HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/19 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
July 19, 1995
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rm~cho 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 Office: 989-1851
City Council Agenda
July 19, 1995
PAGE
All items submitted for the 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
Gutierr~;z , and Williams__
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
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 12, 1995
May 30, 1995
June 21, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
June 21, 1995
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/28/95 and 7/6/95 (FY 94/95), and
6/28/95 and 7/6/95 (FY 95/96); and Payroll ending 6/29/95 for the total
amount of $1,713,851.83.
Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30,
1995.
Approval of the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II for the proposed
Ninth Street Improvements between Grove Avenue and Edwin Street and
issuance of a categorical exempljon therefore.
22
City Council Agenda
July 19, 1995
PAGE
o
,
RESOLUTION NO. 95-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE
OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR NINTH STREET
BETWEEN GROVE AVENUE AND EDWIN STREET
Approval to execute an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security
for DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route, east of Utica
Avenue, submitted by Allen K. Smith.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY FOR DR 89-09 (APN 209-491-52 TO 59)
Approval to appropriate funds from the Fund Balance of the AQMD Grant
Fund in the amount of $32,000.00 to be placed in Account No. 14-4158-9415
and award the contract (CO95-023) for construction of a bus bay on the
north side of Arrow Route west of Haven Avenue to Eastland Construction in
the amount of $29,114.80 (bid amount of $26,468.00 plus 10% contingency)
to be funded from AQMD Grant, Account No. 14-4158-9415.
Approval to execute Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
Memorandum of Understanding (CO 95-041) for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
Approval to adopt Memoranda of Understanding (CO 95-042, 95-043 and
95-045) and Compensation Resolution for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESCINDING RESOLUTION
94-144 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 14644,
located at the east end of Camellia Court, east of Beryl Street, submitted by
Jorge Garcia.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 14644
24
3E
38
39
43
50
E0
62
City Council Agenda
July 19, 1995
PAGE
10.
11.
Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of
Completion for CUP 93-17, located on the northwest corner of Haven
Avenue and Banyan Street.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street)
$12,933.00
RESOLUTION NO. 95-115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 93-17 AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of
Completion for CUP 94-11, located on the north side of Arrow Route at
Oakwood Place.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street)
$ 20,750.00
RESOLUTION NO. 95-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 94-11 AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
63
64
65
66
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.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-01 NORTHTOWN
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land
use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium
Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main
Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City will
also consider "L" (Low Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M"
(Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 209-062-01.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 - NORTHTOWN
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land
use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium
Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main
City Council Agenda
July 19, 1995
PAGE
Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City will
also consider "L" (Low Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M"
(Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling units per acre) -APN: 209-062-01.
ORDINANCE NO. 541 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT NO. 95-01,
CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR
1.38 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET EAST OF
ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-062-01
ORDINANCE NO. 542 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
95-01 REMOVING FROM THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP 1.38 ACRES
DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA 17)
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET
APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 209-062-01
67
71
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.
No Items Submitted.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The
Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
TAXICAB SERVICE AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS
75
City Council Agenda
July 19, 1995
PAGE
5
ORDINANCE NO. 543 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAXICAB SERVICE
AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS
77
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.
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.
1. UPDATE BY MARKS CABLEVISION ON STATUS OF CABLE TV
2. UPDATE ON RECENT CRIME ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTHTOWN AREA
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.
L. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby cerljfy that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July
13, 1995, seventy-two (72) hours pdor to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2
at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
April 12, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Joint Meeting with the
Libran/Board of Trustees
A. CALL TO ORDER
A joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and the Library Board of Trustees was held on
Wednesday, April 12, 1995, in the Tri-Communities Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. by Mayor
William J. Alexander,
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane (arrived 5:10 p.m.), James Curatalo, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Present were Boardmembers: Gina Gregory, Laura Muna-Landa, Edward Swistock, and President Robert
Howdyshell.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Robert Dominguez,
Administrative Se~ces Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst
I; Deborah Clark, Ubrary Manager; Robert Karatsu, Principal Librarian; Vivian Garcia, Administrative Secretary;
and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk.
Absent was Councilmember: Rex Gutierrez.
B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
B1. DISCUSSION OF PARKING AVAILABILITY AT LIBRARY SITE
President Howdyshell stated they have asked staff to gather information for the Board regarding use of the
parking lot at the library, and though it is not an immediate problem, they felt it would be in another year or two.
The Board thought they should be looking at this issue now and starting to make plans for the future.
Mayor Alexander asked how are they currently being impacted.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated the peak periods are during the storytime programs and programs for
youth, and between 3:00-5:00 p.m. in the afternoons after school lets out.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated historically before the project was accomplished it was recognized that parking
could be a problem at that location, but the other bener~ of the location outweighed that issue. They also knew
there would be limited opportunities for parking expansion because of the surrounding developments.
City Council/Library Board Minutes
April 12, 1995
Page 2
Councilmember Biane arrived at 5:10 p.m.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that even though the Redevelopmerit Agency owned the property to the west,
that was designated to be a seniors affordable housing project, though there might be a possibility of utilizing
some of their parking area for the library building. He stated it was fortunate that the demand for parking at the
adjacent shopping center was not that great, so that when people park there during peak periods at the library
it does not create a conflict with the stores in the center.
Boardmember Swistock asked if it would be possible to put in parking for the senior project prior to it being built
so possibly they could use that.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the problem is that it is not eligible. The parking will depend on the design of
the project, and it has to meet the needs of the seniors. They have a developer that is interested in the project,
but they would have to wait until a design is determined because the developer will need to maximize the space
for affordable housing, but possibly there can be some flexibility built in for overlapping uses.
Councilmember Williams asked if they knew what the price was on the 2.2 acres that was for sale to the south
of the library. She stated at one time RDA looked at purchasing that property but as she recalled it was more
expensive than the site they purchased for the library.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the property for the library was in distress and that was why they were able to
purchase it. He stated there were also no more funds available in the RDA budget for the purchase of property
and explained how the State has taken funds away over the last few years from redevelopment agencies.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if there was a parking problem during the children's Storytime.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated yes.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if it was crowded during the Saturday Storytime.
Robert Karatsu, Principal Librarian, stated there was not as much of a problem on Saturday.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if they were to hold two Storytimes on Saturday, would that help to alleviate
the parking problem.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated the Saturday Storytime was less popular with the public so they do not
have a problem on that day.
Mayor Alexander suggested holding two Storytimes during the week.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated they hold two session already on Wednesday, and they just keep
growing.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the library is a success in the community, but it is still growing. As it becomes
more popular, it will need more services.
Mayor Alexander stated regardless of parking, the demand might create a need to expand certain programs,
such as the Storytime. He asked what mode of transportation was used the most by patrons.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated there were all varieties, including carpools, but no schools because
they were served in a different way during different times.
City Council/Library Board Minutes
April 12, 1995
Page 3
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the prediction was that after the library was open a year they would have an
increased demand for services.
President Howdyshell stated they did not expect to be able to resolve this problem tonight, they just wanted to
make it known.
Councilmember Williams stated possibly they could get people to park in the Albertson's parking lot and walk
around to the signal.
Councilmember Biane asked if they have looked at private fundraising drives.
President Howdyshell stated they have created a couple of programs for raising funds.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated they are planning to kick off two different types of fundraising. First
would be entrepreneurial fees and fines, and the second would be traditional fundraising by approaching
businesses to support certain programs. She stated they have the Friends of the Library, and they will also be
creating a Foundation.
Mayor Alexander stated possibly they could use an event at the Epicenter where the proceeds would be
donated to the Library.
Councilmember Williams stated maybe they can tie something in with the Founder's Day Celebration or some
other event where proceeds would go to the Library.
Mayor Alexander asked that this item be agendized for the second Council meeting in August for an update.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if the City owned any property within walking distance that could be utilized as
parking space.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated no. The Redevelopment Agency owns the property to the west but that was
designated for seniors affordable housing as discussed earlier.
Councilmember Williams suggested the Board contact the Community Services Department to see if they could
calendar a fundraiser along with one of their events. She asked if they have spoken to the Baptist Church to
the south to see ifthey would be willing to accommodate any overflow parking. Maybe the City could even look
into offering to pave the gravel parking lot in exchange for use.
Councilmember Biane asked if there was a possibility of allowing street parking.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there was a safety factor involved that would prohibit street parking. He added
that in regards to paving the lot for the Church, when he asked how much it would cost to repave the lot at Lions
Center East, the cost was prohibitive.
Councilmember Williams agreed the cost would be great but possibly the Church would be willing to match
funds. She felt they needed to look at creative ways to do business.
B2. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS OF MUTUAL INTEREST
President Howdyshell stated they had a question regarding the budget, that it was their understanding if they
raised funds through the Library, then those funds would stay within the Library system, and wanted to verity
if that was correct.
City Council/Library Board Minutes
April 12, 1995
Page 4
Mayor Alexander stated that was true.
President Howdyshell stated as they proceed through the years they wanted to provide more services, but in
order to offer some of them they might have to look at providing services for a fee. They thought there should
be a Task Force to look at what services should not be charged for and which ones should be.
Mayor Alexander asked if they would like a Council representative on that Task Force.
President Howdyshell stated yes. He stated Boardmember Muna-Landa has offered to be on the Task Force
for the Library Board. He stated they have looked at possibly offering the Storytime on a registration and fee
basis, the proceeds of which would allow them to add staff to expand services, but they did not want to do
something that was against the Council's wishes.
Mayor Alexander stated Councilmember Williams could be the primary contact, and he would also be willing
to participate.
Boardmember Swistock stated he and Boardmember Muna-Landa attended a conference recently and it
seemed that no one really knew what were considered basic services. He stated it was pretty much left up to
each library to decide.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated in the current economic environment, all libraries are talking about becoming
entrepreneurial. He stated as an example he thought that people would be willing to pay for technological
advances. If they could offer a service that expanded the use of the Library to 24 hours a day, people will pay
for that and it will benefit the Library and allow them to provide other programs and support. He felt this was
a very important issue.
President Howdyshell stated they might also want a representative from the Friends of the Library on the Task
Force.
Councilmember Williams felt they also needed to start working with the schools so that they were not wasting
money by duplicating services.
President Howdyshell asked Deborah Clark to outline their goals for the next year.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated they have a very aggressive plan for fundraising. She stated there will
be the crealjon of a Foundaljon, different ways to raise fines and fees, and working with the Friends to establish
fundraisers. They are talking about planning two major events this year, one would be celebrating their
birthday, and also doing something for National Library Week. They are also working on getting the donor wall
up for next year. She stated another thing they are working on is a Literacy Program application, and they might
be used as a model program. They are considering a joint effort with Upland for when grant money runs out,
but they were confident that they would be receiving some type of state funding this year, They will continue
to provide as many Storytimes as they can do with their staff and will be doing a Summer Reading Program.
She stated there are a few more elements of technology that will be brought on-line in the next few months.
She stated their goal was to be a model for other libraries.
Councilmember Curatalo asked with the anticipated growth of the Storytime program, have they looked at
expanding it to other City facilities.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated this relates back to the Task Force and determining what are basic
library services. She stated their entire programming effort has been to bring people into the Library. She
stated with the old Library they did not do storytime, they did not do adult programs, that was all done as
outreach. She stated they did not really want to move the programs off-site because then they would become
only a library services provider and that was not their mission.
City Council/Library Board Minutes
April 12, 1995
Page 5
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated another factor to consider in regards to the children, when they think of it being
free at the library, the Community Services Department offers services for children which the parents are
always willing to pay for, and the classes are always full. He is not saying that is better or worse, but it is an
issue they might want to weigh when looking at the two programs.
Councilmember Willlares thought that Storytime was a child's first introduction to the Library so would not want
to discourage participation by charging for it, but iftheywere to offer a special expanded program in conjunction
with the regular Storytime, she could see charging for that.
Mayor Alexander felt the Library staff and Board have done an excellent job, and they are obviously successful.
He stated they are very proud of the job they have done so far to make the Library so successful.
Councilmembers Willlares and Biane concurred.
President Howdyshell felt the Council deserved credit for starting a library in these hard economic times, and
Jack Lam also for selecting Deborah Clark to be the Library Manager. He hoped that the Council would
contact the Board if they have any concerns, because he felt they were all committed to providing the best
service to the community.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if the City paid for the fingerprinting of volunteers.
Jack Lain, City Manger, stated yes.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if this requirement impacted the number of volunteers they get.
Deborah Clark, Library Manager, stated it has not caused a problem.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the problem is not people objecting to the requirement because they realize
it is for the safety of the children, it is the cost of $35.00 per person. He stated the High Schools want to send
students over to do volunteer work for their community service requirement, but they have to refuse some kids
that can only volunteer 3-5 hours because the cost is too much for so little time. So they need to find people
that can volunteer on a long-term basis, but that can also discourage some volunteers.
Mayor Alexander referred to a question in the memorandum on if the City would be contributing monetarily to
the Library's budget or if reductions were to be made, and stated the current feeling of the City is not to help
with the Library's budget. If something severe were to happen to their funding, then that policy would be
revisited.
Councilmember Williams stated that was an absolute that was set by the previous Council because at that time
the City did not have any extra funds for supporting the Library. She stated the Library can keep all of the
money it raises, but it needs to live within its budget.
President Howdyshell stated they will do so by working on establishing a priority of services, not only by
establishing fees, but by determining what can be cut if they have to.
Councilmember Willlares stated that was only good business sense and felt the citizens will understand.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made from the public.
City Council/Library Board Minutes
April 12, 1995
Page 6
D. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to adjourn the Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously, 4-0-1 (Gutierrez absent). The Council meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. The Library Board
recessed at 6:00 p.m. to a special meeting to be held following the joint meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by the Library Board: July 6, 1995
Approved by the City Council:
May 30, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Joint Meetin.cl
with the Plannin.q Commission
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned joint meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and the Planning Commission was held
on Tuesday, May 30, 1995, in the Tri-Communities Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, and Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Planning Commissioners: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy and Chairman E. David
Barker.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Joe
O'Neil, City Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk.
Absent was Councilmember: Diane Williams.
Absent was Planning Commissioner: John Melcher.
B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
B1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 1995
MOTION: Moved by Barker, seconded by Biane to approve the minutes. Motion carried unanimously by the
Planning Commission 4-0-1 (Melcher absent). Motion carried unanimously by the City Council 4-0-1 (Willjams
absent).
B2. DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OF ON-SITE ANCILLARY STRUCTURES (Continued from April
25, 1995 joint meeting)
Mayor Alexander stated he asked for this item to be placed on the agenda. He said there have been occasions
where they would see ancillary buildings that were rather unique structures designed to house trash, etc., and
asked why sometimes it seemed like they have changed a lot from past design, especially since it appears they
would be quite expensive to build.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 2
Chairman Barker stated this is a subject that the Planning Commission is currently reviewing. He stated he has
taken a number of photos around town of the different structures, but they have not had a chance to have a
meeting yet to discuss this issue. It was felt there should be guidelines, as well as having the structures relate
to the spedtic project itself. He felt imagewise it should do the job it is supposed to do, and in some instances
appearance is more important, and in other cases it should just be practical.
Mayor Alexander stated he has spent a few hours drMng around and looking at various sites, and the new ones
are quite attractive, but there are some from the early days that are quite bad. He was glad to see that the
Commission was looking at this.
Commissioner McNiel stated they are what they are because they were dealing with interior structures, the lids
have to go up, they have to plan forthe winds, etc.; therefore, it would be difficult to design one that was not the
height that it is, particularly in commercial areas.
Mayor Alexander stated even the bins have changed drastically over the years so that can have an impact on
the design of the structures.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated sometimes you can have a hard time convincing the tenants to close the bins after
they have put the trash in.
Chairman Barker stated property management and maintenance are a concern, but there are some things you
can do with a design to help inhibit paper flow. He stated some designs don't mesh with the new pick-up
equipment, so you can create a problem if you are not careful.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if this was a point of contention with the developers.
Chairman Barker stated some developers would like to just put in a little block enclosure and leave it at that.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if this issue ever delayed a project.
Chairman Barker stated no, it was just a point of debate.
Councilmember Biane asked what direction was the Commission taking.
Chairman Barker stated there were guidelines, but not everyone was in agreement with them. They have told
stafftheywould like to spend some time re-evaluating the guidelines, but when a developer comes in they are
given the current guidelines up front so that there are no surprises.
Mayor Alexander asked if a business owner had their own suggestions, do they consider those also.
Commissioner McNiel stated they were always open to suggestions. He stated they have a project right now
where they are trying to devise an industrial type enclosure for a commercial center, but they have to be careful
because if they allow them to make a change that is not consistent, it has a two-fold impact. First it is not fair
to those who have come before and chosen to do the right thing, and secondly once they allow something that
is inferior, they will never be able to come back to what they have required before. Once it is done, it is done
and they have to live with it. It really has to be considered in the big picture of a project.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked if it made a difference where the enclosure was located on the property.
Commissioner McNiel stated if it is in view of the street, then it should be a reasonably attractive building. He
stated usually whatever the property will yield in leasable footage is gamered, than they plot out parking,
landscaping, and ancillary buildings, which oftentimes means they will be put in areas that do not serve anyone.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 3
Commissioner Tolstoy stated if you were to look at the Foothill Marketplace in the back alley, you will notice
that those trash receptacles are different than others because they are in a place that is not open to public view.
Councilmember Gutierrez agreed that the receptacles should look nice when they were in the public view.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if they had policy over restrooms in public places, how they are maintained or
if they are accessible to the public.
Commissioner McNiel stated those are governed by the Health Department, not the City because that was an
interior function.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated most of those standards come under the Building Code, they are not a
Planning Commission issue. He stated the Planning Commission may get involved if there were service doors
accessing restrooms or other service areas, but not in any other requirements.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated another thing they have been looking at because they are finding that they are
becoming problems is the location of telephone booths. They are asking that in shopping centers they be
idenljfied up-front where they will be located because there have been problems with the wrong type of people
congregating at them.
B3. DISCUSSION OF ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS, I.E., MINIMUM LOT SIZE, SIDEYARD AND
STREET SETBACKS (Continued from April 25, 1995 joint meeting)
Councilmember Biane stated he asked forthis item, and part of the reason stemmed from knowing many first-
time homebuyers that have to go out of the area to find affordable housing. He stated when looking at the
available land available for building stock, he was wondering if there was a planning element that would
consider the first-time homebuyer. He stated he is hearing from people that they would like to be in Rancho
Cucamonga, but would prefer to have a detached home, even on a small lot, over a condominium. He was
wondering if Rancho Cucamonga was addressing that market and looking at providing those types of
opportunities for people that want to live in the community.
Chairman Barker stated the City Council made a decision a few years ago to decrease the density in Rancho
Cucamonga, and they have to be careful that they don't take his comment and re-interpret that as an increase
in density. He stated there are ways of providing separate homes for people, such as zero lot line.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they have some successful projects that are zero lot line, staggered lots, etc.
He added they are aware of several developers that will be approaching the City in the near future with small
lot subdivisions. He stated what they have found in the past, in areas like Victoria, where there is Medium or
Low-Medium density, the developer will reduce their yield to come in with a single family development because
they know that is what people want. He stated there are developments in Victoria where the lots are 3,000-
3,500 square feet, and you can go through those neighborhoods and see what that means for a neighborhood.
Chairman Barker suggested they could take the Council on a tour to look at some of the developments to allow
them to see what it really means when you talk about small lots. He stated small lots can create other
problems with the streetscape, driveway cuts, parking, etc.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 4
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated other cities offer the same lots and units as in Rancho Cucamonga, but the
cost of the land is cheaper in these other areas, plus there are more amenities offered in Rancho Cucamonga,
so it is hard forthem to compete in that same price bracket. He stated that the developers are trying to come
up with ways to compete in that area though, and that Lewis Homes is going to be coming in with a small lot
development and the Commission is open to the idea.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if they try to look at the position of the houses on the lots, if that would make
a difference.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there are some areas where they have houses back to back, and some people
like that and some don't. He stated there is a mix, some have greenbelts in between, some are only 30 feet
apart between the back walls, so it is all considered.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated if they look at the history of the City, there are certain areas where the City
looked at some innovative housing designs that were not politically acceptable, such as cluster housing in the
hillside area. Everyone overlooked the preservation aspects of that type of development and looked at it as
a slum. Typically in the past it has been a political policy that governed whether to have smaller lots, or different
kinds of lots other than the traditional single family home. He stated that over time that might change, but that
factor needs to be considered.
Chairman Barker stated these issues raise a lot of emotions in the community, and have created public outcry
in the past.
Commissioner McNiel stated there is a conflict between the developer that wants to get the most out of their
property and the residents that do not want a high density. He stated they have to be cautious because what
they do today will be there 20-40 years and they have to consider what it will look like in that time. If they were
to develop like Moreno Valley and do a lot of fast development on small lots, then they will end up in the same
direction that city is apparently heading, and that would be tragic. He stated they have in the past resisted the
small lot subdivision, and the zero lot line subdivision, but they have allowed some, and some of those have
turned out very nice like the one located near Cask 'n Cleaver. He stated they were not opposed to that type
of development but felt they needed to approach it cautiously.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated it is a hard issue, because once people are able to purchase a home in the
City, they start to change their attitude and do not want more growth. He stated there are some tracts in
Windrows that the houses are so tight they are creating a problem and he did not know how long they would
last. He stated he has a problem with the Moreno Valley concept because they grew so fast it has gotten out
of control and he did not want that to happen here.
Mayor Alexander stated a lot of it has to do with how people maintain the properties, which they did not have
control over.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated another dimension to be considered is that in Rancho Cucamonga, the residents
have more amenities than in other cities because those cities have not been willing to spend the money on
them, and that was why land values were higher here.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 5
Commissioner Lumpp stated there were probably a lot of developers that would like to build in Rancho
Cucamonga, butthe problem for them is that the City has certain values and standards, so the affordability of
the home will be different than in another area. The other thing that is important is that there are changes
occurring in the industry and in planning a neighborhood. The Commission is looking at bringing the community
back to the front of the house by providing porches and garage setbacks so that people are aware of what is
going on in their neighborhoods again. He stated they have given that direction to one developer to look into
that concept. He stated all of these things have to play into the economics, and Rancho Cucamonga is not
necessarily a community for first time homebuyers. It may not fit within that realm and people may have to go
somewhere else to find housing within the $80,000 to $100,000 level.
Chairman Barker stated Pete Pitassi has designed the Northtown affordable housing project to have some of
these features mentioned by Commissioner Lumpp, such as detached garages and porches which give it more
of a community feel. He felt it was interestjng that developers tell them they cannot afford to build an affordable
project, yet the City is able to do so with the features they would find desirable in a small lot project. He stated
he is looking forward to seeing the finished project.
Councilmember Biane stated his intent was not to have Rancho Cucamonga become like Moreno Valley or
Rialto, but he did not think that everyone wanted to live on a half acre lot in a 5,000 square foot home. He
stated he likes what has been done so far, but thought when they look at developing what is left they might want
to look at other alternatives.
Commissioner McNiel stated there was still a large land mass left to be developed, and that most of it was
zoned for a traditional lot size.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Etiwanda North Specific Plan has large lots of 7,200 square feet
designated for the Etiwanda area. In Victoria there are lots with multi-family zoning, and Terra Vista still has
areas left for small lots.
Commissioner McNiel stated most developers will try to have the smallest lot with the biggest house possible
on it.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he is not opposed to looking at a plan even if it is in different zoning because that
ensures flexibility, but it would have to meet the design standards of Rancho Cucamonga. He stated if they
bring people back to the front of the house, it brings protection back to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if a developer comes to Planning and wants to build a project that meets the
zoning, say four houses per half acre, as long as he meets that requirement, does he have the latitude to do
want he wants, or position them the way he wants.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Development Code is written with density ranges, and to qualify for a
density range the developer has to show that the houses will fit, but the Planning Commission likes to see that
the development meets the City's standards on the setback, architectural style, etc., and that is what Design
Review is for. He explained how the Etiwanda Specific Plan was different.
Chairman Barker stated they also have to look at the developer's long-term interest in the project. Developers
that stay in the community, such as Lewis Homes, build up a certain trust factor, but when it is a new developer
they have to be careful that they do not build a substandard project.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would be very interested in taking a tour as discussed earlier.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 6
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he would try to organize a trip towards the end of summer, early fall for the
Council and Commission to go on.
Councilmember Gutierrez left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
B4. DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND MARKET STUDY {Continued from April 25, 1995
joint meeting)
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they sent out seven Requests for Qualifications, and all seven were returned.
They narrowed those down to three that they thought were competent and capable. Staff called the references,
and they also put together a refined scope of services and came up with what is before you now. He stated
staff is confident the proposed scope of services is what the Commission and Council asked for, and they will
be ready to come back to the City Council with a contract at the June 21 st meeting. He stated they were able
to reach an understanding with one of the candidates to do the work for under $50,000; one was over, and the
other did the market fiscal study for the Mills Project, which they felt might bias their opinion. Thus it was his
recommendation to continue negotiations with Agajanian and Associates for the project, adding that they also
conducted the trails implementation plan for the city. He recommended the Council and Commission get any
further questions or comments to him in the next seven days and he would try to answer them or include them
in the study. He felt this study will provide a tool to the City for the next 10-15 years.
Councilmember Biane asked for other references on Agajanian and Associates.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he did similar studies for the City of Highland, Culver City, and Walnut, and
he contacted each city and they all said he did excellent work and they would hire him again. He stated they
also did the fiscal impact analysis for the General Dynamics project.
Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see staff bring back a contract for the Council's approval.
Chairman Barker felt if staff was comfortable with the consultant, they he would be inclined to go ahead with
them.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he and Chairman Barker will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce
tomorrow to get their input since they have offered their assistance in this project. He added that Agajanian
and Associates is aware of their tight timeline and are willing to work with them to meet that.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made by the public.
D. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp to adjourn to May 31, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. in the Rains
Conference Room of the CMc Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, to discuss Conditional Use Permit
95-11 - Western Land Properties. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Melcher absent).
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
May 30, 1995
Page 7
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to adjourn to June 1, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. for a Budget
Workshop to be held in the Td-Communities Conference Room, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Motjon carded unanimously, 4-0-1 (Williams absent). The meeting adjourned at 6:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by Planning Commission: July 12, 1995
Approved by City Council:
June 21, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adiourned Meetina
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held on Wednesday, June
21, 1995. The Council met at the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez (arrived 4:45 p.m.), Diane
Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Olen Jones, Sr. RDA
Analyst; and Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION
B1. GO BY VAN FROM CITY HALL TO TOUR THE NORTH TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
The Council first traveled to the offices of the Northtown Housing Development Corporation located on 25th
Street, where they discussed and reviewed the design for the in-fill housing. They also were given a
presentation regarding the financing for the Villa Del Node project.
Then the Council were given a tour of the Villa Del Node housing project.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made from the public.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved:
Jan Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
June 21,1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Re.~ular Meetinc~
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, June 21, 1995, in the
Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 7:18 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: Jack Lam, City Manger; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City
Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Jan Reynolds, Assistant RDA Analyst; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance
Manager; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator; Robert Dominguez,
Administrative Services Director; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager;
Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Capt. Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt.
Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of Proclamation to the Cucamonga Bad Girls Basketball Team congratulating them for
their Southern California Championship and wishing them success at the National Championship.
Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to the Bad Girls Basketball Team.
The Coach for the Bad Girls thanked them for their support and stated they were still in need of funds for their
trip to the National Championship.
B2. Presentation of Proclamation to Dean Smothers recognizing his years of service to the community.
ACTION: Item B2 continued until such time as Dean Smothers could be present.
C1.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
John Van Doren, 11186 Corsica, stated he would be addresing the Council under the Route 30 Update
item, and wanted to let the Council know about his interest in the Task Force. He outlined his
background in the transporta~on field, and stated he has given 16 years of community service in other
cities. He felt the Council has been proactive and forming the Route 30 Task Force was a good idea,
but that they erred when they allowed outside factions to dictate who could serve on the committee.
He felt the Council should hold a public hearing on the issue so the rest of the community be heard.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page 2
C2.
Sharon Delaney, 5458 Via Serena and a 26 year resident, stated they were given notice in late
December that their street was to be slurried and they would have to park in another area but their
street was forgotten. She stated she contacted the City regarding this in April and felt that nothing was
being done and she was being given the run around. She wanted to ask for action on this matter. She
stated that City personnel were not available after 5:30 p.m. and that they did not return calls until the
next day.
C3.
Request by Geor.cle Kuykendall, President of San Antonio Community Hospital, to address the City
Council on the DroDosed San Bernardino County Medical Center
George Kuykendall, 6141 Jasper, stated they have asked the County Board of Supervisors to reassess
their plans to proceed with building another County Hospital. He stated it is designed for 375 beds and
scheduled to be open 1998/99. He stated they were concerned with the $700 million construction cost,
and that it will cost $1.5 to $2 billion by the time the bonds are defeased, especially at a time when the
County was looking at closing other County hospitals. He stated no one is denying the County Hospital
is not in good shape and that something needs to be done to care for the patients, but this hospital was
designed in the early 1980's, and the methods for patient care have changed dramatically. The new
project will not be utilized as predicted, and about 45% of the projected use will never occur. He felt
this project represented a significant long-term loss to the County. He stated two grand juries have
found this to be an unneeded project and it should be stopped. He felt the County should change their
plans and pay the penalties rather than going into worse debt. He stated as a resident of Rancho
Cucamonga he believed this further financial stress will be detrimental to the future of the City and
would suggest that this plan be reconsidered.
Councilmember Gutierrez agreed they were increasingly in an environment where cost is passed down, and
they should have a proactive interest in what the County is placing in their budget because somewhere it will
impact them. He stated they should let the County know how they felt.
Councilmember Biane asked about the utilization projections.
George Kuykendall stated in the last three years, some of the rates of utilization have declined 10-15%.
Councilmember Biane asked with all the studies that have been done and that recommend they not go forward,
why is the County still proceeding with the project.
George Kuykendall stated he does not know why and cannot come up with a reason why they are
continuing.
Mayor Alexander asked if the existing hospitals are not getting used, and would patients be transferred to the
County hospital.
George Kuykendall stated all hospitals must treat patients irregardless of their ability to pay, but once
they are stabilized and the pa~jent requests it, a transfer is made. He stated what they would like to do
is set up a contract with the County to treat people at their facilities and be reimbursed for medical
services.
Councilmember Williams asked if there was adequate patient capacity with the existing hospitals.
George Kuykendall stated there was ample capacity.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if the County has reviewed the plan since its initial inception.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 3
George Kuykendall stated not to his knowledge. He stated many hospitals have met with the Board
of Supervisors and many c~es have passed resolutions, but so far they have not gotten anywhere yet.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if it would help if they were to pass a resolution.
George Kuykendall stated it would, and hoped that the Council would consider doing so.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Jack Lam, City Manager, advised that a revised staff report for Item D6 has been passed out, and that the
report for Item D12 was now before the Council.
D1. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 1995 (Regular Meeting)
May 17, 1995
May 18, 1995
June 1, 1995
June 2, 1995
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 5/24/95, 5/31/95 and 6/7/95; and Payroll ending 6/1/95 for the total
amount of $2,132,620.03.
D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of May 31, 1995.
D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Beer and Wine Import and Wholesale for International Import &
Distributing, Domenic F. Sarzotti, 8358 Maple Place, Suite A.
D5. Approval to create Page II Classification for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library.
D6. Approval of temporary variance of the Sports Field Light Policy for Alta Loma Little League Tournament
July 5 through July 19, 1995.
D7. Approval of the 1994/95 AB 2788 Maintenance of Effort Certification, Public Safety Augmentation Fund.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-094
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ITS MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2788 (PUBLIC SAFETY
AUGMENTATION FUND)
D8. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation
to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 94-21,
located on the east side of Toronto Avenue, north of Seventh Street, submitted by John W. Wider.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-095
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-21
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-096
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 94-21
D9. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO95-019) with Agajanian and Associates
for the preparation of a Commercial Land Use and Market Study, Not to Exceed $45,900.00, to be funded
$30,000 from Account No. 01-4353-6028 for Fiscal Year 1994/95 and $15,900 from Account No. 01-4353-
6028 for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
D10. Approval to award and authorization to execute contract (CO95-020) for Traffic Signal and Safety
Lighting at the intersection of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue, to Hovey Electric for the amount of
$97,735.00 ($88,850.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from TDA Article 8 Account No. 12-4637-9401.
D11. Approval to award and authodzalion to execute contract (CO95-021) for 1994/95 Fiscal Year Pavement
Rehabilitation Program Phase II Improvement Project, at Various Locations, to Laird Construction for the
amount of $555,923.50 ($505,385.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Account Nos. 01-4640-9400
and 10-4637-9113.
D12. Approval to award and authorization to execute contract (CO95-022) for Rancho Cucamonga
Neighborhood Center Improvements, to be funded from CDBG Account No. 28-4333-9105, to the Apparent
Low Bidder to be determined at the bid opening scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 15, 1995.
D13. Approval to award and authorization to cxocute contract (CO95 023) for thc Construction of a Bus Bay
on the North Sidc of Arrow Route West of Haven Avenue, to be funded from AQMD Grant, Account No. 14
4158 7044, to tho Apparent Low Bidder to bc determined at the bid opening schoduled for 2:00 p.m. on
Wodnosday, Juno 21, 1995. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve the staff recommendations contained in the staff
reports of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item D13. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, with
Gutierrez abstaining on Item D3.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
No items were submitted.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
F1. CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 95-01, ALONG
ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ALONG 4TH STREET; 1,600 FEET NORTH AND EAST OF THE INTERSECTION
USING RULE 20-A FUNDS Staff report presented by Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer.
Councilmember Biane clarified that the utility poles would still be there for the 66KV.
Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated yes, but they would be moved north some.
Councilmember Biane inquired about improvements that would made to that intersection.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page 5
Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated the south side is in the City of Ontario, but they planned to improve the
north side with the addition of right turn lanes.
Mayor Alexander opened the public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed,
RESOLUTION NO. 95-097
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FORMING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO.
95-01, ALONG ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ALONG 4TH STREET, 1,600 FEET
NORTH AND EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 4TH
STREET, USING RULE 20-A FUNDS
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 95-097. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
F2. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
(CIWMP) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY - The County of San Bernardino has prepared a Countywide Siting
Element and Countywide Summary Plan as part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
(CIWMP). The Countywide Siting Element identifies where the County will obtain disposal capacity for the next
15 years. The Countywide Summary Plan summarizes local solid waste management practices and waste
diversion programs and identifies programs and facilities that can be utilized on a cooperative basis. Staff
report presented by Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked what was the impact of this plan on other proposed projects in the County,
such as the rail waste.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, stated this was separate from any other plans.
Councilmember Biane asked about the three locations the plan has identified for siting.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, stated this plan identified all the landfills within the County, of
which there were 15, and the sites selected as pad of the strategy plan were not identified as part of the closure
plan. He stated there would be a separate report on those coming back in the near future.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was
closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-098
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CIWMP) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 95-098, Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page 6
F3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-
01A - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the land use
category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium Residential. 4-8 dwelling units per acre) for
1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City will also
consider "L" (Low Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling units
per acre) - APN: 209-062-01.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the
land use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City
will also consider "L" (Low Residenlial, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling
units per acre) - APN: 209-062-01.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the
land use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City
will also consider "L" (Low Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling
units per acre) - APN: 209-062-01. Staff report presented by Miki Bratt, Associate Planner.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the Council was:
Pete Pitassi, 8439 White Oak and representing the Northtown Housing Development Corporation who
owned the project, stated they agreed with and supported staffs recommendations.
Councilmember Williams asked how many units are being planned for the proposed project.
Pete Pitassi stated they are proposing 14 units.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if those would be affordable housing units.
Pete Pitassi stated yes.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-099
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-01 A,
CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO
LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 1.38 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET EAST OF
ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
209-062-01
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 95-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95-01, CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 1.38 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET
EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 209-062-01
RESOLUTION NO. 95-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-01 REMOVING FROM THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE MAP 1.38 ACRES DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA 17)
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET
EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 209-062-01
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution Nos. 95-099, 95-100 and 95-101.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items were submitted.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
H1. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADULT SPORTS COMPLEX REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS AND USES,
PAVILION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, ATM INSTALLATION, OPEN AIR MARKET/FLEA MARKET,
AND PROFESSIONAL BOXING {Oral Report)
Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated they receive numerous requests for usage of the Sports Complex,
and the Council Subcommittee has been working with staff on recommendations on uses that are out of the
ordinary in order to maintain the integrity of the Sports Complex. He stated there were four issues currently
being proposed.
(1)
The first dealt with installing an ATM machine in the concourse area. He stated the Subcommittee
reviewed this request and had concerns for the safety of the residents and people who use the Sports
Complex. During games there were large crowds but on off days it exposes the user to safety
problems. The Subcommittee's recommendation was not to install one, and that the Police
Department also felt the same. He added the feeling is for the City to continue to look at the issue and
see if they come up with something safe which they would then consider installing at their facility.
(2)
The second request was for an open air market in the expansion parking lot. He stated they reviewed
the Orange County open air market and their problems and successes. He stated the challenge facing
Rancho Cucamonga would be that the facility was constructed with tax exempt bonds. He stated any
usage by one organization cannot exceed a 10% ratio or else it would make the bonds become
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 8
taxable, and it was felt that this activity would do just that. If that were to occur, the debt service would
be accelerated and redevelopment funds would have to be used to bring it down which would bankrupt
the Redevelopment Agency. It would also have an adverse impact on the holders of the bonds
because now their tax-exempt investment would become taxable and this could create major lawsuits
for the City. It would also cause the City to loose credibility in the bond market if they were to do such
a thing. Another consideration is that the expansion parking lot is used in the winter for youth sports,
and they could no longer use that facility if a flea market was being held there. He stated there was
also a concern about increased vandalism and graffiti with the increased use of the facility; therefore,
for all of the above reasons, the Subcommittee did not recommend holding an open air/flea market
at the Sports Complex.
(3)
The third request was to construct and operate a Pavilion adjacent to the Epicenter. There were a
number of unanswer financial questions, such as what was the real financial benefit to the City. The
current estimate by the quakes is that the gross revenues to the City would be $21,000, but staff was
unable to determine if those numbers were reasonable, as well as determining the total impact of
adding that facility. Additionally, there are many operational issues to be reviewed. The Subcommittee
felt all these issues needed to be resolved before they could come back with a recommendation.
(4)
The fourth item was to hold boxing matches at the Epicenter. He stated the Subcommittee is
recommending this on a conditional basis. They felt they should work with the Police Department for
proper security and see how eve~hing goes with the first event. After that they would determine if they
will continue holding such events there, so the recommendation is to allow boxing on a one time basis
only.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked if an ATM could be activated only at certain times.
Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated according to the financial institutions they checked with, they invest
heavily in those machines and in order for it to be worth the investment they want to see a minimum of 1,000
transa~ons a month. The financial institutions did not feel they will get that type of business after the baseball
season so it was not worth it. The banks suggested putting the machine at City Hall during the off-season but
determined it still would not generate that type of business.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if the banks won't approve the installation of an ATM, why was the Council
considering it.
Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated the banks would like the City to find someplace else to put the
machine during the off-season, then bring it back once baseball started again.
Councilmember Gu~jerrez stated in regards to the Pavilion, it would be difficult to justify the cost, and wondered
if there was enough time to even earn a profit this season. He stated he was in favor of the concept, but
concerned they would be unable to make a profit this season.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments, Addressing the Council was:
Roy Englebrecht, Executive Vice President and minority owner of the Quakes, stated they operate a
successful sports and entertainment business in a City owned facility. He stated they have been told
by staff that additional revenue needs to be generated, and felt they were doing their part. The Quakes
am the City's number one tenant, generating general fund dollars through rent, admissions tax, parking
revenue and percentage payments, and will have paid in the first three years $1.2 million to the City.
In addition they have made tenant improvements totaling nearly $4.7 million in the same time period.
The Quakes have scheduled 30 special event days in the next four months. With this in mind,
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 9
they would also like to operate an open air market and felt the revenue to the City would be substantial.
He stated the Quakes daily protect the image of baseball, the Epicenter, and Rancho Cucamonga, and
would never do anything to jeopardize that image, and stated they would be operating the open air
market in the same manner and asked that they be given the same opportunity.
Councilmember Guljerrez asked if they can try the open air market out, or does it have it be on a year to year
contractual basis.
Roy Englebrecht, Quakes, stated it would not have to be year to year. He stated they have met with
the City's bond attorney, and have spoken with other bond attorneys, and it is a very complicated
formula. He did not feel that enough research has been done on their part and did not feel that they
should immediately disband this project until such time as all research has been done. He stated the
success of a marketplace is based on an ongoing venture, and people need to know that it will be there
on a consistent basis.
Councilmember Gutierrez was concerned that they not lose the tax exempt status of the bonds. He asked how
many vendors do they have at the Orange County marketplace.
Roy Englebrecht, Quakes, stated they have 500 vendors. He stated they can allocate space for 400
vendors at the Epicenter with parking in the main parking lot.
Mayor Alexander asked how this would impact local business because he would not want to see revenue taken
away from them.
Roy Englebrecht, Quakes, felt the marketplace would bring more people to the community to shop and
it would have a positive impact all around.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated in order to even consider proceeding they would have to have a definitive
opinion from bond counsel looking at a specific proposal for a specific number of days, assuming Council could
overcome some of the other obstacles, so that this in no way could be considered a transference of the bonds
to taxable status. That would be a financial disaster of a magnitude greater than anything they have talked
about. He stated the basic problem is that the bond issue is about $100 million. The sports complex facility
was about $17 million; the stadium and parking lots were about $11-12 million. If they convert, for the purpose
of IRS regulations, the sports complex portion which is more than 10% to what would be considered a private
purpose, generally speaking, rather than a public purpose facility, a quick calculation of 104 days of flea market
and 70 baseball games, they would be dght up to half of the use by way of calendar days being private purpose.
He stated this was not his conclusion because he was not bond counsel, but to pursue this any further, and for
the sake of the Quakes as well, they would have to have an opinion from bond counsel so they would not be
in jeopardy. He stated staff has recommended this and he was reiterating that recommendation.
Roy Englebrecht, Quakes, stated if they were to spend money on consulting with their attorneys and
bond counsel, he would like an indication from Council that they would support holding an open air
marketplace.
Councilmember Curatalo asked if they were to go along with the recommendation of the Subcommittee,
wouldn't that be a moot point.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated yes. He stated there were other things mentioned, such as not being
able to hold other events at the same time, but that would be a policy decision of the Council.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 10
Roy Englebrecht, Quakes, stated in regards to the ATM they have spoken with Divault, an ATM
manufacturer, and the Quakes would be willing to be their own bank in order to service their
customers. He stated they would purchase a portable machine which would be locked up in the gift
shop when there was not a game, which would alleviate the security issue.
Councilmember Williams asked if they could have that in writing since it was not was presented to them
originally, because she felt that would make a difference in their recommendation.
Mayor Alexander stated he also did not have a problem with this new proposal and felt this was one portion of
the recommendation that could be altered if that was the case.
Councilmember Williams stated she was not in favor of the swap meet. She stated back in 1989-90 when the
sports complex was being designed, she looked at this issue from a citizen's point of view, and at that time the
Council was not in favor of having one and hoped the current Council would keep that in mind. She felt this
might have a negative impact on small businesses in the City, which are already cutting it close, and did not
need any other compotYdon other than legSmate compe~tion with another store down the street. She felt those
businesses were on a level playing field because they both pay their taxes and fees as required, which vendors
at the swap meet would not have to do.
Mayor Alexander stated with the exception of the ATM machine issue, he has not changed his mind either and
was not in favor of the swap meet. He stated a major consideration was the businesses in the City. Also, it is
nice for the City to make money, and nice for the Quakes to make money, but they made a commitment to the
youth of the community for the use of that parking lot and felt it would not be fair to go back on that commitment
to the youth.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he agreed with the Subcommittee's report and felt it was very thorough. He
stated he would like to try the boxing match, and would want to pursue the ATM issue as presented tonight by
Roy Englebrecht. He would not mind pursuing the pavilion issue but felt it was too late for it this year. He felt
they should give the marketplace a try if it did not jeopardize their bond rating.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he was satisfied with the Subcommittee's recommendations with the exception
of the ATM after hearing the new proposal.
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Biane to accept the Subcommittee's recommendations with the
exception of the ATM machine. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. UPDATE BY MARKS CABLEVISION ON CABLE T.V, SERVICE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Tim Kelly, General Manager of Marks Cablevision, introduced Ron Stark, Program Director, and Sean
Hogue, Assistant General Manager.
Ron Stark, Marks, stated they are producing MCTV Channel 54, which was Rancho Cucamonga's
community channel which showed community events during prime time, and presented a video to the
Council with a sample of the types of events they cover. He stated Marks was working with ESPN2 to
show a Quakes baseball game live on national t.v. He added that they have provided 50 tickets to the
Boys & Girls Club for children to attend that game.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 11
Sean Hogue, Assistant General Manager, Marks Cablevision, stated in order to keep up with service
calls and respond to their customers they have implemented Sunday service calls. In March they also
implemented an on-time guarantee policy where if they are late to an installation appointment, the
installation is free, and if they are late for a service call a credit of $20.00 is given. They have also
installed an Automated Response Unit (ARU) phone system similar to ones used nationwide at banks,
credit card companies, and other utility companies, and customers can access their personal accounts
through the computer, which is something that can't be done by an answering service. He also felt an
ARU unit cut down on lost or missed messages and incorrect messages and increases the number
of calls they can handle. They have also installed a converter messaging system which they have
utilized for emergency messages or other systemwide messages. In order to improve efficiency they
have added two customer service representatives to their staff. On July 1st they will be starting a new
channel forthe Hispanic community, and in August cutomers will no longer require a converter box to
receive the Disney channel so it will be accessible to all televisions in a household. He stated that less
than 13% of cable systems nationwide offer 54 channels, but they offer 63 channels. He
acknowledged that they have had some problems in the past, but they are committed to working them
out.
Coundlmember Curatalo asked with the ARU could a customer still reach a live person during business hours.
Sean Hogue, Marks, stated yes they could. The office was open Monday through Friday from 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Councilmember Curatalo asked what happens when people have a problem at night.
Sean Hogue, Marks, stated if someone reports a problem in the evening, they would talk to the ARU
and leave a message. This system pages a technician if three or more service interruptions are
reported. If the technician does not respond, it pages the supervisor, and so on up the line until it gets
a response. They feel this is more efficient than an answering service.
Councilmember Curatalo asked what if someone does not want to talk to a machine, what do they do then.
Sean Hogue, Marks, stated they respond the next day to all calls that come into the system. He added
it is currently not feasible to have staff on hand 24 hours a day.
Mayor Alexander asked if they had a system outage that would impact more than one customer.
Sean Hogue, Marks, stated that was correct. The calls that are responded to the next day are things
like the reception is not coming in clearly, etc. They will call the customer the next day and refer those
to a technician.
Councilmember Williams asked if it would be possible to have someone answering calls from 5:30 p.m. to
midnight. She felt this would help solve the P.R. problem if the customers could speak to a person instead of
a machine.
Tim Kelly, Marks, stated they were dealing with two separate issues and two types of calls here. He
stated if the cable was out, a technician would be paged right away. If a call was non-emergency and
came in alter 4:30 p.m., it still would not get a same day response but would be rolled over to the next
day's service calls.
Councilmember Curatalo stated people don't like talking to a machine when they are having a problem.
Tim Kelly, Marks, agreed it could be frustrating but felt the customers would get a better response with
an ARU.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page12
Mayor Alexander felt the point they were trying to make was that the answering machine was probably a good
idea if there were a major outage, but if it is an individual complaint, people should have an option to contact
a cable representalive. He felt that Marks is trying very hard to make the system work, but they need to correct
the many major outages they have had, and they need to get rid of the confusion surrounding the billing.
Tim Kelly, Marks, felt they had remedied the billing problem with staff.
Mayor Alexander stated they needed to get that across to the community. He stated possibly Marks was trying
to do more than they were capable of at this time, and if they cannot improve their response, people will switch
their service, and that there were still a lot of complaints coming in.
Tim Kelly, Marks, felt the perception was that they do not respond, but that was wrong. He stated they
handle about a half million transactions a year, and in 1995 they have had less than 100 formal
complaints from the City.
Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I, stated dudng times like the City-wide outage she received 90 phone calls
in one day, but she did not pass them along to Marks because they were already aware of the problem. Many
times residents will call the City to complain but do not want a formal complaint filed with Marks, and many
times people will call to complain but will not leave their name or number, so there were many more complaints
other than the formal ones submitted to Marks.
Councilmember Williams stated that people think the rates are creeping up, especially for service they don't
need but are having to pay for anyway. She felt the residents have the right to have a guarantee that the rates
are not going to go up all the time.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he and Councilmember Biane serve as the Subcommittee on this issue and
acknowledged that everytime he has had a complaint, Marks has responded to it as soon as they could. He
agreed that there were a lot of complaints, but appreciates the measures taken to rectify the problems.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing the Council were:
Steve Jennings, 12335 Sweet Gum, passed out a letter he received regarding a rate increase and then
referred to a log of problems experienced at his house. He stated Mark's would always come out when
called, but a couple days later there would be trouble again, until finally they determined that the
problem was with the cable line deteriorating in the neighborhood. He stated on March 1 the rates
went up again. He asked the City Council to reassess how they look at cable and how they conduct
their business. He stated Mr. Kelly was responsive, but the Council needed to set deadlines and make
Marks follow through. He stated he cannot have an antenna in his area because of his CC&R's so he
cannot sign up for Cross County Wireless Cable.
John Campbell, 6620 Santolino Place, stated he lived in the same neighborhood as Mr. Jennings for
four years, and had the same problems. He felt the Council should try to get a proposal from Marks
of work that needs to be done in Windrows and throughout the City, and set deadlines for the
improvements to be made. He felt this would put Marks in a better position as a cable provider. He
added he was in support of the PEG channel and having City Council meetings on it. He understood
the problems with not having funds for a live broadcast of the Council meetings, but felt there should
be something in the franchise agreement for the cable operator to provide technical support. He
thought Marks was trying but they took on a lot and they need to set a schedule.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 13
John Morgan, 9207 Hidden Farm and resident since 1985, stated when he first signed up for cable it
cost $11.00 per month, now it is over $26.00 per month. He felt the service has deteriorated, and felt
the management of Marks was as unrespensive to the Council as they are to their customers, and that
they were a defacto utility and a monopoly operating without regulation. He stated Marks has said they
no longer have any billing problems, but he has had one since they returned from vacation two weeks
ago. He stated he and his wife concur with the statements made by Councilmember Willjams in that
they only wanted a few of the channels and resented being told they had to pay for 64 channels. When
they had Simmons they were offered restricted service and they appreciated having a choice.
Michael Bremmer, 7730 Hyssop, wanted Marks out of Rancho Cucamonga. He felt they were
unrespensive and inadequate and did not deserve another chance. In regards to the comments made
about the ARU not losing messages, he stated that was not true because he has been cut off twice
while trying to leave a message. He also stated that every call was not responded to, but that might
also be a result of the ARU not taking his message. He was also concerned about KCET being pre-
empted, and was told by two customer service reps that KCET pre-empted themselves which he felt
was untrue. He also inquired why did they need PEG if Channel 54 was going to be a public service
station. He did not think he should be charged $0.11 a month for PEG when it was not available. He
suggested that on their phone system they offer two numbers, one that was totally dedicated to service
calls only. He thought that anyone on the Council Subcommittee who had taken campaign funds from
Marks should return those funds until the community accepts Marks as their cable provider.
Candace Miller, 11253 Terra Vista Parkway West, stated she was glad to see the General Manager
here tonight, because when she asked for his name so that she could send a letter to him, she was
told by a customer service rep that his name was confidential. She has had the same problems the
other residents tonight have expressed. She stated part of her job was to monitor the media for her
company representatives so it was a real problem when she looses service. She felt Marks was not
aware of the frustration level in the community. She agreed that the Council should set goals and
deadlines, and if Marks did not meet them, they should look for another cable provider.
John Van Doren, 11186 Corsica, stated he had tried to order a pay-per-view movie but the reception
was so bad he called to see if there was a problem. He had to go through many options on the ARU
in order to leave a message. When he got a call back the following Monday, he let them know he
would be looking for another service. He stated an ARU was only good to the customers if the choices
offered were the choices the customer wanted, and he felt the ones offered by Marks were not. He
asked if the City was aware of any basic rate that was truly a basic rate.
Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I, stated there was only one basic rate which all subscribers pay.
John Van Doren felt subscribers that just wanted basic broadcast stations that could not receive
reception without cable should have that option. He wanted to request that when a subscriber registers
a complaint that it be addressed, and if satisfaction isn't at hand, that it be escalated voluntarily by the
company and not leave it up to the customer to try to track down the General Manager.
Dolores Morgan, 9207 Hidden Farm Road, stated she has spoken to Jerry Fulwood and Susan Mickey
and thought that all of her complaints were being relayed to the cable company and did not realize until
tonight that unless it was in a letter, it was not being sent to Marks.
Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I, clarified that if a resident requests that a complaint be passed on, then
it was. She assured Mrs. Morgan that all of her complaints had been relayed to Marks.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page14
Phillip Hubbard, 7387 Greenhaven, felt the Council should hold the cable company responsible,
because he thought they were not being responsible. He stated he has had problems getting through
to the cable company to log a complaint when his system has gone out. He stated there were
monitoring devices on the market that will monitor the amount of time that the cable service was out
and thought Marks should provide those to residents in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated the $1.00 that
was deducted from his bill when the cable was out was like an insult
There being no further input, the public comments were closed.
Mayor Alexander felt it was the obligation of the Council to set goals and deadlines.
Councilmember Gutjerrez stated on June 13 the Subcommittee submitted a memo outlining four suggestions,
which were to update the Council every month or two; hold an annual performance review as allowed in the
franchise agreement; require the cable company to conduct an annual survey of customer satisfaction; and
conduct a system and services review every three years as per the franchise agreement. They hoped that this
would improve cable service within the community.
Councilmember Biane felt they should give Mr. Kelly an opportunity to answer some of the complaints, because
some have been addressed or are being addressed, plus he felt the recommendations made by the
Subcommittee were a start in improving relations with the cable company.
John Van Doren did not feel they should allow Marks to have a dialogue at this time, that this was an
opportunity for the citizens to communicate to their Council.
Tim Kelly, Marks, apologized for the poor service. He stated he would like to respond to every person
who spoke. He stated he would not debate the merits of the phone system, but would try a live person
if that is what the community wanted. He stated if people call with a problem and do not receive
satisfaction, they can ask to speak to the manager and he will try to see that they are taken care of.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
Mayor Alexander called a recess at 9:56 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 p.m. with all members
of Council present.
12. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED SPLITTING OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES INLAND
EMPIRE DIVISION Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager.
Councilmember Curatalo asked why would they want to split when it appeared that everything was working fine
the way it was now.
Councilmember Biane stated he did not see a separation happening, and felt there was more benefit to staying
together, but he was not totally decided upon the issue.
Councilmember Williams stated she would like to see this issue put to rest. She stated she would not like to
see them split because it gave them more strength against the northern division.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 15
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he could not support the split at this time.
Mayor Alexander stated part of the reason the League is not as effective as they could be in Sacramento was
because there was not unanimity in the organization, but if they break apart, it will dilute their strength more.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the Council was:
John Van Doren, 11186 Corsica, valued their comments on cohesiveness to the Inland Empire, and
if they could not keep Riverside in the fold, then San Bernardino would be forced to form their own
division. He felt nether option precluded the from forming their own association of cities outside of the
League which would represent common interests in the Inland Empire that would parallel the League.
There be no further reponse, public comments were closed.
Councilmember Biane stated considering the alternatives to withdrawing and the comments from the public,
he did not think the right proposal was on the table at this time. He would support a position of keeping the
group together. He stated the Mayor of Chino Hills has been selected to represent the cities in San Bernardino
County but he did not feel he was that interested in the issue and possibly it would be better to have someone
else represent their position.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Curatalo to support the position of keeping the two counties
together in the League of California Cities Inland Empire Division. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The
Council selected Councilmember Williams to represent Rancho Cucamonga at the next League meeting.
13. UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 FREEWAY Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer.
Councilmember Curatalo asked why it was not considered feasible from an engineering standpoint to have the
freeway below grade at Sapphire.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, explained the physical constraints connected to the Cucamonga Creek Channel and
the MWD water pipeline and how it was felt that would be unsafe to have over the freeway in the event of a
major earthquake. He stated it would also require significant grade changes which would violate their
engineering requirements, plus it was an additional $40 million to construct.
Councilmember Curatalo asked how they constructed other freeways that had flood control over them.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated Caltrans could not identify any other major freeway in Southern California that
had major flood control built over it, they had always elevated the freeway over the flood control,
Councilmember Gutierrez asked how SANBAG felt about the Task Force's recommendation.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated they were not happy with the decision and felt it could jeopardize their ability
to complete the freeway to the County line. He stated the City will be working with SAN BAG to try to reduce
the cost of construction in the City to help make up the additional cost of Sapphire.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked what have they decided about ending the freeway at Haven Avenue.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated they were just beginning to discuss that issue.
Councilmember Biane asked if they had any idea when the freeway would be continued west of Haven Avenue.
City Council Minutes
June 21,1995
Page16
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated a key element to that is Los Angeles Countyy. He stated Los Angeles County
has indicated they will finance their portion to the County line, but there is no money available for that yet, so
they need to be sure Los Angeles has the funds first.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comment. Addressing the City Council were:
John Van Doren, 11186 Corsica, was pleased the Council was attempting to address public safety
concerns when looking at the freeway. He stated he was glad they eliminated the below grade option,
but did not agree totally with the Task Force's recommendation and wished he had more input into that.
He was concerned with the aesthetics which did not encourage an elevated freeway. He was also
concerned with the additional cost which could preclude the freway coming through at all, which might
be the ultimate goal of some. He stated Los Angeles County might be able to bring traffic to the
County line, and Rancho Cucamonga will only have a freeway that ends at Haven which will create
more traffic, more accidents, and more flooding for the community. He felt they needed to address
the phasing issue because if they did not have a plan ready when the different agencies were ready,
then they did not have a plan at all. He felt they should be concerned with the cost because Rancho
Cucamonga could not afford to pay the additional cost if the State and SANBAG would not. He did not
want to see the freeway project delayed and hoped the Council will continut to look at all the options
and allow the community to express their opinion.
Jane Bradshaw, 6949 Valinda, stated she was a member of the Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force and of
C-Car, and wanted to respond to Mr. Van Doren's comment about not being able to express his opinion
about the freeway profile. All of the Task Force meetings are public meetings and they always allowed
public comment. She stated Mr. O'Neil's report clearly stated that pubic input was given and that was
taken into consideration when their decision was made. In regards to the additional cost, she felt Mr.
Barker of the Task Force put it best. He stated that many developers have come to the City with a
project and claimed that they could not afford to build to the City's standards. They were told if they
could not meet the standards then they could not build their project, but eventually they always came
up with the money for the quality project. People want the same quality standards with the freeway.
She stated they need to keep in mind that the freeway will be coming through predominately residential
neighborhoods, and they will not compromise where they live and raise their families over money.
There being no further input, public comments were closed.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1,
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like information from other cities on setting standards for
rental properties owned by absentee landlords.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made from the public.
City Council Minutes
June 21, 1995
Page 17
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss property
negotiations per Government Code 54956.8, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester
Avenue; Valley Baseball and Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating parties, regarding terms of
payment. Execulive Session to adjourn to a Goals Workshop to be held on June 27, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., in the
Tri-Communities Conference Room of the Civic Center. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting
adjourned at 10:39 p.m. No action was taken in Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
Approved:
(JZm
040
0
o ~. o ~ , ~o , ,.- ~, o,o.~.~ .o,,.-,.,.o,-,,o.,.,.-, ,,~o-.,.,,
/
'~ tllm t · · · I I · el ~ mml m. mm .,~ mm am, mm m ram, m. m,
o w
).-~
..J
N
I
·
%1
wl
NI
%1
·
wl
I-I
,I ·
Cl I
·
zl
-~1
Ni
·
·
·
·
I
·
I
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
I
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
I
I
·
·
·
·
·
I
·
I
·
·
I
l
·
·
I
·
I II
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
I ·
· I
·
·
·
·
·
I
I
·
,1
·
el
Ni
NI
..e1
I
I
·
I
I
I
·
I
I
·
c3 ·
~,'11
,vI
-,'1
4 ·
:31 ·
·
·
I
·
·
·
I
·
·
I
·
·
·
·
·
·
I
·
·
·
·
ZI
I,,* I
~. ·
,--. ·
v~ I
w ·
Q ·
·
· I
uj ·
I-- I
I
I I
· I
· ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· I
I ·
I I
· ·
I I
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
IZI
I I
IZI
· I
~ .....
Z W ~
U
JDO~33~WWW~
I1 · · · · III II II · I 8 m, em ,m mm ,m em mm m am, ,m B
%
Z
C2 w
41,- I
t.,,)er I
Q[
OC
V...V1, tU
).*
~' C2
t,-4 tL
(.,.)
,,,,
I
li el
~ ZZZZ~ZZ~ZZ~ WZ~JZJ J~
· · I I · e I -,,
J
%
(,)m'I
Ok,,ih
~,~
w~OZO ~ Z~O00 0
Z
Z
%
~f
Z
OC ~.4
~.~
C~h.~.
,I
k~
~.~
·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
w · ·
IJ I ·
e[ ·
o. · ·
· ·
· · ·
0,41,,11
% · ·
NIN'I
· I
w I ·
I-, · ·
( · I
,-~ · ·
· ·
~ · ·
· ·
I::11
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
I ·
· I
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
Ik,,I
lull
· ·
i~,.i
· ·
· I
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· t
I ·
I I
I ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I~1
·
·
IZI
· ·
eeoc
(J ·
~)
V..Z
,_) e,
. ,, - ,
W ), ~,,,,a~' t,,.I
I- · ~' N,J% ,I ,,I 09``
~-' ix,( ZZ(,.t E e::,r~ tu ,I ..':ZI--,..J,
· -,~...=..~~°"' o ,,,,..
Ik I',,. P,,, I',,, I',,, ~
N N N N N N N
I',,, I,,,, I',,- !,,- I4' P,,, I',,-
0 I~ 0 0
Z: · NZ I,,- Oc
0 0 0 0
N 0 u'~ ~
~1' ffl N ~
0 0 0 0
· .
· ·
e,.dl
· · · ·
·
eg'l , (: ·
..l~ I ~ - -
ewl
ell
I
I
I
I
~ I
eZI
e~l
e I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
Z
eeeeoeeeeeesseeeeeeeeee
,I
I=..
o
I-.
I
l.
I--
rt
,v
Z
C3
Z i,- Z
· , et,-,t Z
(~ ~J'*' ',J I,-
, ., 4 "" j ,.
· W · .Jk~ZllJ N I,- e I-- · O.l.~
0 k,1OZZ}ZWg'r t,~,J"r~ M,J -.WOe;) 4W
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
/0
,J
~,~
,z-,'~,.,-~-,
I:: ~. ,.v ,..,-
%,
(I,- I
2::1
,,I
,,~,~
e¢
.,I
,¢
I-
I--
,
't
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
o
0
0
o
oo
I,-r-
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
o ~
0
~l.l~-~-
--~;;;)
· ·
· · ·
· · ·
·
I~! ~
,e I~ I Z ~
%1 eZl
~ I I
~ I I
% I I
h I !
I ~ I
eel eZl
~1 e~l
I · I
ZI~ I Z
. > . ~ ~ ~ ~
i z
I i
I
I
I
I I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I I
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· I
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
07/12/1995 CI~ O~ ~ ~ 1~ - 1
PORT~LIO )(AST~ SI~(~RY CITY
~ 30, 1995 C~SH
AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY---
PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365
INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TEItN MATURITY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
Certificates of Deposit - Bank ........
Local Agency Investment Funds .........
~ederal Agency Issues - Coupon ........
Treasury Securities - Coupon ..........
Mortgage Backed Securities ............
Small Bus. Adm/Miscellaneous Agency...
...... $ 14,806,789.82 27.80 439 305 6.175 6.261
...... $ 9,247,819.24 17.37 1 1 5.917 5.999
...... $ 24,450,915.63 45.91 1,059 912 7.059 7.157
...... $ 272,845.~ 0.51 1,180 792 6.569 6.660
...... $ 373,039.69 0.70 6,451 3,539 8.939 9.063
...... $ 4,101,562.50 7.70 2,720 1,809 6.879 6.975
TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVERAGES ............
.$ 53,252,971.88 100.00% 869 672 6.612% 6.704%
Passbook/Checking Accounts ...................$ 799,992.26 1.973 2.000
(not included in yield calculations)
Accrued Interest at Purchase .................$ 23,407.80
TOTAL CASH and PURCHASE INTEREST .............$ 823,400.06
TOTAL CASH ~d INVESTMENTS.... ..............$ 54,076,371.94
MONlq{ ENDING FISCAL FISCAL
TOTAL EARNINGS JUNE 30 YEAR TO DATE YEAR ENDING
Charrent Year $ 292,038.50 $ 2,576,042.02 $ 2,576,042.02
AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE
EFFECTIVE RATE OF RETURN
JAMES C. ~
TR
~- /
DATE
$ 54,835,162.72 $ 0.00
6.48% 0.00%
I certify that this report accurately reflects all agency pooled investments and
is in comformity with investment policy adopted July 20, 1994. A copy of this
investment policy is available in the Finance Division of the Administrative
Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient
cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures.
07/12/1995
CITY OF RANCBOCdCANO!~
INVESTMENT I~Fr~LIO DETAILS - INVESTNEFI~
JUNE 30, 1995
CITY
AVERAGE I~aASE
BAIarE DATE B(Xl VALUE
STATED ---TrN--- MATURITY DAYS
FACE VALUE MARKET VALOE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT -
00937 FC(YrHILL INDEP BA~
00598 GREAT
00918 GREAT WESTEPJ
00927 GREAT k'EST~
00930 ~FAT
00931 GEFAT WESTERN
00932 ~FAT WESTERN
00936 GREAT WESTERN
00951 GREAT k'ESTERN
00924 SANWA
00933 SANWA
00945 SANWA
00953 SANWA
SUBTOTALS and AVEPAGES
04/06/95 2,000,OeO.O0
05/12/94 2,000,000.00
11/15/94 500,000.00
01/25/95 500,000.00
02/15/95 500,000.00
03/01/95 500,000.00
02/23/95 1,500,000.00
03/29/95 500,000.00
06/07/95 1,791,789.82
12/28/94 1,000,000.00
02/23/95 500,000.00
05/02/95 2,000,000.00
06/30/95 1,515,000.00
13,299,595.57
LOCAL AGEE/IlfVlSTNENT FUE6
00005 LOC/L AGD[Y INVST FUND
00804 LOCAL AGENCY IIVST FUND
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 11,268,652.57
FEDRALAGEI:Y ISSUES
00895
00897
00922
00925
00939
00940
00943
00952
FEDERAL FARN CREDIT BANKS
FEDERAL FARN CREDIT BANKS
FEDERAL H~4E LOAN ~
FEDERAL H~E LOAN ~
F~ ~ ~ ~
04/29/94
05/05/94
12/19/94
12/28/94
04/O6/95
04/O6/95
04/26/95
O6108195
00938
00949
00921
00926
00935
00947
FEDERAL BOISE LOAN NORTG. C0O4/O6/95
FEDERAL !]ONE LO~ NORTG. C005/16/95
FEDERAL MATL NTG AS~ 12/21/94
FEDERAL MATL !frG ASS~ 12/29/94
FEDERAL MATL NTG ASS]I 03/22/95
FEDERAL NA'rL !!~ ~ 05/O8/95
SUBTOTALS a~d AVERAGES 23,284,248.96
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 7.180 7.082 7.180 04/09/97 648
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4.600 4.600 4.664 08/14/95 44
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 11/27/95 149
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 01/25/96 208
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 08/16/96 412
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.250 6.250 6.337 03/04/96 247
1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.750 6.750 6.844 08/21/95 51
500,000.00 500,0e0.00 5.800 5.800 5.881 09/25/95 86
1,791,789.82 1,791,789.82 5.500 5.500 5.576 11/30/95 152
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 545
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 604
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 671
1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.700 5.700 5.779 07/31/95 30
14,806,789.82
14,8O6,789.82
8,134,819.24 8,134,819.24
1,113,000.00 1,113,000.00
9,247,819.24
14,806,789.82
2,000,000.00
1,996,250.00
1,000,000.00
1,O65,134.38
965,156.25
942,968.75
2,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
1,002,031.25
2,500,000.00
1,981,250.00
1,998,125.00
1,500,000.00
24,450,915.63
8,134,819.24
1,113,0eO.O0
9,247,819.24
6.OO8
5.934
6.175 6.261 305
5.926 6.008 1
5.853 5.934 1
9,247,819.24 5.917 5.999
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 5.850 5.770 5.850 04/29/96 303
2,000,000.00 1,996,250.00 5.850 5.870 5.952 04/29/96 303
1,000,000.00 1,O00,OOO.O0 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 902
1,090,000.00 1,O65,134.38 6.360 7.789 7.898 09/19/96 446
1,000,000.00 965,156.25 4.570 6.638 6.730 12/30/96 548
1,000,000.00 942,968.75 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 1,248
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8.045 8.045 8.157 04/26/00 1,761
5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 6.830 6.830 6.925 06/08/98 1,073
1,000,000.00 1,002,031.25 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 1,545
2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 7.050 7.050 7.148 05/15/98 1,O49
2,000,000.00 1,981,250.00 7.050 7.564 7.669 10/10/96 467
2,000,000.00 1,998,125.00 7.700 7,752 7.859 12/10/96 528
500,000.00 500,000.00 7.010 7.010 7.107 03/21/97 629
1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 7.270 7.270 7.37105/08/00 1,773
24,450,915.63
24,590,000.00 7.059 7.157 912
/7
07/12/1995 CIT/OF ~ C~/MONGA PM - 3
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS CITY
JUNE 30, 1995 CASH
INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED ---TIN--- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBE~ ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON
00903 TREASURY NOTE
AVERAGES
06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 272,845.00 6.141 6.569 6.660 08/31/97 792
272,845.00
~Y SECURITIES - DIS(X)UET
AVERAGES 1,341,942.56
MDRTGAGE BA~SELqIRITIES
00071 FEDERAL IN]4E LOAN BANK 02/23/87
00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 09/21/87
O0(X)2 GOVEPaMERT NATIONAL MORTG A 07/01/87
00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL NORTO A 07/01/87
SUB'IY)TALS and AVEPAGES
67,643.15 69,445.64 442,907.10 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 2,376
148,958.69 161,2'54.33 612,753.80 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,541
130,402.99 132,221.03 663,389.28 8.500 8.631 8.751 05/15/01 2,145
26,034.86 25,521.44 84,710.~ 9.000 8.515 8.634 03/15/01 2,084
374,902.07 373,039.69 1,803,760.76
388,442.44 8.939 9.063 3,539
SMA. LL BUS. AI)M~I~ELLANEOUS AGENCY
oe950 FEDERAL HOME nOAN BANK 05115/95
00004 SMALL BUS1]]~ ABMIN 07/25/86
SUBTOTAlS and AVERAGES 4,101,562.50
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6.400 6.400 6.489 05/15/96 319
1,101,562.50 1,000,000.00 1,065,142.39 9.125 8.184 8.298 07/25/11 5,868
4,101,562.50 4,065,142.39
4,000,000.00 6.879 6.975 1,809
TOT~ INVESTJtENTS and AVG.
$ 53,252,971.88 54,647,272.84
53,943,749.24 53,310,051.50 6.612% 6.704% 672
07/12/1995
CItY OF RINC!{O CUCAMONGA
INVESINI~PO~rFOLIO DETAILS -CASH
JUNE 30, 1995
clr/
I~V~
· ~B~R I~SU~R
BALANCE DATE BOOE VALUE
STA~EI) ---YIN--- NATURITY DAYS
FACE VALUE NARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE ~0 NAT
CEEalNG/SAV131GS ACCOgNTS
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
AVERAGES
891,413.48
799,992.26
2.000 1.973 2.000
Accrued Interest at Purchase
23,407.80
$ 823,400.06
TOTtJ., ~ aid INVES{S $ 54,835,162.72 54,076,371.94
/e
07/12/1~95 CITY OF PJ. NCHO CUCANONGA PN - 5
PORTFOLIO NASTER INVESTNENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE CITY
JUNE 1, 1995 - JUNE 30, D95 CASH
STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT ~ ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK BEGINNING BillEl:
00942 BANK OF INERICt 2.800 06/06/1995 ls791,645.50
00944 BANK OF ANERICl 2.900 06/05/1~)5 127,921.00
00951 GREAT ~STERJ 5.500 06/07/1995 1,791,789.82
00953 SINWA 5.700 06/30/19~5 1,515,000.00
SUB~VrALS and ENDING BALANCE
13s419,566.50
3,306,789.82 1,919,5~6.50 14,806,789.82
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Summary)
O0005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 6.008
00804 LOCAL AGIUfCY HIVST FUND 5.934
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE
6s035,000.00
BEGINNING BALANCE:
7,000,000.00
10,212,819.24
6,035,000.00 7,000s000.00 9,247,819.24
CHalNG/SAVDiGS ACCOUNTS (Monthly Summary)
00180 ~ OF ANEI{ICA
BEGINNING IIllIWCE:
3,400,012.53 3,545,000.00
944,979.73
799,992.26
BANKERS ACCEPTANCES
0(~)46 SUMIT(NO LANK NY 5.92O
06/01/1995
BEGINNII{G {:
4,976,977.80
4,976,977.80
FEDERALAGENCY ISSUES -~
00952 FEDERAL HONELOANBANK
6.830
06/08/1995
BEGIIiNIIiG BALANCE:
5,000,000.00
19,450,915.63
24,450,915.63
TRRASORY SECIJltlTIES - ~
BEGINNI]~G BALANCE:
272,845.00
272,845.00
TREASUI{Y SECURITIES - DISG)ONT
00907 TREASURY BILL
5.040
06/29/199s
BFIIIHI'NGBALAN(2E:
1,437,795.60
1,437,795.~
MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071 FEDERAL HONE LOAN LANK 8.000
00203 FEDERAL NAiL RTG ASSN 8.500
00002 GOVIHUeiENT NATIONAl, MORTG ASSN 8.500
00069 GOVBRJI~T NATIONAL ~ ASSN 9.000
SUB'IIYD. LS and ENDING BAI.,md~CE
06115/95
06/26/95
o6/19/95
06/06/95
BEGINNING BALANCE:
1,223.30
708.78
1,1~.61
41.35
3,130.04
376,169.73
373,039.69
o7/1~/1995
CITY OF RANCliO CUCA~NGA
PORTFOLIO MAS'TER INVESTNERT ACTIVITY BY TYPP.
JUNE 1, 1995 - JUNE 30, 1995
PM- 6
CITY
STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT I ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE
BUS. AI~IF~L[ANI~S AGENCY
B~INNING BALANCE: 4,101,%2.50
4,101,%2.50
B~INNING BAhI. I~E:$ 55,193,631.73 17,741,802.35 18,882,469.94 54,052,964.14
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~Neil, City Engineer
Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY PARTS I AND II FOR THE
PROPOSED NINTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN GROVE AVENUE AND
EDWIN STREET AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THEREFORE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting and approving the
Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II, for the proposed improvement at Ninth Street between Grove
Avenue and Edwin Street and issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore and direct the City Clerk to file
a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the proposed street improvements for
Ninth Street between Grove Avenue and Edwin Street. In conformante with the California Environmental
Quality Act and State Guidelines, the attached document has been prepared to permit construction of the
above mentioned improv. ements.
The project involves installation of new pavement, sidewalks, curb gutter and drive approach. It is the
Engineering staff's finding that the proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact on the
environment and therefore recommend that these improvements be classified as categorically exempt.
Respectfully S mitte ,d~Z/~ -
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:HM:sd
Attachment
C]&I'I'AINIA
Ig
,.,.. /,.__ -- 3rlkl3/W' ~M3AV'"NO
t
i
]nN]AI' 3AOMe /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED STREET
IMPROVEMENTS FOR NINTH STREET BETWEEN GROVE
AVENUE AND EDWIN STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has reviewed all
available input concerning the proposed Ninth Street Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the
Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed
Ninth Street Improvement Project.
SECTION 2: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
PART I - INITIAL STUDY
General Information
,
,
Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center
Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
Address of project: Ninth Street (between Grove Avenue and Edwin Street)
Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Rancho Cucamonga. 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. Califomia 91730.
Henry Murakoshi (909) 989-1862 ext. 2333
Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N/A
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, regional, State and Federal Agencies: Street Closure Permit: approval
of project by City Council. City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Existing zoning district: Residential
Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): -o-
City of
Contact:
Project Description and Effects: SEE ATTACHED
8. Site Size:
9. Square Footage:
10. Number of floors of construction: N/A
11. Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A
12. Attach plans: N/A
13. Proposed scheduling:
14. Associated project: N/A
15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices of rents, and type
of household size expected:
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of
sales area, and loading facilities: N/A
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimate occupancy,
loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A
Page 2
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate
clearly why the application is required: N/A
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach
additional sheets as necessary).
21.
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or
substantial alteration of grotmd contours.
Yes
No
22.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or
public lands or roads.
X
23. Change in pattem, scale or character of general area of project.
X
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter:
X
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
X
26.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or
quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
X
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
X
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
X
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flamables or explosives.
X
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, tire,
water, sewage, etc.).
X
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
X
32. Relationship to a lar~er project or series of projects.
Environmental Setting: See attached
33.
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the
site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be
accepted.
34.
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, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will
be accepted.
Page 3
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and 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
Planning Division.
Date: ~ - Z q .- qf" Signature: ~' ~/~//~ '
Henry Murakoshi
Title: Associate Engineer. P.E.
o7
Page 4
Attachment - Part 1
Project Description and Effects: 8,9, 13, 27, 33, 34
The project involves installation of new pavement, additional sidewalks, curb, gutter, and drive approach.
The project limit is from Grove Avenue to Edwin Street. The anticipated project for construction is in Fiscal
Year 95/96.
The project site is located in a residential area. All street improvements have existed for several years. The
proposed improvements will not have a substantial impact on plants, animals, land resources or any obvious
historical cultural or scenic aspects.
Noise, vibration, dust and odors will increase at the project sites only during the pavement removal and
replacements, etc. ARer completion of the project, all noise, vibrations, dust and odors created by this project
will cease to exist and remm to the pre-project levels.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent City of Rancho Cucamonga
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 10500 Civic Center Drive.
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 989-1862
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiting Checklist City of Rancho Cucamonga
Name of Proposal, if applicable Street improvement for Ninth Street between Grove Avenue and
,
Edwin Street
I.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all 'yes' and 'maybe' answers are required on attached sheets).
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, coveting or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
eJ
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
g,
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 2
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors:
c. 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 cun'ents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding or tidal waves?
Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops
and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plant into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Plant Life.
a.
YES
MAYBE
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthie organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal
have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
b.A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies,
or adopted 'plans of any governmental entities?
c. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
consumptive or non-consumptive recreational
oppommities?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or an emergency evacuation plan?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a
demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to water-borne, rail, or air traffic?
f. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. KagXg.Y. 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? __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities?
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
c. Communications systems?
d. Water supply?
e. Waste water facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
18.
19.
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 the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational oppommities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object?
C,
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d,
Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
2 1. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
III.
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7
(A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into the future).
C,
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable7 (A project may impact on
two of more separate resources where the impact on each
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMF, NTAI, EVAI,UATION
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
X
X
X
Page 7
IV
.DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
I find the proposed project CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Class 1 C, Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Date ~ -z,~_ q-t"" Signature
Henry Murakoshi
Title Associate Engineer. P.E.
f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Shelley Maddox, Engineering Aide
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR DR 89-09, LOCATED ON PULLMAN COURT, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE,
EAST OF UTICA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY ALLEN K. SMITH
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City council adopt the attached resolution approving DR 89-09, accepting the
subject agreement and security, and the City Clerk to sign said agreement.
ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND
DR 89-09, located on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route, east of Utica Avenue in the General Industrial
Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 25, 1989.
The Developer, Allen R. Smith, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of
the off-site improvements in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond: $29,810.
Labor and Material Bond: $14,905.
Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office.
A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District.
Respectfully submitted,
William~Ne~il~
City Engineer
WJO:dlw
~.,,_Attachments
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Vicinity Map DR 89-09
parcels
Street Centlines
FIll
0 200 400 600 800
I
1000 Feet
N
~7
q _5 - / /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY FOR DR 89-09 (APN 209-491-52 TO 59)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement Agreement by Allen R. Smith as developer, for the improvement of
public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located
on Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route, east of Utica Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said real property as referred to as DR 89-09; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and
sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City
and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and
That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by
the City Attorney.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
By:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~eil, City Engineer
Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE AQMD GRANT FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,000 TO BE PLACED IN ACCOUNT NO. 14-4158-9415 AND
AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BUS BAY ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF ARROW ROUTE WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE TO EASTLAND CONSTRUCTION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $29,114.80 (BID AMOUNT OF $26,468.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO BE
FUNDED FROM AQMD GRANT, ACCOUNT NO. 14-4158-9415.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate funds from the fund balance of the AQMD Grant
Fund in the amount $32,000.00 Account Number 14-4158-9415. Also, it is recommended that the City
Council award and authorize for execution the contact for construction of a Bus Bay on the north side of
Arrow Route west of Haven Avenue, to the lowest responsive bidder Eastland Construction for the amount
of $29,114.80 (bid amount of $26,468.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from AQMD Grant,
Account No. 14-4158-9415.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on June 21, 1995, for the subject
project. Eastland Construction is the apparent lowest bidder, with a bid amount of $26,468.00 (see
attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $20,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and
found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required
background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. The project
was budgeted in FY 94/95; therefore the appropriation is necessary to cover costs.
Respectfully submitted, ,
William J. Oqxleil
City Engineer
WJO:mdl
k,. Attachment
0
0
0
0
0·
0
DATE:
TO .'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
Memorandum of Understanding for Fiscal Year 1995-1996
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda, and
Cucamonga School Districts and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the
D.A.R.E. program for fiscal year 1995/96. The MOU reflects a
$100,905 contribution from the four School Districts with a
matching amount of $100,905 from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This
activity is budgeted in account number 01-4451-0000.
BACKGROUND
The D.A.R.E. program was implemented by City Council as a pilot
program during fiscal year 1990/91. Initially, the program used one
Sheriff Deputy for three School Districts that did not provide for
all fifth grade classes to receive the program.
During fiscal year 1994/95, the City and four School Districts
including the Cucamonga School District jointly increased their
funding share to include two D.A.R.E Officers to provide D.A.R.E to
all fifth grade classes. This year the School Districts will
jointly contribute $100,905. The City will contribute a matching
$100,905. The total projected D.A.R.E program cost for fiscal year
1995/96 is $201,810.
R~ ectfully_~sub ' t ,
ty Manager
Attachments: DARE MOU
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda, and Cucamonga
School Districts, along with the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose
of jointly sponsodng and continuing the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program.
In order to accomplish this goal, the agencies listed below will contribute the following dollar amounts to be
used for the continuation of the D.A.R.E. program: Alta Loma School District -- $43,894; Central School
District -- $30,272; Etiwanda School District-- $18,163; Cucamonga School District-- $8,576; the City of
Rancho Cucamonga - $101,905. The County of San Bernardino will provide two D.A.R.E. officers in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract for police service between said County and the City
of Rancho Cucamonga to be shared between the four school districts on a proportional basis based upon the
dollar amount contributed by each district to the program (Alta Loma School District -- 43.5% of the officer's
time; Central School District-- 30% of the officer's time; Etiwanda School District-- 18% of the officer's time;
and Cucamonga School District - 8.5% of the officer's time.
This shall be effective from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. If modifications are necessary before or at
that time, they will be added to this Memorandum of Understanding by mutual agreement of all parties involved.
We hereby agree to this Memorandum of Understanding and certify that the agreements made here will be
honored.
Signature
Alta Loma School District, Superintendent
Signature
Central School District, Superintendent
Signature
Etiwanda School District, Superintendent
Signature
Cucamonga School District, Superintendent
Signature
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Mayor
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 1995
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF MEMORANDA OF tINDERSTANDING AND
COMPENSATION RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Memoranda of Understanding and
adopt the attached resolution which sets levels of compensation of employees for fiscal year
1995/96, effective July 1, 1995.
Backeround
During the past two months staff has met with the City's three bargaining groups. The City has the
financial ability to offer a modest package to the employees, and the employees have accepted the
offer. The financial contents of the agreements (2% COLA) are contained in the attached
agreements and salary resolution.
Funding for the adjustment is available within the existing approved 1995/96 budget and does not
need any further appropriation.
Respectfully submitted,
Administrative Services Director
RCD/dah
attachments
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of
the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of
the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives
of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of
the Meet and Coffer process;
Now, therefore, the General Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga
agree as follows:
IMPLEMENTATION
All terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the
provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect.
Unless otherwise stated, the effective date for implementation of the items in this
Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1995. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1995
through June 30, 1996.
COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT
A base salary increase of 2%
4/10 WORK WEEK
Maintain the 4/10 hour days for a period of one year. The 4/10 will be re-evaluated after one
year.
MEDICAIo DENTAl, AND OPTICAL COVERAGE
Maintain all current benefits with the exceptions of: a) revise the Principal Financial Group
fi'om a 90/80 plan to 90/70 option, b) enact the vision plan as proposed, c) enter into a 2 year
contract with Kaiser.
PERSONAl, I,EAVF. TIME
The City agrees to allow the use of up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, or holiday
time as personal leave.
MIIJTARY SERVICE BUY BACK
The City agrees to amend the PERS contract to allow option for military service buy back
at the employee's expense.
?-% nt 55
Postpone final consideration of the PERS amendment of 2% at 55 until results are available
from PEPS as to cost. At that time the City and bargaining group will meet and have the
oppommity to approve or reject participation in the 2% at 55 amendment. Further, any cost
related to the 2% at 55 amendment would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at
the time the cost becomes effective.
7% ADD ON TO FINAL YEAR
The City agrees to submit for an acmarial for 7% added on to final year for retirement
purposes.
For the General Employees: For the City:
Katie Freeno
Steve Gilliland
Jeannene Spikes
Chuck Vamey
Loida Yokley
Robert Dominguez, Admin Svc Director
Mary Kuhn, Personnel Analyst
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Whereas, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and
representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and
representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and
Confer, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and
representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
agreements of the Meet and Confer process;
Now, therefore, the Supervisory/ProfessionalEmployees Group and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows:
IMPI ,EMF. NTATION
All terms and conditions of employment currently in .effect and not changed by the
provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect.
Unless otherwise stated, the effective date for implementation of the items in this
Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1995. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1995
through June 30, 1996.
COST OF IJVING ADJUSTMENT
A base salary increase of 2%
4/10 WORK WEEK
Maintain the 4/10 hour days for a period of one year. The 4/10 will be re-evaluated after one
year.
MF. DICAIo DENTAl, AND OPTICAl, COW. RAGE
Maintain all current benefits with the exceptions of: a) revise the Principal Financial Group
from a 90/80 plan to 90/70 option, b) enact the vision plan as proposed, c) enter into a 2 year
contract with Kaiser.
PERSONAl. I,EAVE TIME
The City agrees to allow the use of up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, or holiday
time as personal leave.
MII.ITARY SERVICE BUY BACK
The City agrees to amend the PERS contract to allow option for military service buy back
at the employee's expense.
9% at 55
Postpone final consideration of the PEPS amendment of 2% at 55 until results are available
from PEPS as to cost. At that lime the City and bargaining group will meet and have the
opportunity to approve or reject participation in the 2% at 55 amendment. Further, any cost
related to the 2% at 55 amendment would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at
the time the cost becomes effective.
7% ADD ON TO FINAl. YEAR
The City agrees to submit for an acmarial for 7% added on to f'mal year for retirement
purposes.
For the Supervisory/Professional Employees: For the City:
Barbara Krall
Robert Dominguez, Admin Svc Director
Mike Long
Mary Kuhn, Personnel Analyst
Joe Stofa
John Thomas
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and
representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and
representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and
Confer, and;
Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and
representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
agreements of the Meet and Confer process;
Now, therefore, the Maintenance Employees Group and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga agree as follows:
IMPI .EMENTATION
All terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the
provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect.
Unless otherwise stated, the effective date for implementation of the items in this
Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1995. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1995
through June 30, 1996.
COST OF 1 .IVING ADJUSTMENT
A base salary increase of 2%
411 0 WORK WEEK
Maintain the 4/10 hour days for a period of one year. The 4/10 will be re-evaluated after one
year.
MEDICAIo DENTAl, AND OPTICAl, COVERAGE
Maintain all current benefits with the exceptions of: a) revise the Principal Financial Group
from a 90/80 plan to 90f70 option, b) enact the vision plan as proposed, c) enter into a 2 year
contract with Kaiser.
PERSONAl, I,EAV'F. TIME
The City agrees to allow the use of up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, or holiday
time as personal leave.
MII,ITARY SERVICE BUY BACK
The City agrees to amend the PEPS contract to allow option for military service buy back
at the employee's expense.
~% at 55
Postpone final consideration of the PEPS amendment of 2% at 55 until results are available
from PEPS as to cost. At that time the City and bargaining group will meet and have the
oppommity to approve or reject participation in the 2% at 55 amendment. Further, any cost
related to the 2% at 55 amendment would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at
the time the cost becomes effective.
7% ADD ON TO FINAl, YEAR
The City agrees to submit for an acmarial for 7% added on to final year for retirement
purposes.
STANDBY PAY
The City agrees to increase standby pay to $150 per week.
For the Maintenance Employees:
For the City:
Andrew Belter
Robert Dominguez, Admin Svc Director
Jeff Fowler
Mary Kuhn, Personnel Analyst
Pat Gallagher
Mario Lucero
Anthony Lugo
RESOLUTION NO. 95-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-144 AND
IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of
the City that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits, and
holidays and other policies for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes
that it competes in a marketplace to obtain qualified personnel to perform and
provide municipal services, and that compensation and conditions of employment
must be sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain qualified employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
SECTION 1: Salary Ranges
ASSIGNMENTS OF CLASSIFICATIONS TO PAY RANGES
(Monthly Amounts)
Class Title
Minimum
Step Amount
Control
Point Maximum
Step Amount step Amount
Account Clerk I
Account Clerk II
Account Technician
Accountant#
Accounting Manager*
Accts Payable Supervisor#
Admin Secretary 1/
Admin Services Director+
Animal Control Officer I
Animal Control Officer II
Associate Engineer#
Associate Park Planner#
Associate Planner#
Asst Building Official*
Asst City Manager+
Asst Deputy City Clerk 1/
Asst Engineer#
Asst Landscape Designer#
Asst Park Planner#
Asst Planner#
Asst RDA Analyst#
Asst to City Manager*
Benefits Technician
Building Inspection Supv# 2/
Building Inspector 2/
319 1,700
339 1,879
374 2,237
413 2,717
487 3,930
404 2,598
378 2,282
559 5,629
341 1,898
361 2,097
479 3,777
446 3,204
456 3,367
514 4,497
603 7,011
325 1,752
449 3,252
404 2,598
426 2,899
437 3,063
412 2,704
502 4,236
353 2,015
458 3,401
418 2,786
359 2,076 369 2, 182
379 2,294 389 2,411
414 2,731 424 2,871
453 3,317 463 3,487
527 4,798 537 5,044
444 3,172 454 3,334
418 2,786 428 2,929
599 6,871 629 7,983
381 2,317 391 2,435
401 2,560 411 2,690
519 4,611 529 4,846
486 3,911 496 4,111
496 4, 111 506 4,321
554 5,490 564 5,771
643 8,560 673 9,936
365 2,139 375 2,248
489 3,970 499 4, 173
444 3, 172 454 3,334
466 3,540 476 3,721
477 3,739 487 3,930
452 3,301 462 3,470
542 5, 171 552 5,436
393 2,459 403 2,585
498 4,152 508 4,364
458 3,401 468 3,575
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 2
Class Title
Building Maintenance Worker2/
Building Official+
Business License Clerk
Business License Supv#
Business License Tech
Buyer#
Cashier/Account Clerk
City Engineer+
City Manager+
City Planner+
Code Enforcement Officer 2/
Code Enforcement Supv# 2/
Code Enforcement Tech
Community Dev Director+
Community Services Director+
Community Services Manager+
Community Services Officer
Community Services Tech
Computer Operator
Counter Plans Examiner#
Crime Analyst#
Custodian 2/
Data Base Managmnt Analyst#
Data Processing Manager*
Deputy City Clerk#
Deputy City Engineer*
Deputy City Manager+
Deputy City Planner*
Disaster Prep Manager*
Disaster Prep Specialist
Electrical Specialist# 2/
Engineering Aide
Engineering Technician
Equipment Operator 2/
Executive Assistant*
Facilities Supervisor#
Finance Officer+
Fleet Maintenance Supt* 2/
GIS Supervisor#
GIS Technician
Integrated Waste Coordinator*
Inventory Special Equip/Mat 2/
Junior Engineer
Junior Engineering Aide
Landscape Designer#
Lead Maintenance Worker 2/
Lead Mechanic 2/
Librarian I#
Librarian II#
Minimum
Step Amount
348 1,965
544 5,223
342 1,907
407 2,637
372 2,215
404 2,598
319 1,700
564 5,771
556 5,545
402 2,572
432 2,988
362 2,107
594 6,702
549 5,355
530 4,871
380 2,305
388 2,399
371 2,204
448 3,236
427 2,914
348 1,965
473 3,665
502 4,236
386 2,375
534 4,969
550 5,382
526 4,774
487 3,930
397 2,509
438 3,078
389 2,411
409 2,664
376 2,260
417 2,772
442 3,140
529 4,846
482 3,834
456 3,367
401 2,560
504 4,278
352 2,005
419 2,800
369 2,182
434 3,017
386 2,375
410 2,677
404 2,598
426 2,899
Control
Point
Step Amount
388 2,399
584 6,375
382 2,328
447 3,220
412 2,704
444 3,172
359 2,076
604 7,046
670 9,789
596 6,769
442 3,140
472 3,647
402 2,572
634 8,184
589 6,537
570 5,946
420 2,814
428 2,929
411 2,690
488 3,950
467 3,557
388 2,399
513 4,475
542 5,171
426 2,899
574 6,066
590 6,570
566 5,829
527 4,798
437 3,063
478 3,758
429 2,943
449 3,252
416 2,758
457 3,384
482 3,834
569 5,916
522 4,680
496 4,111
441 3,125
544 5,223
392 2,447
459 3,418
409 2,664
474 3,684
426 2,899
450 3,268
444 3,172
466 3,540
Maximum
Step Amount
398 2,522
614 7,407
392 2,447
457 3,384
422 2,842
454 3,334
369 2,182
634 8,023
626 7,864
452 3,301
482 3,834
412 2,704
664 9,500
619 7,594
600 6,906
430 2,958
438 3,078
421 2,828
498 4,152
477 3,739
398 2,522
523 4,704
552 5,436
436 3,048
584 6,375
620 7,632
576 6,127
537 5,044
447 3,220
488 3,950
439 3,094
459 3,418
426 2,899
467 3,557
492 4,030
599 6,871
532 4,919
506 4,321
451 3,284
554 5,490
402 2,572
469 3,593
419 2,800
484 3,872
436 3,048
460 3,435
454 3,334
476 3,721
Class Title Step
Minimum
Amount
Library Assistant I# 322 1,726
Library Assistant II# 358 2,065
Library Clerk 317 1,684
Library Manager+ 528 4,822
Library Technician 398 2,522
Maint Supervisor# 2/ 442 3,140
Maint Mechanic 2/ 395 2,484
Maint Worker 2/ 348 1,965
Management Aide 397 2,509
Management Analyst I# 427 2,914
Management Analyst II# 456 3,367
Mechanic 2/ 395 2,484
Mechanic's Assistant 2/ 348 1,965
Microcomputer Specialist 401 2,560
NPDES Public Works Inspector 2__/ 421 2,828
Office Services Clerk 315 1,667
Office Specialist I 295 1,509
Office Specialist II 1/ 315 1,667
Park Construction/Acquist Supv# 472 3,647
Park Planning/Dev Supt* 489 3,970
Park/Lands Maint Supt* 2/ 482 3,834
Personnel Analyst I# 401 2,560
Personnel Analyst II# 456 3,367
Personnel Clerk 343 1,917
Personnel/Risk Manager* 502 4,236
Plan Check Coordinator* 484 3,872
Planning Commission Secy# 386 2,375
Planning Technician 377 2,271
Plans Examiner# 438 3,078
Plans Examiner-Grading# 2/ 438 3,078
Plumbing/Mechanical Specialist# 438 3,078
Police Clerk** 321 1,717
Principal Librarian* 464 3,505
Principal Planner* 506 4,321
Principal Plans Examiner# 464 3,505
Programmer/Analyst# 454 3,334
Public Service Technician 369 2,182
Public Works Engineer* 2/ 504 4,278
Public Works Inspector I 2/ 401 2,560
Public Works Inspector II'2/ 421 2,828
Public Works Maint Mgr* 2/ 512 4,452
Purchasing Agent* 487 3,930
Receptionist 305 1,586
Records Clerk 315 1,667
Records Manager/City Clerk* 512 4,452
Recreation Coordinator 395 2,484
Recreation Superintendent* 500 4,194
Recreation Supervisor# 425 2,885
Redevelopment Analyst# 446 3,204
Redevelopment Manager+ 541 5,145
Step
362
398
357
568
438
482
435
388
437
467
496
435
388
441
461
355
335
355
512
529
522
441
496
383
542
524
426
417
478
478
478
361
504
546
504
494
409
544
441
461
552
527
345
355
552
435
540
465
486
581
Resolution
Control
Point
Amount
2,107
2,522
2,055
5,887
3,078
3,834
3,033
2,399
3,063
3,557
4,111
3,033
2,399
3,125
3,452
2,035
1,842
2,035
4,452
4,846
4,680
3,125
4,111
2,340
5,171
4,727
2,899
2,772
3,758
3,758
3,758
2,097
4,278
5,275
4,278
4,070
2,664
5,223
3,125
3,452
5,436
4,798
1,936
2,035
5,436
3,033
5,120
3,522
3,911
6,281
No. 95-113
Page 3
Maximum
Step Amount
372
408
367
598
448
492
445
398
447
477
506
445
398
451
471
365
345
365
522
539
532
451
506
393
552
534
436
427
488
488
488
371
514
556
514
504
419
554
451
471
562
537
355
365
562
445
550
475
496
611
2,215
2,650
2,160
6,837
3,236
4,030
3,188
2,522
3,220
3,739
4,321
3, 188
2,522
3,284
3,629
2, 139
1,936
2,139
4,680
5,094
4,919
3,284
4,321
2,459
5,436
4,969
3,048
2,914
3,950
3,950
3,950
2,204
4,497
5,545
4,497
4,278
2,800
5,490
3,284
3,629
5,713
5,044
2,035
2, 139
5,713
3,188
5,382
3,702
4,111
7,296
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 4
Class Title
Control
Minimum Point
Step Amount Step Amount
Maximum
Step Amount
Rehab Specialist# 2/ 438 3,078 478 3,758
Resource Services Supv# 456 3,367 496 4,111
Risk Management Analyst# 427 2,914 467 3,557
Secretary 1/ 348 1,965 388 2,399
Signal & Lighting Tech 2_/ 426 2,899 466 3,540
Special Districts Supcry# 456 3,367 496 4,111
Special Districts Tech 388 2,399 428 2,929
Special Districts Tech II 408 2,650 448 3,236
Sr Account Tech 388 2,399 428 2,929
Sr Accountant# 456 3,367 496 4,111
Sr Administrative Secy 1__/ 386 2,375 426 2,899
Sr Business License Tech 387 2,387 427 2,914
Sr Civil Engineer* 514 4,497 554 5,490
Sr GIS Technician 421 2,828 461 3,452
Sr Maintenance Worker 2__/ 358 2,065 398 2,522
Sr Planner* 486 3,911 526 4,774
Sr Plans Examiner-Bldg# 458 3,401 498 4,152
Sr Plans Examiner-Fire# 458 3,401 498 4,152
Sr Records Clerk 325 1,752 365 2,139
Sr Redevelopment Analyst* 476 3,721 516 4,542
St/Storm Drain Maint Supt*2_/ 482 3,834 522 4,680
Structural Specialist# 2/ 438 3,078 478 3,758
Supcry Animal Cntrl Officer# 391 2,435 431 2,973
Superv Public Works Insp# 2_/ 451 3,284 491 4,010
Systems Analyst# 473 3,665 513 4,475
Technician 372 2,215 412 2,704
Traffic Engineer* 519 4,611 559 5,629
488 3,950
506 4,321
477 3,739
398 2,522
476 3,721
506 4,321
438 3,078
458 3,401
438 3,078
506 4,321
436 3,048
437 3,063
564 5,771
471 3,629
408 2,650
536 5,019
508 4,364
508 4,364
375 2,248
526 4,774
532 4,919
488 3,950
441 3,125
501 4,215
523 4,704
422 2,842
569 5,916
Admin Intern 291 8.53 331 10.42 341 10.95
Asst Pool Manager 276 7.92 316 9.66 326 10.16
o d I 211 5.72 251 6.99 261 7-35
Instructor/Guard II 251 6. 291 8.53
Library Aide 162 4.~B 301 8.97
202 5.47 212 5.75
Library Clerk 317 9.71 357 11.86 367 12.46
Library Page 202 5.47 242 6.68 252 7.02
Library Page II 251 6.99 291 8.53 301 8.97
Maintenance Tech 251 6.99 291 8.53 301 8.97
Planning Aide 291 8.53 331 10.42 341 10.95
Pool Manager 300 8.92 340 10.89 350 11.45
Program Specialist 282 8.16 322 9.96 332 10.47
Recreation Aide 172 4.71 212 5.75 222 6.05
Recreation Assistant I 211 5.72 251 6.99 261 7.35
Recreation Assistant II 237 6.52 277 7.96 287 8.36
Recreation Leader 261 7.35 301 8.97 311 9.43
**This classification when assigned to shifts other than day
an additional pay of 40 cents per hour.
shift shall have
1/When acting as Clerk to Council/Commissions $50 paid per night
day meeting. Compensatory time off can be substituted in lieu of
option of the employee.
or weekend
$50 at the
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 5
2/Up to $150 provided annually toward purchase of approved safety footware
from a city designated vendor.
# Denotes Supervisory/Professional Class
* Denotes Management Class
+ Denotes Executive Class
Executive Management employees will be assigned to salary ranges which are no
less than 20% (40 salary code steps) below the control point and no more than
15% (30 salary code steps) above the control point. All other employees will
be assigned to salary ranges which are no less than 20% (40 salary code steps)
below the control point and no more than 5% (10 salary code steps) above the
control point. Actual salary within the range is determined by performance,
achievement of goals and objectives, or for recent appointments, growth within
the position.
SECTION 3: Three tiered Management Program
Employees designated as either Professional/Supervisory, Management,
or Executive Management are not eligible for overtime pay, or compensatory
time for working hours over and above the normal daily work schedule.
Employees so designated shall be entitled to all benefits provided to general
employees and the following:
Supervisory/Professional
Administrative leave to a maximum of fifty hours per
fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate
supervisor, after successful completion of six months
service within this classification.
Life insurance policy of an additional twenty thousand
dollars.
Deferred compensation program of two percent of salary.
Management
Administrative leave to a maximum of seventy five hours
per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate
supervisor, after successful completion of six months
service within this classification.
Life insurance policy of an additional twenty thousand
dollars.
Deferred compensation program of four percent of salary.
Executive Management
Administrative leave to a maximum of one hundred hours per
fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate
supervisor, after successful completion of six months
service within this classification.
Automobile allowance of $250.00 per month if a City
vehicle is not provided.
Life insurance policy of an additional thirty thousand
dollars.
Deferred compensation program of six percent of salary.
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 6
SECTION 4: Life Insurance
The City provides $30,000 base coverage of life insurance for all
employees. Employees who want to purchase additional life insurance coverage
with personal funds may do so at the city's group rate.
SECTION 5: Health Insurance
The City provides health insurance plans available to all full time
continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to
average the cost of medical insurance for all current employees as one group,
providing for no additional payment by employees for coverage through June 30,
1996. The City will provide up to $337 per month in medical coverage for all
full time employees hired after July 1, 1994.
SECTION 6: Retiree Medical
Employees who retire at the age of 55 or above with ten years of
service with the City of Rancho Cucamonga can pay for medical insurance at a
group rate through the City until 18 months prior to the age of 65 at which
time they can convert to Cobra.
SECTION 7: Dental Insurance
The City shall provide a dental insurance plan for all full-time
continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to
average the cost of dental insurance for all full time continuous salaried
employees and elected officials effective July 1, 1995.
SECTION 8: Optical Insurance
The City shall provide an optical insurance plan for all full-time
continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to
average the cost of optical insurance for all full time continuous salaried
employees and elected officials effective July 1, 1995.
SECTION 9: Vacation
All full-time employees shall, with continuous service,
working hours of vacation monthly according to the following schedule:
Length of Service Hours Accrued Annual Hours
in Years Per Pay Period Accrued
1 3.077 80
2 3.461 90
3 3.846 100
4 4.230 110
5 4.615 120
6-8 5.000 130
9 5.384 140
10 5.769 150
11-13 6.153 160
14 6.538 170
15+ 6.923 180
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 7
SECTION 10: Sick Leave
All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue 120
hours of sick leave annually.
SECTION 11: Sick Leave Buyback
Employees who terminate their city employment after five years of
continuous service and have at least 50% of five years' sick leave accrued on
the books upon termination can sell 120 hours back to the City.
SECTION 12: Personal Leave
Employees can use up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, or
holiday time as personal leave. This 20 hours can be used incrementally
(i.e., 1 hour, 1/2 hour) throughout the fiscal year. Use of this time is for
emergency situations requiring the employee's attention and needs to be
cleared with their supervisor when using this time.
SECTION 13: Holidays
The City Offices shall observe the following 14 holidays. All full
time continuous salaried employees shall be compensated at their regular rate
for these days.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
July 4, 1995 - Independence Day
September 4, 1995 - Labor Day - The first Monday in September
November 9, 1995 - Veteran's Day
November - Thanksgiving Day (November 28)
November - The day following Thanksgiving (floater)
December 21, 1995 - The day preceding Christmas
December 26, 1995 - Christmas Day
January 1, 1996 - New Years
January 15, 1996 - Martin Luther King's Birthday
February 19, 1996 - President's Day
May 30, 1996 - Memorial Day
Three discretionary days may be taken by an employee at
his/her convenience who has successfully completed probation
subject to approval of the department head. Days may not be
carried over from one fiscal year to next.
Whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be
observed as a holiday. Whenever a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, the
preceding Thursday shall be observed as the holiday.
When a holiday combination occurs (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc)
where two consecutive days are holidays and it would result in the City Hall
being open to serve the public only 2 days during the week, only one of the
holidays will be observed and the other holiday will become a floating
holiday. For example, for Thanksgiving, Thursday will be observed as the
regular holiday, however Friday will become a floating holiday to be used at a
later date. In the instance of Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years,
employees will have until June 30 to use those floating holidays accrued
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 8
between Thanksgiving and New Years. Also those days will not accrue as
floating holidays until the actual holiday has occured. Each year the City
will designate which days will be observed and which are floating holidays.
For fiscal year 95-96 a floating holiday will be provided for the day
following Thanksgiving.
SECTION 14: Holiday Time
The City agrees that employees who are assigned to work on a holiday,
whether or not their regular shift assignment requires they work that day, are
eligible for pay at time and one-half for working that day. This time and
one-half may be taken as compensation or put in a compensatory time off bank,
(in effect, compensating at double time and one-half). That rate of
compensation is tallied as follows: the ten hours compensation for the
holiday, plus compensation at time and one-half for the hours actually work.
This payment at time and one-half abrogates the employees right to that
holiday.
SECTION 15: Premium Holiday Compensation
Maintenance employees required as part of the regular work assignment
to work on Christmas Day, New Years Day, Independence Day or Thanksgiving Day,
are allowed to observe the holiday on another day. Additionally, these
employees who work on the aforementioned designated holidays may select to
receive compensation on that holiday at time and one-half for the ten hour
shift, or take a second holiday as time off at a later date.
SECTION 16: Natal and Adoption Leave without Pay
Employees are granted up to four months natal and adoption leave for
the birth or adoption of a child. Employees on this leave of absence without
pay will be responsible for the payment of medical, dental and optical
premiums to keep the coverage in force during the leave of absence.
SECTION 17: Natal and Adoption Leave with Pay
Employees are granted up to 2 days natal and adoption leave with pay
for the birth or adoption of a child. Any paid time required beyond this
initial 2 days must be charged to sick leave, vacation, compensatory or
floating holiday time.
SECTION 18: Bereavement Leave
When a death occurs in the family of a full time employee, the
employee shall be granted up to five (5) bereavement leave days 'with pay.
Family members are defined as follows: employee's spouse, employee's parents,
employee's grandparents, employee's children, employee's spouse's parents,
siblings, a blood relative residing with employee. The department head and
the City Manager shall approve such bereavement leave.
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 9
SECTION 19: Military Leave
Employees required to serve military leave will be compensated
pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code. To qualify for compensation the
military orders must be submitted to the supervisor prior to their tour of
duty and must be attached to the timecard for that pay period.
SECTION 20: Military Service Buy Back
Employees have the option for military service buy back at the
employee's expense.
SECTION 21: Overtime - Maintenance
The City agrees that employees who are sent home to rest and to be
available to work additional hours as a result of a storm or impending
emergency situation and are not subsequently recalled to work, will be
compensated for the hours not worked in that shift, due to them having been
sent home, to bring the total hours to 10 worked in that shift.
Employees who are subsequently recalled to work the storm or
emergency situation will work no more than 12 consecutive hours. Any hours
worked in excess of 10 in that 12 hour shift will be paid at time and one-
half, regardless of the total numbers of compensated hours for that work week.
SECTION 22: Standby Pay
Employees required to be on standby shall be compensated at the rate
of $150 per week.
SECTION 23: Safety Footwear
The City will provide up to $150 annually toward the purchase of
safety footwear at a city designated vendor for employees required to wear
safety footwear as part of their job responsibilities.
SECTION 24: Confidential Employees
Confidential employees are designated as such when an employee in the
course of his or her duties, has access to information relating to the City's
administration of employer-employee relations. Employees designated as
confidential employees may not act as representatives of employee organiz-
ations which represent other employees of the City. The employees designated
as confidential employees are as follows:
Personnel Analyst
Personnel Clerk
Benefits Technician
Account Technician - Payroll
Office Specialist II - Admin Svc
Secretary
Planning Commission Secretary
Admin Secretary
Sr Admin Secretary
Risk Management Analyst
Deputy City Clerk
Records Clerk
Records Manager/City Clerk
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 10
SECTION 25:
The City Manager's contract #89-037 is hereby approved and renewed
for fiscal year 1995-96.
SECTION 26:
The provisions of the amended sections of this resolution are
effective July 1, 1995.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Gutierrez, Williams
William J. Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Raneho Cueamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, at an adjourned meeting of said City Council held on the 19th day
of July, 1995.
Executed this 20th day of July, 1995 at Rancho Cucamonga, California
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 11
BASIC
SCHEDULE I -- SALARY CODE TABLE
PAY SCHEDULE IN HOURLY, BI-WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AMOUNTS
ONE HALF PERCENT BETWEEN RANGES
MONTHLY AMOUNTS ROUNDED TO NEAREST DOLLAR
Range
Number
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
Hourly
Rate
4.2439
4.2651
4.2865
4.3079
4.3294
4.3511
4.3728
4.3947
4.4167
4.4388
4.4620
4.4833
4.5057
4.5282
4.5508
4.5736
4.5965
4.6194
4.6425
4.6658
4.7891
4.7125
4.7361
4.7598
4.7836
4.8075
4.8315
4.8557
4.8800
4.9044
4.9289
4.9535
4.9783
5.0032
5.0282
5.0533
5.0786
5.1040
5.1295
5.1552
Bi-Weekly Monthly Range Hourly
Rate Rate Number Rate
339.5134 736 191. 5.1809
341.2109 739 192. 5.2069
342.9170 743 193. 5.2329
344.6316 747 194. 5.2591
346.3547 750 195. 5.2853
348.0865 754 196. 5.3118
349.8269 758 197. 5.3383
351.5761 762 198. 5.3650
353.3340 766 199. 5.3919
355.1006 769 200. 5.4188
356.8761 773 201. 5.4459
358.6605 777 202. 5.4731
360.4538 781 203. 5.5005
362.2561 785 204. 5.5280
364.0674 789 205. 5.5556
365.8877 793 206. 5.5834
367.7171 797 207. 5.6113
369.5557 801 208. 5.6394
371.4035 805 209. 5.6676
373.2605 809 210. 5-6959
375.1268 813 211. 5.7244
377.0025 817 212. 5.7530
378.8875 821 213. 5.7818
380.7819 825 214. 5.8107
382.6858 829 215. 5.8398
384.5992 833 216. 5.8690
386.5222 837 217. 5.8983
388.4548 842 218. 5.9278
390.3971 846 219. 5.9574
392.3491 850 220. 5.9872
394.3109 854 221. 6.0172
396.2824 859 222. 6.0472
398.2638 863 223. 6.0775
400.2551 867 224. 6.1079
402.2564 872 225. 6.1384
404.2677 876 226. 6.1691
406.2890 880 227. 6.1999
408.3205 885 228. 6.2309
410.3621 889 229. 6.2521
412.4139 894 230. 6.2934
Bi-Weekly
Rate
414.4760
416.5483
418.6311
420.7242
422.8279
424.9420
427.0667
429.2020
431.3481
433.5048
435.6723
437.8507
440.0399
442.2401
444.4513
446.6736
448.9070
451.1515
453.4073
455.6743
457.9527
460.2424
462.5436
464.8564
467.1806
469.5165
471.8641
474.2234
476.5946
478.9775
481.3724
483.7793
486.1982
488.6292
491.0723
493-5277
495.9953
498.4753
500.9677
503.4725
Monthly
Rate
898
903
907
912
916
921
925
930
935
939
944
949
953
958
963
968
973
977
982
987
992
997
1002
1007
1012
1017
1022
1027
1033
1038
1043
1048
1053
1059
1064
1069
1075
1080
1085
1091
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 12
R~b:r Hourly Bi-Weekly
~'a~S~ Rate
231. 6.3249 505.9899
232. 6.3565 508.5198
233. 6.3883 511.0624
234. 6.4202 513.6177
235. 6.4523 516.1858
236. 6.4846 518.7667
237. 6.5170 521.3606
238. 6.5496 523.9674
239. 6.5823 526.5872
240. 6.6153 529.2202
241. 6.6483 531.8663
242. 6.6816 534.5256
243. 6.7150 537.1982
244. 6.7486 539.8842
245. 6.7823 542.5836
246. 6.8162 545.2965
247. 6.8503 548.0230
248. 6.8845 550.7631
249. 6.9190 553.5170
250. 6.9536 556.2845
251. 6.9883 559.0660
252. 7.0233 561.8613
253. 7.0584 564.6706
254. 7-0937 567.4940
255. 7.1291 570.3314
256. 7.1648 573.1831
257. 7.2006 576.0490
258. 7.2366 578.9292
259. 7.2728 581.8239
260. 7.3092 584.7330
261. 7.3457 587.6567
262. 7.3824 590.5950
263. 7.4193 593.5479
264. 7.4564 596.5157
265. 7.4937 599.4982
266. 7.5312 602.4957
267. 7.5689 605.5082
268. 7.6067 608.5358
269. 7.6447 611.5784
270. 7.6830 614.6363
271. 7.7214 617.7095
272. 7.7600 620.7981
273. 7.7988 623.9021
274. 7.8378 626.0216
275. 7.8770 630.1567
276. 7.9163 633.3075
277. 7.9559 636.4740
278. 7.9957 639.6564
279. 8.0357 642.8546
280. 8.0759 645.0689
Monthly
Rate
1096
1102
1107
1113
1118
1124
1130
1135
1141
1147
1152
1158
1164
1170
1176
1181
1187
1193
1199
1205
1211
1217
1223
1230
1236
1242
1248
1254
1261
1267
1273
1280
1286
1292
1299
1305
1312
1318
1325
1332
1338
1345
1352
1359
1365
1372
1379
1386
1393
1400
Range
~r
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
32?.
328.
329.
33O.
Hourly
Rate
8.1162
8.1568
8.1976
8.2386
8.2798
8.3212
8.3628
8.4046
8.4466
8.4889
8.5313
8.5740
8.6168
8.6599
8.7032
8.7467
8.7905
8.8344
8.8786
8.9230
8.9676
9.0124
9.0575
9.1028
9.1483
9.1940
9.2400
9.2862
9.3326
9.3793
9.4262
9.4733
9.5207
9.5683
9.6161
9.6642
9.7125
9.7611
9.8099
9.8590
9.9083
9.9578
10.0076
10.0576
10.1079
10.1585
10.2092
10.2603
10.3116
10.3632
BI-Weekly
Rate
648.2993
652.5458
655.8085
659.0875
662.3830
665.6949
669.0234
672.3685
675.7303
679.1090
682.5045
685.9170
689.3466
692.7933
696.2573
699.7386
703.2373
706.7535
710.2872
713.8387
717.4079
720.9949
724.5999
728.2229
731.8640
735.5233
739.2009
742.8969
746.6114
750.3445
754.0962
757.8667
761.6560
765.4643
769.2916
773.1381
777.0038
780.8888
784.7932
788.7172
792.6608
796.6241
800.6072
804.6103
808.6333
812.6765
816.7399
820.8236
824.9277
829.0523
Monthly
Rate
1407
1414
1421
1428
1435
1442
1450
1457
1464
1471
1479
1486
1494
1501
1509
1516
1524
1531
1539
1547
1554
1562
1570
1578
1586
1594
1602
1610
1618
1626
1634
1642
1650
1659
1667
1675
1684
1692
1700
1709
1717
1726
1735
1743
1752
1761
1770
1778
1787
1796
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 13
Range
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
369.
370.
371.
372.
373-
374.
375.
376.
377.
378.
379 -
380.
Hourly
Rate
10.4150
10.4670
10.5194
10.5720
10.6248
10.6780
10.7314
10.7850
10.8389
10.8931
10.9476
11.0023
11.0573
11.1126
11.1682
11.2240
11.2802
11.3366
11.3932
11.4502
11.5075
11.5650
11.6228
11.6809
11.7393
11.7980
11.8570
11.9163
11.9759
12.0358
12.
12.2172
12.2783
12.3397
12.4014
12.4634
12.5257
12.5883
12.6513
12.7145
12.7781
12.8420
12.9062
12.9707
13.0356
13.1008
13.1663
13.2321
13.2983
Bi-Weekly
Rate
833.1976
83?.3636
841.5504
845.7581
849.9869
854.2369
858.5080
862.8006
867.1146
871.4502
875.8074
880.1864
884.5874
889.0103
893.4554
897.9226
902.4123
906.9243
911.4589
916.0162
920.5963
925.1993
929.8253
934.4744
939.1468
943.8425
948.5617
953.3045
958.0711
962.8614
967.67 7
972.51~1
977.3767
982.2636
987'110~
174
992.
997.0713
1002.0567
1007.0669
1012.1023
1017.1628
1022.2486
1027.3598
1032.4966
1037.6591
1042.8474
1048.0617
1053.3020
1058.5685
1063.8613
Monthly
Rate ~eer Hourly Bi-Weekly
Rate Rate
1805
1814
1823
1832
1842
1851
1860
1869
1879
1888
1898
1907
1917
1926
1936
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
2076
2086
2097
2107
2118
2128
2139
2150
2160
2171
2182
2193
2204
2215
2226
2260
2271
2282
2294
2305
381. 13.3648 1069.1806
382. 13.4316 1074.5265
383. 13.4987 1079.8992
384. 13.5662 1085.2987
385. 13.6341 1090.7252
386. 13.7022 1096.1788
387. 13.7707 1101.6597
388. 13.8396 1107.1680
389. 13.9088 1112.7038
390. 13.9783 1118.2673
391. 14.0482 1123.8587
392. 14.1185 1129.4780
393. 14.1891 1135.1254
394. 14.2600 1140.8010
395. 14.3313 1146.5050
396. 14.4030 1152.2375
397. 14.4750 1157.9987
398. 14.5474 1163.7887
399. 14.6201 1169.6076
400. 14.6932 1175.4557
401. 14.7667 1181.3329
402. 14.8405 1187.2396
403. 14.9147 1193.1758
404. 14.9893 1199.1417
405. 15.0642 1205.1374
406. 15.1395 1211.1631
407. 15.2152 1217.2189
408. 15.2913 1223.3050
409. 15.3678 1229.4215
410. 15.4446 1235.5686
411. 15.5218 1241.7465
412. 15.5994 1247.9552
413. 15.6774 1254.1950
414. 15.7558 1260.4660
415. 15.8346 1266.7683
416. 15.9138 1273.1021
417. 15.9933 1279.4676
418. 16.0733 1285.8650
419. 16.1537 1292.2943
420. 16.2344 1298.7558
421. 16.3156 1305.2496
422. 16.3972 1311.7758
423. 16.4792 1318.3347
424. 16.5616 1324.9264
425. 16.6444 1331.5510
426. 16.7276 1338.2087
427. 16.8112 1344.8998
428. 16.8953 1351.6243
429. 16.9798 1358.3824
430. 17.0647 1365.1743
Monthly
Rate
2317
2328
2340
2351
2363
2375
2387
2399
2411
2423
2435
2447
2459
2472
2484
2497
2509
2522
2534
2547
2560
2572
2585
2598
2611
2624
2637
2650
2664
2677
2690
2704
2717
2731
2745
2758
2772
2786
2800
2814
2828
2842
2856
2871
2885
2899
2914
2929
2943
2958
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 14
RanSe Hourly Bi-Weekly
Number Rate Rate
431. 17.1500 1372.0002
432. 17.2358 13 8.8602
433. 17.3219 13~5.7545
434. 17.4085 1392.6833
435. 17.4956 1399.6467
436. 17.5831 1406.6449
437. 17.6710 1413.6781
438. 17.7593 1420.7465
439. 17.8481 1427.8503
440. 17.9374 1434.9895
441. 18.0271 1442.1645
442. 18.1172 1449.3753
443. 18.2078 1456.6222
444. 18.2988 1463.9053
445. 18.3903 1471.2248
446. 18.4823 1478.5809
447. 18.5747 1485.9738
448. 18.6577 1493.4037
449. 18.7609 1500.8707
450. 18.8547 1508.3751
451. 18.9490 ' 1515.9169
452. 19.0437 1523.4965
453. 19.1389 1531.1140
454. 19.2346 1538.7696
455. 19.3308 1546.4634
456. 19.4274 1554.1957
457. 19.5246 1561.9667
458. 19.6222 1569. 766
459. 19.7203 1577.~254
460. 19.8189 1585.5136
461. 19.9180 1593.4411
462. 20.0176 1601.4083
463. 20.1177 1609.4154
464. 20.2183 1617.4625
465. 20.3194 1625.5498
466. 20.4210 1633.6775
467. 20.5231 1641.8459
468. 20.6257 1650.0551
469. 20.7288 1658.3054
470. 20.8325 1666.5969
471. 20.9366 1674.9299
472. 21.0413 1683.3046
473. 21.1465 1691.7211
474. 21.2522 1700.1797
475. 21.3585 1708.6806
476. 21.4653 1717.2240
477. 21.5726 1725.8101
478. 21.6805 1734.4392
479. 21.7889 1743.1114
480. 21.8978 1751.8269
Monthly
Rate
2973
2988
3002
3017
3033
3048
3063
3078
3094
3109
3125
3140
3156
3172
3188
3204
3220
3236
3252
3268
3284
3301
3317
3334
3351
3367
3384
3401
3418
3435
3452
3470
3487
3505
3522
3540
3557
3575
3593
3611
3629
3647
3665
3684
3702
3721
3739
3758
3777
3796
481.
482.
483.
484.
485.
486.
487.
488.
489.
490.
491.
492.
493.
494.
495.
496.
497.
498.
499.
500.
501.
502.
503.
504.
505.
506.
507.
508.
509.
510.
511.
512.
513.
514.
515.
516.
517.
518.
519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
526.
527.
528.
529.
530.
Hourly
Rate
22.0073
22.1174
22.2279
22.3391
22.4508
22.5630
22.6759
22.7892
22.9032
23.0177
23.1328
23.2484
23.3647
23.4815
23.5989
23.7169
23.8355
23.9547
24.0745
24.1948
24.3158
24.4374
24.5596
24.6824
24.8058
24.9298
25.0545
25.1797
25.3056
25.4321
25.5593
25.6871
25.8155
25.9446
26.0743
26.2047
26.3357
26.4674
26.5998
26.7328
26.8664
27.0007
27.1358
27.2714
27.4078
27.5448
27.6826
27.8210
27.9601
28.0999
Bi-Weekly
Rate
1760.5861
1769.3890
1778.2359
1787.1271
1796.0627
1814.
1823.1386
1832.2543
1841.4156
1850.6227
1859.8758
1869.1752
1878.5210
1887.9136
1897.3532
1906.8400
1916.3742
1925.9560
1935.5858
1945.2637
1954.9901
1964.7650
1974.5888
1984.4618
1994.3841
2004.3560
2014.3778
2024.4497
2034.5719
2044.7448
2054.9685
1065.2434
2075.5696
2085.9474
2096.3772
2106.8590
2117.3933
2127.9803
2138.6202
2149.3133
2160.0599
2170.8602
2181.7145
2192.6230
2203.5862
2214.6041
2225.6771
2236.8055
2247.9895
Monthly
Mate
3815
383~
3853
3872
389,
3911
3930
3950
3979
3999
4010
4033
4050
4070
4090
411~
413~
4152
4173
419~
4215
4236
4257
4278
4300
4321
4343
4364
4386
4408
4430
4452
4475
4497
4520
4542
4565
4588
4611
4634
4657
4680
4704
4727
4751
4774
4798
4822
4846
4871
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 15
Range
N~"'~'5~r
531.
532.
533.
534.
535.
536.
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544.
545.
546.
547.
548.
549.
550.
551.
552.
553.
554.
555.
556.
557.
558.
559.
560.
561.
562.
563.
564.
565.
566.
567.
568.
569.
570.
571.
572.
573-
574.
575.
576.
577.
578.
579-
580.
Hourly
Rate
28.2404
28.3816
28.5235
28.6661
28.8094
28.95 5
29.09~2
29.2437
29.3900
29.5369
29.6846
29.8330
29.9822
30.1321
30.2827
30.4342
30.5863
30.7393
30.8930
31.0474
31.2027
31.3587
31.5155
31.6730
31.8314
31.9906
32.1505
32.3113
32.4728
32.6352
32.7984
32.9624
33.1272
33.2928
33-4593
33.6266
33.7947
33.9637
34.13 5
34.30~2
34.4757
34.6481
34.8213
34.9954
35.1704
35.3462
35.5230
35.~
35.
36.0585
Bi-Weekly
Rate
2259.2295
22 O. 256
22~.~783
2293.2876
2304.7541
2316.2779
232?.8592
2339.4985
2351.1960
2362.9520
2374.7668
2386.6406
2398.5738
2410.5667
2422.6195
2434.7326
2446.9063
2459.1408
2471.4365
2483.7937
2496.2127
2508.6937
2521.2372
2533.8434
2546.5126
2559.2452
2572.0414
2584.9016
2597.8261
2610.8152
2623.8693
2626.9886
2650.1736
2663.4245
2676.7416
2690.1253
2703.5759
2717.0938
3327
2758.0543
2771.8446
2785.7038
6305
2827.6987
2841.8371
2856.0463
2870.3266
2884.6782
Monthly
Rate
4895
4919
4944
4969
4994
5019
5044
5069
5094
5120
5145
5171
5197
5223
5249
5275
5302
5328
5355
5382
5408
5436
5463
5490
5517
5545
5573
5601
5629
5657
5685
5713
5742
5771
5800
5829
5858
5887
5916
5946
5976
6006
6036
6066
6096
6127
6157
6188
6219
6250
Range Hourly Bi-Weekly
~'~r Rate Rate
581. 36.2388 2899.1016
582. 36.42OO
584. 36.7851 2942.8059
585. 36.9690 2957.5199
586. 37.1538 2972.3075
587. 37.3396 2987.1691
588. 3?.5263 3002.1049
589. 37.7139 3017.1154
590. 37.9025 3032.2010
591. 38.0920 3047.3620
592. 38.2825 3062.5988
593- 38.4739 3077.9118
594. 38.6663 3093.3014
595. 38.8596 3108.7679
596. 39.0539 3124.3117
597. 39.2492 3139.9333
598. 39.4454 3155.6330
599. 39.6426 3171.4111
600. 39.8409 3187.2682
601. 40.0401 3203.2045
602. 40.2403 3219.2206
603. 40.4415 3235.3167
604. 40.6437 3251.4932
605. 40.8469 3267.7507
606. 41.0512 3284.0895
607. 41.2564 3300.5100
608. 41.4627 3317.0125
609. 41.6700 3333-5975
610. 41.8784 3350.2655
611. 42.0878 3367.0168
612. 42.2982 3383.8519
613. 42.5097 3400.7712
614. 42.7222 3417.7750
615. 42.9358 3434.8639
616. 43.1505 3452.0382
617. 43.3663 3469.2984
618. 43.5831 3486.6449
619. 43.8010 3504.0781
620. 44.0200 3521.5985
621. 44.240 3539.206
622. 44.461 3556.902
623. 44.683 3574.687
624. 44.906 3592.560
625. 45.131 3610.523
626. 45.357 3628.576
627. 45.584 3646.719
628. 45.812 3664.953
629. 46.O41 3683.278
630. 46.271 3701.694
Monthly
Rate
6281
6313
6344
63?6
64O8
6440
6472
6505
6537
6570
6603
6636
6669
6702
6736
6769
6803
6837
6871
6906
6941
6976
7011
7046
7081
7117
7152
7188
7224
7260
7296
7333
7370
7407
7444
7481
7518
7556
7594
7632
7670
7709
7747
7786
7825
7864
7903
7943
7983
8023
Resolution No. 95-113
Page 16
Range Hourly Bi-Weekly
Number Rate Rate
631. 46.502
632. 46.735
633. 46.969
634. 47.204
635. 47.440
636. 47.677
637. 47.915
638. 48.155
639. 48.396
640. 48.638
641. 48.881
642. 49.125
643. 49.371
644. 49.618
645. 49.866
646. 50.115
647. 50.366
648. 50.618
649. 50.871
650. 51.125
651. 51.381
652. 51.638
653. 51.896
654. 52.155
655. 52.420
656. 52.683
657. 52.943
658. 53.208
659. 53.474
660. 53.741
661. 54.010
662. 54.280
663. 54.551
664. 54.824
665. 55.098
666. 55.373
667. 55.650
668. 55.928
669. 56.208
670. 56.489
3720.202
3738.803
3757.497
3776.284
3795.165
3814.141
3833.212
3852.378
3871.640
3890.998
3910.453
3930.005
3949.655
3969.403
3989.250
4009.196
4029.242
4049.388
4069.635
4089.983
4110.433
4130.985
415'1.640
4172.400
4193.262
4214.230
4235.301
4256.478
4277.760
4299.150
4320.646
4342.249
4363.906
4385.780
4407.709
4429.748
4451.897
4474.156
4496.527
4519.010
Monthly
Rate
8063
8103
8144
8184
8225
8267
8308
8349
8391
8433
8475
8518
8560
8603
8646
8689
8733
8776
8820
8864
8908
8952
8996
9040
9085
9130
9175
9220
9266
9312
9359
9406
9453
9500
9548
9596
9644
9692
9740
9789
Range
Number
671.
672.
673.
674.
675.
676.
677.
678.
679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.
686.
687.
688.
689.
690.
691.
692.
693.
694.
695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.
Hourly
Rate
56.771
57.055
57.340
57.627
57.915
58.205
58.496
58.788
59.082
59.377
59.674
59.972
60.272
60.573
60.876
61.180
61.486
61.793
62.102
62.413
62.725
63.039
63.354
63.671
63.989
64.309
64.631
64.954
65.279
65.605
Bi-Weekly
Rate
4541.605
4564.313
4587.135
4610.071
4633.121
4656.287
4679.568
4702.966
4726.481
4750.113
4773.864
4797.733
4821.722
4845.831
4870.060
4894.410
4918.881
4943.476
4968.193
4993.034
5017.999
5043.089
5068.304
5093.646
5119.114
5144.710
5170.434
5196.286
5222.267
5248.378
Monthly
Rate
9838
9887
9936
9986
10,036
10,086
10,137
10,188
10,239
10,290
10,341
10,393
10,445
10,497
10,550
10,603
10,656
10,709
10,763
10,816
10,870
10,925
10,979
11,034
11,090
11,145
11,201
11,257
11,313
11,370
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor, and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~leil, City Engineer
Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspec~
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT
14644, LOCATED AT THE EAST END OF CAMELLIA COURT EAST OF
BERYL STREET, SUBMITTED BY JORGE GARCIA
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject
agreement extension and security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public
improvements for Tract 14644 were approved by the City Council on June 4, 1992, in the following
amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond:
Labor and Material Bond:
$85,000.00
$42,500.00
The developer, Jorge Garcia, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said improvement
agreement due to the continual slow economic conditions. Copies of the Improvement Agreement
Extension are available in the city Clerk's Office.
Respectfully submitted,
William J.e~il//7~'&c57
City Engineer
WJO:SMG:sd
Attachment
Garcia & Associates
Architecture · Planning · Urban Design · Interiors
Member American Institute of Architects
10722 Arrow Route
Suite 604
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
909:287 7673
FAX 90~ 980 5130
June 27, 1995.
Mr. Steve M. Gilliland
Public Works Inspector
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Gilliland
Subject:
TRACK #14644
I would like to request an extension of the approval Track
#14644. Start of construction has been delayed due to the state
of the economy.
Enclosed pleased find (3) notorized copies of the Improvement
Agreement Extension form and a check in the amount of $251.00 for
the extension fees.
Shoul you have questions pease contact me at your earliest
convenience.
Si er:~8~
CO: i e
Enclosures
QI
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 14644
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on July 19, 1995, by Jorge Garcia as
developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically
described therein, and generally located at the east end of Camellia Court east of Beryl Street; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said Tract 14644; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by
good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement
Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia
hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and
the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement
Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest
thereto.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~leil, City Engineer
Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Insp ,
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR CUP 93-17, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
HAVEN AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET
RECOMMENDATION:
The required street improvements for CUP 93-17 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is
recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorized the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of
$12,933.00.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
CUP 93 - 17 - located on the northwest comer of Haven Avenue and Banyan Street
DEVELOPER:
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church
6080 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Release:
Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $12,933.00
Respectfully Submitted,
William J. O~leil
City Engineer
WJO:SMG:sd
Attachment
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 93-17 AND AUTHOR/ZING
THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 93-17 have been
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work
complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a
Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~Neil, City Engineer
Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspect -_~:7--:.' '
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR CUP 94-11, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW
ROUTE AT OAKWOOD PLACE
RECOMMENDATION:
The required street improvements for CUP 94-11 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is
recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorized the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of
$20,750.00.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
CUP 94-11 - located on the north side of Arrow Route at Oakwood Place
DEVELOPER:
Release:
Faithful Performance Bond (Street)
Respectfully Submitted,
William J. O~Neil
City Engineer
WJO:SMG:sd
Attachment
BHP Steel, USA
1120 Arrow Rome
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
$20,750.00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 94-11 AND AUTHORIZING
THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 94-11 have been
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work
complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a
Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County.
ORDINANCE NO. 541
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT NO. 95-01, CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR
1.38 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN
STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 209-062-01.
Ao Recitals.
1. The Northtown Housing Development Corporation has filed an application for
Development District Amendment No. 95-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance and Exhibit "1" attached
to this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to
as "the application."
2. On May 24, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing. On June 21, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance 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 Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 24, 1995, and to this Council during the above-referenced public
hearing on June 21, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council
hereby specifically finds as follows:
The application applies to approximately 1.38 acres of land,
basically a rectangular configuration, located on the south
side of Main Street approximately 288 feet east of
Archibald Avenue and is presently vacant and
undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as
Industrial Park; and
The property to the north of the subject site is designated
Low Residential and is developed in-part with single family
residences and in-part vacant and undeveloped. The
property to the west i~ designated Industrial Park and is
developed. The property to the east is designated Low
Residential and is developed. The property to the south is
designated General Industrial and is in-part railroad right-
of-way, in-part vacant and undeveloped, and in-part
developed with single family residences.
Ordinance No. 541
Page 2
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development within the
district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with
related development; and
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the
Land Use Element; and
eo
This amendment would not be materially injurious or
detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have
a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
properties.
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:
That the subject property is 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
That the proposed amendment would not have significant
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties;
and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
General Plan.
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 recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
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.
That, based on the environmental assessment, no
significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
Pursuant to the provision'~ 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
Ordinance No. 541
Page 3
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-l-d) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Council approves Development District Amendment No. 95-01 changing the Development Districts Map
from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential for 1.38 acres of land located on the south side of Main Street
approximately 288 feet east of Archibald Avenue (Exhibit 1 ).
6. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or
word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs,
sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 541
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO. 542
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIALAREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-01 REMOVING FROM THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP 1.38 ACRES DESIGNATED
INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA 17) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288 FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 209-062-01.
A. Recitals.
1. The Northtown Housing Development Corporation has filed an application for Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance and in Exhibit "1" attached to
this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industdal Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred
to as "the application."
2. On May 24, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing, and on June 21, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance 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 Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-
referenced public headng on May 24, 1995, and to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing
on June 21, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby
specifically finds as follows:
The application applies to approximately 1.38 acres of land,
basically a rectangular configuration, located on the south side of
Main Street approximately 288 feet east of Archibald Avenue and
is presently vacant and undeveloped. Said property is currently
designated as Industrial Park (Subarea 17); and
The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low
Residential and is developed in-part with single family residences
and in-part vacant and undeveloped. The property to the west is
designated Industrial ParKand is developed. The property to the
east is designated Low Residential and is developed. The property
to the south is designated General Industrial and is in-part railroad
fight-of-way, in-part vacant and undeveloped, and in-part developed
with single family residences.
7/
Ordinance No. 542
Page 2
This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the
General Plan and will provide for development within the district in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related
development; and
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land
Use Element; and
This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to
the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on
the environment nor the surrounding properties.
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:
That the subject property is 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 not have significant impacts
on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General
Plan.
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 recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance
with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended,
and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated therounder; 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 on the environmental assessment, 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-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
Ordinance No. 542
Page 3
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Council approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-01 removing from the Industrial Area
Specific Plan Land Use Map 1.38 acres designated Industrial Park (Subarea 17) located on the south side of
Main Street approximately 288 feet east of Archibald Avenue (Exhibit 1 ).
6. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word
of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction,
or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and
words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published
within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 542
Page 4
Ir-JNIIU.
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 19, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TAXICABS
When the Taxicab Ordinance was first adopted in 1992, the City Council made a
commitment to review the ordinance after it had been in place for a while. Earlier
this year, the City Council took testimony on this issue and formed an ad hoc
committee to look at possible changes to the ordinance. The ad hoc committee, Mayor
Pro Tem Gutierrez and Councilmember Curatalo, have met and discussed the matter
and these amendments are the result of those discussions.
The proposed amendments make six primary changes to the existing ordinance.
These changes are listed below.
The amendments require that all drivers be covered by worker's compensation
insurance as required by state law.
The amendments add a "Convenience and Necessity" clause to the ordinance.
This section would require that a taxicab company prove to the City Council
that there is a public need for their taxicabs and that current levels of service
are not adequate. In the past, this item has been discussed in terms of
providing a company a monopoly. However, the City Council is the one that
makes the decision of convenience and necessity and can allow for more than
one company. This clause gives the City Council more control over who is
providing service to our residents. The current ordinance allows for anyone
with no criminal history and the proper insurance to start a taxicab service in
the City. This section allows the City Council more discretion in approving
applications for providing taxicab service.
The amendments require that all taxicabs have taximeters that have been
certified by the County Division of Weights and Measures.
The amendments allow the City to accept taxicab drivers permits from other
jurisdictions if those permits meet our minimum standards. This would bc
implemented by having the Chief of Police review each applicant's permit and
cross checking it with the issuing agency. If the Chief of Police is satisfied, hc
will inform the City to allow the driver to operate. If the Chief of Police is not
satisfied with the permit and information supplied by the applicant, hc will
recommend that the applicant go through the City's permit process. This
process is the same as the current process and involves fingerprinting and a
background check by our Police Department.
5. The amendments expand the grounds for denying or revoking a taxicab
AMENDMENTS TO TAXICAB ORDINANCE
July 19, 1995
Page 2
driver's permit to include the sale of illegal drugs; assault or battery or other
violent behavior against a person; any conviction of a violent felony, no
matter how long ago it occurred, if the City has reasonable cause to believe the
person could pose a threat.
The amendments include a section of requirements for taxicab drivers to
follow. These requirements include such things as keeping a log of
passengers and pick-up/drop-off points; wearing a uniform such as a hat or
vest with identifying insignia; and keeping the cab clean.
The ad hoc committee felt that these changes would increase the number of taxicab
drivers coming in to get their permits and would give the City more control over the
taxicab companies operating on our streets. Making it easier for drivers to come in
and get permits from the City and requiring taxicab companies to prove their
necessity to the City Council will help enhance public safety. The intention of the
proposed changes is to not create a monopoly but to provide for greater public safety.
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
ORDINANCE NO. . K'b/'/%
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
TAXICAB SERVICE AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
ordains as follows:
Section
Section 8.30.030 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a
new subsection "K" to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"K. Unless otherwise provided by law, evidence that
the applicant has procured workers compensation
insurance covering any and all drivers to be utilized by
the applicant should a taxicab service permit be
issued."
Section
Section 8.30,040 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words and
figures, as follows:
"8.30,040 Issuance of a taxicab service permit.
"Upon the furnishing of all the information
required by Section 8.30.030 and payment of the required
fee under this Chapter, the Administrative Services
Director shall set a date and time of not less than ten
(10) nor more than forty-five (45) days thereafter for a
public hearing concerning the application to be
conducted before the City Council, and shall give notice
of the time so set, at least five (5) business days
before the date of said hearing, to the applicant, by
first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at the address
set out in the application, and by publication of the
application in a daily newspaper of general circulation
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on two different days.
"At the time set for the hearing of the
application, the Council may examine the applicant and
all persons interested in the matter set forth in said
application, and shall determine whether or not the
applicant has satisfied all requirements of this Chapter
and, further, whether or not the public interest,
convenience and necessity justify the issuance of the
permit. If it be found by the Council that all
1
77
requirements of this Chapter have been satisfied and
that the public interest, convenience and necessity
justify issuance of the permit, it shall, by motion or
resolution, order the Administrative Services Director
to issue a taxicab service permit. Any applicant denied
a taxicab service permit shall be notified in writing of
such denial and the grounds upon which such denial is
based.
"The following factors shall be weighed with
the burden upon the applicant to show public need and
necessity:
"A. The inadequacy of existing taxi services.
"B. The population density and socio-economic
characteristics in the proposed area of operation.
"C. Type and frequency of transportation
service needed in the proposed area of operation.
"D. Existing public transportation patterns,
schedules and service levels and the impact of the
application upon such service.
"E. Traffic and parking conditions.
"F. The probable permanence and quality of
the services offered by the applicant.
"G. The character of taxi service proposed by
the applicant as demonstrated by: the proposed use, if
any, of a radio communications system, the proposed use
of terminals and private and public taxi stands, the
time of day and night when service is to be offered, and
the proposed number and character of vehicles.
"H. The financial status, character, and
responsibility of the applicant as demonstrated by: the
applicant's ability to provide, maintain and operate the
number of vehicles proposed to be operated in accordance
with the character of service proposed in the
application, the applicant's criminal and driving
record, if any, as well as credit record and evidence of
liability and worker's compensation insurance.
"I. The experience of the applicant in
taxicab service operations as an owner, manager, or taxi
driver, as described in Section 8.30.030H.
"Upon receipt of an application and prior to
making a determination of public interest, convenience
and necessity, each holder of a City-issued taxicab
service permit shall be notified in writing that an
application has been filed and of the date and time of
the public hearing to consider said application."
Section
Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
hereby is amended by the addition of a new Section 8.30.065 to
read, in words and figures, as follows:
"8.30,065 Taximeters - Required.
"A. Except as otherwise provided by law, each
taxicab shall be equipped with a taximeter that has been
inspected and certified by the County Division of
Weights and Measures. Each taximeter shall have affixed
to it written or other evidence that such taximeter has
been so inspected and is currently certified.
"B. Except as otherwise provided by law, it
is unlawful for any person operating a taxicab to
operate such vehicle unless it has approved rates
conspicuously posted for passenger observation, and
unless it is equipped with a taximeter of such type and
design as approved by a County Division of Weights and
Measures. It shall be the duty of every permittee
hereunder using any taximeter to, at all times, keep
such meter accurate. Such meters shall be subject to
inspection from time to time by any police officer of
the City or any authorized inspector delegated to this
purpose. Upon the discovery of any inaccuracy of a
taximeter, the permittee shall remove or cause to be
removed any vehicle equipped with such taximeter from
the streets of the City until such taximeter has been
correctly adjusted and certified by the County Division
of Weights and Measures."
Section
Section 8.30,070 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words and
figures, as follows:
"8.30,070 Taxicab driver's permit required.
"A. It is unlawful for any person to accept
any person as a passenger in a taxi within the City, or
otherwise provide transportation services by taxi
beginning in the City, without having a current taxicab
driver's permit issued pursuant to this Chapter.
"B. Notwithstanding subsection A, above, the
Administrative Services Director may accept current
taxicab driver permits issued by another city or county
where such city's or county's permitting requirements
meet the minimum standards of this Chapter and, in the
Director's discretion, provide for the safety of the
residents of the City. In such case, a taxicab driver
may operate with that permit in lieu of a permit issued
by the City of Rancho Cucamonga."
Section
Section 8.30.090 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words and
figures, as follows:
"8.30,090 Grounds for denial or revocation of a
taxicab driver's permit. A taxicab driver's permit may
be denied or revoked on the following grounds:
"A. The driver does not possess a valid Class
3 driver's license issued by the State of California, or
any other permit or license required by law;
"B. The driver has been convicted of a crime
within the last five (5) years which involved:
"1. Fraud or dishonesty with respect to
any member of the public;
ee2
alcohol or drugs;
Driving while under the influence of
"3. Injuries to any member of the public
as a result of such driver's operation of a taxi;
"4. Any assault or battery, or other
violent behavior against any person;
"5. The sale of illegal drugs.
"C. The driver has been convicted of driving
a taxicab recklessly within the preceding two years;
"D. The driver has repeatedly and
persistently violated the traffic law of the city,
county or state;
"E. Within the last five (5) years:
"1. The driver has driven any passenger
in a taxicab which the driver knew or should have known
was not in good order and repair;
"2. The driver has violated any of the
provisions of this Chapter;
"3. The driver has charged any person
more than the established rate for taxicab service;
"4. The driver has had any permit to
operate a taxicab revoked;
"F. The driver has made false statements on
an application submitted under this Chapter;
"G. The driver is required to register under
Section 290 of the Penal Code of the State of
California;
"H. The driver has been convicted of a
violent felony at any time and the Director has
reasonable cause to believe that such driver continues
to constitute a threat to the public health, safety or
welfare;
"I. The driver is not at least eighteen (18)
years of age."
Section
Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
hereby is amended by the addition of a new Section 8.30.105 to
read, in words and figures, as follows:
5
"8.30.105 Requirements applicable to taxicab drivers.
"Each taxicab driver:
"A. shall keep an accurate, legible record of
all passengers carried, the pick up and drop off points,
and the date and time carried. This record shall be
available for up to one year for review by the Director
or designee thereof.
"B. shall not, when otherwise available for
hire, refuse to transport anyone requesting a ride
except when the safety of the driver or passenger may be
jeopardized by such transportation.
"C. shall wear a distinctive uniform with an
emblem, badge or insignia, and similar color scheme
identifying the driver's association with a permitted
taxicab service.
condition.
shall keep the taxicab in good mechanical
"E. shall charge only those rates as
submitted on the application or such rates as have been
approved by the Director in writing.
"F. shall keep the taxicab in a clean and
sanitary condition."
Section
permittees.
Application of Ordinance to existing
Each taxicab service and taxicab driver holding a
current taxicab service or driver permit, issued by the City, as
of the effective date of this Ordinance, may continue operating
pursuant to such permits until the expiration thereof, whereupon
compliance with the additional conditions and restrictions
imposed by this Ordinance shall be required. Further, nothing
herein shall excuse any violations of Chapter 8.30, nor affect
any prosecution thereunder, occurring prior to this Ordinance
becoming effective.
Section ~. Penalty for Violation.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership,
or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person, firm,
partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this
Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars or
by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or
corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed,
continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or
corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided
in this Ordinance.
Section !. Civil Remedies Available.
A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance
shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through
civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or
permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for
the abatement of such nuisance.
Section ~Q. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrased,
or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to
be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently be
declared invalid of unconstitutional.
Section 11.
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the
City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
PASSED this day of , 1995.
Mayor
Rancho Cucamonga Complaint Summary - (June 22, through July 17, 1995)
Time & Date
Reported Customer Name Nature of Problem
1 6/22 9:30am Mrs. DeCristofaro Poor Picture
2 .6/26 10:30am ? Poor Reception
3 "';: 6/26 9:55am Cada Matchwin Missed Appointment
4 6/26 Elaine Yenovkian Rates
5 '6/26 10:10am Mike Braymer MOR Music interrupting KCET
6 6/28 10:45art Larry Chavez
7 6/28 10:15am Jeff King
8 7/3 Chester Thompson
9 7/5 William Bolton
10 7/6 8:30am Dennis Augustine
11 7/10 1:50pro Karen Smith
12 7/10 4:30pm Matthew Wilder
13 7/11 10:20art Salley Campbell
14 7/11 2:30pro Ned Marsh
15 7/11 4:00pm Paul Stoddard
16 7/12 3:00pm Joan Howard
17 7/13 9:30am Dan Everson
18 7/17 9:20am Dorothy Cox
19 ~. 7/17 9:20am Vito Palisano
20 7/17 1:40pm Rocky Bettar
21 7/17 4:10pm Alex Ghibaudo
Poor Reception/Disney Problem
Poor Reception
Discontinuance of Premium Guide
Upset about rates, Franchise Fees
PEG Fees and FCC Fees
Confusion about appointment time
Converter box IostJ stolen - Customer
disputes having to pay for it"
HBO off for 4 days/installation problem
Wants billing cycle changed
Cross Country disconnected service.
Account still in billing with Marks Cable.
Not receiving channels 2 - 8.
Converter Box not working
Converter deposit fee on bill.
Billing Dispute
Billing Dispute
Poor Reception
Pay-Per-View not working.
Couldn't get through on phones.
Marks CableVision Response
Problem was due to defective ~ V set - not cable. Verified by TV Repairman,
Customer did not leave valid name, address or phone number with city.
Unable to respond.
Rescheduled at customers convenience. Credit issued for inconvenience.
Complaint received in wring from city. Customer did not request response.
KCET is received by Marks by a microwave link with Comcast. The Comcast
switch needed reset. Problem has been corrected.
A technician responded to, and corrected problem on 6/28.
Cable replaced. Reception problem corrected,
Complaint received in wri'dng from city. Customer did not request response.
Franchise Fees and Peg Fees are imposed by the city. FCC Fees were allotted
as per 1992 Cable Act. Customer did not request response,
Customer contacted and appointment time clarified and scheduled to customers
satisfaction.
Ms. Smith contacted on 7/10. She could not take call at that time. Unable to
reach her since, nor has she called me. She will have to pay for converter box.
Reception problem corrected - customer given 2 weeks credit for inconvenience
We can not customize billing cycles, for every customer
Account disconnected and billing problem resolved to customers satisfaction.
Damaged drop cable. Cable replaced on 7/17.
A technician exchanged Ms. Howards converter box on 7-13.
Apology given to Mr. Everson. Deposit removed from account.
Billing problem resolved to customer satisfaction.
Mr. Palisano's account was delinquent because he had a returned check on his
account plus a $15 returned check charge. Mr, Palisano was contacted on
7/17 and these charges were explained to him.
Service call scheduled at customers request for late afternoon on 7/18.
We experienced technical difficulties during the COPA America Soccer Games.
Phone lines were busy due to an influx of calls between 3:00pm and 4:20pro.