elm Streets. The subject property is directly across the street from the existing mixed use retail Tetra Vista Towne Center and Towne Center Square. Our project will consist of approximately 130,000 square feet of commercial use space that will include a diverse group of tenants. There are several factors which support the change from Industrial to Community Commercial for this particular site. These factors are identified in the Wohl/URA market study (attached), the Lewis and Masi market studies, and most recently, the city's market study. Subsequent discussion between the city's hired consultant, the city council, the planning commission, planning staff, and the public have brought to light several uncontested points that further support the change to commercial for our 14.45 acre site: 1. It is an undisputed conclusion that Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is the primary_ retail corridor within the City and is best suited for future retail development; 2. The existing retail core, which started with Tetra Vista Town Center and has successfully expanded east to the Promenade, is thriving and continues to attract regionally oriented retailers to the City; 3. Based on projected population growth and other positive aspects within Rancho Cucamonga and the sub-region, there will be continued demand for substantial acreage to accommodate future retail development; 4. It has been emphasized over and over again that building "critical mass" or the grouping of retailers both competitive and complementary is a positive factor for the City and is crucial in the decision making process for retailers seeking new locations. In the city market study, Mr. Agaganian's conclusions regarding the positive impact of critical mass and the proven concept of locating new retail across the street from existing centers (as he is proposing on 4th St.) indicate that a retail development on our site would be extremely beneficial to the City in the long run by attracting more shoppers to the area and giving more choices to the community. Retail development contributes the most income to the City compared to any other type of page 2 gpa application filing requirement #3 2/9/96 sources and the constantly growing demand for city services, Rancho Cucamonga cannot afford to miss any viable opportunities to increase its tax base; and 6. Area property owners as well as Mr. Agaganian have emphasized the fact that competition between cities for regional retailers is fierce and that Rancho Cucamonga needs to act swiftly and aggressively to attract the remaining candidates. Every major retailer which Rancho Cucamonga loses means not only the lost sales tax revenue from that store but also the lost draw to the Foothill corridor (i.e. every tenant locating in an adjacent city will pull customers away from Rancho Cucamonga). We currently have a firm commitment from "the good guys!" to build a 20,000-25,000 sq. ft. store on our site. We also have proposals from other prospective retail tenants interested in our site. I have attached a letter from "the good guys!" which basically states that the city will have to act "swiftly and aggressively" to keep them from moving out of Rancho Cucamonga. Based on the quick turnaround which the City was able to accomplish to attract "Best Buy" on the Lewis site, we are confident that their objectives can be met should the City make the decision that this tenant will be a positive addition to the existing critical mass. As presented in a recent Rancho Cucamonga planning workshop, the primary objective of planning is to ultimately benefit the citizens of the community. We feel that our proposal fulfills this requirement through providing more choices for consumers, economic development for the city, and competitive prices from large retail economies of scale. In addition to the above reasons and based on the new information that has been recently presented, we are asking Planning Staff consider our proposed general plan and IASP plan amendments for the following reasons: 1. It expands the existing "critical mass" of retailers on the Foothill corridor; 2. It allows healthy competition amongst landowners in the City's retail core, therefore providing more opportunities for retailers looking to locate in this market; 3. It is compatible with the existing General Plan which already permits certain kinds of retail development on our site; 4. It will provide a significant source of revenues for the City as the project is built out (for example, "the good guys!" alone is projecting sales of approximately $20 million which translates into sales tax revenues to the City of approximately $200,000); and 5. It will be designed in a way that will be complementary to aH neighbors and will be an asset for the City. It is our intent that this proposed center be consistent with the fabric of development occurring along Foothill Boulevard. We recognize the prominent location of Tetra Vista Town Center to our west and proximity of the retail center directly to our north and are prepared to use landscaping and screening methods similar to thiose utilized at the rear of the buildings within the project to the north. We feel the center will be effective in emulating the established high standards '% page 3 gpa applicatiom filing requirement #3 2/9/96 along Foothill Boulevard. LAND USE ISSUES The proposed commercial retail development at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue is compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses for these reasons: Landscape and building setbacks will be generous at all perimeter conditions and will provide lush landscaping treatments, clustering of plant mateddais and trees, mounding and undulation of the ground plane, treatments of scale with formal broad entries or small intimate accent themes. There are a number of techniques that will be utilized to break up the scale and enhance the formal broad avenue of Foothill Boulevard that would serve to add interest along the perimeters and transitions into, and out of our site. These techniques are as follows: Along the shopping center frontage at Foothill Boulevard a broad thirty five foot (359 wide landscape strip will be utilized in a broad brush manner addressing its vehicular orientation. Plant materials might be applied in a large formal grouping with sweeping lawns to accentuate the vistas along Foothill Boulevard. Entries will be highlighted with color and plan mateddais will step down in scale to provide a transition into the center. b, The pedestrian scale will be addressed by down sizing the plant materials, introducing a variety of ground cover, shrubs, and color accents to enliven the walking experience through texture, color, enhanced paving, benches, accessories, free standing planters, and trellises. The landscape setback along Eucalyptus Street to the south of our property will be a generous twenty five foot (25') width. There are opportunities here to screen the areas through six foot (69 high screen walls, groupings of trees and hedge rows, garden trellises, and mounded landscape forms to add interest. The retail building:; themselves will be setback from the property line by a minimum distance of fifty feet (50') made up of twenty five foot (25') landscape buffer plus twenty five foot (25') wide service drive. This will allow the ability to develop a comprehensive landscape theme. Architectural treatments will extend around all four (4) sides of the buildings. Most buildings will still require service and delivery areas at the side/rear, however their elevations will be enhanced with architectural elements, pilasters, cornices, parapets, accent medallions, and accent finishes. page 4 gpaapplication filing requirement #3 2/9/96 The predominant tenants projected for this center are electronics, soft goods, restaurants and specialty type users. Typically, deliveries and service to this type of center are accommodated by smaller panel trucks. Many tenants will not require truck docks, but may be served by on-grade deliveries made through a rear door/service entrance. Through the tactical placement of screen walls and landscaping and the sensitive application of architectural treatment, we are confident that a commercial retail center will compliment the future office development to the south by providing ancillary services that office tenants will find desirable to them. It has been our experience that retail centers of the character that is proposed for this site are highly compatible to office land uses by providing close, convenient access to personal services and goods. A combination of restaurants and drive-thru fast food will provide a convenient location for work day meals within a vaxiety of price ranges. Through the thoughtful deliberate placement of screen walls, landscaping, and architectural treatment we will insure that center will be pleasant for patrons and present a neighborly face to land uses adjacent to our center. The area that interfaces with the existing Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel located to the southwest corner of the site is located adjacent to one of three major entries to the site along Spruce Avenue. This shared entry drive will be treated with enhanced paving to note the shared entry which leads to a turn off to the Best Western then eastward to the main drive accessing the front doors of the shopping center. This drive will be the "Main Street" passing the prominent facade of each shop. Every attention will be applied in enhancing the entry experience through landscaping and walkway treatments. The architectural treatment will also extend along this area and provide additional interest through articulated parapets, cornice work, and medallion accents. This area also serves as an important path of travel for pedestrians affording opportunities to utilize a variety of smaller plant materials, accent plantings, and paving treatments. The Best Western will be separated by a minimum of 200' to the north and 185' to the east of the shopping center. We are certain that this separation will preserve the integrity of the Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel and adjacent office building land uses. Additionally, entry treatments, enhanced paving and landscaping will enhance the grounds of the Best Western. Every opportunity to screen and integrate loading facilities into the fabric of the building will be provided to present the best facade at each turn. EXISTING MASTER PLAN and CC&R's The proposed development is consistent with the existing Master Plan for the Rancho page 5 gpa application filing requirement #3 219/96 Cucamonga Business Park in that it includes a significant amount of fast food/restaurant uses similar to the "Food Park" originally planned for the western end of the subject property. The retail uses pined for the remainder of the property are similar in nature to those which had been approved pursuant to the previous Development Agreement 87-01 which has since expired. That agreement provided for a variety of retail uses which were convenient to both business and residential traffic in the area. Although the uses which are anticipated for this new project are not specifically business support, they will nevertheless provide a variety of retail alternatives in a location convenient for both the nearby business as well as commuter traffic and residential traffic along Foothill Blvd. It should be noted that the Development Agreement 87-01 which was in place at the time of the construction of the Best Western Hotel adjacent to the subject. This development agreement included food and retail uses which would have had a similar impact on the Hotel site as the proposed project and land use. EXISTING CC&R's Although the existing CC&R's for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park include certain design criteria for new construction, the sections regarding use are limited in scope to insuring that the uses are conforming to the city's zoning requirements. It is the developer's intention to comply with all of the requirements set forth in the CC&R's for design review and construction. The existing CC&R's do not appear to restrict changes in zoning which are approved by the city. /87 AUDIO / VIDEO SPECIALISTS 2/12/96 December 29, 1995 Mr. Peter DesForges Wohl Kancho Partners 2402 Michelson, Suite 170 Irvine, CA 92715 Per conversation with Brad Kaye, "the good guys" will continue to work with us if the city can respond in 30-60 days. SEC Foothill and Spruce Avenue Rancho Cucamonga Dear Peter, As a follow up to my November 15 letter, I want to reiterate the key role that expedient processing plays in our decision to proceed. As we discussed last week, interest in this location hinges on our ability to commit soon to a late 1996 grand opening. What this means is that unless we have all discretionary City approvals behind us by February in order to make our plan preparation and construction schedule, we will proceed with our alternative site in Ontario. I am hoping for the City's full cooperation to make this project happen quickly as I understand was done across the street. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours truly, Brad Kaye Real Estate Manager BK/md Cok005.doc) Corporate Offices · 7000 Marina Blvd. · Brisbane. CA 94005-1830 · (415) 615-5000 I I I I I I I I I o o o ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ o ~ {~ o o 0 0 ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY- PART il BACKGROUND 1) Project File #/Name: GPA "95-02a; ISPA 95-02 2) Related File(s): DR S0-12; PM 6200; DA ST-01 3) Applicant: WOHL/~CHO PART~.RS Address: 2402 Michelson Drive, ~170 ;Irvine, CA 92715 4) Telephone #: (714) 955-0115 Project Description: A request for land u.~e change from Tnr]nsfr'ia] park 'rn C'nmrn,,n'i'fy Commercial for 14.4 acres of land generally located on the south side of Foothill Roulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7 of the Tndusfria] ArPa ~pPe~f~cPl~ 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): September 13, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential impacts identified as "Yes" or"Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanation shall 'also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." Yes EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions orin changes in the geologic structure? [] [] b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil?. [] Q c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? Q [] d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic Or physical features? [] [] e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Q ~ [] f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream orthe bed of the ocean or any bay, inletorlake? Q Q g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslide.s, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Q C3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA!~!~)~GA II. III. IV. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a) b) C) Yes Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?Q The creation of objectionable odors? Q Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? [] f) g) i) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements, in either marine or fresh waters? Q b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sudace runoff? Q c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? El d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? [] e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface waterquality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Q Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? [] Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, orthrough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? [] h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? [] Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? [] PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?[] b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? [] c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? [] d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? [] ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? Maybe [] No [] [] 9" [] ~ [] EF [] [] CITY initial ~.,'ud'/- ~ ~1 12393 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VI. VII. IX. XI. XI!. XIII. c) d) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal: a) Produce new light and glare? LAND USE. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? POPULATION. Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? HOUSING. Will the proposal: a) Affect existing housing, orcreate ademand foradditional housing? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a) b) C) d) e) f) Y'~s CITY iniliaJ study · part II 12.,,9~ Maybe No [] [] 9" E3 Q ~ [] Q Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Q Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Q Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Q Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? [] Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? [] Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? [] Q OF RANCHO a a CUCAMONGA Yes Maybe No XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XlX. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) C) d) e) f) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks and other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? O O ~' O O 8" O O ~ O O 9/ O O 9/ O O El/ ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Q b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Q UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? RECREATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [] [] [] 9" [] [] ~ [] [] 0 [] [] O O CITY initi,aJ study - pa.rl II 12/93 OF RANCHO CUCA~,C)C)cr~GA XX. XX!. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal: a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Yes Maybe No Q Q o [] a) b) c) d) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below. self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Q Q · Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod- term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Q Q Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Q [] Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.) See attached. CITY inillaJ study - ~a.'l II 12,93 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: General Plan Amendment 95-02A Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 A request for land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.4 acres of land generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. 1. Earth: 2. Air.: The site is in a soil conservation area. Erosion control measures during construction are required as a condition of project development. An air quality analysis has been completed indicating that significant impacts would not result from the proposed land use designation change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial. Analysis indicates that emissions, primarily from mobile sources, may increase for all categories under the proposed use. The applicant's air quality study comparied a project previously proposed for which the hotel component was constructed with a conceptual proposal for the site. For this comparison Carbon Monoxide and Reactive Organic Compounds would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds by 431 and 43 pounds per day respectively. Oxides of Nitrogen and Particulates would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Further analysis will be required when an actual project is submitted. If indicated by further analysis at the project level, mitigation measures will be required to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD. Water: Drainage and flood control issues have been addressed in the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan adopted January 4, 1989 and implemented by the City's Master Plan of Drainage. These measures are triggered at the project development level. 4, Plant Life: The site is rough graded and periodically cleaned of weeds, therefore there are no known rare, unique, or endangered plant species on site. Landscaping at the project level will consist of native species and generally accepted ornamental landscape species with emphasis on drought tolerant plant materials. d. No agricultural crops exist on site. 5. Animal Life: The site is rough graded and periodically cleaned of weeds. There are no known rare, unique, or endangered animal species on site. 6. Noise: The proposed land use change is not expected to increase noise levels above that of the existing development as anticipated in the General Plan and discussed in the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan. There are no sensitive receptors in the surrounding area which is zoned for commercial and industrial use. 7. Light and Glare: ao Light levels for commercial development may be slightly higher than light levels under the industrial park designation, but not to a level of significance because the site adjoins Foothill Boulevard, a state highway. Commercial development of the proposed site would be consistent with the light levels of commercial development on the north side of Foothill Boulevard. 8. Land Use: General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment applications are the prescribed process for changing land use designations. The duel applications are intended to make the General Plan and Zoning consistent for the subject land area. The change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial would not result in a substantial alteration of planned land use because the subject site is located adjacent to Industrial Park and Community Commercial land use areas. 11. Population: The proposed land use change would not result in a change in population from that addressed in the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan. Industrial park is considered a high employment generator comparable to commercial use. Further, many commercial uses are allowed within the Industrial Park land use category. 12. Housing: 'Based on information contained in the Housing Element and the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan, current and planned housing stock will be sufficient to meet the needs of employees wishing to live in the City. There will be no significant increase in employment generation from retail commercial uses over Industrial Park uses and therefore no significant impact on housing needs. ,13. Transportation: There will be no significant increase in traffic generation resulting from a change from the existing Industrial Park designation to the proposed community commercial designation. Peak traffic periods will shift in time consistent with retail use, with a resultant decrease in the predicted morning peak period traffic flows. Generally, the information contained in the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan adequately addresses traffic and circulation impacts. Mitigation measures will be implemented at the project development level, including access and other circulation issues. Parking will be provided consistent with the development code for commercial uses. Public transportation is available along Foothill Boulevard. There will be no significant change in the demand for public transportation with the proposed change in land use. 14. Public Services: The area is urbanized. Public services are existing. No substantial new fire services are expected as a result of the proposed land use change. bo No substantial new police services are expected as a result of the proposed land use change. 16. 18. Utilities and Service Systems. Utilities and services are existing. The area is urbanized. Aesthetics: a. Future development will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City, and be compatible with surrounding existing and planned development. b. Future development projects will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City, thereby eliminating any offensive site visible to the public. 20. Cultural Resources: The site is part of a Master Plan of Development. The site has been rough graded and street improvements, including public utilities installed. No known cultural resources exist on the site. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance: The proposed land use change would not cause any substantial adverse impacts to the environment. a. No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely impacted by the land use amendment. b. There are no known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the land use amendment. c. The land use change is not anticipated to cause cumulative impacts. d. The land use change will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I:\MIKI\GPA9502A.IS XX!!!. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plan~, and other applicable land use controls.) General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment applications processed concurrently are the prescribed process for changing.land use designations. The duel applications are intended to make the General Plan and Zoning consistent for the subject land use amendment. : .XXIV._ DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project coul~l not have a significant effect on the environment, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. ~ b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because rrzitio~ztion me~s~zres described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. c) I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... Q SlgnaluMa/ P~anning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner Print Name Date CITY OF ir~ial sludy · ~ II 12J~3 RANCHO CUC GA ENVIRONM.-'NTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I-Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full; INCOMPLETE ~DPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note chat it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. GENER~L I'~FORMATI~ Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Project Title: F0othi]] Courtyard Name & Address of project owner(s): c/oNWohl Investment Ccmpany, 2402 Michelson Dr., #170 Irvine, 'CA 92715 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: Wohl/Rancho Partners (same) Centact PersOn & Address: (1) Greg Wohl or Peter Desf0r~es (2) LauraBrozek Telephone N-mher: (Address sam~ as above) Ph. #714/955-0115 Fax #714/755-3971 Ph.~09/980-4719 Fax ~X)9/980-5849 Nee & Address of person preparing this fo~ (if ~fferent from above): Telephone N-tuber: C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N PRDJIDCT INFORMATION & DESCRIPTION Information indicated by asterisk (') is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X 11) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) 3) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. Project Location (describe): ~le site is bounded by F0othi]] on the north, 5~,ca]yptus the ~lth, Sprite on the west, and Elm on the esst excludin~ the south east corner currently improved with a hotel. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): AP~ 2CB-352-62 throu.~h 208-352-69 (eight perce]s) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft. ): 14.45 Acres '6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): N6 add~c~al dedications proFosad. 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which 'would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): ~ site is currently designated on --the General Plan within the Industrial Ares, and is located within the Industrial Specific Plan, subarea 7. Tais application requests an amend- ment in the General F/an designation to Co~,nanit3 Cnmerc~s] and an amendment' to the Indus- trial Specific Plan to permit Canrealty Oremarcia] uses at this location as such uses are defined within the Footh~ ] ] Specific Plan. S) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement zhe project: General Plsn Amendment/I.S.P. Amendment/Conditional Use Permit for Shoppin~ Canter development, standard buildin~ Dennits. 9) Describe the phylica! setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition') and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeologica! surveys, traffic studies): The site is vacant at this ~ but was used as a v~neyard i n the past. ]here is no nmture vegitation on the subject propet~7' or any existing structures. Topography is relatively level with drainage to slope to Eucalyptus. Please see enclosed soi] .~ report for sojls information. Please see enclosed aerial photograph for general overview, ~0) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): None 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc. ) and how they will affect proposed uses: The primary source of noise is normal and custcmarv traffic on FootM 1 ] Blvd. There is minimsl noise from flights in and out of Ontario International Airport. These wi] ] not affect the proposed uses. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment- Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: (Please see enclosed "Description of Project and Supportino~ Information") 13) 14) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects- Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-fantily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Adjacent property descriptions ere as follows: (1) To the north is Terra Vista Town Canter, a Catty ~ni~l shopping center within the Tetra Vista Specific Flan. (2) To the west is a currently vacant restaurant building and unimproved land planned for further restaurant develo[rnent. (3) To the south and east is unimproved ]and within the Industrial Specific Plan. (4) Tm~ediately adjacent to and southeast of the subjectproperty is a six storyBestWesternHerritageHotel. will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The proposed Ccn~ty Co~n~_rri~l Shopping Canter project on the subject property is consistent with the pattern, scale and character of the surrounding general erea. 15) '16) Indicate the type of short-term &nd long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses- What methods of sound proofing are proposed? Short term noise will be ~enerated bvte RradinR and buildino~ construction proce.%~. 7l~e long term noise Renerated by this project will be noxnal and customary traffic noise g~nerated by auto and truck traffic ccminR and eoinR from the site. There wi 1 be no adverse effects tn the adjacent properties. Indicate proposed removals and/or .replacements of mature or scenic trees: None existing Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: The site drains into the existin~ storm drain svsten. Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates)- For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a- Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day) 19) b- Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) 1,500 Peak use (gal/min/ac) 3,000 Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. Septic Tank X Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewag~ generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) b. Industrial/Conunercial (gal/day/ac) 1,0C0-1,5C0 RESIDENTIA/~ P~S '20) }]u~er of rc3iaential ur, it~: Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, lot size: / Attached (indicate w~eer units are rental or for sale units): ,/ range of sale priccs ani'or rcntz: Sale Price(s) S to S Rent (per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: school children who will be residing appropriate School Districts as shown 23) indicate anticipated h~size by unit type: / 24) Indicate the expected number of within the roject: Contact the in Attac ent B: a. Elementary: · b- Junior High: COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIO~qAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: The type of use is a Comxnity ~cial shopping center (i.e. retail with restaurants as an anrillary use). 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: Restaurants Oene, ral R~r~i 16,550 square f~t 116,965 square feet 133,515 square feet 27) Indicate hours of operazion: The approximate hours of operation ~Lll be Retail/ Co~nerni~l 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM; Restaurants and/or fast food 6:C0 AM to 2:00 AM 28) 29) Number of employees: Total: N/A Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary): N/A 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currenzly reside in the City: N/A '3~) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): N/A ~,T.T. PRDJ'ECTS 32) Have the water,. sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Yes, ~ services are available to the subject property. 33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not lim/ted to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or ctischarge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. Only to the extent that such materials are typical ] y ut~ ] ~ zed in the construction and oDerat/on of a retaj/ccrm~r~a] developerant. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 5/22/95 Signature: ~~~ Date: >/ Title: ~eneralPartner ATTACHMENT A Water Usage Average use per day Residential Single Fam/ly Apt/Condo Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use X 2.0 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3000 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 1500 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Se~er Flows Residential Single Fam/ly Apt/Condos 270 gal/day 200 gal/day C~rcial/lndustrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac 1000-1500 gal/day/ac 2000 gal/day/ac 3000 gal/day/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86 RECEIVED MAR 1 ~= 1996 .March 13, 1996 Mr. Brad Buller City Plartner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 City of Rancho Cucamonga .~mn,~ws,on ~/ I q g g , South side on Yoothill Between Spruce and Elm ~ ~. ~ Dear Brad: Enclosed are three proposed plans for the above referenced property. All are identical except for the east end of the property for which there are currently three potential uses. Scheme "A " shows a service station on the north east corner with a 20,000 sq. It. Good Guys! store and a cluster of four auto. related tenants to the south of it (7,000 sq.ft. auto parts store, 3,000 sq.ft. muffler store, 4,000 sq.ft. tire store and 2,800 sq.ft. lube & tune). Scheme "B" shows a 20,000 sq.ft. Good Guysf store next to a 30,000 sq.fi. "major" retailer on the east and with a 4,000 sq.fi. pad retail building on the north east corner. Scheme "C" shows a 50,000 sq.~. "WOW!" store on the south east corner and a 4,000 sq.~. pad retail building on the north east corner. It is difficult to predict which of these configurations will be developed until we are able to market this property with zoning that will permit these uses. WOItL INVESTMENT COMPANY 2402 Michelson, Suite 170, Irvine, California 92715 · (714) 955-0115 · FAX: (714) Page 2 Brad Buller March 13.1996 I have not heard from your office regarding any further information needed to complete our application and am under the assumption that we are still on schedule for the March 271h Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, comments or need any further information. please feel free to call me. Sincerely, WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS Peter 'Desforges General Partner 0 w I C) J O ,< 0 C) w I -] ~II]JIIIIIIIIIID ~i~ === i]JIIIlllllllO ' _~,' ~ '== ~llllll'lllll[lllO ~ ~ / ~ II O 0 EL C) w I 0 _~ ill ~ T 0 > (-~ 0 L!_! o ~ ARCHITECTS PACIFICA LTD 17711 MITCHELL NORTH, SUITE B IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6028 714-253 8525 Fax 714- 553 1768 RECEIVED TRANSMITTAL DATE March 19, 1996 TO City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department ~4AR 19 '[996 City or nancho Cucam0nga Planning Division Attention Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner Fax Wohl InvestmentJRancho Cucamonga Project Copies Description Date 1 Site Plan Scheme "C" 3-18-96 (Full Size) 1 Site Plan Scheme "C" 3-18-96 (Legal Size) COi13ITlBFItS I am sending this at the request of Peter Desforges. Please call if you have any questions or comments. SENT BY (check all that apply) ( ) Mail ( ) ups ( ) Fed Ex ( X ) Messenger ( ) Overnight ( ) Facsimile WE TRANSMIT ( x ) Attached ( ) Under seperate cover ( ) No. of pages including THE FOLLOWING: (check all that apply) FOR ( X ) Prints ( ) Original tracings ( ) Reproducibles ( ) Copy of letter ( ) Specifications ( ) YOUR ( X ) Review ( ) Approval ( ) Use ( ) SIGNED Thomas Bond Project Manager I:'~DATA~ROJECTSI96005~BULLER1 .TRN Copies to: (w/enc. or w/o enc.) L == I~llllllllllll~ .._ .,_ ==' __ ==' 0 ~ 0 ,~ 0 ~ ~0 O (j O_ w SE z tU t~ 0 ) ~ 0 tU o ~ Lewis Homes Management Corp. 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949-6740 RECEIVED March 13, 1996 Mr. Brad Buller City Planner City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 MAR 14 1996 CiTy of Ranclno Cucamonga Planning Division RE: Retail availability along Foothill Blvd. Dear Brad: As follow up to our meeting of last week concerning retail availability along Foothill Boulevard, I wanted to give you some more information. Lewis Homes owned centers have vacant/available space as follows: Terra Vista Promenade Town Center Square at Terra Vista Terra Vista Town Center Total 306,300 s.f. 35,000 s.f. 56,278 s.f. 397,578 s.f. Tenants in bankruptcy (Home Express, Clothestime, Discovery Zone, Lingerie for Less, Anna's Linens) 68,421 s.f. Total Available 465.999 s.f. This is 38% of the total retail space we have zoned on Foothill in Terra Vista. This does not include nearby space at Deer Creek, and the K-Mart on Haven or projects further east on Foothill like Rancho Towne Center where there is 125,000 s.f. available. Nor does this include the space available at Foothill Marketplace. Some of this vacancy is a result of the changes in retailing especially tenant size. More importantly, retailers like to group together so a Home Depot anchored center at the east side of Mr. Brad Buller March 13, 1996 Page 2 Terra Vista attracts a different user group then Best Buy/Barnes and Noble or Target/Mervyns anchored centers. We will be rezoning our Elm to Milliken piece to attract those retailers who will not go to the Promenade but want to be on-Foothill. The City needs to carefully consider the impact of additional retail zoning on existing Centers. The purpose for planning and zoning is to direct uses to where the community believes they belong and 'create the most synergy. Rezoning a new site 0~.dy weakens tl~e ex-te'r~si~e l~l-~iiiing and zonilig the City has w0rkca hard to implement. Sincerely, . f . _Lewis HOmes Management · ,C. fi'e . oxworth ercial D~velopment Richard Lewis John Goodman Gary Luque GNHJjrg Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gil Roddguez, Jr., U. S. Properties, P. O. Box 281, Upland, stated he had not had time to address the letter he received from staff today. He requested that the matter be continued. Mr. Buller suggested that the application be continued to a specific date in order to avoid the cost of running the advertisement again. Mr. Rodriguez requested that the matter be continued to April 24, 1996. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue Variance 96-01 to April 24, 1996. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-0~1-- WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked the definition of Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map. Ms. Bratt replied it is similar to what would be found at the Virginia Dare Center. Commissioner Lumpp asked if it would be General Commercial as opposed to Community Commercial, which would be larger users. Ms. Bratt confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Desforges, General Partner, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 3402 Michaelson Drive, #170, Irvine, referred to a letter he had written to the Planning Commission on January 8, 1996. He felt that a national tenant would not be willing to locate anywhere in the City other than on Foothill Boulevard east of Haven Avenue. He stated the existing retail core along Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is thriving even though he acknowledged a letter submitted by Lewis Homes Management Corp. which complains about the high vacancy in Terra Vista. He commented that Lewis' rezoning for 360,000 square feet of retail in the Promenade area indicates there is an expanding market. He felt the Agajanian study underestimated the amount of retail that will be coming into the market and thought there will be continued demand for substantial acreage to accommodate future retail development. He stated that "critical mass" is desired by retailers. He observed that retail development contributes tax dollars to the City. He thought the City needs to be aggressive in attracting new retailers to the City. He remarked that the outlet center industry climbed rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but tenants are now seeing a sales decline. He thought it was premature to say that Hahn will never build Victoria Gardens because he felt Hahn is just waiting to see what will happen with Ontario Mills. He felt there is a market niche for conventional retailers. He stated that Lewis Homes currently has a monopoly on retail development along the Foothill Boulevard corridor. He acknowledged that Masi has zoning for some retail on the south side of Foothill Boulevard but has experienced delays because of management and financing problems. He indicated he had been told that retailers feel the Masi site is a "tweener" site because it is not close to either Terra Vista Town Center or the -- ?--" 9. Cb Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 27, 1 freeway, but in the middle. He stated that Planning staff had suggested that they wait until the north side of Foothill Boulevard is developed before rezoning the south side for more commercial uses. He thought his site has obvious potential for retail zoning and he wanted to give potential tenants another alternative to consider along Foothill .Boulevard. He acknowledged that adding retail acreage may slightly delay development along the north side, but he felt it will ultimately draw more tenants to the City and all of the tenants would do better because of the concept of critical mass. He stated that concerns had been raised that if the Wohl site is rezoned, all of the south side of Foothill Boulevard should be rezoned. He thought the City should not fezone all of the south side of Foothill Boulevard, but should rather stad at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and work east. He felt their site would be the next obvious site in that progression. He felt that the City could wait approximately 5-15 years before considering rezoning for more commercial to the east. He noted they have a commitment form the Good Guys to build a 20,000-25,000 square foot store. He said they also have proposals from other tenants, but stated their competition has been very vocal in saying that retailers should not talk to them because of the City Council denial in November. He thought that when Lewis rezoned the Promenade site, their only solid commitment was from Best Buy. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the zone change because he said they are in danger of losing the Good Guys as a potential tenant, as they have been approached to lease at the Ontario Mills site. He observed that staff had indicated that a zone change without design and master plan submittal would allow them to build anything they want, but felt that the City would be protected because of the Design Review process. He stated they had hired Tom Bond of Architects Pacifica because of his past experience working in the City. He said they did not submit a master plan because they wanted to resolve the use issue first. He expressed a willingness to work with the City to develop an acceptable project. He noted that Commissioner Melcher had p~eviously voiced a concern about whether the site can accommodate a Community Commercial center. He said the General Plan defines a Community Commercial Center as between 100,000- 350,000 square feet situated on 15-50 acres. He acknowledged that their site is slightly below 15 acres but said it will be between 110,000-130,000 square feet. Mr. Desforges said they plan to place a restaurant immediately in front of the hotel and incorporate the design of the hotel into their site. He commented that adding the hotel site into their acreage would bring the site up to just under 18 acres. He said he had included the three site plans to show they could design a center with sufficient parking fields. He noted that the narrowest parking field depicted on the site plan schemes is 12 parking spaces deep. He commented that a concern had been raised at an earlier meeting that the strip configuration places a back door to the propedies to the south. He said they are now considering three retail pods and they would like to do signage on the backs of the building to invite the businesses to the south to access the service retail and the restaurants they will have. He thought they could address all concerns through the Design Review process and said they would like to have a workshop once the land use issue is resolved. He did not feel any use other than retail would fit the site and said that several brokers and architects have visited the site and commented that the site is only suitable for retail because of its frontage on Foothill Boulevard and its location across the street from a retail center. He noted the property is currently zoned for industrial, office, or business suppod retail. He felt that industrial is not practical and office vacancies are too high to consider office uses. He thought that office uses will locate along the Haven corridor. He observed that staff has indicated there is no need to rezone the property because the current zoning allows uses which are complementary to, rather than competitive to, the uses on the north side of the street. He said they are permitted to have office support retail but those uses already exist across the street in the Terra Vista Plan. He stated it appeared that the north side is allowed to compete with the south side but the south side is not permitted to compete with the north side. He thought that business supply retail has changed considerably since when the General Plan was first adopted, in that large office supply firms serve both the business community and the residential community and therefore locate in centers where they are surrounded by other retail uses. He stated they cannot attract enough users to the site without a zone change. He said they had previously thought a theater chain would utilize a large portion of the site, but large theaters have now been planned forthe Ontario Mills site and Mountain Avenue and the 1-10 Freeway and their prospective theater tenant put their plans on hold. He said they had elected not to have a Pre-Application Review because they felt it important to get the use issue resolved first. He thought that Lewis is Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 27, 19<~6 / now expressing support for the Agajanian study because they are negotiating to purchase land along 4th Street for retail uses. He observed that the staff report indicated that major shops are doing well along the north side of Foothill Boulevard and at the Foothill Boulevard/l-15 location, but in-line shops are struggling. He said they are proposing their center in order to give avenue to smaller retailers who do want to be located along Foothill Boulevard but do not want to be lost in a huge power center. He thought their center may dilute the success of Tetra Vista Town Center in the shod term, but felt it will be beneficial in the long term because it will add critical mass. He felt their project will allow healthy competition along Foothill Boulevard and is compatible with the General Plan in terms of Community Commercial. He noted their site already permits some retail and said they are just asking for an expansion of those retail uses. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, 17711 Mitchell North, Suite B, Irvine, stated they are proposing a different kind of retail center designed to compete by filling a niche in the existing retail market. He said currently there are large 30-60 acre centers along Foothill Boulevard with limite_d, opportunities for smaller speciality users. He indicated their center is designed to promote smaller, speciality service and convenience retail users which will thrive on the easy in-and-out capability. He said the smaller uses will be the prime users in a less-overwhelming center because the majors will be in the 20,000-35,000 square foot range. He thought that current zoning ensures that the site will not be built out for many years to come because an office park is neither feasible nor desirable along Foothill Boulevard, which is retail oriented. He felt a light industrial use would not make sense and the demand for the other approved uses is very low and would not justify development of the site. He thought the primary purpose of zoning is to protect property values and the secondary purpose is to create orderly development. He acknowledged that Foothill Boulevard forms a logical zoning dMsion boundary to separate the homes and churches to the north from the offices, industry, and City hall complex on the south side. However, he believed the zoning would be enhanced by providing the services needed on both sides to be available on both sides. He felt that would encourage development by providing services that future development will require. He thought Foothill Boulevard needs an altemative to the power center. He felt the shape of the center provides excellent visibility for a variety of sizes of tenants, with larger tenants on the two expanded ends of the site and smaller users in the compressed middle of the site. He said they are proposing retail pods to counter the strip look and to create an opportunity for access from the south. He said the center pod will be for food and service retailers with free-standing buildings to create a focal point on Foothill Boulevard and pedestrian entry from Eucalyptus Street to the south. He said the remaining pods would be clusters of flexible space intended for small-to-medium size users. He said a restaurant pad is proposed for Foothill Boulevard and Spruce to complement the hotel and additional pads are proposed along Foothill Boulevard for fast food or retail. He felt a zoning change would reinforce the intent of the existing zoning and encourage development south of Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiel asked how this development would differ from the development across the street which has smaller users sandwiched between large users. Mr. Bond replied that the configuration of the buildings would be similar to what is located on the north side of the street. He said Terra Vista Town Center bulged in the center of the project which led to placing the theater in the back and trying to pull people through the center. He stated this site is opposite, in that it is shallow in the center so that the major users would be on the ends. He said the smaller users will be in a very visible location because they will not have a huge parking field or other buildings in front of them. Commissioner McNiel felt the proposal is more of a strip center type of construction. Mr. Bond replied he would not categorize it as strip commercial. He said they are proposing a central core of a pair of buildings nestled around a courtyard being aligned on the main entry drive so there will be a place for food users to have tables, awnings, trellises, and pedestrian amenities. He said those buildings would be essentially freestanding with some parking to the sides. He stated Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 27, 1996 they were not proposing any service aisle behind them. He said they would force service to come in from the sides so that the backs of the buildings would present a front appearance to Eucalyptus Street. He stated that to the east and west there would be two-three other pods of other types of retail of 30,000-40,000 each. He said they would be proposing two very short service roads on the far ends of the site to service the eastern and western pods. Commissioner McNiel asked if the lack of a service corridor behind the central pod was driven by the depth of the property. Mr. Bond said it was driven by the depth but it was also an attempt to turn the best possible face to Eucalyptus Street. He said it would make the center inviting from all directions. Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Bond to define a strip center. Mr. Bond responded it would be a configuration of retail buildings stacked side-to-side with basically one architectural elevation. He commented they were trying to create a series of buildings which are three-dimensional. He said the central core will have architecture on all sides. He stated the side pods will also have architectural treatments on the fronts, sides, and the beginnings of the rear. He noted that there will be a loading dock to the rear of the side pod buildings but said they will be attempting to disguise that with a variety of screen walls. trellises, and landscaping. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Bond feels there are any strip centers within Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Bond said there is one west of Haven on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that Terra Vista Town Center is a strip center in many respects. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed opposition. He thought the project is the same as what had been denied by the Planning Commission and City Council in November 1995. He felt tonight's presentation was merely a rehash of the same issues which had been addressed in the past. He thought the project is a typical strip mall proposal. He felt the center and project are not unique. He stated that Foothill Boulevard is a critical corridor for Rancho Cucamonga and spot zoning should not be permitted. He opposed making a change for another retail outlet that will be carrying primarily electronic goods. He noted that Best Buy, Service Merchandise, Montgomery Ward, and Target are located immediately across the street and Walmart, Price Costco, Circuit City, Office Depot are just down the street. He said that all of those outlets carry all or some of the products that the Good Guys carries at various pricing levels. He did not feel the Good Guys will either increase the size of the market or improve it with better quality and quantity of merchandise or better pricing and would merely slice the existing business into more pieces. He thought the development will be detrimental. He felt that Wohl Development has seen the value of their land drop because the approved users have chosen to locate elsewhere so they are now asking the City to change the zoning so they can develop. He preferred that the land stay vacant rather than having vacant retail outlets in the next few years. He thought that Terra Vista is currently experiencing approximately a 50 percent vacancy rate in the smaller outlets that Wohl is now indicating would be their primary target. He asked how much vacant retail space will be located along the Foothill Boulevard corridor before the City realizes that there is enough. He said the developer is asking for a change in the zoning that the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga are not clamoring for. He noted that the developer had asked that their zone change be approved but suggested that the City should wait before rezoning any property to the east. Mr. Deaux asked that the City den. y the request. He thought the change might be more reasonable in the future when there has been more economic growth or the Terra Vista area has been more built out with a resulting population growth. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, feared there will be a change of power in Rancho Cucamonga if the City Council approves a project that the Planning Commission has turned down. He said that Lewis Homes has always submitted plans, worked with staff, and had Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 27, 1996 numerous design review meetings, and Planning Commission review meetings in order to reach an agreement at the Planning Commission before going on to City Council. He commented that the City established the General Plan and has worked with master plans and changes have generally required an intense amount of study and justification as to why the overall plan has to be changed with the impact being considered on more than just the property in question. He stated the Agajanian study had started the process toward probable changes in the General Plan and specific plans based upon the study but he felt those changes should be made only after input of the participants who will be affected and additional studies as needed. He said that if Wohl's strategy is successful, Lewis Homes would probably rethink their strategy. He noted they had worked on the Promenade project approximately a year in order to amend the specific plan, looking at the various land uses, dealing with specific building designs, landscaping, amenities, traffic studies, etc. He noted that when the City voted on the plan change, it was aware of what would be coming in. He observed that the project was conditioned so that any changes will require them to modify the conditions. He stated that retailers do not have allegiance to any one developer. He said that the City has generally controlled where it wants retail to develop. He acknowledged that most retailers want to be close to the intersection of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and stated that if they had realized that other sites would be available for rezoning, they would have probably chosen the site at Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard instead of the Promenade site because it would have been easier to lease because it is closer to Haven Avenue. He noted there is a large amount of vacancy including the 80,000 square foot K-Mart building and the 105,000 square foot Gemco building and said they have 373,000 square feet of retail still to be built on the north side of Foothill Boulevard (approximately 40,000 at Tetra Vista Town Center, 33,000 at Town Center Square, and 300,000 at the Promenade). He said they have 75,000 square feet of tenants currently in bankruptcy. He felt that Marshall's and TJ Maxx would have located on Foothill Boulevard if they had not had an opportunity to go to the Ontario Mills project. He said there had been previous discussions with Edwards Theaters regarding expansion, but that will not likely happen because of the theaters to be built at Ontario Mills. He felt that the retailers may reassess the market place after the Mills project opens. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Hoxworth was suggesting that the tenants currently in bankruptcy will vacate their premises. Mr. Hoxworth confirmed that some of them will. He said some of their other tenants have been granted major rent concessions in order to avoid having the spaces become vacant. Commissioner Lumpp noted that in his March 13 letter, he used the terminology that they "will be rezoning their Elm to Milliken piece." He asked if the comment was to imply that they already have an approval from someone higher than the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoxworth noted that was not true, he merely meant they will submit an application. He said that they feel sites closer to Haven Avenue will be more desirable to tenants before the remainder of the Promenade site will be leased and they want to be able to offer tenants an alternative if other sites are to be zoned so that they will not be at a competitive disadvantage. Commissioner Lumpp asked how the request to rezone Elm to Milliken would be any different from the Wohl request. since the Wohl parcel is closer to the Haven Avenue intersection. Mr. Hoxworth stated they had previously had discussions with the City that they would not apply for any other zone changes to retail properties on the north side of Foothill Boulevard until the Promenade site matures. However, he said it now appears that the rules are changing relative to how properties are rezoned and they do not want to be at a competitive disadvantage. Commissioner Melcher observed that Lewis' March 13 letter indicates they will be rezoning the Elm to Milliken parcel but then states in the next paragraph that the "City needs to carefully consider the Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1996 impact of additional retail zoning on existing Centers." He asked if Lewis meant the City should be careful in considering requests from Lewis as well as from Wohl. Mr. Hoxwodh responded that their proposal to rezone is purely one from a competitive situation in that they want to have competitive sites closer to Haven Avenue. He said that if the Agajanian study and the study they did to justify the Promenade do not hold true, then they would like to look at other sites they feel may be better located for retailers than the Promenade. Commissioner McNiel stated that Mr. Hoxworth had voiced concern about the process and fair play under the process and protecting their property rights under the process. He noted that the Terra Vista Community Plan has been continually revised since it was adopted. He said State law requires that the City be willing to consider General Plan amendments several times during the year. He did not feel considering Wohl's request is taking unfair advantage of any other developer. Mr. Hoxworth Said he was talking about the steps involved in the process that they have historically gone through. Chairman Barker said he heard Mr. Hoxworth to say they were trying to protect themselves because they feel the process has been changed. Mr. Hoxworth said that most projects processed within Rancho Cucamonga have provided much more detailed plans with any zoning applications so the City will know what will be developed. He said that was the change in process he was referring to. Commissioner McNiel stated some plans had been proposed which had been rejected. He said that Wohl knows that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the plans that have been submitted will have to be changed. Commissioner Melcher observed that the staff report identifies that the City has the request without a planned proposal and that is of great concern to the staff and he thought it bears in some measure on staf~s recommendation that the request be denied. He felt the staff repod was extremely well done and did not feel the application or the recommendation before the Commission constitutes a change to the process. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:48 p.m. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, #205, Rancho Cucamonga, slated he was speaking on behalf of the project. He felt the original objections and concerns raised about Tetra Vista were similar to those the Commission was hearing tonight. He said it was his understanding that Wohl's proposal has been in process for quite some time. He stated that Mr. Desforges would not have spoken for so long if he felt he had a done deal. He observed the staff repod indicated that there have been leasing difficulties experienced by the Mast project and other properties along Foothill Boulevard. He felt there were unique problems with the Mast project and the Moore site and he thought most of those problems had been self-inflicted and did not have anything to do with the marketplace or design standards of the City. He observed that Mr. Hoxworth had indicated there is a better market for properties located closer to Haven Avenue, which meant the Wohl property is well situated for commercial. He commented that many large corporations go into bankruptcy but continue to operate and would not necessarily be vacating their premises. He said one of the challenges for the Terra Vista sites is that they have very large users and the small retailers are sometimes lost in the mix. He noted the Wohl proposal has a much smaller scale and he felt it has a better balance and design. He thought the restaurants and anchors will draw in and complement the other businesses in the Wohl project. He felt it will offer competition to the businesses across the street. He said he has talked to the Best Buy people and was told that electronics firms benefit by having competition close by because buyers are drawn to the area to do comparison shopping. He remarked that the Good Guys have sophisticated marketing techniques Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 27, 1996 at their disposal and the City should consider that they are willing to invest in this location. He said they are also considering the Ontario Mills site. He stated Wohl is not talking about cornpromising quality or design standards. He noted that the staff report expresses reservations about approving the request for the land use change because no plan was submitted with it. He said some people want to determine the use issue before looking at a plan while others seem to want to look at plans before determining the use issue. He felt the use should be approved in order to turn Foothill Boulevard into a commercial corridor with retail on both sides of the street. He said the project will be complementary to the existing land uses and those across the street. He noted they already have some commercial uses but said one of their prime uses (office related commercial) has located across the street. He said the current commercial uses are very restrictive. He felt there are a lot of stdp commercial centers in the City. He asked that the City put away type-cast, traditional terms so far as designations and land uses and be creative. He hoped the City would not lock out retail users by having Lewis be the only game in town. Gary Kendrick, 6661 Morocco Street, Rancho Cucamonga, observed that he had spoken at the November City Council meeting. He stated that the developer presented one set of plans at last year's Planning Commission meeting and another set at the City Council meeting. He felt it is an infamous chameleon, constantly changing. He felt that the Planning Commission should recommend denial unless there have been dramatic changes since last year. He asked that the City not grant Wohl a credit card to change the property to whatever they want. He felt the project is a less ambitious project than it was previously with the Good Guys being the only common denominator. He stated that the City Council denied the project without prejudice only because the market report had not been completed. He thought the City Council should again deny the project unless there were some stadling revelations in the market report. He felt the City should appreciate the wisdom of the General Plan and the way things are done. He asked that the Commission stand firm and deny the request for a zoning change. Brad Umansky, Grubb & Ellis, 7269 Fermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and a retail specialist. He said he has worked with Mr. Desforges since the last time the project was before the City. He felt the current zoning of industrial for the parcel does not make sense. He did not think the requested change would negatively affect anyone. He said there were no residents speaking against the project because of concerns about crime or increased traffic. He felt there are plenty of other opportunities in the community for the uses which are currently zoned; i.e., plenty of land for office space along Haven Avenue and plenty of land for industrial south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Haven Avenue. He thought there are few parcels remaining that would be appropriate for retail and he felt this proposal for a narrow site with good visibility near the Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue intersection makes sense. He thought the use is logical for the site and it would not create an onerous situation for other landowners. He commented that Mr. Hoxworth argued against the process and potential competition but not the use. He felt the Agajanian study presented information that should be used as a tool but it should not be taken as gospel. He acknowledged that there are several large retail buildings which are vacant in the community but he felt that is true in many communities today. He felt those vacant properties will always be more competitive than anything built in the future and he thought those buildings will be absorbed over time. He thought centers currently have a higher leased rate than they did a year ago. He commented that Terra Vista Town Center has most of its vacancies in the Food Court area and he felt it may be because the Food Court area is hidden behind other buildings. He stated here had been about 100 residents at the City Council meeting in November when Wohl's project was denied. He said the residents were at the meeting regarding another matter, but after the meeting about 10 people stated they would like to have retail in that location. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the change because he feared Mr. Desforges will lose credibility in the marketplace and the momentum will be lost. He commented that Rancho Cucamonga has recently been more proactive in trying to help business even though it is still a difficult place to do business because of the high standards. He felt the City will lose credibility if they do not approve this change because it is a logical project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 27, 1996 Commissioner McNiel observed that Mr. Umansky said the City has high standards and a cedain image. He asked if it is the City's high standards or the rest of the world's lower standards that the City is struggling with. Mr. Umansky said Rancho Cucamonga has higher standards than other communities. He felt the higher standards have a benefit but they make life more difficult from a developer's point of view because it is easier to develop in another City. Commissioner McNiel asked if that meant the City should relax its standards in the hot pursuit of tax dollars. Mr. Umansky did not think it should and he did not think the Wohl project is asking that the standards be changed. Mr. Umansky said.when he was talking about high standards he was talking about architectural standards, but not from a point of view of dropping standards to put a beer and wine mini-market on a corner when the City does not want a mini-market on the corner. He felt there are two levels of standards; one from a construction point of view and another from a use point of view. He thought Rancho Cucamonga has high standards for both and other cities have a lower standards from a use point of view when the use is onerous to other padies. He felt the change was not being requested for tax purposes but because it is a logical progression for the property. Andrew Hall, General Manager of Best Western Heritage Inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had previously appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council to express concems with having a Good Guys store immediately in front of the hotel. He said he has subsequently talked with Mr. Desforges and the concerns he previously voiced have now been addressed. He said he now feels there is an opportunity to highlight the hotel with synergy on the comer by having a restaurant on the corner and retaining the hotel's visibility to Foothill Boulevard. He stated he was glad for the City's high development standards because he felt the process made for a better hotel. He indicated he had also been told a restaurant on the corner pad could be of similar design and style to the hotel. He understood that the Planning Commission still needs to look at the bigger issue of determining what is best for not only the hotel, but also the residents, the community, and the business community. Hearing no furlher testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel observed that the site is 14.4 acres that, if it is rezoned, would amount to about 2 percent of what will ultimately be built out in the community. He acknowledged that is not significant but he felt the significance is the location and the City°s approach to the General Plan and the community as it was designed to be developed when the General Plan was first put together. He said the original plans were for retail on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, some commercial and mostly industrial on the south side. He said the City has deviated from that in the past and he has experienced some regrets in the process. He stated that Mr. Desforges had previously told the Commission that Best Buy is doing well but Circuit City is experiencing some problems. He felt that the Wohl proposal is being driven by one user, the Good Guys,- and he did not feel the that one user will make such a large contribution to the City that the change should be made on a one-user driven property. He said the property is already zoned for some commercial uses and he felt the property could be developed under its current zoning. He commented the City had already considered the proposal and said he saw nothing new that was offered to entice the City to alter its previous decision. He did not see that changing the zoning will benefit the community and did not think that lining Foothill Boulevard with commercial on both the north and side sides from the eastern City limits to Haven Avenue and beyond will benefit the City in the long term. He said such a proposal reminds him of Palmdale with one long stretch of strip centers. He was uncomfortable with making the change and thought he might be more receptive to such a change in perhaps five years after other development has taken place. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 27, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp observed that numerous people had spoken this evening and he said he would like to address some of those comments. He said a number of people had spoken in opposition because of the General Plan. He felt that planning is a process that is continually evolving and needs to change for progress and to allow innovation to continue. He thought Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan needs to be revised. He noted that one person spoke about spot zoning, vacancy rates, cluttering, and economic growth. He asked how this request was different from the Promenade project with respect to spot zoning. He felt the vacancy rate is a function of the economy and the lease rates on a per square foot basis and smaller users generally have to pay more money because the larger users are the major draws. He said comments were made that Foothill Boulevard is cleady the undisputed commercial corridor in the City, but he asked why one only one side is commercial and the other side industrial. He was not sure that he agreed with comments that this is a community oriented commercial area while the 4th Street area is regionally oriented commercial. He thought that some users along Foothill are more regionally oriented such as Best Buy and Home Depot. He was not sure that the property will fill a niche. He noted that the architect who designed Terra Vista Town Center indicated that Town Center is a strip center. He questioned how this center will be any worse or any better. He asked "If not us, who; if not here, where; and if not now, when?" He felt that because Lewis Homes has indicated a desire to change the zoning on the nodh side between Elm and Milliken that indicates that there may be a good reason for changing the zoning on this property because Lewis Homes has first-hand knowledge about the retail market in this community. He thought the City should consider changing the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been involved from the developer standpoint in the preparation of the Terra Vista Community Plan. He felt there is a distinct difference between the north side of Foothill Boulevard and the south side and that difference is the centers concept. He said the notion of the centers concept is that gathering one or more related uses together on a large parcel of land allows for a quality of development which is quite different from a strip center which was regarded as an anathema at the time the plan was being prepared and the City was preparing its General Plan. He felt the only thing which can happen on a parcel as small as the Wohl property is a strip center with a narrow field of parking parallel to the street with a row of small uses at the back of the site. He acknowledged that it may be done with more creativity, but said it would still remain a strip center and he did not think that was the kind of vision the City has always had for Foothill Boulevard. He thought the City was being asked to rezone in an opportunistic way to solve a problem for a landowner who has a small piece of property. He did not think that is what planning should be and he did not support the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Desforges delivered a compelling argument in favor of his request but he noted the City recently commissioned and received a professional study concerning commercial development and one of the conclusions was that the City probably has too much commercial land available for future needs of the City. He observed that study was supported by other professional opinions as well. He stated that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for the long-term goals and strategies for retail development and the Commission has held several meetings and will need several more meetings in order to arrive at the goals and strategies to present to the City Council for their approval or disapproval. He did not support the application at this time. He indicated he had previously expressed concerns about the physical constraints of the property and he still had those concerns. He noted that the proposal and Mr. Bond had both mentioned drive-thru restaurants and he did not feel a drive-thru facility will fit with enough stacking space, parking, and other associated needs. He agreed with the points raised by Commissioners Melcher and McNiel. Chairman Barker said that Mr. Desforges is an articulate, convincing debater. He stated he has said several times that the City needs to look at the master plan which exists to evaluate these issues. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that the City should look at the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor to consider if it should all be commercial, He thought it should be looked at in total, not just one small piece. He agreed the property is a difficult piece of property. He did not think the City Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 27, 1996 should be making a decision on one small piece of property at a time because there is an opportunity for the current owner of that property. He said he resented having to make a decision on this small property without being able to look at the remaining six to seven properties on the same side of the street who probably want the same thing. He noted that Mr. Desforges had suggested that the City should approve this request but wait 5-15 years before considering the remainder of the propedies to the east. He did not think that if Mr. Desforges owned any of the properly the east he would want to wait up to 15 years. He felt the City had started the process of looking at the General Plan to see if it should be modified and he commented that some City Council Members have indicated they feel the entire Foothill Boulevard corridor east of Haven should be commercial. He did not think changing the use on this property alone is good planning. He felt that if the City Council has made the decision that this change would be in the best interest of the City, then the Planning Commission would do what it is directed to do to make it work. He said he did not support this particular change because it is out of context and it is not fair. commissioner Lumpp said he tried to focus on what Commissioner Melcher said with regard to a land use perspective that if the zoning is changed it will create a situation which will cause a strip center which is less desirable than what we normally would like to see. He asked how different in size and shape the Wohl parcel is from other properties which have already been rezoned west of Haven Avenue. He thought there are two centers to the west of Haven Avenue which are of similar size and depth. Chairman Barker noted that the parcels to the west of Haven Avenue were in-fill projects of leftover -. pa. rcels from County development. He acknowledged this project is almost in-fill in nature because of its awkward shape. Commissioner McNiel felt that the awkward shape is by design. Commissioner Lumpp appreciated that Chairman Barker concurred with the idea of looking at the entire corridor. He felt there will be other requests for zone changes to commercial along Foothill Boulevard even if this zone change were not approved. Commissioner McNiel stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was written, Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard was considered the heart of the City and going to the east was to be a transition from office commercial with ancillary uses to those functions down to the regionally related center at the mall site. He stated that regionally related commercial uses were planned near the freeway. He observed that the original plan was not etched in stone and it could obviously be changed but he urged caution so that the area does not mimic Palmdale. Commissioner Lumpp said he did not feel this community has any direct relationship to Palmdale. Commissioner McNiel felt it is a lot closer today than it was five years ago. Chairman Barker noted that Commissioner McNiel's comments about the original concept was correct. He asked if the City should now look at a master plan for the City to see if it should be modified. Commissioner McNiel agreed it should be looked at but he felt the historical perspective should be considered. Chairman Barker felt that changing individual pieces will leave the City in a situation where one day it will have to try to glue all the pieces together. Commissioner Lumpp agreed it was piecemealing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 27, 1996 Chairman Barker said he does not want to piecemeal development. He felt the City has an advantage of not having piecemealed development in this area. He said there are other areas of the City where it is obvious projects have had to be piecemealed in. He said he was not bothered that someone is asking that the City consider changing the zoning, but he was bothered by not having time and the opportunity to look at the total picture. He said the rezoning on the Wohl property may make sense by itself but he was not comfortable approving the request. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the Commission has had two workshops on the Foothill Boulevard corridor issue and more will be held in the future. He suggested the Commission may wish to ask if the applicant would be willing to table the item to allow additional time to look at the entire south side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and the freeway. Chairman Barker said he wanted to consider the north side as well. Mr. Buller suggested that perhaps a time frame could be established for those decisions. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Buller could suggest how much time that would take. He thought it would require reopening the General Plan, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Foothill Boulevard Plan and going through a series of public hearings and workshops with the property owners and Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Buller asked what the Commission would like as supporting factual evidence so it could make some recommendations about the corridor. He said he felt some people may feel the City has enough information to make the recommendation for change. He acknowledged that starting from scratch to change the General Plan, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Foothill Boulevard Plan could take from six months to a year. Commissioner Melcher felt that the only data the Commission has received was the study which recommended that it not be changed. He thought the Commission would need data that would support the change. He said he was willing to work with Mr. Desforges for whatever length of time it will take but he thought Mr. Desforges needs to know it will be a long process. Chairman Barker said that was correct but that was one of the frustrating things about making the changes on a piecemeal basis. He noted that the Masi request was the first but there are other property owners along the street who will also want to make changes. He thought the City should not just keep tinkering with the plan but it should plan. He said that theoretically if there is a plan, a businessman can look at the plan and go fortNard. Commissioner McNiel said the City has a General Plan which has been adopted and is in place. He said Mr. Desforges has presented evidence suggesting that a change be made but he felt the evidence was not compelling enough for the Planning Commission to do that. He thought considering the entire corridor would not change Mr. Desforges' position. He suggested that the City move slC~wly on making changes to Foothill Boulevard zoning. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01. Chairman Barker requested that Mr. Desforges respond to Mr. Buller's question as to whether he would want to continue the matter. Mr. Desforges questioned what would change with respect to the concems he heard. He did not feel it is a relevant argument to hold up his request while considering the remainder of Foothill Boulevard because he felt changes have been made to the north side zoning without considering the entire street and the results of those changes have shown it can be successful. He thought the City should look at making changes as the oppodunities arise and developers present plans that make sense. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 27, 1996 He thought their plan makes sense on their property. He said he heard concerns about the depth of the property and commented that they are proposing a parking field that is as deep as that which is in front of Petsmann. He said the parking area in front of Roger Dunn is only seven spaces deep. He said he had already made all the arguments he could with reference to the Agajanian study so he did not see any benefit to postponing his request. He felt the Agajanian study merely reflected Mr. Agajanian's personal opinion that retail should not be on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He guessed that Mr. Agajanian felt the City had concerns about putting retail on the south side. He noted that the General Plan envisioned business-related retail on the south side of Foothill but said that unfortunately there are no longer a retail uses that supponn businesses as opposed to residential. He felt the City should consider how retail uses have changed. He said that if their proposal is denied through the process, they would of course continue to work with the Planning Commission to find an ultimate use of the site but he felt nothing else will happen for many years. He said he cannot fill 15 acres with permitted uses. He felt there is merit in considering his parcel separately from the remainder of Foothill Boulevard because of the opportunity to have a Good Guys store and the he felt the site makes sense. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He noted that the north side of Foothill Boulevard has been changed over the years piece-by-piece. He noted that Mr. Desforges had said the change makes sense for his site and stated that his concern is for more than that site. He called the question. The motion to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 96-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY BARKER, LUMPP NONE - carried Chairman Barker said he voted no because he wants to look at the whole picture rather than one piece at a time. Commissioner Lumpp felt there was compelling testimony given this evening which he felt warranted the decision he made in concert with what Chairman Barker stated about the desire to consider the entire Boulevard. NEW BUSINESS DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to initiate text changes to the Etiwanda Specific Plan development standards for the area south of the 1-15 Freeway. Related File: Preliminary Review 95-10. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the applicant.was proposing to change any aspects of the Etiwanda Specific Plan other than the lot size. Mr. Hayes responded that the applicant is asking for changes to be consistent with the same development districts that are governed by the Development Code so that would include lot sizes, setbacks, lot coverage, and the elimination of the requirement to have 50 percent of the homes plotted other than parallel to the street frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant wanted to eliminate some of the architectural requirements that apply to homes in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 27. 1996 April 2, 1996 Mr. David Barker, Chairman Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho' Cucarnonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Zone change for Southside of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce and Elm. Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity and time to present my ideas regarding the above referenced site at this past Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting. After the public discussion was closed, the Planning Commissioners raised several concerns regarding our proposal which were the basis for their recommendation to the City Council to deny our request. Based on our notes and a review of the tapes from that meeting, the specific concerns were as follows: Citing his experience with Tetra Vista, Commissioner Melcher said that "there is a distinct difference between the north side of the boulevard from the south side and that difference is the so called centers concept developed by Gruen and Assoc. The notion is that by gathering one or more related uses together on a large parcel of land it is possible to have a quality of development that is quite different than the so called strip center. The only thing that can happen with a piece of property such as the Wohl parcel is a strip center; a narrow field of parking parallel to the street with a row of small uses at the back of the site. Perhaps it can be done creatively... it still remains a strip center and not the kind of planning for this street the city has always envisioned." It is important to note that the proposed project of approximately 120,000 square feet is within the General Plan's guidelines for a Community Commercial center being between 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. Based on a conversation which I had with a representative of Gruen & Associates our project would def'mitely fit into the category of the "centers concept" in that it is a sufficiently large parcel with a gathering of related uses having common access, pedestrian flow and a coordinated architectural and landscape theme. Gruen's reference to "strip retail" describes something quite different than what commissioner Melther may be envisioning and is closer in the nature to what is found in the old 'downtowns" of cities like Pomona. What Gruen describes as a "strip retail" is a series of contiguous land parcels with retail business that are not tied together by any coordinated access, landscaping, pedestrian movement or theme. To a certain extent, this type of development existed on Foothill west of Haven where a diverse mix of local tenants all have separate parcels and driveways and are not in any way related. WOHL IN'VESTNIENT CO.%IPANY 2402 Michelson. Suite 170. Irvine. California 92715 · (714) 955-0l 15 · FAX: (714) 755-3971 Page 2 April 2, 1996 The most successful and popular configuration for shopping centers today is one in which all businesses face the boulevard for visibility and ease of automobile and pedestrial traffic. Developers who have tried the "village theme" concept which was briefly popular in the late seventies and featured interior courtyards have been unsuccessful in almost every case. Retailers and consumers alike demand convenience and are unwilling to locate/shop in space that is not readily visible or accessible. Of course, it is necessary to balance this convenience with careful site planning and architecture to.insure an aesthetically pleasing center from a visual design standpoint. We have demonstrated that this can be accomplished as shown in the proposed site plans that were submitted with our application. Commissioner Melcher also stated that "What we're really being asked to do here is to solve a problem for a landowner who has a small piece of property... We are being asked to do our zoning in an opportunistic way..." I would suggest that each and every zone change that has been applied for by landowners in this city his "solved a problem~ for that landowner by allowing a use that there is demand for but that is not permitted. Referring to the Agajanian study, it correctly states that the city should "Promote Aggressive Commercial Development" which may include the rezoning of land as they have recommended on 4th Street. This suggests that the city should be opportunistic in order to attract as much of the sub-regional retail sales as is possible. Commissioner Tolstoy had concerns based on another section of the Agajanian study which "states that the City probably has too much commercial land available to support the needs of the city" and, furthermore that ~...the Study was supported by other professional opinions". He also expressed a concern with our site configuration reiterating comments made by Commissioner Melcher. Although the study does cite a surplus of commercial land, it does not state how much of this land permits the type of sub-regional retail development that we are proposing or whether or not it is located in areas in which there is or will be any demand from retail users. The study emphasizes that Foothill Boulevard is the city's primary retail corridor and, by recommending the 4th Street zone change, it suggests that rezoning additional land for retail development should not be prohibited if it can be adequately justified. Concerning the narrower depth of our site compared with the north side of the street, as described by Tom Bond of Architects Pacific, our proposed project fills a niche in the current market by providing an alternative to small and mid-size tenants wishing to locate on Foothill Boulevard who do not want to get lost in a huge "power center". Commissioner Tolstoy also mentioned that he was surprised to see a fast-food restaurant in our plan and that he "...could not even imagine anyone even entertaining a ddve-thru facility..." on our site. Although I understand that we need to address design issues and traffic issues, I am hopeful that the Planning Commission will approach our proposed site plan with an open mind towards meeting the consumers demand for fast food in this community. We all eat fast food and it should not be treated as a nuisance but rather as a complementary element in any successful retail corridor. 933 Page 3 April 2, 1996 Commissioner McNiel voiced the following concerns: "...The Original (General Plan) design treated Haven and Foothill as the heart of the city. As you went east on Foothill you transitioned from office to commercial with ancillary uses and functions down to regionally related Victoria Gardens... As you got nearer to the freeway, regionally related uses came to play, not nearly this far west in the original plan... I keep having a Palmdale flashback. It keeps me awake at night..." "...Mr. Desforges has a property that is driven by one user and I don't know that that user will be a significant contributor to the community and that we should make a change for one user..." Addressing his first concern, I think it is clear that the original General Plan did not anticipate anything like what has happened along Foothill in the past five years. Regionally related retailers such as Best Buy, Service Merchandise, Montgomery Wards and others have located near Haven and have done so through amendments to the General Plan. Done correctly (unlike Palmdale) a primary retail corridor with two sides can be a tremendous asset for a city, attracting regional retailers with critical mass, high traffic counts and nearby residential and commercial customers. Although we have had difficulty overcoming our neighber's claims to potential tenants that we will not be building our center and it is therefore a waste of time to consider our site, we do have several tenants other than "the good guys!" interested in our site contingent upon the zone change. It is important to note that Target was the only tenant originally anchoring the Tetra Vista Towne Center, Best Buy was the single driving force behind Towne Square and Home Depot is the lone tenant currently committed to the Promenade project. Chairman Barker and Commissioner Lumpp voted in favor of our proposed project; however, they qualified their votes by saying that it should be looked at in the context of the entire south side of Foothill Boulevard. I agree that it would be ideal to look at the city as a "clean slate" and consider the big picture rather than address our particular request. However, until the property owners east of us come to the city with a viable plan for the development of their sites in conjunction with a request for a zone change, it is not practical for the city to consider those properties for rezoning. It would be more prudent to proceed as was done on the north side of the street by starting at the existing critical mass at Tetra Vista and proceeding east as demand dictates. At the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday, a representative of Lewis Homes stated that there is a demand from tenants to locate closer to Haven and they would therefore be rezoning their land between Elm and Milliken to accommodate that demand. As Commissioner Lumpp said,"...if there is a reason to change the zone on this property, the swing decision is the fact that Lewis Homes wants to change their zoning on their property between Elm and Milliken. If any builder in this city knows what is going on in the retail and commercial market it is Lewis Homes. If they feel the need to change then why isn't this property as valuable in terms of the change creating a commercial need, as those on the north side of the street?" Page ~ April 2, 1996 The purpose of this letter is to attempt to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission in recommending denial of our requested zone change. In an effort to keep this letter down to a tolerable length I have not addressed every detail but attempted to hit on what I saw as the major issues. I would like to request that this item be included in the April 10 Planning Commission agenda as a discussion item so that I can answer any questions which Staff or the Planning Commission may have regarding the responses given above. I understand that the Commission cannot act on this item further but thought it would be appropriate to present these ideas to the Commission prior to the April 17 City Council meeting where I will be presenting these ideas formally. Whether or not we are ultimately successful in obtaining our requested zone change, I want to stress that it has been and continues to be my priority to communicate with Staff and the Planning Commission in a constructive manner and to address questions and concerns in the most productive way possible. Sincerely, W~/an~rmers Peter Desforges~ General Partner CC: Mr. Melcher Mr. Tolstoy Mr. McNiel Mr. Lumpp Mr. Curatallo Mr. Biane Mr. Alexander Ms. Williams Mr. 6utierrez RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69. A. Recitals. 1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 96-16, 'recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A be denied; and on April 17, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 17, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Spruce Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Area Specific Plan, Industrial Park; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated Industrial Park and a portion is developed. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant; and c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. GPA 96-01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS April 17, 1996 Page 2 Element; and This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use prope~ies. This amendment would be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69. A. Recitals. 1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 96-17, recommending to the City Council that the associated Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 96- 01 be denied; and on April 17, 1996, the City Council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 17, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard, north of Eucalyptus Street, east of Spruce Avenue, and west of Elm Avenue, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Park; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated Industrial Park and is partially developed. The properly to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and Element; and This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS April 17, 1996 Page 2 eo properties. This amendment would be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlvIONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1996 TO: President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jan Sutton, Deputy City CI~:~ SUBJECT: Chan.qes to the April 17, 1996 Ac~enda Due to a clerical error, several resolution numbers need to be changed on the April 17, 1996 Fire Board and City Council Agendas. On the Fire Board the change is as shown below: Was: Is Now: FD96-003 FD96-005 L// On the City Council, the changes are as shown below: Was: Is Now: 96-037 96-054 96-038 96-055 96-039 96-056 96-040 96-057 96-041 96-058 96-042 96-059 96-043 96-060 rm sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 2009. /m CC: Debra Adams, City Clerk Shirfl Griffin, Office Specialist II 04-11-1996 11:58AM FROM The Scandi~fio Company 19099481648 P.02 City counoil City of Rancho Cu~unonga Fr: Jack Mmsi Masi Commerce Center Partners Re: city c0uncil Hearing - Item Zone Change - South Side of Foothill Between Spruce and Date: April 9, 1996 Dear Members of the City Council: I uBd~S~ ~ ~SU a~n goh~dulad to ~ar m r~clue~t ~ Wohl development of Orange County for a {one change {or thc above re£erenoed property to retall use. As a nelg~boring property owner, I OPPOSE ~a~ ~ne ch~ge request and s~pport ~he posl=ion or ~ne P~anning Board in den~In9 the zone c~lange. T~ewonl zone change and devel~pmen~ proposal is ~he wron9 in the wrong place a~ ~e wrong time. Specifically, my objec~ion~ to the zone change are as follows: 1) ~h~ recent Foothill R~.VRTd ]a~d use stud~ authorized by ~he City Planning s~a[~ do~..~ n~t mtlpp~ ~his zone change and does not provide any e~be~an~] ~nd~g~ that could support such a change: 2) dcvclopment of this proper~y as a re~all project will seriousl~ hurt approvcd rotall development at th~ P00~hill anaRcchee~er in~ersec~i0n as well as ~enerally in the Tetra Vista retail centers due to t~e inability of the market to absorb more retail development at th~s time; 3) the subgect property is not configured for retail development, but ra~her for office development~ the site is too shallow for the proposed retail box uses and I understand that, if approved, a larqe and awkward 4) Boulevard~ this proposed zone change would be out of character within th~ middl~ ~f th~ ~ub-~re~ 7 ~one, defe~ ~h~ purpo~ and intent of the industrial specific plan, ~ompromise the Integrated character and design of R~nchu ~ccunong~ Business Fa~k and be ix~harmonious will surrounding comme=cial development (partlcul~rllthe~est Western Hotel); 8~-11-199G ll:SgAM FROM TKc Sc~ndi~io Cemp~n~ 19899~81G48 P.OZ City Counctlt~ul April 9, ~9~ In sum. we are qUite concern about the na~ative impact of proposea retall pruJmct on already approvea retail ~evelopment~ there is enm=~h planned retail at this ~ime. If re~ull users perce~v~ ~ha~ ~hey can spot zone to re~ail uue bits and pieces of Rancnn C,icamonga Busines= Park~ thon they wall oertain17 hesitat~ in consiuering approv~d retail centers east of Miliken. ~dd~t~nnally, I am qul~e conchned wi~h ~he acsthetlu impaot that ;n~ woni Wo]co; ~ould have on Foothill Boulevard. Magi Commeroe Center Partners, as well a~ Lewis Homes, has worked very hard with the Planning Commi~i0n and s~aff ~o develop a m~gnlflcent streetscape rot Foothill Boulevard fuaturing plazas end historical waive. The Wohl projeut will hurt all of that by pushinq a big bOX right up on Feothill ~oulevard. In sum, I urge you to Euppon tho ~8itlon of t~e Pla~iM DuM and tur~ ~wn ~his ill-~on~eived June chan~e request. Sincerelyf Jack Masi II II HI P. 1.4. 'i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager E. David Barker, Planning Commission Chairm~ WOHL PROJECT .. I received a request today to provide a memorandum clarifying my position with respect to my vote on the Wohl project. I am pleased to do so. A review of my comments during each of the several hearings conceming this topic should leave no room for belief that I am in favor of the requested General Plan Amendment and zone change. My vote was intended, instead, to register a protest against being forced to consider one individual parcel without being given the oppommity to evaluate the corridor as a whole. The City should not, in my opinion, be considering changes on a piecemeal basis but, instead, should be taking a careful look at the overall plan. Unfortunately, my "protest" and that of Mr. Lumpp appears to have provided an opportunity for "misinterpretation" and did not serve its intended purpose. In order to be absolutely clear, please be advised that I do not believe approval of Wohrs request would be in the best interest of our City; therefore, I recommend denial. EDB:gs cc: Planning Commissioners Brad Buller, City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Heinz A. Lumpp, Planning Commissioner ~/CC'// WOHL PROJECT - CLARIFICATION OF VOTE I received a request today to clarify my vote on the Wohl project. Clarification of Vote: First of all, Planning staff had to act on the application filed and I think they did a good job on the preparation of the staff report to support their logic. In this case, however, I happen not to agree with staffs position. My reasons are as follows: My vote against the denial recommendation was not a vote of approval of the project. My vote was in opposition to staffs recommendation. Outright denial or approval of this project at this time is not appropriate. In my opinion, the question of changing the land use on this property cannot be dealt with in a microcosm. The issue is significant enough to warrant looking at the entire corridor--between this property and the I-15 Freeway. As planners we need to look at the whole picture (meaning the south side of Foothill Boulevard) rather than on a piecemeal basis. We are dealing with the long term future of this City's urban core/central business district and I feel we would not do justice to our future if we did not look at the entire area before coming to any final conclusion on one property. 2. I believe in the minutes I posed three questions which I think warrant follow-up comments. IF NOT US (Planning Commission), THEN WHO? As the planning advisory arm of the City Council, our role is to use our long term vision and make the best land use decisions possible. Requests for land use changes along the south side of Foothill Boulevard will not go away unless we update our thinking and look at the long term future of all the properties along this corridor. It is the Commission's responsibility to make these recommendations to the City Council with all the information and not just for one property. MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL WOHL PROJECT - CLARIFICATION OF VOTE April 15, 1996 Page 2 B, IF NOT NOW, THEN WHEN? We just went through a commercial study that suggested we look at Foothill Boulevard as the potential for future commercial growth. The future central business district for this City (based on industry demand) is the area around Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. It is my opinion that now is the time to look at this corridor. IF NOT HERE, THEN WHERE? Clearly Lewis Homes believes this area has a high potential for commercial growth. Industry experts have said, for Rancho Cucamonga, "Foothill and Haven is ground zero," the area around ground zero is highly desirable for commercial development. If the City has a central business district, then this corridor has to be the target area and we should use all reasonable effort to ensure we are not making any mistakes for the long term future. This corridor, more than anywhere else, is where the City's commercial core is and will continue to prosper. In my opinion, it is here we have to concentrate our best judgment. cc: Planning Commissioners Brad Buller, City Planner LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. 1156 North Mountain Avenue I P. O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670 909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949-6700 April 15, 1996 Refer to File No. G-1589 The Honorable William Alexander, Mayor of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. and City Council Members 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Wohl/Rancho Partners ("Wohl") Ladies and Gentlemen: We are writing to you on behalf of ourselves and our affiliates among the Lewis Homes group of companies to formally oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment g6-01A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 {collectively, the "Amendments") currently on the agenda for the City Council's meeting of April 17, 1996. We see the Amendments as a prelude to an ill-advised and improper spot rezoning of the Wohl property on the south side of Foothill Boulevard from "Industrial Park" to "Community Commercial." The exception which the Wohl applicants seek concerns us greatly for the following reasons: The City and its retail community face serious economic challenges from the retail development taking place along the 1-10. Partly in response to these challenges, the City commissioned the Agajanian Market Study which concluded, among other things, that frontage properties along the southern side of the two mile Haven-to- Rochester Foothill Boulevard Corridor {the "Foothill Corridor"} should be reserved for ancillary use commercial development in support of existing retail use zones on the north side of Foothill and not retail development in direct competition with such planned uses. Under these conclusions, rezoning the Wohl property makes no sense. We commissioned a more specific market study for our Terra Vista Promenade Project. Consistent with the Agajanian Study, it concluded that there is barely enough present demand to fill the Promenade. We have approximately 400,000 square feet of available retail space in our three centers along the Foothill Corridor -- including the Promenade. Masi Plaza, at the southwest corner of Foothill and Rochester, is also zoned for retail uses, and it, too, seeks retail tenants. The Honorable William Alexander and City Council Members April 15, lgg6 Page 2 All retailers who want to be on Foothill can be accommodated in currently zoned space. Clearly, adding retail along the south side of the Foothill Corridor only undercuts the efforts of the existing retail sites to develop in accordance with the City~s own established comprehensive planning concepts. The Wohlapplication ignores comprehensive planning principles in other respects as well. Not only does it seek a special dispensation, but it does so without any of the design preparation historically required by the City for similar applications. This is a major departure from the stringent planning requirements you have established for development in Rancho Cucamonga. This is especially troubling since the Wohl site is not appropriate for retail. It is shallow and it is not at a major intersection like Milliken. The City Council is being asked to set a disruptive precedent by overriding the reasoned and thoughtful denial of Wohl~s request by the Planning Commission. Historically, the Planning Commission has been the body responsible to direct the development and quality standards in Rancho Cucamonga -- a body we have traditionally worked diligently with to reach an agreement on design, zoning, and use issues. If its recommendation is overridden by Council, the Planning Commission will lose much of its authority. Finally, approval of the Wohl application will show that Rancho Cucamonga no longer believes in comprehensive planning. The General Plan and existing specific plans will have little meaning as all landowners {especially those along the south.side of the Foothill Corridor) will attempt to fezone their property to uses with a higher immediate value casting future growth and development into a hodge-podge. The ability to control and guide development will be greatly reduced and the politics of zoning/land use will be the major determinate of such requests. The lesson that will be learned from an override of the Planning Commission~s decision is that the Planning Commission counts for little. It may be more expedient to get a quick vote (even if it is a denial) at the Commission and move on to Council for a final determination. For many developers, this could reduce the time required to get approvals and, given the Council~s workload, also reduce the level of detail which developers are now required to supply. More importantly, other landowners will learn about the Wohl strategy and implement it, avoiding detailed meetings with the Planning Commission, and placing the City~s much admired comprehensive planning strategies under constant attack. Under these circumstances, we may be compelled to protect our interests in Tetra Vista and prepare a submittal for rezoning to retail of land owned by our affiliate between Elm and Milliken. Many potential tenants for the Promenade are also looking at the Wohl site. To remain competitive, we may need to have additional available retail-zoned property closer to Haven Avenue. The Honorable William Alexander and City Council Members April 15, 1996 Page 3 The City wanted to pull retail to the east side of Tetra Vista -- this was good planning. Good planning is the ability to determine and direct the future course of development of your community rationally and deliberately. You have done a very rigorous job of enforcing your general and specific plans. Do not abandon that tradition for one small property and change the course of your City's .development forever. Now, before the Promenade and Masi centers can mature, you want to create additional retail space. When all is said and done, you will have three half-built centers, Promenade, Masi and Wohl -- an undesirable result for all concerned and an unnecessary blemish to the City's image and reputation. We appreciate your serious consideration of our concerns raised herein and know you will continue to act in the best interests of the City. Sincerely, LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. Randal 1 W. Lewis Executive Vice President RW L: C: ~z \G 1589 CC: Brad Bullet Planning Commission Pat Loy Greg Hoxworth Lewis Homes Management Cor omsa 1156 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 1 Upland, (909) 985-0971 I FAX (909) 949-6700 91785-0670 April17,1996 The Honorable William Alexander, Mayor of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga and City Council Members 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Pwposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Wohl/Rancho Partners C'Wolff") Ladies and Gentlemen: We are writing to clarify our position relative to the rezoning of the Wolff property. We at Lewis Homes are not opposed to competition, in fact, we welcome it. We too have a site on Foothill Boulevard now zoned for office that we feel is equally appropriate for retail. It was originally envisioned as a localion for financial institutions. We all know how their world has shrunk. This site is on Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Mi!liken. We have been approached by the same tenants for this property but have had to talk to them about alternative sites bec~v_~ this parcel does not have the necessary zoning. We worked with the City to push Home Depot to the Rochester intersection for planning reasons. Since the market directing more retail along Foothill and Milliken is completed, the best retail locations are now at lV~lllken and Foothill. We are requesting that you give Lewis Homes the same consideration that you are giving to Wolff. We respectfully request that both sites be reviewed and considered. Sincerely, LF-WIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. Richard A. Lewis RAL:GNH:kjp Z:\wpXrsl\l 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: T~. FROM: BY: SUB/FL'T: April 17, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.R. 2927 Attached for your information and review is a resolution supporting H.R. 2927, a copy of the legislation and letters of support from other California cities. I will be discussing this matter at tonight's meeting and would like to request the City Council adopt the attached resolution. If you have any questions, please ~kt me know. RG/dab ,~ attachments A I~o.~OLUTION OF ~ CH'¥ COIj~C]].., OF ~ CH'¥ OF P,-,~CHO CUC.,~,,[ONGA, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 2927 WHICH AMENDS THE FAIR HOUSING ACT REGARDING LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES WHEREAS, local control is the bulwark of our federal system and local government is the branch of government most in tune with the needs of local residents; and WHEREAS, House Resolution 2927 seeks to strengthen local control by giving local governments more say in regulating residential care facilities; and WHEREAS, while everyone joins in recognizing the importance of residential care facilities as a valuable tool for rehabilitation, that fact must be balanced with the needs of existing residents; and WHEREAS, local governments like Rancho Cucamonga are best able to determine local needs and identify appropriate locations to accommodate residential care facilities; and WHEREAS, House Resolution 2927 recognizes the necessity of local governments role in this matter by allowing reasonable local and state regulations governing such things as the proximity of such facilities to each other, the maximum number of allowable occupants, or the ownership, use, or occupancy of a residential care facility by a convicted felon, registered sex offender, or recovering drug addict. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby support the passage of House Resolution 2927 and its recognition of local governments rightful role in regulating residential care facilities, and further resolves that the City Clerk should cause a copy of this resolution to be forwarded to our local Members of Congress and United States Senators so that they might know of our support for this legislation. ~PR- 16-96 TUE O0: 02 e2/16/96 1~ ~ 53 LEAGUE 'OF CA CITIES FAX NO. CITY OF ~.D.I.R.D. ~ 9166.588~a0 9166688240 P. 02/06 IOiTS CONGEE~ H. R. 2927 m2uletions ~erning resi&ndal ease faeilitles. · > - IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES F~s~wu~ 1, 1996 Mr. B~Ka, Y (for himserf, lVlr. HUN~'Blt, Ylr. PACISAIW, Mr. CUSNn~OIIAU, and Mr. FXX,N~Jq b~trodu~d the t'oRo~,i bills whleh was rden.e~ to tlxe Commitiee on the Judleisry A BILL To amend the Fair Housinir Act regarding local and 8~Ce laws and regulations ~overning residential care facililies. 1 Be it tnacted by tke &~ate and Hoi~e of Representa 2 tiv~s o/the United Stales o. fArn~rfea tn ConFess ass~mb&~ 3 That section 816 of the Fair Housia6 Ac~ is amended by 4 adding at the end "Nothing ia Lkis title shah be eonstru~ 5 to invalidate or lirait any reasonable local or $ta~e law or 6 regnlation gffierning residential care facilities, incb,alng 7 laws and reffulatloas goverahxg the proximity of such fa- g eiliti~..~ tn e~teh other, the maximuxn allowable number of 9 occupants, whether rclatcd or unrelated, of such a facility 10 or o~er dweuing, or the owner~hip, use, or 0ccupanc~/of ~PR-i6-g6 TUE Og:03 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES FAX NO. 9166688240 CITY ~F S,D, I.F~.D. · 916~588240 2 a residential care faeility by a convicted felon, re2istefed se~ offenae~', or reeoverlng ch-ug addict. As used in t]~ section, the torm 'reslden~ial care ~ac~ty' me~.~-~ a ~ild- h,g or place th~x~ is maintained and operated to provide Sleeping accommodations, with or without fo~l service, to disabled individu,]s.". P. 03/06 N0.02~ · T. APR-16-96 TUE 09:03 LEAGUE OF OA CITIES FAX NO, 9166688240 P, 04/06 OFF~'I OF TH!~ MAYOR 330 Wen ~tb Avenue Marco. Catlifomia 04403-1388 (41}) 527-3423 ~ (4i5') 317-)4~ Senator Dianne Fainstein Hart Building e331 U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 RE: HR 2027 - RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES Dear Senator Fainstein, On behalf of the City of San Mateo, I am writing to urge your support of HR 2927 (Bilbray) regarding residential care facilities. This bill would aJlow local governments to exercise greater control over the location and occupancy of residential e.~am facillliA~. Presently, them are few restrictions on the location of residential care facilities and as a result certain neighborhoods in our City are faced with a large eoncontration of thcGo fncilltios. In eomo cocoa, thoro arc four or five facilities located on one block. The City has received numerous ecruplaints from residents regarding residenllaJ care radiitie,s, but t~t3 been un~jIu to addruss citizen concerns because current 18we have proerupted local action. San Mateo residents are concerned that the high concentration of residential care facilities is changing the character of residentjal neighborhoods. By giving Iocal governments reasonable regulation over ra,qidAmi~ql c.,qm faeilitie.9, Congressman Bi~bray's legislation would allow the City to prevent the continued overconcemration of residential care facilities in its communities. Y/I) .W'ge you to sUDport HR ~9~-7, 'san Matto City Council League of California Citiod'f/ United Homeowners Association APR-16-96 TUE 09:05 LEAGUE'OF CA CITIES FAX NO, 9166588240 P, 06/06 ITY 01:: STOCKTON (~1937-E~44 ,.lOAN March 5, 1996 IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO: Congressman RIchard W. Pombo 1619 Longworth Oulldlng Washington, D.C. 20615 Congressman Gary Condit ~123 Longworth Building Senator Dianne Feinstein 331 Mart Building Senator Barbara Boxer I12 Hark ~uilding The Stockton City Council would like to state its support for HR 2927 (Bilbray). Congressional legislation has been introduced which would allow local governments to exercise reasonable regulation over residential care facilities. This legislation would allow reasonable regulations over ~e proximity, oooupenoy levels, and the placement of sex offenders and roeorating drug addiCts. This issue has been important to California communities and particularly to the City of Stockton, The Stockton City Council recently had heard testimony from the public regarding the overconcentration of group homes in Stocldon. The oitizens compl,ined that the preponderanoe of group homes in their residential neighborhoods have lowered their property values and have disturbed die tranquiliW of ~elr neighborhoods. They expressed frustration in the lack of local control over the siting and operation of these fadlities. We believe that passage of this legislatior~ would give back to local governments a modiCum of the land ueo authority over oommunity care facilities which have been lost over the past decade. For this reason. the Stockton City Council supports HR 2927. JOAN DARRAH MAYOR JD:er cc: Congressman Brlan 811bray League of California Cities Stockton City Council Joha~ C~rl-',on, Community Development DIrector :B\wpwin¢ 1%le43idLSet, hr2927 ....... , , _ _ - .... -~jTOCKTOrd,..CALIPC)IqNIA*ll ttI,JNRil! iIAleQllllq' ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 16, 1996 Mayor and Members of the ~ity Council Rick Gomez, Community Development Director MEF, TING OF THF, ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE The April meeting of the Task Force was held on Tuesday, April 16, at 6:00 p.m., attended by ten members and an audience of four. Items discussed included status of the EIR, the proposed interchange resolution and landscaping, lighting and soundwails. Caitrans staff reported the expected approval by FHWA of the EIR/EIS is in May. This is the last approvai needed to get the document out to public review. A report on the landscaping and structure design scheme developed by the Corridor Design Authority for the 15/30 interchange was given by Brad Buller. It was explained the scheme was to be used throughout the Route 30 Corridor between LaVeme and Fontana. During discussion of this item the Task Force made clear its concern that the maximum effort made to take advantage of every means available. to augment the basic level of landscaping and other visual arnenities to be provided. Various ways of achieving this were discussed. Some members of the Task Force wanted further consideration of the draft resolution recommending a single phase opening of the fleeway. It was agreed to discuss it further at the May meeting because of time limitations at this meeting. The discussion of track traffic was continued to the May meeting. An update on Beryl Park issues by the Park and Recreation Facilities Subcommittee was also requested for in May. Respectfully submitted, Rick Gomez Community Development Director RG:dlw