HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980/12/03 - Agenda PacketV'
GCCn,N0,1,
s° °v QTY OF
RANCHO QJCANIONGA
CITY COUNCIL
Z AGENDA
U >
1977 December 3, 1980
All items submitted for the City Council agenda must be in writing. The dead-
line for submitting items is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and third
Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's office receives all such items.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
A. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
B. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, and Schlosser_
C. Approval of Minutes: November 5, 1980.
2. 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. 80 -12 -3
b. Alcoholic Beverage License for Dorothy E. Heinemann, 1
The Cub, 8411 Foothill Boulevard -- on -sale beer and
wine,
c. Alcoholic Beverage License for Sun Pacific Airlines, Inc.
for Bud Grossberg, Samuel P. Crowe, Weldon Gadberry,
Robert Jensen, Joseph Tavaglione, Ronald Wayne Burkle,
Sun Pacific Airlines, 9223 Archibald Avenue -- on -sale
general.
d. Forward Claim from Rodney J. Heathcock to the City
Attorney for handling.
e. Forward Claim from Keith Allen Baker to the City
Attorney for handling.
I
3
16
f. Authorization for the Deputy City Clerk to attend 20
Lhe 1981 City Clerks Institute, January 14 -16 in
Sacramento. Estimated cost: $200.00.
City Council Agenda -2- December 3, 1980
g. Reimbursement Agreement for Engineering on Industrial
Assessment District: Approval of agreement to allow
reimbursement of $25,000 in Assessment Engineering
and Legal Counsel for Assessment District 79 -1. These
funds would only be reimbursed if the district is
approved and formed.
23
h. Contract Addendum to Carnelian Street Realignment 30
Project: Approval of extra work to cover the cost
of structural design of the expansion of a box cul-
vert required to complete the Carnelian Street re-
alignment.
i. Vineyard Avenue Design Services: Approval of contract 39
with C G Engineering to complete right -of -way acquisition,
railroad coordination, and design of the Vineyard
Avenue FAU project. Rescind approval by contract with
the City of Ontario for similar services.
j. Acceptance of Parcel Map No. 5505: Recommend that
Council accept the subject map which consists of four
parcels located on the north side of Almond Street,
east of Sapphire.
43
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -108 45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL MAP NO. 5505 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
5505).
k. Approval of Parcel Map No. 5922: Recommend that Council
authorize the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign the
subject map. The map consists of four parcels located at
the southeast corner of 19th Street and Jasper Street.
46
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -109 47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5922 (TENTATIVE PARCEL NO.
5922), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY.
1. Tract 9350: located on the west side of Sapphire Street
between Banyan and 19th Street. Owner: Loma Rancho
Homes. Release of bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond (slope planting)
in the amount of $6,600
City Council Agenda -3- December 3, 1980
m. Approval of Contract for Services to Establish 54
Computer Terminal Facilities for the Fiscal Model.
n. Set December 17,1980 for public hearing on Environ-
mental Assessment and Planned Development No. 80 -02 --
Lesney. A change of zone request from R -1 -5 (single
family residential) to P.D. (planned development) for
10 acres located on the northwest corner of Hermosa
and Base Line Road, and the development of a 117 lot
townhouse development consisting of 114 dwelling units
APN 202 - 182 -13.
o. Set December 17, 1980 for public hearing on Environ-
mental Assessment and Zone Change No. 80 -15 -- Landmark.
A change of zone from A -1 (limited agricultural) to R -2
(two family residential) for 12 acres located west of
Beryl, south of Mignonette - APN 202 - 032 -71.
p. Set December 17,1980 for public hearing on the
Subdivision Ordinance.
q. Authorization for part -time clerk typist for the
Community Services Department through June 30, 1981.
60
r. Approval of Railroad Spur Crossing: It is recommended 61
that Council approve a resolution authorizing the — —
mayor to sign petitions submitted by the Railway
Company.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -110 63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PETITION BY THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT A SPUR LINE
ACROSS EIGHTH STREET 2,912.5 FEET WEST OF
ROCHESTER AVENUE.
s. Amendment to city facility leases: It is recommended 65
that Council renew the lease for units A, B, C -1, and
C -2 for a two -year period.
City Council Agenda -4- December 3, 1980
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUILDING REGULATIONS. Jerry Grant,
Building Official, will present the staff report.
70
ORDINANCE NO. 122 (second reading) - 99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
1979 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE,
UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR ABATE-
MENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM SIGN CODE,
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, AND MAKING
CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN NECESSARY TO MEET
LOCAL CONDITIONS.
B. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80 -02, Amendments _ 128
to the San Bernardi County Land Use and Building re-
gulations as adopted by Ordinance No. 17.
under
ORDINANCE NO. 123 (second reading) separate cover
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
RESIDENTIAL, PARKING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
AND ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS OF THE INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
C. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST NO. 80 -18 - R. J. Investments. A
change of zone from R- -T to R -3 on 5.5 acres of land
located south of Foothill Boulevard, west of Foothill
Boulevard, west of Baker Avenue.
143
ORDINANCE NO. 125 (second reading) - 149
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207- 191 -49 -48 FROM
R -1 TO R -3 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOT-
HILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF BAKER AVENUE.
D. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST NO. 80 -19 - Diversified. A zone 150
change request for 16 acres of 5—n—d-rocated on the
northeastcorner of Base Line and Archibald from R -1 -5
(single family residential) to A -P (administrative -
professional) and R -3 (multiple family residential)
APN 201 - 181 -12, 21, and 22.
City Council Agenda -5- December 3, 1980
ORDINANCE NO. 126 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 201- 181 -12, 21,
AND 22.
E. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -20 - Vangua rd. A zone change request
from R -R to R -1 on 10 acres of land located north of
Arrow Highway, east of Archibald Avenue at the eastern
terminus of Cerise and Placer Streets - APN 208- 311 -01.
152
153
ORDINANCE NO. 127 (second reading) 155
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208 - 311 -01 FROM R -R TO
R -1 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW HIGHWAY
AND EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 155
N0. 80 -03 -Adult Businesses. An ordinance estab ishing
regulations of the location and review of adult businesses
in the C -2 general business district.
ORDINANCE N0. 45 -C (second reading) 157
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE LOCATION AND REVIEW OF
ADULT BUSINESSES IN THE C -2 (GENERAL BUSINESS)
DISTRICT.
G. ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. _1 160
FOR TRACTS NOS. X176, 9225, 9435, and 9567. It is
recommended that Council approve the resolution ordering
the annexation of Tract Nos. 9176, 92 ?.5, 9435, and 9567
to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING
THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION
NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT NOS. 9176, 9225, 9435,
AND 9567.
169
H. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ISSUED FOR GLEN FRANKLIN. 170
The City has received an appeal foF an approved Tree
Removal Permit to remove eleven eucalyptus and palm
trees located at 6730 Hellman Avenue.
City Council Agenda -6- December 3, 1980
4. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
A. APPEAL OF DECISION REGARDING THE RED HILL COFFEE 173
SHOP SIGN. Report by Barry Hogan.
S. ONTARIO GROUND ACCESS STUDY. An oral report will 196
Fe presented by Lloyd Hubbs.
C. ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE 197
VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY. Oral report by Jim
Robinson.
D. APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING 199
SERVICES. Report by Lloyd Hubbs.
5. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
6. COUNCIL MATTERS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE MEETINGS
Monday, December 1 at 7:00 p.m.: General Plan Hearing (Land
Use and Housing discussion). Alta Loma Junior High School
Cafetorium.
Tuesday, December 4 at 6:30 p.m.: Storm Drain Committee Meeting.
Lion's Park Community Center, West Gallery Room.
Tuesday, December 9 at 7:00 p.m.: Historical Commission meeting.
Lion's Park Community Center.
Monday, December 15 at 7:00 p.m.: General Plan Hearing (Land
Use and Housing discussion). Meeting has been cancelled, but to
be rescheduled.
Monday, December 29 at 7:00 p.m.: General Plan Hearing (Circu-
lation, Transportation, Trails, Parks discussion). Cucamonga
Neighborhood Facility, 9791 Arrow Highway.
t'
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
P. 0. Box 35
6623 Amethyst Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701
(714) 987 -2535
December 1, 1980
Mr.. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Wasserman:
Recently, I circulated numerous articles concerning
combustible roof coverings and their effects on the spread
of fire to the members of the City Council.
I am certain you are aware of the recent conflagrations
which Southern California has been experiencing. Annually
during this season, we experience Santa Ana winds which
often exceed 50 miles per hour. These winds account for a
large dollar loss to communities due to pronerty damage.
When a fire occurs during a windstorm, the problem is com-
pounded. Each and every year, millions of dollars in
valuable watershed are lost, and a tremendous loss to wild-
life occurs.
All the conflagrations we have just experienced began as
small fires. These fires grew in intensity and traveled
great distances by consuming all the available combustibles
in their Paths. Trees, brush, etc., are the most common
available combustibles which support the intensity of the
fires. These combustibles are all composed of wood, which
ignites easily, burns very rapidly, generates great heat,
and often gives off flying fire particles or "brands ".
The flying brands are then picked up by the winds and are
often deposited considerable distances from the actual
fire scene. They need only to land in dry brush or on a
wood roof to create an additional dangerous situation.
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
December 1, 1990
Page Two
Wood roofs are designed and constructed to renal water.
This feature is the main reason that, once a fire on a
wood roof has started, it is next to impossible to
extinguish without adequate manpower with knowledge in
fire suppression principles.
Wood shingles or shakes, once involved in fire, burn not
only on the exterior surface, but on the underside which
is exposed to the attic area. The attic area becomes
easily involved and, no matter how much water is applied
externally, the fire will continue to burn, causing
tremendous damage, if not total loss.
Presently within our community, we have many combustible
roofs; many of these form acres of nothing but wood roofs.
We now have large areas of roofs that present a very
serious threat to our community, and to allow such develop-
ments to continue to be built, we would be, in effect,
stating that we are willing to run the risk involved.
An ordinance is presently being formulated that will regu-
late the use of wood roofs in our "high hazard" area. It
is my opinion that the ordinance should eliminate or at
least regulate combustible roof coverings in the entire
city.
This opinion has been formed as a result of the experiences
I have encountered over fourteen years, including numerous
occasions where fires have extended from rooftop to roof-
top. The Rosewood fire in Ontario is the largest local
situation in which I have been involved.
The major reason why wood roofs are desired by individuals
and developers is that they are aesthetically pleasing.
Today, non - combustible roof coverings are available that
impressively resemble the present combustible roofing
materials, but provide a much larger margin of safety.
Some non - combustible roof coverings may increase the
original cost of the house. Insurance companies are now
looking into providing reduced rates for homes which have
a non - combustible roof covering. When such rates are
developed, this would eventually offset the difference in
original cost.
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
December 1, 1980
Page Three
It is my recommendation that an ordinance be drafted
and adopted that would prohibit any future development
from utilizing a combustible roof covering. It is my
sincere hope that you will take this recommendation into
consideration while finalizing the drafting of the
ordinance concerning roof construction.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Res ectfull submitted,
Kenneth C. Walke rcel�
Battalion Chief /Fire Marshal
KCW:va
cc: Chief Lee
Residents survey fire - blackened Carbon Canyon
BY DINAR ROSE
Staff Writer
Most of the raidenes of Carbm
Carryon bad returned th their homes,
ready to start clasdng up after We
flee Brews by daybreak this
Many never Ida despite ay. and
.stayed to midday
to protect and
stayed to try to protect Weir
property.
Hamner Bob Kelley sat wearily
utride bin hone after conducting an
early morning ride to check the
damage.
"Vie lost the outbuildings, feed,
'and a slack M lumber I was going b
use to build a new barn," he said.
"And I just found a couple of Mad of
'cattle brand."
He added that most of the
cluckena on his Bar -K Ranch bad
also been killed.
"Yale know you have to put up
with Ibis sort of dung in our area,
but that doesn't Duke It any
aster"
Ray Mod Shirley Mum, neighbors
of Kelley s Dear the Carbon Canyon
Park, are caretakers for We 7,000
•cent of Shell Oil Co. property in the
area.
"The Weep are what saved we
house," said Mrs. Muno this
morning. "You can tell where they
grazed the grass down, the fife
burned right up to that point and
then burned itself ml."
Some residents chose to follow
evacuaOLU M orders. and spent part w
all of the night in community
centers and other public buildings
Most returned home early this
morning.
The sky over Carbon Canyon was
filled with smoke from parts of the
fie that were contained, but still
burning. The line of blackened scrub
ran to a small service road
bordering a new condominium
oM Shane Good stood
Ibis family mailbox on
Carbon Canyon Road
"We staved up all night to watch
the fire,' he said, "but it dde t get
to the house. My dad was kind of
scared though. We got everything
packed up in case we had to leave in
a hurry ."
He paused to watch airplanes and
helicopters still circling the area.
"It got really close though."
Paul Simpson, owner of a small
nursery south of the Carbon Canyon
Park, looked at the remains of a 16-
fool trailer he had used as an office
and occaswnat sleeping quarters.
He kicked at a hardened pool Of
molten metal
"I'd Say at least 60 percent of my
five acres Is burned," he said. "And
Concluded oo Page 7, Column 7
Its II 'I'II HAWN
DAFT t FL=: ; Am,luao, acrd,s m.rv.
vallh,O r..i I.d„ and bemrs hunting n n the r
tong news. our rtru.d almost hear therh,.ru, of
•action sal ling in on our Sant,, Ana wind, [rem, inn d.
the other 99 states, "Those trav ('aldor mane'
Every rear about alas time. Cabforrua wouliern the
orld over are fas,• cted and puzzled bi people who
old expensive homes to fire prone areas only to see
em ban down —and then they build there agmn. in
e same way Out -of -state ob.,cner, think we are
citing the most foolish people in the world
And they are right.
We are foolish lnd eil because we do not take the ne.
ssary precautions for maximum satiny from our re-
irrent natural disasters:. Like the two little pigs that
nit their homes of straw and wood. we have ignored
ie obvious for the eVedtenk and nearly every year
ave had m pay the price. '
Now. as the fire season of 1980 draws to a close, what
s we do so that past tragedies will not again be re-
rated in the years to come.'
The answer Ices in both governmental and individual
ctnon. Together, lad officials and the citizens who
lest them can bring about dramatic reductions in the
umber of homes last in Southern California fires
'Me first and highest order of business should be for
canny supervisors and city councilmen throughnnt
ahforma to enact strong. uniform fir,-red,dant-rool-
te ordinances. The evidence is overwhelming that
lost st -- rat�tres begin when burning embers blown
v hot, dry Santa Ana winds land on combustible weal
Oafs. When the temperatures are high and the humidr-
r low, these roofs are like kindling waning for a spark.
ust last weekend in Duarte. during fierce Santa Ana
ands. 33 homes burned to the ground. All but two had
ntreatcdwoodroofs. '
The fate of these hom is holds a lesson fora +o itM1-
rn California residents. Most of the destroyed hectic,
,ere not mountain homes surrounded by dry brush
o-thirds of them were in the middle of a typical his
B, m,il neighborhood with streets and lawns and drive-
= just like the me;dnay of Los Angeles County res-
lrnces :: ^^ n! c:. w6rt hr: wr lave m Duarte or Ilnw-
'v. can a . it l to he complacent when d comes to fire
ill of our homes are suhp et to the effect. of Sams Ana
vend conditions. If there I: a fire in the vicinity, regard
eta or as Origin. nor homes can become the next fire
'L1LLQie[.
This t, by last July 10 a county law was passed to-
jmnng fire- retardant roofing for new construction in
it unincorporated areas of the county, whether hillvde
r f6uland. Thr wisdom of thus law was borne nuu only a
ow weeks later in Ilouslnn. when 29 apartment hodd-
Fires: the Hazards
ings with wood - shingle roofs caught fire. Thew build-
ings were adjacent to others with fire mmrdant roofs.
The maidentsof the buildings protected by treated roofs
had homes to return to that night. Those who lived in
the 400 destroyed apartment unit did not.
he simple solution to this needless tragedy is in re-
quire roofing materials that are fire resistant These
materials are available in a wide variety of looks and
textures, ranging from toe to rock to asphalt shingles.
They can be adapted m virtually any roof .style and arc
coin. tnwely priced In fact. asphalt shingles cost only
ha,f the price of cedar roofing.
?here are those who will argue that government
should not mfnnge on the personal clinic Its Of its rdirenx
when it comes to home cocc rur;ton if a lie rsun wants
W inn the risks of fire. the reasoning god, Ihen that is
his or her ntlividual right The prehlrm with this logic is
th it all the rest of u, end up .suhadixmg the supposed
"ugh I, -of the careless hnmrnwner.
We pay in three wars
-In increased trnursnce ral tr -.. sa na r meurame rom-
armies rover the losses of a few' by an ::mg Ili, rates for
rvrr,on,
— Through our state and federal taxes for the cost of
disaster services and low - interest loans to these who
lose property.
— Through our local saxes for the direct tact of fire
suppression and then, when the rains come. of flood
control
So. when we speak of fire - prevention rules and ordi-
nances, we arc not talking about individual property
rights but of collective responsibility.
Since the problem and the solution seem ro he clear.
one might assume that every community in Southern
California would have strong roofing ordmanees.lum as
they have electrical. plumbing and structural codes to
protect the pubhe safety Ito of the RI canes in Los An
geles County. 6.1 stall have on roof nig laws at all Ever
since 1961. when the hirl Air fire destroyed 450 homes. I
have fought for fire- retardant -roofing regnircmenls
During Ihcse yezre the evidence has mounted Most no
tarty. in IWO. we lost IR7 homes to brash fire, and in
1979, 255 home, were lost in the Parrfi, palisades and
Malibu areas
Year after year ! prnpcsed roofing ordmanres only to
have Inv mntinna ci,ro. ed all for nor. rrasnn —be n
it no nosh ne Idbc) '6 'hr cedar md,!cl ry has used all o
i of uenrr to kill an i norna ordi nanrc despde the m
mnnv of ('Dunn Farr Thief (Tyne foaplen and despd
the rernmmendawui, of ion Fare Chi, a. A, r. of Cah
forma and the tialrnul Farr Pre eroon Assn calling
slatewull and naUnnwnv law- regatnng fire- rrbrd.n
rrofs The radar luhin :,,irgum,-nt -are .i, vulnerable a
its roofing m.n end ls. tan In mn,i pin,.!m'mns they In
prevailed
After, cars of dr[ai now is be lime m finaily say ni
to the Irld,,, li amt put an end to nu-ow. ,ho,tairbl,o
ties, Even u:zoa u: Snu;hern Caoforna should fin
out if local runt og ordinances are niaw(jude and: i
they are. urge city councils to enact laws prohibit
untreated word routs Had this linen done after the
Air fire 19 years ago. many of the homes lost last wee
end would still be standmg
There are other actions that government can w
such as creation of a conservation corps name one
ployed youth to Near brush and to create water riser,
years to brush areas. But government cannot and should
not do it all Even' homeowner should realize that fires
do not happen only to the timer guy."
Only lout'- growing. fire resistant shrubs and grout
cover should be planted nrar a house Hoofs and rain
gutters should he cleared of leaves. needles and twig
Firewood should be slacked ,if the ground and awn
from fences and strocturrs Or :vrways ihduld be kep
clear of debris sit that fire equipment car have ready se.
cess if necessav Chimnry, should hp ,rrecned to pr
vent sparks from igniting the ro land brush Fire extG
guishers, with clear instruction: on how in use the
should be kept in areas containing flammable males
Roof sprinklers can often he a valuable aid to fire or
venuon in heavy brush areas And for houses w'it .
swimming pools. a pump can lint idle water to wort
protecting homes.
Following the fires of last weekend. It was difficult his
miss the Irony contained in aerial photographs of 0v'
devasteuon. Nelghboncceads could he seen pocked wi
blackened mounds of rubble where once - costly hom
stood And to the backva, ds. gleaming as always. wen
swimming pools filled with thousands of gallons of we,
ter that went unused in the fight against the fire This
image symbolizes California and Californians for man,
people They see us as tieing so busy living the good Id
made possible by the natural btexsuigs of our region that
we we blinded was dangers
I.et us learn the Iciaeds from Ihis late-,[ outbreak and:
through sortable action show the rest of the nation that
we crazy' Caldnnuans know not duly how to live the
good life but how m pits <ne and prniert a as well
SuprnLnr K,rr,th llahn t, rhmmam of the ID} An-
,, c,, roueo, }'i.r @genfn,rnr
STORM DRAIN PROJECT PROPOSAL
/ 1. Carnelian Storm Orain $500,000
2. Misc. Design and Planning Studies $ 60,000
60,000
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
"l. Carnelian Stre ?t Improvement Project $600,000
Phased construction
•Th. is itnl is a car r, n: ",r 'I'C— he -ur, ent crr I, a
:7t ro:.,s r.ot
included in the program submitted to the Plannino Commission.
r •
v8.
Roadway Reconstruction
1
Church St. - Ramona to Archibald
50,000
Highland Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
50,000
/�.
Resurfacing Projects
100,000
✓*Carnelian St. - Highland to Banyon
$120,000
✓Alta Cuesta - Red Hill to Camino Norte
40,000
—
,,Lemon Ave. — Hermosa to Haven
20,000
v Hellman Ave. - Monte Vista to Base Line
40,000
Church to Foothill
20,000
"Archibald Ave. - 4th to Base Line
150,000
J
10.E
Vineyard at Foothi j_S al Modification-
5,000
I_
City of Montclair Fund. Transfer.
126,000
2
TOTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
$1,196,000
`Indicates Balance /Contingency Projects
SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDS
\
✓1.
Base Linc Reconstruction Federal Aid Urban
$230,000
/2.
Base•Line 9 i.ellnan Signals Federal Aid Urban
$110,000
•
'
--
Archibald @ Church St. Signals Federal Aid Urban
�3.
North Tonn Street Improvement HUD.: CDBG Funds
$357,000
X705,000
STORM DRAIN PROJECT PROPOSAL
/ 1. Carnelian Storm Orain $500,000
2. Misc. Design and Planning Studies $ 60,000
60,000
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
"l. Carnelian Stre ?t Improvement Project $600,000
Phased construction
•Th. is itnl is a car r, n: ",r 'I'C— he -ur, ent crr I, a
:7t ro:.,s r.ot
included in the program submitted to the Plannino Commission.
r •
PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
REVENUE
Gas Tax (2106,2107)
S8325 (TDA)
Systems Development (includes carryover)
Road Maintenance Budget
Total Road Fund Available
Total Storm Drain Funds Available
(includes carryover)
PROPOSED ROAD PROJECT EXPENDITURES
1. Special Studies
✓ - Grade separation applications for Haven and
• Milliken Avenues
✓- Grove Railroad Crossing
Ga ✓ - Seventh Street Ramp
- Miscellaneous Circulation Studies
✓ 2. Cucamonga /Deer Creek Bridges
v' 3. Carnelian Street Realignment
Church Street to San Bernardino Rd.
✓ 4. Fourth Street and Archibald Ave. Signals
(Cooperative project with Ontario)
✓
S. Grove Ave. - 8th St. to Foothill Blvd.
Minor widening and striping
✓ 6. Base Line - Cambridge to Haven
Design for alignment,widening, reconstruction,
resurfacing
✓ 7. Vineyard Avenue - 8th Street to Arrow
Design and Right of Way Acquisition
r
Total
$ 474,187
514,382
450,000
51,438,569
- 581,323
857,246
$560,000
$ 25,000
$100,000
$250,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000.
I• COPY
De net detach —Return all roliee Do Not Write Abore This lira —For headquarters OTrn Only
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
m
to: Deparenf of Alcoholic Beverage Control
'1415 O Street .� 3" ��aD
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
an.wc. ........ .,........ r
The undersigrlad h..'rhy applies for
L licenses described as follows:
1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S)
FILE NO.
"' s'
MUM B= a I=
!�I$jZC FS�34I583
Applied under Sec,
Effective Date: M&A
�
. -,iSv
❑
FEE NO.
GEOGRAPH CAL
CODE
_
Date
Issued
2. NAME(S) OF APPLICANT(S)
Temp. Permit
Effective Date:
�r..,..�,..
3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S)
FEE
LIC.
TYPE
H
s30D.00
1.2
-4.l30
AMIUAL
14Nome of Business CT 71
5. Location of Business- Number and Street
�. 2OLiLil2i1 BlVdo
'
C(�,ty arrm�d Zi Cade Coua�y
UUGff8L10D!•,8 91730 JAN tlL:7O.
RECEIPT NO. 9C13L5
TOTAL
S I{�SI..AQ
�1
6. If Premises Licensed, �r 7. Are Premises Inside
Show Type of License 4 �5UCw ,w= li 1 ;.,,,p;
.�.
B. Moiling Address (if different from 5)— Number and Sireei -" s "— "-L. C ::Z- -i :;C` • n.mpl P•.ml
P
9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Have you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic
NO Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per.
taining to the Act? 7e8 ReLi Aitsr Hoarse
11. Explain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
14. Applicant agrees (a) Ihot any manager ..played in on -sole licensed premises will have all the qualifications of o licensee, and
(b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SM M"NARiiT'.1D Data U13-2180 „
uN., wont er nab y., wbcr Gene •vv^ or— .tie.. ono Ill 1. m. vvrr of m. evvn<
eee. nr rb. npd —ts Ih. Inr Wi— ddr oe.n.
yams omel— nenrsno eib. : 1h ..1 .,d 11.1 udrr 11,, rn. .— n m abnu: nl mot h. nw .na m. Lrw.
n mot non ono oil ar M. m., moo. opt rbol w.. mbr ton m. nvpmn
or .,q—.1, hey . air. loot. I1. upvlie polio bn., o b. a 4-nd vna.r<rn, raw ;q rut wmd rbi. opr<n mud.,;
la nor Its mbr em ii e r nue ,I —r., most 1. H, rb, v ^•.� nl . loon o Wrdl a ny.. ..d i than .rr ("I
del, q—dir. aM. dar ,.Fin n11. Dori. or,....... for rl.d ,rbh rh. tilumi—I ernld'ye,n o .Inbli.h a ONl ... ,i. ,la •w Iw •onr di,., al. trans..., e
ddroad o am ,.do., of t -0 ... r 'S: rh., IM Iron n: apdi<elmn mar b. wilhdw m br .im- N. emli< N er rh. I4m.n wile no r.rdr e
M. D..".."
• 'ny liob'liry r
14. APPLICANT
SIGN HIRE
APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR
15. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of I Date
UnMr nor. tv N w Dry. •o<h mr.on whoa liyndw s .grown blow, < tiflu end .a : pl .. is M. lily., o oTnw of Ib m, m . lion.w,
—.4 i M. filing —o most., epvblwioo, ds, o~11.d 1. mob his ..go aniilaron e s goi ql Mal M•Mnb. mobs tookeron to unions.,
all lm.rol M Ite aeesMd Unool.) degnoid best. one la matins, o e M. mention, end /q tlwpliw indi -net w Ib apps pour. N is ep,iollw
for", if weh mod., is ague." or M. ohnwi OI Unl 'he n fiv epelimlim or womod nend.r Is rwl mode to s my IM parm.M of a bw or le fFIMI
on .1onn -1 •yumd role mw. In.. niwly dwl nwMinp Isw dar on h,,h fli boon., epplin:ien Ir fit" wish its asponniiil a to groin .1 nloblish o
0 COPY a. ear, e.mr �gewm elf mpiu
ae Net Write Abevn TFir Linn —Tpr Nnodgop «.rs Ohre only
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC EEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S)
FILE NO.
To: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
FEE NO.
1215 O Street
Sacramento, Calif. 95814 .pig
- mnrnlm ..nvma wcn.w "l
The undersigned hereby applies for
license, described as follows:
AIRPIAM
&
�"S
GEOGRAPHICAL
CODE 3615
Date
Issued
2. NAME(S) OF APPLICANT(S)
Temp. Permit
Applied under Sec. p4 ❑
Effective Date: //, Q /
Effective Date:
.MR PACIM AMUMLS 1W.
' �',��
BUd
3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S)
FEE
TYPE
Weldon Ca . vim rms/
tl u
5 365.2
55
Rsbsrt C .ianaatt- Dialrtct w _
ZS IWW WPLICA7ZS @ $11.10
2
01
_
Joseph TaV&SILOes, Jr. • DLusctw
4. Name of Baainess
SEa PaciYlc Alrliass Cr
5. Locafion of Business — Number and Street
109223 Arahlbeld
City and Z: Code County
Ratteho 917'30 S� 1�.jZ�nt
CEIPT NO. /' _�/ TOTAL
$
6. If Premises Licensed, 7. Are Premises Inside
Shaw Tvae of License City Limits? YES
B. Meiling Address jf different from 5)— Number and Street (temp) fpumf
P.4. Bac 9130 Ontario. CA 91761 Penis,
9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Have you ever violated ony of the provisions of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Deportment per-
k ccrpo=tj= raining to the Ad? me
11. Explain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 an an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
12. Applk.M agree, (a) that any manager employed in on-sole licensed premises will have oil the qualifications of a licensee, and
(b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Ad.
13, STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of u:4 i3Z.r'ssiVuJ1t10 Date . j1/ia/a) .... <
.,do, wnany If o .nm p r, n -1— ngnmx.< u P11.11 1,11— nip.. eed . Ip x. m..,,I< nl. p of rM nwn<em.. p
,ds,w N r6. police m.a m. Inr.em.y Doha del, moor na yr met, IM, nppnt u. e.nen. :11 IM1m No h., od IN. 1—
ed. andn loo alh. : N.r.ef and that ..M1 and ell of IF. 1h,r made nnW 1hm III., !N— 11, oppli<a
.ppli�o .1No, y d,1. indor. r IM opal app :t boon o b. enaen,d vnd,rl No lia. `. far whi,h Ihi. ast"ia mad.1:
(11 'hot Ip. pr,—d ' n.f<r modes lilly^,1M or o Ica o NMI o aqa• r.d i Ihan ss, ise)
d «, pmod, th. day wFib oIh,
mN, 1.1,d -.h rh. N, a ai m1W,,h a nl.r ar ter of I ml.
ddreud a ' y If 151 h M1 ... r may N. nlhd . 6, h. .1 1h. ihnp. -:d 1.10inq
b
A. 0.w.., ON PC AIRI.IIIBS,
mir
14. APPLICANT �•;
SIGN HERE By; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
■Q1d Titles AOMINISTRfITION ....
APPLICATIONyyy��� BY TRANSFEROR NOV j.l 1980
1S. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of -191„'n111ZI1121
uM« wnoar of wmv,. wd wr«n .ho« Jpnown epwor. Is. lo., < '6« aN ..rs 01 n. IN. u«nm. « wrril �i<« of IM a14
n.n1.d in th. f«..Nnq V.ml.r .pvn«nen, duly .mlwrl«d Is met. 1M11, mfsr .pplimq.n e , b.A.dl: 01 M« M Norse, �eYn .pNiwlien le vwn
.11 in 1 M IM .M<bd li<mulQ shos,ib.d blow .M I mbr a A..ppli —I .M .1 l -.lien indiwud o 1M updE1 Anion N Mb .WkmNn
I«m. II,,Mh now.M1r 1, .ppe,N by M. of«<I., 11) dod erhe 1-0. pppli<pfien er wops,N Irpn,l« i, net mod. le Is iJy .M comord er n ken or ie N1611
es .gs.mml .n1.rN Wo move 1Mn y day ndinp Ih. d.y .n N11, IN. n,Lr opliro Ll.d nilh IN. 0,1 . .N. er ol.bli.h e
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
ORIGINAL FOR ME
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Claim, for death. Injury to person or to personal properly matt be filed not
later than loo days after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2 Claims for damages to real property must be filed hot later than I year after the
occurance. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
- g. Read entire claim before filing.
4. See page 2 !er diagram upon which to bate Place of accident.
S. 1Tis claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom.
Is . Attoch separate sheets, if necessary to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET.
7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sec. 915a)
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Name of Claimant
RODNEY J. HEATHCOCK
Home Address of Claimant City And State
RESERVE FOR PILING STAMP
CLAIM No.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA6ONOA
ADMINISTRATION
NOV 2� 1980
AM
718191101111121112131415 PIN
Age of Claimant (U natural person)
Give Andrew to which you desire noticed or communications to be sent regarding this claim: "
PETERSON fs KRAEMER, Attorneys
27141 E, Baseline, Ste. 7, Highland, CA 92346 Phone: (714) 864 -2270
How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full Particulars.
Claimant was in vehicle which was proceeding Southbound on Turner wherein
Roadway ended abruptly without warnings, road markings, lighting,, reflectors,
etc. causing driver to veer vehicle from M2 lane to number 1 lane abruptly
causing vehicle to strike curb and roll. One party in vehicle was killed and
or INJURY occur?
Approx. 2320 hrs. on 9/29/80
Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, giv,
street names and address and measurements from landmarks:
See police report attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
as though fully set forth
What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury o:
damage, it known:
Inadequate road engineering, marking, lighting, construction
. fr WaTnings.
What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed:
Paraplegia of claimant as well as untold other external and internal
injuries to broken bones, ribs, nerves, lungs, stomach, head, chest
and arms.
What AMOUNT do you el a;m on account n( each item of injury or homage as of date at Presentation of this claim, giving basis o
computation:
56,000,000.00 - Economic prospectus on medical required and loss
of earnings etc, as quoted in expert analysis projections.
.ive ESTIMATED .1h10UNT as (ar a known you claim on account al each dem of prnxpectn'e injury or damage, g ^'mg basis o
See above
SEE PACE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST 13E SIGNED O\ REVERSE SID
Insurance., payments received, if any, and names of Insurance Company:
Unknown believed probably in excess of $100,000.00 to date.
Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date — Item) (Amount)
not applicable or unknown
Kaiser Permanente Hospital, Fontana, CA
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets. including North, East, South, and Nest; indicate place of
accident by "X" and by showing house numbers of distances to street corners.
If City Vehicle Was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself
"your vehicle when you first saw City vehicle, location of City vehicle at time of acmdeat by "A -I" and location of yourself or yoar
Vehicle at the time of the accident by "H -1" and the point of impact by "X."
NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant.
FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS
Z L.. SIDEWALK
See diagram attached
CIIRML
FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS
L
7A\ 7111'-- F
person filing on his behalf giving I Typed Name:
Rodney Heathcock .
NOTE: Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Cal. Pen. Coda Sec. 72) .
CLAIMS MUST 8E FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV, CODE SEC. 915x).
Date
11 /1 78C
•••• ....
�o'
/%%UN O.Pi
`7i•
/•'•CT.
�(/Cf/O LGGC/J�iiBJT
"o
'
S9,✓ b4ir//9Reoiwa .3 /D63oS / -/.
°
,
� Sr
go 23/9 Tao
cocuslo. nwnnwnv[
..
w.. . �...�.�., 1N.. I.. »I ,......... e....., i... .......
.. • 9. ... 29 So 2319 3folb Z -Q7 ]7 10lc3051 -I\
ALL ME AEUR EM "TS ARE A.INO %IM ATE AMC NOT TO SURE UNLESS SYATEO ISC w RE 1
+
OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF
COUNTY OF SAN BETINARDINO
CAL!:'OF.NIA
CA 03600
....E
-
I S(-
•
OFFICE OF FR.l -:H BLAND. SHERIFF
COIRCiY OF S.V: 5_:J:P -ib,No c-
CAL*roRRs
Ch O3600
�o.
..
.
fcncak o"el
p
wcIIO wwnnwnvca wnT uwn on rnw me
couwow ro r la -. .,... .....I
urrLc,wc"rwL rwwigC COLLISION
Injury T/C
9 Ly I � 12319
Turner Avenue and Feron
3616 1 I � 5 11063051
SUPPLEM ENTAUNAR RAT IV
" •�� ^" " ° "`�
'nw nnwnvc corvnnDwnon rwwrnc
'C] so nEEr"Enrwi rnwrnc couivon
- •___...., ,,.�..,. ........
,... ..._...
.,,.. ,..
..,
1063051 -111
L,...,., ..,....
•,. Icn «xon[I
N�nwnn vc co.,n nvwnan Twnlnc
C LOLLIi ION n[ID RT Ic.. .,. e. ,, .,�
J SVIILCM [N T.[L Tw/.ii1C CO LL,SION
C or N[w:
_.. ... ...
11063051 -1-1
c..,e w,.0 [.[c♦
c •.:a__.,u.[•
L�
ICiNk onF/
,Q'MwRn.CTIVCCONTINV wT10N T pw iFlC
[OLLI SIGN RpiO RT .., e. ,.,...)
p fV IILLMCNTALTRwFFIC CGLLIVON
0 vTNEn:
I Il 51 -11�
e...o..u..•e•
(Cheek and
1063051 -t
T .,.--
!C/r[ck onel
n.•wwwTly[ cONTINUwTION Tw/.rrlc
COLLISIOn w[nO wT Ic..... e. N. +.1
O [UI•L[M[NTAL TII•rrlC COLLISION
w[re wT 1[ -•
aTN[w'
.
i
• 2
3 1
4
5
6
7
. 8
9
10
Il �,
12
13
14
• 15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
I
24
5
26
27
28
BELOUD AND MANNERINO
9330 Baseline Road, Ste. 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Tele: 714/980 -1100
Attorneys for Claimant
In the Hatter of the Proposed Claim of
KEITH ALLEN BAKER ,
Claimant,
-vs-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
Respondent.
L•iTY OFD. °.i;A'4C
NOV 1 'yao
zMa�11�,a�,s,s
i
APPLICATION TO
PRESENT CLAIII UNDER
SECTION 911.4 OF
GOVERNMENT CODE
TO: COUNTY CLERK OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA!IONGA
1. I, JOHN D. [1ANNERINO, as attornev for the Claimant,
apply for leave to present a claim under Government Code
Section 911.4. The claim is founded on a cause of action for
injuries sustained by KEITH ALLEN BAKER on November 21, 1979,
by reason of an automobile /pedestrian accident as more fully
set forth in the claim attached hereto.
2. The reason for the delay in presenting this claim
is as follows: At the time of the accident, the Claimant
was 18 years old. Due to the accident, the claimant, KEITH
ALLEN BAKER, was Idmi.ttc,3 in the hospital where he remained
in a coma for three weeks. After a hospitalization of one
- •,oath, he was discharged in a full leq cast, and confined to
-1-
i
I j bed and a wheel -chair for an additional several months. Due to
Ij
the coma, the Claimant experienced significant mental
3 disorientation and forgetfulness, such that he had not the
4 mental capacity to seek legal counseling within the 100 day
5 period as proscribed in the Government Code. The Claimant
6 still, in fact, suffers from forgetfulness and occasional
7 disorientation to a lesser degree such that it finally became
8 necessary for his father to intervene to assist the
9 Claimant in seeking legal counsel, which precipitated this
10 claim.
11 WHEREFORE, request is hereby respectfully made that
12 the application be granted and that the attached proposed claim
13 is received and acted upon in accordance with Government Code
14 Sections 912.4 and 912.8.
13
Dated: November 17, 1980 BELODD AND MANNERINO
16
17 BY:
JOHN D. 14ANNERINO
14 Attorney for Claimant
19
20
21
22
23
24
ii
25
6
27
28
d —2-
u ��
•
•
U
I BELOUD AND MANNERINO
'- 9330 Baseline Road, Ste. 100
3 'j Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
4 I� Tele: 714/980 -1100
5 Attorneys for Claimant
6
7
8 In the Matter of the Proposed Claim of
9 KEITH ALLEN BAKER,
10 i'li Claimant,
II -vs-
12 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
13
Respondent.
14
IS
State of California
16 County of San Bernardino )ss.
7
DECLARATION OF
H. LEE BAKER IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICATI
TO PRESENT CLAIM UND
SECTION 911.4 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE
I, H. LEE BAKER, declare:
IB 1. That I ara the father of the Claimant and have
19 personal knowledge of the facts contained herein.
20 I,I� 2. That on or about November 21, 1979, my son was
21ii struck by an automobile on Baseline Road, at or near Carnelian
22 in Rancho Cucamonga.
23 3. Upon review of the
p police report prepared by
24 the Sheriff's Department of Rancho Cucamonga of this accident,
it ••,sis noted that a probable cause of this accident was
16 inadequate street licpit:ing at its location.
" 4. My son was an adult and 18 ,years of ace at the
28 time of this accident and enlisted in the United States Marine
-1-
' (O
it
1 �� Corps.
5. Subsequent to the collision, my son lay in a /
3 coma, near death, for three weeks. Upon regaining consciousness
4 he was discharged into our care and confined to bed and
5 wheel -chair for approximately five to six months where he
6 continued rigorous weekly out - patient treatment. Due to the
7 coma, he suffered significant brain impairment and disfunction
8 and has been unable to communicate with us concerning the facts
9 and circumstances of tbis accident until the period of approxi-
10 mately five to six months thereafter. Finally, I "was able
11 to convince my son to allow me to assist him in exploring the
12 liability of this accident.
13 6. I then consulted the law firm of Beloud and
14 Mannerino on or about November 14, 1980, and was advised '
15 at that time of the 100 day statute.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
17 is true and correct and if called upon to testify thereto,
18 I could competently do so.
19 Dated: November 17, 1980
20
21
H. LEE BAKER
22
23
24
25 I
26
27 /
24
I
310010
s::: League of California Cities
g■..
a■.m�
Wmh I_;cahnr
,'1 N N 0 U N C I N G - - - - -
THE 1981 CITY CLERKS INSTITUTE
.January 14 -16, 1981
Mansion Inn. Sacramento
Once again you are cordially invited to join with
your peers and be brought up-to -date on an array of
topics of specific concern to City Clerks. Your
program committee has developed an agenda for this
important meeting which will offer you many opportu-
nities to consider and discuss with your colleagues
such subjects as:
- streamlining ballot counting procedures
• - newly enacted elections legislation
- voter registration verification techniques
- time management for clerks
- bilingual voting requirements
Particular attention will be given to the legislative
process so that clerks will be more familiar with how
their cities can effectively promote their city's
interests at the state level. An outline of the
Institute agenda is included in this announcement.
In order to assure that this meeting fully addresses
your interests you are requested to fill in the short
survey- included on the registration form. Your
answers will help us make the meeting of maximum
benefit to You.
IF_1
14WKSTREET SACRAMENT09a814 HOTELCLAREMONT BERNELEY94705 9DDWILSHIREBLVD SUITE 7D2 LOSAMSCLES90012
191611n4 5 190 14151643M89 ;6 @1316£41934
CITY CLERKS INSTITUTE
Mansion Inn, Sacramento
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14
9:00 a.m. l Registration - Front Lobby, Mansion Inn
11:30 a.m. Opening Session - General Luncheon
The legislative Process: The Inner Workings
( ^his program will focus on procedures for introducing
legislation and the politics of moving a bill through
the Legislature.)
3:00 p.m. Tour of the State Capitol and Legislative Committees
6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Get Acquainted Reception (No Host)
Evening Free
THURSDAY. JANUARY 15
7:30 a.m. Breakfast Session
Streamlining Election Night Counting Procedures
(A discussion of timely and cost effective techniques for
election night counting.)
9:30 a.m. General Session
Filing Statements of Economic Interest - Are You Giving the
Right Advice?
(A :workshop conducted by the Fair Political Practices Commission
on filing statements of economic interest and the duties of
filing officer.)
12:15 p.m. General Luncheon
The Politics of the Legislature - Chair of the Senate
Elections and Reapportionment Committee
2:15 p.m. General Session
Elections Up -Date
(An opportunity to review newly adopted elections Legislation
and an open discussion on election procedures and practices.)
6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Informal - No -Host Reception
Evening Free a I
•
•
l J
• FRIDAY, JANUARY 16
7:30 ...m. Breakfast Session
The Voter and the Signature
(A discussion of techniques and procedures used `or voter
registration verification to snsure against signature
forgery.)
5:30 a.m. General Session
Time Management
(Tirs and techniques to help the clerk in better utilizing
tiro and resources in carrying out city business in the
most e,`ficient cost effective manner.)
12:13 p.m. Closing Luncheon
Bilingual Voting Requirements: Benefit- Cost - Future
U.S. Justice Department Representative
• 2:00 n.m. Adjournment
... 17
TILT •• 0" jw
• rtu hu
•a ° -� •- 1" 4� IMl RN
9
-4- a9,
TArSULftOg
pu � CENteR
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
> 8
F
L
DATE: December 3, 1980 197
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Reimbursement Agreement for Engineering on Industrial
Assessment District
Attached for Council execution is a reimbursement agreement between
the City and R. C. Land Company approving the reimbursement of
$25,000 in Engineering and Bond Counsel fees incurred in the
formation of the Industrial Assessment District 79 -1.
The Council may recall its authorization in July of 1979 to
move ahead with exploration of this assessment district provided
funds were absorbed by the private interests promoting the District.
Based on this approval, an original District was reviewed by local
• property owners and a petition circulated. Although over 508 of
the property owners approved the District, the number was insuffi-
cient to waive the required debt report. An additional $20,000
was then submitted to complete the project through the Debt Hearing
stage.
The attached agreement would allow that funds expended to date on
the District would be included in the assessments. At the time of
District formation, R. C. Land Company would be reimbursed for these
expenditures.
If the District is abandoned or fails, the City would assume no
liability for reimbursement as outlined in Section b of the agree-
ment.
The debt report on the District is in its final stages of completion
and will be presented to the City Council on December 11, 1980 at
a special study session. Property owners meetings will be scheduled
for December and January with the initial Public Hearing scheduled
for January 21, 1981.
RECOMME11DATIOPI
Approve the attached agreement of reimbursement of Engineering and
Bond Counsel expenses in conjunction with the formation of Assess-
ment District 79 -1.
Resp,ctfully submitted,
Attachments
STHADLING. YOCCA. CAB.LSON & IL&UTH
• A PFOfC55iO NAl C ^RVPO RALION
FH[Tl E. .T IIYO ........ I.r LAw
G. C E. co me eoo orviory a ew�oinc
C. Cacao Re 11N rveweo Hr cen reR oR ve
W,va,+x A ILCra.
A C. S<Q•� vo sr Orn cE eoa >eeo
M. SiLPHLy CaoSTi NEWPOB[ .EACH' CA .Fo rI 02090
Ai .. C. G.... in R[PlV P�[I.5[ RffER rte.
Jonx J. Mvavar ru cPnarvc 1 >� +I ew -voae
TaONAS E CL Ja,
HEN A. N
DA.nn R. . McEcEwea
PACC L Gu.e
Docous E H,o v
E. EVai Yrwocn
RAVO.,. J. Sneer November 4, 1980 _ - -
D.dnexAnusox III r�.. fi .w �aa•.i'u L['i�tl
l0'f:i.:U';:Tl�PEV't Crf,1EP77 D:r f.
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs AM P61
City Engineer n�g,G;n,1;.� 11-12A4.1516
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Re: Assessment District Reimbursement Agreement
Dear Lloyd:
In response to your letter of October 10, I have re-
vised the proposed Assessment District Reimbursement Agreement
between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and R. C. Land Company to
make it consistent with the understanding you expressed in said
letter. Enclosed herewith are three copies of said agreement.
Could you please request execution of the agreement by the City
and return an executed copy to me. Thank you very much for
your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
John J. Murphy
r1
lJ
JJM:pw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Richard Ortwein !W/Encl.)
cc: Mr. Joseph DiIorio [W /Encl.]
cc: F. Mackenzie Brown, Esq. (W/Encl.]
cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager [W /Encl.]
cc: Robert Dougherty, Esq., City Attorney [W /Encl
44
0
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the
day of , 1980, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(hereinafter "the City ") , and R.C. LAND COMPANY, a California
corporation (hereinafter "the Company ").
RECITALS
A. The Company owns certain real property within the
City, including four parcels (hereinafter "the Company's Prop-
erty") located within a portion of the City generally bounded
by Arrow Highway, the Devore Freeway, Fourth Street, and a line •
approximately 1,000 feet east of Haven Avenue. The City's
General Plan provides that said area (hereinafter "the Indus-
trial Area ") should be developed for industrial uses.
B. The Industrial Area generally lacks the major public
improvements, such as streets and related street improvements,
sewers, water lines, and storm drains (hereinafter "the Public
Improvements ") which are necessary in order to accomodate the
development thereof for industrial purposes.
C. The City desires, to the maximum extent reasonably
practicable, that the Public Improvements be provided through-
out the Industrial Area as quickly as possible in order to
facilitate the development thereof for industrial purposes.
•
a5
• D. In furtherance of this desire, the City has undertaken
certain preliminary procedures toward the formation of a spe-
cial assessment district, the boundaries of which would be gen-
erally coterminus with the boundaries of the Industrial Area,
for the purpose of providing for the construction of the Public
Improvements. The City wishes to continue these procedures,
but it lacks sufficient funds to pay for the legal and en-
gineering costs associated therewith.
E. The Company wishes to assist the City in its efforts
towards the formation of such a special assessment district,
has heretofore advanced certain funds to the City to enable the
City to pay for initial legal and engineering expenses, and is
• willing to advance additional funds to the City for such pur-
poses, subject to being reimbursed for such advances upon the
formation of such a special assessment district.
F. The parties therefore wish to enter into an agreement
to provide for the reimbursement to the Company of sums advanc-
ed by it to the City for the legal and engineering expenses
associated with the formation of a special assessment dis-
trict.
9
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound hereby and for and in consideration of the mutual
promises, representations, and agreements herein contained, do
hereby agree as follows:
-2-
a�
$20,000, as requested in Section 2 hereof. The City will de-
•
posit said sum in an account known as the Rancho Cucamonga In-
dustrial Trust Account and will expend money from said account
only for the payment of legal and engineering expenses incurred
in connection with the formation of a special assessment dis-
trict as described hereinabove.
Section 4. Upon completion of the public hearing to con-
sider a debt limit report pursuant to the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, the
City will promptly return to the Company any portion of the
amounts advanced to it by the Company pursuant hereto which is
in excess of the legal and engineering fees theretofore in-
curred by the City; provided; however, that if proceedings for
•
a special assessment district as described hereinabove are
abandoned prior to such a hearing, or if no such hearing is
held within three months from the date of this Agreement, the
City will promptly return to the Company any portion of the
money advanced to the City by the Company pursuant hereto which
is in excess of the legal and engineering fees incurred by the
City prior to such abandonment or prior to the expiration of
said six month period.
Section 5. If the City forms a special assessment district
within the Industrial Area as described hereinabove, it will
include in the amount to be assessed therein the sum of $25,000
•
�] -4
Oi U
• D. In furtherance of this desire, the City has undertaken
certain preliminary procedures toward the formation of a spe-
cial assessment district, the boundaries of which would be gen-
erally coterminus with the boundaries of the Industrial Area,
for the purpose of providing for the construction of the Public
Improvements. The City wishes to continue these procedures,
but it lacks sufficient funds to pay for the legal and en-
gineering costs associated therewith.
E. The Company wishes to assist the City in its efforts
towards the formation of such a special assessment district,
has heretofore advanced certain funds to the City to enable the
City to pay for initial legal and engineering expenses, and is
• willing to advance additional funds to the City for such pur-
poses, subject to being reimbursed for such advances upon the
formation of such a special assessment district.
F. The parties therefore wish to enter into an agreement
to provide for the reimbursement to the Company of sums advanc-
ed by it to the City for the legal and engineering expenses
associated with the formation of a special assessment dis-
trict.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound hereby and for and in consideration of the mutual
promises, representations, and agreements herein contained, do
hereby agree as follows;
-2-
a�
Section 1. In September, 1979, the Company advanced to the
City the sum of $5,000 to enable the City to pay the costs to
be incurred by the City for bond counsel and assessment an-
gineer's fees in connection with the initial steps to be taken
for the formation of special assessment district as described
hereinabove. (In addition to the foregoing, the Company has
also paid to the City the sum of $68,500 to enable the City to
pay for certain other planning, engineering, and legal studies
desired by the City; however, the parties do not intend to pro-
vide for the reimbursement of said sum by this Agreement.)
Section 2. The City has heretofore expended the $5,000
referred to in Section 1 hereof for the purposes stated therein
and has continued to incur bond counsel and assessment en- •
gineering fees in connection with the proposed formation of a
special assessment district. As of the date of this Agreement,.
the City has incurred additional engineering and legal expenses
in the total approximate sum of $8,000; and it estimates that
in order to continue such proceedings through a public hearing
on a debt limit report pursuant to the Special Assessment, In-
vestigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, it
will incur additional engineering and legal fees of approxi-
mately $12,000. The City therefore has requested that the Com-
pany advance to it the additional sum of $20,000.
Section 3. In contemplation of the execution or this
Agreement, the Company has advanced to the City the sum of
L
-33-
4
• $20,000, as requested in Section 2 hereof. The City will de-
posit said sum in an account known as the Rancho Cucamonga In-
dustrial Trust Account and will expend money from said account
only for the payment of legal and engineering expenses incurred
in connection with the formation of a special assessment dis-
trict as described hereinabove.
Section 4. Upon completion of the public hearing to con-
sider a debt limit report pursuant to the Special Assessment
Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, the
City will promptly return to the Company any portion of the
amounts advanced to it by the Company pursuant hereto which is
in excess of the legal and engineering fees theretofore in-
curred by the City; provided; however, that if proceedings for
a special assessment district as described hereinabove are
abandoned prior to such a hearing, or if no such hearing is
9
held within three months from the date of this Agreement, the
City will promptly return to the Company any portion of the
money advanced to the City by the Company pursuant hereto which
is in excess of the legal and engineering fees incurred by the
City prior to such abandonment or prior to the expiration of
said six month period.
Section 5. If the City forms a special assessment district
within the Industrial Area as described hereinabove, it will
include in the amount to be assessed therein the sum of $25,000
-4-
a�
as an incidental expense incurred for the prepayment of en- •
gineering and legal expenses (it being expressly understood and
agreed that other incidental expenses may be included in the
amount of the proposed assessment as well); and, upon receipt
of cash payments and /or the proceeds from the sale of special
assessment district bonds, the City will promptly pay to the
Company the sum of $25,000 as reimbursement for the money ad-
vanced by the Company for the prepayment of engineering and
legal expenses.
Section 6. Any provision hereof to the contrary notwith-
standing, the City shall have no obligation hereunder to reim-
burse the Company the $25,000 referred to in Section 5 hereof
unless the City forms a special assessment district within the •
Industrial Area and receives cash payments and /or proceeds from
the sale of bonds in connection therewith.
Section 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-5-
aF
•
0
•
,'
GTY OF RANCHO C;CINKXIK A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
U
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Contract Addendum to Design for Carnelian Street
Realignment Project
Attached for Council approval is a contract amendment to the
design contract for the Carnelian Street realignment. The
amendment adds $4,500 to the total contract amount for detailed
structural design not anticipated in the original contract.
The realignment as currently designed will require the extension
of the box culvert at the outlet of the Red Hill Basin. The
proposed amendment will cover the additional, structural
calculations, detail drawings, estimates and bid document
revisions. Funds for the contract amendment will be authorized
from the project budget.
Design drawings for the overall project have been submitted to
the City for plan check and the project is scheduled for
construction in March of 1981.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council approve the contract amendment
to the Carnelian Street Realignment project and authorize an
additional $4,500 from the project budget to cover the cost of
additional work.
Respectfully submitted,
v LBB /t"1-jR be
Attachments
30
AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL EN'INEERING SERVICES
• This agreement is made and entered into this day of December,
1980, between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. a Municipal Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and GENGE CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, duly licensed civil engineers of 17500 Red Hill Avenue,
Irvine, California 92714, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER ".
WITIIESSETH
WHEREAS, the City on July 16, 1980 approved an agreement with
the "ENGINEER" to prepare preliminary and final construction documents for
the realignment of Carnelian Street and;
WHEREAS, said agreement did not provide for the design of
structures in the preparation of contract document.
NOW, THEREFORF, the CITY and the ENGINEER for the consideration
hereinafter named, agree to the following amendments to the July 16, 1980
Agreement.
ARTICLE II -A shall be amended as follows
ARTICLE 11: The ENGINEER agrees to furnish and perform the various additional
professional services, pertaining to civil engineering construction documentation
• as follows:
A. Final drafted set of construction documents for Carnelian Street from
approximately Stations 10 1 00 to 25 + 00.
1. This means to provide all street improvement plans and profiles at
a scale of V" 40' in conformance with City format. This will
include details and a title sheet.
2. Bridge Design Services shall include:
Review drawings prepared by County of San Bernardino for
existing bridge.
Review and analyze drawings of existing channel walls and
bottom.
Site visitation for visual reconnaissance of existing conditions.
Preliminary Structural Calculations of possible alternate
construction methods and sequences.
Preliminary construction cost analysis of possible alternate
systems and selection of one system.
Complete Structural Analysis and Calculations for selected
system.
Complete construction drawings (ready for bid) of selected
system.
3J
ARTICLE V -B shall be amended as follows
V -B. For all items listed in Sections A thru D of Article II, the CITY will
compensate the ENGINEER at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ".
The total of those hourly charges shall not exceed $30,35o.00.
ARTICLE V -E shall be amended as follows:
E. COST BREAKOUT (Not to Exceed)
ARTICLE 1. Topographic Survey and Preliminary $ 81500.00
"Redline" Design and Report
ARTICLE II. Final Inked Construction Plans,
Specifications & Cost Estimate 10,350.00
ARTICLE III. Construction Staking For Curb /Gutter 3,500.00
ARTICLE IV. Reproductions and Deliveries 850.00
TOTAL (Not to Exceed $23,200.00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
the day and year first above written.
APPRO /ED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Rancho Cucamonga
3-?
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By:
Phillip D Schlosser, Mayor
BY:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Glerk
GENGE CONSULTANTS OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BY:
tlyron E. Grooming
Vice - President /Principal
•
• ' AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
This agreement is made and entered into this 1(0+�day of July, 1980, between
the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "CITY ", and GENGE CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, duly
licensed civil engineers of 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Irvine, California, 92714, herein-
after referred to as "ENGINEER ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the CITY has need for civil engineering services to prepare prelimin-
ary and final construction documents for Carnelian Street between Baseline and
Foothill Boulevard (approximately 1500 lineal feet in length) and to provide supple-
mentary services (coordination, blueprinting) for same, herein referred to as "PRO-
JECT".
WHEREAS, the CITY has invited the ENGINEER to provide required civil
engineering services for the CITY;
WHEREAS, the ENGINEER has specialized knowledge, training and experience in
civil engineering and surveying.
AND, WHEREAS, the ENGINEER indicates willingness to perform civil engineer-
ing services for the CITY under contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and the ENGINEER, for the considerations
hereinafter named, agree as follows:
J
33
ARTICLE I: The ENGINEER agrees to furnish and perform the various professional •
services, pertinent to civil engineering construction documentatin as follows:
A. Perform a field topo grading survey from approximately stations 10 + 00 to 25 +
00.
1. This means to provide a cross - section at 25 foot intervals. Cross - sections
to include existing ton of curb, elevations, existing flowline elevations, and
existing centerline and /or crown line elevations within existing right -of-
way and sufficient additional topo outside of right -of -way necessary.
B. Provide one preliminary design for Carnelian Street from approximately Stations
10 +00 to 25 +00.
I. This preliminary design shall be prepared at a 1" = 40' scale in "red -line"
format only.
2. Based upon preliminary design, prepare a preliminary cost estimate. .
3. Based upon preliminary design, prepare a preliminary set of calculations
for right -of -way acquisition.
C. Coordinate with San Bernardino County Flood Control for design parameters and
constraints related to construction of Cucamonga Channel as it effects road
design.
D. Based upon preliminary design and coordination with San Bernardino County
Flood Control, prepare a design evaluation report for city review.
ARTICLE II: The ENGINEER agrees to furnish and perform the various additional
professional services, pertaining to civil engineering construction documentation as
f of I ows:
A. Final drafted set of construction documents for Carnelian Street from approxi-
mately Stations 10 . 00 to 25 + 00.
•
I 34
• 1. This means to provide all street improvement plans and profiles at a scale
of 1" = 40' in conformance with City format. This will include details and a
title sheet.
B. Provide a final cost estimate based upon the final construction drawings.
C. The final drafted set of construction documents shall include any realignment of
existing sewer and /or water lines. All other utility decoration and /or design is
this Scope of Work. This specifically excludes any Hydrology and /or hydraulic
design and /or elevations.
D. The final construction documents shall include all material specifications suit-
able for bidding (follow City format).
ARTICLE 111: The ENGINEER agrees to furnish and perform the various additional
professional services, pertinent to construction surveying as follows:
A. Provide one set of curb and gutter stakes at 25- intervals and at EC's and BC's
for the final Carnelian Street design from approximately Stations 10 + 00 to 25 +
00. Any re- staking will be performed as a time and material extra.
B. Any utility staking for sewer, water, storm drain, gas, electric, telephone and /or
cable television is outside this Scope of Work. Any such work shall be performed
on a time and materials basis as an extra.
ARTICLE IV: The ENGINEER agrees to furnish the following reproductions and
originals:
A. One set of inked originals.
B. Up to 25 sets of bluelines of the final plans and material specifications.
C. All travel time, mileage, and deliveries for transmittal of information to and
• from the CITY.
3
ARTICLE V: The CITY agrees to pay the ENGINEER, as compensation for the above- •
named professional services:
A. For all items listed in Sections A thru D of Article 1, the CITY will compensate
the ENGINEER at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ". The total of these
hourly charges shall not exceed $8,500.00.
B. For all items listed in Sections A thru D of Article 11, the CITY will compensate
the ENGINEER at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ". The total of those
hourly charges shall not exceed $5,850.00.
C. For all items listed in Sections A and B inclusive of Article III, the CITY will
compensate the ENGINEER at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ". The
total of these hourly charges shall not exceed $3,500.00.
D. For all items listed in Sections A thru C inclusive of Article IV, the CITY will
compensate the ENGINEER at costs plus 10 percent for reproductions. Mileage
will be billed at $0.25 per mile. The total of these charges shall not exceed
$850.00.
E. COST BREAKOUT (Not to Exceed)
ARTICLE 1. Topographic Survey and Preliminary $ 8,500.00
"Redline" Design and Report
ARTICLE 11. Final Inked Construction Plans, Specifications h Cost Estimate 5,850.00
ARTICLE 111. Construction Staking For Curb /Gutter 3,500.00
ARTICLE IV. Reproductions and Deliveries 850.00
TOTAL (Not to Exceed
$18,700.00
F. The ENGINEER will submit monthly billings including a summary of the hours
worked by each classification, the hourly rate, and the total charges for each
classification.
• 3�
i
s
ARTICLE VI: - If the work is suspended indefinitely or abandoned prior to completion
of the civil engineering set forth in this Agreement, the CITY agrees to pay the
ENGINEER, at the rates set forth in Article V above, to the time of said suspension or
abandonment, which payment is to be the full and final settlement for all the work
performed by the ENGINEER to said time, and such work shall become the property of
the CITY upon said payment.
ARTICLE VII: - All terms, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind
the parties herein, their successors and assigns.
ARTICLE VIII: - The ENGINEER hereby designates Myron E. Browning, Vice-Presi-
dent/Principal and Earl Gardner, Project Manager /Project Engineer as its representa-
tives for this PROJECT.
ARTICLE IX: - The ENGINEER shall begin work immediately following the approval
and signing of this Agreement. The ENGINEER shall perform the work in a timely and
efficient manner in accordance with the attached time schedule.
37
7
n
U
L
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Vineyard Avenue Design Services
Attached for Council approval is an agreement for design services
on the widening and signalization of Vineyard Avenue from Eighth
Street to Arrow Route. This project has been included in this
years budget for design and right of way acquisition. The
project will be constructed with a combination of City, Federal
Aid Urban and Railroad Grade Crossing funds.
As the Council is aware staff had originally planned to provide
much of the right of way and railroad coordination work in
house and to contract with the City of Ontario for the design
of the project. To this end the Council approved an agreement
with the City of Ontario in April 16, 1960. To date Ontario
has failed to execute that agreement. In order to assure the
timely construction of the project and to avoid the costly
inflation associated with the long delay it is recommended
that the Council revoke its approval of the Ontario Design
Agreement, notify the City of Ontario and proceed with the
expanded design services with C. G. Engineering as outlined in
the attached agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council revoke its approval of the
Vineyard Avenue design contract with the City of Ontario and
approve an agreement with C. G. Engineering to provide design
services for the completion of the Vineyard Avenue project.
Respectfully submitted,
v U
LSH:bc
Attachments
3r
L
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
This agreement is made and entered into this 1 t h day of 1980,
between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "CITY', and C G ENGINEERING, duly licensed engineers of 2627 South
Waterman Avenue, Suite E. San Bernardino, CA 92408, hereinafter referred to as
"ENGINEER ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the CITY has need for engineering services, consisting of the
preparation of improvement plans, specifications, estimates and other professional
services for VINEYARD AVENUE WIDENING AND APPURTENANT CONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND ARROW ROUTE AND A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT
VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE, herein referred to as "PROJECT ".
WHEREAS, the CITY has invited the ENGINEER to provide required engineering
services for the CITY;
WHEREAS, the ENGINEER has specialized knowledge, training and experience in
street design, signal design, and construction;
• AND, WHEREAS, the ENGINEER indicates willingness to perform engineering
services for the CITY under contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and ENGINEER, for the considerations hereinafter
named, agree as follows:
ARTICLE I The ENGINEER agrees to furnish and perform the various professional
services, pertinent to preparation of said Plans and Specifications and Cost Estimates
as follows:
A. Preliminary and Final Design
1. Perform all necessary field surveys to establish curb profile grades,
railroad crossing data and traffic signal design within the project
limits.
2. Complete right of way negotiations with AT&SF Railway and assist
City to allow CALTRANS approval for certification of PROJECT right
of way.
3. Prepare plans, contract documents, specifications and quantity
estimates to Federal Aid Urban Standards.
4. Submit design plans to CITY and CALTRANS for plan check and
review.
5. Make necessary plan and specification revisions to meet AGENCY
approval.
/ 'n
•
6. Upon receipt of bids, ENGINEER shall analyze bids and make
recommendation on award of contract.
•1Y M •�
1. At the option of the CITY the ENGINEER shall provide all required
construction staking when authorized by the City Engineer.
2. ENGINEER shall be available for consultations during construction on
any needed plan revisions.
3. Make recommendation on contract change orders.
`®"
Orginal tracings shall become property of the CITY upon completion of this
contract. Costs for reproduction of plans and specifications will be borne
by the CITY.
At the option of the CITY, ENGINEER shall prepare plans, contract
documents, specifications and quantity estimates to Federal Aid Urban •
Standards for a traffic signal at Vineyard Avenue and Ninth Street to be
included the PROJECT.
ARTICLE 11 The CITY agrees to pay the ENGINEER, as compensation for the above
named professional services:
A. For all items listed in Section A of Article I, the CITY will compensate the
ENGINEEK at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ". The total of these
hourly charges shall not exceed $77,000.
B. Compensation for Section A -2 of Article I includes anticipated services of
ENGINEER to provide sufficient coordination to complete right -of -way
negotiations. The CITY will compensate the ENGINEER for additional
services at hourly rates in accordance with said Exhibit "A ", provided the
CITY elects to authorize such work.
C. For all items listed in Section B, of Article 1, the CITY will compensate the
ENGINEER at hourly rates in accordance with said Exhibit "A", provided the
CITY elects to authorize such work.
D. For Section C, of Article I and for any other prints or documents the CITY
will compensate the ENGINEER in accordance with Exhibit "A ".
E. For Section D, of Article I, the CITY will compensate the ENGINEER at
hourly rates in accordance with said Exhibit "A ", provided the CITY elects •
to authorize such work.
41
•
F. The hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A" are effective through
May 31, 1981.
G, The ENGINEER will submit with his billing, a monthly summary of the hours
worked by each classification, the hourly rate, and the total charges for
each classification.
ARTICLE III If the work is suspended indefinitely or abandoned prior to completion of
the Engineering Services set forth in this agreement, the CITY agrees to pay the
ENGINEER, at the rates set forth in Article II above, to the time of said suspension
or abandonment, which payment is to be the full and final settlement for all the work
performed by the ENGINEER to said time, and such work shall become the property
of the CITY upon said payment.
ARTICLE Iv All terms, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind
the parties herein, their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day
and year first above written.
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney, Rancho Cucamonga
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Mayor
By:
City Clerk
C G ENGINEERING
By;7 x LSD'
President
Ila
•
9
F
CITY OF RANCHO CGCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SBUJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map No. 5505
The subject map consisting of 9 parcels located on the north
side of Almond Street, east of Sapphire Street, was approved
by the City Engineer on March 17, 1980. The map has been
completed and is ready for filing with the County Recorder.
All off -site improvements, with the exception of a drive approach
are existing.
Developer: Mary Harkins
David A. Whyte
Diane L. Whyte
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to
sign the map and forwward it to `.he County Recorder.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:BK:jaa
Attachments
43
•
10
JI.MVIRT I]!]
TENTATIVE MAP
PARCEL MAP NO 5505
w rue cm' n R•vcvo c�cAfwvsA
K�r A fVK�VIwY � // /Ixaaunexf v '
T/+uiu�/ i w Wi M
/ar/miW )/ u.rAO y1xTi Na/w)nr Naa • Kax[/nti L�vn'YG .
RLL /•O pwaC[f IINSINKR NOTCf
�•aA e • ru .ax. ./n re[ uw oia
aJu[ viOLF a.[ ai[f "•xeu[x ..vu,. r[eea
� s
um
t
9)
Ill
Sr)•
we.f f•
_
X11
___.
•
l• ✓1
.^
A�^nOND M
w
T
5 t![
I
fW
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -108
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5505.
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5505)
WHEREAS, tentative parcel map number 5505, submitted by Mary M.
Harkins, David A. Whyte and Diane L. Whyte and consisting 4 parcels,
located on the north side of Almond Street, east of Sapphire Street, being
a division of a portion of Government Lot 4, Section 21 Township; north,
Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, San Bernardino County,
State of California was approved by the City Engineer of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga; and,
WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5505 is the final map of the
division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and,
WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now
been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Parcel Map Number 5505 be and
the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to
present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
• PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
0
•
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCNN",K'A
STAFF RXPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FRCS: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Parcel Map No. 5922
The attached resolution authorizes the City Clerk and City
Engineer to sign the above referenced map. The developer
is Alta Loma Villa. The map consists of four parcels loca-
ted at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Jasper Street.
The map has been completed and is now ready for filing with
the San Bernardino County Recorder. Bonds in the following
amounts have been submitted:
Faithful Performance $48,513.02
Labor S Material $48,513.02
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to
sign the map and forward it to the County Recorder.
Res pect£ully subcl /fitted,
Lloyd_ B. Hubbs
LHB:BH:I as
Attachments
44
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -109
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5922,
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.5922)
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
WHEREAS, tentative Parcel Map No. 5922, submitted by Alta Loma Villa,
and consisting of 4 parcels, located at the southeast corner of 19th Street
and Jasper Street, being a division of a portion of Lot 7, Block 20, Cucamonga
Homestead Association, as recorded in Book 6, Page 46, Records of San Bernardino
County, State of California was approved by the City Engineer of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga on March 12, 1960; and,
WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5922 is the final map of the
division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and,
WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now
been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable
improvement security by Alta Loma Villa as developer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and
said improvement security submitted by said developer be and the same
• are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said
improvement agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the
City Clerk to attest; and that said Parcel Map Number 599 be and the
same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present
same to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
�1
EJ
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of ,1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. serm
Wasan, City clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
7
11
"M TENTATIVE MAP .
PARCEL MAP 5922
�o...r IN THE n.,,.. �.....
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
�• •b
a r•ov sLLn hn.
s I
t 1 l)
LOCATION MAP
T.4 9325
`
\
Iss /3o.3c
_
tN
StreeI
-19
_9 _
S
1
Not a Port,
--
i
I
-
W'
GALA_ E_
:AVENU
�•.
-
.1..90'6
-
- '• —
.^
�,
yy.,.
TT
1 —
1
r
• -
�yv
Me 1126/32.1
�
t 1 l)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
PARCEL MAP NO.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered
into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and
Alta Loma Villa
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the
City of Parcel Map Number 5922 in accordance with the
provisions of the report of the City Engineer thereon, and any amendments
thereto; located southeast corner of 19th Street and Jasper Street
and,
WHEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be met by said Dev-
eloper prior to granting the final approval of the parcel map; and,
WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security •
as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be
equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the pupose of securing
said approval;
NOM, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer
as follows:
1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at Developers expense all
improvements described on Page 3 hereof within nine months frim the
date hereof, as per Section 2.12 of Ordinance No. 28.
2. The term of this agreement shall be nine months commencing on the date
of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on
the day following the last day of the term stipulated, unless said term
has been extended as hereinafter provided.
3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the pro-
visions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to
the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity
for additional time. In consideration of such request, the City reserves
the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards,
cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require
adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein.
•
4F
4. if the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this
agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions
• to be completed by any lawful means, and thereupon to recover from said
Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing.
5. Encroachment permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of
the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right of way,
and the Developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the re-
gulations contained therein. Non- compliance may result in stopping of the
work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided.
Public right of way improvement work required shall be constructed in con-
formance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and
Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. Construction shall
include any transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for
drainage or public safety.
7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to comple-
tion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work in the
event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and
expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful
means.
8. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or re-
moval of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with
the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner
• of the water system.
9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and
other debris from the public right of way resulting from work done on
the adjacent property or within said right of way.
L
10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the
Community Development Director.
5a
11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee •
completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the
approval of the City Attorney. The principal amount of said improvement
security shall be not less than the amount shown below:
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUBMITTED:
Faithful performance Bond 348313.02
Material and Labor Bond $48,513.02
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly
executed and acknowledged with all formalities required by law on the dates
set forth opposite their signatures:
DEVELOPER
BY r DATE:
BY: x i) +r DATE:4 /
WITNESS:_ DATE: 4/
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
BY:
ATTEST:
RCE123
a municipal corporation
c.J I
CITY CLERK
•
.' 3
_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CONSTRUCTION AND BOND ESTIMATE
ENCROACUMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
(attach to "Inspector's Copy ")
• DATE: 11/12/80 PERMIT NO. COMPUTED BY Barbara Rrall
LJ
File Reference
PM 5922
City Drawing No.s #377
NOTE: Does not include current fee for writing permit or pavement replace-
ment deposits.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM(
QUANTITY
U::II
L'NIT COST
S AMOUNT
• r r- _ in' r
868
L.F.
P.O.C. r"rh - H" C.F.
77-
.
Garb ,111 6" C.F.
L. F.
\.G, ifrr-, (57-00 min)
L.F.
" >. C.c. Sidewalk
4875
S.F.
1.75
3 .
6" give : \nnrnach
780
S.F.
2.10
1,638.00
N" P.C.C. Cross Cutter
76q
S.F.
2. 0
Street nxcavation
0 1
U. 1.
3.00
3 030.0
Imported Embankment
U.I.
Prr nrntiin of Sub rade
.. s -4 , R, c
S.E.
S.F.
108.00
A.C. (over 1300 tons)
TON
A. C, (900 to 1300 tons)
TON
I.C. (,indar 500 to 900 Cons)
TON
,.c. l.mder 500 tons)
150
ION
Pitch A.C. (trench)
S.F.
1" Thick A.C. OVerlav
S.F.
>.1'nse Sower `I.H. to Grade
EA.
AW.!i c 5ewor C.O. to Grade
EA.
dd� \wC hater v:,Lvos to (rade
F.A.
C��nnf ' rhrf
1
CA.
Strew Si ^ne
EA.
Secret ':rn,+s
EA.
35
735.00
Refl r ors R
posts
EA.
35.00
_
Sawcut
400
L.F.
2.00
1
i
iilACi:aAl.l.ti
f
h.F.
IRRIC!(CION
L.S.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 44.102.75
jlra
0
INSPECTION FEES
I. TOTAL INSPECTION FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,109.62
II. CWMACTION TEST FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
III. 10": CONTINGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.410.27
IV. DESIGN FEES (10: of Total Construction Cost Estimate) . . . . $
TOTAL . $48.513.02
Faithful Performance Bond = $48,513.02
Material and Labor'Eond = $48,513.02
Maintenance Bond = $
Cash Monumenting Deposit . $
RCE22E
•
•
63
ITEM
UAN'rITY
1UNIT
TUN TT C
N
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION -
of Construction Cost Estimate
L.S.
L.S.
I I.S.
j,\,—, ,:-r P ^T OR TRFC H
PF.R11:1.':EN—, PAVER °`:T REPLACEMENT
IL.F.
STORE I'A'U"RIAL N RIGHT-OF-WAY
IFA.
I. TOTAL INSPECTION FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,109.62
II. CWMACTION TEST FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
III. 10": CONTINGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.410.27
IV. DESIGN FEES (10: of Total Construction Cost Estimate) . . . . $
TOTAL . $48.513.02
Faithful Performance Bond = $48,513.02
Material and Labor'Eond = $48,513.02
Maintenance Bond = $
Cash Monumenting Deposit . $
RCE22E
•
•
63
01
0
9
CITY OF RANCHO CIXAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPUTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE FISCAL MODEL
BACKGROUND: Prior to the operation of the Fiscal Model at City Hall
it will be necessary to establish computer terminal facilities through
hook -up to the master computer facilities that runs the Fiscal Model.
The company, United Computing Systems Inc, of Newport Beach, will
establish our line service agreement to the computer system in Kansas
City. A contract with the firm for $2,400 provids one year worth of
service. This service agreement will provide the City with the physical
linkage to the master computer system along with an estimate likely
costs for computer runs. It is estimated that the system will be set
up for use around the end of the year and come "on line" with regular
service approximately the first of next year.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council direct the City Manager or designate
to enter into contract agreement.
Respectfully s bfiitted,
(-BARRY K: HO
City Planne
V
BKH:TJB:cd
Attachments
COMPUTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
• Between
9320 Baseline Suite n
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
and UNITED COMPUTING SYSTEMS, INC. Ho 25205 Washington Avenue
UCS, or NC, M Kansas City, Mo. 64108
SERVICE PROVIDED
The Company agrees to furnish and the Customer agrees to purchase Computer Services consisting of input
output capability
throug h remote terminal devices. central processor time, and program storage capacity, in accordance with and subject to the
terms and conditions as stated in this Agreement, and subject further to the applicable terms and conditions of the
Company's Price Schedule, as in effect at the time of usage, and any supplement hereto. Customer agrees to obtain and pay
charges for the use thereof independent of this Agreement' suitable terminal and data set equipment and /or telephone line
service as may be required to communicate with the Company's Computer Systems.
The semce to be furnished at any time during the term of this agreement shall be as then described in the Company's Price
Schedule for the Computer Service Option(s) subscribed to by Customer. The Computer Service Option(s) to be in effect
imtally are set forth on the Computer Service Option Schedule signed by Customer.
The Company may, but shall be under no obligation, assist in the conversion of Customer's existing programs to equivalent
programs for use on the Company System. Customer understands such assistance, if given, is gratuitous in nature and unless
otherwise specified and a separate charge made therefor, the Company bears no responsibility for such conversion or the
accuracy of the output therefrom, such responsibility remaining at all times with the Customer.
Customer agrees, upon receipt of billing, to pay all charges for use of Company's Computer Service as determined by the
Company upon the basis of the Compenv's Price Schedule in effect at the time of usage, and in addition, agrees to be
responsible for and to pay all usage incurred on its assigned User Number(s).
INITIATION OF SERVICE CHARGES ,
There shall be an Initiation of Service charge to Customer of $100.00 which includes User Number assignment. Said charge
applies to initial User Numberls) only for each Customer for each continuous contract period.
MONTHLY MINDIUM
There shall be a 3 300 monthl y minimum charge on Computer Service usage. Said charge applies to the combined usage
under all User Numbers validated for a Customer.
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TERM OF CONTRACT
This Agreement is effective for a period of thirty (30) days from the stated effective date, and shall thereafter remain in
full force and effect as otherwise provided. Because of capacity limitations the service described herein is subject to prior
sale This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty 130) days prior written notice. In the event
mrminanun bccumr, cfe eve as of any clay other than the first day of a calendar month, Customer shall pay use charges
accrued for the calendar munch in which such effective termination date falls, subject to the stated monthly minimum
charge unptorated.
2. PRICE SCHEDULE
The Price Schedule shall be subject to chau_e by the Company. The Company' will endeavor to notify all Customers at
last fonydisa t �)1 drys in aJsana• of any changes m pnnnd'jpplieabie to such Customers, but the Lulure of Customer
to receive any such nonficahun shall not relieve Customer of the obhganun to pay the charges reflected by such changes
on pnnnq. The Companv's obheatam to pruvtde computer services is tultilled when the Computer System available from
the nearest Compare computer center or remote access station serving Customer is operational for a total of at last one
hundred (i001 hours within (tie said normal hours to any calendar nwinh. If this obligation is not fulfilled, then the
pun :ram swr:ce Clugxs to excett of the anti onun nwnihly charge it), the month involved will be reduced by a
pciccntage denied Irum the ratio vii hours less th.m one ImnJted that the system was not operational to one hundred.
1'hz prices [,sled in the Price Schedule du nut include sales, use, excise, or similar taxes. Consequently, in addition to the
prices specified therein, the mmm�si tit any' present or future sales, use, excise, or usher similar tax applicable to the sale
tit serve 's hereiinder shall be paid by the Customer, or in lieu thereof, the Customer shall provide the Company with a
Uxmxemptinn certilicete acceptable d) the taxing euthunnes.
6�S
• 3. CONFIDENTIALITY
The Company wfiI provide reasonable security provisions to insure that access to Customer's programs is available only
with the User Number(s) assigned to the Customer.
Company agrees to protect Customer's programs and files to the same extent that Companv protects its own proprietary
information and under no circumstances will it disclose such information to others, provided that Company shall not be
liable for any unauthorized act of any employee, farmer employee or other person.
4. IMPROVEMENTS
In order to continuously improve the quality of service to the Customer, the Company reserves the right to make changes
in rules of operation, accessibility periods, Customer identifications. procedures, type of terminal equipment, type of
system equipment, system programming languages, and location of the computer center or remote access station serving
Customer.
S. GENERAL
A. Neither party may assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other party
B. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
ARISING FROM THE PROVISION OF SERVICE HEREUNDER. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY IN ANY AND
ALL OTHER CATEGORIES AND FOR ANY AND ALL CAUSES, INCLUDING BREACH OF ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION SHALL, IN THE AGGREGATE, NOT EXCEED ONE MONTH'S
AVERAGE BILLING TO CUSTOMER TAKEN OVER THE 12 MONTHS PRECEDING THE MONTH IN WHICH
THE DAMAGE OR INJURY IS ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED, BUT IF THIS AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN
IN EFFECT FOR 12 MONTHS PRECEDING SUCH DATE, THEN OVER SUCH FEWER NUMBER OF
PRECEDING MONTHS THAT THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT.
C. Customer understands and agrees that the limitation of liability provisions of S.B. hereof shall extend to protect and
inure to the benefit of all owners and licensors of proprietary programs marketed or provided on the Company's
Commuter System.
. D. Customer agrees and understands that the cost for utilization of the Company's Computer System and related
fatuities will vary depending upon such items as: volume of data stored and processed, size of programs, time spent
on the system, priority level and frequency of processing, all of which are within Customer's sole control. Opinions,
job cost surveys and estimates rendered to Customer as to anticipated cost figures for Customer usage of the
Compayv's Computer System are estimates only, and unless spectf cally guaranteed in writing, are not a limitation
on the charge to Customer for usage of the Company's System. W
E. In the event any invoice is not paid by Customer WITHIN FIFTEEN 0 DAYS AFTER ITS MAILING TO
CUSTOMER, Company may (reserving cumulatively WI other remedies and nyus under this Agreement and in law)
at its sole option and discretion, and without prior notice to the Customer, temonate this Agreement and
Customer's access to and use of the system.
F. No waiver, altcralion, or modification of any of the provisions hereof shall be binding unless in writing and signed by
a duly authorized representative of the Company. In the event Customer issues a purchase order or memorandum or
other instrument covering the services subscribed to, it is hereby specifically agreed and understood that such
purchase order, memorandum, or instrument is for Customer's internal purposes only and any and all terms and
conditions contained therein, whether printed or written, shall be of no force or effect. Except as herein expressly
provided in the contrary, the provisions of this Agreement are for the benefit of the parties hereto solely, and not
for the benefit of any other person, persons or legal entities.
G. The Company has not authorized any agent, employee or other person to make any representation or warranty
concerning the sem cev to be provided hereunder other than as staled in this Agreement or Addendunv thereto
signed by both part... and official Company manuals for Customers. Customer represents that it has relied upon no
such represenraoan or warranty v) executing this agreement.
11. With respect to any Bulk Usaec or Unlimited Use Rates elected by Customer, Customer agrees that all such services
are tot Customer's internal use only and Customer will use his best efforts to prevent unauthorized usage and will
not subcontract,lr peniut subeininactmg of services obtained hereunder.
L Unless otherwise provided in writing and a separate change made therefor, Customer shall be solely responsible for
the pelota am, format, completeness and auuraev of input data oa any program runt on the Company's Computer
Ss ste m.
• 1. Co in pa n will pruvidc assisis nce and ads ice to Costumer, d requested, as it normally and usually provides. to assist
Customer in ns use of the synnn. Company will provide Customer with Svstem manuals, instruction books and
other or s vu donnn.n is, reasonable in nwnber and relation to Customer's use, free of charge. Additional copies
nuiy be s,co red upon ( wnpany's agreement and payment of the Company's then standard charges therefor.
I
• K. Upon the termination of this contract for any reason, the Company will not be responsible for the retention of
Customer programs or data for a period in excess of 50 days following the date of such termination. Within such
penod, the Customer may make arrangements with the Company for the transmission of such programs or data to
the Customer upon the payment to the Company of the cost of recording such programs or data onto magnetic tape
and shipping charges for such tape from the Company's computer facilities to Customer's designated point of
delivery.
L The terms of this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under the Laws of the State of Missouri.
COMPUTER SERVICE OPTION SCHEDULE
Election is hereby made to subscribe to the following options described in the current Company Price Schedule. It is
understood that the election may be changed as of the first day of any month upon written notice of such change to
Company at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of change. The terms and conditions of the election are as provided in the
Company Computer Semce Price Schedule. The options herein designated pertain only to timesharing and remote batch
services. All other services subject to changes are uniquely identifiable and charges therefor will accrue upon customers usage
of such services.
Computer Service Options: Timesharing:
Remote Batch:
Check if
Applicable
Conversion and /or See attached
•Contract Programming I I Addendum A
Services:
Other: ❑
The Effective Daze of this Agreement shall
The "Company' The "Customer'
UNITED COMPUTING SYSTEMS, INC./ City of Rancho Cucamonga
UCS, INC. (Name)
By ),By Title: Title'.
Date:
'I'Ius %?,ecment subject to accepunse by Unned Computing Systems, Inc. /1-CS, INC. at their home Office to Kansas City,
Mmoun,
A<ccptcd',
UNIT LD COMPUTING SYSTEMS. INC.
L'CS, INC.
By
Tile.
Date.
6"'?
• SYSTEM ADDENDUM
to the
COMPUTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
UNITED COMPUTING SYSTEMS, INC.
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
APEX CRAY
3300 360
3600 176 UNIVAC
Dated:
Between
United Computing Systems, Inc./UCS,
Inc. ( "UCS ")
and
City
of Rancho Cucamonga
Customer
Customer No.
•Customer requests that access to the above indicated system(s) services be provided subject to the terms, condi-
tions and limitations set forth in the standard UCS Computer Services Agreement (61F1 -277). Prices, discounts,
and other terms and conditions for the above indicatea system(s) service are separately provided in respective
price schedule(s) for each system indicated above. Non - standard terms, conditions, limitations, etc. provided
under an existing contract between UCS and customer shall not be transferable, or be applicable to the above im
dicated system(s) service, unless otherwise specified by Schedule S.
Check if applicable: Schedule S ❑
The "Company" The "Customer"
United Computing Systems, Inc.
UCS, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga
By: t< By:
Date: T Date:
This Agreement subject to acceptance by United Computing Systems, Inc./UCS, Inc. at their Corporate Head.
quarters.
Accepted:
United Computing Systems, Inc.
UCS, Inc.
By:
Title:
gDale:
61,65 980
SPECIAL "ANNUALIZED MINIMUM"
ADDENDUM TO EXISTING
COMPUTER SERVICE AGREEMENT
Date:
UNITED COMPUTING SYSTEMS, INC.IUCS, INC. ('THE COMPANY ")
and
City o£ Rancho Cucamonea Community Development
Customer
The Company offers the following alternate method for applying a minimum charge factor to the service provided
Its customers. The normal procedure is to apply a minimum charge factor of three hundred dollars ($300) per
month on the total computer service utilized. The charge is applied to the monthly bill. The alternate procedure is
to use an annual charge of $2,400 and apply it to the sum of the customer's monthly bills for a 12 -month period.
The period covered is from the beginning of the first full month of service through the next 12 months. In the
event that the customer does not utilize the full annual minimum, the difference between $2,400 and the actual
amount used in the preceding 12 months will be billed in total on the invoice for the first month following the end
&f the 12 month period.
In the event that the customer elects during the next 12 months to terminate its contract with the Company, the
Company will prorate the minimum requirement for the number of months actually used (again at $300 per
month). If the prorated minimum is greater than the amount actually utilized, the difference will be billed on the
customer's final invoice.
If you wish to utilize this alternate annualized minimum, please execute this Addendum.
The Effective Date of this Addendum shall be
The "Company"
United Computing Systems, Inc.
UCS, Inc.
By:
Date:
The "Customer"
'f By:
Title
F Date:
This Agreement is subject to acceptance by United Computing Systems, Inc.IUCS, Inc., at their Corporate Head.
quarters.
Accepted:
United Computing Systems, Inc.
UCS, Inc.
1W y: _
Date: _
6F66 2w
Title
57
0
a
fY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 3, 1990
To: City Council and City Cknager
From: Bill Holley, Director, CCctm4�mity Services Department
Subject: Request by Community Services Department for Part -Time
Clerical Position
The Ccamaiity Service Department is in need of additional clerical support
in conducting it's daily operation. This need has been precipitated by
the expanded assignments within the C nmmity Service Department.
The specific request is that authorization be granted to employ a temporary
part -time clerk typist effective immediately through the conclusion of the
current fiscal year.
This position would work a mvdaran of twenty tours per week and not be
subject to the fringe benefit costs associated with a full time employee.
Further, the associated cost of the position, maximum of $6,612 world be
carried by a thF:.a mcn.th salary savings derived by the October 1, 1980
hiring of the C maraty Service Department Administrative Aide mod a minor
realignment of currently allocated Cammmity Service Department part-tine
personnel budget.
In sum nary, no additional funding' is required by the Commmity Service
Department to implement this position, only authorization to make
necessary intradepartmental redistribution of funds for perso mel and
equipment (typewriter and typing stand).
RECQ@P'R'SDATICN: That the Comnuity service Department be authorized
to es- ESUsF a temporary part -tine clerk typist position. through the conclusion of
the current fiscal year.
If any additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me
at your convetience.
,
•
a
r,.vn ,.re n..rn.rn
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Railroad Spur Crossing
The attached Resolution was prepared by Engineering Staff and
incorporates comments- suggestions made by the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and the City Attorney_
This Resolution will approve the installation of a railway
spur line accross 8th Street in the vicinity of Milliken
Avenue. The spur line will serve as access for shipping
and receiving in conjunction with the recently constructed
O'Donnell- Brigham Industrial Development. The developer is
obligated to construct both the spur line and 8th Street
to accommodate the crossing.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the attached Resolution
and authorize the Mayor to sign the Resolution and the
petitions submitted by the Railway Company.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:bc
Attachments
0
•
F00714%LL
ARROW
Z
W
J
S
A.
T.
E
3.
y iv%
F. R• R•
B iti
m l 1,
� � 1
V
L i
� J r
u f s
CITY OF
RANCHO CUG-VVIO \GA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
roe
2911, 5 Q.
ITEM:
TITLE SP1.1RR Liao
M1IBITI g SCALE NMS
V �
NORTH
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -110
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING A PETITION BY THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO
CONSTRUCT A SPUR LINE ACROSS EIGHTH STREET
2,912.5 FEET WEST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the City has approved development of Industrial
Buildings known as Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center on Pittsburgh
Avenue south of Eighth Street as "Rail" served facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company has
prepared and submitted for Council approval, a petition to "construct,
operate and maintain an industrial lead track" across Eighth Street;
and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to insure orderly development and
perpetuating public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga that said petition is approved and a permit is
hereby granted to allow the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway to
construct, operate and maintain an industrial lead track across Eighth
Street 2,912.5 feet west of the westline of Rochester Avenue, being more
particularly described as follows:
• Beginning at a point in the northerly line of 8th Street (60
feet wide) distant 2912.5 feet westerly along said northerly
line from its intersection with the westerly line of Rochester
Avenue (120 feet wide); thence along the arc of a curve concave
southwesterly and having a radius of 478.34 feet, through a
central angle of 170 40'55" a distance of 147.35 feet to the
point of ending in the southerly line of 8th Street distant
2773.9 feet westerly from its intersection with said westerly
line of Rochester Avenue.
ID
Said approval being subject to the following:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the right to grade,
pave, macadamize, repair, improve or alter said Eighth
Street or any part thereof, and to repair existing
installations of sewer, water, gas, telephone, Edison or
storm drains and related appurtenances, provided, however,
that such actions will not unreasonably obstruct or cause
damage to such track or business of such Railway Company.
The Grant of such petition is made upon all conditions
and under the provisions of any statute of the State of
California regulating the uses of streets in incorporated
Cities.
IN
Resolution No.
Page 2
That the track completed within twelve (12) months from
and after the date of approval by the Public Utilities •
Commission.
0. That whenever it is deemed reasonably necessary and the
City Council has determined such, the said Railway Company,
its successors or assigns, shall plank or pave in the
manner directed by the City Council, between the rails
and for two feet on each side thereof, and between the
tracks where there are more than one and keep the same
constantly in repair, flush with the street, and with
good crossings wherever required by the said City Council;
and that it will make all storm drains and culverts under
and across its track where necessary to maintain street
drainage which might be interrupted by construction of the
track; and that the usefulness of all existing water
ditches, flumes or pipes over which any track crosses, shall
be left unimpaired.
5. The Railway Company shall at all times indemnify and save
harmless the City against and pay in full all loss,
damage or expense that City may sustain, incur or become
liable for, resulting in any manner from the construction,
maintenance, use, state or repair or presence of the spur
line, including any such loss, damage or expense arising
out of (a) loss of or damage to property, (b) injury to
or death of persons, (c) mechanics' or other liens of any
character, or (d) taxes or assessments of any kind. •
6. That upon a determination of the Public Utilities Commission,
that crossing indications, lights, arms and /or related
appurtenances are required, installation of same shall be
made as directed by said Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
64
•
0
•
i
�• • . �• � v.uv �.vwuv,vtvv�f
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 26, 1980
To: City Council /City Manager
From: Harry Empey, Finance Director
L
Subject: Lease Modifications
Attached are lease modifications for City Facilities located
at 9320 Baseline Road, Unit "C" (Administration, Community
Services and Finance) and 9340 Baseline Road, Units "A ", "B"
and "C ", housing the Community Development Department.
The modification calls for a 10% increase in lease payments,
and a change from a one year to a two year lease.
The 10% increase represents the first increase in the two and
one -half years the City has occupied the above - mentioned
facilities.
Recommendation: Council authorize the City Clerk to sign the
lease modifications to be effective January 1, 1981.
65
I. PARTIES
RENEWAL
THIS AMENDMENT is executed at Costg mua , California,
this 21st day of 0atcbe_r 1980 , by and between
A H REITER OT'JELOPN= COMPANY (the "Landlord ")
and CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMXrGA (the "Tenant ").
For Unit "C' Professional Building I
Located at 9320 Baseline. Baseline Business Center
II. RECITALS
2.01 Landlord and Tenant, being parties to that certain Lease
dated May 1 r, 19 78 *, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A ",
hereby express their mutual desire and intent to extend the terms
of the Lease and amend by this writing those terms, covenants and
conditions contained in "2. TERM" and "3. RENT" as hereinafter
provided.
*and subsequently extended to Decanber 31, 1980
III. AMENDMENTS
3.01 "3. TERM" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
The term of this Lease shall be extended for IRAft.(1) Year
commencing on January 1 1981 , and ending Decanber 31 , 19 812.
-
3.02 "4. RENT" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
Tenant agrees to pay Landlord at such place as Landlord
may designate without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand,
and Landlord agrees to accept as rent for the Leased Premises
the total sum of TVA TmusAND FOUR HUNDRED TWE^TPY AND NO /100 -- (52,420.00 )
Dollars, payable in advance on the first day of each month during
the term of this Lease, as extended, commencing on the 1st day
of January , 19 81 . The security deposit is increased
by the sum of
Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
IV. INCORPORATION
4.01 Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Lease between the parties above described, as attached
hereto, shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
• TENANT: LANDLORD:
THE C =:Y OF RANCHO CUCMUNGA A.H. RESTER DEV=PMPNZ COMPANY
by by
Title August H. Reiter, IIZ
by -YO by
RENEWAL
I. PARTIES
THIS AMENDMENT is executed at Costa Mesa , California, •
this 21st day of October 1980 , by and between
A.H. RESTER DE=PMENT COMPANY (the "Landlord ")
and CITY OF RANCHO CL]CAMONGA (the "Tenant ").
For Unit "A" BuildiM II
Located at 9340 Baseline, Rancho Cucamowa
II. RECITALS
2.01 Landlord and Tenant, being parties to that certain Lease
dated January 25 , 19 78* and attached hereto as Exhibit "A ",
hereby express their mutual desire and intent to extend the terms
of the Lease and amend by this writing those terms, covenants and
conditions contained in "2. TERM" and "3. RENT" as hereinafter
provided.
and subsequently extended to December 31, 1980
III. AMENDMENTS
3.01 "3. TERM" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
Tf -o L
The term of this Lease shall be extended for One (1) year
commencing on January 1 , 19 81 , and ending December 31 , 19W
3.02 "4. RENT" shall hereafter additinnally provide as follows:
Tenant agrees to pay Landlord at such place as Landlord
may designate without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand,
and Landlord agrees to accept as rent for the Leased Premises
the total sum of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX AND NO /100 - - - -- ($ 476.00 )
Dollars, payable in advance on the first day of each month during
the term of this Lease, as extended, commencing on the 1st day
of January , 19 81 The security deposit is increased
by the sun of ---- ---- --- - -- --'—"'- --- -- ----(-$-- -- ---- )
Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
IV. INCORPORATION
4.01 Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Lease between the parties above described, as attached
hereto, shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
TENANT: LANDLORD:
CITY 0° RANCHO COCAMONC.A
by
by
A.H. RESTER DEVELOPM-7ir COMPANY
by
August H. Reiter, III
by
47
C,
J
.L . . v L
RENEWAL
• I. PARTIES
THIS AMENDMENT is executed at Costa Mesa , California,
this 21st day of October , 19 _, by and between
A H REIMR DEVE[QP�t -TU CYRANY (the "Landlord ")
—Jra (the "Tenant ") .
For Unit
Located a
II. RECITALS
2.01 Landlord and Tenant, being parties to that certain Lease
dated October 1 , 19 78 * and attached hereto as Exhibit "A ",
hereby express their mutual desire and intent to extend the terms
of the Lease and amend by this writing those terms, covenants and
conditions contained in "2. TERM" and "3. RENT" as hereinafter
provided.
*and subsequently extended to December 31, 1980
III. AMENDMENTS
3.01 "3. TERM" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
t
The term of this Lease shall be extended for Opo ps
(3;) year
• commencing on January 1 19 81 , and ending
—02 114' RENT" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
Tenant agrees to pay Landlord at such place as Landlord
may designate without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand,
and Landlord agrees to accept as rent for the Leased PremiSes
the total sum of cnm m+V^1on1 sropv nNe F \1J NO /101--- - - - - -- ($ 541.01 )
Dollars, payable in advance on the first day of each month during
the term of this Lease, as extended, commencing on the 1st day
of January , 19 81 The security deposit is increased
by the sum of --------------------------
Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
IV. INCORPORATION
4.01 Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Lease between the parties above described, as attached
hereto, shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this
Amend,ent as of the day and year first above written,
is TENANT:
by
by
LANDLORD:
A v vcrmvo nn rvrnn% -W f A %N
by
Title August H. Reiter, III
by
OK
RENEWAL
I. PARTIES
THIS AMENDMENT is executed at Costa Mesa , California, •
this 21st day of October , 1980 , by and between
A.H. REITER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (the "Landlord ")
and CITY Or' RANCHO CUCAMD A (the "Tenant ").
For unit "C' Building II
Located at 9340 Baseline, Rancho Cucanonga
II. RECITALS
2.01 Landlord and Tenant, being parties to that certain Lease
dated October 31 , 1979 , and attached hereto as Exhibit "A ",
hereby express their mutual desire and intent to extend the terns
of the Lease and amend by this writing those terms, covenants and
conditions contained in "2. TERM" and "3. RENT" as hereinafter
provided.
III. AMENDMENTS
3.01 "3. TERM" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
{wo 1
The term of this Lease shall be extended for an (1) year
commencing on January 1 , 19 81 , and ending Decanter 1 , 1 z
3.02 "4. RENT" shall hereafter additionally provide as follows:
Tenant agrees to pay Landlord at such place as Landlord
may designate without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand,
and Landlord agrees to accept as rent for the Leased Premises
the total sum of SIX HUNDRED TWETI^_' ONE AND NO /100 - - - - -- ( $ 621.00 )
Dollars, payable in advance on the first day of each month during
the term of this Lease, as extended, commencing on the 1st day
of January 1981 The security deposit is increased
by the sum of _— _______ __—___ __--- ____W_— _— _.LS___— --------
1
Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged
IV. INCORPORATION
4.01 Excect as modified herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Lease between the parties above described, as attached
hereto, shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
TENANT:
CITY Or RANCHO cLrAM arA
LANDLORD: •
A.H. REITER DEVFT-opHj N. COMPkNy
by by
i- e August H. Reiter,
by
l(J(y
D
de
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
November 25, 1980
TO: City Manager /City Council
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Adoption of Building Regulations
This item was continued from the City Council meeting of November
5, 1980. The City Council has since received copies of a memo
of clarification from the Building Official on the subject of
wood roof coverings and a map outlining current and proposed fire
hazardous areas distributed with the Citizens Advisory Commission
Agenda.
Because we are adopting 'published codes by reference., the method
of notification for public hearing is different than for usual
ordinance adoption. In order to accomplish notification require-
ments stipulated by state law, it is recommended that the City
Council hold first reading and set the date of December 3rd for
the official public hearing,-
I will be available at both meetings to respond to questions and
provide information concerning the ordinance. ,
See attached excerpts from Government Code for notification
requirements.
70'
.,� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEM0RANDUM
October 17, 1980
TO: City Manager
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Building Regulations Adoption /Wood Roof Coverings
Comments during and after the Council meeting of October IS, 1980 indicate
that clarifying information is needed for the complete understanding of the
roofing revisions. contained in the proposed Building Regulations Ordinance.
To that end, I have prepared this memo. -
Underwriters Laboratory (U.L.) classifies roofs into three fire retardant
classifications, Class A, 0, E C. These classes are determined after passing
certain tests for fire- retardancy with Class A being the most retardant and C -
being the least retardant of the three. In addition to the above classifica-
tions, other roof coverings, designated as "Ordinary Roof Coverings" by the
Uniform Building Code are in widespread use in the residential building
industry.
Wood shingles and shakes, as usually installed, fall into the "Ordinary " roof
category, however wood shingles and shakes can be impregnated with retardant
chemicals to achieve a Class B or C approval dependent upon their method of
installation. On a 1600 square foot house and double garage, installation of
approved fire - retardant wood roof covering, in lieu of untreated wood covering,
would add about $2000 to the construction cost to achieve a "Class B" rating
and approximately $1000 to achieve a "Class C" rating.
In addition to the above classes of roofing, the Uniform Building Code also
recognizes what is called a "Special Purpose Roof" which uses untreated wood
shingles or shakes but utilizes asbestos interlays or fire resistant underlay
to theoretically reduce the spread of a fire.
The city is currently divided into "Fire Zones" 2 and 3, as delineated on
the attached map. In Fire Zone 2, special precautions are required in construc-
tion including one relative to roof coverings, becuase of the danger of
fire spread by brush or grass and the resultant difficulty of control. In
Fire Zone 3, roof coverings on residential structures may be "Ordinary" roofing
reguardless of size.
In the proposed building code adoption ordinance we have proposed expansion and
renaming of what has been "Fire Zone 2" The new boundaries are also delineated
on the attached map as the High Fire Hazard Area, This expansion is as proposed
by the Foothill Fire District and appears valid, considering geographical and
As Building Official, I have reviewed the alternative proposal and cannot
justify in my mind, the added cost of installation, since insurance costs foi
the average homeowner would not change by the imposition of higher standard
standards and life loss records in spread of fire by untreated roofs is
relatively nil, or at best undocumented.
I believe the code modifications as submitted for City Council consideration would
impose sufficient restriction and provide adequate safeguards to life, limb, property
and public welfare as set forth in the purpose of the Uniform Building Code.
?4
u
topographic conditions and water availability and brush /grassland circumstances
C
in the area.
•
We have also, upon recommendation of F.F.D., increased the fire retardancy
requirement for roof covering in the "High Fire Hazard Area ", eliminating the
"Special Purpose Roof" and requiring a Class B roof if wood roof covering is
utilized.
outside of the 'High Fire Hazard Area" (formerly Fire Zone 3), "ordinary" roof
covering could still be utilized under the ordinance proposed but would be
limited to residential buildings, not over two stories in height, not exceeding
3000 square feet in area and so located that all portions of the roof are at
least 10 feet from any property line.
This proposal for roof covering outside the "High Fire Hazard" area also
surpasses what would be permitted under the published 1979 Uniform Building
Code, as follows:
a.) Limits use of "Ordinary" roof covering on one and
two family dwellings, garages and similar accessory buildings,
b.) Eliminates permissive use of "Special Purpose roofs" on
small assembly uses, businesses and multiple family structures
and,
e.) Categorizes small apartment buildings and one and two
family dwellings as one in the same for the purpose of determin-
ing allowable roof area for ordinary roof coverings.
The Foothill Fire District would prefer that the use of treated wood roof
•
coverings be expanded into all areas of the City because of the difficulty of
coping with roof fires particulary under high wind conditions and for improvement
of personnel safety during fire fighting activities.
As Building Official, I have reviewed the alternative proposal and cannot
justify in my mind, the added cost of installation, since insurance costs foi
the average homeowner would not change by the imposition of higher standard
standards and life loss records in spread of fire by untreated roofs is
relatively nil, or at best undocumented.
I believe the code modifications as submitted for City Council consideration would
impose sufficient restriction and provide adequate safeguards to life, limb, property
and public welfare as set forth in the purpose of the Uniform Building Code.
?4
u
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 1980
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Building Official I
SUBJECT: Adoption of Building Regulations
Accompanying this memo is a proposed ordinance for adopting the latest
editions of standard codes for regulating building construction and
maintenance. City Council approval of the proposal will resind those
portions of the San Bernardino County Code dealing with buildings and
replace them with regulations that are generally in use throughout the
United States. The ordinance represents those changes and additions to
the model codes as prepared by the Building and Safety Division to
respond to local conditions.
The provisions relating to fire safety have been reviewed with Foothill
Fire District and generally incorporate their viewpoints. The portions
relating to grading are the second step toward establishment of comp-
rehensive grading control in the city and have been reviewed and recom-
mended for approval by the Planning Commission. The portions regarding
building security were evolved through the Citizens Advisory Commission
and carry their recommendation for approval.
Attached is a tabulation of the proposed changes and a brief explanation
of their significance and /or reason for the changes. It is recommended
that the City Council introduce (first reading) and set the date of
November 5, 1980 as the date for public hearing and second reading.
73
ORD. SECTION CODE
N0. SECTION NO.
REASON /SIGNIFICANCE
1
Deletes S. B. Co. regs.
2
Informational '
3
Definitions
. 4A
UBC /204
Establishes Board of Appeal consisting of Members of Cit,
Council or appointees, rather than "persons qualified by
experience and training" to pass upon building matters.
Reason - persons in construction field generally do not
wish to serve and when serving frequently encounter
conflicts of interest.
43
UBC /203
Violation /penalty clause - required by law to be incor-
porated to be effective
4C
UBC /303
Establishes provision to effect completion or demolition
of incomplete construction once permits have expired.
4D
UBC /304
Revises administrative provisions regarding fees to
coincide with Rancho Cucamonga fee adoption by Resolutior
also establishes retention fee on refunds.
4E
UBCi305
Coordinates Bldg, approval with other developnental
requirements.
4F
UBC
Deletes fee table in UBC for consistency with Rancho
Cucamonga fee policies
4G
UBC /420
Establishes swimming pool definition
414
UBC /1111
Establishes swimming pool as regulated construction
4I
UBC /1105
Deletes asphalt paving in buildings where motor vehicles
are operated or stored.
4J
Establishes new swimming pool fencing requirements - all
new fencing will be 5' -6" height rather than 4' as now
permitted.
4A
Modifies published code so as not to require smoke
detector for reroofing, exterior and interior refurb-
ishing. Detectors would still be required for addition
of habitable space exceeding $1000 value.
41,
UBC ;'
cn.ip ccr 10
Establishes additional requirements for construction
within the "High Fire Hazard Area" - re: roof coverings
attic and underfloor areas.
4,q UBC /I l01 Restricts use of "ordinary" roof coverings in all a
to roofs not over 3000 sq.ft. in area and min. 10 fee
from property lines.
/�
ORD. SECTION CODE "
NO. SECTION NO. REASON /SIGNIFICA. \CE
' 4N
UBC /2907(b)
Reduces the size of structure that may be constructed
without any foundation to 200 sq.ft. rather than 400
sq.ft. as allowed by published code.
40
UBC /3708
Requires chimney spark arrestor consistent with State
regulations.
4P
UBC'
Wdifies new UBC requirement so as not to mandate a
Appendix/
pre- inspection on all reroofing
3210
4Q
UBC
Expands and clarifies grading operations exempt from
Appendix/
grading permits.
7003
4R
UBC
Revises enforcement capabilities re: hazardous natural
Appendix/
slopes or grading conditions.
7004
4S
UBC
Adds definitions consistent with Grading Committee
Appendix/
Ordinance #118
7005
4T
UBC
Revises UBC consistent with Ordinance 0118.
Appendix/
7006
4U
UBC
Revises fee schedule consistent with Rancho Cucaaonga
Appendix/
fee- establishing procedures
7007
4V
UBC
Elaborates and makes specific grading bond content and
Appendix/
procedures
7008
4W
UBC
Clarifies and revises slope criteria, allows for waiver
Appendix/
of compaction under certain circumstances
7010
4x
UBC
Clarifies and revises setback requirements for bldgs.
Appendix/
from graded slopes
7011
4S
118C
Expands and makes more specific, erosion control methods
Appendix/
and slope irrigation requirements
70l -i
5A
UUC /203
Establishes City Council or their appointees as Appeals
I
Board
5B UUC 1204
Penalty Section - required by law for enforcement
ORD. SECTION CODE"
NO. SECTION NO.
REASON /SIGNIFICANCE
Sc
" UHC /1501
Revise method of payment in demolition cases consistent
with city policies and procedures
6A
UCADB /203
Violation penalty clause - required by law for
enforcement
6B
UCADB /203
Establishes City Council as appeals board
6C
UCADB/
Creates a procedure for summary abatement of hazardous
206 -207
and dangerous conditions through city action - establish
hearing and collection procedures for reimbursement of
costs
6D
UC\BD /801
Revises administration of demolition contracts to be
consistent with Rancho Cucamonga policies and
responsibilities
6E
UCABD /802
Deletes funding policy inconsistent with Rancho
Cucamonga practice .
6F
UCABD/
Revises administrative responsibility from "pubric works
thru
901 -905
director" to "building official ".
6T
7A
UBSC/
Revises Uniform Building Security Code consistent wit
thru
4301 -4115
recommendations of Citizen Advisory Commission
7H
SA
USC /103
Violation Penalty - required by law for enforcement
8B
USC /303
Modifies Uniform Sign Code consistent with Rancho
8C
Cucamonga sign ordinance
9
Expressed findings necessary for modification of publish-
ed codes - stipulated by State Law
• UBC Uniform Building Code
UHC Uniform Housing Code
UCUlD Un i fora Code for Abatement
UBSC Uniform Security Code
USC Uniform Sign Code
of Dangerous Buildings
L
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
• P. O. Box 35
6623 Amethyst Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701
(714) 987 -2535
November 5, 1980
Council Members
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA., 91701
Gentlemen:
As I am sure by this time, you have been made aware
of our most serious feelings opposing continued use of
combustible roofing within the city.
I will therefore not belabor the point but respectfully
• request you take a small amount of your valuable time to
review the enclosed materials prior to making any decision
regardinq combustible roof coverings.
If I can be of any further service or answer any questions
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully,
Kenn t Wflker�
BC /Fire Marshal
JEL:br
7?
�-1 )i i02ra7�
t9c o a-F to 7 i9;, 7
Fire hazard in California
UNSUNC heroes In California these put weeks
have been the firefighters. the 7,0011 men and
women from JI lima who have been battling one
of the worst Outbreaks or !Iran in the stale -a
hislorv. More than 6011 firelight have been
Injhred aml 61 mores draroyrd.
A painful hwson repeatedly learned In Vallfor•
ale's relenthsa fire history Is that wooden roofs
render Irulldlags more, vulnerable to spreading
Flamm. Although a flreretardanl rear is not a
guarsntce against fire damage, officals know that
nonirombnstlble font rMlerMis am a deterrent to
worse damage.
Shingle rinds am Incendiary. Once Ignited,
sparks and flandng shingles may blow onto other
rcoftupn unit Into surrounding brush. greatly
enhancing the potential for destruction.
Unfortimalely. It half only been In the
afternoon of dtsantroue fires that communities
have been spurred to enact ordinances prohibiting
flammdue raid coverings.
In the wake of a huge blare In l.aa Angeles'
Mandeville canyon on tAt. 9, 1076, the county
castled an ordinance prohibiting the use of fire,
prone malecluls in All new or replacement reef
eonstruvilun In high fire danger are ". The Loll
Angeles Fire Depnrloulm made a telling point by
demuinirating the difference In fire damage to
two homes. In rhuee proximity with one onolber:
a house will, a ruck rem( survived the fire, and
fine with a shake shingle roof burned to the
ground.
A big fire In Irate In San Francisco; uwing
1 Fbtd area. In the vicinity of what is now the
I niv,,NIl of San Francisco, prompted The City
to change Its 61111411119 code nn ban wood nhinglo
U
and shake roofs In new or replacement conatrur
tlon limlesn treated with an acceptable fire
retardantl. In that fire, 67 building.; — all with
wooden raids — burned. as fiery emMve Mown
Into the air Ignited roof after roof.
Must surrounding Hay Area communlllem.
however, have no such reef requirements.
The California Forestry Department in con -
ducting a statewide survey, which it hops In
complete In February, to dMermme what local
gwsrnmentc are doing In fire prevention. Present'
ly, there Is no state law requiring fires stant roof I
materials.
Sen. Ruben Ayala, DSan Bernardino, who
sponsored Zhu Feadullon calling for the survey,
also hu Introduced legislation that would requur,
by ate law, timmkid ant roofing In high fire
batard areas. Tho findings of the Forestry
Department will Influents what the I^Ielalure•
dos with that bill.
Meanwhile, as suburban housing connlruc.
lion climbs the hills and spreads over the sum
baked California countryside, rows of new,
shingleronfcd dwellings as an Increasingly
familiar night. It wind-fed blazes sweep down the
dry, granny hillsides and Into forested canyons
filled with wooden-rooted buildings, hsplem
homeowners wielding garden hoses will be hard
pressed to save their dwellings or their neigh.
hors'.
Let us hope that a conflagration will not he
neeeaury Were community action In taken to
Improve fire prevention where roof construction ls
nmeerned, rendering ben. Ayals's Mglslulon
unnecessary.
L
FIRE JOURNAL
MARCH 1980
Razing; the Roof
Editorial
II .. m. Ili In nalr. Intl hau• that 11 di..1,1l.1 i, pillru urm,,. pia I 1 inn 11 pi o
pr.gdr lu I.rA'. ..dill .0mi d a1 Iruu. Sa.6 ".., Iln'ra... m I lau,l nu. '12,.11,
rn lud.
\, oywn h•rl iu ILr J.uman' I im, jovil. \'al.. Ill. IlunHun (:it, p, 11
I.nt J11h p.rellvumJ ar11un nn a pu.pn..11 el. .rµ. 1,.l' ILr u.1• of lint . ill if
p11. rd- ,L.ngl1 .1111, 16.1,o 11..1,. 111 IL.• r.n At lip, I....1•, 1,11•.1 ... 1111
1, ,11111i'n, pill Ihr ...r pit 1,..111 w..1u.0 1,.11. md, 111 Ilnu,tnn
lip, Ill, Ili ., 1:111 I:uun. 11,........ i g, a lip ho. k, ..ul ... ...... th, i
ILr c.k. apt rwd a,n.....n.el ,hn1gl. u.111...nwl r, .'..111"11, 1,r, but11 22 ^_
al..pi l..v lit Loddmg, 'I 'hr nr,l 1,.11. Ihr ( IpUll l p..,..•1, 1111 unhuanl l
1 :...I A ' prn6L 111' Nil
'ALr 111..' pirdnl,nul. nv p.0 ra that, nil, 1,11 .... lit ... , u..1, me r..n g, m
I1piu.l11n pima h1 lirr- Irl.udemt. 'pull. ly 11 I11•1g fillip .1111 1 .1..1"11"11.1
rrqunlmcnh, Ihr mdn.anrr will "'A'. ILr inr nl 1 uv. ill 11, pool
,,.r.gl.�, 111 .1111,1, crn .,,pluarr
• 11..,1rvv1, ILr nnLn.lurr rvngrl. nnr...ud n,...I,uu.h ir.nL w1.
0"'w" of Ihw.r ...u1, "'c. 111 Iiumlpin r... ,vnlu11.r h. uv umbraI'd
nil .Lingh•, 1.r liaA, nu Ilip , 1,1.1,, 'p\r dn11A IL..t .........
„r11.1.oupig 1Lr ...r nl uul n•etrJ wolel ,Iu11gh., 111 ,halt, 1uu ILr .1,d, .d
......1 I .... IIIIIIg, "full. All n.1,/; Iho.o 1,11.don 1111.1,1..... I. .... I ndrquAl. 111
Ill ".po d „a.htl 11.;,11,. It ..... .1111, I1u11ML Ill, 1. and ILr 11,.o, 11.pi u1
ILr .. .... I thm 11.1 ill..... ton on.11eg.,ml11.1 (I'll nil .F11l.ad 11r,u.gll.l.nnd,
hnnlr. oral Ill, .gall lnlrut ...lnpll,,
Iln.ulon ,Lonid hary d...... w h.1, Dalla, dill Fill,..,iuµa,..nnh.L.uglr
1 on1 I..., Ihal dr,lun o1, u1' dau.aµrd hA .lp.ulmrld, I.ul Sr I'l..111fe
p..gr 'a ill Oil, i„w• I. ILr DAL,, 151. Cu o11. 11 pa,,. d .... u. dm.wu ..•gnu
mg that rending m.. ill u.,w Lm IdL1g, 1,1 A 11 ".1 ( la.. ( I.
I Ipiu,tpi11, .. I ..mu .r, I, n11l .dn11r u, lnumlu.g.. palI1al h.n1 lu ILr 1111 of
I,., Angr lr.. pill, w a Will rpinlfag.mill" 1,1, ....o1, n.ar .,INI I...............
I1, at rd Hotel a61 'gl. - o11r1, .u. alll... rd 111 nunLl r..h IIAIaud, .'whet' A
fill. ion,., lu ILr "1,, uunull,un di.lual it ILr adbu lot lily 1,1111,1
em.... h1n,11l.1. nu. I, limit Iw• -.l h. i 1',1,11, A ill 1:L1„ If
In In, Aug.•Ir,(:uuuh, n 1,n, pe,wd in Ja. n.,ui I'1 ;!1111p1m (:.w, II
1 n..li in ,..111111,11, and hnn bland ......1, .u.d Clap (' .....1, u. 1111.... 1. u.,
I ........pill ". 111 ,11 p". 1. \I...1 pit ihl. 111.1 m ppi.alyd .mla. ul ILr ...npir,, h..I-
1,11.11111„ 1111m 1a1l.d.r.md- d11ng1., 11.1.11
11.1.. ..an, rh,.nlln pill It IA' t........ .. n11• p.. le11 ..11...1.. I r , A
lull. it Owl m.11ralyd wrvnh +luuµl, a11d ,hA. w..I..uo nu..dr'
llalhlr Ih.m w,Wlpig lilr Ih1 .m,wr1. ' r mgr L..lul.m.un N. Il.11auh.
awl I ...... r...urn aLAr I1, I•en with 1IIl.11 1..1 A 1,1l. 1,1 p.0 l.nrit, Ili di ma...
.1 tn1al Lau if unlr,.illd.. mud..limgh 111 ,h.d..n..1, ( lid, L, 1.u.1,µ Ill..
• 11.nf .pill wr I ... nalr liuul 11p1 ,n., ill th. g
11, 11,lnu. u ll lm
.gs"l
I'At'l K I I A(Al I
h:rlflnr' M
fIo,� Ang ie e,� c�ime,�
I IA RRIWN GRAY 1)I'IS.
HARRY CIIANOLF.R. Pob 1911
NORMAN LHANOLLa. 19/I IWA
ii
w
4—PART VI SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1878
Roofs: Kindling as Coverage
Supervisor Kenneth Hahn argues for banning
wood roofs that aren't fire-resistant throughout Los
Angeles County, not just in areas that face high risk
from brusb tires,
In fire zones, wood roofs, aesthetically pleasing as
they may be on homes nestled among the foothills,
clearly have no business. 'rhe Loa Angeles County
Board of Supervisors has tentali0ely —and rightly,
In our view —voted to upgrade requirements for
new construction in zones of high fire risk. Essen-
tially, that means that pressure- treated, flame -
reardant shakes or shingles, previously permissible
In fire zones, may no longer be used on any new
home, new roof or roof on a new addition unless a
layer of meal sheeting is placed under the shingles.
The supervisors also voted narrowly to require
some degree of tire- reardancy fo roofs in other
unincorporated areas of the county. Many of the
materials used In roofing —red tiles, asphalt shingles
or concrete shingles— already meet the proposed
standard. But the change would mean that untreat-
ed wood shingles— kindling, Hahn rightly calls
them —no longer could be used; they would have to
be at least pressure - treated. The requirement may
well be justified in new housing developments in
which one can virtually walk from roof to roof. But
should the county go so far in other areas?
We know that, as long as a course Is optional,
many people won't protect themselves. But we also
know that upgrading the standards can add 50% to
the cost ( a root. Wat's an option that the owners
should be able to select it they don't live in a high -
risk area. If they are concerned about fire safety, as
they should be, they don't have to buy a house with
a wood roof. Outside the areas of high risk, the mar-
ket should function as the regulator; lower insur•
ance rates that people get for fire - retardant roofs
will be an added incentive to put them on,
u
C
•
CALIFORNIAS
WINDBLOWN
HELL.
Dry weather, mountainous terrain, brush-exposed homes,
wooden roofs and the Santa Ana Wind all add up to disaster.
i I I I
4i,
. A
. - T� �_ I I L
thm.
California's Windblown Hell
The recurring cycle of brush fires followed by
excessive runoff has created major problems for
insurance companies as well. since Vaal, $58 and -
lion in insured property has been destroyed by
brush fires —more than Lo times the insurance pre-
miums paid for fire protection coverage by property
nts'nors in tite area. Bpeciul if rra ago inen is liar e had
to he rondo In ntainhint the avnilahllity of insurance
in thv face of these staggering lassn.s. And insurers
are now r,00pw'atin.1 with alarmed public offir.i:ls
in a joint, ill drplh sludy of ways to doal with file
bruait fire hozard.
The I,Ilest rpele of dllslrnCtloll began with last
snnuuer's dnmghl and 100- dearer tumperatures in
the Los Angolos area. By mill -yep to Ill her, the scorch -
ing, seesnnal ti,Inla Ana Wind, nr what native Cali -
fornimtscall fill- "Devil Mad," had turned chaparral
hrush-cocemd slopos and the fashionable. wooden
Orn remaws alrer I r0 razs41hr5
aor":.r am. -y H II; In Ihiv area
alono, - onoseoyea
0
shinglad roofs ut thousands of expensive homes in
the area into under.
All Thal was needed was a tine windblown spark,
nml that came, ac.cordiug to fits Los .Angeles Fire
Deparintent, ;it I0:nl ,1.m., Friday, September 25,
when trash was ..,uol, nsly dumped at a burning site
in the \t,ilihn area In thw hills above Los Angeles.
What full.e.ed tc,is one of the worst fire disasters
in Califomio hwau I% hipped ily the hot Santa Ana
Rind. whit 11 at limas rr'a,.hed speeds of up to sa
mph. hrush.euc,.mrl cantons 6ecano raving infer.
nos. Sparks eaniod hp the wind ki'll'ed to rooftops
of homes, llom eusv ners watched he.lplossly as
flamesr.m5uau'd .Sla0,000h,lmes, thrn fled III panic
to sacs their liens.
Because, of the strong winds, firefighters were
fact,(] n'illi an impusnihle Iasi,. Ifundreds of firemen
dug firebreaks with hulldnwl's in an effort to keep
SOIIIO =IOIOn \�
e.rdsd.6 . -
CALIFORN/A
ANGELES
Yxilk Q� ' E1 S.9w
l.F.nh.11.rr e
rhis rote ssaxs Ina gHrn11I ry
the Cruse sees wn,rn caned . +.t R.doodo
of conlrnl , hdl5 afar lhn
coy of W An, s Anaalps
I
ruu n. +oroi wme "ono
the flames from spreading. And planes futilely
dumped tens of reetor and fire. - inhibiting chemicals
over the blazing canyons.
Only when cool, moist sea breezes took over from
the hot Santa Ann Hind some five days later were
the brush fires finally brought under control. Ilmv-
ever, by that tine•. fires in 6o,, Angeles. Ventura,
Orange and San Dirge counties find charred 525.006
acros of hrushl.md, left 11 dyad and 350 injured•
and destroyed or seriously damaged some 2,000
homes, Insurer) losses alone from fires in the four
,.entitles were estimated at $25 million.
The horror of brush fires is nothing new to Cali -
formans. In 1961, a fire also fanned by the "Devil
Wind•• roa end out of a temp gully called Stoma
Canyon on the north side of the Santa \I1)nien moun-
tain•; in Ihr city of Los Angeh•s. And tchen the en1-
errs had finlliv r,nnlyd, aver 3CI homes and 24 other
buildings in the l3el . %ir and I3rrntu'nod residrnlial
disiriets were deshuyed or heavily damaged. In
survl Inase.a were over 525 million.
Through the, years, the insurance industry has
tried m:uly approaches in an effort In provide ade-
quate fire insurance proleclinn in hazardous brush
areas. and at Ile same blue vii(a xg. grealer fire
snfel_v. L: 1956, after thy Malibu and Laurel Canyon
fires, the insurance market for brush - exposed prop-
erties began to deteriorate. Many insurers, hard hit
Wooden roofs went uo pike
lender as gusting winds
earned sparks to hornes
like this one m the
Chalswodh area of
Los Angeles
by staggering losses, were forced to notify property
owners that they could fill longer write insurance in
these. areas.
Faced with this problem, the insurance industry
in July of 1961 introduced a program for adding ex-
posure charges on pruperty located in designated
brush arras of Southern California. Included in the
program was the selling up of a private insurance
pool designer) to spread the brush fire risk among a
broad segme.ut of insur ate, companies.
The plan, still in operation, has two purposes.
First, exposure charges are added to n regular dwell-
Ing rate in order to dot -lop mere. premium to pay
for brush fire losses. Sncuml, as charges are scaled
to distance of the dwelling front brush, it 0151) salves
to encourage brush removal and alms redUC.e fire
hazard.
13r.fore insurance on anv dreolling is written under
this program, insttranco company inspectors nice-
sure till. dislancrx of the structure from the brush.
noto the type of roof .fell check tltn fire fighting po-
tential of the community as a means of determining
the proper rate. Rates, bmVVVpr, are flexible, and
property owners can earn in.9nran,,e pre.mimn re-
du,.fions by Cutting hack brush farther or by adding
other fire sandy improvenients to their properly.
Following the disastrous 131)1 Air- Hrentw•nod
brush fire in November 1)f 1961, the insurance in-
M
California's Windblown Hell
dustry launched an all -out preventive program for
fire - plagued Southern California. Oasis recommen-
dations of the Insurance Committee for Brush Fire
Hazard Abatement Called for:
• Adequate water supplies in brush fire -prono
areas through the building of new pipelines and by
planning for use of swimming pool water and exist-
ing water supplies that could be tapped by emer-
gency pumps.
• Brush clearance around hillside, structures by
municipalities and planting of vegetation with fire-
retardant and erosion - control properties.
• Improvement of roads to allow for maneuver-
ing of fin- equipment and construction of additional
roads in inaccessible areas.
• Conslructiml of additional fire stations in the
brush area se, that nn dwelling is more than five road
miles from a station.
However, despite,u(.h insurance industry action,
destruction from brush fires goes on. True, some
progress has been mach. For example, Los Angeles
now has an ordimmre which requir,'s 100 feel 01,111-
datory clearance of brush from all buildings in the
mountain area, flowmver, when the Santa Ana
winds blow, nothing is safep_ even homes miles from
the nearest brush. And according to Assistant Fire
Chief William W. Johnston of the Los Angeles Fire
Department, high winds ran spark fires as much as
two miles xhnnd of the fire front.
Another example is an ordinance passed by the
Los Angeles City Council which prohibits untreated
shake and shingle: roofs on new Construction in
mountain fire areas. This measurn, whi0l was
strongly urged fry the Nalionpl Fire Protection Asso.
,nation, has great autrlt. Bill unfortunately many
owners of older homes just don't bother to have
their roofs treated with a chemical fire - retardant.
And omen soolo wnndril roofs that have.been treated
lose their protrr.lion e:apahility after being exposed
over a period of years to rain or high humidity.
New fire. fightinn Inchniquus, too, have been uti-
lized in an effort to con lrol brush fires in Southern
California. Now, helicopters and airplanes err. used
to dump w, ter and fire- inhihiling chemicals into
blazing canyons, However, during the September,
1970, brush fires, the air was so hot that fire officials
said the water was evaporating and the chemicals
were consumed before they hit the earth.
In addition, the turbulent Santa Ana Wiad often
blew with such force that it was necessary to ground
helicopters, preventing them from "bombing" hot
spots, or dropping fire.. equipment at strategic lare-
tions. During the September brush fire, a pilot and
four fire fighters were killed when their helicopter
crashed in the San Cabriul mountains.
Is there an answer to Southern California's
chronic brush fire problem?
Ono fire protection mtgineer's answer is this:
The problem is created by people who insist on
living in an area where the hazard of fire is beyond
all n:asonaWo limits. And if they choose to live
there, they are just going to have to realize that they
will have to pay the price for adequate fire. Protec-
tion and adequate insurance. and also nral.e reason-
able concessions in home design."
Others (.lose to the problem believe that it is time
for statewide planning and action to dead with the
brush fire b..zard. In October the insurance industry,
along with numerous California governmental agen-
cies, one oun(.ed plans for a joint, in -depth study to
assess Ih, stalls fatal fir, Fighting cupacily and pre-
vention programs weth the aim of Improving the
system.
"The 1970 fires were se, humorous and tremen-
does in scope: that they almost defy a single interest
to gather valid informalurn for meaningful pur-
poses." said an insurance industry spokesman. He
added that the study would attempt to document
statewide fire fighting and prevention programs and
total loss, rather than dwell on control efforts made
in any single fire area. The report is expected to pay
particular attention to adequacy of fire fighting fa.
cilities and will Iry to pill point basic man - power
and equipment needs.
Fvcn ns the study goes on, new data keeps coming
in for the group to assimilate. In mid - November,
California's D,vil Wind wren on another rampage,
whipping up it fire that scorched some 45.000 acres
Of brusldand near San Bernardino, causing thou-
sands of persons to fine its path, and destroying
dozens of homes.
The critical factor in the next few weeks will be
the amount of rain falling on those fire- raked. vul-
nerablo hillsides. The critical factor for the longer
pull will he whether residents and puhlic officials
in the affected areas are ready to come to terms with
a violated ecology. Ontil they do, they and the peo-
ple elsewhere who are currently subsidizing their
losses will continue to pay an excessively heavy
price.
Reprinted from the Journal of AmerlCa nsomfice, January February, 1971
L
•
11
NYPA's POLICY ON wOODEN.SHINGLE AND SHAKE ROOFS
The position of the National Fire Protection Association 15 that
untreated wooden shingles and shakes should not be used to cover any roof,
on any type of building, In any locality, The reasons why NFPA takes this
uncomprontsin. position can be simply stated. Good shingles and shakes
possess certain characteristics that no other type of roof covering that
Sa in common use possess; wood shingles and shakes burn, they can be easily
ignited, and when burning they give off flying brands. The longer they
remain on the roof, the more hazardous they become.
As early as 1907 a committee of the NFPA on roofs and roof coverings
made an exhaustive study of the subject and presented a report represent-
ing the opinion of fire protection authorities on a nationwide scale. In
that report the use of wooden shingles as roof covering was not recognized
because of the then well -known fire hazard of that type of roof. Nothing
has developed in tho post fifty years to change our opinion then established.
O The conflagration record has clearly established the devastating fire
hazard from concentrations of wood shingle roofs. As for back as 1901 the
wood shingle conflagration In Jacksonville, Florida, <! estroyed 1700 build-
ings, In 1908,Chelsea, Massachusetts, had a wooden Shingle conflagration
which destroyed 3500 buildings, and 1600 buildings in Salem, Massachusetts.
were destroyed in a shingle conflagration in 1919. Three mayor shingle con-
flagrations occurred in 1016, In Paris, Texas, 1441 buildings were destroyed;
646 in Nashville, Tennessee; and 652 buildings in Augusta, Georgia, The next
year Atlanta, Gcorgla, suffered a wooden shingle roof conflagration which de-
stroyed 1938 buildings. The NFPA conflagration study records 63 conflagrations
since 1900 in which the primary cause via$ the wood shingle roof,
t'
our portion is not based alone on the conflagration record, convincing as
title has been, NFPA established its field pervice operations in the early 1920'
and through visits to many cities during the next ten years we found that spark:
on wooden shingle roofs wore the principal cause of fires in many cities of the
country. Detroit was one exanple. During a 6 -yaor period, from 1931 to 19361
De trot had over 15, 000 ,shingle roof liras, No other cause of fires in Detroit
duri% that period approached this number. Indianapolis was another convinctng
example. lie received a report from Indianapolis in the early 1930'3 which read
as follows: "Indianapolis onncted on ordinance to eliminate wood shingle roc ?s
in 1920, Ghilo the ordinance was being considered by the City Council one day,
we had 53 fires, 56 of which wore from sparks on wooden shingle roofs, and the
next day the ordinance was passed," At that time, InAtanapolls had from 1200 .
to 1500 tires from sparke on shingle roofs annually, far exceeding fires fro:a
any other cause, Prior to the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting wooden'
shinalo roAfa In Birmingham, Alabama, that city had Moro Limn 2000 shingle roof
f�reS in a your, representing more then two - thirds of all the fire department
tolls,
i.
(2)
Our efforts to ban the wood shingle roof In the cities were based on
the iire and conflagration record, and over the ensuing years many cities
acted to prohibit wooden shingle roofs throughout tile city limits, A Sur-
vey of roofing ordinances that wo pado in 1962 brought replies from more
than 1630 cities, Five hundred and sixty -five (SGS) of these cities, includ-
ing 61 cities with population over 100,000, effectively prohibited the use of
wooden shingle roofs, Sixty -eight (66) of the cities over 100,000 population
and over 700 smaller cities required fire safe roofing for the congested areas,
only 334 cities of the 1669 reporting permitted unrestricted use of wood shingle
roots.
It has been argued that attempts to eliminate wooden shingle roofs
and rural areas were not justified, iiowover, our studies made when the
shingle roofs were so prevalent indicated that sparks on wooden shingle s
all 'other causes of fire on 2 statewide basis in farm and rural states,
in tarn
wooden
led
Probably Lilo most convincing technical evidence produced against the wood
shingle roof was developed by a committee established by the then Dominion Fire
Prevention association, in Canada, In 1926, which undertook a study of the rela-
tive fire resistance of all of tine types of root coverings available for use on
Canadian buildings, ono hundred and twenty -two samples were tested. This study
classified the typos of roof coverings in Groups 1 through 6, Group 1 listed
roof coverings which Cava protection against severe fir* exposure, and Groups
2 antl 6 graded roofs with progressively lessor protection. Group 6 listed roofs
that "will not Live protection against small burning brands or direct flame and
will produce dangerous burning brands," All of the wood shingle roofs tested
fell in croup 6 and no other type of roof covering fall in this class. .
The NFPA position on wood shingle roofs has boon attacked over the years as
biased and unreasonable by the manufacturers and by some architects, Ile would
point out that we have never encounterad a fire chief who does not agree wit$ us
that wood shingle roofs are a fire hazard, The International Association of Fire
Chiefs has passed unanimous resolutions condemning the use of wooden shingle roofs
ou at least three separate occasions, The NFPA recommends that only roofs that
cna meet at least the Class C standard, of Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., for
roof coverings, should be used, Class C includes roof coverings which are effect-
ive against light fire exposure and which possess no flying brand hazard, Recent-
ly, a trcatt,cnt for wood shingle roofs and wood shingles and shakes has been dc-
velopcd that will enable such roofs to paes tlw Class C test, We favor such
treated wooden shingles and shakos and have no objection to their use as Class C
roofing, good shingles have been used as siding for dwellings and we have never
objected to such use,
Ile have recently heard the argument advanced that because sparks on roofs
have dropped way down the list as a cause of fire, that we should no longer be
concerned. The fallacy of this is obvious. This cause of fires has been mark-
edly reduced because untreated wooden shinglea and shakes have been recognized
as a fire and conflagration hazard In many ports of the country, and tine appro-
priate steps taken to eliminate or reduce the number of such roots. To perrut
m• encourage the reappearance of the wooden shingle roof hazard seems to us to
be the haiOAt of folly,
Percy Lugbee •
Ch wf Adrnnir,trator
scptcrnbrr 16, 1960.
FJ
•
L]
U,6 Angeles �ime�
I IARRISI)N !'.RAY OI IS, Iw(1J91r
HARRI' CHANDLER. IvV.I'HI
NORMAN UTANOLLR, 1944. i m
1
4 —PART' VI SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 197a
Roofs: Kindling as Coverage
Supervisor Kenneth Hahn argues for banning
wood roofs that aren't fire-resistant throughout Los
Angeles County, not just in areas that face high risk
from brush !ices,
In fire zones, wood roofs, aesthetically pleasing as
they may be on homes nestled among the foothills,
clearly have no business. The �I,pp� Angeles County
Board of Supervisors has Ientati4ely —and rightly,
in our view —voted to upgrade requirements for
new construction in zones of high fire risk. Hesem
tially, that means that pressure- treated, flame -
retardant shakes or shingles, previously permissible
in fire zones, may no longer be used on any new
home, new roof or roof on a new addition unless a
layer of metal sheeting is placed under the shingles.
The supervisors also voted narrowly to require
some degree of fire- retardancy to roofs in other
unincorporated areas or the county, Many of the
materi Is used In roohng —red tiles, asphalt shingles
or concrete shingles— already me
Standard. But the change would am
ad wood shingles— kindling, Hal
them —no longer could be used; thi
be at least pressure- treated. The t
well be pmtifted In new housing
which one can virtually walk from
should the county go so far In other
We know that, as long ae a to
malty people won't protect themseh
know that upgradinng the standards
the cost of a roof. 't'eat's an option
Should be able to Select it they don
risk area. H they are to aba
they should be, they don't have to I
a wood roof. Outside the areas of hit
ket should tune tlon as the regulat
ante rates that People at for fire
will be an added Incentive to put the
?7
ve to
may
le in
I U optional,
, But we Shia,
I add 50% to
t the owners
ve In A high -
ire Sdety, as
a house with
Isk, the mar-
R•vN.r.a T..R fuE sou ENAE FJ67 -19
Vd. 61 Na S
Editorial •
A New Answer to an Old Problem
IN nre early part of this century we were plagued with a considerable number of city
conflagrations caused by flying brands from scowl- shingle roofs. Devastating conflagra-
tions of this tope met rred in such places as Jacksonville, Florida; Augusta, Georgia; Paris,
Texas; and Salem and Chelsea, Massachusetts; and there were many others. At that time
the wood - shingle roof was to be found throughout the country. When I first started field
work for the NFPA, I quickly disenvered that in many cities fires from sparks on wood -
shingle roofs led all other kinds of fires. This was "a in such important cities as Minne-
apolis, Detroit, and Indianapolis. Accordingly, we initiated strenuous efforts to persuade
cities throughout the country that the wood - shingle roof was a grave fire hazard and that
it should be prohibited from use within city limits. This campaign received hearty sup.
port from fire chiefs, and over a period of a few years many hundreds of cities passed local
ordinances controlling this hazard. Over the years the fires caused by sparks on wood -
shingle roofs dropped from a leading category of fires to a very minor position.
In recent )'cars, ironically — largely because of freedom from eonflagratfoas — wood-
shingle roofs have made somewhat of a comeback, particularly in Southern California and
in Texas. We %earned the cities in these areas that they were again building a conflagra-
tion hazard. NFPA members may recall that a year or two before the devastating Bel Air •
fire in the canyon areas of Los Angeles we predicted that such a conflagration would occur,
by reason of the combination of wood - shingle roofs and hot, dry, windy weather.
Over many years it has been nut view that entreated wooden shingles and shakes pre-
sent such an obvious fire and conflagration hazard that they should not be permitted on
the roof of any building. Now we arc extremely pleased to see a real breakthrough, in that
a new treatment for scooden shingles and shakes will enable this type, of roof covering to
pass the Claus C test of Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. An article in this issue of Fine
JOURNAL (pugs 53) reports the UL tests resulting in the Class C rating for treated shingles
and shakes The Class r: test specifies that the roof shall not ignite readily from small
burning br,n ds. ,end that it will not give off flanunq bands that could in turn ignite other
roofs. TO be sure it is man, expensive to provide a roof with this treatment, but to the
homeowner who insists on a wood - shingle or wood -shake roof because of its pleasing am.
thetic effects, it reasonably safe shingle or shake run! is now available.
We hope that the fire chiefs in those cities in Southern California and in the Southwest
whore acres of wood - shingle rots at present abound (:md fire chiefs in other areas threat-
ened by a current or potential wood - shingle problem) will see Ilhe wisdom of halting a
hazardous trend by insisting on the Class C treatment for wo,d.•n shingles and shakes.
This %olumm it last offers a means to eliminate it fir(' hazard that li.ls too long endangered
many communities.
Peaty Buom;r;
General Monm;er, NFPA .
PRICE SO CENTS DISCOUNT TOR QUANTITY IM rluA
Copyright O 1967 NATIONAL NEE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
60 SATTERYMARCN STREET, ROSTON, MASS. 02110 mmN M UI..
i
- Fiery Brush, Fiery Roofs 1029.765
Fire strikes with savage regularity in the dry
bru=_hlands of Southern California. We have a file of
yellowing press clippings showing the cycle of
_co.cern in its aftermath: first, calls for better
protection; then praise for the enactment of fue-
preventton measures: then a lament six months later
that the rules have been quietly eroded. It make.^.
dsnial reading against a memory of (lames licking
at hillsides and chasing people from their homes
One focus of this concern has been •.wood - shingle
reefs. They create a rasee touch for houses, helomg
them blend in with the natural elements If not
Fame- re!ardant, however, they also help destroy
homes when (fire sweeps along the tubs and down
the cnrr: as it cns, did fast week
"To build an e.nens::e house slid put kindling
lv,-i on the rnof s Coolish," Simemsor ncmiah
&a'.n _s d aii; be a;aa urged h "ig5er standards for
r., in both the fire- hazard areas and through -
cutthe rest of Los Angeles County.
For brush.f:re-hazard areas— mainly in the San
rennet and Santa Jtamca Mountains and around
.,�.bu. fiahn woula have the county recscre not
on:y Gre- retarrant presrare treatment for word
sung ;es on newly constnmted homes, as it does
now, bit also the use of metal foil beneath the
�hmgle] to try to prevent flames from spreading.
F ?r raher incorporated areas in the runty. Hahn
cv�cld reamre that any wes.1- shmg!e roots use the
presce- ircatea. Lire -reta: dart mauenals. The pro -
posa!s crowd not affect homes in the �unsdienon of
the city of Los Angeles, which allows shingles
dipped in fire- retardant chemicals in hazardous
areas
Alter the Malibu fire in 1970, the supervisors
raised roofing standards much as Hahn is now sug-
gesting. By the following April- they rolled them
back. under industry pressure, to the present levels.
Hearings were held on similar proposals for high-
er standards in 1976 after another tire. Fire offietalt
agreed on the need for upgrading, but the supervi-
sors didn't
The use of the metal foil in addition to pressure.
treated shingles can add V50 to the cost of a roof on
a small new house —nat an ourjafecas investment,
given the risks in these mountainous districts Los
Angeles County Fire Chief Clyde Bragdon rays
many of the homes left sanding in last week's fire
appeared tc have We or other noncombustible roars.
Where Hahn's proposal may run into trouble is in
requiring the use of pressure- treated stungies for
roots cn new homes in other areas of the county.
The treatment adds SO% to the cost of a roof over
plain wood shingles. We're sure this tradeoff of
h:ghcr costs versa greater protection against Fires
spreading chrough a neighborhood will he thor-
oughly ventilated at hearings that Hahn plans to
hoid soon.
Crackling. ravaging brush fires are with us for all
time, because nature repeats itself. We hone that
the on- again, off -again pattern of Fire safety does
not repeal itself.
T i T Z^7
i.._iri-Ci- =rb��ra, (,'1_SZ! }% £a :'OZG�� fir
I:Y i.00IS TIO-111P'SON,
Y%%.y v:: aid anyo .c rot a iirenan risk his
ME to sate sracoac a se'S bone from an on-
1 ha.c ccaer_i eo :^t!c. C:hfarnia brush -
fires ono base seen tee phenomenon again
and a_a:n: The roof of a house W: catch fire,
and the 7. an ae„ni,mous bystander braves the
smoke and ere -sco :chug :rnd,rs to :ecp the
fire ender conceal with a garden nose until the
LL:eaepar ;Cent am ci
11 I.:,pcad Tuesday night in the latest
Santa Barbara lue. IJozens of houses wen
A loaner : cc=i -;z oral mniarme cortes-
pr -t :;, la.:; i;.,,r..; vn is a Iree-far..-erorucr
u.•.a --scs :n Ga:::e, aS=:a (Jong=fnaarb.
saved by anonvmous passerby. Some were
distant na:phbnrs, others aere visiting necgh-
birhood resident`. but most had no idea who
lived to the hour, May were hoping to save.
peap.e put life anal Gmb an the line for
*tour tart :I the outgerned fare sera
Won emtnhed with obvious saosfanon
e . en fin,hed cap 3e; t, With that they
vanished into the night
By 10 p m. cn Tuesday Only privaL citizens
with garden hales stow between the fire and
dcw¢c:vn Santa Barbara. The fire had out -
iianked f comer. and was advancing on several
1mns. By 10.30 it had moved into the neigh -
tic:tcods our. ound:r; the downtown basineSs
secure-
When I iuved at the co: nor of Cola and
Ctiqu to at 1]45. the situation looked hope -
IemT.tc Iocat:aa :s two miles from the ezcic-
a.ve 11, :,5 ca State S. On Alameda Padre
Se o.L`.rstrectbchind_Chiquita Read.sever-
a' hacC: were ahaze. The wind was blowing
tew.rd Cbie_i :a. sending shcwcn of sparks
ever ;ire d.-y, sh:r••led roofs. The flames from
the L,.: =as on Watreda Padre Sera were
iawv:.r.Y eve t`.e homes On Ch,quita, and the
f.rr rr, =rent was rewhcre in ettdence.
Ad of in qv ck:y saw that the key to the
regtS.er. ads survival was a house at 523
0:q=a. On the property where it stood, a
gr es4n-: sz tarkc4M nos; to a burning
s.r:tcture en A:- a Padre Serra —the
gucs.L:.sz wr:.'d he the tLtdgt If it burl
the Ere would jump to the -aSj cute, the:1 a
the ocher heUae9 on C}ugwta
When the guesthouse caught fire at 11 p.rn.
I wrote off Cne neight,Orhood. Nalf the hrmr-
ewners on Chigiata were horne waienug cu,i r1
their roofs but there were enough ungua:did.
roois on Chtgmta to turn the street into an in.
',.no. The unwaterm houses wouid catch
firs:. and seen the flames would take over
quickly.
At the crucial house there were no lights
There was no one on the root.
Only five minutes after the guesthouse
caught fire, a comer of the main house began
to bum The owner of a mithbonng house
spotted the flames from his root. Suddenly
four men and one woman materialized and pre.
out the blare. at least for the moment But the
guesthouse was now totally involved, sending
flames 20 feet Into the air. It wouldn't be long.
1 began to take inventory of the neighbor-
hood In one house, photos just back from the
processor lay on a table by the window. I.
opened another window and rescued a caL
Suddenly the main house at 529 was burn-
ing again. It was a large three -bedroom struc-
ture and a new fee was visible in the muddle
of the roof. No one could find a ladder.
The neighbors sensed this time It was hope-
less Because it had flared in the center of tie
roof, the fee was all but maccessble. The
neighbors returned to their own houses. but
one man thought to knock on the door at 528.
it corned! A 79 -you -old man and has inva-
lid wife %ere still mode. Evidently paralyzed
by fright, they hadn't ever. called for help.
The old man, who had bull: the house with his
-own hands 10 years before, didn't want to
leave his wife Both were moved across a:,e
street ra re!ative safety, but their house con -
unued to bum
About this time, T noticed a lone man shoot-
ing an anemic spray from a garden hose onto
the roof. He tned spraying from vanous nosi-
Bo,-.s around the heart. but he was unabie to
see where the spray landed. I could see
though! The small stream wouldn't put out tie
Are. Grit e:,ojgh water was getting near tae
fire to considerably slow ns spread.
I tried to get near the man and ask is
name, but the heat, spark, and spoke kept me
back.How could he' stand i2 i
For half an; :he kept the ttndersize;.r-
.dzn lies: sprink:ing the ;oaf. if was almost
7130 a.m. when tie Cc.L LrC tack
coded up. Its ere•.v was vsm!y eshaneed.
Sowiy they urr.,iLd heir nrocs and backed
the trucks down. Chrluaa to 528. Thpy pro-
duced a ladder ana one ftemart climbed onto
an adlacent garage.
The lineman on the garage roof held his
nozzle while pressure built up from the pum-
per below. It took forever:.agnts from the
pomper Illuminated the hour —and there was
the man with the gander, hose still spraying.
Tic Attic stream hit leis and right of the Are,
and sometimes n missed the roor enurely. Bub
it was keeping the fee under control
C; non the pumper s - tEs n-! _ - -.
erns tie street and w rr 1 -
madeshort work ofthetrc..'x :
we came up Chiil v ah ds ail: -
syacm booming and ani.snru:':i . :.A dr.. -, c
live :n th.s area you are r• ;do :rl W ::a:a -
mcdalely."
The nest lime f looker'. `c main tray
He had saved the hou: r at ;CY, x= +.Si; -,.•
the houses on win Fexa tit Cmgu:ta L-C
going up in fiamts.
His name was bl.rk or 1ceia:
Nobody really knew, or probably ever w=ill
know.
.' Zaa Indio V oottt Fri. h1j 29,1977 —M A 7
q
f
it t 1
HAWN }
rr jj�
1
�f I
f
t
I
Famoue lot wor,14 •
LOS ANGELES, CALIF.
TIMES
0 1.005.AA2 — 5 1.190,516
lW M:.EEES ME:pgE1i.W wlfA
1 1576
Editorial.
A Lesson in the Ashes
`The recent San Clemente fire destroyed 14 homes,
damaged many others, injured 39 people, blackened
2.400 acres and at one point threatened to engulf more
than500hmrtes
But it could have been worse• much worse. The next
one may be — it we fail to apply what we learned this
Lime. Firemen seem determined not to let that happen.
The community and its officials must bemade to feel the
sameway.
-� When we say community, we dont mean only San
- Clemente, where firemen now are making an intensive
post -fire appraisal All of Orange Countyshould be doing
the same kind of critique, because just as surely as we
had the destructive Paseo Grande in 1967 and the San
Clemente fire, and hundreds of smaller ones in between,
theta will be others It's a case of where and when —not
If.
And the time to start fighting those fires is not at the
first sign of smoke. It is now — through the better, less
expensive and much surer approach of prevention
_ There are several observations worth making about
the San Clemente fire. One thing that stands out is that
- fire - fighting agencies in the county must rely on each
other. San Clemente.' at best. can muster about five
' engine companies At the height of the fire, them were
more than 85 units on the line, and more than 500
firemen battling the blaze.
The Master Mutual Aid Plan and its periodic practice
.. drills proved to be invaluable. When the call for help
went out men and equipment from almost every city in
the county, from . - ' - dne counties and the state
. .es f .icc: aIsllt%11%is.O el, 'e -rSSY :'xf
• and an adequate water capacity.
Atone point. when winds sent a storm of flame toward
houses near the burning brushland. San Clemente
F 50 ire Chief Ron Coleman committed more than 50 engine 1
companies in a battle to save the homes
Strangely enough, one major element that permitted a
. successful stand was the width of the streets in the area
Few residential streets could handle 50 or more Sire
trucks and still have room for other equipment to move"
about freely. But that part of Avenida Salvador did —
because the city's engineering department had previ-
ously insisted on a width of 40 feet for streets in new
subdivisions" ' - - -
Street widths can be critical in fire fighting. In some
I areas of the county, blocks of houses, as many as 1,000,
- could be lost because of narrow streets, Chief Coleman
t
contends..,
The value of fire-resistant roofing: which has proved
1: its worth in so many other . serious fires, was dearly
evident In San Clemente. Older homes in the area didn't
have fire- resistant roofs But about two years ago, Chief
Coleman arrived andbegan insisting on- fire - resistant
roofs as a condition of approval on new tract homes built
within 1,000 feet of brushlands The city was in the
process of drafting an ordinance requiring them when'
the fire broke out last week.
Most of the Imes started on roofs Some homes suffered
only roof damage Of the 14 homes destroyed, none had a
fire- resistant roof; no home wi th a fire - resistant roof was
lost Those facts should prompt homeowners to consider
. fire - resistant roofing — and public officials to consider
-: ordinances requiring such construction on all new
"'homes or reroofing permits located in or near the
bnuhlands
In looking back on any major fire the skill and courage
of the fire fighters usually stands out. It did in San
Clemente Less visible, but just as vital in saving lives"
and property, are the planning and preventive steps
taken months and years before — built -in' fire protec.
tion with things like wide streets, fire - retardant roofing
i and smoke detectors
That's the real lesson to be learned from the San
Clemente fire'
Playing, Politics
The Los Angeles County Hoard of supervisors is
facing another of those politically difficult decl-
slons it tries so hard to avoid: Should the board
stand firm against building•induatry pressure and
order ftre-resistant roofing materials used in all
uincorporated territory? .
The board backed away from the controversy
last July when It postponed consideration of an or-
dinance to extend the requirement for fir -redstant
tooling from high•lire•hazard area to ail tetrimry
under the board's control. The reason for Indeci-
sion then was heavy pressure from the wood.
shake-and-shingle Industry, the manufacturers of
those eye - pleasing but potentially lethal wooden
roots so popular In Southern California.
,
There Isn't much backup room now left for the
supervisors. A public hearing on the ordinance is
scheduler) today. The building Industry and the
County Fire Department will be there to present
then arguments. The public will be there also.
This time, in the midst of another btwhflre sea-
e..n �,:
Vrt Human
son and In the Interest of protecting county 1ea-
Monte from the known danger of untreated wood-
' en roofing and the flying torches that such cover-
Inge can become, the board should take decisive ae-
Man. That action should be a Arm :deddon to to.
qulre llmretardant rootlng auatywlde. .
Rounding up the required three afllrtastive votes '
should not be difficult. Two y" ago, acting on
the recommendation of Fire Chief Richard H.
Houts, the supervisors voted a requirement for
fire-resistant roofing throughout the aunty. Then
the board wilted and rolled back the ban to encom.
pars only hazardous brush areas. .
The wood -roofing Industry and the Wed building
Iohby argue that chemically treated wood shakes
land shingles are more costly than the popular, un-
treated variety. They are right. But far more cost.
ly, In lives and property damage, to rating that
can Instantly become it flldng was, of burning fire-
brands.
7ck
l__J
0115 CHANDLM. PubI", .,
a0atar A NELSON
ESAMON GaAY OM ISII.1117
Esrad,e Vim Pmidmt ud Geaeal Heesao
JUUr afANDGPP. 1917.1944
Wn11Aat P. 7HONAS
Faavdw V!m P,odmt aaA Edict
210miAN OWMLER 19"1910 -
WAILES C CUSP, Vim Poaidea— Pmdud;m
-
10111tr C LDEDEU, Vu. P —`•_. _ _ _ . C&T—A
-"'
JrQLAWS.10aD750N, Vim Proil- b— Amistom to the FQW4hw
-..
VANB L s OM4 Via.. PMUoWo Sdo
JAMES BAUM Aaedat Whe
JAMES BLttow9, Astod+b 11diur
ANTHONY DAY, Ums of thilJOU Law '`,• Cr
llosEar J• DDNovAM Aaosdw Lib►%- `.-
}
•. ; ,''�' PtrANK P. HAVV4 Yt w6j; ldift .
,, -: i e.yA_.'.
6 —Part If '.•`,THURSDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 6,� 1973 * Y^
Playing, Politics
The Los Angeles County Hoard of supervisors is
facing another of those politically difficult decl-
slons it tries so hard to avoid: Should the board
stand firm against building•induatry pressure and
order ftre-resistant roofing materials used in all
uincorporated territory? .
The board backed away from the controversy
last July when It postponed consideration of an or-
dinance to extend the requirement for fir -redstant
tooling from high•lire•hazard area to ail tetrimry
under the board's control. The reason for Indeci-
sion then was heavy pressure from the wood.
shake-and-shingle Industry, the manufacturers of
those eye - pleasing but potentially lethal wooden
roots so popular In Southern California.
,
There Isn't much backup room now left for the
supervisors. A public hearing on the ordinance is
scheduler) today. The building Industry and the
County Fire Department will be there to present
then arguments. The public will be there also.
This time, in the midst of another btwhflre sea-
e..n �,:
Vrt Human
son and In the Interest of protecting county 1ea-
Monte from the known danger of untreated wood-
' en roofing and the flying torches that such cover-
Inge can become, the board should take decisive ae-
Man. That action should be a Arm :deddon to to.
qulre llmretardant rootlng auatywlde. .
Rounding up the required three afllrtastive votes '
should not be difficult. Two y" ago, acting on
the recommendation of Fire Chief Richard H.
Houts, the supervisors voted a requirement for
fire-resistant roofing throughout the aunty. Then
the board wilted and rolled back the ban to encom.
pars only hazardous brush areas. .
The wood -roofing Industry and the Wed building
Iohby argue that chemically treated wood shakes
land shingles are more costly than the popular, un-
treated variety. They are right. But far more cost.
ly, In lives and property damage, to rating that
can Instantly become it flldng was, of burning fire-
brands.
7ck
l__J
•
•
• Mr4 Altfrewl's V:irwY g
1 ARMSOS GRAYOTIS, tM-7917
IIARS Y CHANDLER, L V -19ii
NOR::AN ULANDLE114 1914.1 %0
e55 �11
Pulduher and Chid Eo-eeud +e Offitsr
ROBLRr D. NELSON
Tiecu:i,n Vice Pasi4,= and Gc.:ail Want ;er
WILLIAM F.THOW.S
Etta:tiw Vrce P..idaat and Editor
CHARLES CHASd. Vice P, nident— Froth.« ion
ROBERT L. r'LAN \'e S, V:;e Ruidae :rd As,Iwnr ie d.e Pcelni :rc
RCBERT C LOBDELL, Vic: i :aident ma Cavn.•1
VANCR L S'TICt'ELL, Vxe hmder-t —Saks
JAMES BASSLTT, lasxirc Editor
ANTHOSY DAY, E&t.r of the Ed:mW Pages
ROBLRTJ.DONOVAN,Ans aiat<Editor
FRANK P. HAVEN, Atamging lditnr
JEAN SHARLEY TAYLOR, Axixuoe Editor
6 —Port II FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 29, 1977-
You Can Lower Risk of MYe .
Nowl•,cre is life rnore pleasant than on those
woo•icd and brush - covered mountain slores and
hillsides of Southern California where the cool
ocean breezes of the evening relieve the heat of a
summer day,
But for thousands of residents of these areas, dan-
ger also is a constant companion, when the winds,
reversirr their usual uattern. blow hnr. from the de-
serts across the land.
Southern Californians accept these hazards as an
unavoidable fact of existence. Sometimes the threat
is not great, but then again, like the present period
of severe draught and intense heel, the danger is
extreme, and disaster can strike without warning. '
One year fire destroys hundreds of homes in the
Bel --air residential district of Los Angeles, the
Svor: t fire in the city's history. Another year Malibu
is do astated. This time disaster has fallen on Santa
Barbara and \fontecito.
And too efLa the calamity is not limited to prop-
erty, and lives are lost.
The hazard or fire in Southern California cannot
be eliminated but the risk can be reduced toith pro-
per precautions. Both the city and county cf Los
Angeles have regulations that apply in areas where
the danger is present,
These regulations, depending upon the risk of fire
in various areas, include Lruih CieaTWICL, fire- resis-
tant roofs and other measures.
Both the city aad coent-v have enforcement pro-
grams, but residents of these areas should not wan
to comply until they are forced by the law to con-
form.
They have available front the city and county ex-
pert advice on measures necessary to lower tee rst:
If fire. They should voluntarily take whatever pre-
cautions are necessary.
It is their homes and, sometimes, their lives that
are at stake, And their carelessness can bring havoc '
upon others.
cl3
Fire -Safe Roofs Costly -- -but Worth It
The Los Angeles Fire Department firmly believes
that nonflammable roofing is one of the better
protective devices In case of fire. Yet the firemen
haven't been able to drive home that simple fact to
the Board of Supervisors.
Fire Chief Richard Houts says a ban on flamma-
ble. roofing material, especially those wood shakes
and shingles would substantially reduce the danger
of flaming brands transporting fire from roof to
roof and into adjacent brushland. Since 1071, fire.
retardant roofing has been required In the high -
fire- hazard arms covering about 40% of the coum
ty. All unincorporated areas would have been in-
cluded in that sensible ban under a countywide or-
dinance adopted earlier by the board. But the su-
pervisors wilted under pressure from the constivo-
tion and shake and shingle industry and rolled
back the ban to encompass only high-fire-hazard
districts.
There were predict Ions at the time that the su-
pervisors would regret their failure to outlaw flam-
mable roofing countywide. Those predictions came
true last month when 11 expensive homes on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula, an area whore untreated
sh:dsas and shinoIrs in c prrmil tell, were destroyed
by fire. Most. of the fire - gulled homes had entreat.
ed shingle roofing. Neal by homes protected by a
variety of fir- retardant roofing survived.
The supervisors may have been convened, but
there is cause for doubt. A July 26 public
hearing to consider banning non- fire -safe roofing
in all farts of the county has been postponed until
September. The delay watt provide time for the
shake-and-shingle lobby and the building industry
to muster their arguments that [he requirement of
a protective roof covering will add to the already
high cost or construction.
The builders are right to a point. Fire safety can
prove costly. They will be fundamentally wrong,
though, if they suorced again in persuading the su-
priviuns not to prcidhit one of the leading contrib-
utors to the massive losses in properly, and often
life, from the fires that periodically tut this area,
lay oriffird Valid Man., July 16,1973—Pmt 11
f
0
lJ
•
'$ Lof AHf emzr ''^iw4lf SrPY // I f ;p
Another Assault on Safer Roofing
•
Is
Fire departments and the insurance industq' are
in general agreement that a fire retardant roof is
an excellent protective device against the periodic
brush fires that sweep Southern California,
A non - combustible roof covering, of course, is not
1001b fireproof. But it is effic"ive to it degree
against flying; emlxvs. and it is less likely to bast
into a mast of deadly flying, particles itself, if the
I structure below goes up in flames.
This is the basic argument used in persuading
councils and county hoards to adopt building codas
that mandate file retardant roofing. After a par-
ticularly devmting brush fire, it is not difficult to
obtain a mere strmgent code. Keeping the revised
i code atvineent, though, is never easy. A classic ex-
ample of I Ito t di Ificully is a move under way in the
city of Simi Valley against that community's
i codes.
Following severe brush fires that ravaged large
i areas of Southern California in 1070. the Simi
i council adopted a uniform building code. It re-
quired ti.e retardant taint covering on all new
buildings untreated wood shakes and shingles
were banned. \fore expensive and leas fire prone
shakes and shingles were permitted. So were other
coverings such ascomposition roofing and tile,
Simi lost only a few homes in the fires that swept
through Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. It was
lucky. SituaMl in a narrow, elongated valley, Simi
was showered with burning embers from surround -
Ing hfltr, >lost homes destroyed had untreated
shake roofs. Despite protests of added costs from
builders and the shake industry, the council adopt-
ed a film code iecommetulod by its fire agencies.
Simi s nvty code has worked well. Now, however,
local builders arc quietly urging individual council-
men to Imv,r roof w, rixilin ements. The orgunrems
are familiar: healed shingles are costly'; coapost-
i lion. %Mile cleaper, is unsightly,
We hope the Simi council hears with great cau-
tion those who counsel, in the periods bomoon
brush fires. against firm, if more expensive, fire
I protection. 'ral,e a lesson from Los Angeles Coon -
ty. Aflcr the same 1970 files, the Board of Su-
pen'hors li,icned to its fire experts; they urged a
4-15"
ban on non - fire - resistant wood shakes and shingles
in all muncorprated territory. The board, wisely,
complied, Then the shake and building industry
countered. Accused of emotional overreaction, the
board agreed to &rollback. Now protective rooting
material is mandatory in high hazard areas only
and not at all in adjacent flatlands. And Los An-
geles County is that much less prepared for fire
once again threatening the area.
There is no known method of preventing fhe in
the brush- covered Southern Cahforma hillsides.
But steps can be taken to reduce the hazards. One.
of the better methods is to live beneath a fire retar-
dant toot. Government, certainly', is not helpm¢
those it exists to serve by permitting any other
type of covering.
US AA4&0 91=10
HARRISON GRAY 0115. Iaat4917
HARRY CHANDLER. 1917 -1944
FORMAN CHANDLER, 194144940
EQUAL FIGHTS
IFBERTY ENDER THE LAW
CTlS CHANDLER, Mlilhrn
ROBERT D. NELSON
ExaK.< W. Pm,dmo .nd G,nad M.."
N ICK B. `S It LWN
Ea,cm;., \'u. P;oidrn; .,id Ednnr
CH 6R1 ES C. CHAIR, V„r Prrsden<— Rrdurzim.
ROBERT C. LORDFI L, V¢e Rn,d,el Ind Om1:4 Coum
RICHARD S. ROBIN +ON. Vi„ Pm,deni— .Sdmmmuuu
VANCE L. S ICKELL, V,., Rradmt —S.ie
11 U I R 5 t"E 11, .1sa -inr r ims
I VIMS BELLOW R A,,—, r E- rr
AN, '40\Y DAY. rdr. I' f rt, EC-11 Y, P+Sn
RORER'r j. DO\OVA!,, A,xe..m Ed.;o
FRA \K P. HAVEN, ALnanmA Ed,wr
6 —Part II FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 30, 1971 �*
Politics Overcomes Fire Safety
It isn't exactly fair to accuse the Board
of Supervisors of giving in to political prey.
sure grudgingly. At times, the board caves
In easily.
Following the series of disastrous brush
fires last fall, the supervisors voted to ban
non - f Ire - resistant wood shakes and
shingles in all unincorporated territory, in-
cluding high •hazard mountain areas,
which cover about 40% of county land.
The ban wen overdue. County and city
fire officials have long contended that
flying embers arc a major reason why fire
spreads Be rapidly from rooftop to rooftop
In the frequent blazes that sweep Southern
California,
But the board hadn't counted on the po-
litical savvy of the shake and shingle
people and their ally, the building indus-
try. Moving quietly, the allies persuaded
the City- County Fire Board of Inquiry, a
citizen group convened to Investigate the
fall fires, that the board had orerreaetod
and, in the proress, added to the high cost
of construction.
Despite the objections of fire expr.rts, the
inquiry grouP urged a rollback alien .-
would require lass protective material In
high - hazard areas and hone at all in the
adjacent flatlands.
The suPervisot's, recognizing a v'ay out,
complied. After aC, they agreed with the
Inquiry board ani the building industry,
county codes are now similar to those of
Los Angeles which demand a lower grade
retardant trod only in heavy blush areas
and adjoining one -mile buffer zones.
It appears that the supervisors may have
wiggled off a sharp political barn. They
haven't, however, dooc an, favors for
their constituents who continue to live in
areas subject to devastating fire. We trust
the board will have its explanations in
hand for the approaching fire season,
al
0
J
n
U
0
SSorl Nuelecj male)
11ARRISON GRAY OTIS, 681.1911
I LIRRV CIIAN'DLER, )911�1944
NORMAN CHANDLER. 1911.19ta
LQIIAI Millis
LNLRIV UNDER 1'11E LAW
01 11 t MANIA I R.
ROSERT D NF oN!
tvutiv 1',.r P.ru.•.. .nJ 4rna.l ,Ilnyn
NIIK a WIILIASIS
Gaal.ev I'er P.n.dn1 .nd fJgor
CILARLI'S ( ' f HASE, 1',.r Pmdw1— P•abn,o.
ROBL RI C. LC UDLLL, Vrsr /uulrur ,j GrvuE Coun,d
RILHARD R ROBINSON. Vn. P.n..lmr— ,16vu,u,.:v.n
VAN( LL SNI KELL, I,.•PvnJ,nr —Jdn
JAMS aAS•LI T. 1)unm.. LLroual Pa .,n
JAAIIS ED LOWS, .1 non... Ed,,.,
ANIHONY DAY. Chill EJeo„J li
RORER L ). DUNOVAN. A. mu.0 Einar
FRANK P HAVEN, At.otur
10 —Part 11 WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 21, 19 70 S
To iioduce Loses From Fire
Los Aocele, Cuonly ha, wisely if be.
lolydly nl,n'rd hl conecl one of the condi-
h4n, that Ied In the hem In.'s of homes In
the hill hfu rs %hied swypl Southern Cali.
Ill ma ill S, Ill, mhel ,
The I; ",ud of Supervisurs %cited TUCsddy
m plohlLn ran- Itrc- resislanl w(aid shingle
and touts in all unincurporaled
.u, i,
Thy• lit, of Lus Angeles has hotmed kill.
11 ( "I'd ,Il.lLrs and >hingle, in fire hazard
o, ra, .mrc 1963, fnlluw atg the fie[ -Air fire
di ,Iv, 1.1 1761, Bill the euunty failed to
filk w gill. 'That failure, file officials
agile, w,l,;I moim (mlur in the spread of
Ia%I munlhb brush furs. Many of the lost
.'liar lulea wore ignited by flying embers
hnehog on rumbushble roofs. Ilud the
I !nil m�u been of foe- resWmit umletials,
frvve.. Immcs ct,uld hme Iwca lust.
Th, ,Illn' I'% 151115 have gidic a Sleh further
Ill prrienl hdul'c lunsoa nl lives and
hm l,e,
U n,ll ,lu ill Krury nrdw:nn c c(Icruve mt-
nirdi,ilely. only fire l'claidanl routs —tile,
I urk.,lnpnvlion and sha6rs and .'hingles
N m l hdSO peen Implegnilled ondel' [ties.
am.• o ll Il lu mrelardanl rhrmiral ;— %'ih be
pr 1. ullyd tin new u',aleul all Ill bll uclmu
lu Iw: nine, rm -rung III,F of the county's
meal 1p.1,1,d area, !lull wiled shlnplr>
.net h lI'l s toll hr banned Ihruughuut the
1.'11 al lit twillll.
The new county restrictions are more
stringent than Current city codes. While
the city forbids unhealed shingles in
mountain file disllicts, it allows them in
adjoining areas.
This raises a perllnent question. Should
city codes be toughened? We believe they
should. Alost hunws covered by the 196:1
m'divanre Suimed the rile vol flies. Losscs
were heavy, however, in come adjacent
at %% here lit,- ordinance did not require
file- relal'dait roofing.
This is now being studied by the Building
end Safely Department for iecommenda.
tions to the CilI, Council on the best meth-
ads of proteclion against future fires.
Los Angeles Fire Chief Ray Hill has sen-
Stilly recommended changing the codes to
require fire - retardant rental, in areas all
jaeent to the existing mountain fire zones.
Alany cities ball wooden routing eltoge
Cher. While such a prohibition would in.
crease building Costs, it merits Serious con-
sideration here,
A recently convened !ward of Inquiry
into the tires has been warned by city and
county Iurntan That there Is no stile way
to pro,eol lhr oulbreak of Limp fire.
But there ale effective melhods to pre-
pare a sucres,ful defense in Rdvanee. Now
is the lime - moll recent lushes h0,11 nt
linild —lo lake the ucccssar1. Col'teclnc
Illedsul ea.
177
Lost ? ❑ ;tltf Limtf .. ". P,un., August 1, i5i7 —Pmt%M
)- ire insurance; Floe PAuch Is Eno� � �
The s:orm of fire that destroyed more than 2C0
_ homes and damaged many more in Santa Barbaa:e-
cees xas..n Lg:.t of the drought and ui.der -dry
b: n carat r -s in the state, i reminder of :he mas-
s:,. ^ck s.a.:y homr.wriers in the state almost ura-
taaaoi. fare-
- Bct tl'•e second tragedy of the Santa Barbara lire
%zs a -rrc�v avo:dable. Srsurance officials nohs;zed
to rata -me the damage claims and dispense emergency
ca w 3LMOCI•dnt famai es were shocked at the re-
:a: :Cony small six of the clams.
)lany of ire homes were iuvuridua residences
-- mac tran S1A.CW. •with some valued at two
or th-or [Sacs :hat 1-cure, Yet the claims were most-
' :v for Sat." to STD.OU
f
c h- -:i t. ^.e insurance seNo ad;mlerc W. were !tar
rotary �.`.au : ;.�. But homeowrcrs could claim no
rat- Yin..: e :ins were the limits of their coverage.
4sca illy -c'x' meta appa:ecuc caeca:rrdecln-
s::a :—c :astir �admnsdred.In Same cares
s erne of too Mary other dwdirgs
(7�) :c i-. tie d:a;e and :he nar.an. A few homeowners,
res ;,cor;cs about :::e financial aftermath
..-> n :,, 3_ :i.s -a -aze. w °l check thee insurance
e: r:aCe Ord or.c, .t up :c dote. Sot most will lock
at cc.: rap, as c-. :r W Fei It I., G3 fate. as they try to
:dad, ri`, ci<.r 1 +itar a fG2.
` -e craotm a s :.:die. M,tsi Fcme buyers purchase
-.
Z. poky wren they
ro.. ;-.-d usi :!lv get the amount recommendedby
.ender Cftc,. tnaC, eeual to the face
ct e;.., .b.cn. m later years. the
... _ -a :.S T e p. in each year
.. _ .CV ,g: 4e
a: a Lire w W-. S Ca inrg :.o :he cost of
e:_r_n:a lo. S e a year or mare. romeowners
car -a af` mw .gnac J:e Ira: t of p :atc<uan an
If your insurance is iota few a :d your home u de•
strayed. Sou w.h simply m!lect up th the limit of your
policy and will have u provide the rest to get the
place reculL
Even if the structure's only partial!y damaged —
say a burned roof or Charred pm.s from a bash fire,
ores[ wire smoae and water:amage from a xnchen
-laze —you are far better off Conti: full pmtemon.
\cost policies today will pay the full cost of repaim
for such damage provided your Coverage is equal to
80% or more of the value of yo•ir dwethng. Sc, atttpt
for the inconvenience, the repa : work will coat you
nothing -
However, if you protection iizs fallen below the
80% level, as many policies have because of the re-
VIEWPOINT
cent fast rise in home values, the insurance Company
will only pay a portion of the ",o.s. You will have to
dip into your wallet for the balance.
The moral for the homeowner is clear. Review
you: house policy at least annually and make sure it
is adequate.
But the insurance industry also must do Its part to
make Sure that the public uudeistands the reed to
keen coverage current l.finy wmpantes and agents.
now remind homeowners at pol•.cy renewal time that
Lents should be raised. Some Insurers even refuse to
continue cove. age :f the level of orotecuon is inade -.
gaalc.
Yet edc :a ::on praoab.v is not enough. Tire Santa
Barnara area cad been :tie scene of a major push to
get residers to ::orate the:r fire protection. yet the
evlde- ce'..d :cafes i:wniom vies w from successful.
Many insurers have acicdeu ".ntlauon oders" :It
their polieicx autnmativlly raising the policy limi :-
and thtu the premium —Sy an amaant each year
equal to the increase in the cost of living. But even
these have faded to keep pace wuh the recent explo-
sion in housing prices. B;lner the industry should re-
vue its incex of home vaisies, ar:t should warn con-
sumers that Ire automatic increases m coverage may
be inadequate.
The homeowners insurance package. already the
most P.exible property coverage available, may have
to be revised still further to fit the changing needs of
famines facing rnflaticn.
Straght fire Insurance on a $50.000 home in Las
Angeies now casts about $115 a year from one major
Insurer. Doubling that to 5100,Ci0 coverage aiw dou-
bles the premium. to $210. By Comparison. a home-
owners package policy —which includes theft, vanda-
lism. windstorm. Liability and much other protecuon
--costs $200 a year for a 55000 home, but $470 for
one worth f100.000. Instead of lust doubling, the pre-
mium is 135% higher.
:
The reason is that the protecCOns offered by the,
. t
honieownen plait in addition to fire coverage are ds-
proportionately expensive. Insurets figure that the
i!
,
Contents of a SIOfr.V home are',ikely to be worth
more than twice the tum3hmgs of a 550'10: rn-
fdenee.
nor ramilies whose home has become much none
)i
expensive to replace because of inliatmn, th••s ratio
-�
may not be true. They may need more protection
t
against fire loss. but not more against damage to fur -.
nlsmngs. The standard homeowner pd¢y can be al-
tered shehtiy to accommodate item, but cot r..nch.
,
\ "cafeteria" approach, which allows the home.
owner to rock the coverages CaIY necessary for ade.
quate protecao . may be a betty. answer to main.-
:
inning nigh coverage lames while keeping premiums
at a reasonable cost.
- — Slmodeeduahari
-�
• • •
•
ORDINANCE NO. 122
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 1979
EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF
DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM SIGN CODE, UNIFORM
BUILDING SECURITY CODE, AND UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE STANDARDS AND MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN
NECESSARY TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
Chapters 1, 5, 6, and 8 of Division 3, Title 6 of the San
Bernardino County Code adopted by Ordinance 17 are hereby repealed.
SECTION 2:
For the purpose of providing minimum standards to safeguard life,
limb, property and public welfare by regulating the desing, construction,
quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of
. buildings, structures, those certain codes known as the "Uniform Building
Code ", the "Uniform Housing Code', the "Uniform Code for Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings ", the "Uniform Sign Code', the "Uniform Building
Security Code', and the "Uniform Building Code Standards ", 1979 editions,
prepared and published by the International Conference of Building Officials,
including all their indices and appendices, and except said portions thereof
as arc hereafter deleted, modified or amended by this Ordinance, three (3)
copies of each of which said codes are on file in the Office of the City
Clerk for public record and inspection, are hereby adopted by reference
and made a part of this Ordinance in full, subject, however, to the
amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this Ordinance. In the
event of any conflict or ambiguity between this Ordinance and said codes
set forth above or any other Ordinance lawfully adopted by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, these amendments and additions shall control.
SECTION 3:
Whenever any of the following names or terms are used in said
codes, such name or term shall he deemed and construed to have the meaning
ascribed to it in this Section as follows:
A. Building Official shall mean the Building Official of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga or his designated representative.
B. Health Officer shall mean the Director of Environmental Health Services of
San Bernardino County or his designated representative.
C. Fire Chief shall mean the Fire Chief of the Foothill Fire District or his
d esigna ad representative.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
D. Building Department shall mean the Building and Safety Division of
Community Development Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. •
SECTION 4:
The Uniform Building Code is amended as follows:
A. Section 204 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 204. BOARD OF APPEALS. In order to provide for final
interpretation of the provisions of this Code and to hear appeals provided
for hereunder, there is hereby established a Board of Appeals consisting of
five (5) members, said members to be members of the City Council or persons,
other than employees of the City, appointed by the City Council and who shall
hold office, at its pleasure.
The Building Official shall be an ex- officio member of and shall
act as Secretary to said Board.
The Board may adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting
its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the
Building Official with a duplicate copy to the appellant.
B. Section 205 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 205. VIOLATIONS AND PENALITIFS. It shall be unlawful for •
any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, imporve, remove, covert, relocate, demolish, equip, use, occupy, or
maintain any building or structure or unsafe grading site in the City,
or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the
provisions of this Code. Maintenance of a building or structure which was
unlawful at the time it was constructed and which would be unlawful under
this Code if constructed after the effective date of such code, shall
constitute a continuing violation of such code.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this Code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person
shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or
portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this
Code is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon conviction of any such
violation such person shall be punishable fy a five of not more than $500.00
or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment.
C. Section 303 of said Uniform Building Code is amended by addition
of Subsection (f) to read as follows:
Section 303 M. UNFINISHED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. Whenever
the Building Official determines by inspection that work on any building
or .structure for which a permit has been issued and the work started
thereon has been suspended for a period of 180 days or more, the owner
of the property upon which such structure is located or other person or •
agen` in control of said property,upon receipt of notice in writing from
the Department to do so, shall, within 90 days from the date of such
written notice, obtain a new permit to complete the required work and
diligently pursue the work to completion or shall remove or demolish the
)�o
Ordinance No.
Page 3
building or structure within 120 days from date of the written notice.
• D. Section 304 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 304 (a). PERMIT FEES. The fee for each permit shall
be as set forth in Resolution of the City Council. The determination of
value of valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made
by the Building Official.. The value to be used in computing the building
permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all
construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all. finish
work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
elevators, fire — extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment.
Whenever any work, for which a permit is required by this Code,
has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, and when such
work is discovered as a result of an investigation, the permit fees
specified by City Council Resolution shall be doubled. The payment of
such double fee shall not exempt any person form compliance with all
other provisions of this Code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
Section 304 (b). PLAN REVIEW FEES. When a plan or other data
is required to be submitted by Subsection (b) of Section 302, a plan review
fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for
review.
. Where plans are incomplete or changed s0 as to require additional
plan review, an additional plan review fee shall be charged.
Fees for plan review shall be as set forth by City Council
Resolution,
Section 304 (c). EXPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW. Applications for
which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application
shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review
may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building
Official. The Building Official may extend the time for action by the
applicant, for a period not exceeding 180 days, upon written request,
showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have
prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more
than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration,
the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee.
Section 304 (d). EXEMPTION FROM FEES. Neither the state nor
this nor any other county, city, district, or other political subdivision,
nor any public officer or body acting in his official capacity on behalf
of the state or of this or any county, ciyt, district, or other political
subdivision shall pay or deposit anv fee required by this code. This
Section does not apply to the State Compensation Insurance Fund or Public
Housing Authority or where a public officer is acting with reference to
private assets which have come under his jurisdiction by virtue of his
office.
1D I
No.
Page 4
Section 304 (e). REFUNDS. In the event that any person shall
have obtained a building permit and no portion of the work or construction •
covered by such permit shall have been commenced and such permit shall
have expired as provided for in Subsection (d) of Section 302, the permittee,
upon presentation to the Building Official of a written request on a form
provided therefore, shall be entitled to a refund in an amount equal to
eighty percent (SOY.) of the building permit fee actually paid for such
permit; however, the portion of the fee retained shall never be less
than fifteen dollars ($15.00). In case a permit is issued in error by
the Building Official, all fees shall be returned to applicant upon request.
No refund shall be granted when receipt of the request occurs
more than 180 days following payment of the permit or plan check fee. No
portion of a plan checking fee shall be refunded, unless no checking has
been performed on a set of plans, in which case eighty percent (80g) of
the plan checking fee shall be refunded; however, the portion of the fee
retained shall never be less than fifteen dollars ($15.00).
The Building official shall satisfy himself as to the right of
such applicant to such refund and each such refund shall be paid as provided
by law for the payment of claims against the City.
E. Subsection (d) of Section 305 is amended to read as follows:
Section 305 (d). APPROVAL REQUIRED. No work shall be done on any
part of the building or structure beyond the point indicated in each successive
inspection without first obtaining written approval of the Building Official. •
Such written approval shall be given only after an inspection shall have
been made of each successive step in the construction as indicated by each
of the inspections required in Subsection (e).
There shall be no clearance for connection of gas or electrical
utilities until final building, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation
and air conditioning inspections have been made and approval has been first
obtained from the Building Official and all conditions of developments
approval completed or guaranteed, except as provided for in Section 307 (d)
for a temporary certificate of occupancy.
In the event the building is not completed and ready for final
inspection in the time prescribed by the Building Official, the building
shall be vacated and the utilities disconnected until such time as the
building is completed and final inspection is made and a certificate of
occupancy is issued as set forth in Subsection 304 (c) above,
F. Table 3 -A entitled "Building Permit Fees ", of said Uniform Code
is deleted.
G. Section 420 of said Uniform Building Code is amended by adding the
following definition:
SWIMMING POOL is any body of water created by artificial means
designed or used for swimming, immersion or therapeutic purposes.
H. Section 1101 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as •
follows:
�a�z
urcinance No.
Page 5
Section 1101. GROUP M OCCUPANCIES shall be:
• Division 1. Private garages, carports, sheds and agricultural
buildings.
Division 2. Fences or walls over six feet (6') high, tanks,
towers and swimming pools.
For occupancy separations. See Table 5 -B.
For occupancy load see Section 3301.
I. Section 1105 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 1105. In building areas where motor vehicles are operated
or stored, floors shall be of noncombustible, nonabsorbent construction.
J. Chapter 11 of said Uniform Building Cade is amended by adding
Section 1107 to read as follows:
Section 1107 (a). 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 ", shall at all times maintain on the lot or
premises upon which such pool is located and completely surrounding such
• pool, lot or premises, a fence or other structure not less than five feet
six inches (5' -6 ") in height with no opening therein, other than doors
or gates, having a greater dimension exceeding four inches (4 "). Openings
may exceed 4" in greatest dimension when approved by the Building Official,
provided such openings will not materially facilitate scaling the fence or
other structure by children.
All gates or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped
with a self- closing and self- latching device 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 and forming
any part of the enclosure herein above required need not be so equipped.
Required latching devices shall be located not less than five feet (5')
above the ground. The pool enclosure shall be in place and approved by
the Building Official before water is placed in the pool.
EXCEPTION: The provisions of this Section shall not apply to
public swi'.aming pools for which a charge or admission price is required to
be paid for use thereof, during the time that the owner, operator or
adult employee of such owner or operator is present at and in active
charge of the premises upon which such pool is located.
Section 1107 (b). Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection
(a) env fencing serving as 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 continue; however, any replacement in whole or in part
shill comply with the requirements of subsection (a).
X. Section 1210 (a) of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read
as follows:
J�3
Ordinance No.
Page 6
Section 1210 (a). FIRE - WARNING SYSTEMS. Every dwelling unit
and every guest room in a hotel or lodging house used for sleeping •
purposes shall be provided with smoke detectors conforming to U.B.C.
Standard No. 43 -6. In dwelling units, detectors shall be mounted on
the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the corridor or
area giving access to rooms used for sleeping purposes. In an
efficiency swelling unit, hotel sleeping room and in hotel suites, the
detector shall be centrally located on the ceiling of the main room
or hotel sleeping room. Where sleeping rooms are on an upper level,
the detector shall be planed at the center of the ceiling directly above
the stairway. All detectors shall be located in accordance with approved
manufacturer's instructions. When actuated, the detector shall provide
an alarm in the dwelling unit or guest room.
When habitable space having a valuation exceeding $1000 or when
one or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing Group R,
Division 3 Occupancies, the entire building shall be provided with smoke
detectors located as required for new Group R, Division 3 Occupancies.
In new construction, required smoke detectors shall receive their
primary power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from
a commercial source. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting
switch other than those required for overcurrent protection. Smoke
detectors may be battery operated when installed in existing buildings, or
in buildings which undergo alterations, repairs or additions regulated by
the second paragraph of this section.
Said Uniform Building Code is amended by adding Chapter 16 to •
read as follows:
Chapter 16. REQUIREMENTS WITHIN HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA.
Section 1601. HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA DEFINED. For the purpose of
this chapter, all portions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga falling within
the area encompassed by the following description shall be known as the
High Fire hazard area:
All lands bounded on the north, west and east by the city limits
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and on the south by the following described
boundary:
Beginning at the intersection of the northern boundary of the
Rancho Cucamonga Grant and the center line of Cucamonga Creek;
Thence easterly along the Rancho Cucamonga Grant boundary to
intercept the center line of Almond Street;
Thence easterly along Almond Street and the easterly prolongation
thereof to the center line of Beryl Avenue;
Thence southerly along the center line of Beryl Avenue to the
center line of Hillside Road;
Thence easterly along the center line of Hillside Road to the
center line of Haven Avenue;
Thence southerly along the center line of Haven Avenue to the
center line of Wilson Avenue; •
Thence easterly along the center line of Wilson Avenue to the
southwest corner of the southwest quarter, Section 24, Township
I North, Range 7 IJest;
rt)�
Ordinance No.
Page 7
• Thence southerly along the west boundary line of the east
one -half of Section 25, Township 1 North, Range 7 West to
the center line of Highland Avenue;
Thence eaterly along the center line of Highland Avenue to
its intersection with the center line of Interstate 15;
Thence northeasterly along the center line of Interstate 15
to the easterly boundary of the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
Section 1602. Buildings or structures hereafter erected, constructed
or moved within or into the High Fire Hazard Area shall comply with the provisions
of this Chapter, regardless of other provisions of this code to the contrary.
Section 1603. ROOF COVERINGS. Hoof coverings installed within the
High Fire Hazard Area shall be fire retardant as specified in Section 3203 (e).
EXCEPTIONS: In Type V buildings of Group R or M occupancies, roofing
may be any Class "C" built -up roofing assembly, Class "C" prepared
roofing or a mineral aggregate surfaced built -up roof complying with
Subdivision 3 of Section 3203 (f).
Roof coverings having openings which would allow entrance of embers
or flames shall be fire - stopped at eave ends to preclude entry of flame or
embers under the roof covering.
Section 1604. UNDERFLOOR AREAS. Buildings or structures shall have
all underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with construction as required for
• exterior walls.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Enclosure is not required when the underside of all exposed
floors and all exposed structural columns, beams and supporting
walls are of non - combustible construction or protected with one -
hour fire resistive materials.
2. The underside of cantilevered wood balconies and unroofed
walking "decks ", constructed entirely of 2" or greater nominal
thickness wood joists and decking, need not be enclosed.
3. Wood structural members having a minimum dimension of 6"
nominal, tongue and groove flooring of Lh" net thickness or
plywood flooring of 1 -1/8" net thickness need not be enclosed or
fire - protected.
Section 1605. OPENINGS. Openings into dnclosed underfloor or attic
areas shall be provided with doors or sash or shall he screened with galvanized
or copper wire screen with maximum one - eighth inch (1/8 ") mesh size,
Section 1606. ALTERATIONS. Buildings and structures alreadv erected
in the High Fire Hazard Area to which additions, alterations, or repairs are
made shall comply with the requirements of this Section for new buildings or
. structures except as specifically provided by Section 104.
)aS
Ordinance No.
Page 8
M. Section 1704 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 1704. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant except in Types
II1, IV, and V buildings, where it may be as follows:
1. Ordinary roof coverings may be used on buildings of Group R
Occupancies which are not more than two stories in height and
have not more than 3000 square feet of projected roof area and
there is a minimum of 10 feet from the extremity of the roof to
the property line on all sides except for street fronts.
Skylights shall be constructed as required in Chapter 34. Penthouses
shall be constructed as required in Chapter 36. For use of plastics
in roofs, see Chapter 52.
For Attics: Access and Area, see Section 3205. For Roof Drainage,
see Section 3207.
N. Subsection 2907 (b) of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 2907 (b). BEARING WALLS. Bearing walls shall be supported
on masonry or concrete foundations or piles or other approved foundation system
which shall be of sufficient size to support all loads. Where a design is not
provided, the minimum foundation requirements for stud bearing walls shall be
as set forth in Table No. 29 -A.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A one story wood or metal frame building not used for human
occupancy and not over 200 square feet in floor areas may be
constructed without a masonry or concrete foundations if walls
are supported by a Portland cement concrete slab not less than
3'" in thickness.
2. The support of buildings by posts embedded in earth shall be
designed as specified in Section 2907 M. Wood posts or poles
embedded in earth shall be pressure treated with an approved
preservative. Steel posts or poles shall be protected as
specified in Section 2908 (h).
O. Chapter 37 of said Uniform building Code is amended by adding Section
3708 to read as follows:
Section 3708. Any chimney, flue, vent, or stovepipe attached to any
solid or liquid burning fireplace, stove, barbeque, or other device hereafter
installed within or attached to any building or structure, shall be equipped
with an approved spark arrestor. A spark arrestor is defined as a device
constructed of non- combustible material equivalent to 12 guage steel welded or
woven wire mesh er 3/16" thick cast iron plate. Perforations or openings in
spark arrestors shall be not less than one -half inch (11 ") and not larger than
five - eighths inches (5/8 ") and shall be of sufficient number so as not to
Jab
•
17J
•
Ordinance No.
Page 9
reduce the required flue area. Spark arrestors shall be installed in such a
• manner as to be visible for inspection and accessible for maintenance.
P. Section 3210 of the appendix of said Uniform Building Code is amended
to read as follows:
Section 3210. New roof coverings for existing buildings shall not be
applied without approval of the Building Official. An inspection may be required
to determine the acceptability of an existing structure for reroofing. A final
inspection and approval shall be obtained from the Building Official when
reroofing is complete.
Q. Section 7003 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is amended
to read as follows:
Section 7003. No person shall do any grading without first having
obtained a grading permit from the Building Official except for the following:
1. Grading in an isolated, self- contained area if there is no
danger to private or public property.
2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and foothings
of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a
valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with
the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation
having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the
• completion of such structure.
3. Cemetery graves.
4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.
5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.
6. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock,
sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided
for by law provided such operations do not affect the lateral
support or increase the stresses in or pressure upon any
adjacent or contiguous property.
7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or
engineering geologists.
8. An excavation which (a) is less than 2 feet in depth, or (b)
which does not create a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height
and steeper than one and one -half horizontal to one vertical.
9. A fill less than 1 foot in depth, and placed on natural terrain
with a slope flatter than 5 horizontal to one vertical, or less
than 3 feet in depth, not intended to support structures, which
does not exceed 100 cubic yards on any one lot and does not
obstruct a drainage course or alter drainage patterns.
167
Ordinance No.
Page 10
10. An excavation for pipeline or other underground utility
lines installed under a separate permit, provided that any •
necessary erosion control measures are made part of that permit.
11. Public works projects not requiring a building permit including
sewer and starm drain construction, utility trenches, power
transmission lines and appurtenant access roads and retaining
walls or grading accomplished as part of street maintenance
activities.
12. Recurring, regularly scheduled maintenance of existing facilities
where no new construction is involved. This exemption includes
the replacement of a single transmission tower or pole, which
can be projected to reoccur over very long periods.
13. Emergency repairs to existing facilities resulting from natural
or civil disaster including, but not limited to, rainstorm,
flooding, earthslide, heat storm, earthquake, riot, sabotage,
and the like.
R. Section 7004 of Chapter 70 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 7004. "Whenever the Building Official determines that any
existing natural slope, excavation, embankment, fill or other
condition created by a grading project has become a hazard
to life or limb, or endangers property, adversely affects •
the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage
channel, the Building Official may give he owner of the
property upon which the condition is located or other person
or agent in control of said property a written notice to
abate the condition. Upon receipt of such written notice
from the Building Official, the owner or other person or
agent in control of said property shall within the period
specified in the notice repair or eliminate such natural
slope, excavation, embankment, fill or other condition so as
to eliminate the hazard and be in conformance with the
requirements of this Code."
S. Section 7005 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended by adding the following definitions:
1. Final Grading Plan is a plan showing all detailed drainage
information, grade elevations, building locations and floor
elevations.
2. Preliminary Grading Plan. A plan showing building pad elevations,
typical drainage methods to be utilized, and similar generalized
Information, usually excluding finish floor elevations,
building locations, and specific drainage details.
'f. Section 7006 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows: •
ug (7,
Ordinance No.
Page 11
. Section 7006 (a). PERMITS REQUIRED. Except as exempted in
Section 7003 of this Code, no person shall do anv grading without first
obtaining a grading penait from the Building Official. A separate permit
shall be required for each site, and may cover both excavations and fills.
Grading permits may be issued based upon submittal of either a preliminary
or final grading plan. The preliminary grading plan requirements shall
apply where insufficient precise detail of site improvement exists at the
time of grading permit inssuance. Where grading is accomplished based
upon a preliminary grading plan the submittal of a final grading plan shall
be required prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site.
Preliminary grading plans shall include sufficient detail to assure that
at the time of final grading plan submittal, all standards and specifications
of this code and other City grading regulations will be met.
Section 7006 (b). APPLICATION. The provisions of Section 302 (b)
are applicable to grading and in addition the application shall state the
estimated quantities of work involved.
Section 7006 (c). PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. When required by the
Building Official, each applicant for a grading permit shall be accompanied
by three sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting
of a soil engineering report and engineering geology report. The plans and
specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when
required by the Building Official.
Section 7006 (d). INFORMATION ON PLANS AND IN SPECIFICATIONS.
• Plans shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth and shall he
of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed
and show in detail that they will conform to the provisions of this Code
and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The first sheet
of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and name and
address of the owner and the person by whom they were prepared. The plans
shall include the following information:
1. General vicinity of the proposed site
2. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground
and details of terrain and area drainage.
3. Elevations and finish contours to be achieved by the
grading.
4. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices,
walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be.
constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work
together with a map showing the drainage area and the
extimated runoff of the area served by any drains.
5. LOtatien of any buildings or structures on the property where
the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings
or .structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 15
feet of the property or which may be affected by the propose(!
grading operations.
6. Size, tvpa and condition of vegetation that is to remain.
7. Legal restrictions such as property lines, easements, setbacks,
etc.
Idi
Ordinance No.
Page 12
8. Utility structures: catch basin, manhole, culvert, etc.
9. Utility lines: drainage, sewer, water, gas, electric. •
10. Any unusual site conditions.
Contours, both existing and proposed, shall be shown in accordance with
the following schedule:
Natural Slopes Maximum Interval
2% or less 2 feet
Over 2% to and including 97. 5 feet
Over 99. 10 feet
Specifications shall contain information covering construction and material
requirements.
Section 7006 (e). SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT. The soil engineering
report required by subsection (c) shall include date regarding the nature,
distribution and strength of existing soils, conslusions and recommendations
for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures when
necessary, and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy of sites to
be developed by the proposed grading.
Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building
Official shall be incorporated in the ,grading plans or specifications. •
Section 7006 (f). ENGINEERING GEOLOGY REPORT. The engineering
geology report required by subsection (c) shall include an adequate
description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recomendations
regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development,
and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be
developed by the proposed grading.
Section 7006 (g). ISSUANCE. The provisions of Section 302 are
applicable to grading permits. The Building Official may also require
submittal of the following additional information with the permit application.
1. Extent and manner of cutting of trees and clearing of
vegetation, disposal of same, and measures for protection
of undistributed trees and /or vegetation.
2. Schedule defining staging and timing of construction and
estimated a real extent of disturbance at strategic points
during construction.
3. Equipment, methods, and location of spoils disposal.
4. A plan defining the schedule, equipment, materials, and
crew that will be used to maintain all protective devices
and drainage facilities shown on the approved grading plan.
5. Designation of routes upon which materials may be transported •
and menas of access to the site.
)1a
Ordinance No.
Page 13
. 6. The place and manner of disposal of excavated materials
and control of erosion from such materials.
7. Requirements as to the mitigation of fugitive dust and
dirt offensive or injurious to the neighborhood, the
general public or any portion thereof, including due
consideration, care, and respect for the property rights,
convenience, and reasonable desires and the needs of said
neighborhood or any portion thereof.
S. Limitations on the area, extent and duration of time of
exposure of unprotected soil surfaces.
9. Mitigating measures recommended by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board or Resource Conservation District.
10. Phasing of operations to minimize water or other environmental
impacts.
11. Such further applicable information as the Building Official
may require to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.
Section 7006 (h) . COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS AND CODE. The permittee
or his agent, shall carry out the proposed work in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications and in compliance with all the requirements
of this Code.
Section 7006 (i). INSPECTIONS. In performing regular grading,
it shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the Building Official
at least one working day in advance so that required inspections may be made.
Section 7006 (j). PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. During grading
operations, the permittee shall be responsible for the prevention of damage
to adjacent propety and no person shall excavate on land sufficiently close
to the property line to endanger any adjoining public street, sidewalk,
alley, or other public or private property without supporting and protecting
such property from settling, cracking, or other damage which might result.
Section 7006 (k). TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL. The permittee shall
put into effect and maintain all precautionary measures necessary to protect
adjacent water courses and public or private property from damage by
erosion, flooding, and deposition of mud or debris originating from the
site,
U. Section 7007 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to teas a5 follows:
Section 7007, FEES, Grading and plan check fees shall be as set
forth by the most recent comprehensive fee Resolution adopted by the City
Council, Where preliminary and final. grading plans are submitted separately
for plan checking and /or permit, fees shall be calculated from the overall
yardage to be. moved under each submittal.
The fee for a grading permit authorizing addition work to that
under a valid permit shall he the difference between the fee paid for the
original permit and the fee shown for the entire project.
Ordinance No.
Page 14
V. Section 7008 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows: •
Section 7008 (a). BONDS. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
involving 5000 cubic yards or more of cut and fill, the applicant shall first
post with the Building Official, a bond executed by the owner as principal
and a corporate surety authorized to do business in this state. In lieu of
a surety bond, the applicant may file a cash bond, or deposit and assign to
the City, savings and loan certificates or other instruments of credit. Where
unusual conditions or special hazards exist, the Building Official may require
a bond for grading involving less than 5000 cubic yards.
The bond required by this Section may include incidental off —site
grading on property contiguous with the site to be developed provided written
consent of the owner of such contiguous property is filed with the Building
Official. The Building Official may waive the requirements for grading
necessary to remove a geological hazard, where such work is covered by an
agreement and bond posted oursuant to provisions of other Ordinances.
Section 7008 (b). AMOUNT OF BOND. The amount of the bond shall
be based upon the number of cubic yards of material in both excavation and
fill, plus the cost of all drainage or other protectible devices, work
necessary to eliminate geological hazards, erosion control planting and
required retaining walls, and masonry fences. That portion of the bond
valuation based on the volume of material shall be computed as set forth
in the following table:
1000,000 cubic yards or less....... 507. of the cost of grading work. •
Over 100,000 cubic yards........... 50% of the cost of the first
100,000 cubic yards plus 25%
of the estimated cost of that
portion in excess of 100,000
cubic yards.
Section 7008 (c). REDUCTION IN BOND. When rough grading has been
completed in conformance with the requirements of this Code, the Building
Official may at his discretion consent to a proportionate reduction of the
bond to an amount estimated to be adequate to insure completion of the
grading work, site development or planting remaining to be performed. The
costs referred to in this Section shall be as estimated by the Building
Official.
Section 7008 (d). CONDITIONS. Every bond shall include the
conditions that the principal shall:
1. Comply with all of the provisions of City Ordinances, applicable
laws, and standards.
2. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the grading
permit.
1. Complete all of the work authorized by the permit within the
time limit specified in the permit or within any extension •
thereof granted. No such extension of time shall release the
surety upon the bond.
)42
Ordinance No.
Page 15
Section 7008 (e). TERM OF BOND. The term of each bond shall
• begin upon the filing thereof with the Building Official and the band shall
remain in effect until the work authorized by the grading permit is
completed and approved by the Building Official.
Section 7008 (f). DEFAULT PROCEDURES. In the event the owner or his
agent shall fail to complete the work or fail to comply with all terms and
conditions of the grading permit, it shall be deemed a default has occurred.
The Building Official shall give notice thereof to the principal and surety
on the grading permit bond, or to the owner in the case of a cash deposit
or assignment, and may order the work required to complete the grading in
conformance with the requirements of this Code be performed. The surety
executing the bond shall continue to be firmly bound under an obligation
up to the full amount of the bond, for the payment of all necessary costs and
expenses that may be incurred by the Building Official in causing any and
all such required work to be done. In the case of a cash deposit or
assignment, the unused portion of such deposit or funds assigned shall be
returned or reassigned to the person making said deposit or assignment.
Section 7008 (g). RIGHT OF ENTRY, The Building Official or the
authorized representative of the surety company shall have access to the
premises described in the permit for the purpose of inspecting the work.
In the event of default in the performance of any term or condition of the
permi.t the surety or the Building Official, or any person employed or
engaged in the behalf of either, shall have the right to go upon the
premises to perform the required work.
• The owner or any other person who interferes with or obstructs the
Ingress to or egress from any such premises, of any authorized representative
of the surety or of the City of Rancho Cucamonga engaged in the correction
or completion of the work for which a grading permit has been issued, after
a default has occurred in the performance of the terms or conditions
thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor,
W. Section 7010 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7010 (a). GENERAL. Unless otherwise recommended in the
approved soil engineering report fills shall conform to the provisions of
this Section and to Figure A, Typical Lot Crass Section for fills.
In the absence of an approved soil engineering report these
provisions may he waived for minor fills not intended to support structures.
Section 7010 (b). FILL LOCATION. Fill slopes shall not be
constructed on natural slopes steeper than two to one or where the fill
slope toes out within 12 feet horizontally of the top of a lower existing
or planned cut slopes except in the case of slopes of minor height when
approved by the Building Official.
Section 7010 (c). PREPARATION OF GROUND. The ground surface
shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying
fill, top -sail and other unsuitable materials scarifving to provide a bond
with the new fill, and, where slopes are steeper than five to one, and the
)13
Ordinance No.
Page 16
height greater than 5 feet, by benching into sound bedrock or other
competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under •
the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one shall be at least
10 feet wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet
overflow or a paved drain shall be provided. Where fill is to be placed
over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least 10 feet
wide but the cut must be made before placing fill and approved by the
soils engineer and engineering geologist as a suitable foundation for
fill.
Section 7010 (d) . FILL :MATERIAL. Detrimental amount of organic
material shall not be permitted in fills. Except as permitted by the
Building Official, no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches be buried or placed in fills.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official may permit placement of
larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method
of placement, continuously inspects its placement and approves
the fill stability. The following conditions shall also
apply:
A. Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, potential rock
disposal areas shall be delineated on the grading plan.
B. Rock sizes greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall
be 10 feet or more below grade, measured vertically.
C. Rocks shall be placed so as to assure filling of all voids •
with fines.
Section 7010 (e). COMPACTION. All fills shall be compacted to
a minimum of 90% of maximum density as determined by U.B.C. Standard No.
70 -1. Field density shall be determined in accordance with U.B.C. Standard
No. 70 -2 or equivalent as approved by the Buidling Official.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Fills excepted elsewhere in this ordinance and where the
Building Official determines that compaction is not a necessary
safety measure to aid in preventing saturation, settlement,
slipping, or erosion of the fill.
2. Where lower density and expansive types of soil exist, then
permission for lesser compactions may be granted by the
Building Official upon showing of good cause under the
conditions provided herein.
3. All backfill in utility line trenches shall be compacted
and tested. The soils engineer shall verify that this
backfilling has been satisfactorily accomplished. Alternate
methods of filling and compaction may he utilized on specific
projects when specified by the soil engineer and /or approved
by the Building Official. •
Section 7010 (f). SLOPE. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no
steeper than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper
than two horizontal to one vertical.
11�
Ordinance No.
Page 17
Section 7010 (g). DRAINAGE AND TERRACING. Drainage and terracing
• shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces
shall be graded and paved as required by Section 7012.
X. Section 7011 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7011 (a). GENERAL. The setbacks and other restrictions
specified by this Section are minimum and may be increased by the Building
Official or by the recommendation of a civil engineer, soils engineer, or
engineering geologist, if necessary for safety and stability or to prevent
damage of adjacent properties from deposition or erosion or to provide access
for slope maintenance and drainage. Retaining walls may be used to reduce
the required setbacks when approved by the Building Official.
Section 7011 (b). SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES. The tops of cuts
and toes of fill slopes shall be set back from the outer boundaries of the
permit area, including slope right areas and easements, in accordance with
Figure No. I and Table No. 70 -C.
Section 7011 (c). DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS. Setbacks between
graded slopes (cut and fill) and structures shall be provided in accordance
with Figure No. 2.
Y. Section 7013 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows:
• Section 7013 (a). EROSION CONTROLS. The faces of cut and fill
slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion. The
protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable and
prior to calling for final approval. Where cut slopes are not subject to
erosion due to the erosion - resistant character of the materials, such
protection may be omitted.
Section 7013 (b). OTHER DEVICES. Where necessary, check dams,
cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods shall be employed to control
erosion and provide safety.
Section 7013 (c). PLANTING. The surface of all cut and fill
slopes more than five feet in beighL shall be protected against damage by
erosion by planting with approved grass or ground cover plants. Slopes
exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs
and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the grass or ground cover
plants. The plants selected and planting methods used shall be suitable
for the soil and climatic conditions of the site.
EXCEPTIONS:
I. Planting need not be provided for cut slopes, rocky in
character and not subject to damage by erosion, when
approved by the Building Official.
19 2. Slopes may be protected against erasion damage by other
methods when such methods have been specifically recommended
by a soils engineer, engineering geologist, or equivalent
and found to offer erasion protection equal to that provided
by the planting specified in this Section.
I15
Ordinance No.
Page 18
Section 7013 (d). IRRIGATION. Slopes required to be planted shall
be provided with an approved system of irrigation designed to cover all portions •
of the slope, and plans therefore shall be submitted and approved prior to
installation. A functional test of the system may be required. The requirements
for permanent irrigation systems may be modified upon specific recommendation
of a landscape architect or equivalent authority that because of the type of
plants selected, the planting methods used and the soil and climatic conditions
at the site, such irrigation system will not be necessary for the maintenance
of the slope planting.
Section 7013 (e). RELEASE OF BOND. The planting and irrigation
systems required by this Section shall be installed as soon as practical after
rough grading. Prior to final approval of grading and before the release of
the grading bond, the planting shall be well established and growing on the
slopes.
SECTION 5
The Uniform Housing Code is amended as follows:
A. Section 203 of said Uniform Housing Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 203. BOARD OF APPEALS. In order to provide for final
interpretation of the provisions of this Code and to hear appeals provided for
hereunder, there is hereby established a Board of Appeals consisting of five
(5) members, said memebers to be memebers of the City Council or persons other
than employees of the City, appointed by the City Council and who shall serve •
at its pleasure.
The Building Official shall be an ex- officio member of and shall act
as Secretary to said Board.
The Board may adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting
its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the
Building Official with a duplicate copy to the appellant. Appeals to the Board
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Code.
B. Section 204 of said Uniform Housing Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 204. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation
to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or
demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or cause or
permit the same to be done in violation of this code.. Any person, firm, or
corporation violating any of the provisions of this Code shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense
for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of
the provisions of this Code is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon
conviction of anv such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of
not more than $500.00 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
C. Section 1501 of said Uniform Housing Code is amended to read as •
F(Ilows:
Ordinance No.
Page 19
Section 1501 (a). PROCEDURE. When any work of repair or
• demoliton is to be done pursuant to Section 1401 (c) 3 of this code, the
Building Official shall cause the work to be accomplished by city personnel
or by private contract under the direction of the Building Official. Plans
and specifications therefore may be prepared by the Building Official, or
he may employ such architectural and engineering assistance on a contract
basis as he may deem reasonably necessary.
Section 1501 (b). COSTS. The cost of such work may be made a
special assessment against the property involved, or may be made a personal
obligation of the property owner, whichever the legislative body of this
,jurisdiction shall determine is appropriate.
SECTION 6
The Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended
as follows:
A. Section 203 of said Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
is amended to read as follows:
Section 203. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation
to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert
or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or unsafe
grading site or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this
code. Any person, firm, or corporation violating anv of the provisions of
• this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and each such person shall be
deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof
during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Code is committed,
continued, or permitted, and upon conviction of anv such violation such person
shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by imprisonment
for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
B. Section 205 of said Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
Section 205. BOARD OF APPEALS. In order to provide for final
interpretation of the provisions of this Code and to hear appeals provided for
hereunder, there is hereby established a Board of Appeals consisting of five
(5) members, said members to be memebers of the City Council or persons
other than employees of the City, appointed by the City Council and who shall
serve at tis pleasure.
The Building Official shall be an ex- officio member of and shall
act as Secretary to said Board.
The Board may adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting
its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the
Building Official with duplicate copy to the appellant.
Appeals to the Board shall be processed in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 501 of this Code.
C, The Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended by
adding sections 206 and 207 to read as follows:
117
Ordinance No.
Page 20
Section 206. In addition to the procedures provided for abatement
of dangerous buildings as set forth in Chapter 4 of this Code, the Building •
Official is hereby given summary power to secure from entry any structure
or premises which in his discretion he determines to be immediately
dangerous, or immediately hazardous or in other manner injurious to public
health or safety. Such structures may be secured by the Building Official
by nailing of boards over the doors and windows of such structure, however,
he shall not be limited to only this method and may use other methods at
his discretion to accomplish the same purpose which may be more appropriate
under the circumstances. The Building Official shall also post a sign
stating in effect 'DANGEROUS BUILDING, DO NOT ENTER ": or other appropriate
sign upon the structure or premises in at least one conspicuous place.
The Building Official shall immediately upon such action send notice to
the owners of the real property upon which the structure or condition is
located, as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls. Such notice
shall contain the following information:
1. That he has secured the structure or corrected the
hazardous conditions.
2. The cost incurred by the City thereby.
3. That he has posted signs as provided by this section.
4. The reasons why he has taken the action.
5. That an appeal may be made within ten (10) days to the •
City Council, as provided in this Section.
6. That if his action is not annulled by the City Council, the
cost of securing the property shall become a lien upon the
real property, unless the cost is paid to the City within
thirty (30) days of the mailing of the notice. If any
owner of property, or any person having any interest in
property affected by the action of the Building Official in
securing a structure or abating a hazardous condition as
permitted by this section, is aggrieved by the action of the
Building Official in securing the structure, such person
or persons may appeal the action of the Building Official by
filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within
ten (10) days after receipt of notice of the action by the
Building Official. The notice of appeal must be verified
under oath or under penalty of perjury and must state the
grounds upon which the action of the Building Official is
appealed. The City Council shall., upon receiving such
notice of appeal, hear any evidence or other relevant
matters presented by the appellant or the Building Official
at its next regular meeting after the filing of the notice
of appeal, provided however, if the notice of appeal is
filed less than ten days prior to the day of a regular
meeting of the City Council, the hearing shall not be
held at the first regular meeting, but at the following
regular meeting. After hearing all evidence and other •
relevant matters presented at said hearing or without
hearing if no appeal Is made upon the report of the
Building Official, the City Council may then confirm, amend,
or annul the action of the Building Official. If the action
of the Building Official is annulled, the City at its own
•
Ordinance No.
Page 21
expense shall remove any and all instruments used to
secure said structure, and shall remove any and all signs
stating that the building is unsafe to enter. If, however,
the City Council confirms the action of the Building Official
in securing the structure at the hearing on appeal, or if
no appeal is taken at any other regular meeting, or
adjourned meeting then the cost incurred by the City in
securing the structure shall become a lien against the
property, and a resolution of the City Council confirming
the action of the Building Official, including the
imposition of a lien upon the property upon which the
structure is located to pay for the cost of securing it,
may be adopted upon receipt of a report from the Building
Official. Such resolution may be filed with the San
Bernardino County Tax Assessor, and the lien imposed thereby
may be collected for the City by him, along with the next
annual tax levy and assessment on said property.
Section 207. The same procedure, as provided in Section 206 of this
Code for abating through securing from entry any structure which is determined
by the Building Official to be immediately dangerous or immediately hazardous
may also be used by the Building Official in connection with the summary
abatement of all other dangerous or hazardous condition upon private property
which the Building Official determines, at his discretion, as constituting
an immediately dangerous or hazardous condition. The Building Official may
• then summarily abate such nuisance, at his discretion, in the most appropriate
manner under the circumstances, which may include, but shall not be limited
to the following methods: fencing, draining water from swimming pools and
filling with appropriate ballast, removing fire hazards, filling or covering
open holes and grading or strengthening land fills or excavations. Although
the manner and methos used by the Building Official shall be at his discretion,
he shall, in making his determinations, seek the most economical method and
endeavor not to place an undue economical hardship upon the owner of the
property, and only use those measures which will eliminate the dangerous and
hazardous features.
Section 801 of said Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
Section 801. PROCEDURE. When any work of repair or demolition is
to he done pursuant to Section 701 (c) 3 of this Code, the Building Official
shall issue the order therefore and the work shall be accomplished by City
personnel or by private contract under the direction of the Building
Official, or he may employ such architectural and engineering assistance
on a contract basis as he may deem reasonably necessary. If any part of
the work is to be accomplished by private contract, standard public works
contractural procedures shall be followed.
Said Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended
by deleting Section 802 in its entirety.
F. Section 901 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
Il,' /;..
H.
I.
Ordinance No.
Page 22
Section 901. The Building Official shall keep an itemized
account of the expense incurred by the City in the repair or demolition
of any building done pursuant to the provisions of Section 701 (c) 3 of
this Code. Upon the completion of the work of repair or demolition,
said Building Official shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a
report specifying the work done, the itemized and total cost of the
work, a description of the real property upon which the building or
structure is or was located, and the names and addresses of the persons
entitled to notice pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 401.
Section 902 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows;
Section 902. Upon receipt of said report, the City Clerk shall
present it to the City Council for consideration. The City Council shall
fix a time, date and place for hearing such report, and any protests or
objections thereto. The City Clerk shall cause notice of said hearing
to be posted upon the property involved, posted as directed by the
City Council so as to give proper public notice, and served by certified
mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the property as his
name and address appears on the last equalized assessment roll of the
county, if such so appears, or as known to the Clerk. Such notice shall
be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date set for hearing and
shall specify the day, hour, and place when the Council will hear and
pass upon the Building Official's report, together with any objections
or protests which may he filed as hereinafter provided by any person
interested in or affected by the proposed charge.
Section 903 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
Section 903. Any person interested in or affected by the
proposed charge may file written protests or objections with the City
Clerk at any time prior to the time set for the hearing on the report
of the Building Official. Each such protest or objection must contain
a description of the property in which the signer thereof is interested and
the grounds of such protest or objection the date it was received by him.
He shall present such protests or objections to the City Council at the time
set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections shall be considered.
Section 904 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
Section 905. Upon the day
City Council shall hear and pass upo
together with any such objections or
revision, correction or modification
may deem just; and when the Council
and hour fixed for the hearing the
the report of the Building Official
protests. The Council may make such
in the report or the charge as it
s satisfied with the correctness of
the charge, the report (as submitted or as revised, corrected or modified)
together with the charge shall be confirmed or rejected. The decision of
the City Council on the report and the charge, and on all protests or
objections, shall be final and conclusive.
M40
0
•
Ordinance No.
Page 23
SECTION 7:
The Uniform Building Security Code is amended as follows:
A. Section 4101 of said Uniform Building Security Code is amended to
read as follows:
Section 4101. The purpose of this code is to establish minimum
standards to make newly constructed dwelling units and additions to dwelling
units and private garages resistant to unlawful entry and to facilitate protection
of property.
B. Section 4102 of said Security Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 4102. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to openings
into dwelling units within apartment houses of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies
and Group R, Division 3 Occupancies and into private garages of Group M -1
Occupancies defined in the Uniform Building Code including openings between
attached garages and dwelling units.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. An opening in an exterior wall when all portions of such
openings are more than 12 feet vertically or 6 feet horizontally
from an accessible surface of any adjoining yard, court,
passageway, public way, walk, breezeway, patio, planter, porch
• or similar area.
2. An opening in an exterior wall when all portions of such openings
are more than 12 feet vertically or 6 feet horizontally from the
surface of any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread,
platform or similar structure or when any portion of such
surface is itself more than 12 feet above an accessible surface.
U
3. Openings where the smaller dimension is 6 inches or less,
provided that the closest edge of such openings is at least 40
inches from the locking device of the door or window assembly.
4. Openings protected by required fire door assemblies having a
fire endurance rating of not less than 45 minutes.
C. Section 4105 of said Uniform Building Security Code is amended to
read as follows:
Section 4105. All main or front entry doors to dwelling units shall
be arranged so that the occupant has a view of the area immediately outside the
door without opening the door. Except as provided in Section 3304 (h) of the
Uniform Building Code, such view may be provided by a door viewer having a
field of view of not less than 180 degrees, through windows or through view
ports,
IC(
Ordinance No.
Page 24
D. Section 4016 of said Uniform Building Security Code is amended to
read as follows:
Section 4106 (a). Swinging pedestrian doors and their hardware
regulated by this chapter shall comply with UBC Standard No. 41 -1, Part I or
equivalent standard. Doors and hardware shall be installed as tested.
EXCEPTIONS: Doors fabricated and installed as set forth in Subsections
(b) through (i) below.
Section 4106 (b). DOOR CONSTRUCTION. Such doors shall be of solid
construction with a minimum thickness of one and three - quarters inches (1 3/4 ")
except for recessed panels which may be not less than nine - sixteenths inches
(4/16 ") thickness.
Section 4106 (c). LOCKING DEVICES. Such doors shall be equipped
with a double or single cylinder deadbolt lock. The bolt shall have a minimum
projection of one inch (1 ") and be constructed so as to repel cutting tool
attack. The deadbolt shall have an embedment of at least three- fourths inch
(3/4 ") into the strike receiving the projected bolt. The cylinder shall have a
cylinder guard, a minimum of five (5) pin tumblers, and shall be connected to
the inner portion of the back by connecting screws of at least one - fourth inch
(Y') in diameter. A dual locking mechanism constructed so that both deadbolt
and latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob, or
lever, may be substituted provided it meets all other specifications for locking
devices.
Section 4106 (d). INACTIVE LEAVES. Inactive leaves of double doors
shall be equipped with metal flush bolts at top and bottom having a minimum
cross - sectional dimension of one -half inch (s') and a minimum embedment of
five - eights inches (5 /8") into the head and threshold of the frame.
Section 4106 (e). BLOCKING. In wood framing, horizontal blocking
shall he placed between studs at door lock height for three (3) stud spaces
each side of the door openings. Any spaces between jambs and trimmers and
adjoining studs shall be shimmed solid.
Section 4106 (f). STOPS. Door stops of wooden jambs for inswinging
doors shall be of one piece construction with the jamb. Jambs for all doors
shall be constructed or protected so as to prevent violation of the strike.
Section 4106 (g). GLAZING. Glazing in exterior doors within forty
(40) inches of any locking mechanism shall be of fully tempered glass or burglary
resistant glazing, except when double cylinder deadbolt locks are installed.
Section 4106 (h). STRIKE. PLATE INSTALLATION. In wood frame con-
struction any open space between trimmers and wood door jambs shall be solid
shimmed by a single piece extending not less than 6 inches above and below the
strike plate. Strike plates shall be attached to wood with not less than two
No. 8 x 2" screws.
All strike plates of doors in pairs shall be installed as tested.
•
Ordinance No.
Page 25
Section 4106 (1). HINGES. Hinges which are exposed to the
exterior shall be equipped with nonremovable hinge pins or a mechanical
interlock to preclude removal of the door from the exterior by removing
the hinge pins.
E. Section 4107 of said Uniform Building Standard Code is amended
to read as follows:
Section 4107. SLIDING DOORS. Section 4107 Sliding Door assemblies
regulated by this chapter shall comply with UBC Standard 41 -1, Part II or
equivalent standard.
F. Section 4108 of said Uniform Building Standard Code is amended to
read as follows:
Section 4108. WINDOW'S. Window assemblies which are designed to
be openable and which are regulated by this Chapter shall comply with UBC
Standard 41 -2 unless such windows are protected by approved metal bars,
screens or grilles.
G. Section 4109 of said Uniform Building Security Code is amended
to read as follows:
Section 4109 (a). GARAGE VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS. Rolling overhead,
solid overhead, swinging /sliding or accordian doors provided for vehicular
access to private garages shall be constructed and installed as set forth
in this section.
Section 4109 (b). Such doors shall be provided with an exterior
covering of one of the following:
1. Exterior grade plywood not less than five- sixteenths inches
(5/16 ") in thickness.
2. Aluminum not less than four- hundredths inches (.04 ") in
thickness.
3. Steel not less than three - hundredths inches (.03 ") in
thickness.
4. Fiberglass having a density of not less than five ounces
(5 oz.) per square foot.
5. Wood siding not less than nine- sixteenths inches (9/16")
in thickness.
Section 4109 (e). LOCKING DEVICES. All locking devices utilizing
a cylinder lock shall have a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation with the
locking bar or bolt extending into Cho receiving, guide a minimum of one
inch (1 "). Slide halt type locking assemblies shall have a bolt diameter of
not less than three - eighths inch (3/8 "). Slide bolts shall penetrate the
receiving guide not loss than one and one -half inches (1!i ") and shall be
attachod with throe (3) bol LS that are not removable from the outside.
Rivets shall not be used to attach slide bolt assemblies.
vz
Ordinance No.
Page 26
Doors exceeding sexteen feet (16') in width shall be provided with opposite,
centrally located locking points, either at each side or at top and bottom of
the door.
EXCEPTIONS:
1, For doors nineteen feet (19') or less in width, a single locking
point may be used if centrally located at the floor or top of
the door.
2. Doors provided with torsion spring counter - balance type hardware.
Section 4109 (d). FRAMES. Frames for garage vehicle- access doors
shall be constructed of one of the following:
1. Aluminum not less than twelve- hundredths inches (.12 ") in
thickness.
2. Steel not less than six - hundredths inches (.06 ") in thickness.
3. Wood not less than one and one -half inches (1Y ") in thickness.
H. Said Uniform Building Security Code is amended by adding Sections
4110 through 4115 to read as follows:
Section 4110. COMPLEX DIAGRAM. There shall be positioned at each
entrance of a multiple family development, an illuminated diagrammatic repre-
sentation of the complex which shows the location of the viewer and the unit
designations and locations within the complex.
Section 4111. LIGHTING. Lighting in multiple family dwellings shall
be as follows:
the building complex shall be illuminated with an intensity of at least twenty -
five one - hundredths (.25) £ootcandles at the ground level during the hours of
darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant covers.
2. Open parking lots and car ports shall be provided with a minimum
of one (1) footcandle of light on the parking surface during the hours of
darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant covers.
Section 4112. KEYING. Upon occupancy, each dwelling unit in a
subdivision or multiple family development shall have locks using keys that are
not interchangeable with any other dwelling unit in the subdivision or multiple
family development.
Section 4113. DEFINITIONS.
1. "Burglary Resistant Glazing" means those materials as defined in
Underwriters Laboratory Bulletin 972.
0
Ordinance No,
Page 27
2. "Double Cylinder Deadbolt" means a deadbnit lock which can
be activated only by a key on both the interior and the
exterior.
3. "Door Stop" means that projection along the top and sides
of a door jamb which checks the door's swinging action.
4. "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed
exclusively for residential occupancy, including single
family dwellings.
5. "Flushbolt" is a manual, key or turn operated metal bolt
normally used on inactive door(s) and is attached to the
top and bottom of the door and engages in the head and
threshold of the frame.
6. "Single Cylinder Deadbolt" means a deadbnit lock which is
activated from the or.tside by a key and from the inside
by a knob, thumb —turn, lever, or similar mechanism.
Section 4114. ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS. The provisions of
this chapter are not intended to prevent the use of any material, device,
hardware or method not specifically prescribed in this chapter, when such
alternate provides equivalent security and is approved by the Building
Official.
• Section 6115. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for
any person, firm, or corporation to construct, erect, enlarge or alter any
building or permit the same to be done contrary to, or in violation of,
anv of the provision of this Code. Any person, firm, or corporation
violating any of the provisions of this Code shall be deemed guilty of
a misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate
offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any
violation of the. provisions of this Code is committed, continued or
permitted, and upon conviction of such violation, such person shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than 5500.00 or by imprisonment for not
more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
SECTION 8:
The Uniform Sign Code is amended as follows:
A. Section 103 (d) of said Uniform Sign Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 103 (d). VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful
for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip or use or
maintain nnv sign or sign structure in the CLty or cause or permit the
same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of
this Cad,,. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this Code shall be gullty of a misdemeanor and each such person shall
he doomed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion
thorr•of during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Code
is c.r,aimitted, continued, or permitted; and , upon conviction of any such
violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than
as
Ordinance No.
Page 28
$500.00 or by imprisonment of not more than six months at by both
such fine and imprisonment.
B. Section 303 of said Uniform Sign Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 303. The following work shall not require a sign
permit, however, these exemptions shall not be construed as relieving
the owner of the sign from the responsibility for ite erection and
maintenance, compliance with the provisions of this Code, the
Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance, or any other law or ordinance
regulating the same.
1. The changing of the advertising copy or message on a
painted or printed sign.
2. Painting, repainting or cleaning of an advertising
structure provided no structural change is made.
3. Signs less than 6 feet above grade that are not
electrically lighted.
4. Changing of theater marquees and simi liar signs specifically
designed for the use of replaceable copy.
Any permit issued for erection of a sign in violation of
this Code nr other ordinance is automatically void and shall be •
cancelled by the Building Official.
C. Said Uniform Sign Code is amended by deletion of Chapters
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
SECTION 9:
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5 and
17958.7 a city may make such modifications in the requirements of
the regulations adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
17922 as it determines to be reasonably necessary because of local
conditions, and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
determines that the modifications set forth herein are in fact
reasonably necessary because of local conditions as set forth more
fully below:
a. It is reasonably necessary, because of local conditions,
to modify and supplement Chapters 2 and 3 of the
Uniform Building Code, Chapters 2 and 15 of the
Uniform Rousing Code, 1979 Editions, dealing with
administration and enforcement, in order to provide
for efficient and orderly operation of the Building
and Safety Division.
b. It is reasonably necessary, because of local conditions,
to modify Sections 420, 1101, and add Section 1107 •
to Chapter 11 of the Uniform Building Code, 1979
Edition, in order to provide regulation and protection
from life hazard in and around swimming pools and
other man -made bodies of water,
aG -
Ordinance No.
Page 29
C. It is reasonably necessary, because of local conditions,
. to modify Sections 1105 and 2907 (b) of the Uniform
Building Code, 1979 Edition, dealing with floors, in
order to reduce deterioration in certain buildings.
d. It is reasonably necessary, because of local conditions,
to adopt Chapter 16 and modify Sections 1704 and
3708 of the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, in
order to reduce fire hazards in high fire hazard
areas and reduce the spread of roof fires in buildings.
e. It is reasonably necessary, due to local geological
conditions, to modify chapter 70 of the Appendix of
the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, to reduce
erosion and provide protection against development
of hazardous grading conditions.
Each and every modification of said Code as adopted by
this City Council has been necessitated bacause the provisions of
the published Code are inadequate to provide for protection of
health, safety and welfare of the general public and efficient,
orderly administration of the Building and Safety Division.
The above listed expressed findings shall be made available
as a public record and a copy with the modifications thereof, shall
be kept on file with the Building and Safety Division.
• SECTION 10:
1'he City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this w." -
ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by'I
law. The City Clerk shall also file a certified copy of this
ordinance with the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1980 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
40 Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
•
2
CITY OF RANUiO Cl✓r1\N;,G:CA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Rogan, City Planner
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 80 -02 - INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL, PUD, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRA-
TIVE SECTIONS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ZONING OROINANCE
AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ABSTRACT: At the November 19, 1980 City Council meeting, second reading
of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 80 -02 was heard and continued to
the December 3, 1980 meeting in order to allow staff an opportunity to
clarify some additional points raised at that meeting. Specifically, the
issues raised were:
Concern with density bonuses in the planned development section
Concern with the development of private streets in the planned
development section
Concern with artificial time frames in the appeal process under
Development Review
Concern with the appeal process under Conditional Use Permits,
Variances, and Zone Changes
DISCUSSION: At the November 19, 1980 meeting of the City Council there
was considerable discussion on the planned development conbining districts.
So much discussion in fact, that we feel the City would be better served
at this point in time to send the planned development district back to the
Planning Commission for a re- review prior to adopting a new planned deve-
lopment district. It should be noted, however, that until such time as
the City approves a new planned development district, we will be operating
under the existing County planned unit development district as adopted by
Ordinance 17.
Particular concern was expressed over the time frames involved in the ap-
peals of decisions under Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance,
and Zone Changes. The City Council may recall that back in March of 1978,
Ordinance No. 19 was adopted requiring Director Review for all developments
within the City. Director Review by the nature of the title, is review
and approval of projects by the Director. The County Code lists certain
cases where projects of particular significance may be passed on to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval. The Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission, developed a policy for approval of Director Review
applications. The stated policy by the Planning Commission is in essence
as follows:
"All projects submitted for development on Foothill Boulevard
shall require Commission review and approval. All new develop-
ment projects which propose land use types not previously reviewed
by the Planning Commission, shall be required to have Planning
Commission approval. Additionally, all projects of major sig-
December 3, 1980
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 80 -02
Page Two •
nificance for the community shall be approved by the Planning Commission."
For the Council's information, we have provided a copy of a memorandum dated
August 7, 1980 from the Director of Community Development. Included in the
memorandum is a monthly status report listing the activities to date from
the time of staff's arrival on the scene, to July 1980. As you can see
from a review of the packet, there are considerable applications under Di-
rector Review listed "DR" that have been reviewed by the staff and the Plan-
ning Commission. It has been suggested that the appeal process under Deve-
lopment Review on page 27 of the Ordinance is cumbersome. In the two and
one -half years since we have been staff to the City, there have been no
appeals of the decision of the Director or of the decision of the Planning
Commission on Director Reviews. We feel that the process works well now
and will continue to work well in the future.
Conditional Use Permits and Variances require only Planning Commission ap-
proval. Conditional Use Permits, as we have outlined it in the ordinance,
will be required for all items currently required to have "Site Approval"
or a Location and Development Plan, to use the terms of the San Bernardino
County Code. Appeal of the decisions of the Planning Commission on Con-
ditional Use Permits or Variances would go directly to the City Council,
Regarding Zone Changes and their approval, they are required to have approval
by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The ordinance suggests •
on page 38, the last item No. 6, "Appeal to City Council ", that the appli-
cant may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission involving an appli-
cation for a change of zone boundaries within 14 calendar days ". There may
be some confusion as to why the applicant would have to appeal the decision
of the Planning Commission when the district requires the City Council to
approve all zone changes. Please refer to page 39, No. 7, Action by the
City Council. Third line, from the top of the page indicates "provided
that no hearing shall be held on a proposed rezoning or change which has
been recommended for denial by the Planning Commission unless an appeal is
filed by the applicant or any other person as prescribed in Sections 61.0222 ".
In other words, if the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
that an application for a zone change should be denied, the application will
not proceed on to the City Council unless appealed by the applicant or other
interested party.
In reviewing the Interim Zoning Ordinance further, we find that through re-
typing of the document, the R -3 District does not have an "Accessory Uses
Section ". As a correction, please insert the attached page 7 with the
additional section on Accessory Uses Permitted.
With the clarifications indicated in this memorandum and attachments, we
feel that all questions have been answered that were raised previously.
In summary, we would suggest: One, refer the Planned Development District
back to the Planning Commission for their consideration with specific re-
ference to the use of Planned Development District in the R -1 -1 and R- 20,000
zoning districts. Two, add the new page 7 to the Zoning Ordinance. •
) �q
December 3, 1980
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 80 -02
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Interim Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 80 -02 with the modifications and clarifications as indicated
above.
Attach.
`J
10
130
R -3 District
Page 7 (NEW)
bl. UZ4L
61.024E R -3 DISTRICT
• The following regulations shall apply in R -3 Multiple - family Residence
Districts:
(a) GENERAL USES PERMITTED:
(1) Uses permitted in the R -1 District as listed in subsections
61.024A(a)(4,5).
(2) Multiple dwellings of a permanent nature on each lot for
sale or rent.
(3) Boarding and lodging house.
(4) Public and private uses as follows shall be permitted if
a conditional use permit is approved as provided in Section 61.0219(o).
(A) Colleges and universities.
(B) Private schools.
(C) Fraternity and sorority houses, lodges and private
clubs except those whose chief activity is a service customarily carried
on as a business.
(0) Churches, excluding rescue missions or temporary
revival.
(E) Philanthropic and charitable institutions.
(F) Mobilehome parks on parcels of ten (10) acres or
more with a maximum density of eight (8) units per acre. The Planning
Commission in approving a conditional use permit shall designate such
lawful conditions in connection therewith as will require that the
mobilehome park be compatible with the adjacent low- density residential
• uses. These conditions may include, but not be limited to:
(1) The provisions of comparable street setbacks
to those existing on adjacent residential properties.
(II) Provide for the completion of stubbed -off
streets from adjacent residential subdivision.
(III) Provide for the diversion of mobilehome park
drainage away from the adjacent residential developments.
(IV) Provide for the diversion of mobilehome park
automobile traffic away from adjacent residential developments.
(V) And such conditions as will make possible the
development of the neighborhood in an orderly and efficient manner and
in conformity with the intent and purpose set forth in this section.
(b) ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED:
(1) Those uses permitted pursuant to Section 61.024D(6).
(c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: See Section 61.0219(b).
(d) LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS: Loading space to be provided in
accordance with Section 61.OZ19(b).
(e) HEIGHT LiMITATt ONS: Building or structures and the enlargement
of any buildings or structures shall be hereafter erected or maintained
not to exceed three and one -half (3 -1,) stories or forty -five (45) feet
in height. However in no case, shall the height of said structures or
buildings exceed twenty (20) feet or two (2) stories within one - hundred
(100) feet of a single - family (R -1) zone or a special boulevard as
designated on the adopted Land Use Plan Map for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
131
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August '7, 1980
TO: City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Attached is a copy of the new Monthly Status Report for your information
and review. The Monthly Status Report will be published by the Planning
Division at the end of each month to provide the Council, Commission and
General Public with an up -to -date Status Report on projects currently on
file with the Community Development Department. The Report is divided
into sections for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Projects. A brief description of the project, the submittal and approval
dates and the status of building permit issuance and completion of the
project is listed.
Because this is the first Monthly Status Report that has been published,
it includes all projects filed since incorporation. Each month hereafter,
all projects that have received final by the Building Division will be
removed from the list to create a Monthly Status Report of current projects
only.
Respect i ely suAbmi ted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:DC:cd
Attachment
•
13oZ
C i�C�{ I.SYJ
Yl)WK� a
F � Z
V D
U77
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MONTHLY S'IYVFUS REPORT
COtNIMUNITY DEVEL.OlAlIEN "r DDARI -MENT
Page 1 of 10
JULY 1980
RESIDENTIAL
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION
SUBMITTAL
DATE
APPROVAL
DATE
BLDG.
PERMIT
ISSUANCE
PROJECT
SA78 -01
James & Virginia Mc Hann
Equestrian Boarding fac.
5394 Hermosa
8/31/78
10/11/78
%
R
SA79-15
Brad Downey
asa oane of em P.
8651 Foothill
6/4/79
DR80 -17
Arnold Anderson
Mobilehome Park
EIS Vine and S Foothill
12/Z6/79
DR79 -01
Lewis
Sunscape Apts Ph II 248 u.
NIS 19th W Ber 1
1/2/79
2 14 79
X
DR79 -05
Ken Ketner
Apartment - 138 units
E/S Archibald,N /Base Line
1/11/79
3/14/79
DR79 -06
Vanguard Builders
Apartment - 200 units
MIS Archibald, E /19th.
8/29/78
2/14/79
79 -16
Alta Lana Properties
Apartments - 184 uni s
S/S 19th, E /Amethyst
2/13/79
erne
7/25/79
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
DR79 -57
Bob Jensen
Condominiums - 42 units
NEC Victoria & Archibald
9/7/79
10 24 79
lift
MW MW MW
i
r
1977
CITY OF RANCI IO WCANIONCA
COMMUNITY DINELOPMENT DLIM TNIENT
Page 2 of 116
JULY 1980
COhIMERC I AL
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
DATE
APPROVAL
DATE
PERMIT
PROJECT
PTHAI rn
Shopping Center - Alph Betc
SA86 -87
T & 5 Development
SEC 19th & Carnelian
8/9 77
8/l/78
hlobilehome Sales Office
SA92 -80
Robert Packer
WC Foothill & Hellman
5/16/78
7 26 78
I1
Shopping Center
GPA DENIED
SA78-04
Strand Companies
1016178
6/27179
' --
--
,A78-OS
Watanihp
Greenhouse
q210
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
Rufus Turner,
Office - 2700 sq. ft.
SA79-03
Foothill Fire i
662Z Amethyst
2
x
Receiving Site and Trailer
SA79 -09
Cable TV
8381 19th
3127/79
4 25 79
NA
Off & Sery Stn 16,150 sq.f.
9 -12
Barmakian -Wolff, Doug Hone
SEC Base Line & Hellman
5 18 79
7/11/79
x
Veterinary Hosp.2,000 sq.f.
A79 -14
Richard Hauser
SWC 19th & Carnelian ex.ble
5/23/79
6 13 79
NA
NA
Concn, Addition 5,200 sq. f.
SA79 -17
Dan Salter & Co.
9655 Base Line
9121179
10124179
x
ArEo Mini Market
SA79 -19
Atlantic Richfield
9533 Foothill
10/26/79
Office Trailer
SA79 -20
Ameron Inc.
12459 Arrow
11 9 79
11/28/79
MA
Chaffey Plaza /0ff.- Retail
SAGO -01
Doug Hone & Assoc.
SlJ Lemon&Haven 34.000 s.f.
12124/79
5 2 8D
GARO -n5
Mini Idarket Conv. 300 sq.f.
26R7 Rasa line
-----
Shopping Center 25,000 s.f.
QR78-01
Moore DeyplapmPnit
515 Foothill @ Klltsman
X
X
Prof. Office 3,100 sq. ft.
DR78 -OS
James Van Antwerp
NMC Amethyst & Base Line
B/4178
8/23/78
X
X
Rurqpr
Restaurant - 2,472 Sq.ft.
IStS Foothill E/VimpXard
1 R1117111
A/11/7A
Y
-L"-Ent
Office - 20,000 sq.ft.
VR78-
C CkiCAAJO11
o Uc�Q�' fl-
1977
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MONTI1LY 'NyvrUS Rl?1'011T
COMMUNITY DINUOI'rMENT DEI} IUNIENT
Page 3 of 10
JULY 1980
COMMERCIAL
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT .
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
MTF
PERMIT
IGSIIANCF
PROJECT
Greenhouse Add. 20,000 s.f
DR78- 8
Gerald Jay Howell
N/S Cottonwood EJOeryI
8/29 7
X29/78
Req. for waiver of Site
Masi & DeWitte
11747 Foothill Plan Review
8/30/78
10 25 78
NA
NA
Prof. Office
DR78 -25
Al Castro & Ron Geisseler
9820 Foothill
9/2/78
11/16/78
x
x
Service Station 1575 sq.ft
DR78 -30
Vlobil Oil Corp. J. Hernandez
9710 Arrow Route
9/15/78
10 1 78
Office - 55,000 sq. ft.
9301 Archibald
9122/78
30 11 78
X
Office - 16,550 sq. ft.
DR78 -34
Coral Investment
S S Base Line, W /Beryl
9/26/78
10 25 7B
X
Office - 3,504 sq. ft.
78 -44
Sierra Savings & Loan
8730 19th
10/10178
11/16/78
X
Raquetball C. 20,935 sq.f.
D 8 -53
J. David Osborn
S/S Foothill, WJRamona
11/7178
12/13/78
Office - 20,450 sq. ft.
DR78 -57
Hutner & Appel Architects
N/S Foothill, W /San Diego
11/30/78
2/28/79
Commercial 2,000 sq. ft.
W' R-
12401 F nthi 1
9/26/78
4/25/79
Jack -In- The -Box
0 n
SEC Arrow & Archibald
11/20/78
1123/79
x
x
Sunset P1z.Com. 12,000 s.f
Sunset Pools
SWC Foothill & Pomona
1/9/79
3 14 79
Comm. 17,704 sq.ft. office
SEC Baseline & Carn 64.620
8/13/79
3 4 79
x
Office - 11,910 sq. ft.
DR7 - 7
Schlosser Forge Co.
11711 Arrow Route
2/13/79
2 20/79
x
x
Office /Retail - 7,230 s.f.
DR79 -19
Vanir Research
NEC 19th & Amethyst
8/29/78
9/27/78
x
x
ice - 56 5<I. -fE—
DR79 -28
Vanir Research
NlWC 19th & Archibald
3/13/79
4/11/79
Prof. Office - 5,936 sq.f.
DR79 -40
al Investment
Base Line @ Beryl Am
5/13/79
7/2/79
x
�c,2,ol.trr>>�-. - Page 4 of
CITY or anNCI 10 WcnNIONCn
c �
COMMUNITY llLVGLUIN1GNT llL\tib'IENT
u r
JULY 1980
un
COMMERCIAL
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
PERMIT
PROJECT
SATE
- ISSUANCE --
t7A6E�-
Office - 1,440 sq.ft.
DR 79-42
Morgan
8008 Archibald
_U-4L 9—_
-
Add. to Radio Stn 1600 s.f
9th
6 /8170
19724_F _
Wendy's Hest. 2336 sq. ft.
DR79-49
Rancho Associates
N S Fo thill W snian
22
X
11,400 retail
Kentucky Fried Chicken -
DR79 -61
Carlson Design
drive -thru 7344 Carnelian
1014179
110111179
X
X
Med /Prof. off 42,000 sq.f.
DR79 -63
Francis More
SEC Grove & San Bernd.Rd.
10 /11 79
Withdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
Sierra Piz /Prof.off 37,500
9 -68
Lewis Properties
N/S Base Line W /Archibald
11/9/79
12/12/79
Addition -1800 sq. ft.
R -71
C & C Construction
8651 Madrone
12/10/79
12/14/79
Socorro's Rest. 4980 sq.f.
DR80 -01
Barmakian -Wolf
NWC Center & Foothill
1 /a /80
2/13/80
ervice n re s.
DR80 -05
John Issac's
NWC Base Line & East
1/25/80
3/12/80
e ai en er 5 s(f -q.t.
DRSO -01
harles Kalbach
SEC Arrow & Archibald
2/7/80
3/26/80
Office --6,048 sq. ft.
DR80 -08
wen Loftus
8137 Malachite
2/25/80
3 26 80
Shopping Center
)enied P.C.
CUP78 -01
lanir Research Co.
NWC 19th & Archibald
9/12/78
11 8/78
- - - - - -- _
- - - - - --
Shopping Center
enied P.C.
CUP78 -02
obinson- Jensen Development
SEC 19th & Archibald
9/15/78
11/8/78
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
Restaurant & Bar
CUP78 -03
oug None
6620 Carnelian
12/15/78
12127/78
%
X
Shopping Center
CUP79 -01
,Ell,0
N 5 Foothill E of Vine and
2118179
2113180
L10 �{'✓n'„Qhb Page 5 of 10
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
,, MONTHLY S'1 VfUS REPORT
Tj toCOMMUNITY llGVILOI',�1L'NT llL131RTN1L'N "P
JULY 1980
1977 INDUSTRIAL
q 14W
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
PER141T
PROJECT
8,300 sq.ft
SA 78-02
Reynolds Aluminum
9910 6th Street
9/1/78
10/19/78
X
X
Batch Plant 2,000 sq. ft.
SA79-08
Manning hers
SEC Haven & 6th
3/14/79
Withdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
Heliport
aA79-11
Oliver Helicopters
NWC Helms B 9th
5/4/79
Withdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
Industrial Medicine Center
SA79-13
Van uard Builders
9106 Archibald
5/25/79
6/27/79
Auto dismantling fac.3200
SA80 -02
I Josev Barkin
13195 Whittram Ave. sq.ft
2/28/80
4/9/80
Refuse tr equip. st9.
SA80 -04
Rancho Disposal
8908 Hyssop yd -ofc trailer
4/3/80
1
Rancho Cuc.1rd.Park
-02
Vanguard Builders
NWC 7th & Archibald sq.ft
8/2/78
8/30/78
X
X
QN8
DR78 -03
9th Street Development Co.
9181 9th Street
8/2/78
8/23/78
X
Ph I n us Lenfer
DR78 -06
Harry S. Rinker (Reiter)
SWC Arrow & Archibald
8/7/78
8/23/78
X
X
Industrial - 20,000 sq.ft.
DR78 -07
August H. Reiter
S/S Main, E /Hellman
8/7/78
8/23/78
X
X
,Lion - 3,800 sq.ft.
DR78 -14
George Loving
8613 Helms
8/21/78
9/23/78
X
X
264,300 sq. ft
-
Archibald. 5 16th Street
9/1/78
9/27/68
Storage - 2,700 sq.ft.
-
7209
9/13/78
10 25 78
_Lavton
30,000 sq. ft
_
DR7R-?F1
Pneudraulics Inc.
SEC Helms & Arrow
9/14/78
10/11/78
F.E. MacDonald-
18,000 sq. ft
DR78-29
L.V. Hof arden
9851 8th Street
9/12/78
10/11/78
X
X
u t- enan 2;9B+f sq, ff
-
OR78 -32
G.S.R. Development Co.
6760 Helms
8/28/78
10/11/78
X
X
Remodel & Addition
I
OR78 -33
ito-Lay
9535 Archibald
9/22/78
10/25/78
X
q 14W
0 UP
1977
Page 6 of
CITY OF RANCI IO I�1CAMONGA
X10N'1'111.Y .,,mv u,s 1t i' min'
COMMUNYIN UL'VD.011N1ENT llEhI MEN'I'
JULY 1980
INDUSTRIAL
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
PERMIT
PROJECT
0
OAT€
— I.SSUA41
L €D
19,200 sq. ft.
Fil i
NWC Peron & IpS1LL5iCj..,1L
17R
—�/2
14,400 sq. ft.
DR 78-37
Crowell/Leventhal
_
43,200 sq. ft.
DR78 -38
Albert W. Davis ISEC
9th & Helms
9/29/78
11/16 7
Expansion - 20,280 sq. ft.
lAmprnn
Steel & Wire
12459 Arrim Hwy,
10/2178
10/3178
X
Industrial Park
DR78 -52
Arthur A. Warren
E Vine and S 8th
11/6178
Withdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
60,000 sq. ft.
DR78 -55
Rancho Cucamonga Development
10040 -9D 4th Street
11/16/78
1/16/79
%
X
Scheu Ind.Park 72,960 sq.f
8 -60
Martin Jaska -
E/S Archibald, N /6th
12/21/78
1/16/79
X
Warehouse Add 10,080 sq.f.
V78-62
Calif. Finished Metals
9133 Center Avenue
12/12/78
12/15/78
X
X
Addition - 1 6 sq. ft.
DR79 -02
Ameron Steel
12459 Arrow
1/5/79
1/16/79
X
X
ion - q. M
DR79 -03
Tamco
12459 Arrow
1/5/79
1/16/79
X
X
T n
OR79 -11
Poly Plastics Co.
10220 4th Street
2/2179
2/8/79
X
Industrial Off. 4,000 sq.f
DR79 -18
F & B Trucking Line
6545 Pecan Ave.
2/13/79
5 23 79
Industrial Park 8,649 sq.f
DR79 -21
A. H. Reiter
NWC Onyx & Main
2/20/79
4 3 79
X
Industrial P. 17,767 sq.ft
DR79 -77
NEC & Main
20
22,800 sq. ft.
DR79 -25
Phillip Schlosser
11711 Arrow
3/5/79
3/6/79
X
X
Warehouse - 20,000 sq. ft.
OR79 -31
Mountain View Builders
8768 9th Street
4/3/79
8 13 79
X
Processing Fac. 69,000 s.f
DR79 -32
pluess -
Rochester between 6th & 8t1
4730/79
11719779
V ID
1977
CITY OF RANC110 CUCAMONGA
CO,NIIVIUNiTY L)L'VEL0H%,IENT DL'►AlYfNuNT
Page 7 of 10
JULY 1980
INDUSTRIAL
FILE N0.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
BLDG.
PERMIT
taiAVF
PROJECT
FINAI Fn
20,000 sq. ft.
DR79 -33
Suiley Trucking
8615 Pecan
4/3/79
5/25/79
5,740 sq. ft.
-
DR79 -39
_. H. Coggin
8975 Rochester
5/4/79
7 9 79
X
Industrial P. 92,249 sq.ft.
DR79- 41
Investments
1S 8th, W /Archibald
5121/79
6 27 79
Addition - 12,000 sq. ft.
DR79 -44
ason Products
9292 9th Street
6/7/79
7 17 79
x
x
Industrial P. 117,400 sq.f.
DR79 -45
iellman Industrial
14WC 7th 8 Hellman
6/8/79
8/8/79
Retension Basin
DR79 -46
0. California Edison
8996 Etiwanda
6/20/79
6/26/79
x
X
n us rig -sq-.T
DR79 -47
iugh Brooks Assoc.
N /Jersey between Monroe B
6/21/79
7/27/79
X
Utica
Warehouse - 12,300 sq. ft.
DR79 -51
Fanner Co.
12161 Arrow
7/20/79
8/8/79
n sq.
DR79 -52
John D. Lusk
I141C Haven 8 4th
7/19/79
10/31/79
Addition - 7,700 sq. ft.
DR79 -53
rito La Inc.
9535 Archibald
B/10/79
9/13/79
x
48,000 sq. ft.
DR79-54
integrated, Inc
8787 Hel man
8/14/79
4li thdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
30,000 sq. ft.
np7Q-;q
Data Design Labs
7925 Center
8 24 79
9/24/79
Truck Maintenance
DR79 -56
eVries Const.
N /ldhi tram, �da
8/24/79
9/20/79
X
x
Multi- tenant 71,100 sq.ft.
DR79 -58
Vanguard
N/S of 7th W /Archibald
9/10/79
11/15/79
Existing Bldg.
079-
G p
Nl7C 4th 8 Cleveland
X
X
-
Ph II -Cuc. Bus. 000 P. 80,
P12/12/;79
_
DR79 -60
H. Reiter ISIS
Arrow, W Archibald
10/3/79
Cho CUCnSlt7l�9
U >
1'977
CITY OF RANCHOWUCANIONGA
A,j0NrhL -ILY S°I uus Rii-,mi 1'
COMMUNITY llEVEI.OI'IML'NT DERUITNIL:NT
Page 8 0 f 6
JULY 1980
INDUSTRIAL
BLDG.
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATI01
SUBMITTAL
APPROVAL
PERMIT
TSSIIAHrF
PROJECT
FMAI Fn
Addition - 5,625 sq. ft.
DR79 -64
Ja ner - Insul
11899 8th Street
10/23/79
11/28/79
'rlarehouse - 80,000 sq. ft.
DR79 -65
Barkmakiar - Wolff
9375 Archibald
10/25/79
11/29/79
X
Addition - 3,710 Sq. ft.
DR79 -66
aska
NBC Haven & 7th
11/6/79
11/16/79
Master Plan Ind. Complx.
Addition - 50'x59' prefab
DR79 -7Z
Jiana Tool & Machine
11881 8th Street
12121/79
1/3/BO
10,000 sq. ft.
DR80 -02
hook Building Systems
NOW 7th & H sso
1/4180
2 13 80
%
5,000 sq. ft.
DR80 -D3
err Jones
8810 Etiwanda
1/24/80
44,625 sq. ft.
0 -04
eorge Robbins
W/S Hyssop, S /of 7th
1/25/80
4/l/80
4 Industrial bldgs. 80,000
DR80 -06
rnold Anderson
N/S 6th, W /Turner sq.ft.
1/25/80
3/26!80
1 ,00 sq. t.
DR80 -09
V. Hofgarden
9851 8th Street
2/26180
4/9/80
n us rTa ar
DRBO -10
toward Bucks
9th and Flower sq. £t.
3/7/80
4 /10/80
Concept Plan 292 ar..: nd.Pk.
Fo it
Hn
Arrow & RR
15 at. Ph I of R.C.Bus.Pk.
R-
aon r n
N S Arrow E Haven
3/12180
23 B
261,000 sq. ft.
lountain View Builder/
4 Ind. b7 9s 20,000 sq.ft.
DR80 -14
,uidera
E S Etiwanda S Arrow Hwy.
3/21/80
lountain View Builder/
7,500 sq.ft.
GRRD-I 5
'archesi
Arrow Route
3/21/80
� � VCA,�1plC
LZ' 9
F � l
un
CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCAMONGA
MONTHLY S IYVFUS R ,'To 1'
CONINIUNI TY DEVI- 110MIENT DEPARTibIENT
Page 9 of 10
JULY 1980
INDUSTRIAL
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTAL
DATF
APPROVAL
nATF
BLDG.
PERMIT
TCUTANrF
PROJECT
Meyer n stm nt
Ind.Pk. Ph 1 139,950 sq.ft
E/S Archibald, S /6th Stree
3121180
4 23 80
'
nRAO-20
John D. Lusk
Ph II Ind. Pk. 88,262 sq.f
FlWC Haven & 4th Streets
4/23180
DR80 -21
Hublein Inc.
Wine tank addition
12467 Base Line
5/1/80
5/2/80
X
Am
C� n�c
< n
1971
Page 10 0b0
CITY OF RANCIIAUCAAIONGA
1'IONl'I -11A, 511VITs R ETOM,
CONINIUNITY DEW1,01'INIENT DElMUNILNT
JULY 1980
INSTITUTIONAL
FILE NO.
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION
SUBMITTAL
DATE
APPROVAL
DATE
BLDG.
PERMIT
ISSUANCE
PROJECT
FINALED
SA78 -03
Eddie & Patricia Young
Preschool - extg structure
9817 Base Line
9/25/78
11/8/78
SA79 -01
Community Baptist
wrc rest ioo 8--
NtIC Beryl & 19th sq. ft.
1/9/79
2/14/79
X
SA79 -02
Bill Holley
ioT n s far .onn -. r= —
9161 Base Line 5,220 sq.f.
1/27/79
2/28/79
x
x
_
A
Preschool - 4,400 sq.ft.
6730 Hellman
1/23/79
DENIED
3 14 79
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
- 5
Bill W ckoff
Classroom Trailers - 3,500
9212 Base Line sq.ft
1/30/79
Withdrawn
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
SA79 -06
Rancho Cucamonga
Riding Ring - Heritage Pk.
1/22/79
2/28/79
SA79 -07
Brethren In Christ Church
Church -1,200 sq. fc.
9974 19th Street
2/20/79
3/28/79
x
F x
&9-10
Church of the Nazarene
Church & Educ'l. Bldg.
9900 Arro, 9,505 so. ft.
3/27/79
4 25 79
SA79 -16
Willows School
4- Temporary Classroom
8968 Archibald Trailers
7/20/79
8/10/79
x
NA
SASO -03
Billy Wyckoff
Preschool
9212 Base Line
3/5/80
5114/80
_
DR78 -I6
Billy Wyckoff
Preschool 3,500 sq. ft.
S/S San Bern.Rd.W /Archiball
8/25/78
8/25/78
x
x
R79 -38
G.S.R. Development
Extg Bldg. /Chaffey TrngCtr.
S/S 9th & Helms
4/23/79
6/13/79
x
x
DR 0 -19
Reed Lawrence/
Church Latter Day Sts.
Off. & classroom addition
9075 Base Line
4118180
4/23/80
•
a
crry or 1tn1\0 lu cl < nnx>�cn
S'F,, F R' LPOR
DATE: November 19, 1980 v
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -18 - R. J. INVESTMENTS - A request for a change
of zone from R -1 -T to R -3 on 5.5 acres of land located on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Baker Avenue - .APH 207-191 -49 &
48
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a change of zone from the present
designation of R -1 (single family residential) to R -3 (multiple family resi-
dential) for approximately 5.5 acres of land located south of Foothill Blvd,
and west of Baker Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The applicant intends to develop
the subject property as a multiple family residential project, Attached as
Exhibit "B ", "C ", and "D" are the proposed site plans, building elevations,
and site sections, respectively. Recently, the City C"•incil granted a
change of zone to P, -3 property directly to the north and east of the subject
property, Since the approval of that zone change, a residential project has
been submitted in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. That
project is a higher density project developed as a planned development.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 24, 1980, held a duly
advertised public hearing to consider the above request. Several residents,•
who live just west of the project site, voiced concern over the type of
development that would be permitted in the requested zone. In addition, the
citizens were concerned about traffic flow through the existing neighborhood,
The Commission responded that precise site plan and design review is required
for any development in that area which would respond to the concerns that
were raised. In fact, a preliminary site plan of the area, indicates that
the primary traffic flow of the development would not go through the neighbor-
hood. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 80 -49 recommending
approval of Zone Change No. 80 -18, which is attached for your review.
ANALYSIS; Exhibit "A" displays the present zoning of the subject property
and surrounding vicinity. As can be seen, the project site is already partially
zoned R -3 and property to the northeast is presently zoned R -3. The General
Plan indicates medium density residential at 5 -15 units per acre for the subject
site and property immediately to the south and east of the subject site,
From the west boundary of the subject site and continuing west, the General
Plan indicates low density residential at 2 -5 units per acre. The property
to the west and adjacent to the subject property is presently developed as
a single family residential project, Three streets presently stub into the
suhiect property. According to the proposed site plan one of these streets,
Via Carrillo, will be used as the primary access for the northern part of the
subject property. The other two streets are being proposed as emergency
143
City Council Staff Report
ZC 80 -18
Page 2
•
access only, with primary access being provided off of Baker Avenue, The
subject property is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the kinds of
uses and proposed uses permitted in the R -3 zone. In fact, the size and
shape of the subject property lends itself to better development as a
clustered -type development rather than a single family subdivision. The
property is large enough to provide the necessary landscape buffers and
building setbacks so that no adverse impacts will be created upon the existing
single family residences.
Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is
attached for your review and consideration. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts on
the environment as a result of this zone change and therefore, recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice has been advertised in the Daily
Report and approximately 50 notices were mailed to all property owners within
300 feet of the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt
the attached Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 80 -18 with issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Res pR ctfull submitted,
7J/ /
BARRY'KI kGA
Planner
- V
BKH:MV:cd
•
Attachments: Exhibit "A ", Location Map
Exhibit "B ", Site Plan
Exhibit "C ", Proposed building elevations
Exhibit "0 ", Proposed site sections
Part I, Initial Study
Planning Commission Resolution
Ordinance
•
S
FOOTHILL .'BLVD.
C -2 C -2
COM14 RC L5/ \
R_ I\
GP
J \P
v /h'G
I Fg4AI
R-1=
C /TRU5 GROVE
R,
\AY4"All\�,R -3 ` R'- 3 W
RIGARC'0 D �� Yact : ✓\ z I,_J
\ \�\ C /TRU5 i
\\ GROVE Q
,R -I -T \
~ -SUBJECT \�` n• >o� ✓,
PROPERTY \. PazK
FERNLE F DR \�\' R-3
\2o7-191-4 VACANT i
VACANT \ 207- /9/ -d9, Q
�� \ \ \- • ,• m�
- JI *1IF,—
h'CES i.,IL^r' A HMI
S/ /✓G[E f.. N1 /LY /
REu /OEr./C65
W I i-
O ITft� ZINC GHRNCaE 60'19
i}(µ161 A..
eo
NX,
CITY OF
RAINCI 10 CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION
.1; Li
W A7 Mo R Cl,, US
ji
M x"
"ITUY: FKolpcsF-t'> 5I7C- FLAN
FNI hIll I': __SCALE
•
0
•
0
Yl
�s C7
j i x m az
}
r � t
ari
o�
N
d�
o °>
roo
I
A mie
off
Nff
oil
.1
n�
a
u
Oi
0
E
$L
PP
9�
CITY OF
RANCI K) CUCANION A
PLANNING DIVISION
o?
m.
E
�a
0
J�m
v•
u
m
6633
SAP'
at[d y�
�isE�aa
P�
}
€1%
>_a se 3a
Ifis F
I�
SCAII!
N
s=
Nc t
ti
h
r
rrl:.�i:�oNC
_C.t_t.6NCaE �-Ig
TITIT: o�
�? _�Al`yAT16Ns
I�
SCAII!
n
I U)
LLI
i
W
O_
yS� to
r
i
I
N �
� gY
Oq
33
n
f�
o�
c a
L`)
iffq
L�
U
U
Z
O
F
N'A
F1
y
e
1
r
a
z
ny
L�
nI
d
i
I
3�
to
~11
�4
•
CITY O1' ITEM: CHANGE 4o-Is
RANCI K) CUM NG1 TITLE, PgoFoser, G -vA- Cf4sW
PLANNING DIVISION IAIIIBIT;; Z — yugl.G
• ORDINANCE NO. 125
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 207 - 191 -49 -4B FROM R -1 TO R -3 LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF
BAKER AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines
the following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public
hearing held in the time and manner pres-
cribed by law, recommends the rezoning of
the property hereinafter described, and
this City Council has held a public hear-
ing in the time and manner prescribed by
law as duly heard and considered said
recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant
environmental impact as provided in the
Negative Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
R -1 (single family residential) to R -3
multiple family residential).
Said property is located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of
Baker Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel Number 207 - 191- 49 -48.
SECTIO_'! 3: The hlaynr shall sign this Ordinance and the
City Clerk shall 'cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The 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 day of , 1980.
1
q�
0
�J
°10
CITY 01: RA\'CI10 Cl,'CANI(h \'GA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 19, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -19 - DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT - A zone change
request for 16 acres of land located on the northeast corner of
Base Line and Archibald Avenue from R -1 -5 (single family resi-
dential) to A -P (administrative - professional) and R -3 (multiple
family residential)- APN 201 - 181 -12, 21 d 22
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 16 acres of
land located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald from R -1 -5
(single family Residential on minimum 5 acre lots) to A -P (administrative
professional) and R -3 (multiple family residential). Exhibit "A" indicates
the location of the site and the configuration of the proposed zone change.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 1980, held a duly
advertised public hearing to consider the above request. The business
people in the Base Line Village Center supported such a change. Upon con-
clusion of-the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 80 -52, recommending approval of Zone Change No. 80 -19 to the City Council,
which is attached for your review.
ANALYSIS: The majority of the site is presently undeveloped containing '
only minimal improvements. The site contains an existing single family
dwelling and an abandon fruit tree orchard and chicken ranch. The project
site is presently General Planned as mixed use and zoned R -1 -5. Attached
as Exhibits "B" and "C" is a display of the General Plan designations and
zoning for the project site and surrounding areas. -The mixed use designation
on the General Plan permits the development of either office professional
uses or high density residential uses. To implement one of those two use
categories, the property would have to be zoned A -P for administrative uses
and R -3 for multiple family uses. Therefore, the request is delineated in
Exhibit "A ", is consistent with the Interim Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the types cf uses
permitted in the proposed zones. In addition, the types of permitted uses
in the proposed zones are compatible witn existing and proposed land uses in
the immediate area.
Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is
attached for your review. After review of the Initial Study, the Commission
foun,' no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and therefore
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
I0
City Council Staff Report
ZC 80 -19
Page 2
The applicant provided a conceptual site plan at the Planning Commission
meeting which indicated that the areas devoted for A -P and R -3 are adequate
in size and shape to accomodate development. The applicant intends to
develop several office buildings and a restaurant on the A -P section, The
R -3 portion is intended for a condominium project.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Daily Report newspaper
for a public hearing. In addition, approximately 18 public hearing notices
were mailed to surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the attached Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 80 -10 with issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ba rryK: Hogan
--Ci ty'Planner
BKH:MV:cd
Attachments: Exhibit "A ", Location Map
Exhibit "B ", General Plan
Exhibit "C ", Zoning Map
Part 1, Initial Study
Planning Commission resolution
Ordinance
151
•
0
L
J
n
LJ
ORDINANCE N0. 126
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 201- 181- 12 -21 -22 FROM R -1 -5 TO A -P
AND R -3 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BASE LINE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines
the following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public
hearing held in the time and manner
prescribed by law, recommends the re-
zoning of the property hereinafter
described, and this City Council has held
a public hearing in the time and manner
prescribed by law as duly heard and
considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant
environmental impact as provided in the
Negative Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
R -1 -5 (single family residential) to A -P
(administrative professional) and R -3
(multiple family residential).
Said property is located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald
Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel Number 201 - 181- 12-21 and 22.
SECTT ^,!1 3: The Mavor shall sign this Ordinance and the
City C1crE shell _a ,se the sale to be ou`lish = wi,hir fi °'<en (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Dail Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of nntarin, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980,
/5�
u
Ll
7
1977
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -20 - VANGUARD - A zone change from R -R to R -i
on 10.1 acres of land located north of Arrow Highway, east of
Archibald Avenue at the eastern terminus of Cerise and Placer
Streets - APN 208 - 311 -01
BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested a change of zone for approximately
0 aj cres of land located north of Arrow Highway at the eastern terminus of
Cerise and Placer Streets (Exhibit "A "). The subject property is presently
zoned R -R (rural residential) and the applicant has requested a change of
zone to R -1 (single family residential). Th_ applicant has requested a
change of zone for ultimate development of a single family residential pro-
ject. The project site presently consists of an existing citrus grove and
is vacant of any structures.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 1980, held a public
hearing to consider the above request. Upon completion of the hearing, the
Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 80 -53 which recommends approval
of Zone Change No. 80 -20 to the City Council.
ANALYSIS: Exhibits "B" and "C" indicate the adjacent land use and zoning
which is described as follows:
LAND USE ZONING
North Single Family Residential R -1
South Church R -R
East Hulti- Family Residential R -3
West Single Family Residential R -1
The Interim Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property as
low density residential (2 -5 units per acre). Surrounding General Plan
designations indicate low density residential to the west and north, medium
density residential to the east, and high density to the south. The project
site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the uses that would be
permitted within the proposed zone. In addition, the proposed zone change
is consistent with the General Plan and with existing and proposed land uses
in the immediate vicinity.
The Initial Study has been prepared for the environmental assessment of this
zone ..hange. Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as provided by the
applicant. After review of the Initial Study, the Commission has recommended
) f3
Cll'YOh R, %,\C1 K) CL:G%NXMA 0
0 CC'CA,14r)'lc
STAFF ituoiv M
M5:
C D
DATE: N
November 19, 1980
BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested a change of zone for approximately
0 aj cres of land located north of Arrow Highway at the eastern terminus of
Cerise and Placer Streets (Exhibit "A "). The subject property is presently
zoned R -R (rural residential) and the applicant has requested a change of
zone to R -1 (single family residential). Th_ applicant has requested a
change of zone for ultimate development of a single family residential pro-
ject. The project site presently consists of an existing citrus grove and
is vacant of any structures.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 1980, held a public
hearing to consider the above request. Upon completion of the hearing, the
Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 80 -53 which recommends approval
of Zone Change No. 80 -20 to the City Council.
ANALYSIS: Exhibits "B" and "C" indicate the adjacent land use and zoning
which is described as follows:
LAND USE ZONING
North Single Family Residential R -1
South Church R -R
East Hulti- Family Residential R -3
West Single Family Residential R -1
The Interim Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property as
low density residential (2 -5 units per acre). Surrounding General Plan
designations indicate low density residential to the west and north, medium
density residential to the east, and high density to the south. The project
site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the uses that would be
permitted within the proposed zone. In addition, the proposed zone change
is consistent with the General Plan and with existing and proposed land uses
in the immediate vicinity.
The Initial Study has been prepared for the environmental assessment of this
zone ..hange. Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as provided by the
applicant. After review of the Initial Study, the Commission has recommended
) f3
City Council Staff Report
November 19. 1980
ZC 90 -20
Page 2
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Daily
Report legal ad section on November 7, 1980. In addition, approximately
100 public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet
of the subject property. To date, no correspondence. has been raCEivad
either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
a opt— the attached Ordinance approving Zone Change no. 80 -20 with issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
Re,gC tful ly s /ubmitted,
//,/
birry�, Hogan �—
JSi ty�l annex
BKH:MV:cd
Attachments: Exhibit "A ", Location Map
Exhibit "B ", Land Use Map
Exhibit "C ", Zoning Map
Part I, Initial Study
Planning Commission Resolution
Ordinance
•
•
0
9
ORDINANCE NO. 127
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBED 208- 311 -01 FROM R -R TO R -1 LOCATED
ON THE NORTH /OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND EAST OF
ARCHIBALD AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines
the following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public
hearing held in the time and manner
prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning
of the property hereinafter described, and
this City Council has held a public hearing
in the time and manner prescribed by law
as duly heard and considered said recommenda-
tion.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant
environmental impact as provided in the
Negative Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
R -R (rural residential) to R -1 (Single family
residential).
Said property is located north of Arrow Highway and east of Archibald
Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel Number 208- 311 -01.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall cause the same to be. published within fifteen (15) days after
its passage at least once in The Dail 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 day of , 1980.
/5,
0
31
CITY OF RANCI-10 CUGMVIQ \GA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 19, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
ew of adult businesses in tie C -2 general business
ABSTRACT: On October 4, 1978, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 45
establishing interim zoning for adult businesses and declaring the urgency
thereof. Section 4 of the Ordinance specifically states that adult businesses
are prohibited uses in all zones of the City and it further states that "no
permit for an adult business shall hereinafter be issued and no such business
shall hereinafter be established in the City ". Essentially, Ordinance No. 45
put a moratorium on the location of adult businesses within the City. Ordi-
nance No. 45 was in effect for 120 days. Prior to the expiration of that
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 45A was adopted by the City Council extending Or-
dinance No. 45 to February 1, 1980. Prior to the expiration of Ordinance No.
45A, Ordinance 45B was adopted by the City Council extending Ordinance No. 45
until December 31, 1980. The purpose of the development of Ordinance No. 45
was to allow the City time to prepare an Ordinance to regulate the location
and control of adult businesses within the City. We have completed an Ordi-
nance doing just that. (See attached.)
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval tothe City Council
of the attached Ordinance at their October 22, 1980 meeting with some structural
modifications to Section 3 to add clarity.
DISCUSSION: The attached Ordinance allows for the establishment of adult
businesses within the C -2 zone under certain requirements. (See section 3
for those specific requirements). The Ordinance, rather than referring to
any particular type of adult business, defines adult businesses to include
adult bookstore, adult mini motion picture theater, adult motion picture
theater, adult cabaret, massage establishment, sexual novelity stores,
specified anatomical areas, specified sexual activities. This Ordinance is
modeled after the Detroit, Mich. Ordinance which has been tested in the United
States Supreme Court. The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Ordinance
and feels that it meets the needs of the City,
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
Ordinance for the control and regulation of adult business.
)6`
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 45 -C
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR THE LOCATION AND REVIEW OF ADULT BUSINESSES
IN THE C -2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: INTENT AND PURPOSE. The intent and purpose of
this Ordinance is to establish parameters for the location and review of
Adult Businesses within the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS. Section 61.022 Definitions of the
San Bernardino County Development Code as adopted by Ordinance 11 by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be amended by adding the following definition
between the definitions of "Accessory Use" and "Advertising Structure ".
ADULT BUSINESS: Any adult bookstore, adult mini- motion
picture theater, adult motion picture theater, adult
cabaret, massage establishment, or sexual novelty store
as defined below:
(a) ADULT BOOKSTORE: An establishment having as a
substantial or significant portion of its stock in
trade, books, magazines, and other periodicals,
which are distinguished or characterized by their
emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating
to "specified sexual activities" or "specified
anatomical areas" (as defined below), or an establishment
with a segment or section devoted to the sale or
display of such material.
(b) ADULT MINI - MOTION PICTURE THEATER: An enclosed
building with a capacity for less than fifty (50)
persons used for presenting material distinguished
or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting,
describing, or relating to "specified sexual activities"
or "specified anatomical areas" (as defined below),
for observation by patrons therein.
(c) ADULT MOTION PICTURE THEATER: An enclosed building
with a capacity of fifty (50) or more persons used
for presenting material distinguished or characterized
by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or
relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified
anatomical areas" (as defined below), for observation
by patrons therein.
�x 1607
�,1 � No.
Page 2
(d) ADULT CABARETS: A cabaret or similar eating and •
drinking service or other establishment which features
topless dancers, bottomless dancers, go -go dancers,
exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators,
or similar entertainers.
(e) MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT: An establishment where any
person is engaged in the business of massaging,
rubbing, shaking, kneading or tapping the human
body, or giving turkish, russian, swedish, or other
baths, or similar procedures. Massage establishments
shall not include licensed chiropractors or other
licensed medical practitioners.
(f) SEXUAL NOVELTY STORE: An establishment having as a
portion of its stock in trade goods which are replicas
of or which simulate "specified anatomical areas"
(as defined below), or goods which are designed to
be placed on "specified anatomical areas" (as defined .
below), to cause sexual excitement thereof.
(g) SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS:
(1) When less than completely and opaquely covered:
human genitals, pubic region, buttock, and •
female breasts below a point immediately above
the top of the areola.
(2) Human male genitals in a discernible turgid
state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
(h) SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES:
(1) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation
or arousal;
(2) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse,
oral copulation, or sodomy;
(3) Fondling or other erotic touching of human
genitals,.pubic region, buttock, or female
breasts.
SECTION 3 RE UIREMENTS. Section 61.0219(a) shall be amended
to add 61.0219 a 9 : as follows:
(a) ADULT BUSINESSES: The following minimum limitations
shall apply for any adult business in the C -2 General
Business district and only said district.
11
15
Ordinance No.
Page 3
• (1) No such business shall be located within 1,000
feet of an existing or proposed-college or
university, a public or private educational
facility, a church, a public park or recreation
facility, or any other public or semi- public
use or facility used on a regular basis by
persons other than adults in accordance with
General or Specific Plans of the City.
(2) No such business shall be located within 1,000
feet of any other adult business, or fronting
upon any special boulevard or arterial and
visible therefrom.
(3) No such business shall be located within 1,000
feet of property in any residential zone, or
within 1,000 feet of any group of 5 or more
dwellings in any other zone.
(4) Approval of a Location and Development Plan or a
Conditional Use Permit.
SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shat 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 Reeort, 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 day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lae ren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
•
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
KF
0
7
n
U
CITY OF RANCHO CUCVvUNGIA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980 -�
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Annexation #2 to Landscape Maintenance District
#1 for Tracts Nos. 9176, 9225, 9435, and 9567
Attached for Council's approval is Resolution No. 80-
ordering the work in connection with Annexation #2 to Land-
scape Maintenance District #1 for Tracts Nos. 9176, 9225,
9435, and 9567. Annextion to the Maintenance District is
a routine policy for all new tracts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve Resolution No. 80-
ordering the annexation of Tracts Nos. 9176, 9225, 9435,
and 9567 to Landscape Maintenance District #1.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:bc
Attachments
166
CITY OF RAF -HO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
Annexation Number 2 to the
Landscape Maintenance District Number 1
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of
California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
The City Council has elected to annex the permanent landscaped
areas shown on Tentative Tract Maps No. 9176, 9225, 9435, and 9567.
All landscaped areas to be annexed to the district are shown on the
Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the
. City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been qre-
pared by the developer and have been approved as part of the improve-
ment plans for Tentatvie Tracts 9176, 9225, 9435, and 9567. The
plans and specifications for the landscaping are in conformance with
the Planning commission conditions of approval of said Tracts 9176,
9225, 9435, and 9567.
Reference is hereby made to the subject tract maps and the
ass _ scr_.. - .-_' __ s __r =:._ -_- - ..._ __....s.. '_a areas.
The plans and specifications by reference are hereby made a part of
this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifications
is were attached hereto
-1-
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction. •
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on data
from other cities, contract analysis and developed work standards,
it is estimated that mainenance costs for assessment purposes will
equal forty cents ($.40) per square foot per year. These costs are
estimated only, actual assessments will be based on actual cost data.
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.40 X 187,449 square feet = $74,979.60
Per Lot Annual Assessment
74,979.60 - 851 lots = 88.11 per year
Per Lot Monthly Assessment = 7.34 per month •
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6
and the attached Assessment Diagram.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagrams are attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A "; by this reference the diagram is
hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Iaorove^en_s for Annexation ':o. 2 ar =_ fo.n'_ lo be o. .._ __
benefit to all lots within the District and that assessment shall
be equal for each parcel.
1��2
•
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June of 1981 to
• determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred
by the City during the 1981 -1982 fiscal year which are to be recovered
through assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of
1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval
of City Engineer's report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to
District and sets a public hearing date.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all
testimony and determines to Annex to the District or
abandon the proceedings.
• 5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with
the City Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public
hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the
individual assessments.
•
-3-
' 1�3
N
O
F-
uj
W
2
Lj-
ll
(r
CITY OF RANCH) CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0, 1
ANNEXATION "2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORAUGE
5l E T
Li
rRAC F 9225
ei, .ngmur c<.. m,
v
w
u
i
w
3
z
V
I of 2
•'
•
9
ti
11-
n
CITY OF . RANCH,.) CUCAi,,JNGA
r
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION ° 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CKA14CE hTREE1"
IS IS I I2 11 IC 9 3
HLF4AVD .[" F.
TRACT 9225 2 of 2
CITY OF RANCNIj CUCAt ,ONl A
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF ' CALIFORNIA
l
MAN<ANITA CR.
r
SUNFLOWER
57
i
6 5 a J 2 w
w
TRACT 9/76
■
1 i
r
,
C
t
s
•
0
CITY 01 RANCH) CUCAI•IONGA
'r ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION °2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF 'CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND AVE.
1 • •, fL �. 1)111 OGII
TRACT 9567
1�7 -
W
Q
Q
O
W
Z
CITY G. RANCI ;O CUCAoiONGA
ASSESSMENI DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION *2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
w I
z I
w
e � TRACT N0.
9432
w
> I
a
x I
I
L— 610 37
\27 as
:e
12
10
IS
tq
ea
13
9
�e
to
t
e
Ti
22
S
H
7
3L
a
2I
/6
6
a
10
17
�
](
+
N
le
HOLLY
DRIVE
2
J6 a. Ja
J9 Ya
r�
1
•
TRACT N0. 9435 ► of ►
,c..'sm
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -111
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN
CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 2 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR
TRACTS NO'S. 9176, 9225, 9435 AND 9567.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
5th day of November, 1980, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 80 -100 to
order the therein described work in connection with Annexation Number 1 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. BO -100
was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by
law, shown by the affidvait of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on
file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said
Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement ", was duly and legally
posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by law, as
appears from the affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of
the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the
Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property
proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of
• Intention '!o. 30 -100, according to the names and addresses of such owners as
the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and
manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in
the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence,
oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and
concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to
order the proposed work;
SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation
to the district and the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby
orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention
No. 80 -100, be done and made; and
SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the
Engineer is hereby finally approved; and
SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments for fiscal
year 1981 -8 and me of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby
approved.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: I
•
•
49
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Removal Permit Issued for Glen
Franklin.
As a condition of approval for a single family home on Hellman
Avenue south of 19th Street, the widening of Hellman along the
property frontage (about 130 feet) was required. In order to
widen the street to its proper width, several large Eucalyptus
trees will have to be removed. The removal of these trees has
been appealed by several nearby residents. A copy of their
appeal is attached.
This sort of street improvement requirement is normal for such
individual lot developments and is the only way to insure the
proper widening of streets without undue City expense.
It should be stressed that the permit to remove these trees
requires the planting of new Eucalyptus trees 20 feet apart and
of 15 gallon size.
If the diversion of drainage waters by these spot widenings is
likely to be a problem then special attention to the design is
required. By proper design any problems can be mitigated.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the appeal be denied due to the public
benefit to be gained by obtaining immediate street improvements.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:blc
170
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND DISTINGUISHED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tonight a request will be presented to you for consideration. Those of
you who sit on the Council may consider the request a trivial issue.
Many of you who are employed by the City may think the request a mute
issue. Many of you who are in the audience may think the request is an
asinine one wasting valuable Council time for a simple tree removal
request.
We, the following undersigned residents of Hellman Avenue, find the tree
removal request an abominable one. The request is not one for the
removal of a solitary, dead, or decaying tree but for the removal of a
row of beautiful, healthy trees. Many of us have lived in the immediate
area for over 15 years. Others have lived here approximately 10 years.
And there are those of us who have lived here but for a short time.
Each of us, in our own way, had reasons for moving to this area, not
withstanding the desire to raise our children in a rural atmosphere in
which we could escape the hustle and bustle of a hectic world. The area
of Alta Loma afforded us this opportunity. Hellman Avenue presented us
with our haven of retreat. This unobtrusive street reoresented the time
when an ooscurity was only broken by tie immortal Jack Benny's jocular
reference to Cucamonga.
If the City Council approves Mr. Franklin's request for tree removal at
6730 Hellman Avenue, we, the local residents, will be the ones who lose.
Our children, who have matured into adults, will have only their memories.
Our neighbors' children, who are adolescents, will not have the
• opportunity to benefit from the rural setting that their oarents had hoped
for vmen they relocated to this area. Their heritage will be one of
commercialism and sins of expansion.
In closing, we leave this last thought with this auqust body: the City
has tried to preserve the much desired atmosphere when and where feasible.
If the Council could take a memory drive along Hellman Avenue, they would
surely note some of the drastic changes that have taken place over the
years due to expansionism. In our opinion, and I am sure this Council
would agree, that it has not always been as beneficial as desired. We
respectfully request that this governing body deny the tree removal
request to help preserve the little that we have left in this city.
L '
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM'ONGA
ADNIINISTFi 110N
t CIA NOV 2G 1980 PN
glglgl�plulgll121314 5 6
IV
L ,l -P I
October 31, 1980 •
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS:
We, the following undersigned residences of Hellman Avenue, have been
notified by the City that certain trees along our beautiful avenue are
to be removed as a condition of approval for the development of a
single family residential move -on at 6730 Hellman Avenue, Alta Loma.
This revelation came to us via the U. S. Postal Service. We applaud
the ten -day response time; however, since the U. S. Postal Service is
not the most expedient messenger service, most of us have not had the
full ten days to contemplate the effect of this action on the atmosphere
of our rural setting.
It is for this reason that we, the following undersigned, request a
postponement of approval for one (1) week so that we may respond in
a more intelligent manner. Should this august body deny our request
for postponement, then let this letter serve as a voice of our
dissension against removal of said trees. The rural atmosphere for
which many of us moved here will be scarred. Commercialism will be
just around the corner, and our children will be the ones who suffer.
We do not wish this atmosphere to be destroyed as it has been just
south of foothill Boulevard.
Again, we request a postponement of the removal so that the residences
fronting along Hellman Avenue may respond in total.
Thank you.
iw b�Za(�cc[c C�1_' 98Y3�7(v
/L77/��,/n22�7Q%w /e U C� G r s
afj�2 3a�y�2 �a.L�� CITY O�IRgI�i�F10 CUC MONGA
iRA TInN
Ro-1 Q n _
675 g
Yu ooy . s 1702
AM OCT 31 1980
718191ro1N11211 2i3i4j$ 6
le I ilk
rg.
QTY OF RANCHO CI_C PvKVCA oCQCA.ti f)
STAFF REPORT
• Llv: ^, ry,,
01
DATE: December 3, 1980
F
U
T0: Members of the City Council and City Manager 7977
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DECISION REGARDING THE RED HILL COFFEE SHOP SIGN
ABSTRACT: As the City Council will recall, on November 5, 1980 there was
considerable discussion by both the City Council and the audience regarding
the appeal of the Planning Commission decision in reference to the sign lo-
cated at the southeast corner of Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. We
have attached for your information the previous Council staff report dated
November 5 which includes all correspondence relative to this matter, the
Planning Commission meeting minutes, and the Planning Commission staff
report. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the portability and value
of the sign. It also appeared there seemed to be agreement on the fact that
the sign lies totally within the dedicated right -of -way of Foothill Boulevard.
In a review of the Planning Commission meeting minutes you will note that
the Planning Commission had considerable discussion over the portability
and value of the sign with no apparent resolution to the discussion. Also,
the final determination of the Planning Commission was that the sign lies
• wholly within the right -of -way of Foothill Boulevard and is prohibited by
the City Sign Ordinance and should be removed.
There was considerable discussion at the November 5, 1980 meeting of the
City Council over a slide show prepared by the Department of Community
Development which depicted many different signs, some within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, some in other cities. The purpose of the slide show was
not to focus on any particular sign but to give a representation of the
kind of signing that was currently being used within the City and in other
areas and an indication of the kinds of signs that the ordinance would pro-
mote. In no instance did we ever indicate that this particular sign was to
be amortized over 5 years.
At the time of the writing of this report, no information has yet been re-
ceived regarding the two questions asked by the applicant of the City Council,
i.e., what was the price of the sign at the time the business was purchased
by the Moffatts and what was the original cost of the sign? Evidence of the
answers to these questions were to be presented to the City Council on De-
cemher 3, 1980. Additionally, one other question was raised at the Council
meeting regarding the recently passed law contained within the Business and
Professions Code Section 5412.5, The City Attorney will have a brief Ural
rep t for the Council at the December 3 meeting.
R
rep
submitted,
rr' k HOg
i t Pla nn j
BK :jk u
Attach. 7
) /,3
CITY OF RA\CI-1O Cl,'CA,,,ONGA
S'T'AFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980 F� TOO v,
T0: City Council and City Manager 1977 ...
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE SIGN
FOR RED HILL COFFEE SHOP.
ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission at their October 8, 1980 meeting,
directed Mr. and Mrs. Moffitt, owners of the Red Hill Coffee Shop and the
sign located on the southeast corner of Grove and Foothill, to remove said
sign because it is located entirely within the right -of -way of Foothill
Boulevard. They have appealed said decision to the City Council. At the time
of discussion during the Planning Commission hearing, there were a number of
issues raised regarding the sign. They are:
Is the sign portable?
• Is the sign a permanent structure?
• What is the value of the sign?
Is The Sign Portable?
These issues were discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report of
October 8, 1980 (See Attached). There was one additional item that was
raised at the time of the meeting - the sign was located in the right -
of -way of Foothill Boulevard. The attached exhibit indicates the location
of the sign and the dedication papers dated 1972.
When the issue of the sign's location was raised, the question of whether or
not the sign was portable or permanent became a moot point. Signs located
in the public right -of -way are prohibited as stated in the Sign Ordinance
Section 4.1.8 and the City is allowed to remove said sign pursuant to
Section 4.3 of the Sign Ordinance.
Attached for the Council's review are the minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting and the Planning Commission Staff Report.
In a review of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting, you will
note that Commissioner Rempel abstained from any action regarding this
item. The Planning Commission voted on a three to one vote with Commissioner
King dissenting because he felt that the applicant should have an opportunity
Staff
November 5, 1980
Page 2
to participate in the valuation of the sign. The Commission denied the •
applicants request to have the sign remain and directed the applicant to
remove the sign by November 7, 1980.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal
upholding the Planning Commission's decision to have the sign removed by
the applicant by no later than November 7, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
'J" �a 4�
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:kp
Attachments: Memorandum from Building Official
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report
1]
•
• 1
� l
NZ4 BUSI :LESS
. CLlRI71C.ATI09 OF PORTABLE SIGN STATUS - RED HILL CAFE
Commissioner Hempel stepped down on this item stating that Mrs. James Moffatt
had acted as his campaign treasurer during the recent city council election.
City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the criteria is in determining the valuation
of the sign.
Mr. Hogan stated that it is based on the current cost of materials as determined
by the City Building Official.
Mr. Hogan asked that the Commission direct the applicant to remove the sign
as it is in violation of the City code.
Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Hogan if he had investigated whether the sign is in
the right -of -way.
Mr. Hogan replied that since the completion of the staff report he had further
investigated the possibility that the sign may be in the right -of -way and showed
the Commission an overlay of the area superimposed with the existing right-of-
way illustrating that the sign is in the right -of -way. Mr. Hogan also stated
that this was dedicated by the prevoius owner in 1972 and that an encroachment
permit would be necessary to allow this sign to remain here.
• Cor iss:onet Sceranka asl2d wn^—t area r - 'e5ent ed.
Mr. 4ogan stated that the overlay used is from an aerial photo taken for the
widening of the street.
Discussion ensued on whether the sign was portable or permanent.
The City Attorney stated that whether the sign is permanent or portable is ir-
relevant.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that if the sign is permanent it has expired based
upon the ordinance and if it is portable, it is in the right -of -way which makes
it illegal. He asked if staff had ever investigated the sign being in the right -
of -way previously.
Mr. Hogan stated that he had at one time asked Mrs. Moffatt whether the sign
was in the right-of-way and she stated it was not so he took her word for it.
This was prior to 1979.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a letter dated August 1979 that the
sign is in the public right -of -way and so there was discussion on that in Aug-
ust of 1979.
Commissioner Tolotey stated that this was true and that he remembered it, but
that :(.. Hogn:: had expLained thin by stating ,hat it was believed to be in the
40 right -3f-way but that nonody knew where the right -of -way was at that time.
Minutes -o- October 8, 1980
1 7�
C (,
The Commission asked for clarification of where the sign is presently located
Mr. Hogan showed the Commission where the sign is located.
•
Chairman Dahl stated that if the Commission is looking at a value of $250,
the sign life under the ordinance has expired and even if the sign were valued
higher, it will expire on November 4.
Further, that increasing the valuation of the sign accomplishes nothing as
the Planning Commission is legally bound to uphold the ordinance.
Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. James Moffatt came forward and stated that he took exception with the value
placed on the sign, as be felt it to be too low; that the sign is not in the
right -of -way; and that the City Council had stated that the sign could remain
in place for a period of 5 years. Mr. Moffatt also stated that he had been
told that he would receive a staff report on this item but had not received
one. Mr. Moffatt stated that the current valuation of the sign is well over
$1500 not counting the letters that have to be attached to it.
Chairman Dahl stated that this is a problem that will have to be evaluated.
Commissioner Sceranka asked about the question of right -of -way.
Mr. Moffatt stated that he had a grant deed from the previous owner that does
not show the City having any tight -of -way.
Following considerable discussion on the value of the sign, Chairman Dahl
stated that his concern was that the Commission does not set a dangerous pre-
•
cedent in making a determination on the value of the sign.
Commissioner King stated that it was his feeling that relative to the appraise!
of the sign, input should be received bath from the Building Official and the
sign owner. After receiving input, it would be their (Planning Commission) de-
cision to arrive at an equitable amount for the sign. He felt that the issue
of value must be addressed.
Commissioner King also felt that in making a determination of the sign and
whether it is permanent or portable, the sign could still be removed and yet
be designed to be permanent.
The City Attorney stated that Commissioner King may be philosophically correct;
however, the City Attorney stated in terms of providing a forum for reasonable
discussion of value, the ordinance does not provide that. The ordinance states
that the value is determined by the Building Official. It does not state that
the value is set after debate between the Building Official and the appraiser
or anyone else. His opinion of the ordinance is that the determination of the
Building Official is final. He stated however, that the Commission may want
to suggest that the Building Official and the Moffatts go over the value if
there is same particular concern or something he thinks the Building Official
may have missed but it is not appropriate to invite debate over this with the
Planning, Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 8, 1930
•
14 /
Considerable discussion took place on the definition of portable signs and
how the definition came into existence and was incorporated into the ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City had enforced the County sign ordinance,
would this be considered an illegal sign.
Mr. Hogan stated that it would be. Further, if the County had enforced its
sign ordinance, that sign would not be here today.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the issue is not whether the sign is portable
or not but that it is in the right -of -way: Further, if the sign was illegal
under the County ordinance it should come down.
The City Attorney stated that the problem is that the City now has its own sign
ordinance and this sign should be ,Judged on the merits of the City's ordinance.
Mr. Moffatt stated that anytime the City wants to have a sign removed, all the
Bu'_ -ding Official would have to do is value a sign to be less than $250 and
the sign would have to be removed. He stated that the sign had been here for
some seven years and if the County did not see fit to remove the sign, the
City should not either. Mr. Moffatt stated that the City was going back on
its original:. word that his sign was not one that would have to be removed
for five years.
Considerable discussion took place with Mr. Moffatt and the Planning Commission
on amortization of the sign.
• Mrs. Moffatt stated that she felt that they were being singled out as there
were many signs in the City that she :vaew not to be n rmanept that
has not stated are in violation.
Chairman Dahl stated that by ordinance, the Planning Commission has no choice
but to take the estimate of the Building Official for the sign's val'ie. Fur-
ther, that the ordinance is clear cut out that as a Planning Commission they
want to do everything they can to work with the Mof.`atts. He stated that this
ordinance is a- law of the City and if they choose to, after the Planning
Commission decision is made, they can appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner King moved that this item be continued to allow additional input
in determination of the sign's value before the Planning Commission would act
on this matter. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Sceranka stated that they could not second the motion
because that was not the issue.
Commissioner Sceranka moved that the applicant be directed to remove the sign
because it is in the right -of -way. There is no way the Planning Commission
car, continue to be consistent in sign enforcement and uphold the interests
of the ccmmunity without its removal.
Coamio:;io.ner Tolstoy seconded the motion.
Ti,ere -ems some discussion about when the sign should be removed
Chairman Onhl ztited that a time for removal ahoull also be set, He stated
t-it the Staff reprrt has that :ate set as October 31 and that Commissioner
Srer-.mka may want to change -hat date in his motion, keeping in mind that the
Planning
Commission Minutes
-11 -xN
October
8,
1980
•
+I
1 �l1
C
applicant may want to appeal this decision to the City Council
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not feel a delay would accomplish
anything. •
Mr. Hogan suggested that since the Moffatt's may wish to appeal, that perhaps
November 7 should be set for the date of removal.
Commissioner Sceranka amended. his motion to allow November 7 to be set as the
date for removal of the sign.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: HEMPEL
The City Attorney apprised the Moffatts of the appeal procedure and indicated
that a letter to staff would start the procedure.
Comissioner Bempel returned to the table
City Pi ner, Barry Hogan, reported to the Commission on the current projects
and to projects that the Planning Department is currently and forecasted •
to work on. He reviewed the ongoing projects where no firm date for complet4,on
is set, the g. uth management items and those items that are intermittent in
scone such as t:. Community Development Block Grant, Housing Assistance Plan
and the Industrial ssessment District.
Mr. Hogan also provide the Commission with the history of the various consul-
tants who have worked on, he General Plan and advised the Commission of the
proposed schedu?e for comp tion in January of 1981.
Chairman Dahl asked about the hedule that was set by the Commission at the
Cal Poly workshop in early Septe er.
Mr. Hogan stated that he had includic those items in this report.
Mr. Hogan provided a timetable for comp Lion of the Industrial Specific Plan
in December. He statred that it is hope hat the City will become an entitle-
ment city in July of 1981 and the City wow.. be entering into a Housing Assist-
ance Plan. It was hoped, he stated, that a �. sing Coordinator will be hired
and coordinate these areas.
Paul Rougeau provided the Commission with informat n on the Industrial Assess-
ment Distr.at, stating that public hearings are sche wed to begin at the end
of November.
Cep ^issicner To istoy stated that he could like to see some ing done on the
street naccs. Further, that if the Historical Committee we like to have •
som^ assistance in that regard, he would be willing to work w, them.
Mr. Ragan provided a schedule for the Victoria Plan and stated thaNit was
contingent on the time involved for City Council action.
Planning Commis4on Minutes 12 October 8, 1980
41
•
lJ
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C,�(
MEMORANDUM
F,11
ry[Ei9[14!=I'L'ai2p3i415 G
dctober 29, 1980
TO: Planning Division
FROM: Building Official C{ ^J/y /'��`�''r/
SUBJECT: Sign - Red Hill Cafe 8111 Foothill
This memo is in response to your request for opinion regarding permanency and
valuation of a 4 foot by 8 foot unlighted double -faced "reader- board" type sign
located at the subject address.
The sign is supported on two 2 inch x 2 inch angle -iron frames which are attached,
in turn, to two concrete parking lot bumpers. The sign is mounted on the frames
approximately 4 feet above the ground level making an overall height of the sign
approximately 8 feet.
Regarding the question of permanency, the sign is definitely not a permanent sign
since it can be moved readily across the ground, as evidenced by my own efforts
during a visit to the site with City Planner Barry Hogan in mid - October. The sign
structure is not attached to the ground in any way and is only prevented from
moving by the weight of the concrete parking bumpers that rest on the ground.
In order to establish a valuation for the sign, two independent sign contractors
were contacted with a description of the sign and its mounting method. Both of
the contractors stated that the sign would have a current optimum new cost of
$600 and that it would be completely depreciated after seven years (based on
statement made by the appellant that the sign was seven years old.)
As a result of my personal inspection of the sign and consultation with qualified
sign contractors, it is my considered opinion that the current sign value does
not exceed $250.
ISO
_ Jr• .. Y} J. .Y� � r.
i Pei-
C".'
4lj y,, � ;f�.y •
�„ mil. I, ].T,rr t • i+��, x�'•'P', r� - _ . N '.'k'� R ,
•+rn.lf .yd2'it�ilr r�^F, • I. �, :C� \{�7`L'�!+'�. +
may, }..t +� r-. a .' �i 3'✓ I _ 1 ,:: i) �•;�. � `•'3i .,.•
(�yr'J`
>"`0'dX ri•i �'- to '� 1. ° r '; Y '" + t #
•71.y.Y,r r. �t"'{yS,w.h� F:rI .,.• nnPp��, gg.��j
hf1�'r t'V3• /� "". + r '� <r fit, f I �!.•71Y.-
•u /,j0:ry'+r��rK`i.{ ✓�}(
`%tc�3, fltiM, r�pf.�r frr'�'� r]Giiiaw!r
IY'�- :111+r�`7W(l.
Rr-,
"Y;�y�,�J.•'..�yY�il iii .ti + r ♦
+ iii., ~'
M por hU
OR
fl ?i'',�X�•'u• �': . a� ry +', t • � . i I� �V ir"'A• f, .��• •..,�. .r�J..J
t:�.3�• •a ay�� •r •'i+ qn` (i 4L1 , i' ����' • /i''�T�II
J
•
CITY OF RANCH0 CCGArv1O \'CA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 8, 1980 "IL.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Barry K. Hoge.n, City Planner
SUBJECT: DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF SIGN STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL AND GROVE AND RED HILL COFFEE
SHOP.
ABSTRACT: As the Planning Commission will recall, the Sign Ordinance for
the City of Rancho Cucamonga was adopted April 4, 1979 and became effective
thirty -one days later (May 4, 1979). Since the effective date of the Sign
Ordinance staff has been working with the various businesses throughout
the City to seek conformance. Under Section 4.1 - Prohibited Signs, portable
signs except where permitted by the Sign Ordinance are prohibited in all
zones. To our knowledge there are only two portable signs left to be
abated within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This sign is one.
Attached please find letter from Red Hill Coffee Shop dated September 29,
1980. In the letter, Mr. and Mrs. James Moffitt expressed their belief
that their sign should be allowed for five (5) years as per the Sign
Ordinance and this letter also states, the sign has been bolted in cement
for approximately seven (7) years.
The City Planner and the Building Official, on September 30, 1980 field
inspected the sign. It is, in fact, true that the sign is bolted in
cement, i.e. cement bumper stops which are not fixed to the ground. It
is clear under the definition of portable signs, Section 1.2 of the
Ordinance No. 27, "a sign not designed to be permanently attached to a
structure or to the ground ", that this is clearly a portable sign. However,
if the Planning Commission finds that this sign is a permanent structure
as the applicant contends, then it would have to be classified as an
"advertising structure ", which is defined in Section 1.2(1). "An advertising
structure is an on -site or off -site structure of any kind or character
other than the main business indentification signs errected or maintained
for outdoor advertising purposes upon which any poster, bill printing,
painting or other advertisement of any kind whatsoever may be placed,
including Statuary for advertising purposes."
I5?,?
S Ld
October 8, 1980
Page 2
If the Planning Commission finds that the structure is a permanent sign, •
and classfy it as an advertising structure it then comes under the requirements
of Article 7, Section 7.2 — Non Conforming Signs and would be amortized
under the requirements of the amortization schedule. The Building Official
has valued the sign at less then $250. Based upon the valuation schedule
in the Sign Ordinance the structure would have to be removed 180 days from
the effective date of the Sign Ordinance (May 4, 1979).
In order to give the Planning Commission an idea of how long the abatement
procedure has been in the works for this particular sign we have attached
letters dating back from August 1, 1979 asking for compliance with the
Sign Ordinance. After the August 30, 1979 letter the City Planner made
an on -site inspection and met with Mrs. Moffitt to discuss the abatement
of the sign. It was agreed at that time that the City would seek compliance
to the Sign Ordinance for all other signs and come back to the Moffitt's
situation at the time of abatement of all the temporary and portable signs
within the City. On July 1, 1980 we sent another letter to Mr. and Mrs.
Moffitt notifying them that their sign must be removed. Shortly thereafter
the City Planner met with Mr. Moffitt and discussed the situation. It was
agreed that Mr. Moffitt would submitt a letter to the City within the week
requesting determinations of the Planning Commission as to whether or not
their sign should be removed. That letter came in approximately two months
later.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct •
the applicant to remove the portable sign from the City by no later than
October 31, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
1.11�.ti1../1 1 111 A
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL;kp
•
/<;� 3
•
City of
RANCIAO
CUCANJONGA
August 30, 1979
Red Hill Coffee Shop
8111 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91733
Attention: Mr. Moffait
Dear Mr. Moffait:
This letter is in reference to the temporary sign currently being displayed on
the southeast corner of Foothill and Grove.
A couple of weeks ago I spoke with you regarding the legality of this sign.
Since that time, I have checked both the County and City records, but have
been unable to locate an approved sign application.
Therefore, the City is going to require its removal because of the following
reasons:
1) No approved sign application on file with either the County or City,
2) Sign is not permitted under current Sign Ordinance, and
3) Sign is currently displayed in the public right -of -way. Violation of
Sign Ordinance Section 5.4.
A final inspection will be conducted un or ak,out 7 SepLrmher 1970 to ensure
compliance. If the sign in question i.s still being disp Layed at that time,
the City will have no choice but to refer this matter to the City Attorney for
legal actiun. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
me at 989 -1651.
Sincerely yours,
CO : ::7R{ITY DEVELOP: ENt' DERV�ittLllr
rva:um, Drilscal
Gary Richards
Coda Lnforcement Officer
rl;R: cc
ley
�1•
• li'1
(,It\, of
R-1NC1.10 •
016NIONGA
August 1, 1979
Robert G. Deates
C/0 Red Hill Coffee Shop
8111 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Deates;
During a routine inspection of the Commercial establishments within the City
Of Rancho Cucamonga, the following violation was noted regarding your business
located at 8111 Foothill Boulevard.
t
The displaying of a portable sign (southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Grove) is a violation of Section 4.1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance.
Port Yale signs are prohibited within all zones of the City.
Therefore, the City requires that the portable sign be removed. A second
inspection will be conducted an or about 13 August 1919 to ensure compliance.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 989 -1851.
Sincerely yours,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Gary .!. Richar�
Code Enforcement Officer
G;IR:cc
55
n
U
C ltv cat*
R\NC110
July 1,1890 CUCAMONGA
Red Will Cafe
Mr. 8 Mrs. Moffett
Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
Subj: Temporary Sign Structure located on the southeast corner of Foothill
and Grove
Dear Mr. 8 Mrs. Moffett:
Approximately 8 months ago we talked about the removal of the temporary sign
located at,the above referenced site. At that time it was your desire to
• keep the sign for as long as you could. We said we would consider your
request,an.d try-to work with you on the removal of the sign. Additionally,
we believe that the previous Chairman of the Planning Commission; Herman
Rempel, also talked with you on the removal of the sign within a 6 month
period.
It has now been over 8 months since we last conversed, and the sign still
remains. What has happened in the insueing months is t!at the City has
soughtand succeeded in removal of all temperar signs within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Rancho Cucamonga - except for your sign. We realize
the benefit that you feel the sign has to the community and to your business,
however, for the City to be fair in its dispensation of enforcement of the
Sign Ordinance, we must respectively request that your sign be removed by no
later than July 31, 1980. Your earliest attention to this matter would be
appreciated. Should you have any questions or desire to discuss this situ-
ation further, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
• Very truly yours,
COt ^I1H111TY DEVELOPMENT 0EPARTMEWT
PL AO 71ilG 0P115IOR
i
iCy dniter
BY.H:cd
cc: Herman Rempel, Lauren Wassermaa/pnC(G/Gaa�ry Richards
HO%r UI'f1f F RUC xn; . R%\( 1111 f'l l',t`tftl�l.� ( \111'nuv1 l 91 ;90 . 711 114n.la',I -
F, 0 L9
CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
SEP 20 1900
AM PM
71819110111112111213141516
! September 29,1980
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Barry Hogan
9120 Baseline
Alta Loma, CA 91701
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Subject: Supposedly Temporary Sign Structure southeast corner of
Foothill and Grove
In answer to your letter dated July 1, 1980 concerning our supposedly
temporary sign. This sign has been in its present position, bolted in cement
Into the ground for approximately the last seven years.
At the City Council meeting concerning Sign Ordinance we were then and still
are for the sign ordiance. At that same meeting we were told that a Grand
Father clause would also be given to those people that already had existing
signs, all these signs would have a 5 year moratorium, which we are also in •
agreement with.
The council showed slides of the different signs in our city and at that time
they showed a slide of our sign, they then stated that these were the signs
that would have to be removed or replaced after 5 years, in accordance with
the new sign ordinance.
Since that time we have been harassed by the city to remove our sign, they
are claiming that our sign is a temporary sign. We continue to maintain
our sign is not movable. According to the dictionary permanent means,
"continuing in the same state without essential change ;enduring durable or
fixed ". Which I repeat, this sign has been bolted into the cement for approx.
(7) seven years.
All we ask is that the City live up to their word as expressed at the City
Councils Sign Ordinance meeting, and let our sign live out the remaining
Grand Father clause that the city council itself instituted.
Very truly yours,
RED HILL COFFEE SHOP
8111 Foothill Blvd,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91770
Mr + Mrs mes MofEu C[ •
OWNERS
cc; Phil Svhlussor, Herman Rempel, Lauren Wasserman, Cary Richards
197
V I L\ U 1
R \NCI -lo
• October 2, 1980 CUCAMONGA.
Red Hill Coffee Shop
Mr. and Mrs. Moffitt
8111 Foothill Blvd.
Rancho Cuamonga, California 91730
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moffitt:
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1980. We have scheduled the
determination on your request for the Planning Commission Meeting of
October 8, 1960 at 7 p.m, at the Lion Community Building located on
Base Line Road adjacent to the Rancho Cucamonga Branch Library. A copy
of the Staff Report will be sent to you approximately three days prior
to the meeting.
We regret that you feel the City has harassed in seeking compliance with
the Sign Ordinance. We have been very patient in working with you to
accommodate your desires and feel we understand your position. We,
• hownver, do not believe that it is harassment when we take the time and
effort to meet with you and your, husband on two occassions and then wait
two months to receive a letter that was promised us within two weeks.
Please understand that we. are charged with the duty of enforcing the
Sign Ordinance and try to do such in an efficient and courteous manner.
We apologize for any harassment that you feel may have been directed to
you.
Should you have any questions or for any reason are unable to attend the
Wednesday night meeting, please do not hesitate to contact myself or
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner of this office.
Very truly yours,
COPT)ZIT'! DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLjtlil l;IG DI 1 ^I
Ear ry �:, Hogan
�Cit�,Flanner`i
GKH:kp
CC. Phillip Schlosser,
Horoan P.nntpel
Lauren 'Wassern•an
flary Rlchlyds
Mlch'iel Vairin
POSY OFFICE DOS 807, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 • I7141 9891851 "
r/
C
JONES AND PITfULLO
no.
.non conci �o
•mono . n a.00n�n
October 14, 1980
•esr erncc eox eye
.o, no, sccone wcnoc
UPLAND. CALIOKNIA 91780
•ucrnonc n.- a.eama
W fi
city or aAticHO
ADMINISTRA TIO;IPiCA..
G;T 14 1984
Mr. Lauren Wasserman AM p�{
City Clerk TiBt81llltlaetl)et314H5t6(' �k'-Q
9320 Baseline Road , P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Cucamonga, CA 91730(,
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt from Planning Commission Decision
concerning sign at Red Hill Coffee Shop l.f�ny
Dear Mr. Wasserman:
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, owners of the Red Hill Coffee Shop,
we hereby appeal to the City Council, the action of the Planning Commission
last week voting for the removal of a free standing sign in front of their
place of business on Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga.
The grounds for this appeal is that the existing City Sign Ordinance provides •
for a five year amortization period affecting the subject sign. Moreover, there are
procedural irregularities in that the Moffatts were never given a copy of the
staff report prior to the Planning Commission Hearing nor was there any
substantiation of the building department estimate of value of $250.00.
Additionallv, the Moffatts'sign was expressly used as an exemplar of a sign
in the five year amortization catagory by city officials. They have relied upon
these representations of the city and seek equal treatment with other business
with similar free standing signs.
Please contact the undersigned concerning the meeting agenda on which this
matter will be heard before the City Council. Also, please forward to me a
staff report on this matter as soon as one is available.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation handling this appeal. Should my
office hear nothing back from you., office within forty -eight (48) hours, we
shall assume that this appeal was effectively taken.
Very truly yours,
TRACT' LOP; \IAN TIBBALS
OF •IONI:S AND PITTULLO •
A I'ro G:ssional Corporation
TLT:jb
cc: ;Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Edward A. Hopson, Esquire .1��
4
C c Cite of
R ANCHO
October 24, 1980 CUCAMONGA
Ms. Tracy Lowman Tibbals
Jones and Pittullo
P. 0. Box 638
Upland, California 91786
RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Mr, and Mrs. James Moffatt
Dear Ms. Tibbals:
A check in the amount of $100 has been received by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga for an appeal to a Planning Commission decision by Mr. and Mrs.
James Moffatt. This appeal will be heard by the City Council at their
meeting of November 5, 1980. The City Council meeting will begin at
7:00 p.m, in the Forum at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base
Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga.
If there are any questions relative to this, please let me hear from you,
Sincerely,
CV=NITY CE
PL`'jllil l;iG D 'J
Barry K 401 g
F ity Planner
B6: jk
DEPARTMENT
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
1 7u
POST OFFICE BOA 807. RANCHO CUCANIONGA. CAIAFORNIA 91730 • I7141 9894851
LI.w OI I C.
JONES AND PITTULLO
.. +e.0 so. +. L•w co +•o + +..o+
0. oTHr nn,LLo
w nTUL
no. e
�O�+D • s10c +VM
RTla. cr iO w,•.,. Tls�•LS
November 3, 1980
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
9320 Baseline Road, P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. .lames Mof f att, Red Hill Coffee Shop
Dear Mayor Schlosser:
On behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. .lames Moffatt, we
respectfully request that the action of the Planning Commission
requiring removal of the sign in front of their business
premises, the Red Hill Coffee Shop, 8111 Foothill Boulevard,
Rancho Cucamonaa, California, be reversed. •
The Moffatts had ample reason to rely upon the fact that the
city would not require removal of the sign until conclusion
of the five year amortization period.
This is based on express representations of city staff during
hearings prior to enactment of ::he current sign ordinance.
we do not contend that the city of Rancho Cucamonga is without the
power to enact such an ordinance requiring a phased abatement of
signs. This precise question was recently answered once again
in the California Supreme Court case, Metromdia, Inc. vs. City
of San Dieqo (1960) 26 Cal 3d 848. The e
court at page 858 of
the decision clearly sanctioned the exercise of municipal
authority over signs. Although Metromedia referred to off -
sight bill boards, the rationale,we would concede, applies
equally to signs such as the one in front of the Red Hill Coffee
Shop.
Additionally, we do not contend that the city is without the
power to abate a sign. Reasonable amortization periods cocanensurate
with the investment involved are legal in California. Metromedia
at 882 -834.
n
f ( I
•
nos. orncc ao. me
+o• eo. seco�.e .re.�e
UPI NU. CALIFORNIA 937EG
IILCnn... 11 p- 9•e.ee1L
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. .lames Mof f att, Red Hill Coffee Shop
Dear Mayor Schlosser:
On behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. .lames Moffatt, we
respectfully request that the action of the Planning Commission
requiring removal of the sign in front of their business
premises, the Red Hill Coffee Shop, 8111 Foothill Boulevard,
Rancho Cucamonaa, California, be reversed. •
The Moffatts had ample reason to rely upon the fact that the
city would not require removal of the sign until conclusion
of the five year amortization period.
This is based on express representations of city staff during
hearings prior to enactment of ::he current sign ordinance.
we do not contend that the city of Rancho Cucamonga is without the
power to enact such an ordinance requiring a phased abatement of
signs. This precise question was recently answered once again
in the California Supreme Court case, Metromdia, Inc. vs. City
of San Dieqo (1960) 26 Cal 3d 848. The e
court at page 858 of
the decision clearly sanctioned the exercise of municipal
authority over signs. Although Metromedia referred to off -
sight bill boards, the rationale,we would concede, applies
equally to signs such as the one in front of the Red Hill Coffee
Shop.
Additionally, we do not contend that the city is without the
power to abate a sign. Reasonable amortization periods cocanensurate
with the investment involved are legal in California. Metromedia
at 882 -834.
n
f ( I
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Hill Coffee Shop
November 3, 1990
Page Two
• The legal standard for amortizations, however, depends upon the
reasonableness of its application and terms. The action of the
Planning Commission is per se invalid for the reason that even
the procedure set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga ordinance was not
followed. On this issue alone we would ask a remand for further
determination of value consistent with the terms of the ordinance
reserving to the Moffatt$ the right to challenge the legal
sufficiency of that procedure.
Also, we should like to make a formal protest concerning the
$100.00 appeal fee assessed on the Moffatts. This was my first
instance in handling an appeal to the City Council that such a
fee was charged. We object to this discriminatory enforcement
of the law and ask on the basis of fundamental fairness and equal
treatment under the law that the Moffatts have their $100.00
refunded to them forthwith.
•
We hope the council does not loose sight of the economic value
the Red Hill Coffee Shop offers to the community. The fact that
before you is a petition signed by numerous residents of this
city as well as surrounding communities is testimony to the fact
that the sign is a tremendous business draw. The resulting
benefit to the city in terms of sales tax revenues need not be
emphasised much less the obvious ripple effect on other Rancho
Cucamonga businesses who would not otherwise have the customers
but `_cr the fact they steppod at the Red Hill Coffee Shop coming
through the city.
Even if it is determined by the time this matter comes before
you that all or a portion of the subject sign is in the California
Department of Transportation right of way, I urge you to delay
any further determination until that agency can be contacted
about maintaining the status quo. The City Council should be
mindful of the fact that the Moffatts are but one of many tenants
and property owners along Foothill Boulevard who will be similarly
affected. The Moffatts are paying rent for the entire premises
they occupy including the corner of the lot where the sign is
located. Not only is there a possibility that the city is
preempted from regulating the use of the state's right of way,
but the proposed means of regulation would again interrupt with
the Moffatts'reasonable expectation for use of their property
that they are paying for.
May I ask you to consider carefully the Moffatts'plight. They
were operating under an understanding that the city would permit
the use of their sign that was purchased with the business for a
specified period of time. Moreover, their investment and commercial
value received from that sign is in exc ss of fifteen times the
original city estimate of value makin,i it manifestly unfair to
abate any sooner than the five year period.
Lastly, we should like the city to consider at the very least
a delay in deciding the issue before it on this appeal until
l��
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Rill Coffee Shop
November 3, 1980
Page Three
•
definitive response from the California Department of Transportation
can be obtained as to a possible separate arrangement with that
agency.
I thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this
matter.
Very truly yours,
JONES, GOMEZ, VAN STOCKUM S TIBBALS
A Professional L w Corporation
TRACY LOW IRBPS.S
TLT:jb
cc: MrJ and Mrs. James Moffatt
Robert E. Dougherty, Esquire
•
•
1 � /3
L.W O1I1Czs
JONES AND PITfULLO
,o+cz
n.
T—OTHY PJTTULLO
N cOw[x
n eiOCwVN
iP.Gi oO wN.N ire e..e
November 5, 1980
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
9320 easeiine Road, P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk
•o zr orncc vo. eae
.o. No. sec oNO .v[wu
UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 9178G
rew nwoNC a.. v.e -ee.v
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Hill Coffee Shop
Dear Mayor Schlosser:
By means of this letter may I add one final point to our
position in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, your Appellants.
The State Legislature late in the past session enacted Business
• and Professions Code S 5412.5 that may have a bearing in the
matter before you. As we have not had an ample opportunity to
discuss the matter with the California Department of Transpor-
tation or other entities involved, I am not representing that
this section is dispositive of the instant appeal. We would
urge, however that the council forebear from any decision
pending further exploration Of the effect of the statue both by
the appellants' counsel and the City Attorney.
0
The new statute applies to all signs lawfully erected in
compliance with local regulations before November 6, 1978. The
Moffatts' sign is in this category.
Business and Professions Code 4 5412.5 goes on to state that
the city may not move to abate the signs until at least January
1, 1982 whether or not the signs have been nonconforming or
whether they have been provided an amortization period by local
ordinance. The only exceaptions provided for in this act are
signs erected pursuant to a written agreement with the munici-
palit7 providing for a removal of the sign after a fixed period
of time. This exception does not apply in the Moffatts' situation.
This new Business and Professions Code section is an amendment
174
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Hill Coffee Shop
November 5, 1980
Page Two
to the state Outdoor Advertising Act, Business and Professions
Code 5 5200 et seq.
Until such time of the significance of this amendment can be
fully determined, I ask the council to delay further deliberations
on the measure before you.
Very truly yours,
JONES, GOMEZ, VAN STOCKUM 6 TIBBALS
A Professional Corporation
TRACY - N TIBB
TRACY L MAN TIBBALS
TLT I
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Robert nougherty, Esq.
`J
1�
7
D
r•„xwr roc o w nVLIl1 ('1 Y'.f n,111 \L`.f
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Ontario Ground Access Study
I'm please to announce that on November 21, the Ontario Ground
Access Steering Committee voted to increase the study area and
to include Rancho Cucamonga as a member on the Steering Committee.
As a par*_ of this action, a $20,000 increase in contract services
was identified to complete the study. The L. A. Airport Department
volunteered to assume $5,000 of this cost with the remaining $15,000
to be born by the local agencies. The proposed cost split would
be between Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, SANBAG and possibly Upland.
To date, no substantive talks have been completed concerning the
precise dollar split between the agencies, however, it appears
that the largest share of the planning effort will be funded by
SANBAG. Funds are available in the City budget to cover this type
of special circulation study.
Further details may be available at the Council meeting on December 3
Respectfully submitted,
LBH: j as
E
TO: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: The Etiwanda, Alta Loma and Cucamonga Advisory Commissioners
Gentlemen:
We respectfully request that the public hearings on the Victoria Planned
Community be suspended until after the City's General Plan is adopted.
Furthermore, we also request that review of any other residential planned
community be suspended until the completion of the General Plan. We feel
this is vital to the future of the community for the following reasons:
1. Holding hearings on a planning project of this scale
when the master plan is not yet approved seems to be
putting the cart before the horse.
2. If the attention of the Community, the Planning Commission,
and the Council is on both of these projects it seems
that neither will get adequate attention.
3. With so much going on in the co:nmunit.y, we do not feel
• there will be adequate time to get the proper input from
the community on either the master plan or the Victoria
Plan. We feel that more tree shcc'd be devoted to the
General Plan before consideri•ig d_tailed planning
projects.
One of the reasons for incorporation was to allow the community to have
a greater voice in planning the City. We feel that if these hearings
continue simultaneously, it would be in contrast with what the people
of the tri- communities said they wanted when they chose you to be their
councilmen. For the above reasons, we strongly urge you to suspend
hearings on the Victoria Plan and any other residential planned community.
T"
arles J. Buqu t, 1, , Chairman
Citizens Advisory Committee
n
LJ
1��
0
•
Is
MEMORANDUM �� °y N
November 26, 1980 =
F
1977
TO: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Members of the City Council
FROM: Jim Robinson
Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Recommendation Regarding
Victoria Planned Community
At its meeting of November 20, the Citizens' Advisory Commission received the
attached letter prepared by the Etiwanda Citizens' Subcommittee. The letter
is addressed to the City Council and the Planning Commission and requests
that the public hearings on the Lyon Planned Community be suspended until
after the City's General Plan is adopted.
The letter was adopted unanimously by all members present at the Citizens'
Advisory Commission meeting. Commission member Chuck Buquet submitted the
recommendation to suspend hearings on the Victoria Planned Community at the
November 24, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. After considerable discussion
by the Planning Commission, representatives of the William Lyon Company and
staff; the Planning Commission on a 3 -1 vote recommended postponing hearings on
the Lyon Planned Community until January 1981.
At that time the Planned Community would be reviewed on a month -to -month
basis with re- review after all topics have been heard with special emphasis
given to land use.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the Lyon Planned Community review
schedule return to normal after the Planning Commission recommends adoption
of the General Plan to the City Council.
Mr. Don Baer of the Etiwanda Subcommittee will present the request to the City
Council for postponement of the Lyon Planning Community public hearings at our
regularly scheduled meeting of December 3, 1980.
JR:ba
attach.
)�7
•
•
1
M1V1 11 A II 111 I V"1 .V 1\
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval to Negotiate for Engineering Consulting
Services
Due to the Engineering Division's inability to complete its
approved staffing requirements, it has become necessary to
seek additional consulting services for specific work require-
ment.
The Staff would therefore request authorization to negotiate
time and materials contracts with the following firms to perform
the described work.
1. EDA Grant application preparation and coordination - L. D.
King Engineering. Estimated budget $5,000.
2. Victoria and Terra Vista Drainage Analysis review - L.D.
King Engineering. Estimated budget $5,000.
3. Detailed Circulation Planning and Design review for General
Plan, Victoria, Terra Vista, Industrial Specific Plan -
DKS Associates. Estimated Budget $10,000.
4. Minor roadway design services for Grove Avenue, Vineyard
Avenue, The Demens Creek Bridge, and others - Associated
Engineers. Estimated budget $15,000.
Funds for the additional work would be allocated from project
budgets and budget items for special studies and miscellaneous
design and planning studies under storm drain project proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize Staff to
negotiate time and materials contracts for design services as
described above.
Respectfully submitted,
/L I
PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
• REVENUE
Gas Tax (2106,2107)
SB325 (TOA)
Systems Development (includes carryover)
Road Maintenance Budget
Total Road Fund Available
Total Storm Drain Funds Available
(includes carryover)
PROPOSED ROAD PROJECT EXPENDITURES
1. Special Studies
✓ - Grade separation applications for Haven and
• Milliken Avenues
�- Grove Railroad Crossing
va ✓ - Seventh Street Ramp
- Miscellaneous Circulation Studies
✓ 2. Cucamonga /Deer Creek Bridges
v 3. Carnelian Street Realignment
Church Street to San Bernardino Rd.
✓ 4. Fourth Street and Archibald Ave. Signals
(Cooperative project with Ontario)
✓ 5. Grove Ave. - 8th St. to Foothill Blvd.
Minor widening and striping
✓ 6, Base Line - Cambridge to Haven
Design for alignment,widening, reconstruction,
resurfacing
✓ 7. Vineyard Avenue - 8th Street to Arrow
Design and Right of Way Acquisition
' �Od
-'r
Total
$ 474,187
514,382
450,000
$1,438,569
- 581,323
857,246
$560,000
$ 25,000
$100,000
$250,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
J
Base Lin,-
L8. Roadway Reconstruction
Federal Aid Urban
Church St. - Ramona to Archibald
50,000
Highland Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
50,000
Federal Aid Urban
100,000
�. Resurfacing Projects
Archibald
''Carnelian St. - Highland to Banyon
$120,000
-'Alta Cuesta - Red Hill to Camino Norte
40,000 —
,,Lemon Ave. -Hermosa to Haven
20,000
✓ Hellman Ave. - Monte Vista to Base Line
40,000
Church to Foothill
20,000
*Archibald Ave. - 4th to Base Line
150,000
i10 Vineyard at Foothill Signal Modification
5,000
City of Montclair Fund Transfer
126,000
TOTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
$1,196,000
*Indicates Balance /Contingency Projects
SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDS
✓1.
Base Lin,-
Reconstruction
Federal Aid Urban
$230,000
�'2.
Base�Line
0 ilellman Signals
Federal Aid Urban
$110,000 •
• —
Archibald
@ Church St. Signals
Federal Aid Urban
�3.
North To',:n
Street improvement
HUD. CDBG Fends
$351,000
PT5, 000
STORM ORA IN PROJECT PROPOSAL
/ 1. Carnelian Storm Drain $500,000
2. Misc. Design and Planning _S_tu_d_ies1 $ 60,000
560,000
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
*l. Carnelian Street IIIIPrOVement Project $600,000
phased construction
'This itc--i is a cdrr; q;. +r frc-. :he vun =nt
included in the program s!ihmitted to the Planning Commission.
r •
4OJ
.) J.
December 3, 1980
R•.issell R. Shimahara
Q754 Placer Street
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Re: Zone Change M-20-- Vann ar_d I!o'ies
Dear Mr. Shimahara:
Cit\- of
R-kNC110'
CUCAMONGA
!hank you for your letter of November 19, 1990. Your letter was
submitted as part of the record on Zone Change 80 -20 at the City
Cnuncil. The zoning which the property in question enjoys, is R -R
which permits single. family residential homes similar to those which
You occupy. Because of marketing concerns, the developer is requesting
a zone change from R -R to R -1.
Your concern with the use of a single access to the proposed tract
was raised at the Growth Managemert Committee by the Foothill Fire
Protection District. We are currently working to provide an additional
secondary means of access for emergency vehicles onlv. Placer Street
would serve as the only entrance and exit to your subdivision and the
pro nosed subdivision. However, an emergency access as stated earlier
would be required as part of this development should Placer Street
be blocked for any reason.
for your information I have enclosed copies of the P. -R and R -1 zones as
they exist for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Both of these zones were
adopted by Ordinance 110. 17 and were actually a part of the San Bernardino
County Development Code.
l.ith regard to your .Qncern over trie corrsideratinn of a ti ve
Declaration for this property at the zone change level, since the change
in zone is only a change in des ignation and not any particular use, the
zone change itself, would riot have a significant impact on the environment.
However, with regard to any development on the prnper't,y, consideration
Of a Negative Declaration would not he made unless assurances were given
by the Foothill Fire Protection District the Citv Fnnt neer and ethers
trot th,: n,e vr: r,, -en' f the Pi epe r+y :culd n,t 1 :i gni`i oval affect
on the environment.
POST OFFICE BOX 597, RAN( 110 I'I'r,1 J10 S G ;t, fdt,lPfrR%',A 91 ;9n
171 4) 99 78.51
d is d
December 3, 1980
Page 2
Thank you for your letter. We hope that we have answered your concerns.
However, if you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate
to contact this office.
Very /truly ypy rs,
'Barry )C. Hogan'
City, Planner
BKH:kp
cc. City Clerk
Enclosure
lbs Loren Wasserman
City ganger
Frogs A. Douglas Wilson
7074 Bamona Avenue
Alfa Lose
Res Zone Change go. 80 -19 - Diversified
As owner and operator of a seven acre citrus grove north
of the property under consideration and parallel to the
Southern Pacific tracks and facing the east side of
Archibald Avenw, I strongly object to the proposal of
R -j (multiple fasdly residential) use for the 16 urea
on the northeast corner of Baseline and Archibald.
A tight concentration of ,people on this land can only
produce more of an existing problem$ traffic congestion,
pollution (sight, sound and odor), a site for crime and
ovor burdeniag all facilitdee -- including schools, fire
and polio*.
As for myself there in more than enough to contend with
as it is now$ pollution, theft of fralt, general damages
to property and equipment.
In view of a pronounced need for a medical facility in
this area, I firmly believe this property could beet be
utilised for that purpose.
I prey your soot serious consideration will allow our
oouanity this great and needed advantage.
Date 6Y 0
C B M ENTERPRISES, INC.
1146 W. NINTH ST. • UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786
Phone! 714 /9821081
Our company is the exclusive authorized Distributor/
Manufacturer of Commander Board products in San Bernardino/
Riverside Counties. Commander Board International has it's
headquarters in St. Louis, Mo. We sell or lease Boards, with
various size and or color letter sets and have been in business
in Upland since 1971.
We are familiar with the Commander Board owned by Red
Hill Cafe, located near the corner of Foothill and Grove in
Cucamonga and have done some maintenance on this board in the
past.
The current replacement cost of this Board, with the base,
letters, installation, etc. would be approximately $1500,00
with the changeable letter set representing about 30 -35% of the
total.
The Boards are constructed of heavy guage aluminum
extrusions, with a high quality finish. The Boards have a
normal, minimum life of (10) years, with normal maintenance.
We hope this information is sufficient and request that
you call if anything else is needed.
Cordially,
4
C.W. Emmons - Pres.
CWldv
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center,
9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, December 3, 1980. The meeting
was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in the flag
salute.
Present: Councilmen Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palambo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor
Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack
Lam; City Planner, Barry Hogan; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Finance Director, Harry
Empey; Community Services Director, Bill Holley.
Absent: Councilman James C. Frost
Approval of Minutes: It was requested that a sentence be reworded on page 7, Section
4A, sixth paragraph, line three as follows: " However, he felt that we would be remiss
if we did not require a "B" type roof throughout the City due to fire problems created
because of the winds." Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Bridge to approve the
amended minutes of November 5, 1980. Motion carried 4 -1 -0. (Councilman Frost absent).
2. CONSENT CALENDAR.
Councilman Mikels requested that item "1" be removed since there was no backup material
submitted in the agenda. Item was the release of Performance Bond for slope planting
for tract 9350.
a. Approval of Warrants - Register No. 80 -12 -3 for $200,838.24.
b. Alcoholic Beverage License for Dorothy E. Heinemann, The Cub, 8411 Foothill
Boulevard -- on -sale beer and wine.
C. Alcoholic Beverage License for Sun Pacific Airlines, Inc. for Bud Grossherg,
Samuel P. Crowe, Weldon Gadberry, Robert Jensen, Joseph Tavaglione, Ronald Wayne
Burkle, Sun Pacific Airlines, 9223 Archibald Avenue -- on -sale general.
d. Forward Claim from Rodney J. Heathcock to the City Attorney for handling.
e. Forward Claim from Keith Allen Baker to the City Attorney for handling.
f. Authorization for the Deputy City Clerk to attend the 1981 City Clerks
Institute, January 14 -16 in Sacramento, Estimated cost: $200.00.
g. Reimbursement Agreement for Engineering on Industrial Assessment District:
Approval of agreement to allow reimbursement of $25,000 in Assessment Engineering and
Legal Counsel for Assessment District 79 -1. These funds would only be reimbursed if
the district is approved and formed.
h. Contract Addendum to Carnelian Street Realignment Project: Approval of extra work
to cover the cost of structural design of the expansion of a box culvert required to
complete the Carnelaan Street realignment.
I. Vineyard Avenue Design Services: Approval of contract with C G Engineering to
complete right- of -wav acquisition, railroad coordination, and design of the Vineyard
Avenue FAU project. Rescind approval by contract with the City of Ontario for similar
services.
Page 2
j. Acceptance of Parcel Hap No. 5505: Recommend that Council accept the subject
map which consists of four parcels located on the north side of Almond Street,
east of Sapphire.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -108
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL MAP NO. 5505 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
5505).
k. Approval of Parcel Mao No. 5922: Recommend that Council authorize the City
Clerk and City Engineer to sign the subject map. The map consists of four parcels
located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Jasper Street.
RESOLUTION N0: 80 -109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5922 (TENTATIVE PARCEL N0,
5922), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY.
} - -- Freel- 9350s-- }eeeled- en -lhe- wenl - a }de- ef- 6npph4re- fierce!- beMeen- Benyen -nnd
} 9eh- fil reeer-- Bwnert-- 6eme- Henehe- Hemee--- Re }eex- a € - beetle:
Fe }!h €n }- per€ ermenee - geed- Ee }epe -p}en! }egg--- - - - - -- $6;600
(Item was removed for lack of backup information).
m. Approval of Contract for Services to Establish Computer Terminal Facilities
for the Fiscal Model.
n. Set December 17, 1980 for public hearing on Environmental Assessment and
Planned Development No. 80 -02 -- Lesney. A change of zone request from R -1 -5
(single family residential) to P.D. (planned development) for 10 acres located
on the northwest corner of Hermosa and Base Line Road, and the development of a
117 lot townhouse development consisting of 114 dwelling units. APN 202 - 182 -13.
o. Set December 17, 1980 for public hearing on Environmental Assessment and
Zone Change No. 80 -15 -- Landmark. A change of zone from A -1 (limited agricul-
tural) to R -2 (two family residential) for 12 acres located west of Beryl,
south of Mignonette. APN 202 - 032 -71.
p. Set December 17, 1980 for public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance.
q. Authorization for part -time clerk typist for the Community Services Department
through June 30, 1981.
r. Approval of Railroad Spur Crossing: It is recommended that Council at'prove
a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign petitions submitted by the Railway
Company.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -110
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PETITION BY THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT A SPUR LINE ACROSS
EIGHTH STREET 2,912.5 FEET WEST OF ROCHESTER
AVENUE.
s. Amendment to city facility leases: It is recommended that Council renew
the lease for units A, B, C -1 and C -2 for a two -year period.
Councilman Frost arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the Consent Calendar
with the exception of item "1" which had been removed. Motion carried unanimously
S -0,
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
3A. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUILDING REGULATIONS. Jerry Grant, Building Official,
presented the staff report.
The Council's main concern with the ordinance was in Chapter 16, section 1603
dealing with roof coverings in high fire hazard areas. Mr. Grant explained the
differences between the A, B, and C class roofings. However, Councilman Bridge
said he was not satisfied with the definitions and wished to have the item continued
so he could read them for himself.
Mayor asked the City Clerk to read the title of Ordinance No. 122. City Clerk
Wasserman read the title. M,.tion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive
further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. 122 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 1979
EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF
DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM SIGN CODE, UNIFORM
BUILDING SECURITY CODE, AND UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
STANDARDS AND MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN
NECESSARY TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were
Morris Goldberg, 2145 Las Luna, Pasadena. He explained the differences
between the Class A and Class B type roofing materials. He said it was not necessary
to eliminate shake type roofing in high fire hazard areas since you could put a
Class C shake material on top of a Class B type base.
Ken Willis, BIA, said the BIA supports the use of fire retardant type roofing materials
in high fire hazard areas. He suggested that in areas where such materials are
required that Council also require retrofitting.
John Lyons, Foothill Fire District Board Member, said that a tile roof is very heavy
on top of a burning structure.
Doreen Warren questioned Section 3210. She said her home needed a new roof and
they planned to do the work themselves. She questioned the necessity of having
this inspected and obtaining permits since this would add to the cost. Mr. Grant
explained that this had been required under the previous codes. This had not been
changed.
Herman Hempel, Planning Commissioner, felt that these requirements were not necessary
and would simply add to the cost of the house.
Ken Willis said he differed with Mr. Rempel since there was a difference of about
$2000 per dwelling unit between the use of shake versus tile.
Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing since there were no further comments.
Councilman Bridge said that perhaps we needed to come up with something unique for
Rancho Cucamonga.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to continue this item to the January
7, 1981 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
with all members of the Council and staff present.
Page 4
3B. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80 -02. Amendments to the San
Bernardino County Land Use and Building regulations as adopted by Ordinance
No. 17. Staff report presented by Barry Hogan.
Mr. Hogan requested that the Planned Development section be referred back to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration to the R -1 -1 and R- 20,000 zoning districts.
Also, to add the new page 7 which had been submitted to Council prior to the
meeting.
Mayor requested the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. City Clerk
Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 123.
ORDINANCE NO. 123 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
RESIDENTIAL, PARKING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND
ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS OF THE INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no 'response,
the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Mikels said he had several recommendations for changes to the ordinance
which were:
Page 5(b) Accessory Uses Permited:
(1) Guest House (bathroom plumbing only).
(2) Private garage with space for maximum of 4 cars.
(3) Home Occupation pursuant to Ordinance 72 of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
(4) A temporary sales office may be located in a subdivision, etc.
to remain the same.
Page 7(b) Accessory Uses Permitted:
(1) These uses permitted pursuant to Section 61.024A(b).
(c) Parking requirements: remains the same.
(d) Loading Space Requirements: remains the same.
(e) Height Limitations: remains the same.
(f) Minimum Areas and Dimensions of Lots: remains the same.
(g) Front Yard Required: remains the same.
(h) Interior Side Yard Required: remains the same.
(i) Rear Yard Required: remains the same.
(j) Distances Required between Main Buildings: remains the sane.
(k) Side Street Yard Required: remains the same.
(1) Open Space Required: remains the same.
Page 13 (A) The applicant shall obtain City Council approval for establishment of
a Homeowners` Association prior to the selling of any lot or occupancy
of any dwelling unit.
Page 14 (6) (line 4 of the section) The City Council shall approve, modify, or
disapprove the zone change and Development Plan.
Page 22 (IV) Off -Site Parking Facilities: The City Planner may authorize not
more than 10 percent of the required parking for a use to be located
(rest remains the same)
Page 25 (A) 12th line -- To achieve these purposes, the Planning Commission is
empowered to review and evaluate the anplicable circumstances pertain-
ing to each use subject to Development Review (rest remains the same).
Page 26 (VI) The City Planner may require additional information or plans,
necessary to enable complete analysis and evaluation of the
application by the Planning Commission. The application shall
be accompanied by a fee established by Resolution of the City
Council.
(3) Action by City Planner:
(A) The City Planner shall review the application for
Development Review and shall refer said application to
the Planning Commission, along with recommendations and
suggested conditions, if any, within 30 days of acceptance
of the application for Development Review. Conditions
may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements
for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls,
and screening; requirements for installation and mainten-
ance of landscaping and erosion control measures; require-
ments for street improvements and dedications, regulation
of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation;
regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other charac-
teristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of
landscaping and other improvements; establishment of
development schedules or time limits for performance or
completion; and such other conditions as the City Planner
may deem necessary to insure compatibility with surrounding
uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare,
and to enable the Planning Commission to make the findings
required by Section 61.0219(n)5.
(B) Delete paragraph
Page 27(5IA) The Planning Commission shall make the following findings
before granting approval pursuant to Development Review:
(6A) The decision of the Planning Commission shall be effective
14 calendar days after the date of the decision unless an
appeal has been filed with the City Council
(7A) A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within
14 calendar days to the City Council by the applicant or any
other person as prescribed in Section 61.0222.
(8B) A Development Review approval subject to lapse may be renewed
by the Planning Commission for an additional period of one
year, provided that prior to the expiration date, a written
request for renewal is filed with the Planning Commission. If
the application is appealed to the City Council, it may be ex-
tended by the City Council.
Page 29 (3B) The City Planner shall make an investigation of the application
and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be available to
the City Council and Planning Commission and to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
Page 30 (8C) The Planning Commission may grant or deny an application for
renewal. If the application is appealed to the City Council,
the City Council may grant or deny an application for renewal.
Page 31 (11B) Line 6 -- Within two (2) working days following the date of a
decision of the Commission revoking a Use Permit or location
and development plan, the City Planner shall transmit to the
City Council written notice of the decision.
No. 123 with the suggested language changes as suggested by Councilman Palombo
and himself and to set second reading for January 7, 1931. Motion carried unanimously
5 -0.
3C. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST NO. 30 -18 - R.J. INVESTMENTS. Staff report presented by
Barry Hogan.
Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson, read the title of Ordinance No. 125. Motion:
Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. 125 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 207 - 191 -49 -48 FROM R -1 TO R -3
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST
OF BARER AVENUE.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Councilman Frost expressed that he could not see any way the one section zoned R -3
could be compatible with the R -1 -T and felt the zone change was not appropriate.
Council also expressed concern over the traffic flow off Baker onto Foothill
Boulevard.
Motion: Moved by Frost to deny the zone change request. For lack of a second the
motion failed.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the zone change request.
Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES:
Frost. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Mikels. Councilman Mikels expressed that he
abstained since his home was in the vicinity.
3D. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST NO. 80 -19 - DIVERSIFIED. A zone change request for 16 acres
of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald from R -1 -5
(single family residential) to A -P (administrative - professional) and R -3 (multiple
family residential). APN 201 - 181 -12, 21, and 22. Staff report presented by Barry
Hogan.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 126. Motion: Moved by Mikels,
seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 126 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBERS 201- 181 -12, 21, AND 22.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
Mr. A. Douglas Wilson, 7074 Ramona Avenue, read a letter which he had sent
to Mr. Wasserman expressing his opposition to the zone change. He recommended
that a medical facility be located on this particular piece of property.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing.
B
Motion: `loved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve the zone change and
Ordinance No. 126. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
3E. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -20 - Vanguard. A zone change request from R -R to R -1
on 10 acres of land located north of Arrow Highway, east of Archibald Avenue
at the eastern terminus of Cerise and Placer Streets. APN 208- 311 -01.
Staff report presented by Barry Hogan.
Deputy City Clerk Beverly Authelet read title of Ordinance No. 127. Motion:
Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. 127 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208 - 311 -01 FROM R -R
TO R -1 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW
HIGHWAY AND EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the zone change and
Ordinance No. 127. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
3F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80 -03 - Adult
Businesses. An ordinance establishing regulations of the location and review of
adult businesses in the C -2 general business district. Staff report presented by
Mr. Wasserman.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 45 -C. Motion: Moved by Palombo,
seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. 45 -C (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE LOCATION AND REVIEW OF ADULT
BUSINESSES IN THE C -2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the
hearing was closed,
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve Ordinance No. 45 -C. The
motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
3G. ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACTS NOS
9176, 9225, 9436, AND 9567. Staff report presented by Lloyd Hobbs.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public comments. There being none, the
public portion was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve Resolution No. 80 -111
and to waive entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk
Wasserman read title of Resolution No. 80 -111.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 1
FOR TRACT NOS. 9176, 9225, 9435, AND 9567.
3H. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ISSUED FOR GLEN FRANKLIN. Staff report pre-
sented by Lloyd Hobbs.
The City had received an appeal for an approved Tree Removal Permit to remove
eleven eucalyptus and palm trees located at 6730 Hellman Avenue. Mr. Hubbs said
that two letters expressing opposition to the removal of the trees had been re-
ceived by the City.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing.
Dan Drake, speaking for his father -in -law who lived at 6754 Hellman Avenue, spoke
in favor of having the tree removal request denied.
Bob Lesondak, 6840 Hellman Avenue. spoke in favor of retaining the trees and the
high curbs since the street was a water carrying street during the rainy season.
There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Schlosser closed the
public portion of the meeting.
Councilman Bridge expressed that it would be a crime to change Hellman Avenue
now. He said that this particular variety of eucalyptus tree is clean and the
way that they are planted is an asset to the city.
Motion: Moved by Bridge seconded by Palombo to retain the curbs and trees on
Hellman Avenue and to sustain the appeal. This is to be a precedent _
for the rest of Hellman Avenue. Also, to have a lien attached to this
particular piece of property in order to protect the future interest of the
property and the city. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:00 p.m.
with all members of the Council and staff present.
4. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
4A. APPEAL OF DECISION REGARDING THE RED HILL COFFEE SHOP SIGN.
Mayor Schlosser asked Mrs. Moffatt to come forward. He asked her if she has any
alternatives to suggest to the staff recommendation. She stated there was three
years left on the amoritation plan. They would be willing to split the time with
the city which would grant them eighteen months. After some discussion by the
Council, the following motion was made:
Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Mikels to allow the Moffatts eighteen
months (Tune 1982) to amortize the Red Hill Coffee Shop sign. Motion passed by
the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Frost.
ABSENT: None. Frost said he opposed this because he felt we should comply with
our own ordinance and make this six months.
4B. ONTARIO GROUND ACCESS STUDY. Staff report presented by Lloyd Hobbs.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve the allocation of
$5,000 as our city's share toward the increased cost of the contract for the
Ontario Ground Access Study. The amount to be allocated from the public circu-
lation study fund. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
4C. ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED
C010MNITY. Staff report presented by Jim Robinson.
Mr. Vlasic, Advisory Commission Charinan for the month of December, read a letter
which had been sent to the Council requesting that the public hearings on the
Victoria Planned Community be suspended until after the City's General Plan was
adopted. The lette- had received unanimously support by all Advisory Commissioners.
Sim Banks, Etiwanda resident, suggested that the City Council become more involved
in the General Plan process. He said the Commission has been hearing input from
the citizens, but decisions are never made.
Don Baer, Advisory Commissioner
John Lyons, Foothill Fire District Board Member
Gary Frye, William Lyon Company representative
Ron Tannabaum, Etiwanda resident
Marsha Banks, Etiwanda resident
After hearing the comments from the audience, the Mayor closed the public portion
of the meeting.
Councilman Bridge said he favored going ahead with the planned community and the
general plan at the same time since they really could not be separated.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to concur with the Planning Co®issil
recommendation to postpone the hearings on the Lyon Planned Community until
January 1981. At that time to have only monthly meetings until the General Plan
is adopted, then to return to the normal review schedule. Motion carried unanimously
5 -0.
Councilman Mikels said he wanted to see the General Plan come to the Council in
February. Council concurred.
4D. APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES. Staff report by
Lloyd Hubbs.
Councilman Frost excused himself from the Council table since he had an employer
involved in this discussion.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to authorize staff to negctiate time
and material's contracts for design services for:
1. EDA Grant application preparation and coordination with L.D. King at
an estimated budget of $5,000.
2. Victoria and Terra Vista Drainage Analysis review with L.D. King at an
estimated budget of $5,000.
3. Detailed Circulation Planning and Design review for General Plan
Victoria, Terra Vista, Industrial Specific Plan with DKS Associates
at an estimated budget of $10,000.
+. Minor roadway design services for Grove Avenue, Vineyard Avenue, the
Demens Creek Bridge, and others with Associated Engineers at an
estimated budget of $15,000.
Motion carried by the following vote: AYES; Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser.
.FOES: None. ABSENT: Frost.
5. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. There were none.
6. COUNCIL MATTERS. There were none.
7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to an
Executive Session, not to reconvene this evening, but to reconvene on December
11, at 7:00 p.m. for a Special Assessment District meeting at Lion's Park Community
Center. The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk