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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983/11/02 - Agenda Packetft�AMO ACTIONS Crff OF }t RANC7 p C1."1V0D%A CITY COLTl�1(,'IL z AGENEA U > 1977 Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California November 2, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDRR A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. Called to order at 7:30 S. Roil Call: BuAuet X Dahl R , Frost A Schlosser k , and Mikels x C. Approval of Minutes: October 17, 1983 and October 19, 1983. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Thursday, November 3, 1983 - HISTORICAL COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center, b. Presentation of a donation by the Alta Loma Riding Club to the City's Heritage Park Develonment Fund. c. Presentation of Proclamation commending the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce for the 1983 Nine Festival. 3. 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. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83 -11 -2, and Payroll ending 10 -16 -82 in the total amount of $162,086.14. b. Forward Claim (CL83 -43) against, the City by Philip Jacobs to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. Approved 5 -0 Approved 5 -0 City Council Agenda -2- November 2, 1983 c. Forward Claim (CL83-44) against the City by Karen Iskades to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. d. Forward Claim (CL83 -45) against the City by Econolite Corporation to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. e. Forward Claim (CL83 -46) against the City by Steven Dale Brockman to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. f. Approval of a Resolution adopting annual spending limitations. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. g. Approval of Sapphire Street sidewalk improvements project (06- 25 -71) and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion, and to release bonds. Release Performance Surety $30,902.29 Release Retention $ 3,147.31 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. h. Approval of amended map of final map TR 12090 submitted by USA Properties located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Feron Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT 1209G. City Council Agenda -3- November 2, 1983 i. Approval of amendments to the Salary Resolution No. 83- 182. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 83- 182. j. Approval of modification of the City Manager's life insurance policy as provided in Employee Agreement. 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOL FENCE HEIGHT REVISION. Staff report by Jerry Grant. ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (second reading) Approved 5 -0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FCR S'n IMiMTNG POOL FENCING. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HERITAGE Approved 5 -0 PARK Heritage Park, a forty acre public park site located at the southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl, will be reviewed for environmental determination and site plan design. Staff report by Dill Holley, Community Services Director. C. NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DISTRICT MAP. This is for review and conaideratlon of the proposed Development Code and Map to replace the current Interim Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission has been reviewing the conducting public hearings on the proposal over the last three months and is recommending approval of the amended draft. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. ORDINANCE NO. 211 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE. City Council Agenda -4- November 2, 11983 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PUBLICATION IN ACCORDA "';F WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 369331c)l2) - DEVELOPMENT CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP. 5. NON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS None submitted. 6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS Approved 5 -0 A. REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL Received 8 Filed Report SCHOOL DISTRICT. Frank Cosca, Central School District Superintendent, has requested time to provide the City Council with an overview of the educational facilities within the Central School District. B. AlENMENTS TO SHERIFF'S CONTRACT Staff report by Lauren Approved 4 deputies per Wasserman, City Manager. contract amendments 5 -0 C. ROUTE 30 STATUS REPORT. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, puade Received A Filed Report and Douglas, Inc., consultants for the Route 30 Implementation Study, will discusz t;.e status of their work and summarize the alternatives developed in their interim report. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to Ex. Session not to reconvene. 10 October 17, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting An adjourned meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, October 17. 1983 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. The purpose of the meeting was to adopt the 1983 -84 Program of Service. Mayor Mikels called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finanrc Director, Harry Empey; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Building Official, Jerry Grant; and Sheriff's Captain, Thomas Wickum. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION — PER30NM ISSUES. Item discussed first. • Mayor Mikels announced that Council would adjourn to a Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. The meeting, reconvened at 6:35 P.M. with all members of Council and staff present. Mayor Mikels stated that Council had agreed to the following employee salary and fringe benefit package for 1983 -84; 1. Salary adjustment of 5 percent. 2. Health Care Adjustment to increase the health premium to $225 per month. 3. Increase in the Dental Plan Mr. Wasserman stated that staff would get with the Employee Committee in the morning,, to discuss this with them. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for any comments from the employees. There was no response. 11 Page 2 1. APPROVAL OF MF.MORANDNM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Memorandum of _ Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 198344. The agreement provides for services to be provided to the City with reimbursement at the rate of $12,000 per year. Mr. Wasserman went over the MOU explaining the differences between what is being proposed and the former contract. Mr. Frost stated he would rather that the agreement include a date of June 30th so that it would be reviewed yearly as we do all our agreements. Presently the MOU provides that the agreement would be continuing until termination. Mr. Schlosser stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to he independent of the City as soon as possible, and concurred with Mr. Frost that a date should be inserted. Discussion continued amongst the Councilmembers regarding whether a sunset date should be added in order to review the agreement yearly. 110TION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the Memorandum of • Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce as written by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. DISCUSSION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. Mr. Wasserman stated that there was now $438,515 available for appropriation. He then proceeded to go throught the list of significant issues yet to be approved by Council: a. One additional 80 -hours sheriff's patrol unit $ 91,676 b. Civic Center Reserve $ 75,000 C. Park Development Fund $150,000 d. Printing /Planning Department $ 18,000 e. Fencing and Screening for City property $ 6,000 f. Transfer to Reserve for Changes in Economic Conditions $ 67,930 g. Clerk typist /City Clerk's Office $ 8,300 h. Management Development Training $ 5,000 I. Accountant I position reclassified to Accountant II $ 1,500 Mr. Dahl stated there was another item which he had requested which was a Park Planner. lie felt that this position was needed since we are still in the designing stage of parks. Mr. Holley has been a one -man operation and is • over- rxtended. He felt a lot of the work could be done inhouse instead of using consultants, thus saving the City some money. • Page 3 Mr. Buquet asked where this person would be located Mr. Dahl stated this brought up another point, and that was of utilizing extra space which was available in the building next to the city offices. Mr. Buquet felt there would be problems with this location since it was upstairs. Mr. Holley stated they had thought of tnis. Actually, it would not be any different from what takes place now. People come to the main counter at the switchboard. They are notified that someone is there, and they come out. If they were located upstairs, then the same procedure would be followed. They would go to the person. Mr. Wasserman stated that a Park Planner would be an entry level position at a cost of about $26,000. In their calculations, an amount had been included to cover the expense of spare this employee. Mr. Empey stated they calculated this based on 75 to 85 cents per square foot, • or $6300 for space for 8 months. We did not come up with any particular place, only considered the cost. Mayor Mikels stated that we will need more space if we add any new employees. Mr. Wasserman stated that Mr. Grant had just informed him that it was a State law that handicap facilities be available. Staff would have to check into this. Discussion continued between Council and staff regarding the issue of space. 4. ADOPTION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE. MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet. to amend and adopt as final the Interim Budget with the available resources as follows: Motor Vehicle in lieu fees $175,933 Interest Earnings /reserves $171,099 Cont,inpency $128,687 Building Permits $ 70,954 Buatness Inv. Prop. Tax $ 47,771 Elinination of Helicopter Charge $ 43,712 Sheriff Dispatchers 1 61,719 $528,490 42 to cover the following expenditures and transfers into reserves: Page U 80 hour Patrol Unit $ 91,676 City Employee package E 61,982 Sheriff Personnel Adj. $ 61.719 Park Planner $ 26,317 Printing /Planntrig $ 18,000 Clerk Typist /City Clerk $ 8,300 Management Development $ 5,000 Reclassification /Accountant I to Accountant II $ 1,500 and to transfer the non - appropriated, non- designated reserves to reserves for changes in economic conditions. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk I • October 19, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, October 19, 1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Present were Council members: Richard M. Dahl; Charles J. Buquet II; Phillip D. Schlosser; James C. Frost; and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Hobert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: MOTION: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to • approve the minutes of September 7, September 21, and October 5, 1983. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 2:00 p.m. - COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON FOOTHILLS COMMUNITY PLAN - Board of Supervisors Hearing floor, 175 'West Fifth Street, San Bernardino. b. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Lions Park Community Center. c. Friday, October 21, 1983, 4:00 -7:00 p.m. - MEASURE "W" RECEPTION - Board of Realtors Office, 217 West 2nd Street, Upland. d. Thursday, October 27, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center. e. Pre" ?lta6le" of B deflation ty the Alto 6eme RIAI"g Blat to the 6ityae Weri6age Park Development Fwad. Item removed by the Group. They wished to present, donation at the time Heritage Park comes to the City Council ^or review. Ll Page 2 I 1 LJ f. Mayor Mikels announced that the "Purple Foot Award" for the grape stomping contest at the Wine Festival was won this year by Councilman Jim Frost. It was won by Councilman Phil Schlosser last year. g. Mr. Wasserman requested an added item to the Agenda: 6D - Resolution No. 83 -182 which adjusts the salaries per a previous action of Council. Mr. Wasserman also requested a closed session at the end of the meeting to discuss a legal matter. h. Chief Feuerstein stated that in 'light of the article which appeared in the Daily Report, he wanted to assure the Council and the RDA that the Fire District would continue working in partnership with the City staff and the Redevelopment Agency, They have been meeting regularly with staff and the City Manager to come up with some possible joint City and District facilities and would continue to do so. 3• CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83- 10 -19, and Payroll ending 10 -2 -83 in the total amount of $1,199,491.15. b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Warrants for July for $3,625.60; August for $96,110.47; and September for $2,341.30. Approval of . Assessment District 82 -2 Warrants for July for $3,690,00; for August for $64,740.00. c. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -10) for On -Sale Beer and Wine Public Premises License for LeRoy and Rose Gamble, Ernie's, 7157 Amethyst Avenue. d. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -20) for On -Sale General Eating Place, for N. L. Disco, Inc., Nite Lite Hens A Herfords, 8874 Foothill Boulevard. e. Forward Claim (CL83-40) against the City by Ernest Sims to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. f. Forward Claim (CL83-41) against the City by James Glidewell Hall to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. g. Forward Claim (CL83 -42) against the City by C.V. Holder to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. h. Request approval of Resolution establishing the Recreation Services Enterprise Fund and its operational guidelines. This is an item which brings the method of collecting and disbursing fees within the Recreation Service Division into compliance with current Governmental Accounting Standards. C, J U Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RECREATION SERVICES ENTERPRISE FUND. i. Approval of agreement for reconstruction of south half of Lemon Avenue between Xiusman and Archibald Avenue in conjunction with Tract 963= L, Crismar Homes; in amount of $50465. Funds to be drawn from the Systems Development Fund. j. Approval of intent to annex Tracts 12237, 12337 -i, i2237 -2 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No. 15, and set public hearing for November 16, 1983. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -172 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTANANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1, • 12237 -2). RESOLUTION N0. 83 -173 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCPAING AND LTnHTTNG ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO. (TRACTS 12237, 12337 -1, 12337 -2). k. Approval to summarily ordering the vacation of unimproved road right -of- way north of Arrow Route and east of Vineyard Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -174 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED ROAD NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE. 1. Apprrval of acceptance of street improvements and storm drain for Parcel Map 61977 located on the east side of Haven Avenue at 7th Street; Cadillac- Fairview Development, developer. Page 4 • RESOLUTION NO. 83 -175 .A RESOLCTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 6194 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION. m. Release of Bonds: Tract 10569 - located on Placer, east of Archibald Avenue; owner, William Lyon Co. Accept Mainten. Guarantee Bond (road) $ 3,300 Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $176,600 S.A. 80 -13 - located on the southeast corner of Sapphire and Highland; owner, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LUS Church. Release Faithful Perform. Bond $55,000 P.M. 7555 - located on the southeast corner of Milliken and 8th Street; owner, O'Donnell, Brigham. • Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $86,000 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -176 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 10569 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -177 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR S.A. 80 -13 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMUNGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 7555 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. • Page 5 n. Approval of Redevelopment Agency action regarding Judicial Validation Action for future tax allocation bond issues RESOLUTION NO. 83 -179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ITS RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS RELATING THERETO. o. Approval of destruction of city personnel records which are no longer required by law. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090. • p. Approval of reclassification of Administrative Analyst to Assistant to City Manager at a monthly salary range of ;2096- 2550 /mo. q. Set public hearing date of November 2, 1983: Draft Development Code. r. Set, public hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for consideration of revocation or modification to the conditions for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 - Roars Head. An appeal for the review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and distrubances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. a. Set Public Hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 83 -04A - Carnelian Investments. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from low residential (2 -4 du /ac) to medium residential (4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the R -1 -8500 zone (R -3 pending) located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201 - 214 -08. t. Set Public, Hearing, date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and Zone Change 83 -03 - Carnelian Investments. A change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (multiple Family residential) on approximately 7 acres of land located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 214 -08. 4 Page 6 • MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. N. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOH. PENCE HEIGHT REVISION. A proposal for the reduction of a fence height required around swimming pools. Staff report by Jerry Grant, Building Official. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 122 -A. ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 122 -A. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayrr Mikels set second reading for Ordinance No. 122 -A for November 2, 1983. • No items submitted. 5. HON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 6A. STATUS REPORT ON A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD. A resident who was concerned about a recreational vehicle storage yard located at 10191 Base Line Road had requested time on the Agenda. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented a staff report summarizing the problem and the present status of the same. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was: Donald K1ng, planning consultant, 9375 Archibald, representing Mr. Musa. He passed out some photographs for Council to look at. He stated that the situation is that Mrs. Danna has developed and constructed a vehicle storage yard on her property located south on Base Line, east of Turner in violation of the Rancho Cucamonga zoning ordinance. In the development of this facility, drainage patterns were created which have and are cuasing F- L] L • Page 7 physical and monetary damage to the welfare and property of Mr. Musa. City staff has outlined the problems. Mr. King then proceeded to give background of the approval of the storage yard. On behalf of his client he requested Council direct the City Attorney to offer Mrs. Danna one of the following alternatives: Alternative 1. Cause to have adequate drainage plans prepared and approved to prevent flooding on Mr. Musa's property. Such approval by the City Engineer should occur before October 31. Cause to have these approved drainage improvements installed prior to November 21. Alternative 2: If Mrs. Danna cannot agree with the former then City Council order all vehicles removed from the illegal facility by November 1 and have illegal improvements removed, regrading the site to its previous condition, thereby eliminating the drainage problems that were created. The regrading should be done by November 21. They requested Council direct the City Attorney to order Mrs. Danna to immediately install a temporary sandbag berm at a size adequate to prevent further flooding this year on Mr. Husa's property. Further, request that Council direct the City Attorney to proceed promptly with Code action as • provided for in the zoning ordinance if one of these choices is not completed on November 21. Mrs. Danna, 10191 Base Line, owner of the recreational storage yard, stated nhe started the storage yard in June 1976 before the City was incorporated. She claimed Mr. Musa had not talked to her about any of this. She had received registered letters from him the last three years on Christmas eve stating he was having someone come out to survey and wanted her to remove everything off his property. As far as she knew she had nothing on his property. Last Christmas eve she received a bill for water damage which she ignored. This was the first she knew of any water damage that Mr. Huss had. The first she heard is when she received a call from Mr. Vairin that there were problems. She was trying to get authorization from the Edison Company for an easement in order to install . a drainage across their property. So far, there has been no response. Mr. Dougherty stated the issue of the sandbagging is something the city council could direct. Obviously if not complied with, it could be a factor in the Counci'l's derision at a later time on the use under a CUP if in fact the Development Code is adopted is it is presently written. Essentially though any flooding caused by one property owner onto the property of another is a legal matter which can be resolved in court in a private law suit. Its not something the City should get involved in except insofar as we are attempting to correct the zoning violation. 19 Page 8 • Mr. Schlosser stated that if sandbagging is done, all you would do is move the water east or west onto someone else's property. He felt this might create more problcao and did not feel it was a wise decision to require the sandbagging. Mr. Vairin concurred and stated he wanted Mr. Musa to be aware that a sandbag berm would not stop water from coming across to his property, but would divert the water from the stable area to somewhere else on his property. Mr. Dougherty asked Mr. Vairin if this would result in a concentration of the flow at given points. Mr. Vairin stated yes. The water is being concentrated now because Mr. Musa built a trench on his side of the property which is taking the water to the same area. Mr. Dougherty asked if the concentration is a result of his action on his property? Mr. Vairin stated that was correct. Mr. Dougherty felt that in view of the discussion that requiring sand bagging might be counter productive and would perhaps expose the upstream property • owner to a greater degree of liability. Mayor Mikels pointed out to Mrs. Danna that generally speaking ignorance of the law is no defense. The fact that her property has been altered and it has an ilijegal negative impact on the neighbor can be serious. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to instruct Mrs. Danna to install the necessary drainage improvements, to obtain the necessary easements, obtain final approval of grading plans and accomplish the tasks by December 1st. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Mikels NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED; Frost *e11 *• Mayor Mikees called a recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. 400,** 6B. CONSIDERATION OF SHERIFF'S CONTRACT. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. • • Page 9 Mr. Wasserman stated that the contract before Council is a contract which reflects the revised method for providing the services that was tentatively approved in dune. The additional deputies and the issue of the dispatchers will be handled through an amendment to the contract. Amount of the contract will be $2,548,243 for existing levels of service. Lt. Futscher pointed out that the contract does not reflect the two new deputies approved on October 17. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Buquet asked who presently pays for maintenance on the automobiles'? Mr. Wasserman stated that we pay maintenance at 7 cants per mile and buying the gas and oil for the vehicles. For maintenance on the automobiles, the City pays for the actual costs, but if the repairs exceed the amount allocated, then the maintenance cost would increase or decrease the next year's contract.. Mr. Wasserman stated that the helicopter services would be paid for by the County through another fund and not through the contract. • MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the contract. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 6C. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES MH RENTAL OF COMMUNITI CENTER FACILITIES_ R,,r.tal of Community Centprs to partially defray the overall cost . of operation is a common municipal practice. Adoption of these guidelines will provide Rancho Cucamonga a partial cost recovery tool with which to operate. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -181. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE RENTAL OF COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. There was no response, so the public portion of the meeting was closed. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 83 -181 and to waive frill reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5D. ADDED ITEM: SALARY RESOLUTION Mr. Wasserman reported that Council had approved adjustments in the salaries. The Resolution reflected those 19 adjustments. Page 10 • City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -182. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82 -119 RELATING TO SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR ALL FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983 -84. MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -182 and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. T. CITT ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8A. REQUEST BT ANDREW BARMA[IAN TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. Mr. Barmakian proposed that Council consider making his project an "adult only" project. This would allow him to proceed with the project. At the time when school space was available, he would change the designation. • Mr. Dougherty stated there were two decisions from the State Supreme Court stating that excluding all chilaren from apartment projects or condominiums were in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court in these cases expressly distinguished between the normal adults -only type of use and developments for senior citizens. They did leave that open. Whether or not a situation as Mr. Barmaklan proposes could be legally enforced would be pure speculation. He has no way to knowing whether the Supreme Court would depart from their already announ^_ed decision; simply because we were to allow a building to take place where no school space is available. Discussion followed regarding who would ultimately be responsible if such a development occured since there were other developers who have not yet come forth but had similar problems within the same school district. Mr. Dougherty stated that if a developer feels that a school district has arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld a school letter, then there is a mechanism whereby the developer can appeal that determination or action to the Planning Commission which would then recommend a determination to the city c,ancil. Ultimately the City Council, if it feels the school district is arbitrary or unreasonable, would have the power, on hearing the appeal, to waive the requirements. • • Page 11 " =yor Mikels pointed out the requirements of a school letter was not a State law, but one of our own requirements. W ty,t.p,y. ,r-wlty,d,,,,, .t by creating a nry ordinance- whieh roecindr that policy. The Mayor continued that it was his understanding that the Central School District has reached the capacity for the portables which are provided by the funds generated pursuant to SB 201. Mr. Wasserman stated that there was a Committee working with the school district composed of representatives ^rom the building industry. Hopefully, this will not come to the city council, but will be resolved between the school district and the developers. Mr. Dahl asked the city attorney if we would be liable if we entered into an agreement with a developer that was contrary to State law and was illegal. Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not assuming that such an agreement under these circumstances would be an illegal agreement. There is certainly an agreement to be made that there is a public purpose to be served by precluding occupance of new dwellings by children until sufficient school facilities are available. These two supreme court decisions which held that the arbitrary exclusion to children was in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As far • as the liability of City and Council, he does not see a serious exposure to monetary damage because we are not tlaking about the federal civil rights law, but a California law. There is no federal equavilent to this type of decision involving children. The most a court action could do is find the agreement unenforceable and to enjoin some enforcement. ACTION: The request was received and filed. SB. CONSIDERATION OF PILLING VACANCY ON THE PARRS ADVISORY C0MMIWEE. Mayor Mikels brought forth two names for consideration: They were Sam Punter and Molly Mitchell. He asked if there were any additional names to be added. There was no response. Those in favor of Molly Mitchell were: Dahl, Mikels Those in favor of Sam Punter were: Buquet, Schlosser, Frost Council rrquested that letters be drafted over the mayor's signature to Mr. Punter ana to all those who submitted applications but were not chosen. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adjourn to a closed session to reconvene. Mooting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:20 42 p.m. No action was taken. Page 12 MOTION; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk • • • 'R87 CITY nTjaC49 C9CA4C-J6A a r1 VFL F 4 n n A N A Y F n, n -, r i;� :!T 4 1 Inry ^1 'In 1 4 1 1. T I r I I I I,- 1 S . ITT, 1041+ 1,2. M1 1`lv4 I - - - v 1 ^M1rG .I A, I I - I 111 'R 1" 511^117 1 1 1 "T I cl 9A O1 pr 419 4�0 1'4' 1 A" J1 T r 4 I , Y �r It "A jot+l 11.9 -4x12 T 11414 111, r I I '( 'A C •L 11 111410 .1117 r1q,11 1 "411 1 1 T I I �11 r ll 15 c T 1 '4 - 1.I 19418 1'15 r GIST 11-38 I'll 1 11 IIllrI-- il,rIII 111.1 1 It '1 F" 'In `11 ":1, -1 11 11 11-11"—� cvt VG n'zA-n � 1824 . , _ l'!L F )41 02/11. lL,. 9 1 r T1, ; A �44 1 Il 1; 111 L I T,jn IVIII 41,71 ltlr°jt TFJ Cl 194%2 10.11 P4% 41" IJIRV� —.5 IrVTrW IIISS -.a 21 I.S4 4 1 41 t'45 I In,, H1111•111 lll-1 11 1'1.51 SI IJ Iry 11461 5112 1"91' ^t'.:• J—.,r I`Al 5114 1 1 - c Ll<&Z 5144 I-ITL CITY -ip�T 174AI 6141 1�111Y I-JTFRV4TTl!;iL nP I 11ws l l l 1-11 1) 9 Yr -C 1 %b Ij-P , II P I I r -:n j,"I "n' W ,7 -- r r I rP, , 114SI "" WP1 , q-' 164 1& I I IL-ViJ-A riTl, IV449 .119 l P470 &,.) 1,1!,r T ',CIL 1. t"N-11ARn 1471 67�j 1 1'471 01.1 I -I'Ll . �..l I Y 1"471 -r PA.,-.IAPA I & WAPRANT P40•CIL1A PATF ltll-RIplll In/ 111/` '0 /1' / >l R 11/02/81 DISLm"T NET 12.00- sflo.V9- I ls.nn- 112.11 )- qn.00- R%li 52.52 , �: 11"r 52 .91 LA I.117 12A.70 967 2�.O.1s 4 915.)5 t,512.s? I 14.49 4,716.10 710 1 2.1 7 S. 1, PICFO I RI167 CITY NCIKI CFCAN NnA N NAJX R VE: V E N n n R N A M F 1"414 '.vn H( KAI'fl1eN rr, Pr ±CPT 19415 ] ^01' NA9 TI'T7 UNIn'I S'ItVICr 19,4 I& 774n Ai I'A ^[•., 91L loon 7191 Nr InPnLA lN[ 19478 Tits Nni FIN nrFlrr4t ASSPC 1 'x4" `ITl 1•II4C IU S] " ^. INS]ITII 1944; 755S PACIFIC, OP0n11CTS SIIPr1.Y 1-4113 T6Tn PACTrir ^PfK C (•RAVFL r. T Ml. T5g5 P414ru 'PIK 94115 7119 PAPA Pill 1'14.6 Tn) PAT/[ SILFS rr4P t 10497 777, ^ 4 P ^P lg419 1174 PFP4RAL CF)'PNl1'm 1040." 1795 x11114 11,1 POUT LIM 10 1 1491 77% Pf POLAP Cngm)TM! R PP[CISIf1N 1'Y9 "AII`lr. SYS 1'149) TP99 IFS- -111,1 I -AT T6 10494 9055 P4'ICHIll PR 1 ^l;i.RFC 41111] T 11,405 P160 AANOn —^ ICAI CLINIC 10496 8915 9APIn RATA TVC 1949 1,- 1 nC r . -11 r, pr Vrl^r;lr•• {, A 11 3 11499 71159 RI77 CM-IIA r111TrP 11,571^, 92Jn 0•.941'71lri. 1'FAw:t Igtnl 8775 PUS,f L.I, Nf AI IgSC] A'C1 S C S 5^ 6 T 1959, 144, ;:.N P ('P fr t•JO V'A'IJ4 1'4SP4 -1" 4N nil-.1 N +T EI'Y gvr ^4 19515 9159 If "PI ". J"Y 1'1504 r =60 SIVrry LAY 61'11' PACTS 1950] A1.1 ]C!IAI '117'7 119'11( 5 1l SOR 119, SI IMS vey SN.'•P 19510 899q SWITI III JACK Ivsll V�19 vFan 11' Nt]. dn f 1 ^5 IT 110 v`N10 y�. ncII 19511 8619 S^ CAR If 1 PI[1•1 f.^ 10514 9,115 in IALTF G,S [ T 171515 145 SP.G1 -1 •, SA° ^ 11511 PF.55 S1 FKLF'TS 19511 811. STAN9IPV Pn P!qf P41VT 19519 R61n STITI^.NSPS C :-r1' Lq Slq 95P1 STr VFS '1 IL R LS 521 RI-R SkFLLIVA^ P' t: 'IgFRT 19571 743 SVIVAII. JIt I'll, 174, TI. 195"1 7571 16 ^frT Ill' VIC 3 19 P7 Rjr F TRUST 515 61 ToP w CIIC nlSI.F 195]1 Pl" TP1 CITY CP9ST 195 11 SO" r TY of UPI A-41 P 195]9 Onion IIPr NA, rrr..v 705'1 171 N, L "v' 1N11T ^1[ICF IOSj9 03gC U11l ITY I%I S'f P IF 19111 9 111 5 VAIPIN `119111 n :-131 114P YASr:U1f, 6 19533 9151' V[TI`P e ,p,,jr TNC !0514 'two W41 IN, I `R" 19535 952S WILLI AN{ Px l•'r T'r. n Y 10536 1,— Ill" Crr P'P,T I�'C 9 ^7 617 IF, • ^n 1141 110 VICF 1191A 9dlq J ":TS, 11.11.1141 1 ^519 91'1 Al" L 19•.40 9,,I A••,n S5•u)1I 19541 '"' .19'1 {n ' I"I7111 9542 91''2 Gill,'•, rA"tF 10,41 'IC't Y 10514 ]324 KI ^KA, 111191 10145 Ply 9'11TF, KIPrN 9, ' v n n1Aar I41 9v n 11 WARRANT RMI"CIILLLIF WARP 'IF FPf�✓f DISCOUNT NFT 540 1.690 in 65 7. I00 75 49 100 252 P.2ii 511 46 19 200 659 lei 6.334 I,0 I I 1 I 5,1 1 45 1 Il.t 1.1 Q!1FIF1 1• IY I Y I � Y I I • I 1 Cl r i- I • I , I i • I 1 • 1 • • • R061 C1 YY WWC# Q CAWNGA YARD P YEN F N 0 N Ir N A N E `l9[tV 9911 R ^SF. ^ J 19549 99]9 Y1,1. l°•IISA 195" aa9 fl^cf, 1'II IF to cgt Glal '1l 4 ^c, .P_M1 If l ^c53 +aa ^1 I! It C]v ^1 1 YAPPANT PFCJONCILf ll /02/83 XARR P`FFFnn }E DISCOUNT MFT I I /v /el 15.00 11 /n] /Vl 15.00 11 /m /tJ ]0.00 1L101 /Pa 39.00 f H4L VITALS 1191905.50 PAGF• 3 . I `' ti 83- 1 3 CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY 1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed nck 44 RJnd C 1 100 days offer the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRrsTIDN Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after f(crrppe (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). TO: CITY OF 34yse�,a (2"Cia h.ov,aa.s O Ctm- -s.u� 7A9iI%%I2i1A8AI5I6 P67/8 a 3 Nome o Claimant Address Zip Phone Age —2.52 S Ki �t Aue Rte U�Iwvd� Cq 4t7Rh Address to which Claimant washes (ices stint. WHEN did damage or injury occur? Sg Ito I cj ?J 7 1 WHERE did damage or injury occur? I relsi 641 h .�. Rrr w tZaea�w ppnc HOW and under what, circumstances did damage or injury occur? CCU °f,.t s.saS V eY 1 U� _ nu, �rr.Ni Uc��rl� n,nv„ muck gM ev- \o )C.a k ..,, - ( 1.T N al ek TL %e 'MW. WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) nr Ls C.wu.s,v_c99 Qr`c puZ dnws.a�y¢„Te vehiel¢,. t 19 T2 V, 1,,. , WHAT sum 2ro ybu ll oimZlnclude thle estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar ors it may he known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: (Attach estimates or bills, if possible) ten,' Al1ee._.. I eS( srol -el b ` ci. asS, Cf<, .i6\une COQ Total Amount Claimed: o $ NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Donors and Hospitals: 0< .TT s - r 1 1 7 S, -"='A. ,o n' A fi b r 9 51 DATE cnn /rnnl Sirnalure C nimnnl � — •• CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY (f 1. Claims for death injury to B T C E 1 tl E B I Y person, a to personal property must be fiQltlytI DAMCIIOsBIICl1MONG11 IDO days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). ADMINISTRATION Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than I yea after 49TO'ELrft4f!'E (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). (itu.Q G�tuus,e -•� ?�_�� TO: CITY OFn_,,ohc Cucnmona0. / !1� , .�nrc n L ,YC CIP. J&zbS l Tuns.'- i is -1. c%I-1;�e -p9- Name of Crimant // Address Zip Phone Age ysCr l'kL. 645 l�nC1n)6 _ Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent. WHEN did damage or injury occur? 0cf, , IC1 s 1gT55 5 IS P - sr � - WHERE did damage or injury occur? Arc,i�, bxj (i "Ikor-i k o{ fro* 00- HOW and under what circumstances did damage a injury occur ? -Fm,,e-\ n no. nmjL e ry RTC-\N , \)ao r -I- \,Ere. iS ecn Frua aty in 40RO or� m; \lest s \r,.sc•.t. hnit ns. rco.d. 111v,. rsm Vifs•J oil r -Front RAA: ot>_- WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) t]c c.n yc�.1 -8 of a 1u«aE \ e1e X00 AV)t �rwQ Y\Ckoc bct;.o A,(-re F-Z u..0 c.ow\dn`i CInUt, 'nr, qLi IC* WHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: (Attach estimates or bills, if possible) QV I)I,r'ct I L'-'I• I, -V\cr 1 oyr ot'i', folio. rC. s Total Amount Claimed: NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: 1 _ DATE nla 1' '! ure oo ' )ant • r CU4 1 BRIAN M. aROWN, ESQ. y p MURTAUGH, HATCHER E MILLER • 2 400 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 423 Santa Ana, California 92705 3 (714) 953 -2199 C t d s 4 Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ECONOLITE CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION 5 OCT 241983 6 7A9IIhnA2f2A415j6 A 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA I 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 JOAN M. MASON, WILLIAM F. ) CASE NO: OCV 30621 VON HUBEN, and CAROL JEAN VON HUBEN, ) 12 ) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, ) (Government Code 13 ) Section 910) 14 V. ) ) • FREDERICK DOCKS, etc., et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 18 You are hereby notified that ECONOLITE CORPORATION, 19 whose address is 3360 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California 20 92806, claims damages from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for 21 contribution and indemnity, computed as of the date of the 22 presentation of this claim in the amount of one million dollars. 23 This claim is based upon an accident that occurred on 2' July 11, L982, at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 25 Fourth Streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga wherein 26 decedents William and Beatrice Von Huben were killed after a ® 27 collision occurred between their vehicle and a vehicle driven 28 by Frederick Docks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 24 25 26 27 28 It is alleged that at all times pertinent to this action, the City of Rancho Cucamonga owned, controlled and , maintained property located adjacent to the above - described intersection, which.property consisted, in part, of large amounts of dirt and debris which obstructed the view of the drivers approaching the above - described intersection. It is further alleged that said intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property by reason of the visual obstructions referenced above. In addition, the intersection was in a dangerous condition for the reason that its traffic signals, signs and devices, were non - operational, a condition that had occurred prior to the subject accident and of which the defendants, and each of them, had actual constructive notice, but had failed to take protective measures. Econolite Corporation has been named as a defendant in • an action now on file with the San Bernardino County Superior Court, case number OCV 30621 brought by the heirs of William and Beatrice Von Ruben alleging that defendant Econolite Corporation caused or contributed to the wrongful death of William and Beatrice Von Huben as alleged in the plaintiffs, complaint. Econolite Corporation therefore will seek damages from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for full or partial indemnification for any judgment or settlement obtained by the plaintiff against Econolite Corporation. All notices regarding this claim should be sent to Brian M. Brown, c/o Murtaugh, Hatcher 6 Miller, 400 North Tustin r �+ 1 I 1 \J nia 92"S,. 14 953 -2199 TAUGR, Tcm 6 MILLE or Defendant, CORPORATION 1 Avenue, Suite 423, Santa Ana, Cali • 2 Dated< October 12. 19A'1 3 / 4 5 r \- 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 27 28 nia 92"S,. 14 953 -2199 TAUGR, Tcm 6 MILLE or Defendant, CORPORATION WARNING: No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the above- stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson s Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 Main Street, Suite 600, Riverside, California, 92502. • DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983. LOCATICN: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8/10 mile north of 23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino, State of California. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County o` San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino 67est Distract Superior Court, case number OCV 30186. The anderlyinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident whit` . occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in a c r.olaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/ claimant filed on March 8, 1983. On or about July 19, 1933, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P. Beck, loca'toO at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101, by alternate - ethod of service mailed a summons and complaint to cur client defendant /claimant, Mr. Broc:em.an. Notice and Acknow- IoO=-ent cf Receipt for sane was not sicned. Therefore, service of "-.It cc-nl.aint was not effective until the answer by this lie`•: r. :ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino C ;u:.tv ncr.or Court, asst District, in Ontario, California, on ^ctcbor 3, 1983. The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total Cl' CLAIM AGAINST: 1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA r " 2) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VEcrsa -,2 CfTy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION NAME OF CLA I:• ±4NT: STEVEN DALE BROCiC!•'_ -l.^1 OCT 24 IM ADDRESS OF CLAIM_aNT: Steven Dale Brockman AM pV 19909 E. Honors 7 {618VA1i14213141616 Rowland Heights, California 91748 , ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEYS: Thompson 6 Colegate 3737 Main Street, Suite 600 P.G. Box 1299 Riverside, California 92502 WARNING: No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the above- stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson s Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 Main Street, Suite 600, Riverside, California, 92502. • DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983. LOCATICN: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8/10 mile north of 23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino, State of California. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County o` San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino 67est Distract Superior Court, case number OCV 30186. The anderlyinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident whit` . occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in a c r.olaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/ claimant filed on March 8, 1983. On or about July 19, 1933, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P. Beck, loca'toO at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101, by alternate - ethod of service mailed a summons and complaint to cur client defendant /claimant, Mr. Broc:em.an. Notice and Acknow- IoO=-ent cf Receipt for sane was not sicned. Therefore, service of "-.It cc-nl.aint was not effective until the answer by this lie`•: r. :ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino C ;u:.tv ncr.or Court, asst District, in Ontario, California, on ^ctcbor 3, 1983. The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total Claim Against: 1) State of California 2) County of San Bernardino 3) City of Rancho Cucamonga Claimant: Steven Dale Brockman • Page 2 indemnity, expressed and implied, and for declaratory relief as to the apportionment of danaces between Steven Dale Brockman and these governmental entities. On information and belief, it is believed that the State of California, County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga all have joint control and responsibility for the maintenance, design, construction and control over the said roadway at the place described herein. The basis of the claim at this tire is that the governmental entities, who have control, have a legal obligation to prevent a dangerous condition of a public roadway, which is on the basis of failure to place the proper traffice warnings relative to a dancerous and severe dip in the roadway, failure to properly construct the roadway pursuant to design and plan, that the original design and plans were negligently drafted and carried out all within the knowledge of the governmental entities, and that the failure to correct the dangerous condition resulted in damages to the plaintiff, Anthony Louis Martinez. It also alleced there was a failure to maintain the roadway and . to keep it in a state of repair so as to prevent a dangerous condition from arising. The actual names of the public employees, who designed, constructed or in any manner were involved in the maintenance of said roadway, are unkno•,+ to this defendant /claimant at this time. The amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff are speculative at this tine. Therefore, on the basis of this claim for indemnity and declaratory relief, no specific sum of money demanded by plaintiff is know., to this claimant at this time. The plaintiff is cla_nir.g physical injuries, making claims for medical and dental exrenses, loss of earnings, tests Of suit and general damages, for which this defendant /claimant will ask indemnity as to t: L • 01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 28, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: Finance Directp�— SUBJECT: Adoption of Spending Limitation for 1983 -84 Each year municipalities must adopt a spending limitation with regards to proceeds from taxes. The limitation is built around population growth, and the consumer price index or the income per individual whichever is lower. Attached is a copy of the calculations for 1983-84, and the resolution adopting said limitation. j ~I �'iz Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, set the spending limitation for 1983 -84 at $9,583,742. 1977 SPENDING LIMITATION CALCULATION • 1983 - 1984 Spending Limitation for 1982 -83 $9,180,093 Factors for determining 1983-84 spending limitation % Population 2.00 % C.P.I. - 2.35 Ratio of Change 1.0200 x 1.0235 1.04397% Convert to a percentate (1.04397 x 100) - 100 - 4.397% Spending limitation claculation for 1983 -84 Spending limitation for 1982 -83 + $9,180,093 Ratio % Population to % C.P.I. - 4.397% $9,180,093 x 104.397% - $9,583,742 • Spending limitation for 1983-84 - $9,583,742 • ll� • RESOLUTION NO. - /f_ � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTASILISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State of California provides that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations Iir.it of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population except as otherwise provided in said article XIIIB; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deems it to be in the best interests of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-1984. WHEREAS, The Finance Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that said appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983- • 1984 be established in the amount of $9,583,742. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983- 1984 pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of Calif- ornia be established in the amount of $9,583,742, and the same is hereby established. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriations limit herein established may be changed as deemed necessary by resolution of the City Council. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of 1983. ATTEST: 0 Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 1a Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor • {' 1 u LJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT .In al CII DATE: November 2, 1983 ,'I i; TO: City Council and City Manager is%% FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs \ty Engineer BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71) The Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvement Project has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Council approve the acceptance of the project, authorize the final payment and direct the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release performance surety and retention. RECOMNF.NDATION It is recommended that Council accept as complete the Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements and pass the attached resolution authorizing the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion and release performance surety in the amount of $30,902.29 and retention in the amount of $3,147.31. tfully submitted, LBH:RC:Jaa Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. U- 02 -01CR' A RESOLUTION OF lHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK •WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Sapphire Street Sidewalk improvements (06- 25 -71) 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, be it resolved, 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 Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels7R-ayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City ClerT jaa 0 RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN �ECOROEO MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RAMC NO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1.The undersigned is an owner of an Interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate IS: SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT> (06.25 -71) 2.The full name and address of the undersigned owner Is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base Line Road, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3,On the 2nd day of November, 1983, there was completed on the • hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in [he contract documents for: SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) A,The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: THI CITY CONSTRUCTION INC. S.The real property referred to herein is Situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: East side of Sapphire Street from Banyan Street to South of Viemar Avenue CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation, Owner LL7oyCT.- HubbS, rty ngineer I i I.� • • • u 1. STAFF REPORT F , GATE: November 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Amending Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 submitted by U S A Properties located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Ferun Blvd. Tract Map No. 12090 was previously approved on May 18, 1983 by City Council and presently is under construction. The developer has found that none of the smaller units are being sold and has requested permission to eliminate the smaller building plan thereby changing the lot lines of seven lots. This requires an amended map now submitted for approval. The Planning Commission approved this request at their meeting of October 26, 1983, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Engineer to sign the Amended Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 on behalf of the City. Respectfully submi Ved, C� LBH:' jaa Attachments it * . CITY OP RANCI 10 CUG%.VO. \GA ENGINEERING DIVISION --- VICINITY NIAP ; A N PaB� f Y 6 1 r �I III, :�. –.mot - V -`fit —"� if• -, ^I '� y� � I i I L S _ I' : "1 —', hi'I•.^ ,— ^w_., �r,•:`, r,J- .�1-s,'''•— l��.r;�ii_;�r�Yi rl';�1: � .BCxB40 M I[MY1 Blro SYPlc AL SECT NS LOT ADJU,STME.�tS t�I B�Vl�C Ill �i;i 1 CI;CA, \IO \GA � 'Trt�c.� A� 1209D 'NGINIiGRING DIVISION 9n -., VICINITY NIAP I N rag` 3 • RESOLUTION NO. al- 02 -02CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12090 WHEREAS, the Amended Map of Tract No. 12090 consisting of 128 lots, submitted by U S A Properties, Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Blvd. has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, all conditions and requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract remain in full force and affect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That said Amended Map be and the same is approved and the City Engineer is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. • AYES: NnES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk jaa 46 Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor NESOLUTION N0. 83 -182A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182 The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby amends Resolution No. 83 -182 as follows: 02XX Administrative 0202 Administrative Analyst+ 306 1,593 336 1,850 346 1,945 0204 Assistant to the City Mgr* 371 2,203 401 2,559 431 21971 0205 Assistant City Manager* 406 2,623 436 3,047 466 3,538 0259 City Manager* - - - -$ 5,417. Flat Amount - - -- PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983• AI ES: * NOES: * ABSENT: * 40 ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk I� 1, Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • 19 n Tmv na. n STAFF REPORT November 2, 1983 a tF' S� �II 197 TO: City Council ?ROM: Robert A. Rizzo Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Modification of City Manager's Life Insurance Policy as Provided in Employee Agreement Per City Council's request, the City Manager's life insurance policy coverage will be increased to $125,000 as part of his fringe benefit package. RAR:mk �f • ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15.12.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Minicipal Code is amended to read as follows: Section 15.12.110 Section 1107 added -- Swimming Pool Fencing. Chapter 11 of the Uniform Building Code is amended by aiding Section 1107 to read as follows: Section 1107 SWIMMING POOL FENCING. Every person in possession of land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, either as owner, purchaser under contract, lessee, tenant, licensee, or otherwise, upon which is situated a swimming pool, having a water depth exceeding 18 inches, shall, at all times, maintain a fence or other structure completely surrounding such pool and extending not less than five feet (5' -0 -), measured vertically, above any • walking, surface, wall or other climbable structure, within two feet (2' -01) of the exterior of the enclosure. Openings in auch fence or structure, other than those created by gates or doors, shall be of such size so that a sphere exceeding 4 inches in diameter will not pass between adjacent members. Members of such pool enclosure shall not be arranged so as to materially .facilitiate climbing or scaling by small children. Gates or door openings through such enclosure shall be equipped with self - closing and self - latching devices designed to keep, and capable of keeping, such door or gate securely closed at all times when not in actual use; however, the door of any dwelling occupied by human beings which forms any part of the enclosure herein required need not be so equipped. Required latching devices shall be located not less than four feet, six inches (4` -6 ^) above the ground. The pool enclosure shall be in place and approved by the Building Official before water is placed in the pool. EXCEPTIONS: 1. The provisions of tr.is section shall not apply to public swimming pools regulated by State Building Standards adopted by the State Building Standards Conmission. 2. Any fencing serving as an enclosure for a swimming pool, lawfully in existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance, and meeting the requirements for fencing in effect at the time of construction or the swimming pool, may be continued; however, any replacement in whole or in part, shall comply with the requirements act forth above. r� SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk • shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Gaily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: 4 ASSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor % 7 • • 0 • D v.. auwwn Gtv.mO'h MEMORANDUM , Date: October 28, 1983 To: City Council and City Manager 1977 From Hill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: Council Agenda Item 4 -B, November 2, 1983 F.nvrronmental Findings and Site Plan Review for Heritage Park Council is well familiar with the Heritage Park project: • 40 acres square in configuration (34.6 acres park, balance in flood control area); • Located southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl; • First park site incrementally purchased by City at an average cost of $9,000 + /- per acre. You have before you tonight two items: first, making environmental findings in relation to the project; and, second, taking action on the site plan i tun lf. You have vie-aed the site plan several times previously and will have another presentatior at your November 2 nesting. We have Provided as an addendum to y-,r acenda vack the design development report, which contains site plan cross s ^c cinn s, itb,strative construction elevations, and related narrative. We view the sire plan as workable, well balanced and strongly supported by the community. There should be no problem in this area. on the other issue, environmental, there may be some discussion. One res,dent living on Hillside wishes the site to remain as is or simply be turfed. He stirred his neighhors up with 'horror stories' of what was grins to no in and the negative impact that would result on their property values. When we heard of thin, we went door -to -door to each adjacent property owner alone Hil l;; i.:o, including the protester, and invited them to a meeting in the nark te .1i r:uv; their enncorns. Pnttr,m line i:: this: the sinaie protesting resident did not come to the meeting but - rlmnst all of his neighbors did, liked whet they saw, a„d szpres see; enthusiasm for the projert's success. (Members of PAC who were pn•r.ent, 14,nry, Pings!, and Vallanre, well attest to this fact.) continued ... lt/ page 2 10/20/83 memo re: Heritage Park The lone dissident, however, is an attorney and has threatened to sue us on environmental grounds. We do not believe he has any basis for success and believe he in just 'sounding off' in frustration to what he perceives as an unwelcomed change. And that is his right. If he sues... so be it. In the attached environmental documents, Parts I and II, we have 'bent over backwards' to be fair and objective. For instance, many of the questions that could have been conceivable and technically answered 'no', were answered 'yes' just to put a clarifying narrative in the record. This will become self evident as you examine the attachment. Please review the Initial Study Parts I and II as this will be the focus of the lone protester ... if indeed he intends to pursue the issue. This, however, will he a very positive item. Look for many enthusiastic people to be present to support your findings. Staff Reecom endation: is 1. Find that the Heritage Park project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and issue a Negative Declaration so stating; and, 2. Find that the Heritage Park Site Plan as developed by the Heritage • Park Citizens Design Task Force, and reviewed by the Park Advisory Connittee and City Planning Commission, be approved as presented. If I can provide further information, please advise. AH /mw attachments: Initial Study, Parts I and II PAC Minutes 7/21/93 (excerpt) Planning Commission Minutes 8/24/A3 (excerpt) Heritage Park DDR (under separate cover) 10,ritage Park Task Force Roster 40 0 AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA �NTY OF SAN RGRNARDINO I, tiaurine D.- Pagan_ -, ,do hereby certify that I am the lxgal Advertielnq clerk of THE DAILY REPORT, a daily newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, County and State aforesaid and that the attached advertisement of .___.. Fnvirunnenta I A?.sessmentAlat ire.__. ._._ for the-City . at _ Ranrlio Cucamanea, was published in said newspaper ._ One_f.1>_ time.. -. ..._ _ . to wit: October 211 1983 1 certify under penally of perjury that the foregoing is tnie and correct. �� n iLL - - -- Signatnrrl Dated at Ontario, California this _. 21s t .. _ _.. _ day of October CIT Of F FFV�OF4lM 1 NOTICE 1C. CpeOt633MFFT Ip.ry IP'm`e b7.. oYO K, IM,e •,\n�menf�,�f1µY':41ite�' port(, le 4 [mYanN I x:11. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Heritage Park APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucnmonga, P.O. Sox 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Attn: Community Services Uvp.n'trcnt_ Director NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: bill Holley, Director Community Sercires Dopartmcn., (714) 989 -1851 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Sn,d hmc <t co rncr of_Ili 11 <idc and 6c ry LJ(L rl mnn Ay f A�wc•;<or's Parcel No, 201, 151 -08 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: %o NP T -1 7 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION A 40- acre community recreation facility, including ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project area is 40♦ acres in gross size with structures limited to recreational support b�uch as restrooms snack Fars. .and service and storage huildings. with a cumlat ivrz strnetural snnare DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR US£ (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The setting is a 40 acre • The native vegetation is limited to the extreme north we<t corner of th, nnrc el generally described as the Rancho Nash spetion- 11 runerti es surroun tng t c parcel as designated in the General Plan a5 on rcaident inl, with ly the north and west sides develoned at this time. Thare is no known historical ,i nificance to the nroperty. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO. Ed T-2 �l WILL THIS PROJECT: • YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in around _ contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? none of 4" X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? caliper or more X ` 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: see attached IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. N/A _____________ _______________________________ 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, anJ that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct t, the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand tnat additional information may be required to be ubmitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Dev opment view Committee. Date 0 Signatur Title C.C17"�lrt�� I -3 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION • r The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to acco=odate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date r—pn qed to begin construction: Earliest date Of occupancy: Model 4 and : of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL I -4 �' T City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial Study, Part I page I -3: Explanation of 'YES' Answers Will this • project: Q. 1. Create a substantial change is ground contours? A. 2. Yes, however the charge will not be adverse or detrimental, The changes will be encountered in creating a more level playing surface for multi- use athletic fields and equestrian activities than is now afforded by the 85 average slope. It is not anticipated that soil will be imported or exported, but will be balanced on site. Q, 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? A. 2. The noise level will change but will not be adverse or detrimental. Currently, the noise level from the grape vineyard is very low, Any introduction of noise, therefore, results in a change. The new sound level will be c,isistant with other community parks within residential areas, and that has n•, .._d to be negative in nature. Q. 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services? A. :5. Similar to the situation descril•ed above, where no service now exists, am change is substantial. Maintenance services will provide the bulk of' f nor services to the site, with some increase in routine patrol by law enforcement officials. There will be an increase in water useage in watering the plant material to be introduced. • • '3r • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICANT: City of Rancho Cucamonga FILI%G DATE: LOG NUMBER: PROJECT: Heritage Park PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest comer, Hillside and Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). `L) YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have • significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? x b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? x _ _ c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? x _ _ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? x e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? _ x f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? x _— _ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? __ x h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or • use of any mineral resource? 2. Ilvdrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: `L) a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? 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 any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies'. i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Oaality. Will the proposal have significant result-1i W a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Det.:, iuLation of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the propotinl have significant result.=. in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? F.gL YES MAYBE NO -_ - ]L • x x x x x x - x X x x x • x _ C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results III; a. Chance in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Dcteriorntion or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? ulat ion. Will the proposal have significant remits in: . a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of tiie human population of an area? h. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? u. Factors. Will the proposal have sif,niiiennt results in: a. Chnncc in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or corn. ercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? h. 'dill project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land li,c and nimt C�msidoraHro)q. Will the n pro pp xal have signif ic.mn results in? a. A ralbst.mtial altoration of the present or planned land use of an aran? b. A conflict with any de ^;ianutiuns, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon tho qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? YES %%Y6F. NO n.a. X x X X X X X X tag--, i • X X X X Page S YES MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significane results in: ° • a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? X C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? X e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? X f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: • n. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? X 10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pat:henogenic org.misms or the exposure of people to such or;ianisms? X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of objectionable odors? X • h. An increase in light or glare? X 35 ra ;u � YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant • results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? x b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? x C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? x 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will, the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? x b. Natural or packaged gas? x C. Co=wnications systems? x d. Eater supply? x e. Wastewater facilities? x • f. Flood control structures? x g. Solid waste facilities? x h. Fire protection? x i. police protection? x J. Schools? _ x k. Parks or other recreational facilities? x 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? x M. Other governmental services? i x 11. I(n err•, and Scarce R,,sourcos. Will the proposal hava "cnifiraut results in: n. Cse of Snh Stattlial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? x r. An inoroase in the demand for development of now sources of energy? x d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? x .7 e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact an the environment is one which occur[ 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 considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). Page 6 YES MAYBE NO X • X X • X d, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X II. DISCIfSSIO7t OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). r L �7 III. Dr. Tr..RaINAT ION On the basis of this initial evaluation: a I`I I find the proposed project COCLD NOT have a significant effect L on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could hevc a significant Ueffect 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 `LAY have a significant effect on the E envirnment, and an ENVIRO`MENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Dat • `! 1 Signature Page 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial Study, part II I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers • 1. b. In constructing the park the entire surface area will be graded, smoothed, and cut and filled to accommodate to features of an approved site plan. This is disruptive but not detrimental or adverse to the environment. 1. c. Same as l.b. 1. f. Currently runoff from the site travels off site onto adjacent properties to the south . sometimes precipitating expressed concern by those owners. The proposed project will change the runoff pattern into a managed collection and harmless disposal. This is a change but one which is not detrimental or adverse to the enrironment. 2. b. Same as l.f. G, a, Currently there is, on a portion of the site, abandoned grape vineyards, These will be removed. There are groupings of native plant material and trees in the vicinity of the Rancho Bash. Much of this will be retained or replaced with like material to serve as a base for the park's 'nature area'. There will he grasses, groundcovers, varieties of trees and shrubs, not now on the site which will be introduced as desired elements of a properly appointed • municipal park. The above items represent change, however, they are neither detrimental or adverse to the environment. 10. c. Currently the majority of the site is an area comprised of vineyards, open brush and flood control improvements. These features generate little or no noise. Therefore, the introduction of any activity which generates any level of sound can be described as an 'increase'. Iloweeer, the. new nnued level will be consistent with those of other municipal parks and generally less than an elementary school site during recess /play periods. Roth of these uses, parks and schools, are an accepted and _desired part of the i'abric of residential areas, hhily it is n change, it will be neither detrimental or adverse to the environment. 10. h. 'I'iIis 1s one area of the project that will provide a significant change to the existing site ... possible activity lighting. Posniblo advor ?e impacts from activity lighting at the project, will be mitigated in several ways: Through grading and depressing the equestrian activity center below the level fall of the grade, thereby reducing light level elevation above fall of grade. continued ... • U Page 2 Initial Study, Part II City of Rancho Cucamonga I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers 2. Shielding and directing light to avoid spillage; and 3. Centel of use. while light will not directly spill onto surrounding residential properties, there will likely be a glow or a glare that will have an impact on night views of the valley from homes that overlook the park. This cannot be avoided if activity lighting is a part of the project. On balance, it is believed that positive benefit accrued from Wh feature outweigh possible negatives from glare, therefore, is acceptable. t Pitons I PAC halo'.. 7131 /85 - 1e911ar •+nano Nei9hborion r elaentn• Jack ad.... Molly Mitchell. Sharon ddamal sae eoyette and thr—. fees the audience +11 side positive eomx nt. [egardvng the park .].sign. Committee memMra ay.—.fed the Park dew ign. Committee memo. r. asked staff if the Task Force was always involved with the plan. Staff explained that the Task yore. was esp,rsible for the original site plan, technical stpport was done by start And E.S.v.. and •Jle .raga nil site plan he. repined Ne fame. Committee nambers d..cu.sed the safety necessary for play apW ra tva in the olaygrcund are.,. ge ..,ared plant nv cerla L and r"i—ted that the Jvo,lro trail Far widened to 6 feet. ' Motaonl Moved by Pifeeaa. s tended by V.11anc., that adoption TN15 SECTIaN AMENDED m! the official site plan for xeritaga Park he recterended to City Co—ril. with Ulm following pkovi.son.: 1. That the Park Advisory Committee he kept involved with defiyn devlopnent through the wrkinq drawings of the site de.vgn; and 3. The jagglnq toil width be ",,..ad to 6 feet; and D. That particular attention be paid to the safety of All p1AYgrowed ammo r +tus. Motven carried 4-0. (Atnent: Allen) Chairman Henry and Committee members expressed their a PPr[caalfon to Perreetlln Stara., Inc.. fee the excellent do "' plan fir I:e[•tage Park. Chao non wenry called (or A rece.. at 0:26 p.m. Meatine r eC an d at 0:39 p.m. with the [ellowinq member. pre.—I! Henry. Pvta,es and i,,A. Absent: Allen and Vallanc.•. Conmittee enhM s di s trd tht review of the Park Element of tha. plan. It w , the consent.. of the Committee that thla ds...... no he lahled until after the Sept —ter meeting at which the Youth Sport, Council will be invited to comment on e Park a lute,. Stet[ explained that the f.vi.ion of the Park Elemont of the Central Plan will take a veral meetings and a Additional e , tm!m be re of the pinnninn staff. are.). Staff nvthero xrlA.n <d that a document much at a General Plan offer, A rohrsnmty of law in it. guidetin It will go no - nitt.rs. c m ck le. boards And Ae.ff will .11 than.;.. Thu,. j4w nn foul of an ongnlno dornntnt of contimw•., mu.l4inr. .och as a General Plan. Committe e amber PitVi q),Otiored staff o the .tats:% of the u CormnilY l'a.:l•t.ry a•IArt. Staff r.ln[ted tha the C;1, Council ttY n rvl tnr Iwnxihle Mnet its tc car r rxnriny (ego r dingo tlsi4 Art..' �n:;t n ^ent Chairman Henry nd lee n:rl the m<e Ong At q:li h.. Mary Xble -1 CrannunitY Serval 1•:nrrra nt aMmute, amcml ... I. add top, of .:all .- arm re'. D0R /1lenta,, Park 0— E • `1 01 • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: July 20, 1983 To: PAC Members From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: Preliminary Desion Development Report: Heritage Park ri�casrc� „x H 9; Y Find attached the above described document. It would he helpful if you review it prior to Thursday's meeting. RSi will be prefacing their presentation to you with some verbal changes in the document, those changes are: 1. Increasing the 79 parking spaces to 99 by adding 5 spaces per row; 2. Increasinq the 10' equestrian trail width to 15' width; 3. Deleting reference to tensiometers in the irrigation system; 4. Roplacinq wood fencing with City standard concrete fencing, such as that which is in place at Rancho Nash and Hillside Road; 5. unify types of building materials in parlt structures (restrooms, snack bar and equestrian building). The above changes were direct to RSi by staff based on citizen comments and professional judgement. Pleacp. ftivl free to call out any concerns over and above those cited above that you have with the plan. If you wish changes, say so. A last concern, which will not be easily dealt with, is the bottom line estimited cost of the project. RSi is more in touch than we are with current pticinq, so may well be correct. It does seem somewhat high however. Lastly, w� apologize for the lateness of delivery of this material. nll /nw n AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC4IEL, REMPEL Chairman Stout advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date should his attorney advise him not to enter into a lien agreement with the City. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. USE DETERMINATION - BLANCO INVESTMENTS - A request to determine if a mini - storage facility would be consi ere similar to other uses permitted in the C -2 zone. Proposed project to be located on the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street. Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report explaining that this review by the Commission was not for approval of the project, but to gain a consensus of the Planning Commission if this type of use could be considered in the C -2 zone, Chairman Stout stated that this could be a permitted use, however, would prefer to see it under the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit. • There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that a mini- storage facility could be considered a permitted use in the C -2 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. + + + + + 7:50 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened J. HERITAGE PARK SITE PLAN REVIEW Bill Holley, Community Services Director, presented the Heritage Park site plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley stated that the Parks Advisory Commission provided extensive input into the site plan. Peter Patassi addressed the Commission on behalf of the Parks Advisory Commission expressing their support of the park plan, Chairman Stout stated that the plan saemed to meet the needs of the community well. Lvery • Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1983 q `f • Commissioner Barker agreed that the plan considered all facets of the community. There was a consensus of the Commission that approval of the site plan be forwarded to the City Council. x x x * x PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Stout requested that the Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head Bar and Restaurant facility in the Rancho Plaza be placed on suspension and brought before the Planning Commission in thirty days for consideration of modification or revocation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this item be heard at a public hearing on September 28, 1983. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adjourn to the Foothills Community Plan meeting to be held on August 30, 1983. 8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned • Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam Secretary ® Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 24, 1983 CWRI0.\'ITY TASK FORCE (Committee for the Design of Heritage Park) • Pam Henry 9013 Caballero Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 - Christine Benoit Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent 6020 Eastwood City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rebecca Martin 8083 Sarre, lane Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Orrin Kiefer Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91750 8810 Strang Lane Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Sue Draper 6127 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Sharon Romero 8242 Rosebud Street Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 • Mar', Pfister 9002 liillside Road Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Snn Grasso 7838 Valle Vista Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 .hoe Whit, P.O. Box 5 Etivanda, California 91739 John fill c/o Alta Loma School District P.O. Box 370 Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 Peter Pitassi 7417 Kinlock Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Molly Mitchell 9028 Camellia Ct. Rancho Cucamnnga, Ca. 91701 H 15 0 • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �uG+nrovc STAFF REPORTS °r U > 19-17 DATE: November 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MA ABSTRACT: In the course of the last twelve months, the Planning Division staff has been compiling and working on a new Development Code and Development Districts Map to replace the Interim Zoning Ordinance now in effect. The first public draft was completed this summer and was distributed. The Planning Commission began reviewing and conducting workshops in August and recently concluded their review and recommendation on October 12, 1983. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Development Code based upon the changes and recommendations which the Commission has made to the document. Attached to this report is the Planning Commission staff report of October 12, 1983 which summarizes the majority of the Planning Commission work as well as transmits the Planning Commission's recommendation for the adoption of the Code. Tonight the Code is being presented to the Council for first reading of the Ordinance as well as adoption of the attached Resolution which authorizes the City Clerk to publish a quarter page ad in the newspaper to legally advertise the hearing and review of this document. This report is intended to be a brief overview of the process and the basis for the creation of the new code. i, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 2 • II. REVIEW PROCESS: The Planning Commission conducted four workshops beginning August 16, 1983, as well as two additional public hearings at regular Planning Commission meetings. The workshops were established in order to allow public input fror all persons Involved and desiring to have input on the content of the Development Code. Representation from the Building Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Real Estate Board, and the general public was provided at the workshops. Favorable comments, as well as constructive suggestions were received at the workshops and are reflected in the final Draft Development Code. Attached is a letter from the Building Industry Association acknowledging its support of the Code. We have received like comments from the Board of Realty and Chamber of Commerce and expect to receive written communication from the Chamber shortly. At tonight's hearing, staff does not propose to go through a detailed review and analysis of each of the chapters and sections of the Code. We feel it would be more productive at this time to review any specific questions and concerns the Council or public may have and to address ourselves to those areas. The action needed this evening is the adoption of the Resolution authorizing the necessary legal publication, as well as first reading of the Ordinance. If there are areas of concern or questions which are not resolved at the first reading, we would anticipate addressing those issues and answering them at the second hearing on November 16, 1983. In preparation of the final draft, staff found an area which will require correction prior to final print of the text. In the Residential Chapter, the VL Residential District was inadvertently included in the optional development standards. The VL Residential District should not be included as it would not be consistent with adopted Council Resolution No. 82 -81 which reserves the half -acre area of the General Plan for individual half acre lots, not clustering. Unless Council has any questions on this matter, staff will remove it from the optional standards for the final printing of the text. III. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE: A, What was the goal and basis for its creation? When staff first began plannng the Development Code format, we assembled the many ordinances and policies which had been previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. It became apparent that these ordinances had become somewhat fragmented and difficult to view in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, an overall goal for the Development Code was • • CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 3 to develop a comprehensive document that provides guidance to all development - related issues with appropriate standards in order to promote and assure the health, safety, and welfare of all Rancho Cucamonga residents. Further, this goal was refined into the following objectives: 1. Develop a clear, concise, and simple format for easy interpretation and understanding by the general public. 2. Combine all like development requirements in one document for easy access and information gathering. 3. Coordinate and implement the existing General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. 4. Coordinate development guidelines and standards with existing and proposed specific plans and planned communities. 5. Bring together and coordinate all previously adopted land use policies and ordinances, update and provide other needed sections. • 6. Develop new enern, conservation guidelines, performance standards and design guidelines. 1. Whenever possible, simplify the planning and development process without sacrificing the intent of the Genral Plan for quality development. B. How will it relate to other planning documents? Over the last five years, the City has adopted four other land use regulatory documents; the Industrial Specific Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Victoria Planned Community, and the Terra Vista Planned Community. These documents contain land use controls as well as developmwent and design guidelines and standards for these specific areas. The area which these plans cover encompasses approximately twu- Lhirds of the City's land mass, therefore leaving the area generally west of Haven and north of the industrial area to be regulated mainly by the City's Development Code. In formulating the Development Code, much consideration was given to the makeup of these other plans and how they would • relate to one another, A major step towards relating the documents and standards to one another was the change of traditional zoning districts, such as R -1, R -2, and R -3, to the land use districts which are used throughout the planned communities, specific plans, and the General Plan, which are VL, c �^ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 4 L, L, LM, etc. Other items, such as landscaping requirements, design guidelines, animal regulations, and parking regulations, were written to be consistent throughout the entire city area. C. What is the Code's basic contents? In all, the Draft Development Code contains ten c apters. The first three chapters deal mainly with administration, permits, and review process. Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal more specifically with actual land use development standards and regulations. The last chapter, Chapter 10, is an overlay district chapter which is intended to be expanded as the need arises for special overlay districts, Each chapter is arranged in a similar fashion, particularly those dealing with standards and regulations. In each case, the land use regulations are located in the same section of each chapter, followed by development criteria, performance standards, and design guidelines. The style of each chapter has been to combine standards into matrix form for easy access and comprehension. The Development Code has essentially evolved into a compilation of the many ordinances and policies which have been adopted over • the last couple of years. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendation for the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code and Development Districts Map. Tonight it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to move ahead with the legal publication and to conduct first reading of the attached ordinance. Re �pec fully �sd�mitted, �7 ) hicl( Gomez — -_� Citp Planner RG:MV:jr Attachments: Letter from Building Industry Association Commission Resolution No. 83 -123 Planning Commission Staff Report 10/12/83 City Council Resolution 11- 02 -03CR City Council Ordinance • L! r) i 1 IE C 07mv nc o n arum r77r w nann7r n STAFF REPORT DATE: Octoher 12, 1983 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner ps' tiG+ � y � G �Ilj 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ME AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP ABSTRACT: This is the final public hearing before the Planning Commission tor review and comment on the proposed Development Code and Development District Map. A Resolution for a final recommendation to the City Council is being provided for action by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: Since August 16, 1983, the Planning Commission has been con acting a number of public workshops for the specific purpose of reviewing the Draft Development Code text and the Development District Map. During these workshops the Building Industry Association, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, has provided input with regard to the text, graphics and map and are in basic support of its general concepts and programs. The Commission has modified the Code to best reflect the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and public input. Tonight's meeting is intended to be a public hearing to review the Commission's actions, as well as any final actions desired by the Commission. The remainder of this report focuses upon the major actions of the Planning Commission on a chapter -by- chapter basis. Additionally, this report discusses the environmental assessment for the Development Code. II. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION ACTIONS: A. Chapter 1 - Administration: 1. Section 1.1 - Revisions /Modifications: This was rewritten to include a description and listing-7o the difference between minor and major revisions and the process by which such revisions would be made. 2. Section 1.8 Appeals: The existing appeal process which the City currently follows, which includes appeals to the City Council for all staff and Commission actions. PLANNING COMMISSI' STAFF REPORT Environmental Ass sment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 2 2. Section 2.5 Minor Exception'. The title of this section was reworde rom "Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order not to conflict with existing state law regarding variances. 3. The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement, findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify this chapter and eliminate the redundancies. CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Section 3.i Pu ^pose and Intent; Additional purpose statements were added to this section to reflect those which were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance. • • 3. Y Business License Section: This section was eliminated in favor of having appropriate statements and signatures on the Business License application. 4. Section 1.13 - Code Enforcement; This section was modified to e iminate the majority ot`Ue reference to code enforcemnt as this is covered in another section of the Municipal Code. The remainder of this section was modified to deal mainly with noise abatement procedures. 5. Non - Conforming Use Section: This was modified to eliminate precise amortization time periods for non - conforming uses. Instead, non - conforming uses will be regulated in terms of expansion and intensifications and would be eliminated over a long period of time through natural attrition. 6. Section 1.14 - Definitions: This section has been continually mo i ie to incorporate comments received throughout the hearings on terms which require definitions. The final document which will be presented to the City COnn.:il will contain all of the final definitions and changes. . CHAPTER 2 - PERMITS: 1. Section 2.3 - Conditional Use Permits: This section was modified to provide precise pr -- oceduresr an applicant or the Planning Ccavnissinn to modify, suspend, or revoke any Conditional Use Permit. 2. Section 2.5 Minor Exception'. The title of this section was reworde rom "Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order not to conflict with existing state law regarding variances. 3. The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement, findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify this chapter and eliminate the redundancies. CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Section 3.i Pu ^pose and Intent; Additional purpose statements were added to this section to reflect those which were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance. • U PLANNING COMMISSr STAFF REPORT C Environmental Ass sment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 3 2. Section 3.3 - Residential Growth Management P,ev iew 5 stem: The tit e o this section was amen ed to inc u e re.erence to growth management in order that it is clear that much of the current growth management philosophies and requirements are included within this code. CHAPTER 4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1. Modifications to Tab to 4.3 Use Re ulations were made to list eed and tack stores accessory to commercial stables) and dormitories (accessory to college or schools) as accessory uses in the residential zones. Table 4.3 E was amended to clarify the keeping of ponies in conjunction with the keeping of horses. The final wording will be submitted to the City Council. Also, the keeping of birds and rodents beyond the specified limit would require a Conditional Use Permit. The commission decided that the basic number regulations in conjunction with the performance standards and noise regulations would be utilized to control this area. equ ipme. ^.t repair and storage regn lotions. 3. Tables 4.4 -B and C Development_ Standards have been modified and fine tuned to become more easib le and workable. As the staff has been reporting to the Commission, the basic and optional standards were developed in an attempt to implement the original objectives of the General Plan ranges to create transitions and neighborhood compatibilities. Under the optional standards if a developer desires to go beyond the mid -point of a density range, there would be additional requirements expected of the development. Some of these requirements include increased open space, solar energy, increased setbacks, and landscaping. Based on the Commission's last review of these tables,a copy of the latest revised tables is attached for your review and any final comments. 4. Section 4.5 - Absolute Policies were added to Chapter 4 to comTment t e other requ�r-ements of the Growth Management system such as the dcvelop^_r.t ttandards, design guidelines, and the performance standards. 5. Section 4.6 - F was added to include the policies with regard to the installation of sidewalks. 6. Section 4.6 - M.4 was added to regulate sattelite dish antennas within residential districts. ® 7. Section 4.7 -O was modified to simplify the vehicle and equ ipme. ^.t repair and storage regn lotions. PLANNING COMMISSI- STAFF REPORT Environmental AS sment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 4 • E. CHAPTER 5 - COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DISTRICTS 1. Section 5.2 - Districts: The Administrative Professional (AP) District was changed to be titled "Office Professional" (OP). 2. The Use Re ulation Table was modified slightly to add some a itiona uses as Con itional Use Permits within the OP District. 3. Special Use Re uiations were added for adult businesses, ry tempora o fice modu es, and shopping centers. 4. Section 5.4 - G was added to provide reference to trails which Fay be required in a commercial development to be consistent with the trails map. F. CHAPTER 6 - PARKING REGULATIONS The requirement for allowing the usage of compact car stalls was reduced from a maximum of 50% to 35 %. G. CHAPTER 7 - SPECIFIC PLANS AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS • No major changes were made to this chapter. H. CHAPTER 8 - OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 1. Table 8.3 - Use Regulations: This section was amended to change the density requirement of the dwelling units within the open space district from one unit per net buildable 40 acres to one unit per 40 acres. 2. _Section 8.4 - Site Develo Kent Re ulations: Site dimensions an setbacks were eci a to be determined on a site -by -site basis based upon topography, water and drainage, circulation, and other environmental factors. I. CHAPTER 9 - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1. Fire safety regulations were changed to reflect the requirement�e Foothiil Fire Protection District. 2. The Planning Commission decided to require that a statement be placed on all deeds for parcels which are located along fault lines to inform them of the location of faults and the possibility for seismic activity. • mot. PLANNIIIG COMMISS� STAFF REPORT Environmental As sment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Pace 5 • :l. CHAPTER 10 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS 1. All of the Overlay Districts were combined into one chapter. 2. The Mobile Home Overlay District was eliminated by the Commission as a result of state legislation which limits the amount of control the City has over the design and regulation of mobile home parks. 3. An Equestrian Overlay District was added to implement the resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the equestrian area and the keeping of animals within that area. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code is considered part of the same project as the General Plan since it is the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. Since the Development Code is a related project to the General Plan, state environmental planning law allows the Planning Commission to determine that the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared for the General Plan is adequate in covering any potential significant adverse impacts that could be created as a result of the Development Code. This finding can be made as long as the • Planning Commission finds that the Development Code does not cause a substantial change in any of the goals or policies, or that no new additional information beyond which was presented in the General Plan EIR has become available that would alter the findings or the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that would not require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development Code is implementing the existing goals and policies of the General Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to environmental impacts during the General Plan EIR. IV, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Ce :mission conduct the final public hearing for final consideration of the proposed Development Code and Development District Map. Attached is a Resolution recommending approval and adoption of the Develooment Code and the Map to the City Council. Additionally, attached is the draft Ordinance that will be presented to the City Council which repeals the existing interim ordinances and other development- oriented ordinances that have been incorporated into the Development Code, Re sp ctfully'mitted, 49 Rick �ome City Planner RG:MV:jr C C RESOLUTION NO. 83 -123 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION • RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE RANCHO CUCN40NGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.08, 17.12, 17.16, 17.20 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, such action is necessary to implement the General Plan pursuant to Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the Development Code is an implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant adverse impacts. Further, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds: A. No nubstantial rhanges are proposed in any goals or policies which would require major revisions to the EIR. • B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. C. No new information on the project has become available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 through 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Ordinance adopting Title 17, Development Code, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • • • 49 Resolution No. Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, JUAREZ, McNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE i Bill baldy •airy 6apter bu:ldinq industry assxtahon of southern ca6fornia. inc October 5, 1983 Mr. Jack Lam Director of Community Development 932^ Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mt, Lam: After a lenothy review of the proposed development code, the 6aldy View Ch Inter of the Building Industry Association endorses and supports the adoption of the new code. We appreciate the work that has gone into this document as it represents a definate improvement over the existing amenied county code that the city had been utilizing. We feel the new code has the potential of becoming a model ordinance to various other municipalities in the area that are due for an updated development. code. Rick Gomez and Mike Varian have done an outstandine job. They have taken • the initiative to go out into the community and solicit public input. u_ have had ample opportunity to discuss with them oar views on certain ascects of the code and are pleased with the results. Pool free to use our association's name as one that favors the adopticn of the proposed development code. sincerely, Garry wn J Cx,•euL e Director rti: 11, E 1150 N Mountam Ave . Bldo A Ste 207 peoresenbng all of San Bernardino County lJoland CA 91786 (714) 981 -2997 o1 946 -2869 An Affiliate of the NAHS and the CBIA 7 is ORDINANCE NO. y AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows. SECTION 1: That the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments thereto, are hereby repealed. SECTION 2: The following sections c' *�^ Se^ D—nardino County Code, previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed: (a) 61.021 through 61.029C, inclusive; (b) 61.0210 through 61.0219P, inclusive; (c) 61.0220 through 61.0223, inclusive. SECTION 3: The following chapters of the San Bernardino County Code, previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed in their entirety: (a) Chapter 3. Subdivision Code; (b) Chapter 4. Mobilehome Parks. SECTION 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed, with the exception of Chapter 17.16, Condominium Conversions, which shall be renumbered as Chapter 17.22. SECTION 5: The following sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code are hereby repealed: (a) 1.08.090. Director Review; (b) 1.08.150 through 1.08.170, inclusive. Home Occupations; (c) 1.08.180 through 1.08.190, inclusive. Pyramidal Zoning. SECTION 6: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Tit e TT thereto to read as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 INSERT RENUMBERED CODE PER MUNICIPAL CODE FORMAT 40 go J 7J Ordinance No. Page 3 SECTION 7: The development district map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted. SECTION G: The City Council finds that the Development Code is an implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant adverse impacts. Further, the City Council finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the city Council. A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or policies which would require major revisions to the EIR. B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. C. No new information on the project has become available. • SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Cler'., shall cause a display advertisement of at least one- quarter of a page to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 (c)(2) within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Dail R- ort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City a Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mike s, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren My 'Aasserman, ity er kep 0 U RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -03CR - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PUBLICATION IN A CORAfJCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 36933(c)(2) - DEV OPMENT CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) the City Council previously designated the City Clerk as the City Official to prepare a summary of the Development Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Development District Map; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reported to the City Council that he has determined that it is not feasible to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance or of the ordinance if it is in fact adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does res,lve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1; At least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which t5e proposed Development Code and Development District Map are to be adopted the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. • SECTION 2: Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Development Code and Development District Map the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren t4. Wasserman, its y -7erT kep On D. Mike s, Mayor Central School V istrid a37 Foothill Blvd. - Ranrho Cucomixi CA 91710 - (7141969-8541 REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION Fourth A. Casco, Jr. J'W"' $gNinlrnNnl Jahn A. McOory Arvrbm SugnnHM[�r, /p mnwl Thomas W. Owmlla, Ed.D. I,u 1b01 $u /.��n Mn0M1 tu,�rtfll Se r. R.l Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present to the City Council and to the public, the situation faced by the Central School District in providing adequate educational facilities to accommodate students which will be generated by proposed residential developments within the school district. 1. Present Situation Central School District operates three elementary schools and one junior hieh school. Facilities at each of these schools consist of a combination of permanent classroom and core facilities and relocatable • classrooms. The designed capacity and current enrollment of each of these Schools is shown below. Designed Current Excess Over Relocatable School Capacity Enrollment Designed Capacity Facilities Central 570 658 88 3 Reloc. C.R. 1 Trailer Valle Vista 570 643 73 3 Reloc. C.R. 1 Trailer Dona Merced 570 807 237 9 Reloc. C.R. 1 Reloc. R.R. Cucamonga d.H. 660 824 164 4 Reloc. C.R. 2 Trailers !inch school in the district is currently operating beyond its designed capactty. This creates an overcrowded situation and an extreme burden on the ayc of corn facilities such as playgrounds, restrooms, libraries, resource and dmintntration space. Elomen tary School 'rhe first phase of Bear Gulch Elementary School will open in September, l'M;. This y. -n school will consist of eight new modular clasurooms to be • rolraructl,d on the site, five relocatable classrooms Aurn.l, o �:ma11 relocatable administration building, to be moved from Dona and a relocatable restroom. boas or Monts J9ek MaKalwy la tnumi W. Dutton Ruth A. Musser 01an E. ORdon PUMIN J. WHOM InLMnI Clpl Membe / ^ M.mw' M..W, - 2 - Total enrollment of Bear Gulch is projected to be 420 students in September, • 1984. Bear Gulch will allow this district to alleviate the extreme over- crowding presently at Dona Merced and create space for an additional 240 students in the district. The first phase of Bear Gulch will consist almost entirely of classroom space with core facilities limited to the relocatable administration and restroom buildings. Playground space will be limited to three of six acres necessary for an elementary school. 3. Projected Enrollment and Capacity, September, 1984 Projected enrollments and school capacities in September, 1984 are shown below. Gr. 1 -6 K Total Central 17 Classrooms 450 120 570 3 Portables 90 -- Sub Total 540 120 660 Loss 1 Classroom (SDC) 30 — — Total 510 120 660 Valle Vista 17 Classrooms 450 120 570 3 Portables 90 _ • Total 540 120 660 Dona Merced 19 Classrooms 510 120 630 4 Portables 120 _ Sub Total 630 120 750 Less 2 Classrooms (RS;.SDC) 60 — Total 570 120 690 Bnar Gulch I: Classrooms 360 60 420 C rcn_nnr, ,7unier fli ch 2 Classrooms 60 60 District Totals 2,040 420 2,460 L J y - 3 - • FACTS CONCERNING ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY 1. Projected enrollment, September 1984 in grades 1 -6 will be 1,894 with no yro.th. 2. The opeuinq of Bear Gulch School in September 1984 will increase the student capacity of the district to 2,040 students in grades 1 -6. 3. Increased district capacity will allow the district to house an additional 146 students (2,040 - 1,894). .. There are five 1rvelopments which have final maps and building permits approved and are paying fees to the district. These total 6 "<8 multi- family units and 32 single - family homes. 5. using student generation factors of 0.3 and 0.6, these five developments are projected to generate 207 students in grades K -6 and 139 students in grades 1 -6. 6. The developments already approved and under construction will generate students approximately equal to the district's increased capacity to house them during the 1984 -85 school year. • 4. hoard _ Trustees Action Based on the in Fur tion shown above, the Central School District Board of Tr istocs took the following action at their meeting on October 11, 1983. 1, lusue Letter of Certification of School District Capacity to American National Group for 27 multi - family units. 2. Notify developers who have requested or who may request Letters of Certification that capacity is not available in Central School District. 3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with developers concerning mitigation of overcrowding within Central School District. 5. krl•u _st:e for Letters of Certification of School District Capacity from INrvola•o rs AL prosont, there are regonsts for Letters of Certification of School District gaPV•tty from cicht (A) developers for 988 multi- family dwelling uuir:; In ;:iuglu- family dwulling units. These developments are projected to nonorate 'i34 students in nradcs K -8. G. !netinn,: with LM VC lopers Control School District staff members '.Ave met with representatives of • Cho i,,h, developers requesting certification of school district capacity and tho Nnildino Industry Association, to discuss the overcrowding situ AI -ion and possible solutions to mitigAte this situation. A presentation has been made to these developers on the costs of completing Phase 2 of Bear Gulch School. A copy of the information presented at this meeting is attached. 6q - 4 - State Fundinq for School Facilities The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F. Greene Leese - Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for funds throuah this program. However, Greene funds are approved on a priority point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction funding by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has 46 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to have an additional. 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining funds available statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it has $400 million in applications from districts who have already qualified for "o Greene Program. Conclusion The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments • within the district would generate students for which the district cannot provide facilities. A solution which would allow the district to provide classroom and minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers of these pr,olects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable and equitnblc mitigating solution. • • Since this meeting, district staff has revised the plans and costs for Phase 2 of Beer Gulch School. The addition of six (G) relocatable classrooms in this revised plan allows the district to issue Letters of Certification to all of the developers who have requested them upon their commitment to pay a mitigation fee of $3,476 per single - family dwelling unit and $1,738 per multi - family dwelling unit. State Fundinq for School Facilities The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F. Greene Leese - Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for funds throuah this program. However, Greene funds are approved on a priority point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction funding by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has 46 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to have an additional. 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining funds available statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it has $400 million in applications from districts who have already qualified for "o Greene Program. Conclusion The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments • within the district would generate students for which the district cannot provide facilities. A solution which would allow the district to provide classroom and minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers of these pr,olects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable and equitnblc mitigating solution. • ' 17��ltr.�oo�5 .• I. REAR GULCH SCHOOL, I b t I (r V 1. Master planned elementary school (Grades K -6). 2. Ultimate Capacity: 18 Gr. 1 -6 Classroons @ 30 - 540 2 Kdg. Classrooms @ 60 . 120 Total 660 3. Phase 1 a. 13 Classrooms ' I Portable Office (960 S.F.) 1 Portable Student Restroom,, Custodial Room C Serving 'Kitchen (960 S.F.) It. Capacity = 420 Students. C. 3 of G Acres of Playground. d. a of 10 Acres Graded. c. Utility Connections. f. One Half (1/2) of Site Developed. , (Blacktop, Parking Lot, - sidewalks, Concrete Block, Landscaping) 4. Pbasc TI_ • • a. Core Facilities. 1. Media /Resource Center. 2. Administration Building. 3. Student Restrooms. 4. Multipurpose /Cafeteria /Serving Kit:chon. b. Scvon (7) Classrooms (5 Regular, 2 Kdg.). C. Remaining Site nevclopment - Landscaping, Site Development, Concrete Block, Hlacktop, Parking iii, jidcwalks. 5. 1'hnsc I . Financed by $660,000 local Fonds, building fund, and seven year lease/ Imrchor:c paid from developors• fees. Total eSLim,ted Costs are approxil"!tely $1,100,000. IT, COST 01' PHASE I1 - 13VA14 GULCH 1. Cla.;umnm; (7): a. 5 Wigrllar Cla::srnonts @ 9GO S.F. @ $7G.42/S.F.• - 366,016 h. 2 Kind(-r9,11 ten Clnosroom:: @ 1,360 S.P. @, • 0).711/5... d 222,442. s Sub Total. 507,250 :t:: Per 1LF. .,re Current State Allocatinnr; fur Sch„n1 Construottoil X7,1! Page 2 2: Library /Media Resource Center • a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @ $82.00 /S.F. = 98,400 b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @ $76.42/S.F. = 45,852 ' C. Speech Therapist - 144 S.F. @ $76.42/S.F. 11,004 d. Audio Visual Stor. - 128 S.F. @ $87.34/S.F. 11,179 Sub Total 166,435 3. Administration Building Staff Lounge 450 S.F. , Workroom 400 S.F. Staff Restrooms 200 S,F. Reception /Secretary 600 S.F. Nurse's Room 200 S.F. Principal's Off. 240 S.F. Conference Room. 144 S.F. Custodian 150 S.F. Psychologist 144 S.F. Sub Total 2,528 S.F. @ $87.34 220,796 4. Student Restrocins • 4 @ 300 S.F. = 1.,200 S,F, @ $199.40/5.£. - 239,280 S. Multipurpose /Cafeteria a. Multipurpose /Cafeteria - 3,000 S.F. b, Stage - 1,000 S.F. ' . Sub Total 4,000 S.F. @ $76.42 305,680 C. Serving Kitchen 650 S.F. @ $113.09 = 73,509 Sub Total 379,189 6, Circulation, Covered Walk wn Y s, utilit y Rom, om__ 4,500 S, F. E'. @ $26.77 = 118,665. Total Ruildinr,._ phase II 1,713_623 7. Site Dc�_r )o_nnonl !Im �rnvom�•n CS a. crading - Two (2) Acres - 20,000 b. ULillti CS b Improvements 1. Classroom Water Connections - 3,000 '2. Classtnom sewer Connections - 1,000 3. Parking Lot ' 12,000 , ^,. F. @ 5.95/5.1'. - 11,400 •. 4. Igncktop 0,000 S.F, @ $.li /S.F, - 6,000 ��ft ' t•. • Page 3 7, Continued S. Concrete Block - 8,000 6. Concrete Sidewalk - 16,000 Sub Total 43,400 c. Landscaping - 100,000 d. Building Systems (Fire, Bells, Intercom) - 10,000 Sub Total 173,400 Sub Total•BUildings 6 Improvements 1,887,023 8. Fees 6 Inspections a. Architects (8 %) - 150,461 b. Plan Check Fee (.7t) - 13,209 c. Building Inspector - 20,000 d. Tess /Inspections - 10,000 Sub Total 194,170 194,170 • 9. 56 contingency - 94,351 Total - Phase II 2,175,544 III. COST OF JUNIOR HIGH 7.DDITION 1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $76.42 = 146,726 2. Architects Fee 11,738 Total 158,464 IV. CALCULATION OF FOES 1. Single Family Ilome Generates 0.6 Children Pot' Home (•467 Gr. K -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8) 2, Tha rom:,ininq c.pncity of Bear Culch is 240 students. Using .467 �,Idontn per S.P. hrnno, capacity will exist for 514 S.F. homes to ho ronsl n;c tad. Those 514 S.F. homes will also eenerato 68 Gr. 7 -8 nlod,•nts to bc: housod it Cncmnnng., Ju,,ior nigh, necorsitating the cnnr.l, ncl ion of two �la::nrooms on that site. 3. The total cost of Ph,n;e II nt Re3r Gulch and the addition of two • cIn ^steam:; at the Jnniur Ili.)i, is p2,33,I,OOS. If dov'101or fees aro tin: :olo moue: Iof flh.v;cinq this ph:u'.o of tla project., foes would be $1,511 for a sinyle- ratluly dwclli;nl unit .ind $2,270 for a multi - family dwolling unit. t)•� L V II V M ' October 25, 1983 II. COST OF PHASE II - BEAR GULCH (REVISED) 1. Classrooms (7): a. 5 Regular Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $70.00 /S,F.- 336,000 b. 2 Kindergarten Classrooms @ 1,360 S.F. @ $75.00 /S.F. - 204,000 Sub Total 540,000 * Costs per S.F. are Architect's Estimates. 2. Library /Media Resource Center a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @ $75.00 S.F. = 90,000 b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F. 42,000 c. Speech Therapist - 144 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F. = 10,080 d. Audio Visual Storage - 128 S.F. @ $80.00 S.F. = 10,240 Sub Total 152,320 3. Administration Building Staff Lounge 450 S.F. Workroom 400 S... • Staff Restrooms 200 S.F. , Reception /SecreLary 600 S.F. Nurse's Room 200 S.F. Principal's Office 240 S.F. Conforence Room 144 S.F. Custodian 150 S.F. Psychologist 144 S.F. Sub Total 2,528 S.F. @ $80.00 = 202,240 4. Student _RPstfooms 4 0 300 S.F. = 1,200 S.F. @ $120.00 /3.F. = 154,000 5, sorvinq Kitchc_n 650 S.F, 9 $113.09 73,509 6. Circulation_ Cnv_erod Walke_aYs, Utili�Rootns 4,500 S.P. n $26.37 118,665 TMAL'DUILDINGS, PHASE II = 1,230;734 5 - 2 - 7. Site Development /Improvements • a. Grading - Two (2) Acres - 20,000 b. Utilities 6 improvements 1. Classroom Water Connections - 1,000 2. Classroom Sewer Connections - 1,000 3. Parking Lot 12,000 S.F. @ $.95 /S.F. - 11,400 4. Blacktop 8,000 S.F. @ $.75 /S.F. - 6,000 5. Concrete Block - 8,000 6. Concrete Sidewalk - 16,000 Sub Total 43,400 c. Landscaping - 100,000 d. Building Systems (Fire, Bells, Intercom) - 10,000 Sub Total 173,400 Sub Total Buildings 6 Improvements 1,404,134 • G Portables 960 S.F. @ $55.00 /S.P. 3162800 TOPAL 1,720,934 S. Fees 6 Insnect_ions a. Architects (88) - 137,674 b. Plan Check Fee (.7t) - 12,047 C. Building Inspector - 20,000 d. Tests /Inspections - 10,000 Sub Total 179,721 9. 5% Contitinrncy - 86,047 TOTAL, PHASE II 1,986,702 III. COST OF dUNIM NIGH ADDITION 1. Four Clas!o,xrmrn @ 960 S.F. q $70.00 - 268,800 2, Architec U: Foe - 21,504 • TOTAL 290,304 �73 n u - 3 - IV. CALCULATION OF FEES 1. Single Family Home generates 0.6 children per home (.467 Gr. K -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8) 2. With the addition of six portables, the remaining capacity of Bear Gulch is 420 students. Using .467 students per S.F. home, capacity will exist for 899 S.F. homes to be constructed. These 899 S.F. homes will also generate 120 Cr. 7 -8 students to be housed at Cucamonga Junior High, necessitating the construction of four classrooms on that site. 3. The total cost of Phase II at Bear Gulch and the addition of four classrooms at the Junior High is $2,277,006. The annual payment for this amount is $446,29yon a seven (7) year lease purchase. If developer fees are t sole means for financing this phase of the project, fees would he N ,476 fir a single - family dwelling unit and $1,738 for a multi- family we-11'ing unit. 4. Currently there are requests for capacity letters for 395 single - family homes and 988 multi - family units. • \I IT --�EEY 4S PO4 LMS Unerens:, the parties entered into a contract for law enforcurrient services ca.ncin7 July 1, 1983; and V,'nercas, the =ties desire to &-.sind said contract- to o ,ide for additional patml • ,,•j e t -feOtive 1# 1983; s I :73", IT IS AG= AS MIZZIS: 1. ':'nQ I.iw en--Orcerient cont-ract bettwetan the parties is &�.ded effective 1951 adding thereto the altactied SCIMMIU "A" AD=rXZ! to orwide for a-i-'--tianai patrol units and coiairzation for such by City as indicated on said addena=. --- ----- r 7r-l- Cktjniy GOLMV I —ve. AMIRMOr COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO IFLMD TIMIlL, MMTFF ,3?3-2'511 STANDARD CONTRACT J 401 %46 001 $170,474 the f ebw.mc r.,,rr o'navm.,e 12 E—e, iii Puy.—SCIMBLU THIS SON-, RACT is entered into in the State of Caiifom;a Im and bEiween the Countt of San Bernardino, he-ea4i; cafec tie Cointy, and CT7Y OF RM,'�HO Cl�r-k%CNGA IT --�EEY 4S PO4 LMS Unerens:, the parties entered into a contract for law enforcurrient services ca.ncin7 July 1, 1983; and V,'nercas, the =ties desire to &-.sind said contract- to o ,ide for additional patml • ,,•j e t -feOtive 1# 1983; s I :73", IT IS AG= AS MIZZIS: 1. ':'nQ I.iw en--Orcerient cont-ract bettwetan the parties is &�.ded effective 1951 adding thereto the altactied SCIMMIU "A" AD=rXZ! to orwide for a-i-'--tianai patrol units and coiairzation for such by City as indicated on said addena=. --- ----- r 7r-l- Cktjniy GOLMV I —ve. SCHEDULE "A" ADDENDUM . LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F.Y. 1983 -84 Service Cost 80 -Hour General Law Patrol Units (Effective November 1, 1983, 8 -month Service Fee) $ 168,390 •* County Direct Cost 2,084 TOTAL (ADDITIONAL SERVICE) $ 170,474 Monthly Payment Schedule 1st Payment Due November 15th $ 21,311 2nd through 8th Payment due 5th of each month $ 21,309 • NOTE: Service is exclusive of overtime and Court appearance cost - actual cost will be billed quarterly. Cost subject to change due to Memorandum of Understanding changes. •• Less Fuel and Maintenance - actual cost Will be billed quarterly. • design development report heritage park city of rancho cucamonga august 1983 recreation systems, inc. acknowledgments city council Jon D. Mikels, Mayor Charles J. Buquet II, Mayor Pro Tem Richard M. Dahl James C. Frost Phillip D. 50,losser city manager Lauren M. Wasserman staff William L. Holley, Director, Community Services Dopartment Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer park advisory committee Pam Henry, Chairperson T. Harrell Allen Peter Pitassi Leslie Riggs Livia Vallance community task force Christine Benoit Sue Draper John Gill Sam Grasso Pam Henry Orrin Kiefer Dave Leonard Rebecca Martin Molly Mitchell Mark Pfister Peter Pitassi Sharon Romero Michael Vairin Joe White table of contents Page No. PREFACE I AUTHORITY 1 PURPOSE 1 BACKGROUND 2 METHODOLOGY 3 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 9 DESIGN OVERVIEW 9 EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT 11 SPORTSFIELDS 14 RESTROOM /CONCESSION BUILDING 14 PLAY AREAS 15 GROUP /FAMILY PICNIC AREAS 17 OPEN PLAY /OVERFLOW PARKING 17 PARKING /CIRCULATION 17 TRAILS /EXERCISE COURSE 19 LANDSCAPING 19 IRRIGATION 21 SIGNAGE 21 THEME CONCEPT 22 POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 25 AESTHETICS 25 NOISE 25 LIGHT AND GLARE 26 TRAFFIC AND PARKING 27 DRAINAGE 27 DUST 28 COST ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING 29 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 30 SUGGESTED PHASING PROGRAM 31 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS 35 plates VICINITY MAP 6 MASTER PLAN 7 SITE SECTIONS 8 EQUESTRIAN BUILDING 13 CREATIVE PLAY AREA PERSPECTIVE 16 ENTRANCE PERSPECTIVE 24 preface There is an increasing awareness on the part of the people to the physical surroundings within which they live. Much publicity has been given to the obvious problems. Air, water, noise and ecological pollutie?ns are vitally important and must receive our immediate attention. During the pro- cess, however, government must not ignore the problem of social pollution. - until recently, planning efforts tended to emphasize physi- cal and economic growth as barometers of effectiveness, with only limited consideration to the people values that affect the quality of the living process. Those factors that affect the daily lives of people -- dramatically affect their atti- tudes, motivations and stability within the social structure. Society has spent too much time on things and accumulation and not enough effort on ideas or matters of the spirit. r, Unfortunately, there are no scientific standards or specific economic justifications for the recreation function. The most efficient "efficiency expert" would be hard pressed to justify the cymbal in an orchestration of the "1812 Over- ture". An orchestration of our "living environment" would, be as sterile as a cymbal -less overture -- without the accent and impact of effective open space. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is facing a crucial test as it considers the recommendations contained in this development report. There will be some who question the importance of the recreation function. Some will oppose the scope of the recommended improvements. Others may express concern over the method of achievement. Many will challenge the specifics. There will be few, however, who can challenge the need for action. Rancho Cucamonga is not unique. It is facing the same social problems, the same financial crises, and the same internal stresses that are currently faced by the majority of local governments within urban regions across the nation. Its major battle becomes one for identity. The goal is to avoid the homogeneity of suburbia - -to provide a living environment that will encourage and enhance individuality. To recognize this goal is to recognize a standard and quality of urban amenities that cannot be sacrificed nor compromised. ii authority On October 7, 1982, the City of Rancho Cucamonga entered into an Agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc. to furnish park planning and landscape architectural services for the design and development of Heritage Park. Included in these services as the preparation of a Master Plan and Design Development Report. purpose The Design Development Report is an association of planning functions composed specifically to meet the needs of the public agency in processing the initial design of the facility. Its purpose is to establish a master plan that depicts the ultimate development of a building and specific site - -a plan that allows the citizen, administrator, and elected official to participate effectively in the decisions on the scope, function, priorities and responsibility of the project. The Design Development Report describes functional aspects of the design, evaluates environmental impacts, in- vestigates methods of implementation, determines logical phasing priorities, and promotes community understanding and support for the program. 1. background Heritage Park, located in the northwest sector of Rancho Cucamonga, was the first park property acquired by the new City of Rancho Cucamonga. Acquisition took place via a four increment purchase agreement with the property's owner, beginning in 1978 and completed in 1981. The fund- ing for the purchase, €39,500.00, was derived through a combination of 1976 State Bond Act Funds and local re- sources. Prior to this acquisition, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District had initiated acquisition proceed- ings for the purchase of rights -of -way for the development of flood rontrol improvements that would transverse the property. The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, in coopera- tion with the County Flood Control District, completed channel improvements in 1982. As a part of this channel improvement program, the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, will share park development costs on a matching basis for all improvements involving the flood control rights -of -way. This dollar for dollar cost sharing agreement will include three bridges, two spanning the Demens Channel and the third crossing the Rancho Wash; and complete landscape development within flood control areas. These Corps improvements will again connect the trisected areas of the park and provide a visual amenity to mitigate the negative impact of channel improvements. 2. methodology The provision of park and recreation facilities is a people oriented program, and successful implementation requires public support and involvement. In an effort to establish maximum citizen participation in the planning process, the City established a fourteen member Community Task Force to work with staff and the consultants in the preparation of the master plan for the park. Task Force members were se- lected to give a balanced representation to anticipated user groups, neighborhood residents, involved City functions, and general community -wide interests. The Task Force met six times, with the primary objectives being to develop recommendations on the functional scope of intended uses, the allocation of ^arcs, and the arrange- ment of final facilities. The group operated under a con- sensus format, encouraging full discussion of all issues from a variety of perspectives and backgrounds, including active involvement by staff members responsible for maintenance and operation. A public meeting was also conducted on the park site where recommended plans were reviewed with adjacent residents and other interested citizens. A formal presentation was made to the Park Advisory Committee, and citizens in attendance were given the opportunity to give input and have questions answered by staff representatives or the consultant. 3. The entire process was designed to develop public input and provide opportunities to react to proposed concepts, solutions and compromises. site description The park site is located in northwest Rancho Cucamonga at the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. The approximately 42 acre site is bordered to the west and north by residential developments and to the south and east by vineyards. The project site is trisected by the Anny Corps of Engineers' Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash flood control improvements. These fence -lined concrete channels segregate the park site into three distinct areas. No vehicle, pedestrian, or equestrian crossings exist. The majority of the site was formerly a vineyard and is relatively clear, sloping from 5 to 15 percent to the south. The natural canyon area slopes are in excess of 15% gradient. The only significant vegetation un the site is in steep areas where vineyard cultivation was not done. This includes some oak and chaparral in the northwest canyon and on slopes in the southwest corner of the piuperty. The remainder of the site is abandoned vineyards. 4. An existing riding ring is located in the southeast corner of the park site. This facility was built by local eques- trian interests and is actively used. A dirt parking area and driveway off Beryl Avenu< currently serves the riding ring facility. Vehicle access to the parksite is currently from Beryl Avenue. Equestrian and pedestrian access to limited areas of the site is from existing trails off of Hillside Road and Beryl Street, and trails that parallel the storm drain channels. 5. sfte pwr 1$1 iol • n aswhm • ��J � �� o ��9 C o o a e,: n.4.atu ,...,►.spy 44 W: mpwn*J 'j,%W%,Vf development concept design overview As a community park, Heritage Park provides a variety of facilities to serve the recreation needs of the Rancho Cuca- monga population. There were several key factors during the design development process, however, that significantly affected the final park master plan. The design of the park was most influenced by existing site conditions and engineering restrictions. The Army Corps of Engineers' flood control channels divide the site into three isolated parcels. This division not only affects internal park circulation but the actual size and configuration of facilities. The existing 8% gradient of the site was another major aspect which had an impact on the master plan design. There is a 100 foot elevation difference between the northern and southern park boundaries. With the major facilities being equestrian arenas, sportsfields, and parking areas (all requiring fairly level areas), the engineering and cost impacts became significant design factors. Facilities were located to reduce the great amount of grading required. The design intent included a balance of cut and till, with on -sste material independently obtained from grading operations within three segments of the park. This would allow convenient phasing of grading operations, if neces- sary, and reduce costs by eliminating heavy equipment channel crossings to redistribute material. Community recreation interests expressed through City staff, 9. park advisory committee, and public participation also con- tributed to the master plan design. A popular activity that is currently enjoyed at the park site and fits into the rural character of the park is horse- back riding. Equestrian interests are strong in Rancho Cucamonga. Many neighboring residences have horse corrals in their backyards. A regional equestrian trail system is planned along Demen's Creek Channel and Beryl Street, making this park an excellent terminus for equestrian trails. Interests were expressed in expanding proposed equestrian facilities to allow organized competitive horse shows sponsored by local equestrian groups. As a response to this interest, the master plan iden- tifies a comprehensive equestrian complex and trail system that occupies almost one -half the total parksite. It has been de- signed to function separately or in conjunction with the re- mainder of the park site. Besides equestrian use, there were other community needs iden- tified in the design development process. There is a great demand for recreation level sportsfields for programmed and casual softball and soccer use. Associated activities such as family and group picnicking, informal play, jogging, and childrens' play were identified as activities befitting a community park. Over half of the site has been developed to satisfy these active and passive recreation needs. 10. Throughout the design development, functional relationships between activity areas have been developed to avoid conflicts of use, yet afford effective implementation of programming and supervision responsibilities. Special attention has been given to protect and enhance the aesthetic setting while pro- viding adequate facilities. All improvements will be designed to keep maintenance and operational costs to a minimum. Lastly, we have attempted to project a creative and innovative dpproach throughout the design process. Our goal has been to provide a variety of recreation experiences in a compatible setting in a cost effective manner. We feel that this effort and goal will continue to encourage public interest and involve- ment and thereby enhance the quality of community life associ- ated with Heritage Park. equestrian development The proposed equestrian area occupies the northeast portion of the park and is bounded on the north by Hillside Drive and on the south by the Demens Flood Control channel. Separation from the natural area to the west is provided by the Rancho Wash channel and the relatively deep natural canyon occupying the northwest corner of the park. The isolated state of this section offers a functional benefit by effectively segregating this special use from other park functions and controlling access to equestrian activities. fortunately, its size and 11. configuration matches the scope of proposed facilities. The central activity area includes a small circular arena for longeing and individual work; a rectangular arena for dressage, stock horse work, show warm -up, jumping and training; and a main oval arena for general riding, instruction, and horse shows. The two larger arenas are separated by a common spectator area capable of serving either or both arenas. The spectator area includes bleachers (positioned to avoid direct sun glare) and landscaped space for lounging and eating between activities. This area will be free from horse traffic. The equestrian building sets the architectural theme for the entire park. Patte,i,ed after the historic Virginia Dare Winery, this structure houses a small concession stand with a ranch kitchen to serve special events, restrooms, storage, an announcing tower and dual entry offices to serve and observe either of the main arenas. The floor plan is typical of early Californian outbuildings, with functional spaces aligned on either side of a wide central aisle that opens to lofts above. Space in the loft area is designed to accommodate meetings or social events associated with the function of the area. On the hillside north of the practice arena is a small area designated as an equestrian picnic area. This area would be in turf and have scattered picnic tables for individual family use. 12. EQUESTRIAN RULOW - SOUTH oil M LS nf� If ;i II I lili JI � WT JT« T LII N j r (( c�nc� � rvTVY rwwlnw - Ix�.anw r�wn r� Inlry tit comml STOMP£ I � f it _��_��1�� 1,aT r, i f - _om m� M6Kp A�AY 1� b L, � T 1 Jw�s+y +ow o.vm - FIRST FLOOR PLAN sportsfields Two softball /Little League fields with 300' outfields and overlay soccer are located on the southern half of the site. Overlay soccer fields include a regulation size 225' x 36b' field and a 200' x 300' practice field. The fields are posi- tioned to maximize efficient use of shared lighting and rest- room /concession facilities. The sportsfield area has been carefully positioned to maintain a minimum 1% to maximum 2% cross gradient for positive drainage and playing ease. Steeper gradients are proposed once out of the field of play to con- form to the general 5% to 10% natural slope of the site. An alternative grading design provides for a split level ath- letic area with the western ballfield and soccer overlay approximately 8' higher than the eastern fields. This solu- tion would significantly,reduce required export and allow for a balanced cut and fill operation. Ballfield improvements include brickdust infields with 20' high curved backstops, fenced team dugouts, and paved spec- tator area with bleachers. restroom /concession building Space has been allocated for a restroom /concession building to serve both sportsfields, play area, and group picnic facility. It is centrally located for maintenance ease and security surveillance. Architecture will feature early Californian rancho styling, with stucco walls, exposed wood beams, and tile roof. The building and fixtures will be 14. :7 designed to achieve maximum protection against vandalism. play areas A large creative play area is conveniently located between the group picnic and sportsfield areas, allowing supervised use by children from either activity areas. The recessed play area is defined by a wide concrete curb which contains the sand base, as well as acting as a wide mow strip for maintenance ease. Walkways provide access from neighboring use areas and the nearby parking area. Modular play equipment includes a large arched swing set and various timber -sized play structures with slides, ladders, clatter bridges, balance beams and lookout platforms. A terraced themed play area is proposed for both play and visual interest. Two half -court basketball courts are in- cluded near the play area. A smaller play area is located adjacent to the equestrian use area for children associated with this activity area. Im- provements would be similar to those in the large play area, however, reduced in scope. 15. group /family picnic areas The group picnic facilities are located between the equestrian use area and sportsfield complex for indepen- dent or associated use by park visitors. Two group shelters allow flexible use by either one large group or two medium sized groups. Improvements include shade shelters, picnic tables (to accommodate approximately 100 persons), and barbegje and sink facilities. A large open turf area is adjacent to the group shelters for informal play. Individual picnic table and barbeques are scattered around the edge of this open play area for family use. concrete slabs are provided under tables to minimize maintenance requirements. open play /overflow parking In addition to the group and family picnic areas, a small area at the northeast corner of the park site and adjacent to the entrance road, is designated for open play and over- flow parking during special events or peak use periods. This area can be utilized with either the equestrian area or the athletic /picnic faciiities. parking /circulation The entrance to Heritage Park is off Beryl Street towards the north end of the site. The entrance road has been located to 17. provide convenient access to both parking areas an either side of the drainage channel, with minimum division of property. The entrance drive will be accentuated with a widened road- way, 20' wide median planter, special paving, and feature arbor. The access drive splits and crosses the drainage channel to the north, serving the equestrian parking area, and continues to the southwest, serving the sportsfield park- ing area. The equestrian parking area is designed for horse trailer circulation and parking ease. There are 21 trailer pull - through spaces and 16 spaces for cars. Separate equestrian and pedestrian walks are provided which cross the drainage channel and link into the park circulation, as well as the regional trail system. The sportsrield parking area is asphalt paved. It provides convenient access to not only the ballfields, but also the play area, group picnic facilities, and maintenance building and yard. Ninety -nine parking spaces are provided. A wide planter helps to define circulation, parking, and provides appreciated shade from trees. An overflow parking area for special events is provided at the open turf area in the northeast corner of the park site. trails /exercise course A 15' wide dirt equestrian trail encircles the entire project site, tying into the regional trail system which borders Hill- side Road and Beryl Street. The trail meanders through the "natural area" just west of the drainage channel spur and connects into adjacent neighborhood trail heads. Two equestrian service bridges are provided that cross the drainage channels and help to complete the trail loop. A concrete post and wood rail fence is proposed to control equestrian access around the sportsfields, group and open picnic areas, and where separation from pedestrian and ve- hicle traffic is required. In the sportsfield area an exercise course parallels the riding trail for joggers' use. The 6' wide decomposed granite course is edged by concrete headers and includes 10 to 20 periodic exercise stations with equipment and related instructions. A wood fence would separate the trails. landscaping A blend of open space and screen planting is used to provide adequate buffers between the equestrian area, natural area, sportsfield complex, and adjacent residences. Tree planting and mounding is used to better define activity areas, direct circulation, and provide visual interest. 19. Formalized and regularly maintained turf areas are generally contained within the trail improvements. These turf areas will have a minimum gradient of lz for positive drainage and a maximum gradient of 5:1 for mowing ease. Trees will be located at least 20' apart to allow efficient mowing with large gang mowers. Concrete mow strips will be used at fences in maintained turf areas to speed mowing. The less formal landscape areas located outside the trail im- provements will be meadow -like in appearance with 4 " -6" tall fescue and drifts of wildflowers requiring semi - annual mowing as necessary. The primary purpose of this planting is to con- trol erosion and dust and provide a "natural" buffer between activity areas. To minimize maintenance requirements, plant species will be selected for drought, disease, and pest tolerance. Trees will be located to maximize shade in activity areas for park users' comfort. Every effort will be made to preserve the existing trees, particularly those located in the "natural canyon area" where grading and improvements are minimal. U irrigation The entire site will be covered by an automatic sprinkler system designed to provide adequate irrigation for the dif- ferent types of landscape planting. Low precipitation heads will be selected to minimize water runoff, particularly in steeper areas. Rotary -type sprinkler heads with protective rubber covers will be used in the large maintained turf areas. Two inch pop -up sprinklers are recommended for the smaller turf areas. Impact type sprinklers will be used in areas where erosion control seeding is proposed. Elevated heads shall be pro- tected from damage caused by users or horses. Trees in the less irrigated natural seeded areas will be on a supplemental drip irrigation system to provide regular deep watering and promote speedy growth. signage A park identification sign will be located at the entrance road median on Beryl Street. The sign will be designed to reflect the general "heritage" theme of the park. It will be lighted for night identification. Directional signs and facility identification signs will be placed where necessary to direct park users to the appropriate parking and activity areas. 21. Signs will also identify the restroom facilities and handi- cap parking stalls. An information kiosk will be located at the feature arbor for posting park activities or special program events. theme concept A "heritage" theme for the park site was proposed in the initial request for proposals as developed by the City. The theme is intended to unify the various structures in the park and tie the development to historical and cultural aspects in Rancho Cucamonga's past. Since the park site and local area were once extensively cultivated in grapes and part of the wine industry, we decided to incorporate vineyard type elements and rancho style architecture into the "heritage" theme. The character of the equestrian center building is strongly indicative of the "heritage" theme. The building, patterned after the historic local Virginia Dare Winery, includes buttressed walls, arched doorways and windows, sculptured facade at roofline, tower with exposed wood beams, and the roofs. An open alley runs through the building with loft area overhead and large sliding wood doors >t either end. This adds to the intended working rancho character of the 22. equestrian area. The entrance to the parksite also reflects the rancho character, with an irrigation valve box typical of large agricultural operations, featured as part of the park identification sign. At the end of the patterned entrance drive, an arbor is featured with stucco columns or arches and heavy wood timbers. Climbing grapevines will be used where appro- priate. Similar structures will be used for shade in the group picnic area. The restroom /concession building in the sportsfield area will be the same style as the equestrian center building. 23. i Loo I IN I A-swAl f 0 Q qVl; i Loo I IN I A-swAl f 0 Q possible environmental impacts This preliminary evaluation of environmental conditions and possible impacts has been made without the benefit of thor- ough scientific assessments or testing techniques. These preliminary findings are based on visual inspection of the site; comparison with similar projects; and a working know- ledge of the EIR process. The primary intent is to identify critical impacts early in the design program so that solutions reflect both environmental concerns and functional criteria. aesthetics The transition from vacant land to high quality landscaping and providing amenities not yet present in the community is direct, major, and extremely beneficial. The proposed park will contribute to the recreational, social, and aesthetic character of the Rancho Cucamonga area as a whole, and will substantially improve the aesthetic quality of the immediate neighborhood. A tone and an identity to the surrounding resi- dential areas will develop with the park. noise Negative impacts are minimal. During construction, there may be significant, though temporary, increases in noise levels. The new function projected for this site of providing recrea- tion facilities will have a permanent impact on the noise level. However, major slopes adjacent to the equestrian and sportsfield areas will significantly reduce noise impacts, by acting as an acoustical shield, particularly when planted. A 25. landscape buffer adjacent to residential development will en- hance the appearance of the area and reduce the noise impact. Control of construction noise will be by enforcement of con- struction specifications and inspection. Noise generated from park maintenance equipment will be controlled by adequate muffler devices and work scheduling. Program scheduling will control organized activities and the noise they generate. If any amplified speaker system is installed, it should be low profile, low amplitude, and professionally designed for minimal impact outside its immediate use area. light and glare Equestrian area and security lighting will be low profile and directed downward with a minimal amount of light spill or glare. Athletic field lighting, if installed, will increase light levels in a major way for a more extended time period. The 60' to 70' foot poles with recreation level lighting luminaires will not directly spill on residential property. However, the area glare produced will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood, particularly views from the homes over- looking the park. Proposed light systems will be energy effic; ant high intensity discharge type. The particular types will be selected for color and control of light distribution pattern. Impacts are local, direct, and major (with athletic field lighting). 26. Mitigation measures will include; (1) shielding the light sources, where necessary; (2) control of lighting systems by timers for limited use; and (3) design security lighting to a minimum level (to eliminate dark spots in the park with- out glare). traffic and parking Generation of additional traffic (vehicular, bicycle, eques- trian and pedestrian) will be experienced in the immediate vicinity of the park, particularly along Beryl Street. Normal scheduling of recreation activities avoids major conflicts with existing peak traffic loads caused by school transporta- tion or during periuds prior to and after regular working hours. Impacts are direct, major, and adverse. Mitigation measures include the provision of off - street parking (117 cars, 21 horse trailers); locating activity areas convenient to park- ing; provision of bicycle parking facilities; and providing an internal pedestrian and equestrian system. drainage The existing drainage pattern of the site will be maintained with adjustments to protect buildings and accommodate rela- tively flat sportsfields and equestrian arenas. Catch basins and drain lines are proposed throughout the site where steep slopes or paved areas offer a collection point. A curb and gutter system associated with the southern trail 27. will collect and direct drainage flow off the site. Negative impacts are minimal. Where erosion damage is possible, additional measures will be taken to disperse drainage flow and protect slopes as necessary. , dust Negative impacts are minimal. During construction, there may be an increase in dust level; however, the construction specifications will require the Contractor to take measures necessary to control the dust. An irrigation system will be incorporated into the riding arena fences to control dust generated from equestrian use. All areas disturbed during grading operations will be seeded with either turf or an erosion control mix to eliminate excessive dust. Trails will be restricted to use by pedestrians or horses only - -no motorcycles. 28. cost analysis and construction phasing The Design Development Report is a planning product that pro- vides required information to establish a realistic program of implementation. Not only does it determine an accurate scope of proposed development, it must also provide detailed estimated of construction costs and projections of required expenditures for maintenance and operation. Construction costs can be projected quite accurately after the establishment of scope and the adoption of reasonable standards of development. Cost projections are based on tested costing information, including comparisons with similar projects or facilities that have been constructed during the past six rmonths period. Estimates do not include future inflation factors and they must be updated according to schedule of accomplishment. Maintenance and operational costs do not enjoy this same con- sistency. Maintenance costs will vary significantly between agencies and levels of government. A major constraint Appears to be a total absence of any conformity to methods of assessing costs and a great diversity in the sophistication of cost accounting. Other problems affecting the accuracy of projecting operational costs include the variables associated with alternative levels of service, the amount of assistance that can be generated from user groups, and the quality of the original improvements. It 29. qR 0 shall be our intent to present an estimate of operating costs that reflects a better than average level of service and does not assume any assistance from outside sources. Costs will be based on median expenditures reported by private industry and a number of local government agencies providing similar services. Costs will reflect average expenditures to main- tain established landscaped areas and some special maintenance can be expected during the first year of operation. estimated construction costs BUILDINGS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1. Mobilization - 5% $ 100,345.00 2. Clearing and Grubbing 74,590.00 3. Earthwork 263,860.00 4. Drainage 92,520.00 5. Buildings, Shade Shelters 326,900.00 6. Bridges 49,200.00 7. Site Concrete 159,460.00 8. Surfacing Materials 81,845.00 9. Masonry 24,885.00 10, Fencing 112,550.00 11. Site Amenities 110,850.00 12. Irrigation 339,430.00 13. Planting 370,840.00 Overhead and Profit (10 %) 210,725.00 90 -Day Maintenance 46,500.00 TOTAL $2,364,500.00 M suggested phasing program Rarely can a facility of this size and scope be completed as a single construction project. Gb:iously, this is the de- sirable alternative for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a substantial reduction in costs. An actual phasing program must be tailored to funding limita- tions and, where possible, it should be designed to avoid major revisions or removals with subsequent segments. Recognizing that funding can be a major concern at Heritage Park, the following suggested phasing program segregates each of the primary areas of the park and breaks down improvements into two phases involving site grading, drainage and erosion control, and the individual activity facilities or spaces. This method allows the City to proceed with initial site preparation incrementally and adjust individual improvements to fit funding sources. Utilization of volunteer contributions of money or services can be accommodated by scheduling or adaptation. 31. AREA I - SPORTSFIELD AREA (26.3 ACRES) PHASE I Clearing /Grubbing $ 47,340.00 Grading 180,260.00 Drainage .8,120.00 Erosion Control (Temporary) 68,730.00 Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 286,380.00 Sub -Total $ 640,830.00 PHASE II A.C. Paving - Parking and Channel Access $ 42,110.00 Concrete Paving and Picnic Table Pads, Curb 95,865.00 Stamped Concrete Paving 39,575.00 Ballfields 21,175.00 Restroom /Concession Building 88,000.00 Maintenance Building 54,000.00 Picnic /Shade Shelters (2) and Arbor 80,900.00 Play Area 38,850.00 Miscellaneous Site Amenities 59,870.00 Planting 250,775.00 Chain Link Fencing 12,590.00 Exercise Trail 14,955.00 Equestrian Fencing 21,080.00 Equestrian Trail 2,680.00 Masonry 7,785.00 Sub -Total $ 830,210.00 TOTAL S 1,471,040.00 32. AREA II - EQUESTRIAN AREA (8.27 ACRES) PHASE I Clearing /Grubbing $ 14,880.00 Grading 70,000.00 Drainage 34,400.00 Erosion Control 21,610.00 Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 90,050.00 Bridge 26,700.00 Sub -Total $ 257,640.00 PHASE II D.G. Parking Area Concrete Paving Concession /Office /Restroom Arenas Play Area Bridges (2) Miscellaneous Site Amenities Planting Equestrian Fencing Equestrian Trails Masonry 33. $ 22,860.00 16,800.00 104,000.00 17,670.00 13,770.00 22,500.00 17,960.00 56,295.00 41,310.00 1,260.00 3,900.00 Sub -Total $ 318,325.00 TOTAL $ 575,965.00 AREA III - NATURAL AREA (6.87 ACRES) PHASE I Clearing /Grubbing S 12,370.00 Grading 13,600,00 Erosion Control 17,955.00 Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 88,670,00 Chain Link Fencing 7,390.00 Sub -Total $ 139,985.00 PHASE II Trails Surfacing $ 800.00 Planting 63,760.00 Sub -Total $ 64,560.00 TOTAL $ 204,545.00 AREA I AREA 11 AREA III • MOBILIZATION - 5% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT - 10% MAINTENANCE - 90 DAY a • 34. $ 1,471,040.00 $ 575,965.00 $ 204,545.00 Sub -Total $ 2,251,550.00 $ 112,575.00 $ 236,410.00 $ 46,500.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 2,647,035.00 projected maintenance and operation costs The following cost projections are based on ultimate develop- ment and use of the entire facility. Specific projections are provided by activity unit or square footage costs so they can be adjusted to fit partial developments. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: Turf - 610,023 sq.ft. @ $.011 per mo. x 12 $ 80,520.00 Natural Areas - 717,180 sq.ft. @ $.002 per mo. x 12 = 17,210.00 Trails, Arenas, and Dirt Parking - 284,198 sq.ft. @ $.003 per mo. x 12 = 10,230.00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE: 2,000± sq.ft. @ $.20 per mo. x 12 = $ 4,800.00 TOTAL BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE $112,760.00 ($2,750 per acre) UTILITIES Security Lighting - 5 kw per hr. @ $.10 x 6 hrs. x 365 = $ 1,095.00 Activity Lighting Adult Softball - $5.00 per hr. per field Sorcer - $3.50 per hr. per field Equestrian Ctr.- $3.50 per hr. IRRIGATION VOLUMES (ANNUAL) Turf Area - 14 acres x 3 ft. = 42 acre/ft. Natural Area - 16.5 acres x 1,5 ft. = 24.75 acre /ft. 35. • October 17, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting An adjourned meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, October 17, 1983 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. The purpose of the meeting was to adopt the 1983 -84 Program of Service. Mayor Mikels called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finance Director, Harry Empey; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Building Official, Jerry Grant; and Sheriff's Captain, Thomas Wickum. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PERSONNEL ISSUES. Item discussed first. • Mayor Mikels announced that Council would adjourn to a Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. The meeting, reconvened at 6:35 p.m, with all members of Council and staff present. Mayor Mikels stated that Council had agreed to the following employee salary and fringe benefit package for 1983-84: 1. Salary adjustment of 5 percent. 2. Health Care Adjustment to increase the health premium to $225 per month. 3. Increase in the Dental Plan Mr. Wasserman stated that staff would get with the Employee Committee in the morning to diacass this with them. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting, for any comments from the employees. There was nn C J Page 2 • APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CRAM13HR OF COMMERCE. IL is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 1983 -84. The agreement provides for services to be provided to the City with reimbursement at the rate of $12,000 per year. Mr. Wasserman went over the MOU explaining the differences between what is being proposed and the former contract. Mr. Frost stated he would rather that the agreement include a date of June 30th so that it would be reviewed yearly as we do all our agreements. Presently the MOU provides that the agreement would be continuing until termination. Mr. Schlosser stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to be independent of the City as soon as possible, and concurred with Mr. Frost that a date should be inserted. Discussion continued amongst the Councilmembers regarding whether a sunset date should be added in order to review the agreement yearly. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the Memorandum of • Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce as written by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. DISCUSSION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. Mr. Wasserman stated that there was now $438,515 available for appropriation. Be Cher, proceeded to go throught the list of significant issues yet to be approved by Council: a. One additional 80 -hours sheriff's patrol unit $ 91,676 b. Civic Center Reserve $ 75,000 c. Park Development Fund '150,000 d. Printing /Planning Department $ 18,000 c. Fencing, and Screening for City property $ 6,000 f. Transfer to Reserve for Changes in Economic Conditions $ 67,930 g. Clerk typist /City Clerk's Office $ 8,300 h. 11anagement Development Training $ 5,000 i. 6. —. untant I position reclassified to Accountant II $ 11500 Mr. Dahl stated there was another item which he had requested which was a Park Planner. He felt that this position was needed since we are still in the designing stage of parks. Mr. Holley has been a one -man operation and is over - extended. He felt a lot of the work could be done inhouse instead of • using consultants, thus saving the City some money. • Page 3 Mr. Buquet asked where this person would be located. Mr. Dahl stated this brought up another point, and that was of utilizing extra space which was available in the building next to the city offices. Mr. Buquet felt there would be problems with this location since it was upstairs. Mr. Holley stated they had thought of this. Actually, it would not be any different from what takes place now. People come to the main counter at the switchboard. They are notified that someone is there, and they come out. If they were located upstairs, then the same procedure would be followed. They would go to the person. Mr. Wasserman stated that a Park Planner would be an entry level position at a cost of about $26,000. In their calculations, an amount had been included to cover the expense of space this employee. Mr. Empey stated they cale'alated this based on 75 to 85 cents per square foot, • or $6300 for space for 8 months. We did not come up with any particular place, only considered the cost. Mayor Mikels stated that we will need more space if we add any new employees. Mr. Wasserman stated that Mr. Grant had just informed him that it was a State law that handicap facilities be available. Staff would have to check into this. Discussion continued between Council and staff regarding the issue of space. 4. ADOPTION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF sgRvim. MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to amend and adopt as final the Interim Budget with the available resources as follows: Motor Vehicle in lieu fees $175,933 Interest. Earnings /reserves $171,099 Contingency $128,687 Building Permits $ 70,954 Busincns Inv. Prop. Tax $ 47,771 Elimination of Helicopter Charge $ 43.712 Sheriff Dispatchers 61,719 $528,490 49 to cover the following expenditures and transfers into reserves: Page 4 • 80 hour Patrol Unit $ 91,676 City Employee package $ 61,982 Sheriff Personnel Adj. $ 61.719 Park Planner $ 26,317 Printing /Planning $ 18,000 Clerk Typist /City Clerk $ 8,300 Management Development $ 5,000 Reclassification /Accountant I to Accountant II $ 1,500 and to transfer the non - appropriated, non - designated reserves to reserves for changes in economic conditions. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk • • October 19, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, October 19, 1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Present were Council members: Richard M. Dahl; Charles J. Buquet II; Phillip D. Schlosser; James C. Frost; and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: MOTION: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to • approve the minutes of September 7, September 21, and October 5, 1983. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 2:00 p.m. - COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON FOOTHILLS COMMUNITY PLAN - Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 175 West Fifth Street, San Bernardino. b. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PARKS ADVISORY r,OMMITTEE - Lions Park Community Center. c. Friday, October 21, 1983, 4:00 -7:00 p.m. - MEASURE "W" RECEPTION - Board of Realtors Office, 217 West 2nd Street, Upland. d. Thursday, October 27, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION - Lions Pzrk Communi�y ruts,. e,, Presentation eF a donation by the Alta 6ema Riding Glob to kpe City's Heritage Perk Development, Fund. Item removed by the Group. They wished to present donation at the time Heritagi Park comes to the City Council for review. C J Page 2 • f. Mayor Mikels announced that the "Purple Foot Award" for the grape stomping contest at the Wine Festival was won this year by Councilman Jim Frost. It was won by Councilman Phil Schlosser last year. g. Mr. Wasserman requested an added item to the Agenda: 6D - Resolution No. 83 -182 which adjusts the salaries per a previous action of Council. Mr. Wasserman also requested a closed session at the end of the meeting to discuss a legal matter. h. Chief Feuerstein stated that in light of the article which appeared in the Daily Report, he wanted to assure the Council and the RDA that the Fire District would continue working in partnership with the City staff and the Redevelopment Agency. They have been meeting regularly with staff and the City Manager to come up with some possible joint City and District facilities and would continue to do so. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83- 10 -19, and Payroll ending 10 -2 -83 in the total amount of $1,199,491.15. b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Warrants for July for $3,625.60; August for $96,110.47; and September for $2,341.30. Approval of • Assessment District 82 -2 Warrants for July for $3,690,00; for August for $64,740.00. c. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -10) for On -Sale Beer and Wine Public Premises License for LeRoy and Rose Gamble, Ernie's, 7157 Amethyst Avenue. d. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -20) for On -Sale General Eating Place, for N. L. Disco, Inc., Nite Lite Hens A Herfords, 8874 Foothill Boulevard. e. Forward Claim (CL83 -40) against the City by Ernest Sims to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. f. Forward Claim (CL83 -41) against the City by James Glidewell Hall to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. g. Forward Claim (CL83 -42) against the City by C.V. Holder to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. h. Request approval of Resolution establishing the Recreation Services Enterprise Fund and its operational guidelines. This is an item which brings the method of collecting and disbursing fees within the Recreation Service Division into compliance with current Governmental Accounting Standards. • 1 J Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 83-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFURNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RECREATION SERVICES ENTERPRISE FUND. i. Approval of agreement for reconstruction of south half of Lemon Avenue between Klusman and Archibald Avenue in conjunction with Tract 9638 by Crismar Homes; in amount of $5,465. Funds to be drawn from the Systems Development Fund. j. Approval of intent to annex Tracts 12237, 12337 -1, 12237 -2 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No. 15, and set pubiin hearing for November 16, 1983. RESOLUTION NO. 83-172 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTANANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1, . 122j7 -2). RESOLUTION N0. 83 -173 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCPAING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO. (TRACTS 12237, 12337 -1, 12337 -2). k. Approval to summarily ordering the vacation of unimproved road right -of- way north of Arrow Route and east of Vineyard Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN UNIMPROVED ROAD NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE. 1. Approval of acceptance of street improvements and storm drain for Parcel Map 6194 located nn the east side of Haven Avenue at 7th Street; Cadillac - Fairview Development, developer. �J Page 4 • RESOLUTION NO. 83 -175 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 6194 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION. m. Release of Bonds: Tract 10569 - located on Placer, east of Archibald Avenue; owner, William Lyon Co. Accept Mainten. Guarantee Bond (road) $ 3,300 R ?lease Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $176,600 S.A. 80 -13 - located on the southeast corner of Sapphire and Highland; owner, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church. Release Faithful Perform. Bond $55,000 P.M. 7555 - located on the southeast corner of Milliken and 8th Street; owner, O'Donnell, Brigham. • Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $86,000 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -176 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 10569 AND AUTHORIZING THE riLTNG OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. RESOLUTION NO. 83-177 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR S.A. 80 -13 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 7555 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. • • Page 5 n. Approval of Redevelopment Agency action regarding Judicial Validation Action for future tax allocation bond issues RESOLUTION NO. 63 -179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ITS RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS RELATING THERETO. o. Approval of destruction of city personnel records which are no longer required by law. _ RESOLUTION NO. 83-180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090. • p. Approval of reclassification of Administrative Analyst to .Assistant to Cil,v Manager at a monthly salary range of ;2096- 2550/mo. q. Set public hearing date of November 2, 1983: Draft Development Code. r. Set public hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for consideration of revocation or modification to the conditions for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 - Boars Head. An appeal for the review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and distrubances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza.located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. s. Set Public Hearing I. Le of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 83 -OUA - Carnelian Investments. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from low residential (2 -4 du /ac) to medium residential (4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the R -1 -8500 zone (P -3 npnAing) located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201 - 214 -08. t. Set Public Hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and Zone Change 83-03 - C4rnelian Investments. A change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (multiple family residential) on approximately 7 acres of land l..cated on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 214 -08. Page 6 u MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOL PENCE HEIGHT REVISION. A proposal for the reduation of a fence height required around swimming pools. Staff report by Jerry Grant, Building Official. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk 'Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 1 ?2 -A. ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 122 -A. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Mikels set second reading for Ordinance No. 122 -A for November 2, 1983• • No items submitted. 5. NON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. CITY NANAGRR'S REPORTS 6A. STATUS REPORT ON A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD. A resident who was concerned about a recreational vehicle storage yard located at 10191 Base Line Road had requested time on the Agenda. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented a staff report summarizing the problem and the present status of the same. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was: Donald King, planning consultant, 9375 Archibald, representing Mr. Huss. He passed out some photographs for Council to look at. He stated that the situation is that Mrs. Damns has developed and constructed a vehicle storage yard on her property located south on Base Line, east of Turner in violation of the Rancho Cucamonga zoning ordinance. In the development of this facility, drainage patterns wera created which have and are cuasing • r1 U Page 7 physical and monetary damage to the welfare and property of Mr. Musa. City staff has outlined the problems. Mr. King then proceeded to give background of the approval of the storage yard. On behalf of his client he requested Council direct the City Attorney to offer Mrs. Danna one of the following alternatives: Alternative 1. Cause to have adequate drainage plans prepared and approved to prevent flooding on Mr. Musa's property. Such approval by the City Engineer should occur before October 31. Cause to have these approved drainage improvements installed prior to November 21. Alternative 2: If Mrs. Donna cannot agree with the former then City Council order all vehicles removed from the illegal facility by November 1 and have illegal improvements removed, regrading the site to its previous condition, thereby eliminating the drainage problems that were created. The regrading should be done by November 21. They requested Council direct the City Attorney to order Mrs. Darns, to immediately install a temporary sandbag berm at a size adequate to prevent further flooding this year on Mr. Husa's property. Further, request that Council direct the City Attorney to proceed promptly with Code a %ion as • provided for in the zoning ordinance if one of these choices is not completeu on November 21. Mrs. Donna, 10191 Base Ling, owner of the recreational storage yard, stated she started the storage yard in June 1976 before the City was incorporated. She claimed Mr. Huss had not talked to her about any of this. She had received registered letters from him the last three years on Christmas eve stating he was having someone come out to survey and wanted her to remove everything off his property. As far as she knew she had nothing on his property. Last Christmas eve she received a bill for water damage which she ignored. This was the first she knew of any water damag, Mr. Musa had. The first she heard is when she received a call from Mr. 4airin that there were problems. She was trying to get authoriziti:+n from the Edison Company for an easement in order to install a drainage across their property. So far, there has been no response. Mr. Dougherty stated the issue of the sandbagging is something the city rounnil could direct. Obviously if not complied with, it could be a factor in the Council's decision at a later time on the use under a CUP if in fact the Development, Code is adopted as it is presently written. Essentially though any flooding caused by one property owner onto the property of another is a legal matter which can be resolved in court in a private law suit. Its not something the City should get involved in except insofar as we are attempting to correct the zoning violation. C Page 8 • Mr. Schlosser stated that if sandbagging is done, all you would do is move the water east or west onto someone else's property. He felt thin might create more problems and did not feel it was a wise decision to require the sandbagging. Mr. Vairin concurred and stated he wanted Mr. Huss to be aware that a sandbag berm would not stop water from coming across to his property, but would divert the water from the stable area to somewhere else on his property. Mr. Dougherty asked Mr. Vairin if this would result in a concentration of the flow at given points. Mr. Vii ^in stated yes. The water is being concentrated now because Mr. Husa built a trench on his side of the property which is taking the water to the same area. Mr. Dougherty asked if the concentration is a result of his action on his property? Mr. Vairin stated that was correct. Mr. Dougherty felt that in view of the discussion that requiring sand bagging m!glr be counter productive and would perhaps expose the upstream property owner to a greater degree of liability. . May,, Mikels pointed out to Mrs. Danna that generally speaking ignorance of the law is no defense. The fact that her property has been altered and it has an illegal negative impact on the neighbor can be serious. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to instruct Mrs. Danna to install the iecessary drainage improvements, to obtain the necessary easements, obtain final approval of grading plans and accomplish the tasks by December 1st. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, ;iikclo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Frost • *o• :e Mayor Miklos called a re^ ^o_ ,.t 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. 6B. CONSIDERATION OF SHERIFF'S CONTRACT. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. E • Page 9 Mr. Wasserman stated that the contract before Council is a contract which reflects the revised method for providing the services that was tentatively approved in June. The additional deputies and the issue of the dispatchers will be handled through an amendment to the contract. Amount of the contract will be $2,548,243 for existing levels of service. Lt. Futscher pointed out that the contract does not reflect the two new deputies approved on October 17. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Buquet asked who presently pays for maintenance on the automobiles? Mr. Wasserman stated that we pay maintenance at 7 cents per mile and buying the gas and oil for the vehicles. For maintenance on the automobiles, the City pays for the actual costs, but if the repairs exceed the amount allocated, then the maintenance cost would increase or decrease the next year's contract. Mr. Wasserman stated that the helicopter services would be paid for by the County through another fund and not through the contract. • MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the contract. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. bC. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR RENTAL OF 00144MITY CENTER FACILITIES. Rental of Community Centers to partially defray the overall cost of operation is a common municipal practice, Adoption of these guidelines will provide Rancho Cucamonga a partial cost recovery tool with which to operate. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. City Clerk 'Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83-181. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -181 A RESOLUTION OF THP rrmv rnfiNCTr. OF THE r.TTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONr.A, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE RENTAL OF COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. There was no response, so the public portion of the meeting was closed. MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 83 -181 and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5D. ADDED ITEM: SALARY RESOLUTION Mr. Wasserman reported that Council had approved adjustments in the salaries. The Resolution reflected those 19 adjustments. Page 10 • City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -182. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82 -119 RELATING TO SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR ALL FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983 -84. MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -182 and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8A. REQUEST BY ANDREW BAIMAAIAN TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. Mr. Barmakian proposed that Council consider making his project an "adult only" project. This would allow him to proceed with the project. At the time when school space was available, he would change the designation. • Mr. Dougherty stated there were two decisions from the State Supreme Court stating that excluding all children from apartment projects or condominiums were in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court in these cases expressly distinguished between the normal adults -only type of use and developments for senior citizens. They did leave that open. Whether or not a situation as Mr. Barmakian proposes could be legally enforced would be pure speculation. He has no way to knowing whether the Supreme Court would depart from their already announced decision; simply because we were to allow a building to take place where no school space is available. Discussion followed regarding who would ultimately be responsible if such a development occured since there were other developers who have not vet come forth but had similar problems within the same school district. Mr. Dougherty stated that if a developer feels that a school district has arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld a school letter, then there is a mechanism whereby the developer can appeal that determination or action to the Planning Commission which would then recommend a determination to the city council. Ultimately the City Council, if it feels the school district is arbitrary or unreasonable, would have the power, on hearing the appeal, to waive the requirements. 11 Page 11 Mayor Mikels pointed out the requirements of a school letter was not a State law, but one of our own requirements. We can continue that policy or withdraw it by creating a new ordinance which rescinds that policy. The Mayor continued that it was his understanding that the Central School District has reached the capacity for the portables which are provided by the funds generated pursuant to SB 201. Mr. Wasserman stated that there was a Committee working with the school district composed of representatives from the building industry. Hopefully, this will not come to the city council, but will be resolved between the school district, and the developers. Mr. Dahl asked the city attorney if we would be liable if we entered into an agreement with a developer that was contrary to State law and was illegal. Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not assuming that such an agreement under these circumstances would be an illegal agreement. There is certainly an agreement to be made that there is a public purpose to be served by precluding occupance of new dwellings by children until sufficient school facilities are available. These two supreme court decisions which held that the arbitrary exclusion to children was in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As far • as the liability of City and Council, he does not see a serioua exposure to monetary damage because we are not tlaking about the federal civil rights law, but a California law. There is no federal equavilent to this type of decision involving children. The most a court action could do is find the agreement unenforceable and to enjoin some enforcement. ACTION: The request was received and filed. 80. CONSIDERATION OF PILLING VACANCY ON THE PARRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mayor Mikels brought forth two names for consideration: They were Sam Punter and Molly Mitchell. He asked if there were any additional names to be added. There was no response. Those in favor of Molly Mitchell were: Dahl, Mikels Those in ,favor of Sam Punter were: Buquet, Schlosser, Frost �ouncil requested that letters be drafted over the mayor's signature to Mr. Punter and to all those who submitted applications but were not chosen. 9. ADJOURNMENT LION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adjourn to a closed session to reconvene. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:20 19 p.m. No action was taken. Page 12 MDTION; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk • C, J 1117 CITY ^l f c1 f C9CAYC'1CA 4APRA!IT R[[n ^:f ILIAD PARR Vr\ f 9 p r R N A 4 F YA.R JFIO^RAI PATE 9 ^`RCaf.0 lln {n n.q 11. \r or r[ aI'i I!1 /lv /Pl t9 V9 1•'•1 I• rr:rl !41r ^f. C'• q /.`1 /") Ilia °t 11 r " v SY' Ir /!OI °a IP 15p >I Pr r,; rl l ^` 1•`>.'If[ I ^ /In /91 ins 'Y`1^ ^t S ll!" IT II / ^J /Pl 116)4 VI'I^ � 411^ I ^'i 114 ^] V "In =11': i'•'_" It /'`J /Pl °oil •II^ \C' utl Pr - •.rl t'S 11 /T / "'l 941) + 1 r, R il'r •. 'Vif' 11 / ^J /el In<11 • Al FD'� i'4 •`v 1) 19 71 P) ' \I rA 1.••..t it l'1 -1 111 ^ > /AI "414 It I In sli 1 > /•. ` A••r..Ir: ••i r :5 tr / ^) / ^l t ^i14 ld +e �A9 C^ ll /:P /P1 1.:410 Ir.` n::ri I..r .'AR ^4A ^• 1I / ^: /.r.3 I ^4 >1 759 1T59 R^nayc, rl irl 11/07131 1'411 1 la4'c l.a .q r^ il..rn I1 /O> /nl IT41 ^PlnRr r. ,3:': 11 /0 ? /93 laA >] I!^ Ffr +rllt[R SY`rl Iit, J /i.3 tn4•9 Iv'.' r r 1•.FF "'1'I^ I1 /n)/ei IOA ?O >CM1n ( ^I Il I4C F "'!`.n :t t "rl II /nl /Ni v4ln ^41l r�] r�n'1�1, I '•I r •. ^[ 4- I'll I tI /')` /N' It /C ? /'ll 1 ^ 4>> >l15 c }lr ;i'.1 il 11 /il > /'1l 1'1511 ' >'1 CI_`O " " "'L '1'If p I'IT I" [9M1lG ?] \5 C' :A C-1A `�ITrt Ir'. 11 /ni /ri I^4i5 "'r5 " "lA rfTTl l ": Cr /'ll SVrS 11 /n2181 1041] JSlS [4r nwrq :A Cr Y!TFe r` t5T 11 /�' /Pl 1 1419 35r5 rJ1.lw -`J ^A P ^1 "T••.` 11 /1J /P3 I v411 'e41 rn r "'I F° I gh "AI 4 eT Il /�L /Nl 1'pGl •v9 /fY •.•. 1Y1 ll /12 /e3 1 ^i <> • /t^ ni Yl '.I '1 ! n.l r /_' /il <l 1/^7/93 14444 •ngA Till Rp9P 1] /7] /g3 of nvlF n:A NrT til �liiS /Rl Ii 1 ^a 7 2115 ('••T "'A 1++ 1.� ^ ,.. 'l II /m /o I I44v ` +Sr 4Ih' r.'1 LIL• +n - �•Fr +t rllf>nff l I iFI IC452 <n r< `^ilgFS C _" I'!f 1110) / ^l 1'!4$3 4ell F•Arfn, •1, Sf II /1> /v3 I1G'4 +a VAI. n'I:Y q'YI[M 11/07/13 I1455 4V.•3 "n `I Le VAt�1 I!'•IV ^F FS'. i 11 /O ? /9i 11454 X41 a -r.Crr rnYAV 1]45] c ^.,i 1.11" roRY SI['I 5 ClnPlr 11117/93 Ic /0 > /R3 1'1650 511.1 In9 Il /P > /•Il Ig460 5112 Ie9rncgr Jr51° 11 /n7 /a3 Iv461 5114 I 1 w C 1 ^552 5715 INTL f.ITV NG4T ASSOC II /J2/23 IV4Al 6 1 J' .S`Y 1 ^ITFR•IAT }'1•;il ".r 11117/91 1^456 AI1I J"IIK'_. ?• ^AVI^ 11/02/91 1.415 `Pi %"4" 1'1 f':T 11 /n• /P] 641 3 *1•If L 11 11 /v /PS I1467 6411 vr'r1S[": flrg3 11/01/93 19469 LLtS Rn2VV1EBr Or,-i` II/1J/93 6651 [1115`, J °pn' ll / ^' /fl3 11,10 L 1;111 ;CIL L 1'INl'Invn Il /^.? / ^l In4T1 6111 -S A'Ir[^q "' -If ^'1 1l /OJ /AI 11442 310 'GUFIif t l , .AI I 11/07/ "1 1 ^4 ]3 LOLv wr c':. MI, 94? ^Ai3 11 /OJ /43 11/02/83 DISCOUNT J 1 l I 2, 1, 5, T1 S, t, NET 17 00- 560.0 ¢ IS.On- 72 110 - SO 00- >Affi Ii ' RR6T r.ITY O1CIIII CIICA4"Nr.A 1 VA0.R E N O P P 4 4 M 1' jna i5 i•1ir inn I P,,, .i,4.... P i1v it P 1 1416 7)40 NFA ^r'., `III < 477 7191 Nf T71P1'LA INr 19478 7410 MIN FIN nrrlPUt ASV'C 19479 7445 1In1 IMC P 1 ^410 7515 NA TL n00.0 1rAS1 "'. IYSTITV IA481 IL15 PACIFI`. TnVP'Il1P S1I11IV i"513 i670 Per Trlr ^irK 6 COWL r R 1^444 7595 reLYrn 'PIK 11445 ]TI Peen ATLI 1'1496 7770 PATTi'r SALES roar 4 19497 771 A P^^ 19 418 ii94 0179^!011 TRIlUTni^r•m 1^490 1704 VPPPLAP C ^° ^911"'. 4 11491 77`•0 PPCCI11In "1 IV9 ^All IC SYS 1949] 7099 FSG -TICr 1951 TG WARRANT Ot"1NC❑ `1 oni° IF r4f IV OD/Ill 19491 7 791? P PPINTIPG SEPV /RFC 4r.MT 1 1: /J1 /Pi 19494 ' 'I P PANC11n Pa^ 19495 A All, 1 11.101. ICAI CLINIC I II/9]11` 19496 8 8-175 R RAPIn DATA 1P( 1 11 /0)/n' Ic4nT A AIRI P Pr LFFlT` IT •11 I II /n] /01 1149. 9 999c R Rcllrn IAyrl "f:4r °T, A 11 1 11/07191 . In499 1 1159 1 11111 CAP"PA CINTFP I I1/121A' 1 l'IIn I I IF ,, � � " ^ainur /, pr4Nk! I II /02 18' I9wl . .175 u uGGFIL. N1 RI I I1 /O2 /n' I9507 P P'03 S S C 5 9" f 19593 ` `448 A AN '1rn rt <•In 4,'Y VIV I IVtP /9'. P 1 uIt' S SAN nIf'i I "TAP' n I1 /n2fA3 ')ISCIIIINT MET 540 1.660 I? 6 1 5, I I 2 7 w PAGFO 2 I • I• I V i r I. I I I I . �y 1, J I I 1' r f V i I Y 1 • fMl' GTV AYI CUCAt ;A VI RAAWr Tf� CC ". LllIA S YARlk 1 VE I E N O 9 A F A Al M y 0\TE RFFFRFIAC '1QS59 917a YF'S, UIIISA 11/Ol)P3 19550 YOD FI ^IT, 1-111F 11 /'V /91 19151 9911 ,IT A'S, JOL IF 1: /0• /A) 19c 9.11 j ill 'll`l X'l,Jrll ^l 11/02/91 1egA W W 11PAL T ^T +V II /0: /13 G �Al IL 1021 IS 01 SCOM FIMSL TOTALS MFT ;5.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 70.00 39.00 109,905.50 'RUGE ?'� CLAIM FOP. D.gMAGE OR INJURY Ck 1. Claims For death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed ncl 44 ;IV c 1 100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA = ADMINISTRnTION Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than I yea after t ftTrylo (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). Qe' 0-0 U -�^^ -� AN tt��WW IV n,e CUtrwuy 7fa191�In11�111= 1$141518 I� . TO: CITY OF 1�' av\e�ka !1 .iaco6s `/ 46- 67/S Name of-Claimant Address Zip Phone Pge a.5 o. S Fts t Aoz Ao1 C llelci -4 , CA 41784 /\ddress to which Claimant wishes tices9nt. WHEN did damage or injury occur ?g,o"r, I (cow I cj $ aj WHERE did damage or injury occur? Nre ; %�cu(L `nit s- grro u� Y�nvselw �er y.•.eha4. HOW and under what`` circumstances did damage or injury occur? Clclswsaslt sans Al 1%) �sy n.s 1-r he'hl Vc.,1 �, sv< �� e, ov.sue\ as. c� �s•, ev. �o ynn�<�v.�J+ 1��T e_ Au%A. 11ses-c.(au sTtusok Z(ss. wVAIQ%. WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) nnlrlu � *IlL n��t,�S MP n( eQNae_ ,�i I h x110.2 ncLL ate. \a'a,N�ylNa, U�� Lt Qvu -s"vq r`cpa�Z da -^sa. T. %xt`in-Le t 19 T2 Valero. WHAT sum Ylo �su <!loim?- Include tk)b estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: (Attach estimates or bills, if possible) W4s 4 Aotcc� Loss $ 1600, Total Amount Claimed: E -779, NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Donors and Hospitals: r \ L . .A _ /O — /4- T n 'E - -f . .1 C „- CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY IBE0RIVE0 1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be fiQipynoflWICHOAUCAMOHGA 100 days after tha occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). ADnM.INISS(T�RATIIOO�N Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later then 1 year after MfljoPcUrlLtlftL• (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CC,1 (ICU.( iLt.u'^ -e-'v ?I��1� PO TO: CITY OF ka, o)c Cucar „On�u, c ,� _LS p I •” 1.1' +;ul Trr, .,s.roccJ �'.t. 91130 �1� -6' ) F.-1 r�%8 Name of Claimant Address Zip Phone Age s' l iI)Ec (.;6 dy')J7`Cr Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent. WHEN did damage or injury occur? /C }, IC7 t lclra3 r'7 I'D WHERE did damage or injury occur? (�C�.},��]C \ICi " C. ,tJ . c{ FC04lvli. HOW and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? —1 cc.\: rW nori -h 0N s r 1 ,l,cclrl r4hue cc,s u�,on.l in - V IL',VA CRT rti- \, e-t� t lc.cc� 1'rl „ rrc,d Y�l. r %rl � 4R'\c1 OLLi _ WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) r. ,' � d nS a ) c,r4 �C` E c=JO ME•�Y1, p r. �- Os.l�(� �..11. _1 1 I hUUC `'.)fl rl }I�Ffe cZ` 1.1C,..0 OOU.\Cf, 1 L \f1UE. r WHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: (Attach estimates or bills, if possible) Q r. n %c\ I �•.�i \_ ��1,u_1 C'One \', Sr�(e.0 be 1 V*4i, Total Amount Claimed: j fnn C?, NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Dortors and Hospitals: �Y,c ti T c ' lJurf ; ) A TE aimant 1 • 2 3 4 5 6'. 7� 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,4 26 27 cc: f iai,� BRIAN M. BROWN, ESQ. MURTAUGH, HATCHER S MILLER 400 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 423 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 953 -2199 d is Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA ECONOLITE CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION OCT 2413 AN Pie 7i8j9^11411431`15166 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOAN M. MASON, WILLIAM F. VON HUBEN, and CAROL JEAN VON HUBEN, Plaintiffs, v. FREDERICK DOCKS, etc., et al., Defendants. CASE NO: OCV 30621 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES (Government Code Section 910) TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: You are hereby notified that ECONOLITE CORPORATION, whose address is 3360 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806, claims damages from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for contribution and indemnity, computed as of the date of the presentation of this claim in the amount of one million dollars. This claim is based upon an accident that occurred on July 11, L982, at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Fourth Streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga wherein decedents William and Beatrice Von Huben were killed after a collision occurred between their vehicle and a vehicle driven by Frederick Docks. t to this all times pettine ntcoiled and at co es ib d It ig alleged that o Cucamon9 at ."e t t a abo�e_dt lay ge ed 2 action, ed Pt to locatettY dcons istedf acted a the of It eis maintain which pcoP which obst. tetsection• our e in 3 and 5 ntets stot dit cbi 9dthe e�descfl des ct ion c° stituv ig a dangeY dYi�ets aPPYoa that said int reason of the the intersection 6 they alleged c ptoPettY by n addition, its tYaftic 78 tcondition of Pubfeten°ed above to the Yeason ton l a ct'dityOn 9 ObgttuCti dangeY OUs conditlsn we {e non _0 eYa`ldent and of wve ch 10 was it, s, signs and del, es, Cne ,,) ecd actual C°nsttUcti 11 sign had occuf {O Fa each Ot them, of ctioe measnYe defend in ant 12 the defend amts, an to to take to named as a de SupeYiot 13 to but nad f otation has Retnatdino Co Of William 14 notice, ite CoYP he San heirs 5 Econol on tile with t bfouglot by the t RConoiite 16 an action ,,V pC`1 3p621 that detendan ful death of , Court, case Ruben alleging d to the "tong a plaintiffs 1� d Deattice Von ,,,se Ot contribute s alleged in th l Seek damages IB an 19 rot POtatfo a CReatt ice von ,,,ben thete tote l of 1pattial the 20 WilliaminC Ec.nolite CorpotamonV tot to le0 Obtained by 21 comPiat of Ran °a Y ,udgment °r se i °O gent to Brian Ao City M25 tindemnific atia }nStt,,000jite CoRh °S aClaim $no 0o Re ill Tustin 2d plaintitpll 9notices regac d� 9chet 6 Millets 4 • 26 c/o MuY tough, Brown. 26 M - 2,6 1 2 3 4 ,5 6 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '2 24 ::5 2fi 27 Avenue, Suite 423, Santa Ana, California 92T,5. 14 999. Dated: October 12, 1983 i MURTAUGH,_tATCHER 6 MILLE ,.Liza- MAN W. HRflWN, _ ! Attorn`E�j foc Defendant, �. -ECONOLITE CORPORATION .4 a. . CLAIM AGAINST: 1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3) CITY OF RANCHO CUC d N A TVi -IVs9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA ADMINISTRATION NAME OF CLAIi•LANT: STEVEN DALE BROCFM_AN OCT 24 IM ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: Steven Dale Brockman AM 18909 E. Honore 78iIh %U 11AaI41$IB Rowland 9eights, California 991748 1 ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEYS: Thompson S Colegate 3737 Main Street, Suite 600 P.O. Box 1299 Riverside, California 92502 WARNING: No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the above - stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson 6 Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 `main Street, Suite 600, Riverside, California, 92502. • DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983. LOCA71ON: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8 /10 mile north of 23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino, State of California. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND DAAGES: This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County of San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino West District Superior Court, case number OCV 30186. The underlvinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in a comolaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/ clai ^ant filed on March 8, 1983. On or about July 19, 1983, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P. Beck, located at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101, by alternate method of service mailed a summons and complaint to our client defendant /claimant, Mr. Brockman. Notice and Acknow- ledrrent of Receipt for same was no_ -icned, Therefore, service • Of that com ?laint was not effective until the answer by this defe. ^.;;ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino County Superior Court, test District, in Ontario, California, on October 3, 1983. The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total Claim Against: 1) State of California 2) County of San Bernardino 3) City of Rancho Cucamonga Claimant: Steven Dale Brockman • Page 2 indemnity, expressed and implied, and for declaratory relief as to the apportionment of damages between Steven Dale Brockman and these governmental entities. On information and belief, it is believed that the State of California, County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga all have joint control and responsibility for the maintenance, design, construction and control over the said roadway at the place described herein. The basis of the claim at this time is that the governmental entities, who have control, have a legal obligation to prevent a dangerous condition of a public roadway, which is on the basis of failure to place the proper traffice warnings relative to a dangerous and severe dip in the roadway, failure to properly construct the roadway pursuant to design and plan, that the original design and plans were negligently drafted and carried out all within the knowledge of the governmental entities, and that the failure to correct the dangerous condition resulted in damages to the plaintiff, Anthony Louis Martinez. It also alleced there was a failure to maintain the roadway and • to keep it in a state of repair so as to prevent a dangerous condition from arising. The actual names of the public employees, who designed, constructed or in any manner were involved in the maintenance of said roadway, are unknown to this defendant /claimant at this time. The amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff are speculative at this time. Therefore, on the basis of this claim for indemnity and declaratory relief, no specific sum of money demanded by plaintiff is known to this claimant at this time. The plaintiff is claiming physical injuries, making claims for medical and dental expenses, loss of earnings, costs of suit and general damages, for which this defendant /claimant will ask indemnity as to to total or apportioned amount by virtue of the plaintiff's complaint is sought against this claimant. To more fully acquaint the governmental entities with the accident scene, a copy of the traffic report is attached. DATDD: October 21, 1983 THOMPSON Attorneys for Defendant/ Claimant, STEVEN DALE BR l0 0 October 28, 1983 va a a yr awv.vuv .. ..�.........•. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Finance Olrect� SUBJECT: Adoption of Spending Limitation for 1983-84 Each year municipalities must adopt a spending limitation with regards to proceeds from taxes. The limitation is built around population growth, and the consumer price index or the income per individua! whichever is lower. Attached is a copy of the calculations for 1983 -84, and the resolution adopting said limitation. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, set the spending limitation for 1983-84 at $9,583,742. u LA TIM SPENDING LIMITATION CALCULATION • 1983 - 1984 Spending Limitation for 1982-83 $9.180,093 Factors for determining 1983-84 spending limitation % Population - 2.00 % C.P.I. - 2.35 Ratio of Change - 1.0200 x 1.0235 - 1.04397% Convert to a percentate - (1.04397 x 100) - 100 - 4.397% Spending limitation claculation for 1983-84 Spending limitation for 1982-83 * $9.180,093 Ratio % Population to % C.P.I. - 4.397% $9,180,093 x 104,397% - $9,583,742 • Spending limitation for 1983 -84 - $9,583,742 C 1la • RESOLUTION N0..7� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTABILISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE %1118 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State of California provides that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations limit of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population except as otherwise provided in said article %IIIB; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said article %IIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deems it to be in the best interests of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983 -1984. WHEREAS, The Finance Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that said appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983- 1984 be established in the amount of $9,583,742. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983- 1984 pursuant to Article %IIIB of the Constitution of the State of Calif- ornia be established in the amount of $9,583,742, and the same is hereby established. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriations limit herein established may be chanced as deemed necessary by resolution of the City Council. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of , 1983. ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk /A Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 • 0 III nn n ♦ Wrvn rT Tr. a MrnU!` a STAFF REPORT O�i A DATE: November 2, 19G TO: City Council and City Manager 19=7 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71) The Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvement Project has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Council approve the acceptance of the project, authorize the final payment and direct the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release performance surety and retention. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council accept as complete the Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements and pass the attached resolution authorizing the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion and release performance surety in the amount of $30,902.29 and retention in the amount of 53,147.31. Res' ctfully submitted, V� LSH: :jaa Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. U- 02 -OICR „ " 1-1� it A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLEf10N FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71) 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, be it resolved, 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 Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City erk j as 11 Jon D. Mikels, Mayor n RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1.The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate Is: SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) 2, The full name add address of the undersigned owner is: QTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 9320 -C Base Line Road, P. 0. Box 807. Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3.0, the Odd day of November, 1983, there was completed on the • hereinafter described real property the worx of improvement set forth in the contract documents for: SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) 4,The ti m of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: TRI CITY CONSTRUCTION INC, S.The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: East side of Sapphire Street from Banyan Street to South of Videar Avenue CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation, Owner e - - -- L o—T y�B- Hu 5, 7 Ity n9•noer I it • u I'll / " ! ♦ 11111A 1 fly A 1./ 111 I STAFF REPORT�`v 9 z' h F � (- DATE: November 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, .assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Amending Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 submitted by U S A Properties located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Feron Blvd. Tract Map No. 12090 was previously approved on May 18, 1983 by City Council and presently is under construction. The developer has found that none of the smaller units are being sold and has requested permission to eliminate the smaller building plan thereby changing the lot lines of seven lots. This requires an amended map now submitted for approval. The Planning Commission approved this request at their meeting of October 26, 1983. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Engineer to sign the Amended Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 on behalf of the City. Respectfully submiteed, Attachments '-1 %114661 CITY OF RANCI III CUCA.MON'GA ENGINEERING DIVISION Ui+ii�"• VICINITY AIAP I� L- A N paF,. • vdah LO'T AA)JLkrzTMe,.QTS CITY 01; R ANCI 10 CUCAN IONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP page ILI I .,,4 011 L r,-. r =4 LO'T AA)JLkrzTMe,.QTS CITY 01; R ANCI 10 CUCAN IONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP page RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -02CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONr,A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12090 WHEREAS, the Amended Map of Tract No. 12090 consisting of 128 lots, submitted by U S A Properties, Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Blvd, has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No, 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, all conditions and requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final Map of said Tract remain in full force and affect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That said Amended Map be and the same is approved and the City Engineer is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1985. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. 'Aasserman, City Clerk jaa E on Mi a s, Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182 The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby amends Resolution No. 83 -182 as follows: 02XX Administrative 0202 Administrative Analyst. 0204 Assistant to the City Mgr* 0205 Assistart City Manager* 0259 City Manager" 306 1,593 336 1,850 346 1,945 371 2,203 401 2,559 431 2,971 406 2,623 436 3,047 466 3,538 -- - -E 5.417. Flat Amount - - -- PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT; • ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor h i�l r n.mv nn n � wrn vn nnn w ee nwin n STAFF REPORT November 2, 1983 10: City Council FROM: Robert A. Rizzo Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Modification of City Manager's Life Insurance Policy as Provided in Employee ASreement Per City Council's request, the City Manager's life insurance pntiry coverage will be increased to $125,000 as part of his fringe benefit package. RAR.:mk V1 t ry, 1917 • ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING The City Council of L1,e City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15.12.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Minicipal 'ode is amended to read as follows: Section 15 12 110 Section 1107 added -- Swimming Pool Fencing. Chapter 11 of the Uniform Building Code is amended by adding Section 1107 to read as follows: Section 1107 SWIMM1ING POOL FENCING. Every person in possession of land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, either as owner, purchaser under contract, lessee, tenant, licensee, or otherwise, upon which is situated a swimming pool, having a water depth exceeding 18 inches, shall, at all times, maintain a fence or other structure completely surrounding such pool and extending not less than five feet (5' -0 "), measured vertically, above any • walking surface, wall or other climbable structure, within two feet (2' -0 ") of the exterior of the enclosure. Openings in such fence or structure, other than those created by gates or doors, shall be of such size so that a sphere exceeding, 4 inches in diameter will not pass between adjacent members. Members of such pool enclosure shall not be arranged so as to materially facilitiate climbing or scaling by small children. Gates or door openings through such enclosure shall be equipped with self- closir;g and self - latching devices designed to keep, and capable of keeping„ such door or gate securely closed at all times when not in actual use; however, the door of any dwelling occupied by human beings which forms any part of the enclosure herein required need not be so equipped. Required latching devices shall be located not less than four feet, six inches (4' -601) above the ground. The pool enclosure shall be in place and approved by the Building Official before water is placed in the pool. EXCEPTIONS 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to public, swimming pools roFulated by State Building Standards adopted by the State Building Standards Commission. 2. Any fencing, serving as an enclosure for a swimming pool, lawfully in existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance, and meeting, the requirements for fencing in effect at the time of construction of the swimming pool, may be continued; however, Is any replacement in whole or in part, shall comply with the requirements set forth above. r' h L SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk • shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Daily Retort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983• AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • • • I - ..... ... ..,- ......,.. .. �..�,..,..,..,.. s vl MEMORANDUM ° ` ?, ❑ate: October 28, 1993 F- C� To: City Council and City Manager _ 1977 From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department subject: Council Agenda Item 4 -B, November 2, 1983 Environmental Findings and Site Plan Review for Heritage Park rounc 1 is well familiar with the Heritage Park project: • 40 acre, square in configuration (34.6 acres park, balance in flood control area); • Located southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl; • First park site incrementally purchased by City at an average cost of $9,007, + /- per acre. You have before you tonight two items: first, making environmental findings in relation to the project; and, second, taking action on the site plan it. elf. You have viewed the site plan several times previously and will have another presentation at your November 2 meeting. we have provided as an addendum to ynnr aponda nick the design development report, which contains site plan cross —tions, illu,,trative construction elevations, and related narrative. We view ti— ni'e plan an werkahle, well halaneed and strongly supported by the conmum ty. There should be no problem in this area. on the ether issue, environmental, there may be. some discussion. Ono resident living on Hillside wishes the site to remain as is or simply be turfed. He stirrnd his neighbors up with 'horror stories' of what was going to go in and the nenative impact that would result on their property values. wh.•n we, heard of thin, we went door -to -door to each adjacent property owner ale ", in-ludinq the protester, and invited them to a meeting in the par, to ,iineon.•, •heir noncerns. pnttnm line is this: the sinnle protestinq resident did not come to the meetirrj hnt alpost all of his neighbors did, liked what they saw, and n zF r,• <se., en t!.nain .m for the projept's success. (Members of PAC who were pre;enr, Henry, P1t.t5ai, and Vallanre, well attest to this fact.) continued ... 11 �1 page 2 memo re; Her • re: Heritage Park The long dissident, however, is an attorney and has threatened to sue us on environmental grounds. we do not believe he has any basis for success and believe he is just 'sounding off' in frustration to what he perceives as an unwelcomed chance. And that is his right. If he sues...sc be it. In. the attached environmental documents, Parts I and II, we have 'bent over backwards' to be fair and objective. For instance, many of the questions that could have been conceivable and technically answered 'no', were answered 'yes' just to put a clarifying narrative in the record. This will become self evident as you examine the attachment. Please review the Initial Study Parts I and II as this will 'oe the focus of the lone protester ... if indeed he intends to pursue the issue. This, however, will be a very positive item. Look for many enthusiastic people to be present to support your findings. Staff Peacmr^e nda Lion: 1. Find that the Heritage Park project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and issue a Negative Declaration so stating; and, 2. Find that the Heritnne Park Site Plan as developed by the Heritage • Park Citizens Design Task Force, and reviewed by the Park Advisory Ccnnittee and City Planning Commission, be approved as presented. If I can provide further information, please advise. PH /mw attachments: Initial Study, Parts I and II PAC Minutes 7/21/83 (excerpt) Planning Commission Minutes 8/26/83 (excerpt) Heritage Park DDR (under separate cover? 11eritane Park Task Force Roster • f� 6 0 - - -- -,.,,, AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OP CALIFORNIA SMY OF SAY BERNARDINO 1, _ Maurine. Pa_0an _. , do herebyeertify that I am the Legal Advertising clerk of THE DAILY REPORT. a daily newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, County and Slate aforesaid and that the attached advertisement Of .___.._— EnvirunmenIaI As.sessm.ent.Notice___ ._... ._____.... for.. the- City .of_RaR4ho_ Cucamonga___,___ was published in said newspaper . __.One .f 11. time - -.. . __ _ . to wit: October 21, 1993 1 certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trop, and correct. Dated at Ontario, California this _. .._ ._ 21s t .. .,_ day of G� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicaiiL giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Heritage Park • APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, _ P.O. BOX 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91750, Attn: Community Services Department Director NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rill Holley Director Conmiality Services Department, (714) 989 -1851 LOCATION OF PROJECT (S'T'REET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Si„ thx <t ce ricT of II' l l�idc and 81'1 R' h C ,mnn P.•1. �� A ;:v war's Parcel No. 201- 151 -08 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: xoN1, • I -1 h'-7 • PRC:;ECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF :A 40« acre community recreation facili ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PiRO:OSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project area is 40+ acres in Bross s DESCRIBE TILE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORM -NTION OTOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ,711)!ALS, ANY CULTURAL, RIL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE 01' SLRaOUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXIS'i ING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The setting; is a 40 acre snuare of land slonina an oversee of 8' north n Dire is current n' rr1- sectea or in Improeeo goon control stru and tl•,c remnants of an abandoned grape vineyard. • the n:�i i•;o vrectatlm, ii linited to the ect ieme north west cpmcr of the Ln ^,:et rene ral l> described as the Rancho Kish secrion Fill nl rt yes surrounding the Parcel as designated in the General Plan as rvs iJcn un1, with nn ly the north and west sides developed at this tiael 'There is no known historical significance to the nronerly. Is the project part of a larger project, one o`, a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO, 49 I -2 ng with ack WILL THIS PROJECT: • YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? none of 1" _ X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many ?calire - or more X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: see attached • Im PORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page, ____________ ____ N/A ----------------------------------- -------- 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 add. itior..'il information may be required to be ubmitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Devcl opment , view Committee. I Date; _Signature /^ w Tit,' V_oJb. I -3 n^ C fi RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to acccr..modate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Soecific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOT:L 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: Earliest date of Mc-aA - an.i ; of Tentative S. Beciroo -s Price Range 49 I -4 T City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial Study, Part I Page I -3: Explanation of 'YES' Answers Will this project: Q. 1. Create a substantial change is ground contours? A. 2. 1'cs, however the change will not be adverse or detrimental. The changes will be encountered in creating a more level playing surface for multi- use athletic fields and equestrian activities than is now afforded by the 8 °° average slope. It is not anticipated that soil will be imported or exported, but will be balanced on site. Q. 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? A. 2, The noise level will change but will not be adverse or detrimental. Currently, the noise level from the grape vineyard is very low, Any introduction of noise, therefore, results in a change. The new sound level will be consistant with other community parks within residential areas, and that has not proved to be negative in nature. Q. 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services? • A. 3. Similar to the situation described above, where no service now exists, nny charge is substantial. Maintenance services will provide the bulk of new services to the site, with some increase in routine patrol by law enforcement officials. There will be an increase in water useage in watering the plant material to be introduced. . • CITY OF RA:;CHO COCA:IOAGA PART II - INITIAL EMCIRON IE ;ITAL CHECKLIST APPLIC ;d:TO City of Rancho Cucamonga LOG NUMBER: , PEO.; i:CT: Ilc:itage Parl, PROJCC:' LO(ATIO':: Southtaest comer, Hillside and Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga (:i::p:anation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). In YES `4:'.' ?•' SO 1. soil_ . and Goololv. Will the proposal have �i�,ni: icon[ results in: .�. l'n_s table ground condieinna or in changes in ge, +logic relationships?. b. Di.nupc ions, displacements, compaction or hurial of the soil? A u _ C, Chnngc in topography or ground surface contour intervals? A _ d, The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X c. Any potential incroase in wind or water ern: ;ion of soils, affecting either on or off Fite conditonry? „ Chem, ;es in erosion siltation, or deposition? l r. l:.gmsuro of people or property to geologic ba+mrds such av ear [hqunkus, landslides, mud- ' slidos, ground failure, or sinilar hamrds? h. An inc renso In the rate of extraction and /or •ree of any mineral resource ^. Ilvd Jill the proposal have significant resu its in In a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b, Chan „'s in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the mate 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 any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h, The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air ouality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stntionary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Rio to Flora, Will the proposal have significant results in: ;n. Charge in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered ,species of plants? Yes MAYBE No I • X X X X X X X X X X X X X _ - - Y u • Vag, YES _RAYRE NO Introduction of new or disruptive species of • C. plants into an area? -- X d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? -- X — Faun,. 8f11 the proposal have significant results i r,: a. Chane,e in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers R of anv species of anislals? .-- -- b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X or endangered species of animals? -- — c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of an finals into an area, or result in a barrier X to tl,c migration or movement of animals? ___ d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X — 5, Po`ulnti on. Will the proposal have significant results in: • a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- rate of bution, density, diversity, or growth = the human population of an area? -,--- b. 17 (Il the proposal affect existing housing, or creata a demand for additional hnusir,g? _— = (. $aria- iie „nomic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Chnnrc in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or co=orcial diversity, tax rate, and property IL values? -- -- b. will project costs be equitably distributed ar..ong project bunefici cries, i.e., buyers, n a tax payers or project users? — 7. 1,,j l__e . ptnnnin; rune iderat ions. Wtil the have Signlf CL ct re,—Jts in? prnpon"I ;1. A substantial alteration of tji, present or x plInn"d land axe of kin area? h. A conflict with any des irnat ions, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental X en',itios'. --- -- c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive Y recreational opportunities? ----- — Page 5 YES MAYEF. NO S. Transnortation. Will the proposal have significant results in: c. ^eneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existink streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? X C. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? X f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? X g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: • a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resuuices? X 10, Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors, Will the proposal have significant results in; a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? R C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? - X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? X e. rncre.ase in existing noise levels? X f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? X g. The creation of objectionable odors? X • h. An increase iu light or glare? X w Page i YES ,MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant • results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? A C. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? X 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? X b. Natural or packaged gas? X C. Communications systems? X d, Water supply? X C. Wastewater facilities? A • f. Flood control structures? X g. Solid waste facilities? _ X b. Fire protection? X i. Police protection? X j. Schools? X k. Parks or other recreational facilities? X 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X m. Othor governmental services? X- 13, Rn -avv and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal havo Significant results in: :1. USe Of SUb!itAuLial Or excessive fuel or energy? b, Sub.:tantIal incronse in demand upon existing sources of l`nl'rpy? X c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of cnery,y? Y X d. An inrroaso or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? X 7`� Page 6 YES MAYBE NO C. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or • scarce natural resource? _ X 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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_ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (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). _ X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an • individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X II. DISCCSSI07: OF ENVIRMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus -a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 0 n III. DETERMINATION • On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find the proposed project COIMD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECUPUTION will be prepared. E j I 1 U _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect L.J in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DCCLIRATION WILL RE PREPARED. �I I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the u envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Data 1�� Signature Title Page 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Initial Study, part II 1: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers 1. b. In constructing the park the entire surface area will be graded, smoothed, and cut and filled to accommodate to features of an approved site plan. This is disruptive but not detrimental or adverse to the environment. 1. c. Same as 1.b. 1. f. Currently runoff from the site travels off site onto adjacent properties to the south . sometimes precipitating expressed concern by those owners. The proposed project will change the runoff pattern into a managed collection and harmless disposal. This is a change but one which is not detrimental or adverse to the enrironment. 2. b. Same ns I.f. 0. a. Currcrtly there is, on a portion of the site, abandoned grape vineyards. These will be removed. There are groupings of native plant material and trees in the vicinity of the Rancho Wash. Much of this will be retained or replaced with like material to serve as a base for the park's 'nature area'. • There will be grasses, groundcovers, varieties of trees and shrubs, not now on the site which will be introduced as desired elements of a properly appointed • municipal park. The above items represent change, however, they are neither detrimental or adverse to the environment. 10. e. Currently the majority of the site is an area comprised of vineyards, open brush and flood control improvements. These features generate little or no noise. Therefore, the introduction of any activity which generates any level of sound can be described as an 'increase'. Ilowever, the new sound level will be consistent with those of other municipal parks and generally less than an elementary school site during recess /play periods. Roth of these uses, parks and schools, are an accepted and desired part of the fabric of residential areas. Whil^ it i< n change, it will be neither detrimental or adverse to the environment. lhi:: is one area of the pro iect that will provide a significant change to the existing site ... possible activity lighting. possible .tdverse impacts from activity lighting at the project, will be mitigated in several ways: Thru.igh grading and depressing the equestrian activity center below the level fall ut the grade, thereby reducing light level elevation abo•.e fall of grad continued ... • it L page 2 Initial Study, part II City of Rancho Cucamonga I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers 2. Shielding and directing light to avoid spillage; and 3. Centel of use. While light will not directly spill onto surrounding residential properties, there will likely be a glow or a glare that will have an impact on night views of the valley from homes that-overlook the park. This cannot be avoided if activity lighting is a part of the project. On balance, it is believed th— — sitive benefit accrued from this feature outweigh possible negatives from glare, therefore, is acceptable. D peak 3 PAC rv3Utf9 7/21/83 - revu let xet: nv he+GhhOr+na [ eidfnt, d.Ck Adams, Molly Mitchell, Sharon Adams, Sap sage tce and other.a free the audience all Made pos, ei ve Comment, remit L,n4 the park design. Committee members dlacvaasd the park design. Committee members asked staff if the Task force a always involved with the plan. Staff explained that. the Task Force v a. ea Wnaible [Or the original site plan, technical support was done by staff and R.S.i., and the oriq,rml Site Plan has remained the use. COam,ttee members discussed the safety necessary for play apparatus in the Playarcund a , suggested plant materials and regvmtti that the leonine trail•te widened to 6 test. Macon: Mov.d ny PatAeea, a t nded by valiance, that adoption TI115 SECTION AMENDED - loft, aI S ite plan for Heritage Park be recvmrended to City Coup-al, vi N the following Prevision.: 1. That the Park Advi.o[y C r."ttee be kept i ' volved with deeagn dev.lopreat through the working drawings of the site doe , , and ]. The jogginq trail width be increased to 5 feet: and 8. That particular attention be paid to the safety of all Playground apps atu s. Motion carried i -n. (Absent: Allen) Chairman "arty and Comm tree ...hers expressed their apFr ^c +a e, en to P . . r•nt,on system,. Inc., for the excellent • design plan for "entaq^ Park. Che,lron Harry Cai1M for a ranee, at 8:35 P... Meet+nn r eC nod at 0:19 p.m. with the fellovinn members p[ee^nt: Merry, Pitaa,+ and Riggs. Absent: All.n and V.11ance. Committee menher% dl,u:.aed the ..view of the Park Clement of N. r, rel Plan. ft was the c of the C ... itte, that •after this da,... anon he tabled until the Sap Cenber _,ran, at which the youth Spnre, Council will be invited to comment O Park a Marge,. Staff explained that the ,vision of the Park glen.nt•of he Aral Plan 'ill take a rat .satin'. and Additional r a cos (nember, of the Planning staff, ate.). Staff further expla+n.d that a detimant such a a General Plan • offer n i,ty of law its guidelines. It will ad r -,oc niltema m nom, c, oils, board, and staff mail all •r Miry ' Oba _ hn of anni n, d.c.c.,t nt tone mlrn:, ndi ,la nrM mrh as . C nnral Plan. Ccnnat V. 1.111•[ lillaa: gu..11pamd at.tt on th. status of the L� Community 1'ac,l,t,.a A-t. st.tf ra Mrt^d teat th- C,ty Council ar uy I'm ,oname n^n..l:t, to our t —snit, rkadang hw Act Ad !porn ^Ant Chaarnan limply ad inn 11..I the meeUM .t bs {.[[fully �Wma fret ny: Mary whl Mry CrYeUpatY tin rv:.H In:,at tie nt e' •M...te. Intnd..l, add ropy of duly 10 memo rC: DOk /Ilk stage Park L�1 0 • A v it I yr D.AINUnv t.ui.nmvivt,ri oCV` MQ1f, MEMORANDUM Date: July 20, 1963 p, r y' I: To: PAC Members Fron: Dill Holley, Director, Community Services Department 1B,] Subject: Preliminary Design Development Report: Heritage Park Find attached the above described document. It would he helpful if you review it prior to Thursday's meeting. P.Si will be prefacing their presentation to you with some verbal changes in the document, these changes are: 1. Increasing the 79 parking spaces to 99 by adding 5 spaces per row; 2. Increasing the 10' equestrian trail width to 15' width; 3. Deleting resa —e o to tensiometers in the irrigation system; 4. Replacing woad fencing with City standard concrete fencing, such as that which is in place at Rancho Nash and Hillside Road; 5. Pn_fy types of building materials in part: structures (restrooms, snac:: bar and equestrian building). The above changes were direct to RSi by staff based on citizen comments and professionil ju3gement. Please feel free to call out any concerns over and above those cited shove that you have with the plan. If you wish changes, say so. A last cor�ern, which will not be easily dealt with, is the bottom line estinited cost of the project. RSi is more in touch than we are with current pricing, so may well he correct. It does seem somewhat high however. Lastly, w.• arnlogize for the lateness of delivery of this material. D!I /ry 7ieaC/Px.�k �, �� 2 �cN.wr, �' n AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL Chairman Stout advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date should his attorney advise him not to enter into a lien agreement with the City. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. USE DETERMINATION - BLANCO INVESTMENTS - A request to determine if a mini- storage facility would be considered similar to other uses permitted in the C -2 zone. Proposed project to be located on the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street. Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report explaining that this review by the Commission was not for approval of the project, but to gain a consensus of the Planning Commission if this type of use could be considered in the C -2 zone. Chairman Stout stated that this could be a permitted use, however, would prefer to see it under the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit. • There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that a mini - storage facility could be considered a permitted use in the C -2 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. 1 • R fe ! 1:50 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened w i • w R J. HERITAGE PARK SITE PLAN REVIEW Bill Holley, Community Services Director, presented the Heritage Park site plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley stated that the Parks Advisory Commission provided extensive input into the site plan. Peter Patassi addressed the Commission on behalf of the Parks Advisory Commission expressing their support of the park plan. Chairman Stout stated that the plan seemed to meet the needs of the community very well. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1983 • i� • Commissioner Barker agreed that the plan considered all facets of the community. Tnere was a consensus of the Commission that approval of the site plan be forwarded to the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Stout requested that the Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head Bar and Restaurant facility in the Rancho Plaza be placed on suspension and brought before the Planning Commission in thirty days for consideration of modification or revocation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this item be heard at a public hearing on September 28, 1983. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adjourn to the Foothills Community Plan meeting to be held on August 30, 1983. 8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned • Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 24, 1983 .. . AIL± .. .... ... .. COMMUNITY TASK FORCE (Committee for the Design of Heritage Park) • Pam Henry 9013 Caballero Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Christine Benoit Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent 6020 Eastwood City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rebecca Martin 8083 Surrey Lane Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Orrin Kiefer Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 8810 Scrang Lane Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Sue Draper 6127 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Sharon Romero 8242 Rosebud Street Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 • :dark Pfister 9002 Hillside Road Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Sam Grasso 7838 Valle Vista Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Joe. White P.O. Box 5 Etiwnndn, California 91739 Jahn Gill c/o Alta Loma School District 11.0. Box 370 Alta Lemn, Ca. 91701 Peter Pi Lassi 7417 Kinlock Rnncho Cuc.:imanRa, Co. 91730 MI'lly Mitchell 901.H Camellia Ct. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 • I • l J /�TTV /11;T T A AI ITTTII liT i/� A liA Ai /� STAFF REPORT�GInV 'r C. Ij 1977 DATE: November 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP ABSTRACT: In the course of the last twelve months, the Planning Division staff has been compiling and working on a new Development Code and Development Districts Map to replace the Interim Zoning Ordinance now in effect. The first public draft was completed this summer and was distributed. The Planning Commission began reviewing and conducting workshops in August and recently concluded their review and recommendation on October 12, 1983. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Development Code based upon the changes and recommendations which the Commission has made to the document. Attached to this report is the Planning Commission staff report of October 12, 1983 which summarizes the majority of the Planning Commission work as well as transmits the Planning Commission's recommendation for the adoption of the Code. Tonight the Code is being presented to the Council for first reading of the Ordinance as well as adoption of the attached Resolution which authorizes the City Clerk to publish a quarter page 5d in the newsoaper to legally advertise the hearing and review of this document. This report is intended to be a brief overview of the process and the basis for the creation of the new code. 1 , CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 2 • 11. REVIEW PROCESS: The Planning Commission conducted four workshops beginning August 16, 1983, as well as two additional public hearings at regular Planninq Commission meetings. The workshops were established in order to allow public input from all persons involved and desiring to have input on the content of the Development Code. Representation from the Building Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Real Estate Board, and the general public was provided at the workshops. Favorable comments, as well as constructive suggestions were received at the workshops and are reflected in the final Draft Development Code. Attached is a letter from the Building Industry Association acknowledging its support of the Code. We have received like comments from the Board of Realty and Chamber of Commerce and expect to receive written communication from the Chamber shortly. At tonight's hearing, staff does not propose to go through a detailed review and analysis of each of the chapters and sections of the Code. We feel it would be more productive at this time to review any specific questions and concerns the Council or public may have and to address ourselves to those areas. The action needed this evening is the adoption of the Resolution authorizing the necessary legal publication, as well as first reading of the Ordinance. If there are areas of concern or questions which are not resolved at the first reading, we would anticipate addressing • those issues and answering them at the second hearing on November 16, 1983. In preparation of the final draft, staff found an area which will require correction p,,inr to final print of the text. In the Residential Chapter, the VL Residential District was inadvertently included in the optional development standards. The VL Residential District should not be included as it would not be consistent with adopted Council Resolution No. 82 -81 which reserves the half -acre area of the General Plan for individual half acre lots, not clustering. Unless Council has any questions on this matter, staff will remove it from the optional standards for the final printing of the text. III. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE: r A. What was the goal and basis for its creation? When staff first began plannng the Development Code format, we assembled the many ordinances and policies which had been previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. It became apparent that these ordinances had become somewhat fragmented and difficult to view in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, an overall goal for the Development Code was CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 3 to develop a comprehensive document that provides guidance to all eevelopment- related issues with appropriate standards in order to promote and assure the health, safety, and welfare of all Rancho Cucamonga residents. Further, this goal was refined into the following objectives: 1. Develop a clear, concise, and simple format for easy interpretation and understanding by the general public. 2. Combine all like development requirements in one document for easy access and informatlon gathering. 3. Coordinate and implement the existing General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. 4. Coordinate development guidelines and standards with existing and proposed specific plans and planned communities. 5. Bring together and coordinate all previously adopted land use policies and ordinances, update and provide other needed sections. • 6. Develop new energy conservation guidelines, performance standards and design guidelines. 1. Whenever possible, simplify the planning and development process without sacrificing the intent of the Genral Plan for quality development. 6. How will it relate to other planning documents? Over the last five years, the City has adopted four other land use regulatory documents; the Industrial Specific Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Victoria Planned Community, and the Terra Vista Planned Community. These documents contain land use controls as well as developmwent and design guidelines and standards for these specific areas. The area which these plans cover encompasses approximately two-thirds of the City's land mass, therefore leaving the area generally west of Haven and north of the industrial area to be regulated mainly by the City's Development Code. In formulating the Development Code, much consideration was given to the makeup of these other plans and how they would relate to one another. A major step towards relating the documents and standards to one another was the change of traditional zoning districts, such as R -1, R -2, and R -3, to the land use districts which are used throughout the planned communities, specific plans, and the General Plan, which are VL, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Development Code and Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 4 • L, LM, etc. Other items, such as landscaping requirements, design guidelines, animal regulations, and parking regulations, were written to be consistent throughout the entire city area. What is the Code's basic contents? In all, the Draft Development Code contains ten chapters. The first three chapters deal mainly with administration, permits, and review process. Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal more specifically with actual land use development standards and regulations. The last chapter, Chapter 10, is an overlay district chapter which is intended to be expanded as the need arises for special overlay districts. Each chapter is arranged in a similar fashion, particularly those dealing with standards and regulations. In each case, the land use regulations are located in the same section of each chapter, followed by development criteria, performance standards, and design guidelines. The style of each chapter has been to combine standards into matrix form for easy access and comprehension. The Development Code has essentially evolved into a compilation of the many ordinances and policies which have been adopted over • the last couple of years. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendation far the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Cade and Development Districts Map. Tonight it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to move ahead with the legal publication and to conduct first reading of the attached ordinance. R 1peecc55fully'saomitted, V RicK Gomi*Y City Planner RG:MV:jr Attachments: Letter from Building Industry Association Commission Resolution No. 83 -123 Planning Commission Staff Report 10/12/83 City Council Resolution 11- 02 -03CR City Council Ordinance -, 0 • C — CITY OF RANCHO CLT AMONGA STAFF REPORT v DATE: October 12, 1983 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DEVELOPMENT DI TRI MAP ABSTRACT: This is the final public hearing before the Planning ommission for review and comment on the proposed Development Code and Development District Map. A Resolution for a final recommendation to the City Council is being provided for action by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: Since August 16, 1983, the Planning Commission has been conducting a number of public workshops for the specific purpose of reviewing the Draft Development Code text and the Development District Map. During these workshops the Building Industry Association, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, has provided input with regard to the text, graphics and map and are in basic support of its general concepts and programs. The Commission has modified the Code to best reflect the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and public input, Tonight's meeting is intended to be a public hearing to review the Commission's actions, as well as any final actions desired by the Commission. The remainder of this report focuses upon the major actions of the Planning Commission on a chapter -by- chapter basis. Additionally, this report discusses the environmental assessment for the Development Code. 11. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION ACTIONS: A. Chapter 1 - Administration: 1. Section 1,7 - Revisions /Modifications: This was rewritten to include a description and Tistio the difference between minor and major revisions and the process by which such revisions would be made. 2. Section 1.8 - Appeals: The existing appeal process which the Citycurrently os, which includes appeals to the City Council for all staff and Commission actions, PLANNING COMMISSr STAFF REPORT C Environmental AsA-iment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 2 • 3. Business License Section: This section was eliminated in favor of having appropriate statements and signatures on the Business License application. 4. Section 1.13 - Code Enforcement: This section was modified to eliminate the maJornty o the reference to code enforcemnt as this is covered in another section of the Municipal Code. The remainder of this section was modified to deal mainly with noise abatement procedures. 5. Non - Conforming Use Section: This was modified to eliminate precise amortization time periods for non - conforming uses. Instead, non - conforming uses will be regulated in terms of expansion and intensifications and would be eliminated over a long period of time through natural attrition. 6. Section 1.14 - Definitions: This section has been continually modified to incorporate comments received throughout the hearings on terms which require definitions. The final document which will be presented to the City Council will contain all of the final definitions and changes. CHAPTER 2 - PERMITS: 1. Section 2.3 - Conditional Use Permits: This section was modified to provide precise procedures for an applicant or the Planning Commission, to modify, suspend, or revoke any Conditional Use Permit. 2. Section 2.5 - Minor Exce Lion: The title of this section was reworde rom ^Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order not to - onflict with existing state law regarding variances. 3. The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement, findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify this chapter and eliminate the redundancies. CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1. Section 3.1 Purpose and Intent: Additional purpose statements were ad ed to this section to reflect those which were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSIr STAFF REPORT (` Environmental Asset sment /Draft Development Code ` October 12, 1983 Page 3 • 2. Section 3.3 - Residential Growth Mana Review S stem: The title o this section was amended to c u e re ere"ke to To growth management in order that it is clear that much of the current growth management philosophies and requirements are included within this code. D. CHAPTER 4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1. Modifications to Table 4.3 Use Re ulations were made to list eed an tack stores accessory to commercial stables) and dormitories (accessory to college or schools) as accessory uses in the residential zones. 2. Table 4.3 E was amended to clarify the keeping of ponies in conjunction with the keeping of horses. The final wording will be submitted to the City Council. Also, the keeping of birds and rodents beyond the specified limit would require a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission decided that the basic number regulations in conjunction with the performance standards and noise regulations would be utilized to control this area. • 3. Tables 4.4 -B and C 'eve to Tent Standards have been modified and fine tuned to bome mo feas ib a and workable. As the ec re staff has been reporting to the Commission, the basic and optional standards were developed in an attempt to implement the original objectives of the General Plan ranges to create transitions and neighborhood compatibilities. Under the optional standards if a developer desires to go beyond the mid -point of a density range, there would be additional requirements expected of the developmeni. Some of these requirements include increased open space, solar energy, increased setbacks, and landscaping. Based on the Commission's last review of these tables.a copy of the latest revised tables is attached for your review and any final comments. 4. Section 4.5 - Absolute Policies were added to Chapter 4 to comp ement C e other requirements of the Growth Management system such as the development standards, design guidelines, and the performance standards. 5, Section 4.6 - F was added to include the policies with regard to Ghe installation of sidewalks. 6. Section 4.6 - H.4 was added to regulate sattelite dish antennas within —residential districts. 19 7, Section 4.7 -D was modified to simplify the vehicle and equipment repair and storage regulations. PLANNING COMMISSY STAFF REPORT C Environmental As ' sment /Draft Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 4 E E. CHAPTER E - COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DISTRICTS 1. Section 5.2 - Districts: The Administrative Professional (AP) District was changed to Be titled "Office Professional" (OP). 2. The Ustioe Re ulati on Table was modified slightly to add some a ina uses as on itional Use Permits within the OP District. 3. SDeC ial Use Re�u_lati�ons were added for adult businesses, temporaryfice modules, and shopping centers. 4. Secticn 5.4 - G was added to provide reference to trails which Tay be required in a commercial development to be consistent with the trails map. F. CHAPTER 6 - PARKING REGULATIONS The requirement for allowing the usage of compact car stalls was reduced from a maximum of 50% to 35 %. G. CHAPTER 7 - SPECIFIC PLANS AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS • No major changes were made to this chapter. H. CHAPTER 8 - OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 1. Table 8.3 - Use Regulations: This section was amended to change requirement of the dwelling units within the open space district from one unit per net buildable 40 acres to one unit per 40 acres. 2. _Section 8.4 - Site Development Regulations: Site dimensions and setbacks were decide to be determined on a site -by -site basis based upon topography, water and drainage, circulation, and other environmental factors. I. CHAPTER 9 - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I. Fire safety regulations were changed to reflect the requirements o the Foothill Fire Protection District. 2. The Planning Commission decided to require that a statement be placed on all deeds for parcels which are located along fault lines to inform them of the location of faults and the possibility for seismic activity. h i PLANNING COMMISSY STAFF REPORT Environmental As smenti DrafL Development Code October 12, 1983 Page 5 • J. CHAPTER 10 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS 1. All of the Overlay Districts were combined into one chapter, 2. The Mobile Home Overlay District was eliminated by the Commission as a result of state legislation which limits the amount of control the City has over the design and regulation of mobile home parks. 3. An Equestrian Overlay District was added to implement the resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the equestrian area and the keeping of animals within that area. I1I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code is considered part of the same project as the General Plan since it is the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. Since the Development Code is a related project to the General Plan, state environmental planning law allows the Planning Commission to determine that the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared for the General Plan is adequate in covering any potential significant adverse impacts that could be created as a result of the Development Code. This finding can be made as long as the • Planning Commission finds that the Development Code does not cause a substantial change in any of the goals or policies, or that no new additional information beyond which was presented in the General Plan EIR has become available that would alter the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division 13. Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that would not require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development Code is implementing the existing coals and policies of the General Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to environmental impacts during the General Plan EIR. IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the final public hearing for final consideration of the proposed Development Code and Development District Map. Attached is a Resolution recommending approval and adoption of the Development Code and the Map to the City Council. Additionallo, attached is the draft Ordinance that will be presented to the City Council which repeals the existing interim ordinances and other development- oriented ordinances that have been incorporated into the Development Code. Re sp,ctfully""mitted, Rick ome 0 yIPlanner I RG:MV:jr Ij ✓ ! c c RESOLUTION NO. 83 -123 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION • RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.08, 17.12, 17.16, 17.20 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, such action is necessary to implement the General Plan pursuant to Section 65800 et, seq, of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the Development Code is an imp ementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant adverse impacts, Further, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds: A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or policies which would require major revisions to the EIR. • B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. C. No new information on the project has become available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 through 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Ordinance adopting Title 17, Development Code, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. 2. TF,ot a —, tified copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA E • • Resolution No. / Page 2 I, JACK, LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, JUAREZ, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE r � r Bin �aloy 'A*W rcOapter uuildinq industry association of southern catfomia. iix October 5, 1983 Sir. Jack Lam Director of Ce:^munit•y Development 9320 Baseline Road Poncho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear :Ir. Lam: After a lengthy review of the proposed development code, tho Baldy View Chanter of the Buildinc Industry Association endorses and supports the adoltion of the new code. We appreciate the work that has gone into this dccument as it represents a definate improvement over the existing amended county code that the city had been utilizing. We feel the new cede has the potential of becoming a model ordinance to various other municipalities in tho area that are due for an updated development code. Rick Gomez and ?tike Varian have done an outstanding job. They have taken tho initiative to oa out into the community and solicit public input. '.1e have had ample opportunity to discuss with them our views on certain aspects oC tho code and are pleased wish the results. Fcel free to use our association's name as one that`avors the adoption of the proposed development code. Sincerely, Gar r•y r.ca,t n tic /wwn ' nirectnr 0 1150 N rdounlam Ave. Bldg A Ste 207 Reoreseneng allot San Bernardino County uoland. CA 91 766 (71 4) 961 -2997 or 946.2869 An Affiliate of the NAHB and the CBIA ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments thereto, are hereby repealed. SECTION 2: The following sections of the San Bernardino County Code, previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed: (a) 61.021 through 61.029C, inclusive; (b) 61.0210 through 61.0219P, inclusive; (c) 61.0220 through 61.0223, inclusive. • SECTION 3: The following chapters of the San Bernardino County Code, previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed in their entirety: (a) Chapter 3. Subdivision Code; (b) Chapter 4. Mobilehome Parks. SECTION 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed, with the exception of Chapter 17.16, Condominium Conversions, which shall be renumbered as Chapter 17.22. SECTION 5: The following sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code are hereby repealed: (a) 1.08.090. Director Review; (b) 1.08.150 through 1.08.170, inclusive. Home Occupations; (c) 1.08.180 through 1.08.190, inclusive. Pyramidal Zoning. SECTION 6: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Title T7-thereto to read as follows: Is Ordinance No. Page 2 INSERT RENUMBERED CODE PER MUNICIPAL CODE FORMAT E • • Ordinance No, Page 3 SECTION 7: The development district map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted. , SECTION 8: The City Council finds that the Development Code is an implenentation of the General Plan 9�cls and policies and that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant adverse impacts. Further, the City Council finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the city Council. A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or policies which would require major revisions to the EIR. B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. C. No new information on the project has become available. . SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement of at least one - quarter of a page to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 (c)(2) within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. 'Wasserman, tty er kep RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -03CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA'40NGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PUBLICATION IN ACCORANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36933(c)(2) - DEVELOPMENT CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) the City Council previously designated the City Clerk as the City Official to prepare a summary of the Development Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Development District Map; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reported to the City Council that he has determined that it is not feasible to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance or of the ordinance if it is in fact adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1: At least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Development Code and Development District Map are to be adopted the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. • SECTION 2: Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Development Code and Development District Map the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code Section 35933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M, Wasserman, ity er kep Cenfral School Visfrui w57 Foothill Blvd. - Rancho Cumomenge, CA 91770 - (714196"541 REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMMISTRATION Fmnk A. Cores, Jr. omu sp«rrnrrwm John A. McGary Avenam Sorr..nrn.d.nr, M,wrM Themes W. Garna1W. Ed.D. Aenrnm Sp« nnnOmr, Wumu Sa.mn, pure ^ose_: The purpose of this report is to present to the City -Council and to the public, the situation faced by the Central School District in providing adequate educational facilities to accommodate students which will be generated by proposed residential developments within the school district. 1. present Situation Central School District operates three elementary schools and one junior high school. Facilities at each of these schools consist of a combination of pe[m.:. ;-nt class< m and core facilities and relocatable • classrooms. The designed capacity and current enrollment of each of these schools is shown below. Designed Current Excess Over Relocatable School capacity Enrollment Designed rapacity Facilities Central 570 658 88 3 Reloc. C.R. 1 Trailer Valle Vista 570 643 73 3 Reloc. C.R. 1 Trailer Dona I4erced 570 807 237 9 Reloc. C.R. 1 Reloc. R.R. Cucamonga 'I.H. 660 624 164 4 Reloc. C.R. 2 Trailers Each schnul in the district is currently operating beyond its designed capacity. This creates An overcrowded situation and an extreme burden on the r;e of c.rre facilities such as playgrounds, restrooms, libraries, resource and ciminir;tration space. L, d «ar _c_ul_ch Elementary School 'fhe I:r': ;rh "tn of BCAr Gulch Elementary School will open in September, I1�i, This t: -n school will consist of eight new modular classrooms to be • ronctri,cjv4 rm the site, five relocatable classrooms to be moved from Dona Ncrcrd, i .:mall relocatable administration buildinq, and a relocatable restroom. 60110 01 11USTEES Jerk Md(91vW Lawrence W. Dutton Ruth A. Mutter Olen R. Ogden ►amda J. WdBM /nubnr 00 Mrmbrr /^ ^ Memb« M«nbrr - 2 - Total enrollment of Bear Gulch is projected to be 420 students in September, • 1984. Bear Gulch will allow this district to alleviate the extreme over - erowdinq presently at Dona Merced and create space for an additional 240 students in the district. The first phase of Bear Gulch will consist almost entirely of classroom space with cote facilities limited to the relocatable . administration and restroom buildings. Playground space will be limited to three of six acres necessary for an elementary school. 3. Projected Enrollment and Capdcity, September, 1964 Projected enrollments and school capacities in September, 1984 are shown below. Gr. 1 -6 K Total Central 17 Classrooms 450 120 570 3 portables 90 _ Sub Total 540 120 660 Less 1 Classroom (SDC) 30 Total 510 120 660 Valle Vista 17 Classrooms 3 Portables 450 120 90 570 • Total 540 120 660 Dona Merced 19 Classrooms 510 120 630 4 Portables 120 Sub Total 630 120 750 Less 2'Classrooms (BS;SDC) 60 _ Total 570 120 690 Bear Gulch 13 Classrooms 360 60 420 O samnn �a duninr Ili 9h 2 Classrooms 60 60 District Totals 2,040 420 2,460 • I J a - 3 - • FACTS CONCERNING ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY 1. protected enrollment, September 1984 in grades 1 -6 will be 1,894 with no •qr wth. 2. The o- riling of Bear Gulch School in September 1964 will increase the student capacity of the district to 2,040 students in grades 1 -6. 3. Zncrease,l district capacity will allow the district to house an additional 146 students (2,040 - 1,894). 4. There nre five developments which have final maps and building permits approved and are paying fees to the district. These total 628 multi - fimtly units and 32 single - family homes. 5. Usin; student generation factors of 0.3 and 0.6, these five developments are projected to generate 207 students in grades K -6 and 139 students in grades 1 -6. The developments already approved and under construction will generate students approximately equal to the district's increased capacity to house them during the 1984 -85 school year. • �. Roari of Trustees Action 8asod on the information shown above, the Central School District Board of Tr:c;teo.s took the following action at their meeting on October 11, 1983. 1. Tssoo Letter of Certification of School District Capacity to ,lmorican National Group for 27 multifamily units. 2. Notify developers who have requested or who may request Letters of Certification that capacity is not available in Central School District. 3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with developers concerning mitigation of overcrowding within Central School District. 5. Requc_tt: for Letters of Certification of School District Capia..ity .from Develnl vrs At Ir- •cant, there are rerpicsts for Letters of Certification of School Distrio -, Ciparity from eight (a) developers for 988 multi- family dwelling w:i t:; mid 1t5 evnlle- family dwelling units. These developments are projected to arrnerarn 1:14 students in qradns K -8. 6. llectinnn with Developers Central School District staff members have met with representatives of • tha eight developers requestinq certification of school district capacity and the hnildinu Industry Association, to discuss the overcrowding situation and possible solutions to mitigate this situation. A presentation has been made to these developers on the costs of completing Phase 2 of Bear Gulch School, A copy of the information presented at this meeting is attached. q - Since this meeting, district staff has revised the plans and costs for • Phase t of Bear Gulch School. The addition of six (6) relocatable classrooms in this revised plan allows the district to issue Letters of Certification to all of the developers who have requested them upon their commitment to pay a mitigation rea of 3 q ?6 per single - family dwelling unit and $1,738 per molti - family dwelling unr State Funding for School Facilities The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F. Greene lease- Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for funds throuch this program. However, Greene funds are a ^ ^ ••tee on a priority point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction fund inq by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has 36 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to have an additional 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining funds avnilable statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it has $300 million in applications from districts who have already qualified for the Greene P.ogram. Conclusion The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments within the district would generate students for which the district cannot provide .,cilities• A solution which would allow the district to provide classr,;om ani minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers 04 these nrc;ects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable end a,:itable mitigating solution. • f� ,• I. BEAR GULCH SCIIOOL I�%� ` 'rj S 1. Master planped elementary-school (Grades K -6). 2. Ultimate Capacity: 18 Gr. 1 -6 Classrooms @ 30 - 540 2 Kdg. Classroomu @ 60 a 120 Total 660 3. Phase 1 a. 13 Classrooms ' 1. Portable office (960 S.F.) 1 Portable Student Restroom,, Custodial Room 6 Serving 'Kitchen (960 S.F.) b. Capacity = 420 Students. c. 3 of G Acres of Playground. d.. 0 of 30 Acres Graded. e. Utility Connections. 'f. one Half (112) of Site Developed. ( Blacktop, Parking Lot, 'Sidewalks, Concrete Block, Landscaping) 4. 1'ha re, II • a. Core Facilities. 1. Media /Resource Center. 2. Administration Building. 3. Student Restrooms. A. Multipurpose /Cafeteria /Serving Kitchen. b. Seven (7) Classrooms (5 Regular, 2 Kdg.) . c. Remaining Site Development - Landscaping, Site Development, Concrete Block, Blacktop, Parking Lot, Sidewalks, 5. Phase, T Pinancod by $660,000 local ponds, building fund, and seven year lease/ purchase paid from devolop,et's' fees. Total entim?ted costs are apptov.i,,<:tely $1,100,000. 11. COST 01' Nn Sr. Ll - nCAR GULCH 1. C) ac: i c_mmr:_(7): a. 5 Rcgul,,t fa maroams @ 9GO S.F. @ $' /G.A2 /S. F. •' 366,016 b. 2 Gind(,tq.IILen Cln:a,roomn n 1,360 S,11. P. • 07 .' /njS „', 222,442 Sllb T'ntnl 509,250 a Cn:a n P.•r D.I” arc Current State Al locoHolls fur 0cbon) Construction. '••I Page 2 2: Library /Media Resource Center • a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @ $82.00 /S.F. - 98,400 b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @ $76.42/S.F. - 45,852 ' c. Speech Therapist - . 144 S.F. @ $76.42/S.F. - 11,004 d. Audio Visual Stor. - 128 S.F. @ $87.34/S.F. = 11,179 Nurse's Room 200 S.F. Sub Total 166,435 3. Administration Buildis Staff Lounge 450 S.F. Workroom 400 S.F. Staff Restrooms 200 S.F. Reception /secretary 600 S.F. Nurse's Room 200 S.F. Principal's Off. 240 S.F. Conference Room. 144 S.F. , Custodian ISO S.F. psychologist 144 S.F. Sub Total 2,528 S.F. @ $87.34 220,796 • 4. Student Restrooms 4 @ 300 S.F. = 1,200 S.F. @ $199.40/S.f. - 239,280 S. Nu It;_pu"ose /Cafeteria a. Multipurpose /Cafeteria - 3,000 S.F. b. Sragn - 1_000 S.F. ' .. Sub Total 4,000 S.F. @ $76.4 = 305.680 c. Serving Kitchen 650 S.F. @ $113% = 73,509 Sub Total 379,189 6. Circulation, Covered Walkwn_y5, U[i li ty heoms 4,500 S.F. @ $26.37 118,665. Total guild ings, phase II 1,733,623 7. Site �cvrlopmnnt /Jm >rovcmvnts a. cradieg - Two (2) ACI'C.9 - 20,000 b. Utilities S Improvements 1. Clansroom Water Cunnoctions - 1,000 '2. Closstnom Sewer Connections - 3,000 3. Parking Lot 12,000 S.F. @ $.95/S. 11. - 11,400 • •' 4. In! at op 0,000 S.F, 0 $.79 /S.F. - 6,000 III. COST OF JUNIOR III1511 TT)DITI(%1 1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F, @ $76.42 = 146,726 .. Architvcts Fce 11,738 Total. 158,464 IV. CALCULATION OF YC:ES 1. Single gamily Bome Generates 0.6 Children Per Ho" (.AG'/ Gr. K-6 and .133 Cit. 7 -6) 2. Tho rtmaininq co.pacity of Scar rulch in 240 students. Uning .467 studonte per 8.1•. hmmQ, capagily will oxist for 51.1 S.F. homes to by oonntructod. These 519 S.F. homes will al;;o gencritc 68 Or. 7 -8 ntudrnln to ho housai M. 01comongo Junior High, necessitating the coualruclion of two clarsroenr. on that site. 3. The tDt..nl Cost of hh,:so IT at ltClr Gulch and the addition of two • 0.l a�n :none:: at 1110. Onnior High is p2,33d,00q. If developer fees art tln• ;ole Inoanr lot' fitonciuq this glen" of the 1,170300., rocs would be $1,511 for a ninylo- ramify dwcllinq unit and $2,270 for A mulLi•- :amity dwolling unit. Page 3 • 7, Continued S. Concrete Block _ - 8,000 6. Concrete Sidewalk - 16,000 Sub Total 43,400 c. Landscaping - 100,000 d. Building Systems (Fire, Bells, Intercom) - 10,000 Sub Total 173,400 Sub Total-Buildings s Improvements 1,887,023 S. Fees & Inspections a. Architc�ts (81) - 150,%% b: Plan Check Fee (.7R) - 13,209 C. Building Inspector - 20,000 d. Tests /Inspections - 10,000 Sub Total 194,1 ?0 194,170 9. • 5% Contingcny - 94,351 Total - Phase II 2,175,544 III. COST OF JUNIOR III1511 TT)DITI(%1 1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F, @ $76.42 = 146,726 .. Architvcts Fce 11,738 Total. 158,464 IV. CALCULATION OF YC:ES 1. Single gamily Bome Generates 0.6 Children Per Ho" (.AG'/ Gr. K-6 and .133 Cit. 7 -6) 2. Tho rtmaininq co.pacity of Scar rulch in 240 students. Uning .467 studonte per 8.1•. hmmQ, capagily will oxist for 51.1 S.F. homes to by oonntructod. These 519 S.F. homes will al;;o gencritc 68 Or. 7 -8 ntudrnln to ho housai M. 01comongo Junior High, necessitating the coualruclion of two clarsroenr. on that site. 3. The tDt..nl Cost of hh,:so IT at ltClr Gulch and the addition of two • 0.l a�n :none:: at 1110. Onnior High is p2,33d,00q. If developer fees art tln• ;ole Inoanr lot' fitonciuq this glen" of the 1,170300., rocs would be $1,511 for a ninylo- ramify dwcllinq unit and $2,270 for A mulLi•- :amity dwolling unit. 1r u LJ October 25, 1983 11. COST OF PHASE II - BEAR GULCH (REVISED) 1. Classrooms (7); a. 5 Regular Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $70.00 /S.F.- b. 2 Kindergarten Classrooms @ 1,360 S.F. @ $75.00 /S.F. Sub Total Costs per S.F. are Architect's Estimates. 2. Library /Media Resource Center a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @ $75.00 S.F. b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F. C. Speech Therapist - 144 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F. d. Audio Visual Storage - 128 S.F. @ ;80.00 S.F. Sub Total 3. Administration Building Staff lounge Workroom Staff Restrooms Reception /Secretary N,Irse's Room Principal's Office Conference Room Custodian Psychologist Sub Total 450 S.F. 400 S.F. 200 S.F. 600 S.F. 200 S. F. 240 S.F. 144 S.F. 150 S.F. 144 S.F. 2,528 S.F. @ $80.00 - 202,240 4. f,tudent Rest rooms -0 0 300 S.F. - 1,200 S.F. @ $120.00 /S.F, = 144,000 S. Serving Kitchen 650 S.F, 1 $113.09 73,509 6. Ci r�iil .0 inn, C_overnd Wnlhe_nyq, Utility Rnoms 4,500 S.F. @ $26.37 = 118,665 TOTAL'OUILOINOS, PHASE II 1,230,734 1� - 336,000 204,000 540,000 90,000 = 42,000 = 10,080 = 10,240 152,320 - 2 - 7. Site= Pl,ent /Improvem t a. Grading - T,, (2) Acres • b. Utilities 6 Improvements - 20,000 ' 1. Classroom Water Connections - 1,000 2. Classroom Sewer Connections 3. Parking Lot - 1,000 12,000 S.F. @ $.95 1S.f, _ 11,400 4. Blacktop 81000 S.F. @ $.75 /S.F. 5. Concrete Block - 6,000 6. - 8,000 Concrete Sidewalk - 16,000 Sub Total 43,400 C. Landscaping d• Building Systems 100,000 (Fire, Belts, L,tercom) - 10,000 sub Total 173,400 Sub Total Buildings 6 Improvements 11404,134 u Portable, • 960 S.F. n $S S. ---L —6 liow TOTAI, B. 1,720,934 Yr r^ d In s__c ti ons a. Arahitecls (R3) - b. Plan Check Fee (,7q) 137,G'/q - 12,047 c. Building Inspector - A. Tusts /Inspections 20,000 - 10,000 Sub Total 9. 5^ 179,721 con ti n ?r ncy - -. __. - 06,047 TOTAL, PHASE 1I 1,966,701 OF M4l (AR _IIi GII ADD IRION - 1. roar CI.,::,,•,,, ,0., (r 96n $70.00 • Arrh;rccl,; 1'rr 2GR,ROo - _11,5o,I' TOTAL 290,304 •. %U • - 3 - IV. CALCULATION OF FEES 1. Single Family Home generates 0.6 children per home (.467 Gr. H -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8) 2. with the addition of six portables, the remaining capacity of Hear Gulch is 420 students. Using .467 students per S.F. home, capacity will exist for 899 S.F. homes to he constructed. These 899 S.F. homes will also generate 120 Gr. 7 -8 students to be housed at Cucamonga Junior High, necessitating the construction of four classrooms on that site. 3. The total cost of Phase II at Dear Gulch and the addition of four classrooms at the Junior High is $2,277,006. The annual payment for this amount is $446,293 on a seven (7) year lease purchase. If developer fees are the sole means for financing this phase of the project, fees would he $3,476 for a single - family dwelling unit and $1,738 for a multi - family dwelling unit. 4. Currently there are requests for capacity letters for 395 single - family homes and 988 multi- family units. • 0 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD CONTRACT neneeao�e � Te•remu: TIDML, SHERIFF 901 9696 001 1 $170,979 �Cneu Uv � E.nntli:oa nn mare tna, ene n.vme ^.' c• re:,:.r I $IE.L ° Ieomninr me foborvnq e. F>peq, Ao ^!<• o� oevmem; 12 Emo,ove•,tl= iESnmaue >moum of >a;r 5 PER THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California b� and between the County of San Semardir.o, herea'te: caller the County. and QTY O£ RMMO CLUM29CA ne;cai r c:'�e� IT IS 'r'EREEY ACR --EO AS FOLLOWS' 0" cse moon e"e revers: s ue o' /mm ,' nrrof:: Se; ro ^' sw,,:r re [,: rr: „area awo.n: rc oc Faa m�'nr, a' payvrF rrnr for per: p•manrF o• co!"o'erio”, derermmtnon of o;rt']cro•p Ne-'o" q-f anp c »ae to, rem .. arior,' omew fe 's a•;v cr,nariow. and Rrwn olaox specibcariom. nd a omw, if anr. Ffiereas, the parties entered into a contract for law enforoenent services cormencin? JulY 1, 1983; and tPnereas, the parties desire to aped said Contract to pMide for additional patrol • mites effective xovisrims 1, 1983; ; FCtt, -niER! OfiE, IT IS AQMM AS FMIC16: 1. The law e,forcenent contract between the parties is amrided effective Nova-. -r 1, 1953 by adding thereto the attache9 SrJt= "A" ADIY:^7LkN to provide for additional patrol units and cormpensation for suc=h by City as indicated on said addendtrr. Ann nro'..:.:,..- o mo side ano raierenceo altacnmcnls rV e cc'lr.,nr: a Lc•1 r V CC) :i', -- C.c Sh•: EEFKARDIkO C S(.pery m—s fS:.;n c co•oora:,n,. rn •: a c• 1 Soerc c' Sunerv�s.s i C(wmv Coonfel •.� , le; ISn✓[ faro) �•� T F. r r LP col,n•v F::r•iINSV]:9r o,IL� ,.c, , r SCHEDULE 'A' ADDENDUM LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F.Y. 1983 -84 Service Cost ' 2 - 80 -Hour General Law Patrol Units (Effective November 1, 1983, 8 -month Service Fee) $ 168,390 *• County Direct Cost 2,084 TOTAL (ADOITIObQAL SERVICE) $ 170,474 Monthly Payment Schedule Ist Payment Due November 15th $ 21,311 2nd through 8th Payment due 5th of each month $ 21,309 E NOTE: Service is exclusive of overtime and Court appearance cost - actual cost will be billed quarterly. cost subject to change due to Memorandum of Understanding changes. ** Less Fuel and Maintenance - actual cost will be billed quarterly. 11 i November 1, 1983 Members of City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Honorable Councilmen: My name is Alvin Musser, I live at 1747 N. Wilson Avenue, Upland, California. I am appearing here tonight to explain my concern in regard to the down grading in zoning of the property at the southeast corner of Baker and Arrow Highway, more fully described as the north 8 acres of the shaded area on Planning Division Exhibit "C -1" Division Districts Map. (enclosed) Prior to purchasing this property, I was assured by the Planning Department People that this area in the General Plan was planned for medium density. Previous maps have showed a density for the area of 8 -14 Dwelling Units Per Acre. It is very disturbing to find out, after planning the development of this property with the 8 -14 D.U. P.A. in mind, that this down grading is being considered without even notifying the property owners involved. I think the present plan is well suited for the area. We have a good trans- portation corridor on Arrow Highway, frontage on three streets and close to the industrial area, meaning less commuting time for working people. All zoning on the north side of Arrow is medium density. Property to the east is medium, bordering the Industrial Special Purpose Zone. Even with a 8 -14 units per acre zone, a builder would have to come in with a super good plan with unaffordable amenities to get the top of 14 units per acre. The three housing projects under construction in the immediate area have a density in the area of 1y to 10 units. This; by Rancho Cucamonga standards, is not high density when you have 14 -24 and 24 -30 de.ignations for other areas. One of the reasons given for the changes was to reduce potential land use conflict. I think the conflicts come when, after you have paid for outside services to come up with a General Plan, it is refined to a specific plan, people accept this, then to come back and change it without notifying the affected property owners, this is a real reason for conflict. Sirycer %l , J. Alvin Musser CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: November 2, 1983 To: • City Council From: Rill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: The Park Pond CUCAA1QA �O C. r 1477 _ -1 9 Tuesday, November 1, Lauren, Harry and I met with Hill Fieldman and Larry Folapp of Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, Municipal Finance Consultants, to solicit their technical advice on the steps involved in bringing a Mello -Roos Park bond before the voter. As a side note and prefacing comment, the steps involved for Mello -Roos are technical and not wholly dissimilar from the process the City encountered in forming the Redevelopment Agency or the Industrial Assessment District., In other words, a lot of work, requiring a carefully drawn scheduled execution. In their opinion, properly executed, the process will take approximately 9 months, give or take a little either way. Peeormended steps would he as follows 1. Form a professional team (as in RDA or Ind. Assm. Dist.) a. Pond Consultants h. Bond Counsel C. Assessment Engineer d. Project Fngincor (Already engaged and proceeding: RSi) 2. Desion of Project Scope and Environmental Review a. Heritage Park: Complete b. Red ilill Basin Park: 90 days 3. Setting Basis of Assessment (Equity) 30 days 4. Setting Spread of Assessments 30 days 5. Land use Tnventory 30 days F.. Petition to Coverning hoard (Council) and within 40 days adopt Resolution of Intent to establish a Community Facility District. 7. Set.. a Public Hearinq on the Resolution of Intention not less than 30 dav, nor more than 50 jays from adoption of Resolution of Intention P. Hold Puhlic Hearing, which must he completed within 30 days. 9. Hold election within 90 days of the conclusion of Puhlir Hearing. continued ... page 2 memo 11/2/83 re: Park Pond After Election 10. Validation in court of proceedings (routine) 11. Procedures connected with Bond sale 12. Build Park When you add the numbers, the minimum time to net to election is about 9 months, or the beginning of August, 1994. So, all thinqs bei'i.g equal, it would be fair to figure September 184 as a good 'possibility' for the election. As I mentioned earlier, Step 2 of the process is already in progress with Ron Paige and RSi. We need to go back and pick up Step 1, however. In addition to the proposal of Fieldman and Rolapp, we will be soliciting proposals from John Brown, and, Wildan and Associates, whom you have worked with in the past on this type of venture, for your review and direction on November 16. If you have any comments or questions on the above prior to the 16th, contact Lauren, Harry or me. Additionally, Councilman Dahl sat in on the last part of the meeting and may provide you insights on this subject from a Councilmember's perspective. D11 /mw cc: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager Harry Empey, Finance Director Mello -Roos file vaa a va' au-u,va+v v��,aunvn vr. GU��m MEMORANDUM , 'c 51 F DATE: November 2, 1983 1977 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP In conjunction with the review of the Draft Development Code, a new Development Districts Map (Zoning Map) has been prepared to reflect the land use densities and designations of the General plan. Over the last several years, there have been several situations where developments have been proposed within the medium density category of the General Plan (4 -14 du /ac) and which did not provide the appropriate transition from the existing single family residences in the area. As a result of those developments, the Council and Commission directed staff to prepare an implementation method within the new Development Code to provide for better transitions of these medium category areas. The General Plan designation of 4 to 14 was originally done to provide enough flexibility for transitions. In review of the Development District Map, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 4, 1983, reviewed four specific areas which are currently planned for medium density residential at 4 -14 units per acre. These four areas were reviewed to determine whether they should be designated Low Medium (LM - 4 to 8 du /ac) or Medium (M - 8 to 14 du /ac). Within the new Development Code, the densities from the LM and M districts have been split from 4 to 8 and 8 to 14 in order that the LM district can be used more as a transitional district. The Planning Commission has recommended that these four areas be designated LM and are so indicated on the Development Districts Map. The designation of LM does not affect the General Plan and does not preclude a property owner or developer from requesting a future change to the medium district if they can show the appropriate transitions and meet the policies of the General Plan. Attached to this memorandum are exhibits showing these four areas and indicates approved projects in the vicinity of those areas, as well as the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1983. Also attached are letters from a few of the affected property owners who are objecting to the LM designation and would rather have the M designation. c' Proposed Development Districts Map November 2, 1983 Page 2 All of the four sites wh -ich were considered by the Commission are currently either zoned A -I (Limited Agriculture) or R -1 (Single Family Residential). The new Development Districts Map will be reflecting these areas as Low Medium, which is a higher density des'gnation than what the property owners currently have on the site. Again, the purpose of the LM district is to provide transitions from the lower intense uses to the higher intense uses in the; areas seen by the Commission as appropriate for these designations. If the Council would like to have any further explanation on any one of the specific areas, we would be happy to respond to those. If the Council feels any one specific area should be designated within the medium category rather than the low medium category, the Council need only to provide the direction to staff to redesignate those areas as medium on the final Development Districts Map. RG;MV;jr CITY OF ITEM: ,( -- RANCHC) CUCAMO \C :A TITLE: LA us M o PLANNING DIVISION EXI!IRIT -1 — SCAI.E:– A, 4 WAI HIGHLAW Po,cof* Map No. 6 12 5, PM. 69/]0' o 1/03 Pn"PI MnD No IA?A PM 41,11 FVtUAU A,—(— r,.L 1., ;,-, , p. �J—h ST-11 NORTH CITY OF ITEM: aAA;U—. -P'e>-r9b-M AAA-4 RAINCHO CUGXNAON'(YA TITLE: I-M Vla A - AWGO k", MA-P PLANNING; DIVISM EXHINT: �k-f SCALE: — — FORTH CITY OF ITEM: -odez vsla -ICZS MAP RA:NCi O CUCAAK 'sA TITLEt d 114 A PLANNING DIVISDN E\Iim '16-14 - SCALE ; - � Rer.l ° f.•arn r II (o.N ip;•,fA4 3r- J� -s(wi6 FMAILY elzl 6 vv. e 4..c + CBW LINE CITY OF RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A PLANNING DIVISION V NI MTH ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP TITLE: Lm Js M -1 TORA,I,I ' SIiiGF -F �� I gels /� I-,�tiu Lf POOR O 1 ■7 L 6 vv. e 4..c + CBW LINE CITY OF RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A PLANNING DIVISION V NI MTH ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP TITLE: Lm Js M -1 I gels /� I-,�tiu Lf 14 -u_� e� o � nT a y ,e r .Ssl _ 15 O � r Rw. 12 z II u 6 vv. e 4..c + CBW LINE CITY OF RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A PLANNING DIVISION V NI MTH ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP TITLE: Lm Js M I A i Tract- 104911 5.12 4C MA j VlaTOf,'IA t 7Z 1 1! , MIMI -j M VA [arc.?' IL 4�11 C 1.11 L p LA VINE. ree roam GJAC Fes. NORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCI-K) CUC-MMONGA TITLE: tM V6 M PLANNING DIVISION EXIIIIlrr: 0 79-3 q SCALE: ary OF RA;NCI -K) CUCkNI0 \GA PLANNING DIVISION ITIi \I . \I PI'2Z4ic iS 1APtt TITLE. rs M n EXHIBIT SCALE �" ' I\YMTH J�LARROW- -- —. t - 'uom STREET) :, a i0 a J I i 26 .... t C 77 .. ,.9iwuy W UN�.rsrl$r. I 0 z I ^M 4' fe.w�� 4N'.x. S.OJW US[ •... .. n e • i van S_- ✓ V A 7 t"TH a[ CITY Of ITEXI: f-VCL. 1715Th r5 Uka RANCHO CUG \N'IUN'GrA TITLE: LA IM, M - AS fE� r5 MkO PLANNING, UIVISK)N ESI III3fTr Gam_ SCALE - - ri 1 I M Lczr(t.Im IISP lCAAAaµ own ......u.a. - ... ._� .._ lummom lI — J ii NORTH CITY OF ITF.\I:100JEL V��21cf�MtQ_ RANCII) CLGNMONGA TITLE: P � - — PLANNING DIVISK)NI ESIHRIT C I, SCALE: - �r \\: AL.n (29, WJ 66 r 33 C� �l NORTH CITY OF ITEN11 -JeJ- t4Af RANCID CUCVNIONGIA TITIT.- LAAI,-, M - A95cTA9'6 MAP • PLANNING DIVISM LXHIBIT:4trZ�' -SCALe � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Q PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting Development Code Workshop October 4, 1983 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dennis Stout called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dave Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes of the September 6, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Rempel abstained because he was not present. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting. • 1 • • • Chairman Stout advised that the purpose of this meeting is to review the Development District Map for conformance with the General Plan and to complete a detailed review of the Residential Development Standards. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, presented the staff report indicating that they would concentrate on the Development District Flips as well as the zoning maps with the intent to attain consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Vairin advised that Girt Johnston would review the Development District Maps and Lan Coleman would review and conclude with the charts contained within Chapter 4 of the Development Code which are the Development Standards Charts, Mr. Vairin explained that the Development Code hearings would conclude on October 12 at which time a resolution would be prepared for the Planning Commission and a preliminary ordinance prepared for the City Council incorporating all the revised chapters. He stated there would also be minor adjustments to the definition section prior to distribution of the final draft to the City Council. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, then reviewed the Development District Map. He explained the medium density areas which were shown on the General Plan Map and which should be shown as low medium in order to more readily transition the residential areas. Mr. Vairin reiterated that the General Plan shows a density range of 4 -14; however, the Planning Commission and the City Council has stated that this is too broad a range and preferred a low medium category with a density range of 4 -8 in order to provide for transition. Mr. Johnston explained Exhibit A as a good site for a low- medium density range. He stated that currently there are two approved projects in the area at nine units per acre. Chairman Stout asked for comments on Exhibit A. Commissioner Hempel asked if there are any tentative maps in the area at the present time. Mr. Johnston replied that there are two, the Shafer Westland project and the Roberts Group; however, the area in question does not have anything on it at the present time. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing and stated he thought the area shown in Exhibit A should be designated as low- medium, 4 -8 dwelling units per acre, Mr, Jeff Sceranka, representing the Rane I Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, stated that he was a member of the Planning mmission when the General Plan was set and indicated that there was a lot ollllllllll, debate and much discussion on the residential area to the west of the propose* designation change concerning the maintenance and buffering. M•. Sceranka indicated he would concur with the residents that making the density 4 -8 dwelling units per acre would make a lot of sense. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to designate the area shown in Exh ihit A to low- medium, with a density range of 4 -8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Johnston stated that the second area in question is further to the south and near the Stater Brothers shopping center and is actually two areas. He further stated that to address Mr. Rempel's question, the M.J. Brock site is under. construction at 6.4 dwelling units per acre and by designating it medium they would really be making it nonconforming to the General Plan. He Indicated that thin alto is a little bit different because there is a mobile home park, single family tract homes by Lightner Construction Company and a number of condominium projects adjacent. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 4, 1983 F Commissioner Hempel questioned whether there would be a size problem in getting a single loaded street within this area. W. Vairin stated that it would be nossible to get private drives in that area with a possible access way or even private streets. The size of the area was discussed with tl,e conclusion that it does match the street shown on the east side. Commissioner Mc Niel a;':. about the tree farm in that area. IM. Vairin replied that it would remain in the 8 -14 density range which would be consistent with the area. Commissioner Barker asked if it would be possible to transition that site to 4 -8 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Hempel stated that he has no real problem with this if someone new in with other parts and divided the tree farm and the area below, there might be room. Further, there could always be modification at a later date. Chairman Stout asked the Commission to indicate whether there should be a change to the present density range. The consensus of the Commission was to have a range of 4 -8 dwelling units per acre for the two areas in question. Mr. Vairin interjected that with the General Plan there is the option of changing this at a later time without a General Plan amendment. Mr. Johnston showed the third area near the Cass: 'n' Cleaver restaurant „here a duplex project is under consideration. He indicated that there is an elementary school and a church as well as a mobile home park located nearby with the Acacia project and a series of older homes. He indicated that part of the issue is that there is industrial mixed single family homes. Mr, Vairin stated that currently there is a project under construction with a density range of 7.7 dwelling units per acre. He asked if it should remain at that range or be allowed to go higher. He indicated that it would be better to zone to the lower end of the range and rhange this at some time in the future. Commissioner Hempel stated he foresees this going into the Industrial Specific Plan at some point in the future so it would be better to leave it where it is. He indicated that his feeling is that it should be 4 -8 dwelling units per acre at the maximum. The consensus of the Commission is tnat this area be designated 4 -8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Johnston discussed area a -2 and that the staff recommendation is that this should be 4 -8 dwelling units per acre in order to maintain the integrity of the area. Chairman Stout asked why the zoning isn't 2 -4 dwelling units per acre Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 4. 1983 Mr. Vairin replied because at the time it was felt that with its location and _ access problems it would not warrant a lower density. Further, that the l property owner was requesting this designation. Commissioner Bempel stated that he did not remember this being discussed. Mr. Vairin stated that this could be taken up in the future for General Plan amendment discussion. Mr. Bempel stated this would be the proper way of handling this and stated the General Plan Amendment could change the density to 2 -4 dwelling units per acre; however, 4 -8 dwelling units per acre is all right at this time. Mr. Sceranka stated he did not think there was any discussion on this area. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to designate this area at 4 -8 dwelling units per acre and to direct staff to bring this area before the Commission as a possible General Plan Amendment to 2 -4 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Johnston reviewed another area and indicated that this originally was a part of the planned communities. He explained the high density designation and the medium density designation as shown currently on the zoning map, with a description of the nearest property. Mr. Johnston indicated further that the property owner requesting the designation change is in the audience and that the request is in conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Stout asked if this would require a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Vairin replied that it would not as it is a border line case and there is some room to decide which category this piece should be in. Further, given the Victoria Planned Community, it would make sense to put it in the same category. The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Diamond, 12559 Base Line, stated they were in favor of this change. Commissioner Barker stated it would be consistent to continue all high density in this area. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to change this area to high density. Mr. Sceranka asked if the property owners in this area and all others affected by the changes to the Development Design Map would be informed of the changes made. He recommended that notification be made in the interest of good public relations and to alleviate any future problems. The Commission concurred with Mr. Sceranka's statement that staff notify all property owners to advise them of any major differences in the zoning other than what they were led to believe when they purchased their property. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 4, 1983 mr, Johnston explained the Commercial /Office category which districts include neighborhood commercial, general commercial and office professional. He indicated that the most significant boundary changes from the current z.nlrg map would include the west side of Haven south of Foothill near the K -tart which is M -1 and is proposed. to change to Office /Professional. Relative to the commercial area he indicated there is the old downtown Alta Loma which is M -1 and residential so revisions are necessary for conformance with the General Plan with a proposed change to general commercial. Chariman Stout asked if the background information on this was gathered by going to the assessor's parcels. Nhr. Johnston replied that this is how it was done because there were so many small properties. Chairman Stout asked if any conflicts worth noting were found. Mr. Johnston replied there were none. Mr. Sceranka asked for clarification of terminology on the General Plan so that people would know what the different types of commercial are. Mr. Johnston deferred to Mr. Vairin who stated that within the Victoria Plan these categories appear; however, convenience commercial is not on a map except on an as needed basis resulting from a market study in the neighborhood commercial category. He indicated that they wanted to keep these three categories for the General Plan. Mr. Sceranka asked if these will be differentiated for the General Plan. Mr. Vairin replied that the references to these categories is within the two planned communities only. Chairman Stout asked, if there was a reason to put additional categories in the planned communities, would there have to be a general plan amendment. Mr. Vairin replied yes, but you would take care of the zoning at the same time. Mr. Johnston went on to the Oper. Space category which includes hillside residential, open space, flood control and utility corridor. He indicated that these areas are designated in the northern section of Alta Loma where the natural terrain limits development potential. further, the largest area of hillside residential occurs at the nprthwesf. corner of the City, north of Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise and is currently zoned R -1 -11 and an application has been submitted for this area. Mr. Johnston explained the flood control areas stating that a compatible use would be a nursery or Christmas tree farm. Chairman Stout stated that as the City channelizes a lot of the major channels a lot of land is being removed from the flood control problem. He asked if any thought has been given to taking some of this area that had been designated as flood control and changing it to something else. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 4, 1983 Mr. Vairin and M^. Johnston stated that at some point in time if these flood - control areas are deemed to be developable they can be changed through a zone 1117 change. Pam Henry asked why the area in the northern corner which is a utility corridor can't be designated that way. Mr. Vairin explained that they are owned by the Metropolitan Water District and are shown as a line on the map. Mr. Coleman indicated that the corridor is 600 feet wide. M•. Vairin stated that this area should be given some consideration to zoning. Chairman Stout asked that although they don't own the land in fee don't they have some easement on the property. Mr. Vairin stated that property owners are able to use the land but they cannot put up a permanent structure such as a horse barn. Chairman Stout stated that the point he wished to make is that if they have an easement or land in fee he doesn't know why it would be any different than any other utility corridor. M'. Vairin stated that you could go either way and be safe. He indicated that staff will check this particular piece of property before the next meeting, but he was sure that it had not been purchased. Mrs. Henry asked about the piece of property owned by Sievers Development Company at the top of Beryl and the reason for not continuing that particular wash. Mr. Vairin replied that this will be examined but it does not go that far. He explained how it would connect and make a different zone. Further, that they wanted to encourage that this become part of a development and if it is zoned flood control, the City might have to purchase the property. Mrs. Henry stated that is why the open space designation would be the proper one for the area. Chairman SLout stated that as a practical matter the terrain would prevent any deveioy,,Fnt, and if the deslenation were changed the City would have to buy it. Mr. Vairin recom.:,ende^ rFit as development comes forward on this piece of property it be looked at. Chairman Stout asked for consensus on the utility corridor. The consensus of the Commission was that this be explored further, j Mr. Johnston reviewed Specific Plans and Planned Communities. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 4, 1963 Chairman Stout asked if there would be conflict between the definitions and general concepts relative to the designations proposed or are they fairly consistent. Mr. Vairin replied that they are fairly consistent and when you deal with specific plans and planned communities they don't generally call out all individual land uses. The planned community is a specific zoned area and it is being zoned as a land was and ;,s a whole. M•. Vairin pointed out the Data Design situation and suggested that it be amended to the planned area shown as Industrial Park category zone. Mr. Sceranka asked if the areas that the City owns would be designated as open space in order to plan for park land. Mr. Vairin replied that they will not, although it can be shown as open space. He asked Mr. Johnston how they are currently shown. Mr. Johnston replied a number of things such as scC- ^.ols, fire stations, Chaffey College, civic center, freeway right -of -way are designated as residential. Mr. Vairin stated that the City could show the parks it owns as open space on the map. The Commission felt that City owned parks should be shown in this manner. Chairman Stout stated that the Commission would discuss the overlay district. Mr. Johnston explained of the three districts previously discussed, mobile home parks will be eliminated and included in the residential area and another overlay area will be added which is an equestrian overlay in the north Alta Loma area above Banyan. Chairman Stout stated he thought that the area just south of Banyan and west of Sapphire should be added to this district. Mr. Vairin explained that it would not prevent the people living there from having horses. wmmissioner Hempel stated that the properties that are now excluded should be; the reason is because of deed restrictions, and they must be careful not to include those areas with the restrictions in the overlay area. Mr. Hopson stated that Mr. Hempel is right in concept but he d'.d not know how the CCh H'a can be pulled in residential tracts and the acreage covered in the overlay. He indicated it would be a gigantic task. Mr. Coleman read a section of the code on animal regulations that deals with this in the Development Code. Commissioner Hempel stated that the Commission and the Council have passed a resolution that allows horses in any future development. He felt that something should be said so that there will not be hassles over this. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 4, 1983 Mr. Vairin replied that the Development Code contains a statement in the event there is a conflict between the CC&N's that the more restrictive covenant would be applicable. Commissioner Bempel stated that what he is getting at is that he does not want the reverse of that either. M•. Vairin stated that the Code speaks to this issue on pages 91 and 162 of the revision. Commissioner Hempel stated that his only concern is that the Commission does not face future problems in dealing with this issue. Commissioner Barker stated that the Code is all right as long as it covers the issue in both directions. Mr. Johnston stated that relative to the water plan and the General Plan statements staff will add the designation to the zoning map su that '.t will be clear to developers that a master plan is required. Further, that the original intent was that they would add the master plan designation stating it will be required when the master plan is done but if it is done initially, it would work better. Mr. Johnston then went into the Special Considerations section. Mr. Vairin stated that they would prefer, since these are permitted uses or conditional uses within the special zones, that they be shown as proposed because they will be much clearer to understand. He also asked the Commission to keep in mind the Foothill Freeway corridor. He explained the possibility of inverse condemnatin should the designations change. There were no comments from the Commission on the Special Considerations Section. Chairman Stout asked that other properties held Cy the City such as Civic Center also be shown. Mr. Vairin explained why they did not choose to do this and the ability to include some of these designations into the Industrial Specific Plan. He felt there might be a redundancy. Chairman Stout stated that he only wants something shown on the map so that everyone will know what is proposed to be there. Mr. Vairin replied that this could be done through the use of an asterisk marking. Further, that the Chamber of Commerce map will show these areas. Commissioner pempel stated that the only people looking for such designations will be developers and people purchasing property. Mr. Sceranka spoke of the special language in the General Plan that ,teals with Chaffey College and its surrounding area and asked if this special designation will also he shown on the development district map. He also asked if t;i is special language could he shown in the text of the zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 4, 1983 W. Vairin explained that this is a very precise policy for a specific area. Chairman Stout stated that this was left out of the General Plan but he is sure that the City complies with this. Mr. Sceranka stated that most developers will not look at the General Plan but at a zoning map or they will go to the Development Code. He felt it should be called out in the zoning map. Mr. Johnston replied that the pieces around Chaffey College would all have an asterisk to designate it being a special area. Commissioner Bempel stated that this could be a master planned area. Mr. Johnston replied that is correct. Following brief discussion, consensus of the Commission was that the only matter to be brought back at the next meeting is the utility corridor issue. 7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Juarez left the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ••••. Goa irman Stout stated that the second major issue concerning basic and optional development standards would be discussed. Mr. Coleman explained the basic and optional standards to the Commission. Commissioner Barker asked about cul -de -sacs and front setback lines. Mr. Vairin explained how this is done and referred the Commission to numbers 4 and 7. W. Coleman explained the reduction in open space in No. 16. Commissioner Barker stated he wanted a guarantee that 75 feet of open space would be used by private owners and that common areas will not be lost by building density. He asked if this would give hi: that guarantee. Mr. Coleman replied that it would because the City is now requiring 40 percent. Further, that whatever is required in private ends up in common as it is just a breakdown of percentages. Nu•. Vairin stated that the 40 percent can be left but this affords the ability to select where the open space is put. Further, it provides flexibility in J design. Commissioner Fempel asked about the 100 foot setback on upper story units. He felt it was too little. Planning, Commission Minutes -9- October 4, 1983 Mr. Vairin stated that even when it is under 100 feet developers ask if they must have a balcony. Commissioner Hempel stated that if a minimum is set they would have a hard time arguing the point. Commisoioner Hempel stated that on the low medium it should be at least 200 and on the low at least 150. M•. Sceranka stated that he was curious about lowering the percentage from 40 to 35 on open space. Mr. Coleman explained the difference between the basic and optional standards and how it would affect this. Following brief discussion among the Commission the consensus was to go to 35- -40 percent. Chairman Stout stated it was difficult to compare the two charts and suggested that they be set up on such a way within the Development Code so that they would invite easy comparison. In conclusion, PA. Vairin reviewed the new requirements under the optional development standards. They include increased setbacks around the perimeter of the project, recreation facilities, front yard landscaping, and energy conservation measures. The energy requirement will require an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water to all dwelling units and heating pools and spas. The Commission consensus was to approve these standards. • • a 9:00 P.M. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, J W4- JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 4, 1983 + r t A SAF -TEST DIVISION k90E. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90022 October 31, 1983 r aesa �_ icom[[ 3223 Fos a Street Rancho la C wa, Cawcra 920ce Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. and City Council Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re; 11 -2 -83 public hearing to consider adoption of a New Development Districts (zoning) Map. Property: The area between Sixth and Seventh Streets bordered on the West by the Cucamonga wash, and Hellman Avenue on the Fast. Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department dated February 9, 1981. On February 9, 1981, there as held a Rancho Cucamonga General Plan meeting, which we attended, and at which time Medium Density zoning was approved, just as we ourselves proposed in our attached letter. This letter outlines our thoughts on the subject, and our present stand on the matter. We, therefore, recommend that the present Medium Density zoning as shown on the Executive Summary of Draft General Plan be retained. Respectfully submitted, Jess and/or Meg Gr er enc 11 Al� 3223 Fos $Ved ftneho U C nu. Ca4tornu 921108 - c-bruary 9, 1901 vr. Dan Henrsycks C/o Pend» Cucamaga Planning Dept. P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Dear Mr. Herr!zycksh Re, Recu=fte.ed caning for the new Rancho ctcamorga General Plan. ty: Tine area betwoer Sixth and S-- -nth Siesta h ortlared m the West by the 0 - ;mr>rcja wash, ani Hallman Avmue on the Fast. As comers cf 656 feet on Hellman Averom of the above described property, we submit the following suggested zoning for your ocnsideration and addition to the proposed General Plan for P=.cno Cucammgaj ;% recccrend that this tr1arxyula. -- shaped panaal of land be zoned Medium Density. 7 %ls- property would lord itself imil to this zoning inasmuch as it is bordered by the Clrarnga wash on the West, by industrial zoning to the North, and a slu type bowing project to the Fast. ":e believe our suggaasted zoning twld be of benefit to the entire area i.ck.• -udr as it mild t'•m bo i.- .,saved by the ounstructtm of attractive aaridunium with bahutifully lariat. "1 areas that held be well - maintained at all limns by a Ynreotnt• s A-macciation, and at the score time providing needed, affore,:ble housing Wjoining the inn, trial area. Ir could, in addition, be rvh an incvntive toward the babutiiwtton of the rundown housing project on the Past. Also, there would be welm:e tax benefits for the city. Our obsarvaUo;n ever the years has teen that the best-designed and most attractive developnehts do provida for a buffer zone such as we reeanc", and wa are hopeful that you will give this mutter your serious study and consideration, and that you will ultimately incorporate it in the proposed General Plan. Very truly yours, Jere Groaner l Abg Groat>e¢ November 1, 1983 Mr. Michael Varin Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Varin: It has come to my attention at this late date that the Planners of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are in the process of down grading certain parcels within the City, the purpose being to have more control over future developments in those areas that certain density classifications were too broad. The property which I am particularly referring to is at the southeast corner of Baker and Arrow, When I purchased this property I made three trips to your office, bought a zoning map, and with the staff there had the assurance that this property fell in to the medium density designation of the General Plan. i feel very much disturbed that this change is being comtemplated without at least giving the property owners in question some kind of notice. With medium density to the north and to the east of this property, I fail to see the need for this change. It would appear that the present zoning is well suited for the area in that you have a good transportation corridor "Arrow Highway ", Baker and Madrone Streets. It is close to industrial zoned area meaning less computing time for working people and after all you do have final control before any project is started, Again, I see very little to be gained in the down zoning of this property. Sincerely, J. Alyin Musser 434 N. Second Ave, Upland, CA 91786 982-8801 � v , , Irl Uf fiIr "r�''1 LONGA nr•n Nr DFPi. rn, m:17 ,. ,��. PM hM 71819116 [111121112[31`11616 SAF -TEST DIVISION E. l05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90042 October 31, 1983 3223 F„sca shoe) Rancho La C>s,a. Cahforma 92000 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. and City Council Rancho Cuc-umnga, California 91730 Re: 11 -2 -83 public hearing to consider adoption of a New Developrent Districts (zoning) Map. Property: The _sea between Sixth and Seventh Streets bordered on the West by the Cucamonga wash, and Hellman Avenue on the Fast. Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department dated February 9, 1981. On February 9, 1981, there as held a Rancho Cucamonga General Plan meeting, which we attended, and at which time Medium Density zoning was approved, just as we ourselves proposed in our attached letter. This letter outlines our thoughts on the subject, and our present stand on the natter. We, therefore, recommend that the present Medium Density zoning as shown on the Executive Su mazy of Draft General Plan be retained. Respectfully suhnutted, Jess and /or Meg Groaner enc 3223 Fo 51'e0l RAMM UCxu, CAW" 92006 Rebruaxy 9, 1981 MSc. Dan Haxkycks C/o I.3ocno Cuc-gu `ga Planing Dept. P.O. Box 793 Rancho cacamomp, Calif. 91730 Dear Mr. Hervbn dcx: Re: Reco®ended zoning for the new RaK3ro CZuo�aga Oaneel Plan. Prgxaty: The arse between Sixth and Seventh Xests bordered on the West by the Cucamonga wash, and Hallman Avenue on this East. As cfa:ery of 656 feet on Hellman Avenue of the above described property, we submit the follaoing suggested swL-V for your araidenati.on and addition to the proposed Cereral Paso for Panda Cucamonga: We reo=wd that this triangular - shaped parcel of land be =w3a medium Density. This property would lend itself well to this zoning iramm:du an it is bordered by the aszwxxga wash on the west, by industrial zoning bo the North, and a slug typx hoeing project to the East. ,Je believe our suggested zoning would be of benefit to the entire area innamucn as it could `Son be iz4x ved by the cwotructton of attractive aadcudnium with beautifully lariscaped areas tlat weld be well- snintairffi at all timuee by a H� Aamiatirn, and at the same time providing needed, affordable housing adjoining the .incbuatrial area. It could, in addition, bean* an incentive toward the beauti:icatiwn of the rundown losing project on the Past. Also, there would be welaame taut benefits for the City. V Cur ohsr atlon over the years has been that the beet -designed and most attractive develop•ents do provide for a buffer zone such as we rec= d, and we are hopeful that you will give this ratter your serious study and consideration, and that you will ultimately Wxmpurate it in the proposed Cendral Plan. Very trely your, Jess Groomer Meg