HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980/11/05 - Agenda Packeta
p G��CnAiph,
11 Cam. CTTY OF
� RANCHO CLrANINGA
0 T j�71T(y, 1Vl�1L
•�VU
O
U s
1977 November 5, 1980
AGENDA ITEMS: All items submitted for the City Council agenda must be in
writing. The dr.adline 'or 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.
J. CALL TO ORDER.
A. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
B. Roll Call: Frost__, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, Schlosser__
C. Approve of Minutes: October 15, 1980.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
a. November 3: Financial Task Force at 7:00 p.m. -- Lion's Park Com-
munity Center. ✓
b. Novem er 6: Zone 1 Advisory
A dv iV jss o�ry � I/ Committee �special > me ci'n1 g ; at
t
2:00 p.m. --
a0 i O i ice � uilding,t i� I&AH,toric ry 6 d
'Ap, / November 13: e 'n C
p.m. -- Lion's
✓k Community Center
o v 0— 9 C — % "6,0 Aca�
g
d. November 8: Adjourn meeting of City Council with Foothill Fire
District Board of Trustees at 7:00 p.m. -- Lion's Park Community Center.
\\. e. November 20: Adv Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. -- Lion's Park
P Community Center. isory
{ r J�
9GS 6./63/ G.�u. 6 -T 7QM C. M
3. CONSENT CALENDAR. L ,Vjz &AJ , �4 - -�
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
disc.ssion.
a. Approval of Warrants - Register No. 80 -11 -5 for $282,769.65. 1
i y Council Agenda -2- November 5, 1980
b. Acquisition of Truck Bodies: Recommendation that the City 5
Council authorize the Finance Director to purchase two
(2) dump truck bodies as supplied by Arrow Truck Bodies,
the lowest qualified bidder, as per City specifications,
for the bid price of $12,052.12.
c. Tract 9435: located east of Haven Avenue and south of 21
future 19th Street. Owner: Chevron Construction Co.
Acceptance of map, bonds, and agreement.
Faithful Performance (surety) $117,000
Labor S Material (surety) 58,500
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -98 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9435.
d. Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance District U1. 36
A recommendation to City Council to approve a resolu-
tion of intent to add Tracts 9176, 9225, 9435, and
9567 to Landscape Maintenance District /)1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -99 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMIN-
ARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR
ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -100 _-yp
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT;
DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 2
TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO.
e. Lien Agreement - Dr, Melvin Kornblatt. It is recommended 48
that Council approve the lien agreement submitted by Dr.
`: lvin Korblatt that will allow the postponement of
street improvements.
City Council Agenda -3- November 5, 1980
•
RESOLUTION N0. 80 -96 49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN
AGREEMENT FROM DR. MELVIN B. KORNBLATT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN
THE SAME.
f. Release of bonds. 57
Tract 9302: located on the southwest corner of Hermosa
Avenue and Lemon Avenue. Owner: Vanguard Builders, Inc.
Labor S Material (road) $ 44,000
Tract 9402: located on the south side of Lemon Avenue at
Mayberry Avenue. Owner: Olympus Pacific Corp.
Labor 6 Material (road) $ 27,000
Labor d Material (water on -site) 7,000
Labor 6 Material (water off -site) 3,500
Labor 6 Material (sewer on -site) 7,000
Labor 6 Material (sewer off -site) 5,500
• Tract 9458: located on the southeast corner of Ivy Lane
and Base Line. Owner: Fred Schneider.
Labor 6 Material (road) $ 38,000
Labor S Material (water) 17,500
Labor S Material (sewer) 10,000
Tract 9422 -2: located west of Turner Avenue and southerly
of Church Street. Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
Cash Staking Bond $ 3,400
Tract 9588: located on the northside of Wilson between Amethyst
and Archibald. Owner: Golden Bear Construction, Inc.
Performance Bond (road) $ 48,900
Tract 9440: located on the west side of Hermosa, 500+
feet north of Banyan. Owner: Chevron Construction Company.
Cash Staking Bond $ 3,450
Tract 9422: located south of Church Street between Ramona and
Turner Avenue. Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
• Cash Staking Bond $ 3,100
Tract 9422 -1: located east of Ramona Avenue and southerly of
Church Street. Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
Cash Staking Bond $ 4,000
City Council Agenda -4- November 5, 1980
40
Tract 9582 -2: located on the north side of Wilson Avenue at
Beechwood Drive. Amer: The Deer Creek Company.
Faithful Performance (landscape) $ 6,270
Parcel Mao 4957: located on the southeast corner of Base
Line and Hellman Avenue. Owner: Douglas K. Hone.
Set Aside Letter (road) $ 15,000
g. Forward claim by Timothy J. Weckerle to the City Attorney 60
for handling.
h. Forward claim by Kelly Weckerle to the City Attorney for 63
handling.
i. Forward claim by Santibanez Family to the City Attorney 66
for handling.
J. Set Public Hearing for review of Zone Change No. 80 -20
by Vanguard for November 19, 1980: A zone change request
from R -R to R -1 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.
k. Set Public Hearing for review of Zone Change No. 80 -19 by
Diversified to November 19, 1980: A zone change request
from R -1 -5 to A -P on 16 acres of land located on the
northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald. APN 201-
181-12, 21, and 22.
1. Set Public Hearing date of November 19, 1980 for Zone
Change No. 80 -18 by R. J. Investments: A change of zone
from R -1 -T to R -3 on 5.5 acres of land located south
of Foothill Boulevard, west of Baker Avenue. APN 207-
191-49 and 48.
m. Set Public Hearing date of November 19, 1980 for
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 80 -03: an amendment
to the C -2 (service commercial) zone district regulating
the location and development of adult businesses.
n. Urban Forestry Grant Application: application for 71
Q $50,000 for the planting of trees in front yards of
residences and parkway strips under the California
Department of Forestry;partidpation by the local groups
is a requirement of the Grant. The Rancho Grande Kiwanis
is our participant.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -101 73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING
THE CITY'S APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM.
City Council Agenda -5- November 5, 1980
• o. Update on progress of Fiscal Model and a request 74
to approve the extension of the Fiscal Model
Development contract between the City and M.K.G.K.,
Inc. Recommended that City Council approve the con-
tract extension as proposed.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUILDING REGULATIONS. 77
Jerry Grant, Building Official, will present the
staff report.
ORDINANCE NO. 122 (first reading) 86
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-
KENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM SIGN CODE, G
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, AND MAKING
• CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN NECESSARY TO MEET
LOCAL CONDITIONS. (M'
B. ANNEXATION #1 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ;/1 FOR 115
TRACT 9637. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve
Resolution ordering the annexation of Tract 9637 to Land-
scape Maintenance District No. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -102 116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. I TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACT
NO. 9637.
C. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80-02. Staff 126
report presented by Jack Lam, Community Development
Director. -- Amendments to the San Betnardino County
Land Use and Building Regulations as adopted by
Ordinance No. 17 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Specifically:
City Council Agenda -6- November 5, 1980
•
Sections 61.024(A) R -1 Districts
61.024(D) R -2 Districts
61.024(E) R -3 Districts
61.024(£) R -R District
61.0216 PUD District
61.029(b) Parking Requirements
61.029(f) Site Approval
61.029(8) Height Requirements
61.029(h) Area Requirements
61.0219(1) Minor Deviations
61.0219(m) Minor Deviations
61.0219(n) Director Review
7L 5
61.0220 Variances
61.0221 Amendments
for the purpose of providing interim guidance relative y Y3
to development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. IG�1
ORDINANCE NO. 123 (first reading) (\ J
f
i
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
•
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE RESIDENTIAL, PARKING, PLANNED DEVEL07KEN1,
AND ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS OF THE INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
D. VACATION OF CHESTNUT STREET. Staff report by Lloyd
Hubbs.�
129
It is recommended that Council hear evidence on the
vacation of Chestnut Street from Hermosa to 1350+ feer
A✓
,'1A4
west. �/y� .11 MS'e'i
p' N
I 137
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -91 �`./ ;
✓�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO BE VACATED, A
PORTION OF CHESTNUT STREET, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
NO. V -011 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
E. PROPOSED ABANDONED ORCHARDS ORDINANCE. Staff report
139
by Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted by reference
the County Code which includes a provision that prohibits
is
neglected or abandoned orchards. Abandoned orchards
have been defined as those orchards where the trees
constitute a fire hazard, constitute ugly or unsightly
conditions while adversely affecting neighboring pro-
perties. or places from which agricultural nests develon
and spread thereby creating a public nuisance.
City Council Agenda -7- November 5, 1980
40 It is felt that it would be in the best interests of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga to adopt its own Provisions for
handling abandoned orchards by ordinance and eventually
incorporating this ordinance into the City Code.
ORDINANCE NO. 124 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING C �`
NEGLECTED OR ABANDONED ORCHARDS PUBLIC NUISANCES
PROVIDING FOR THE REMOVAL THEREOF AND ESTABLISHING /^
CRIMINAL PENALTIES. '
F.
•
El
AREA. Staff report
Although this is not a public hearing, there may be some
public input. Representatives of Omnitrans and A.T.E.
Management and Service Company Inc. will be present to dis-
cuss an analysis of fixed route and dial -a- ride /lift services
in Rancho Cucamonga and outline specific recommendations
developed as a result of this comprehensive transit study.
During 1979, the Omnitrans Board and management recognized
the need to thoroughly examine the performance of existing
route and schedule network. Available data resources to
assist this process proved inadequate and a thorough pro-
fessional assessment of the transportation system appeared
necessary.
Working with the San Bernardino Associated Government (SANBAG),
Omnitrans secured 100 percent funding under Section 8 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act to conduct the study effort.
The local management team of Omnitrans worked in cooperation
with the staff resources of A.T.E. Management and Services
Company Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, to provide professional
management of its regular transit operation.
Field work was conducted from April through June of 1980.
The study effort included onboard rider surveys during
March and April 1980; transfer analysis; a trail check of
vehicles to review vehicle and route running time, traffic
conditions, safety and operational problems; citizen input -
"Tell Us Where to Go Campaign;" and trip logs for Omnitrans,
Dial -a -ride and Dial -a -lift were examined to assess travel
demand patterns.
•
0
KI
City Council Agenda
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
-8-
November 5, 1980
A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE
SIGN FOR RED HILL COFFEE SHOP.
B. COMPLAINTS ON BOARS HEAD IN THE BOB'S BIG BOY CENTER
C. STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE CITY'S EDA GRANT APPLI-
CATION.
r
A
-�
e`� ,vm ASS
PSi�aP`y i. eb
143 10.
IrLN
157 ���yyy����yyyNNNNNN'
Paul Pope, member of the County EDA Commission will pre-
sent the status report.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULA-
TIONS FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY CONSULTANT DOUG AYRES.
This is the third and final volume of the "Compre-
hensive Personnel System" developed by consultant
Doug Ayres. The first volume consisted of the
"Classification Plan "; the second volume, the
"Compensation Plan "' and this document contains the
rules, procedures, and necessary forms to administer
the system. L I I I.l
� F'u,J ��,t h7� [30u
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
I
S� R867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
%APR A VEN A V E N C 0 R N A M E
00816 336C ROBERT ESCUCERO INC
�00817 0025 REITER DEVELOPMENT, A H
OC818 72o2 MC CUTCHAN, STEPHEN
00819 895C UNIV OF CALIF REGENTS
00820 6550 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALT
00821 7739 PIANTEGOSI, NICHOLAS
00822 229C CHINO BASIN MUNI MATER
00823200 BANK OF AMERICA
00824 SOA NATL INST OF COMM OEVEL
00825 831' SAN BRNONO CO EMPLOY C
00826 7303 MILES. FREDDIE B
UNOATION HEALT
NNTNG CONGRESS
ILLIAM L
ETE
BERNARCINO
BERTA
OKBEVLPMNT GEP
ALIF REGENTS
FEDERAL SAVING
ILLS ASSOC
SVC CO
^.CNO— AUOITCR
PRY J
s LAUREI M
O JAMES H
RRY K
R
Y. F
HUMANE SOCIETY
EMP RETIREMENT S
EXPRESS AIR
R TIRE CENTER
C AUOIA
F CERAL SAVING
CNC CO EMPLOY C
AMERICA
ENT- CEVLPMNT CEP
MC BROOM, CON
ERANCT, JEANNINE
KNUTSEN. GINNA
FERNANDEZ. ELIZABETH
LOGUE, SALLY
CLACK SC MLEGER, RCSEANN
LEMEN. SLSAN
CNTI. MARIE
MILLER. AILEEN
OCEHL. GRETCHEN
URENAr GEORGE
?OORICU EEZ, CANA
BURKHART CAROLYP. LANG
UYANN DIANE
HANC4 ORANGE KIHANIS C
INTLTCITY MGTGASSfC
NAIL INST OF COMM LEVEL
ALLEN C PARTNERS, RALPH
FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVING
GREEN ROCK GARDENS
RICHARD MILLS ASSOC
FORMS ALIGNMENT
FORMS ALIGNMENT
FORMS ALIGNMENT
MARR
GATE
NET
17, 9C6
1,671
30
1,612 100
Is
1.
3,
3,
4,
1.
14,
8,
1.
6,
2s
4
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
6
5
100. 0
4.6
�p A867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WARR A VEN A V E N C 0 R N A M E
04969 VOIC FORMS ALIGNMENT
04990 DOG) A -1 TURF IRRIGATION
04991 0002 A -AABLE LOCK L KEY
04992 0004 A -1 LINEN
04993 0025 REITER DEVELOPMENT, A M
04994 0031 AM INTL- BRUNING OIV
04995 0133 ACKIh S• ViR G7NIA
04996 „ 0210 AL G SONS AUTOMOTIVE _
04996 0235 ALTAMFTREF EQUIPYCOO
04999 0242 ALTA LOMA FLORIST
05000 0480 ARENA FORD
05001 049C ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES
r 05002 0000 AUTHEL T. BEVERLY
• 05003 1025 AUDIC R APHIC SYSTEMS
13p05004 .1457 BISHOP COMPANY
05005.147 BLAIR. VERCEAN '
05006 1775 BURG, WENDY
05007 1765 13UREAl1 OF THE CENSUS
05008 1895 CCI HOME INTER ORS
05009 190C C G ENGINEERING
05010 2084 CAMPBELL. ROY
05011 2091 CCcANN WHSLE PAPER CORP
`050 {9 2227 CHAFFEY hOMAHFISOC SOCIETY
05014 .2283 CHEVRON USA INC
05015 230C CITRUS MOTORS
05017 2335 COCA COLANBOTTLINGOCC
05018 2336 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
05019 2388 J H CONCRETE
,ly 05020 2391 CONWAY PUBLICATIONS INC
BI 050171 240C COOK /ARTPUR INC
050 2 2478 H 8 COVEY INC
05023 251C CCUWENOERG, ALEX
05024 2515 CRANCELLr TOM
05025 VOIC VENDOR N0. 2575
05026 2575 CUCAMONGA CO MATER DIST
05027 2595 CUCAMONGA PRINTING
05028 2619 WILLIAMS PRINTING, 0
05029 2615 GKS ASSOCIATES
05C30 265C GAILY REPORT
05031 2680 LAYALAN MO• N
05032 2693 CEL MONTE HYATT HOUSE
05033 270C CETCO
05034 2791 CIANA CUSTOM UPHOLST
05035 2814 CIETRICH -POST CO
p 05036 2904 CVORAK, GAYLE
�M 05037 3125 AST MAN, BRIAN
05038 3350 ERE L, JASON
05039 4050 FED PART - FINANCE
05040 4585 GENERAL BINDING CO
05041 4590 GENERAL ELECTRIC
05042 4600 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO
05043 4630 GERMAIN, GARY
05044 4635 GIBSONr JUDY
05045 4797 GUYS L GALS WORK TOGS
05046 4901 PAICL, MCIRA
05047 490E PALL, JAN
05048 4809 PALL, CHARLES
05049 4816 PARRIS MARLENE
05050 4834 HENOFR 6, DONNA
05051 4945 PERNAN E2, MYRA
05052 4901 HOLLEY, WM - PETTY CASH
�M 05053 4975 S M PCYT LUMBER CU
05054 4999 PUNT, JAMES
05095 511C IBM
05056 5I3C INLAND EMPIRE TUPF SUPP
05057 5140 INLAND POWER SWEEPING
05058 527E INT`` CONF BLDG OFFICIAL
05059 6150 JIMEhE2 J C
05060 617', JOBS AVAILABLE
05061 656° KALM, OARRIN
OSC62 6592 KCKOR, STEVE
05063 6594 KUTT, JOEY
NAB
NARR
GATE
NET
375.52
95.51
67.00
6.897.90
7.90
10.00
134.09
74.007
20.14
32.40
23.19
45.00
921.84
1,495.28
10.00
10.000
103.05
8,154.90
10.00
291.93
19.40
164.80
24.71
54.64
8.00
74.89
166.00
4,065.00
37.00
472.46
20.00
10.00
10.00
863.91 +
284.66
80.56
725.24
631.75
2.
650.00
1,250.35
189.53
3,293.75
100.00
320.00
75.90
10.00
in nn
Tg RE67 CITY OF RANCHO CU'CAMONGA
WW WARR I VEN M V E N C 0 R N A M E
05064 661E KRUSE, JCAN
05065 6619 KUNT6, CHARLES
05066 6645 LAMB, LED
05067 665E LARAMIE, _ MERRICK
INCE
L TRUST FOR HIST PRE
SON, JENNIFER
ITRANS
NGE CC STRIPING SERV
IFIC ROCK C GRAVEL
IFIC SPRAYERS
CPAR CHARTER SERV
GRAPPICS INC
KINS WELDING SERVICE
ORION PITT CO
A CIST9IBUTTN(-, CC
CE COLOR PRESS
TC SHACK
CHO DISPOSAL SERVICE
10 DATA INC
GS TIRE REPAIR
NT GERMAIN, LINDA
TT MEDICAL LAB
NAY /CCCKE
PLE, JUDY
NAL MAINTENANCE INC
NCCR N0. 8390
THERN CALIF EDISON
TPERN CALIF GAS CO
RKLETTS
NCARO AIR SYSTEMS
Nf,CR NO. 8525
TICKERS CORP
R M, DOROTHY
C
W0005•
XEROX
IC DISTRIB
C TROPHY
LAND
.HAF.L D
EASING SYSTEM
TRY
JTTON FFO
41TEC WAY
SERAY PRODUCT
3ETTY
)HILLIP
3
WARRANT R
WARR
DATE
NET
45.00
103.50
995.00
10.00
10.56
10.00
665.00
168.00
14.79
4,500.00
96.66
67.50
823.
2,790.
4,8.00
11177.00
744 .91
3,154.54
94.57
116.20
1,134.92
671.00
13.00
152.22
193.66
2C.00
15.00
404.55
12.93
7,481.84
84.96
58.70
25C.00
165.00
135.00
126.00
10.00
l IQ .84
1,363.46
548.65
15.00
10.00
20.00
2,250.22
867 CITY OF RANCPC CUCAMONGA
NARR OVEN # V E N C 0LLR N A
25�OT OOIC AFCN_UO FFICE5 SUPPLY
J
•
0
AMA
J
Is
~ STAFF REPORT <�
4 }`�DATE: November 5, 1980 0 1
TO: City Council and City Manager u
1977
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Dave Leonard,.Maintenance Supervisor
SUBJECT: Two (2) Dump Truck Bodies
Per prior Council approval, bids were solicited and received
on October 22, 1980, for two dump truck bodies to be mounted
on truck chassis authorized for purchase by Council on May 7,
1980. Four bids were received with two being incomplete.
Trico Equipment, Santa Fe Springs and Universal Truck Bodies,
Los Angeles, failed to supply bid documents covering price
protection and delivery time for proposed equipment. The
remaining two bids are summarized on the attached bid summary
form:
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council reject bids
from Trico Equipment and Universal Truck Bodies as being
incomplete and that the City Council authorize the Finance
Director to purchase two (2) dump truck bodies, as specified,
from Arrow Truck Bodies and Equipment, Pomona, California
at the bid price of $12,052.20.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
j0Y d� B. Hu bb I s
Engineer
LBH: DL: bc
�7
TABULATION OF BIDS
GENT WO DESCRIPTION
TWO (2) Dump Truck Bodies
DATE: @ 2: P.M.
10 -22 -80
BID
JG'F ¢JG�
yQV 'S49 .� e
O$S,�a `S41G0 QO�o$QO,y4+ 4¢O�OO
0
ITEN DESCRIPTION _
Two (2) Dump Truck Bodies-
$�-i76-`S.G
QS12952.
-2a
CASH DISCOUNT
-- ':
RAN(Alo CUCARn.'I':A, ( :A1,IroRNIA •
I'R01'OSV.
FOR
TWO (2) DUMP TRULY, BODIES
RECEIVCp 007 f 31980
1111"; .'IU51 111: 511WIl 111.11 R. ) 00 P.R•, OCTOOf.R 22, 1980
LA mow iN��10M11IIOVVMINt, iNC. .
(ill 17 ;;'-!)1
Rsl9 0L426 P.O. Boa 3060
"ZoaN' 1830 6oV�N C4^wa
19141 668•2931 • Ca.
p
'naD B,\•nc 1 I.1F., FurrF. R
RAN(lit) Cll(:A'IOI;OA, CALtFORN1A 91701
CT IV OF RANCHO CUGWNNI:A
IMIDI:Rs NOTICE
1'1C (;Try 017 RANCHO CUCAMOUCA WILL RLCME RIDS FOR 1111, PURGIIA',17 OF
Two (2) Dump Truck Bodies
TN ACCORDANCE, W11'II 9I'E('IFICAI'O)N'1 C.ALT.11) OII'I' llY '111F LA1Y OI' KANCIIO
FOCiVIO;lYA FNOM19I:FRINC OTVISIOM. RIOS MIST lit: RE(:1:1VI'.O III' 2:00 P.PI,
ON October 22, 1980 RIDS WILL BE OPEF AI 2:00 P.M. ON THIS
UA'PF..
COPIES OF BPF.CH ICA110N.9 MY BE ORIAINEO FROM ENCINRI:RIN!) DIVISION,
9340 RASP: I.TNR, RA4(:11O 01CMRINUA, CAI,I PORN L\ `11101. BIOS Mllsr Itli
• SUBMITTED ON CHY OF RA)il'IR) CU(',l'VIIh ::\ III[) FORTIS A';P PI.,\000 I'1 A SFALEO
ENVELOPE. AND ADDRF.SY,U: (:ITT' MXt!:1II:R, CI'I1• OI' R: %.dill (;OC.AWI9GA, POST
OFFICr. BOX 793, RANCIR) CI'CRIINf;A, CALHORNIA 91.730 AND 11ARFEII CLEARLY
11511) FOR TWO (2) DUMP TRUCK BOGIES
Illli C11Y COUNCIL 01' 1111'. CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONOA RF.SM'I'S '1111: RICII'F TO
Itl!.I I;C I' AN'I ANO /OR ALL BIM: SOWIII'I'F.O.
I'1)II IA 511111: ._Oc(,bc r.. 1,0 ,and ,2. 1...1.980____
'111)Pr. 11 ''. :I 4 I T M FNF
lJ
Thn hiJJcr hnrel+y agrees to provide the rguipmoot :nvl /or material
de5crlhull in Lhn •;prrlf lra(i:nw vllhln
60. _. o•I lrnld •rr d:rve fI"In .ward
of bid. And arrival of cab & chassis
T'he hlddnr also ngrres In rs4•nd prier pro LCrt ion for thr hid for ..1
Prrlod of '__ ".120..,.. days. Assuming we get purchase order
within 30 days.
'Chc bidder forth er nl; n•r., Ihnl Prlco �ernlal lnnv b"c ^1111 Lhe prrtnd of
prlre preta"tlrn ch.rll Fr born" hr the Oily nt m.urd . vtarer's involr.e
rust.
The City IlCrehV n1p'rr to make pnym"nt at bldd "r'a rect for nil
mlvernmvnl m.md:rlyd rgnii'l'irnt rrgulrrr•n`ntc t•nnrtrd ,rftrr the .u:ard of
hide which 'from thr 61dJrr's ,1611 itv to srr Pl`le Chc •grcclC l"d rgolp-
nenL. •
Arrow Truck 9odies & Equipment, Inc.
siRll`'i1 _Raymond A. 0_1a_11,
No
,�.. ^` OFIIOAI SCAI
(:; 1 BETTY P,1 F3RNDLEY
\�SSyJ lti ne. y.i C.p ,rY
�'I C:mmnsion f+4 "es l;v 9. 1381
I
•
•
•
9
DEPr,RI MEN I ui CH';I'll.F.RIHG
99A0 Pmr, LI'IF, SOITE C
RANCHO CUCAIIOMA, CALIFORNIA 91701
BIOS 191ST BE RCCFIVEO ^Y 2:00 P,M.
AND HILL RE OPEH10 AT THAT TIME.
UM October 22. 1990
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RANCHO CUCMI, HGA
RANCHO CUCAMOMIA, CALIFORNIA 917 ?0
110HORABLE COUNCIL:
IN ACCOROANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SPECIFICATIONS, THE UNDERSIGilED
910DER AGREES TO PROVIDF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAHWIGA WITH
jig,_L2j_Dwnp
AT THE FOLL0411HG PRICE, II411JURIrl SALES TAX. 610 PRICE TO BE EXCLUSIVE
OF FEDERAL EXCISE T,I\.
Two (2) dump truck bodies
Arrow TrucV Ponies F Fgllipm?nt, Inc.
Co
campus. Ave :,.._. _____,__
ontari , --Ca 11 f,. .,9176.1 _
Raymond A. Glaze
President
_ X412, 052. 20
deleting fil- tensile
CITY OF IPIKII0 CUD1MOtISA
SPE(IFICATIOTIS
FOP.
TWO (2) DUMP TRUCK BODIES •
SCOPE
Specifications cover the installation of two (2) dump bodies, hoist and
related equipment on cab /chassis furnished by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Successful bidder •.gill supply all material and labor required herein and
comply with all Federal and State regulations pertaining to the installation.
CAB/CHASSIS
Furnished by the City
Make: Ford
Model: 0-7000
cvW: 27,500
TRANS: Allison MT 643
CA: 108" WE: 135"
Front Axle: 9,000 Ibs Springs: 4,040/4,500
Rear Axle: 18,500 Ills Springs: 10,000 /11,000
BODY
- 7/8 Yard3 Capacity, All Steel Welded •
- 12' Lono % 7' 'Wide
- 27" Sides•, 33" End, 40" Head Board with
1/2 cab shield
- Sides 6 Tailgate minimum 10 gunge Rk9XH'XW)e Steel
- Floor 6 Front, 3/15" MKXTRRBkNX Steel
- Tailgate DA type with spreader chains and trench
gate, front mounted bottom release Inver
- Armored clearence lights per Federal STD. 108
Reflectors
Mud flans will, tie down honks
Bosco roll on body sides with 6" gussets for wood
side boards, tie doom hooks
HOIST
- Galion Ibldel 1.185ORI1 Act i Iq ur Equgl
- Cob •1,10 ^ounted co ^trot -,
PA I I1T
Body shall be free of weld :nlatl , slan and other
Foreign sobStarce¢, wash ^d with ^tnl prepal'Atinn to
provide nood etched Surface, or it nd �,ith one coat and
one f "q and one finish cnnt of nhite to provide pond
finish, f oo of runs
•
•
DaisP Truck Bodies Spew
Page 2
•
BACK-UP ALARM
Electronic automatic back -up warning device approved
by CAL OSHA
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
I.) Service Manual for Hoist and Warranties
2.) Certified Weight Ticket
I1P
City of
RANCHO •
CUCAMONGA
October 17, 1980
Arrow Truck Bodies E Equip.
1639 S. Campus
Ontario, California
Attn: Bob
Dear Bob:
Please make the following addendum to the City bid document for
two (2) dump truck bodies, bid opening date 10/22/80.
Delete: "Hi -Tensi le" •
If you Should have any questions please feel free to call me at
(714)'989-1851.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Dave Leonard
Maintenance Supervisor
OL:bc
POST OFFICE BOX 807. RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 • (711) 9894851
,
per-,PT'1EII7 M FIlWIEFRIII,
9340 RASE LIIIF, SUITE P.
RANCHO COCNIONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701
81US MIIST RE ('CCE17E0 V 2:00 P.M.
AND WILL RE OPFIIED AT TIIAT TIME.
UN Octn6er 22, 1980
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RANCIIO CIICAw00,A
RAN('.110 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
HONORABLE COUNCIL:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SPECIFICATIONS, THE 1,1IIDERS19Nr.0
RIEDER AGREES TO FRO'd IPI THE CITY Or RANCHO CUC,AIION,7A 'dITH
q (,_dump Truck 00dic5
• AT THE FOLLOUING PRICE, IN(.LUDIN, SALES TAX. 1110 PRICF TO IF EXCLUSIVE
Of FEDERAL EXCISE M%,
..- �r..�-
a-� i�d• �..!:� sus D� <�353, 90
nl l 3 ! 7 _. ,_ 9 iae .... (mil... .
�jl�f- (,a3- 0909
• !✓ �/� a u. � . �, Mc d�
5-31;40 V/
3 to
I'�Iphl'Ii'' .I AIi;1111;11'
0
Tito. bidder herr.•by ogr,r5 to provlJr the rgn /ipment and /or material
described in tit, sprclflrationq III11111 ,3D rnlnurlar ddvc firm nuard J
of bid. "� .fi�.-w.s'a`'t p,✓�^'�f.��r/'�.' a8.fi,i/...d �' �// -(-�
iC�.,.s.,;wla.vu...+ -i� �t?C R t �Ga- Ce�^•�"'I dnt,r n.s'4 - /(ate
'Tito biddcc nlvo agrees lr. ,stand prlry pmterrlvn rrr, Nu• bill for n / t
portod of k C.)-.--
'The bidder fit, thrr :p;rnm: tbnl pr Try rsrnlol Irene bre'•nll Lhr period of
price PrrtetLlr•n ch.ILL hr 1.01110 by till City al: 11.1,10 ,tn,,r'1 in,,lop
cost.
•fbc City hereby acrecs to make pnymrut at blddcr's tort for nit
government- mmvtated rgniprmnt rrlplircnlrnte en:+rt(-d ditor the ;,ward of
bids dfiich affect ill,, bidder'. nbl l itv tr supple rho specified vqulp- •
rent.
Sip,nell _(�W1lJ �,.__
I' STAIE Of CALIF eN1A
daunrr �C�U
II
I:.
"
� •' '�' e•r .w o Anin 'n 011 '
' 2.) 5. r <st rr'e v—no. CA 91.66
i
r AfllAllwllKwlAf- tnlrrn _ wrNrlb rprw lrl -r.. •u
` ss
_.... .nN _ ._\X�� �Y• - --- -.1900
before me, the .pdefs•gned a Notary P""' m a fof said State. Personally appeared
an•rnn to me,
rr, pr ll., p;rsrn —. were lame. -_ _�A..c.? oiaoY7lo lM1e m;lxn lntUaAlkld,
and Arynowlodlled to me that - he - e.eculed the same.
IPIIN[SS my hand and nN¢ol seal. —
Nftah P' tmlid fv SW Stale
•
Dura Dump Hoists
Standard Specifications
y
CYLINDER. Our cylinder is
inverted. Dill that once built up
on packing glands (and was later
compressed through the oil
seals) now jails to the ground
where II belongs. Since the dill
doesn't abrade our seals. they
vi
last longer sang the operator
money and lost lime due to repairs.
PUMP: Gear type with
built In relief valve. Delivers
25 GPM at 1200 RPM
long-life anti.frictlon bear.
ings. Integral shalt 6 gear.
OIL TANK: Side mounted oil
lank for sale and easy accessibility.
LIFT ANGLE: Our cylinder
lilts from a solid structural
base. The cylinder is
connected to the body
below the floor line into
the heavy longitudinal,
The cylinder lilts from the
bottom rather than the
top of the housing. The
hoist has a firm loundahon
from which 10 I'll: increas-
Ing stability while dumping.
DURA DUMP HOISTS
REAR HINGE: Williamsen Hinge
features a hollow (light weight).
full width cross shalt which spans
between two extra wide cast
hinge bearings. The hinge becomes
the trucki rear cross member: and
integrated with the cross shaft,
both sides of truck framework in
tandem— providing greater stability
during the dumping cycle.
DumMM
Pan0a0
", MMneN
rmck
0,
naung
In Toq
MOEU a
cl.s.
stroke
Length
100
SJVOVI
to
119-314"
12
102'1100•
,•.
St.
. 60
1650
w] "/106 "�
' 96•
tll]OYI
-''100
119-0 /1"
10'
91
6]1]041
loo
115.31e'
14-P'
rise
61160v1
110
HP'
1P1"
63140vl
na
lw"
n•p•
sl•
611.0"1
,a
lao•
16'
P
24INYl
120
Ise'
15•J••
n11111WNl
21159111
120
IS4 "
16'
olsthlaul[o ar
POS'ONA TrII.'O'f
mu-p .irro
C SL 766
(714)
G23 0009
REAR HINGE: Williamsen Hinge
features a hollow (light weight).
full width cross shalt which spans
between two extra wide cast
hinge bearings. The hinge becomes
the trucki rear cross member: and
integrated with the cross shaft,
both sides of truck framework in
tandem— providing greater stability
during the dumping cycle.
DumMM
Pan0a0
", MMneN
rmck
,lr.ah
C' Orw^an9
naung
In Toq
TI^ al
a nr CT
,1.
S6•
H
100
102' /106"
-. so. ..
21
_
m
102'1100•
,•.
St.
. 60
1650
w] "/106 "�
' 96•
)s
' —lose
1201-1126-1
5A-
91
1120
/ 120 "2126
so-
3'
rise
51
1110
n.
s6•
91
— 1260
126 °1130'
sl•
U
17 0
IH "114y111
P
7COR
n11111WNl
P ORAL ION
]•R
... uUl� .,Ullkp .a
Standard Specifications
FLOOR: 6,16" Ex -ten 55.000 PSI steel.
FRONT END: 10 gauge extra strength 40.000
PSI steel Cylinder housing to accommodate
Wdliamsen inverted front mount telescopic cylinder.
SIDES: Straight. 10 gauge extra strength 40,000
PSI steel.
REAR TAILGATE: 10 gauge extra strength 40,000
PSI steel 90 degree to floor, 8" higher than
sides. (NO slant) (16 degree slanting gate avail-
able in options.)
TAILGATE HARDWARE: Heavy duty manual over -
locking type Positive over - center lock with 1'6"
Steel rear cross shaft. (Cab controls available In •
options).
TAILGATE 8 SPREADER CHAINS: 5116" cadmium
plated chain with separate spreader chains.
LONGITUDINAL STRINGERS: 8" special wide
flange structural beams.
PAINT: Prime only (colors available In options).
WIDTH: 84" inside and 96" outside
box
ce.
STEEL DURA -DUMP BODIES
I Beam side construc-
tion, sloping bottom rail
and gussetted floor
provide both added
strength and smooth -
free4lowing surfaces.
h�
orwiel�u9n
tl9nt
xvoro. W119141
•
Docno� l'a f4 N9m Appro.. Waghl
DD 1]p fl
�
l ^' .1$" 0
vn 9 ) • .T9+-
DD "I a
DD IS]1+
-
nl .1018=
Do ry]e9
DD Is9nD
m
nD hfl ra
DD It9.0
:n n
no nl.m
DD lev.0
u'
I o151nI9U l(D 9v
Ill
\C IV111 11 I'r
1N ]
11:1 I k II)I'Il'VIIAI f IIF 1'I llf AIII IA
1 U41 r. v, r v qP
OII) 4A VY'a
P.O. :+ 30426, SLC, 0184125
y
Telepkone 801-973-9400.,
17
..J
•
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA)4'1fIGA
RANCHO CUCA1d0fIGA, CALIFORNIA 91710
IIOIIORABLE COUNCIL:
(IF PAR 1; If. IIT Ali F11i I UE ER I ;Jr,
9340 IiASE LIIIF, SUITE B
RANC 110 CUCAgON11A. CALIFORNIA 91101
BIDS 111.IST BE FECEIVED OY -09 p p(
NIT) WILL RE OPF.IIEO AT THAT TIFIF..
011 — October 22`1980
IN 4CCORDANCE WIT11 THE ESTABLISHED SPECIFICATIDNS, THE UNUERSISIJEO
BIDDER AGREES TO FRO'JIHf THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA IIITH_
T,10 L2j_ t7,p. Trull. Bodies
• AT THE FOLLOUFN, PRIFE, IIILLUU IIIG $Al(S TAX. 8I1) I`RIfF 10 BE EXCLUSIVE
OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAX.
--� L�E:_:�? .. /.i'r!. /C__�n Si Ems--. �%{�.� 3%6•J
1.11.11 nl . �'e cif
AHL�`L>s c,
9
�b
OEPARTIRUT Of EHSIIILFRING •
9340 BA�C LIlF , SMITE B
RANCHO C11CAt10NG4, CALIFORNIA 91701
BIDS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 2:00 P.M.
AND 141LL BE •OT'EHED AT TIIAT TIME,
OH October 22. 1980
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RANCHO CIICA'IONGR
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
HONORABLE COUNCIL:
III ACCORDAIICE WITH THE ESTABLISHED SPEC IFICATIO'IS,"THE LHIDEP.SI GNED
BIDDER AGREES TO PROVIOT. THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAFIONGA WITH
2 Bum Tuck Bodies V__ —._ —, •
AT THE FOLLOWING PRICE, INCLUDING SALES TAX. BID PRICE TO BE EXCLUSIVE
Or FEDERAL EXCISE TAX.
t �
I ITE'I
19
f I I 1'1' CI't:MR1NGA
` 9150 RASr. I.111F, SUITE B
RANCIIII (:)(VIONCA, CALIFORNIA 91701
Cl'IY OF RANCHO CUCMIIINGA
BIDDERS NOTICE
nr. Ci'rY OF RANCHO CUCMIONGA WILL IMCFIVR BIDS"F011 THE PORCIWE OF
Two (2) Dump Truck Bodies
IN ACCORDANCE 141TN Sl'F('II'1(:rPrlONS CAIJ,rl) ODI' BY 'im, (:I TI' Or RANWHO
CDCA1!0Nr:A F,NGINCFRINI: Dlt'I510N. BIOS NIIST BI'. RECrII'I'.Il BY 2:00 P.N.
ON October 22. 1990 BIOS 1;11.1, UE OPEN Al Z:DO P.M. ON 1'lI1S
DATE.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS NAY BE oBrAINEO FROM ENGINKERING DIVISION,
9740 RASE. LINE, RANi.110 I:PCAMONGA. CALIIORNIA a1Ti. RIDS "IVSI BE
• SUBMITTEU ON MY Or RANG!i0 CUf,,L`;nNC:A'Blp FOR.'15 AND PI.ACEO IN .A SEALED
ENVELOPE AND AIIORESSI,l): CITY ENGINF'.ER, CITY OI' RANCHO CIICMIONGA, POST
OFFICE BOX 793. RANCHO ('OCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91170 AND MARKED CLEARLY
"1111) FOIt TWO (2) DUNE TRUCK BODIES
1111; C1 I'i clitim'11, 01' 11115 ('11Y OF RAN(:ItO CUCAMONI:A RI SMIES 'rill'. RIGHT 10
RI:.IECT ANY ANU /OR AI.i, RIDS SOI!IIIIICD.
0
rDln.isN�.n �. ._Octahc r..lA. .rid 2,1 „_IPSO. - -•
J^
0
•
•
CITY OF RANCHO C(, ANKXNUA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Tract 9435 - Acceptance of Map, Bonds and Agreement
Tract 9435 was tentatively approved by the County on September 16,
1976 for 42 lots on 9.5 acres located 860+ east of Haven Avenue
and south of future 19th Street. The subject tract is the last
of five phases of development for this area. This tract will be
subject to annexation into the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
The bonds submitted are to guarantee the installation of street
improvement for the tract. The bonds are from Chevron Construction
Company, developer, are are as follows:
Faithful Performance (surety) $117,000.00
Labor and Material (Surety) $ 58,500.00
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution
approving the subject Tract Map and the agreement to construct
the required improvements. The resolution will direct the Mayor
to sign the agreement on behalf of the City and direct the City
Engineer to sign the Final Map and forward it to the County for
recording.
SP lyly s�d,
LBH:JLM: jaa
Attachments
al
• RESOLUTION NO. 80 -98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9435.
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 9435, consisting of 42
lots, submitted by Chevron Construction Company Subdivider, located 868'`
East of Haven, South of future 19th Street has been submitted to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in
compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows;
1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
• and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said
City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and,
0
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient,
subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City
Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute
the certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 19.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, rty „ er
�R
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
to
9
e
i
G
s
4
z
CI"1'Y ol, ITEM:
lt; \ \CI -IO CCCG"IU\GA Trru:: Tract Mao 9435
ENGINEERING DIVISION EUUI{IT SG LE:
C3
V V
NORTH
- ,V� ------
i
17
a•
w
I
le
as
2
y>
' TRACT NO.
Al
1 ,
4
IJ
I I
Je
I '
as
It
J'
$
u
IJ
m
I 9432
I
dt
?
I
�
n
it
IG
JI
30
17
U
z
w I
76
i
'
19
e
I
I.
HOLLY
DRIVE
I
L QO
to
9
e
i
G
s
4
z
CI"1'Y ol, ITEM:
lt; \ \CI -IO CCCG"IU\GA Trru:: Tract Mao 9435
ENGINEERING DIVISION EUUI{IT SG LE:
C3
V V
NORTH
CITY (IF RANCHO CUCACIUNCA
SU13DIVISION
ULPROVEHEN'r AGREEMBT
TRACT NO. 9435
KNOW ALL MEN By 1'IIhSE PRESENTS: That this 11Rrocn,vnt is made and entered
inlr, in vonformance with 1_110 provisions of the Subdivision play Act of the
Ste1_0 of Colifernin, and of the 1Ppljl' ab1e ordinances of the City of Rancho"
CuI'nmuoga. Cnlill lia, a municipal corporation, by and between said City, here-
inafter referrod to as the City, and
_CHEV.RQPJ -_ ANL O AN DEVELOPMENT CO. /CRISMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION hereinafter
rc is rreJ to as Uu; Snbdi.vfdcr.
WITNESSET11:
TILT, WIICRIiAS, said Subdivider desires to snhdividv certain real property in
slid City as shown on the previousiv approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 9435
and,
WHEREAS, said Citc has establ.illed certain requirements to be met by said Sub-
divider as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by said City;
NOW, '1111 EP'URE, it is herebv agreed by said City and by said Subivider as •
follows:
1. The Subdivider herebv nerves to consLruct It S„bdivider's expense all im-
provv"rcnts described on rage 5 hereof within twelve months from the
date hereof.
_. This vgroo,,nt 011,111_ run for a poriod of It months 117011 Cho date
of Lit' ""Olntion of ttc Council of sail] City npProving sail] Final Map and
this al ;rocmvnt. Phis agreement ::boll be in Jvfault on the day following
the second ;nuli VVrsary date of said approval unlcas an extension of time
has been granted by said City as hereinafter provided,
3. The Subd iviJ •r m;ly retluc. <t an est.ons ion of timr to complete the terms here-
of. Such req• :o,,t shall. 110 suhmittcl] to du• City in writing; oat less than
4 1100k -; 1,, Core tl, Cxpirntion dun• horenf, nnll 1711,111 con [;tin
u( 171_1_ n,: ^slenr cs th0 n of a stlt0men[
Inlr
Tho City shall have
the t'ie 1L in lt't't C1J tl It' It10V IB IOt1 Of thi <,I C re r TIC 11t int'ltltlinj:, the con-
L :0-I .t Ill'!it: : :, Coot et, t ima t,•, and t ^'prover.,•nt seciri tv. and to require
nd I1:,t"mnts therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term
hereof.
4. If the Sandivjdor fai L: ur nol;Irc [s to comply with Lin, provisions of this
agr,•rm,•nl. . tn' City ':11,11 11.111 t6r righL at .Inv time to cause said prnvl-
stoll, to ht. ref by In 1-1141111 1110,111S, anti the n'npon recover from the Sub-
divider and /or his, .surety the full cost and expense incurred. •
5. 'fl,e Ynbdividrr '.II.tlt provide n:v[,•rvd wotnr svrvic,, to ea ^h lot on _lid Tract
in accu rJ.lnru will, the regulations, sdtednles, and tees of [he Cucamonga
County Water District.
a�
Lit I i t, ,f. it. I "drvtdvc vhnil itic with till City IiIwinver.
prim h• Lbr ramnvnr vmr nt of any wall: to br par lnrmod within du• arse dcs-
cribrd by 'mill map, n +ar it vo s1`atan0.•nt xit;nvd by Subdividor, and each public
uti I q• corporation inzel+'vd, to the cffert that Suhd wider has made the
drposit IeF.alle Irqui mJ by quell public 'It it it rnr pn rat itm for [he Conner-
• tion of nor ""I' nil publ is utilities to he supplied by such Corporation with-
in such subdivision.
7. The Subdivider shod be responsible for rvpinccment, relncatiun, or removal
Of anv eampmionL of any irrigation water system in conflict with construction
of rcquirod imprnvemt•n Ls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
owner of such wtrtet system.
RCE22A
•
•
z
RIPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 9435 PAGE 2
g. Improvements required to be. constructed shall conform to the Standard .
Drawings and Standard Specifientions of the City, and to the Improvements
Plan approved by and on file in the office of the City Engineer. Said
improvements are tabulated on the Construction and Bond Estimate, hereby
incorporated on page 5 hereof, as taken from the improvement plans listed
thereon by number. The Subdivider shall also be responsible for construc-
tion of any transitions or other incidental work beyond the tract bound-
aries as needed for safety and proper surface drainage.
9. Constriction permits shall be obtained by the Subdivider from the office of
the City Engineer prior to start of work; all regulations listed thereon
.shall be observed, with attention given to safety procedures, control of
dust, noise, or other nuisance to the area, and to proper notification of
public utilities and City Departments. Failure to comply with this section
shall be subject to the penalties provided therefor.
10. The Subdivider shall be responsible for removal of all loose rocks and other
debris from public rights of way within or adjoining said Tract resulting
from development work relative to said Tract.
11. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion.
12. Parkway trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Subdivider after
other improvement work, grading, and cleanup has been completed. Planting
shall be done as provided by ordinance in accordance with the planting dia-
gram approved by the City Community Development Director in all locations
where the adjoining lot has been completely developed and built upon. •
The Subdivider shall be res-
ponsible for maintaining all trees planted in good health until the end of
the guaranteed maintenance period, or for one year after planting, whichever
is later.
17. The Subdivider is responsible for meeting all conditions established by the
City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, City ordinances, and this agree-
ment for the Tract, and for the maintenance of all improvements constructed
thereunder until the Tract is accepted for maintenance by the City, and no
improvement security provided herewith shall be released before such accep-
tance unless otherwise provided and authorized by the City Council of the
City.
14. This agreement shall not terminate until the maintenance guarantee bond here-
inafter described has been released by the City, or until a new agreement
together with the required improvement security has been submitted to the
City by a successor to the Subdivider herein named, and by resolution of the
City Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the improvement
security therefor has been released.
15. The improvemcut security to be furnished by the Subdivider with this agree -
mont shall consist of the following, and'shall be approved by the City
Attorney:
lJ
divider of all conditions prerequisite to acceptance of the Tract by
the Citv.
B. A mntorial and labor pavment quarantee bond assuring payment in full by
the Subdivider for all materials, services, equipment rentals, and labor
furnished to the Subdivider in the course of meeting the conditions of
• this agreement.
C. A cash deposit with the City to guarantee payment by the Subdivider to
the tract engineer or surveyor whose certificate appears upon the Final
Tract Nap for the setting of all tract boundary, lot corner, and street
centerline monuments and for furnishing centerline tie notes to the City.
The amount of the deposit may be any amount certified by the tract eng-
ineer or surveyor as acceptable pavment in full; or, if no value is sub-
mitted, the cash hond shall be as shown on the Construction and Bond
Cstimate contained herein.
RCE22B
u
9
J7
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT N0. 9435 PAGE 3
Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as procedure permits after •
receipt by the City of the centerline tie notes and written assurance
of payment in full from the tract engineer or surveyor.
D. The required bonds and the principal amounts thereof are set forth on
page 4 of this agreement.
16. The Subdivider warrants that the improvements described in this agreement
shall be free from defects in materials and workmanship. Any and all por-
tions of the improvements found to be defective within one (1) year follow-
ing the data on which the improvements are accepted by the City shall be
repaired oe'replaced by subdivider free of all charges to the City. The
Subdivider shall furnish a maintenance guarantee bond in a sum equal to
five percent (5t) of the construction estimate or $200.00, whichever is
greater, to secure the faithful performance of Subdivider's obligations
as described in this paragraph. The maintenance guarantee bonds shall also
secure the faithful performance by the Subdivider of any obligation of the
Subdivider to do specified work with respect to any parkway maintenance
assessment district. Once the improvements have been accepted and a main-
tenance guarantee bond has been accepted by the City, the other improvement
security described in this agreement may be released provided that such
release is otherwise authorized by the Subdivision Map Act and any appli-
cable City Ordinance.
17. That the Developer shall take out and maintain, during the term of this
agreement, such public liability and property damage insurance as shall
protect him and any contractor or subcontractor performing work covered •
by this agreement from claims for property damages which may arise because
of the nature of the work or from operations under this agreement, whether
such operations be by himself or by any contractor or subcontractor, or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by said persons, even though such
damages be not caused by the negligence of the Developer or any contractor
or subcontractor or anyone employed by said persons. The public liability
and property damage insurance shall also directly protect the City, its
officers, agents and employees, as well as the Developer, his contractors
and his subcontractors, and all insurance policies issued hereunder shall
so state. The amounts of such insurance shall be as follows:
A. Contractor's liability insurance providing bodily injury or death lie-
. bility limits of not less than $300,000 for each person and $1,000,000
for each accident or occurrence, and property damage liability limits
of not less than $100,000 for each accident or occurrence with an agg-
regate limit of $200,000 for claims which may arise from the operations
Of the Developer in the performance of the work herein provided.
G. Automobile liability insurance covering all vehicles used in the per-
formance of this agreement providing bodily injury liability limits
of not less than $200,000 for each person and $300,000 for each acci-
dent or occurrence, and property damage liability limits of not less
than $50,000 for each accident or occurrence, with an aggregate of not
less than $100,000 which may arise from the operations of the Developer
or his Contractor in performing the work provided for herein.
18. That before the execution of this agreement, the Developer shall file with •
the City a certificate or certificates of insurance covering the specified
Insurance. Each such certificate shall be an endorsement precluding the
cancellations, or reduction in coveragee of any policy evidences by such
certificate, before the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall
have received notification by registered mail from the insurance carrier.
�X /
IMPROVEMENT AGRI:F,FIENT TRACT NO. 9435 PAGE 4
• fs evidence of understanding the provisions contained hCrein, and of intent
to comply with same., the Subdivider has Submitted the below described improve-
ment security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERF'OULANCE BOND
Description: Principal Amount:
Surety: Bond $117,000.00
Attorney -in -Pact: COVENANT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Address: 141 S. Lake Street Suite 110
Pasadena, California 91100 by: Arthur Clement, Jr.
Fh1TERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT BOND
Description: Principal Amount:
Surety: Bond $ 58,500.00
Attorney -in -Pact: COVENANT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Address: 141 S. Lake Street Suite 110
Pasadena, California 91100 by: Arthur Clement, Jr.
CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTINC BOND
• Amount stipulated by tract engineer or surveyor:
Amount as shown on Construction and Bond Estimate:
Amount deposited per Cash Receipt No. Date
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the Citv.
Principal Amount:
ro � +aa e+ oao
(Comorvionasa Pannerota Partnership) , ANOIBU ANCE
ST
S AT F. OF CA LI FO R \IA anrwrwr.. to be
COL' V T Y OF_ Los Angeles } ss. n the
on _October 14 iiBg before me, the umt,,o ,ned, a Notary Public in and for I
said S;atc, perrooiay appeared_ Mario ilOrY _, known tome to be the 66divi.der
President, %7C% ._- _, known to me to be the _
V mxxxx„ f . CRISNAR_DEVELCP_ ENT CORPORRA-TIOt! ubdivi der
the eorpomrtnn that uecuted the whin nu nment and
known to me to be the Prrson\ who ccecu%d the uuhio instal.
ment on hehalf of sail corporation, said corPOWIOn beir t
iknown to me to be one of the partners of CU=VROi1 r woAw,.o.00r.......
LAiID_ANQ_OF.ScLOP IEiIT,CO. _ .,thepartnership r.. OFF AL SEAL
that uemmA the wahtn Inrtmment, and a.Anowhdeed to me A �` t•gg\ RARSARA A. GRIFFIN
rhat ,A mrpor.mm� ,eetned the atne as wah partner and 'r"i�"Ls
Brat such p.uu,,, , uecuted tha same. I r q . r aonxr oanue FCC m vt*
A \..; :'. p..AP -GR S ftX IN
Y'�� LOS Afi4ElE5CWYrY
\YRNESS my hand .\nJ Omcial xal. ♦� r% CALIFORNIA
GTnV, G.. km IE
...........r .,. rroo..
M. tt
`Ion
aa far omrtat noUriW l uaa
�- . - - -- r- - -._ .......
. / Mayor
a
IMPROVEMENT ACREEMEN'r PACE 5
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONCA
CONSTRUCTION AND BOND ESTIMATE
ENCROACIVIENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
(Attach to "Inspector's Copy ") •
DATE: 10/1/80 PERMIT NO. COMPUTED BY J. L. Martin
File Reference Tract 9435 City Drawing No.s Tract 9435
NOTE: Does not include current fee for writing permit or pavement replace-
ment deposits.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
1OUANTITY
'UNIT
UNIT COST
S AMOUNT
n r r c
L.F.
S
P. r. C. r„_y - 8" C.F.
1 1021
1 L.F.
R nn
P.C.C. Cur, only 6" C.F.
12S
L.F.
5-So
687,SO
A.C. Bern (5200 min)
L.F.
4" P.C.C. Sidewalk
6" drive Annroach
11840
1 S.F
S.F.
1 1.75
0 720.00
A" P.C.C. Crass Gutter
81,
S .F.
2.50
2470.00
Street Excavation
1 3.00
8 256.00
i:aoorced Embankment
Y.
Prenaration of Sub rade
S.F.
+^ 8a 'c'
^1300
S.F.
A.C. (over cons)
TON
A.C. (900 to 1100 cons)
95A
TON
in nn
A.C. und_r S00 to 900 tons
'ION
�. 5. tundar 500 to )
TON
?itch A.C. (trench)
1" ;hick A.C. Overlay
S.F.
can•er M.H. to rrade
EA,
Ad+nst Se',er C.O. to Grade
EA,
ter P,alVes to Grade
EA,
I l ^_nnt t r 4,1,
i
EA.
EA,
c. -net Trans
F.A.
ri
P.F.C. urb - 611 C .F
R—ovals
I
Ls.
ion, no I
inn nn
5 rn =t MarVprs
2
EA.
155,00
i
RETA r:T.`:C WA Li.S I
RLOCi, ".J,1LLS I
L.F.
C:D5CA Pt: 5 URRIGATION
al
•
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 106,307.50 •
•
•
•
INSPECTION FEES
I. TOTAL INSPECTION FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
II. COXPACTION TEST FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$
III. 107. CONTINGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,630.75
IV. DESIGN FEES (107. of Total Construction Cost Estimate) . . . . $
TOTAL . $ 116A3R.25
Faithful Performance Bond = $117,000.00
Material and Labor Bond - $ 58,500.00
Maintenance Bond = $
Cash Monumenting Deposit - $
RCE22E
7/
ITEM
OUANTITY
UNI
UNI OS T—TT
AmnvvT
CONSIRUCTION INSPECTION
of Construction Cost Estimate
L. S.
L.S.
T..S.
)'EST C "T OR TRENCH
r
PERIANF.ST ?A(EMENT REPLACEMENT
L.P.
STORE MATERIAL IN RIGHT -OF -WAY
Ep,
I. TOTAL INSPECTION FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
II. COXPACTION TEST FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$
III. 107. CONTINGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,630.75
IV. DESIGN FEES (107. of Total Construction Cost Estimate) . . . . $
TOTAL . $ 116A3R.25
Faithful Performance Bond = $117,000.00
Material and Labor Bond - $ 58,500.00
Maintenance Bond = $
Cash Monumenting Deposit - $
RCE22E
7/
Bond No: 011299
Prem. Amt :$2,106.00
FAITHFUL PERFO ?__..i10E BOND
0
4lHEREIS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamongqa.
state of California, and CHEVBO'i LAND AND DEVELOPMENT CO. /CRISMAR DEVE(_TMENT CORPOR;
( hereinafter designated as "principal. ") have entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated 19_, and identified as
project TenrT naa5
is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and,
VHLREAS, said principal is required under the terns of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and COVEfANT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
, as surety, are held and
firmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter called
"City "), in the penal sum of _ •
ore hundred- seventeen thousand Dollars ($117,000.UO ) lawful
coney o. the United States, for the payment of which sum well and
truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu-
tors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above
bounded principal, his or its hairs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide
by, and Nall and truly keep a:'.d perform the covenants, condi-
tions ant provisions in the said agreement and any alteration
thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be
kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein spec-
ified, and in all respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers,
agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation
shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
As apart of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
to the amount specified therefor, there shall be included
costs ar.d reasonable exp^_nscs and fees, including reasonable at-
i torncy's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
�. obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment
't rcm,'.ered, •
31?
•
The surety hereby stinula -
tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the
agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the spec-
ifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its
obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any
such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrum>nt has b ep duly executed
by the principal and surety above nama3d, on
19 J/) CHI EVRON LAND NO VELOPMENTPORhTIGiI
BY: CRISM DEV OPMEk
BY: M RI M P� S:DEBT,
RCE23
Bond No: 011299
LABOR AND MATERIAI.MEN BOND
0
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and CHEVRON LAND ANO DEVELOPMENT CO /CRiCMAR nFVFi nRMFNT CORPORA -
(hereinafter designated as "principal") have entered into an TION
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated 19 and identified as pro-
ject IRACT 9435
Es hereby referred to and made -a part hereof; and,
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is re-
quired before entering upon the performance of the work, to file
a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15
(commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
Civil Code of the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a •
corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material -
men and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure
in the sum of fifty-eight thousand five hundred
Dollars ( 58.500.00 ), for materials
furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under
the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor,
that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the
amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought
upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof,
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed
as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond
shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and
corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing
with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so
as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit
7� brought upon this bond.
•
1-5/
Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then
this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be
and remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, ex-
tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said
agreement or the specifications accompanying the same shall in
any manner affect its obligations on this bond, and it does here-
by waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration or ad-
dition.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has eep duly executed
by the principal and surety above named, on
19
RCE24
•
'I/
I�
L
CRISMAR DEqqFPMENT CORP RATION
BY'.
MAR
COVENANT
BY
35
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONC',A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November S, 1980 U1`
1977
TO: city Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance District #1
Attached for'Council approval is Resolution No. 80— jcx7declaring
the Council's intent to annex Tracts 9176, 9225, 9435, and 9567
to the Landscape Maintenance District and setting the date for
public hearing for December 3, 1980.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve Resolution No. 80—W declaring the City's intent to annex
Tracts 9176, 9225, 9435, and 9567 to Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1 and setting the date for public hearing December 3, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:blc
Attachments
36
•
• RESOLUTION NO. 80 -99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. I
WHEREAS, on the 5th of November 1980, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said
City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each and
every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is suffi-
cient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be modified
in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga as follows:
• SECTION 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses
of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2. That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to and
described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said
Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 3• That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of land in
said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received
by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses
thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Report for
the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district.
ATTEST:
0
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
37
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -100
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 2
TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
as follows:
SECTION I., Description of Work That the public interest and convenience
require and it is the intention of this City Council to form a maintenance
district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and operation of
those parkways and facilities thereon dedicated for common greenbelt purposes
by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of the proposed
maintenance district described in Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation
includes the cost and supervision of any sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings,
landscaping, ornamental lighting, structures, and walls in connection with said
parkways.
SECTION 2. Location of Work The foregoing described work is to be located
within roadway right-of -way and landscaping easements of Tentative Tracts Nos. 9176,
9225, 9435, and 9567 enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly
. described on maps which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, entitled
"Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance District No. I".
r,
U
SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District That the contemplated work,
in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public
benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the said work
chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed to pay the costs and
expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that
certain "Map of Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance
District No. I" heretofore approved by the City Council of
said City by Resolution No. 80- , indicating by said boundary
lines the extent of the territory included within the proposed
assessment district and which map is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk of said City.
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer The City Council of said City by Resolution
No. 80- has approved the report of the engineer of work which report indicates
the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary, assessment zones,
titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 2, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1"
is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said
report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the
assessments and for the extent of the work.
31
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments The assessment shall be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected. The City •
Engineer shall file a report annually with the City Council of said City and
said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon said report at their first
regular meeting in June, at which time assessments for the next fiscal year will
be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearing Notice is hereby given that on the
3rd day of December, 19 0, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers
at 9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having
any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, any appear and
show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said district
should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of Intention. Protests
must be in writing and must contain a description of the property in which each
signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must be
delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for the hearing,
and no other protests or objections will be considered. If the signer of any
protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of San Bernardino
County as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest
must contain or be accompained by written evidence that such signer is the owner
of the property so described.
SECTION 7• Landscaping and lighting Act of 1972 All the work herein
proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature
of the State of California designated the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention Published notice shall •
be made pursuant to Section-69W the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign
this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing,
at least once in The 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 19_
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
JJ
-2-
•
CITY OF RANCHO 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 pre-
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
assessment diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped 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
0 were attached hereto.
-1-
_�a
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 = $74,979.60
Per Lot Annual Assessment
74,979.60 = 851 lots = 88.11 per year
Per Lot Monthly Assessment 7.34 per month •
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6
and the attached Assessment Diagram.
SECTION S. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagrams are attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A "; by this reference the diagram is
hereby incorporated within the test of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvements for Annexation No. 2 are found to be of general
benefit to all lots within the District and that assessment shall
be equal for each parcel.
_2_ •
'lI
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
• No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on data
from other cities, contract analysis and developed work standards,
it is estimated that mainenance costs for assessment purposes will
equal forty cents ($.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
0
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 test of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvements for Annexation No. 2 are found to be of general
benefit to all lots within the District and that assessment shall
be equal for each parcel.
ba
of
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-
i
•
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9
ANNEXATION A`2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OKANGE 5T EFT
r
9 7 4 5 } 9 z
71 SZ Li G9
Al So 5'7 62 6f
N
0
Z" 54
1L 44 61 4L
I,
W
W 45' 46 N ?6 m
L L
� 3
Z
V
W 44 47 Tb 79 49
W � a
W i �
f= Z
45 46 79 Sr 49
H1611LANO AyENUL
l TRACT 9225
lOF 2
<ar rnpin.0 ccr. um T 1 f �
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION R 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
CRAN6C
STREET
15
It
I3
12
11
10
9
4
�/
v
16
77 iv 3q 40
Zc
Z9 I jv 41
so
17
14
Zf
70 37 4Z
,p
W
W
I.
24
31 36 ° 43
46
D
n
ZI
o
5 3z sr ad
4* W
= I 4 9f
46
21
I ZL
)1 D1
nVEN�f_
HIGNLPNO
TRACT 9225
2 of 2
<a7 •nyn <u ca0, uw T
r7
U
E
L J
1
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. t
ANNEXATION 02
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF. SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF ' CALIFORNIA
� l J
MAN2ANI I•A OR.
ti
N
SUNFLOWER
5T.
i'.
6
0
TRACT 9/76
cn/ .nq,n.n ec.. mo T
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
ANNEXATION ff 2
CITY OF .. RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
COUNTY OF, SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF 'CALIFORNIA
HIGHLAND AVE.
TRACT 95G 7
. , ..v,..., ..v... n... -T.-.
W
0
Q
O
Zi
W
Z
0
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
ANNEXATION #2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
943
1
I
I
I
I
i
TRACT N0. 9435 1 of I
9
9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Lien Agreement - Dr. Melvin Kornblatt
The subject lien agreement was signed by Dr. Eornblatt as
a substitution for the installation of street improvements
on Almond west of Hermosa. This agreement is pursuant to
City Council Resolution No. 80 -38 and is identical to the
one executed by Wes Bonneville on East Avenue. Almond
Street, in this reach, is encumbered by Offers of Dedica-
tion through several Parcel Maps. The Maps were processed
and recorded through the County of San Bernardino. At
present, the street is in a state of total disrepair and
cross a natural stream bed from the mountain range to the
north. The City Engineering Staff, in review of the sight,
has determined that unless the entire street was improved
from Hermosa to the west, that the City would not maintain
any "spot" street improvements in this area.
The future prospect of complete construction of Almond, to the
City standards, is remote. Staff in reviewing the north side
of Almond finds that only one lot fronting Almond is developed.
Staff, therefore, concluded that when we can acquire the lien
agreements for each vacant parcel fronting Almond the potential
for construction of street improvements would then exist.
It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution
directing the Mayor to sign the lien agreement on behalf of the
City.
Respectfully submitted,
v6vl_ ^�T/ry%
LBH: JLM: j as
Attachments
W
L"
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
FROM DR. MELVIN B. KORNBLATT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, adopted Resolution No. 80 -38 of May 7, 1980, to establish
requirements for landlocked parcels where no subdivision is occurring;
and,
WHEREAS, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3298 as per map recorded
in Book 30 of Parcels Maps, Page 79, records of the County of San
Bernardino, State of California, is a landlocked parcel within the
meaning of said Resolution No. 80 -38; and,
WHEREAS, Dr. Melvin B. Kornblatt has provided the dedications
required by Resolution No. 80 -38 and has executed a Real Property
Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement with respect to the same, a
copy of which Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does accept said Real Property
Imorovement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the
City Clerk to sign the same, and directs the City Clerk to record the
same in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County,
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
•
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
i
•
NORTH
ctrl' `' oi, 1 ITEM Dv-, MELVIN KDRNBLgTT
lt: \SCI I() CUG'\N'K)N('TA TITLE,; LEIN L1L.2ECMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION FNIIMI'r: A SGUY': I "- noo'
k
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
and
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK •
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9320 -C Baseline Road
Post Office Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 1980, by and between MELVIN B. KORNBLATT (hereinafter
referred to as "Developer "), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), provides as follows:
WHEREAS, as a general condition precedent to the issuance of a building
permit for residential development, the City requires the construction of
missing off -site street improvements, including curbs, gutters and pavement,
adjacent to the property to be developed; and,
WHEREAS, Developers desire to postpone construction of such improvements
until a later date, as determined by the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such postponement provided that Develop-
er enter into this Agreement requiring Developer to construct said improvements,
at no expense to the City, after demand to do so by the City, which said Agreement
shall also provide that the City may construct said improvements if the Developer
fail or neglect to do so and that the City shall have a lien upon the real property
hereinafter described as security for the Developer performance, and any repay-
ment due City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE:
1. Developer hereby agree that they will install off -site street
improvements, including curbs, gutters and pavement, in accordance and compliance
with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of the City •
in effect at the time of the installation. Said improvements shall be installed
adjacent to Developer property hereinafter described.
2. The installation of said improvements shall be completed not later
• than one (1) year following written notice to Developer from the City to com-
mence installation of the same. Installation of said improvements shall be at
no expense to the City.
•
-I-
J�
3. In the event Developer fail or refuse to complete the installation
of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at any time thereafter, upon
giving Developer written notice of its intention to do so, enter upon the •
property hereinafter described and complete said improvements and recover all
costs of completion incurred by the City from Developer .
4. To secure the performance by Developers of the terms and conditions
of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to City of any funds which may be
expended by City in completing said improvements upon default by Developer
hereunder, Developer do by these presents grants, bargain, sell and convey to
the City the following described real property situated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit:
PARCEL A: Parcel #1 of Parcel Map #3298, as per map recorded
in Book 30, Pages 79 and 80 of Parcel Maps in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County.
PARCEL B: A non exclusive easement for road and utility
purposes over and across the South 30 feet of Parcel Numbers
1, 3, and 4 and over and across the west 30 feet of Parcel •
Numbers 1 and 2 of Parcel Map #3298 as per map recorded in
Book 30 Pages 79 and 80 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County. Except therefrom any portion
lying within Parcel A above.
PARCEL C: A non exclusive easement for road and utility
purposes over and across the following described property:
The East 30 feet of the West 220 feet of the East 1100
feet of the North 495 feet of the Northwest one - quarter of
Section 23, Township 1 North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to the official plat thereof.
5. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purposes described
above.
6. Now, therefore, if the Developer shall faithfully perform all of
the acts and things by them to be done under this Agreement, then this conveyance
shall be void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect and in all
respects shall be considered and treated as a mortgage on the real property and
the rights and obligations of the parties with respect thereto shall be governed
by the provisions of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any other •
applicable statute, pertaining to mortgages on real property.
7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit
of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each of the
parties hereto.
•
8. To the extent required to give effect of this Agreement as a mort-
0
gage, the term "Developers" shall mean "mortgagors" and the City shall be the
—2-
0
"mortgagee" as those terms are used in the Civil Code of the State of California
and any other statute pertaining to mortgages on real property. •
9. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of
this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is entitled to recover from
Developer hereunder or to foreclose the right of the Developer to redeem the
above- described property from the mortgage created hereby, then the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys'
fees as shall be awarded by the Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the day and year first above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, a municipal
corporation
BY:
PHILLIP D. SCHLOSSER
Mayor
ATTEST:
LAUREN M. WASSERMAN
city Clerk
DEVELOPERS:
?,J
I 46L
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
• COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
•
ss:
On 1980, before me, the undersigned,
personally appeared PHILLIP D. SCHLOSSER, known to me to be the Mayor of the
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation, and known to
me to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of said
municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation
executed the same.
DATED: , 1980.
Signature
Name Typed
Name of Office
Seal of Office
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss:
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
On August 25, 1980, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared MELVIN B.
KORNBLATT, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
i� 1 =
Signature
Beverly Ann Authelet
Name Typed)
OFFICIAL SEAL (SEAL)
BEVERty ANN AUTHELET
NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
thy C... uAm NOV 22, 1982 1
*1
A
•
CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAMIrA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Consent Calendar,.Release of Bonds
Parcel Map 4957 - Located on the Southeast corner of Base Line and
Hellman Avenue
OWNER: Douglas R. Hone
7333 Hellman Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Set Aside Letter (Road) $15,000
Tract 9582 -2 - Located on the North side of Wilson Avenue at Beech,
Drive
OWNER: The Deer Creek Company
P. 0. Box 488
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Faithful Performance (Landscape) $ 6,270
Tract 9402 - Located on the South side of Lemon Avenue at Mayberry
Avenue
OWNER: Olympus Pacific Corporation
P. O. Box 3490
Anaheim, California 92803
Labor and Material (Road) $27,000
Labor and Material (Water On -site) 7,000
Labor and Material (Water Off0site) 3,500
Labor and Material (Sewer On -site) 7,000
Labor and Material (Sewer Off -site) 5,500
Tract 9458 - Located on the Southeast corner of Ivy Lane and Base
continued...
OWNER: Fred Schneider
1907 Glenwood Lane
Newport Beach, California 92660
Labor and Material (Road) $38,000
Labor and Material (water) 17,500
Labor and Material (Sewer) 10,000
O
Memo re Release of Bonds
November 5, 1980
Page 2
Tract 9302 - Located on the Southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and
Lemon Avenue
OWNER: Vanguard Builders, Inc.
9211 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Labor and Material (Road) $44,000
Tract 9440 - Located on the West side of Hermosa, 500+ feet North of
Banyan
OWNER: Chevron Construction Company
2120 Wilshire, Suite 200
Santa Monica, California
Cash Staking Bond $ 3,450
•
Certification from Associated Engineers indicates that
all monuments have been set for Tract 9440.
Tract 9422 - Located South of Church Street between Ramona and Turner •
Avenue
OWNER: Marlborough Development Corp.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90067
Cash Staking Bond $ 3,100
Certification from Stanley C. Morse, Surveyor, indicates
that all monuments have been set for Tract 9422.
Tract 9422 -1 - Located East of Ramona Avenue and Southerly of Church
Street
continued...
OWNER: Marlborough Development Corp.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90067
Cash Staking Bond $ 4,000
Certification from Stanley C. Morse, Surveyor, indicates
that all monuments have been set for Tract 9422 -1.
MAI
40
Memo re Release of Bonds
• November 5, 1980
Page 3
Tract 9422 -2 - Located west of Turner Avenue and Southerly of
Church Street
OWNER: Marlborough Development Corp.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90067
Cash Staking Bond $ 3,400
Certification from Stanley C. Morse, Surveyor, indicates
that all monuments have been set for Tract 9422 -2.
Tract 9588 - Located on the northside of Wilson between Amethyst
and Archibald
OWNER: Golden Bear Construction, Inc.
P. O. Box 466
Ontario, California 91761
• Performance Bond (Road $48,000
•
.7 /
•
•
•
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF PERRY P. POLAMERO
By: Perry P. Polamero
1192 North White Avenue
Pomona, California 91768
(714) 623 -5281
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RECEIPT NUMBER: offmlo
� )
CITY OF RANCHO CI!(- WABNGA
AhtAINISTRN?IbN
OCT 24 1980
718(9(YIIl111Y111$181915)B
NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY
TO: CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9320 -C
Baseline Road, P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE, by Law Offices of Perry P. Polamero,
Attorneysfor Kathryn Weckerle, guardian of TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE,
minor hereby makes claim against CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA for the sum of Ten Thousand dollars and no /100,
($10,000.00) and makes the following statements in support of the
claim:
1. Claimant's post office address is 7950 Orchard, Alta
Loma, California.
2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to claimant's
attorneys, C/o Law Offices of Perry P. Polamero, 1192 North White
Avenue, Pomona, California 91768.
3. The accident giving rise to this claim occurred on July
15, 1980, on Sapphire, approximately Fifty -Seven feet, (571)
n;rth of Pumalo Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
-1 66
1 4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as
2 follows: /
3 (a) TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE was driving a 1972 Chevy
4 Caprice license number 221 RFO, California, northbound on
5 Sapphire, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on July 15, 1980, at
6 approximately 6:00 p.m., with his sister, Kelly Weckerle, a
7 1 passenger in the front seat of the vehicle. At the intersection
8 of Pumalo, and while traveling at a reasonably safe speed up the
9 approximate five percent, (58) qrade incline on Sapphire, the
10 car lost control when it made contact with water accumulated on
11 the roadway, spun out of control, jumped the curb and hit a block
12 wall causing injuries to the occupants of the vehicle and total
13 damage to the vehicle. ,
14 (b) That the City of Rancho Cucamonga failed to
15 maintain, repair, or keep in proper order the roadway, shoulders,'
16 curbing, drainage, or sewers at the scene of the accident such
17 that runoff waters from local orchards or other sources accumulate(
18 on the roadway which has an approximate five percent, (58)
19 grade, and posing an unreasonable forseeable risk of injury to
20 motorist on the roadway.
21 5. Claimant's injuries are numerous cuts and abrasions.
22 6. The names of the public employees causing the claimant's
23 injuries are unknown at this time.
24 7. The claim of TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE, by Law Offices of
25 Perry P. Polarnero, Attorneys for Kathryn Weckerle, guardian of
26 TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE, as of the date of this claim is Ten Thousand
27 dollars and no /100, ($10,000.00).
28 B. The basis of computation of the above amount is as
-2- 6 1
I
• 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
• 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
• 28
follows:
Property damage - vehicle approximately $ 1,000.00
Loss of Wages: $ unknown
Future Medicals; $ unknown
General Damages; $ 9,000.00
TOTAL; $10,000.00
DATED: October 22, 1980
Claimant, TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE, by
Law Offices of Perry P. Polamero,
Attorneys for Kathryn Weckerle,
guardian of TIMOTHY J. WECKERLE
9 9t& ..� r _
ERR P. PCTLAMERQ
-3- U
I
LAW OFFICES OF PERRY P. POLAMERO �•. ;$ ; ',( .; r ?,
C:
By: Perry P. Polamero CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2
1192 North White Avenue AOhl NISTRAVI)N
Los Angeles, California 91768
3
pR
(714) 623 -5281 OCT 2d,19K
4
PH
CERTIFIED MAIL 7�BIYItlklldYklk�IS14k5k6
RETURN RECEIPT REJUESTED
5
RECEIPT NUMBER: 0 5'Y5,�? A
6
7
8
NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY
9
I
10
TO: CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
11
9320 -C
12
Baseline Road, P.O. Box 807
13
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
14
•
15
KELLY WECKERLE, hereby makes claim against CITY CLERK,
16
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, for the sum of One Hundred and Fifteen
17
Thousand dollars and no /100, ($115,000.00) and makes the following
18
statements in support of the claim:
19
1. Claimant's post office address is 7950 Orchard, Alta
20
Loma, California.
21
2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to claimant's
22
attorneys, c/o the Law Offices of Perry P. Polamero, 1192 North
23
White Avenue, Pomona, California 91768.
24
3. The accident giving rise to this claim occurred on July
25
15, 1980, on sapphire, approximately Fifty -Seven feet, (57'),
26
north of Pumalo Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
27
4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as
•
28
follows:
-1 (�3
I (a) Timothy J. Weckerle was driving a 1972 Chevy
2 Caprice license number 221 RFO, California, northbound on '
3 Sapphire, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on July 15, 1980, at
4 approximately 6:00 p.m., with his sister, KELLY WECKERLE, a
5 passenger in the front seat of the vehicle. At the intersection
6 of Pumalo, and while traveling at a reasonably safe speed up the
7 approximate five percent, (59) grade incline on Sapphire, the
8 car lost control when it made contact with water accumulated on
9 the roadway, spun out of control, jumped the curb and hit a block
10 wall causing injuries to the occupants of the vehicle and total
11 damage to the vehicle.
12 (b) That the City of Rancho Cucamonga failed to
13 maintain, repair, or keep in proper order the roadway, shoulders,
14 curbing, drainage, or sewers at the scene of the accident such
15 that runoff waters from local orchards or other sources accumulate
16 on the roadway which has an approximate five percent, (59)
17 grade, and posing an unreasonable forseeable risk of injury to
18 motorist on the roadway.
19 5. Claimant's injuries are a broken neck, chipped teeth,
20 and numerous lacerations and contusions.
21 6. The names of the public employees causing the claimant's
22 injuries are unknown at this time.
23 7. The claim of KELLY WECKERLE as of the date of this
24 claim is one Hundred and Fifteen Thousand dollars and no /100,
25 ($115,000.00).
26 B. The basis of computation of the above amount is as
27 follows:
28
-2- ��
l J
r 1
U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24i
25
26
27
28
Medical Expenses
Incurred to Date: approximately $ 5,000.00
Estimated Future Medical
Expenses: $ 10,000.00 plus
Loss of Wages: $ unknown
General Damages: $100,000.00
TOTAL: $115,000.00
DATED: October 22, 1980
Claimant, KELLY WECKERLE
By LaX Of E' es of Perry P. Polamero
AtEllne ,s fl c1 imant
ER7 P. POLAMERO
-3- &
`
Ii
(BPnCfi R6LON tOR PILQIC9Tnl1 ➢ONLl/
l j
JONES AND Prt VLLO
ur
• c9�ro�Anew
A vY[I I,>VII
•
'
2
UPp A ND. C ALWOPNNDIA O
17 10 B!6 -Y9lI
r,tc sy
3'J
CITY Of Imilcro CH6g69oNCA
AWAIN18TRn710N
5'f,
Auome7eior Claimants
OCj 241980
AM Ply
6 'I
7j81911DIHI1411213141516
)Vo 5 L1
CLAIM AGAINST
PUBLIC ENTITY `C I
s
10:'
�5ti'lln,
11
In the Matter of the Claim
)
VALDO I. SANTIBANEZ,
)
12Iof
CIPRIANA SANTIBANEZ, VALDO
)
:
SANTIBANEZ, JR., ARTHUR
)
13'
SANTIBANEZ, MARY ANN SALINAS,
I
RALPH SANTIBANEZ, RACHEL
)
14
SANTIBANEZ, ARLENE SANTIBANEZ,)
and HENRY SANTIBANEZ,
)
15'
)
Claimants,
)
16 1
)
17
)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
)
18
DOES I through C, Inclusive,
)
19
Defendants.
)
20
1
21
RAMON GOMEZ, attorney for
Claimants, hereby presents this
22�
Claim to the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
pursuant to Section 910 of
23
I
the California Government Code.
24�
1. Claimants, VALDO I.
SANTIBANEZ, CIPRIANA SANTIBANEZ,
I
25
VA[,DO SANTIBANEZ, JR,, ARTHUR
SANTIBANEZ, MARY ANN SALINAS,
26 1
RAI,PII SANTIBANEZ., RACHEL SANTIBANEZ,
ARLENE SANTIBANEZ and
27
III:NRY SANTIBANEZ, are the heirs
at law of decedent, DAVID RAY
28
snNTIB ;a.ez.
�I
l 2. The post office address to which RAMON GOMEZ, attorney
2 for Claimants, desires notice of this claim to be sent is '
3 I JONES AND PITTULLO, a Professional Corporation, 404 North Second
4I Avenue, P. O. Box 638, Upland, California 91786.
5 3. On or about July 30, 1980, in the City of Ontario,
6 County of San Bernardino, State of Caifornia, at a refuse disposal
y site located on MilliKen Avenue, decedent, DAVID RAY SANTIBANEZ,
8 was run over by a 1966 Chevrolet dump truck thereby causing
9 death to decedent.
10 4. At said time and place, said dump truck was being
11 maintained, operated by ARTHUR LIRA AYALA, an employee, agent, and
12 servant of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, and DOES I through C,
13 inclusive.
14 5. Claimants are informed and believe and based on said
15 information and belief allege that said 1968 Chevrolet dump truck
16 1S registered to ARTHUR LIRA AYALA and at all times herein
17 mentioned was being used with the consent, permission, Knowledge anc
18 cxprC SS approval of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA while performing
19 snrviccs for the CITY in his capacity as an employee of Project
20 Esperanza, in the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, County of San Bernardino
21 State of California.
22 6. Claimants are further informed and believe and based on
23 j::. td information and belief allege that ARTHUR LIRA AYALA was an
24 ny -:n L, sorv.int, and employee of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA in thatli
25 h,� was ',�t [,,rming s,irviccs for Project Esperanza in his capacity
I
26 is nVlployuu, servant., .and ,.vj nt for said City at the time of
27 the ocr.ur.rencns herein alleged. Claimants further allege that
28 ARTHUR f,IRA AYALA was acting within his scope and capacity as
-2- /
I
•
I
I
I
servant, agent and employee of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, at
•
2
all times herein mentioned.
3
7. Claimants are informed and believe and based on said
4
information and belief allege that ARTHUR LIRA AYALA, CITY OF
5
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, and DOES I through C, inclusive, and each of
6
them, at all times herein mentioned were operating said 1968
y
Chevrolet dump truck with the permission, consent and knowledge
8
of each other, in a such a reckless, negligent and careless
9
manner as to cause said vehicle to run over DAVID RAY SANTIBANEZ
10
causing death and the damages as herein alleged.
11
8. As a further proximate result of the negligence,
12
l carelessness and recklessness of defendants, and each of them,
13
claimants have had to procure the services of physicians to treat
14
decedent and as far as it is known to claimants' attorney, RAMON
•
15
GOMEZ, at the date of filing of this claim, claimants have
16
incurr,.d substantial medical expenses as well as expenses
17
associated with burial of decedent. Claimants are unaware of the
18
exact amount of damages at this time and will amend this claim
19
when said amount has been ascertained.
20
9. As a further proximate result of the carelessness,
21
,eegligencc, and recklessness of the defendants, and each of them,
22
':Iaimants have been damaged in that they have lost the society,
23�
comfort and support of decedent, past and future.
24
10. Claimants are unaware of the true names and capacities�i
25
0: the fiCtit.Iously named defendants sued herein as DOES I through
26
C, inc Lusive, and tMorcfore names these defendants by such
27
fictitious names. Claimants will amend this claim when their true
28
mimes and capacities have been ascertained. Claimants are informed
-7-
Z2y
1 and believe and based on said information and belief allege that
2 the fictitiously named defendants named herein are responsible in
3 some manner for the injuries proximately caused.
4 11. Claimants are unaware as to the relationship of the
5 different Public Entities involved and the roles that they played
6 in the negligent acts giving rise to the death of decedent and
7 the damages herein complained of and therefore file against all
8 entities concerned so that investigation may commence as to
9 prospective liability.
10 12. At the time of presentation of this claim, Claimants
11 are unable to give a computation of the amount of damages since
12 the total damages have not yet been ascertained.
13 Dated: October 21, 1980 JONES AND PITTULLO
A Professional Corporation
14 /
15
By:
16 a o
ttorney fir Claimants
17
18
19
20
21
22
231
24
25
26
27
28
-4- /
VERIFICATION
• STATL OF CALI FORN IA, COUNTY OF
I, the undersigned, .say:
1 have read the foregoing
and know its contents.
® CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH
❑I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are
stated on olranratmn and belief. and as to those matters 1 believe them to be true.
❑ 1 am Cl an officer ❑ a partner ❑ a of _-
a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification
for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true.
❑ I am one of the attorneys for
a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make
this senfcation for and on behalf of that party for that reason. i am informed and believe and on that ground allege
that the matters stated In it are true.
Executed on
19_, at
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(Agnmurcl
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT
(other than summons and complaint)
Received copy of document described
• an
PROOF OF SERVICE. BY MAIL
SLATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY Oil SAN BERNARDINO
I .im crived in the county of_ San Bernardino
Stain of California.
I am over the age of Ik and not a party to the within action: my business address is:
._ 404 N, Second Avenue. UDIand CA 91786
On October 21 __19 80, I served the foregoing document described as
CI,A7M AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY
on interested parties
in Hns action h. placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United
Sim" mad nt:_ UTala CA
addresscd , follows
City Clerk
Rancho Cucamonga City Hall
9320 Base Line Road
Alta Loma, CA 91701
Ifseouted on _. ne tobeC 21 __, Iq--a-%s Upland , Cahfurma.
. (check applicable paragraph below)
Islalcl I declare muter penally of perjury that the above is true and correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am cmploved in (he olfiec of a member of the bar of th, court at whose direction the service was
F1made
awhars ua.00r ranuvea ix.+ara s.rr. f " �.16aet?l
f'�T - ' (signal are)
0
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOIGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980 u�
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CITY'S APPLICATION FOR FUNDING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION
OF FORESTRY'S CD URBAN ORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM
ABSTRACT: It is the City's desire to improve the visual quality of
The urban environment through landscaping public streets and the provision
of incentatives for good landscape design on private property. An
opportunity has been made available by the California Division of Forestry
to obtain an Urban Forestry Grant of $50,000 to develop an urban forestry
management program that would be based initially purchasing tree stock
to be planted in City parkways and residential front yards on a voluntary
basis. If the City were to receive the Grant, we have projected that
approximately 1,600 trees could be purchased and planted in the next
year. The program is based upon extensive community participation. We
expect that service clubs and local youth organizations will be involved
in both the planning and the planting.
The stated purpose of the Urban Forestry Grant Program is to encourage
local governments to initiate programs that can do the following:
- improve the quality of the urban environment by arresting the
decline of urban forests by facilitating the planting of new trees;
- promote energy related benefits in urban forestry;
- encourage maximum citizens participation in community urban forestry
projects.
Approximately $700,000 has been earmarked for local governments during
the 1980 -81 Fiscal Year.
Participation is available at several levels. The level of funding,
meaning the percentage of a program that CDF will fund by grant, is
dependent upon a program being designed to include the following:
- the intent to improve areas where trees are absent or badly depleted;
- there are innovative techniques proposed which are applicable in
other communities;
71
Staff Report
November 5, 1980
Page 5
- energy conservation is stressed;
- the location of the local government is in an urban area with a
relatively high unemployment rate;
- educational opportunities about urban forestry are provided;
- a minimum commitment of two years toward maintenance of tree stock which
has been planted through project funding.
Should the City's application be accepted, we have planned a program that
will require $50,000 total funding. The City will participate with an
in -kind cost of 10% of the total funding ($5,000) and the grant of 90%
($45,000) will be provided by CDF. There will be no additional financial
obligation placed upon the City if we participate.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the
attached Resolution approving the submittal of an application to participate
in the California Division of Forestry Urban Forestry Grant Program.
Respectfully ��� submitted,
�Ja z
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:kp
Attachments: Resolution
7a
r
U
•
0 RESOLUTION NO. 80 -101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING THE CITY'S
APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE URBAN FORESTRY
GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the citizens of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga to improve the quality of the urban environment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has on previous occasions demonstrated
through resolution its commitment to tree management and preservation
through the adoption of a tree preservation ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to expand its commitment
to include the beginning of an Urban Forestry Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the California Division of Forestry's Urban Forestry
Grant Program provides the present opportunity to develop a City program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga is in full support of the attached application
to participate in the Urban Forestry Grant Program;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City does desire to begin a
long -term Urban Forestry Management Program which includes the planning,
implementation, and maintenance of urban forestry areas.
PASSES, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
•
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
73
CITY OF RANCHO Cl1CAMQ\U1,
STAFF REPORT
y
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager L977
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Steve McCutchan
SUBJECT: Update on Progress of Fiscal Model and a Request to Approve the
extension of the Fiscal Model Development Contract between the
City and M.K.G.K., Inc.
Recently, City Staff and our consultant, M.K.G.K. completed the data collection
and interpretation tasks (Tasks 1 through 24). This included the systematic
assessment of numerous City revenue /expenditure assumptions and long -term
growth assumptions embodied in the proposed General Plan.
We are beginning to complete the work program with an initial run with the
line data (Task 2.5) to eliminate any system "bugs" that might exist. Sub-
sequently, we will run 12 seperate scenarios each based upon a different
modification variable, such as different growth rates (Task 2.6). Finally
• M.K.G.K. will train City Staff on how to use the model on a time- sharing
terminal to be leased by the City.
In regards to the contract extension, it has become necessary to extend the
contract with M.K.G.K. This is based primarily on time delays which were a
result of changes to the City Planning Division Staff. There are no financial
changes associated with the contract extension. The time schedule for those
tasks not completed should be extended to the end of January 1981, (an adjusted
work program is attached for your review). We have been assured by M.K.G.K.
that the Model will be completed at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: We request that the City Council approve the contract ex-
tension as proposed.
Respec fully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:SMC:cd
Attachments: Agreement for Extension of Service
Estimated Schedule and Work Tasks
•
_ V
n
u
TASK
1 PROJECT INITIATION
2 ADAPTATION OF FISCAL
IMPACT MODEL TO CITY
AND ANALYSIS OF DEVELOP -
MENT/POLICYT SCENARIOS
2.1 Detailed Conceptual
Mapping
Review, Approve, Check
Conceptual Design
2.3 Data Collection and
Assumption Documenta-
tion (Preliminary)
2.4 Adaptation of Computer
Programs and /or Genera-
tion of New Ones
2.5 First Run with Live Data
2.6 Twelve Runs and Analysis
of Results
2.7 Final Documentation and
Training in Model Usage
3 FINAL REPORT AND
PRESENTATIONS
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE AND WORK TASKS
Revised November 5, 1980
Months from Date of Project Initiation
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
75
AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 5th day of November, 1980,
by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. a municipal corporation, •
hereinafter referred to as "City" and MKGK Incorporated, a California
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant'.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Consultant have
entered into a contract to prepare a Fiscal Impact Model; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that amendment be made to
such Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that Article VIII be amended to
read as follows:
The Consultant agrees to complete all phases of the original Agreement
within the time allocated in the following schedule:
Task 2.4: Extend three (3) months after approval of Revised Schedule
(3/15/80); Task 2.5: Extend six (6) months after approval of Revised
Schedule (3/15/80); Task 2.6: Extend four (4) months after approval
of Revised Schedule (3/15/80); Task 2.7: Extend four (4) months after
approval of Revised Schedule (3/15/80); Task 3: Extend four (4) months
after Revised Schedule (3/15/80).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •
BY:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
MKGK INCORPORATED
BY:
Sheldon K. Gans, President
ATTEST:
E. Kent Meek, Vice President •
7t
LA
•
•
�., I t l C MALNl rlV l UUAIVIVLN"A
MEMORANDUM
October 30, 1980
T0: City Manager /City Council
FROM: Building Official tiQL'��C -R�-)�
SUBJECT: Adoption of Building /Regulations
This item was continued from the City Council meeting of October
IS, 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.
7�
n
u
•
•
§ 56622.3 Code; adoption by reference; notice of hearing; pub-
lication or posting. After the first reading of the title of the adopting
or Imnr= and of the title o the code to be adopt there y, an or e
title of the secondary codes therein adopted by reference, the legisla-
tive bodv shall schedule a ublic h 'n thereon. Not or the _ ice ohe hear -
ini shall be published pursuant.-w Section 606 in at newspaper of
general circulation in or nearest 0 the adopting local agency. If there
is no such newspaper in the county the notice shill be posted in the
same manner as provided for the posting of a pro, used ordinance.
Tic notice shall state the time and place of the hearing. It shall also
state that copies of the primary code and also copies of the secondary
codes, if any, being considered for adoption, are on file with the clerk
of the legislative body, and are open to public inspection. The notice
shall also contain a description which the legislative body deems suf-
ficient to give notice to interested persons of the purpose of the ordi•
nance and the subject matter thereof. (Added Stats.1953, c. 1466, p.
30,9, ; 3, as amended Stats.1955, c. 343, p. 806, i 3; Stats.1957, c, 357,
p, 1023, i 56.)
§ 6066. Two weeks
Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once�a
week for two succe 1f5 Two publications in a newspaper
O nto
Oblls ed once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening
between the respective publication dates not counting such publica-
tion dates, are sufficient. The eriod of notice commences upon the
first day of publication and terminates a e n r eenth
My—,M'cTuding therein t e rs ay.
19,19-11,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
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 15, 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, B, $ 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 Fo, thill Fire District and appears valid, considering geographical and
-717
.J%
• topographic conditions and water availability and brush /grassland circumstances
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 D 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.
7his proposal for roof covering outside the "High Fire Hazard" area also
surpasses what would be permitted under the published 1979 Lktiform 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,
c.) 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 fof
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.
F. M
MRE
ZONE ONE
- -1 --
(PROPOSED
- �
HIGH rlR-, '
yt
� ,
Z-AZkAAKo �4 Y G ,�IEL: Ao UNTAINS -
..........
ALI, ST
z;
-w. IT
ell
LJPLAuc)
-�l ONTARIO
FIRE
ZONE
3
S" COL,." fc*Nll .. I
p TAAID rjT(Ah.11(>NA%, AIAPW
pftp�t!o
zXp^Nsh!PN
r OF HIGH KA-
ZAKD ARE�A
.. .,D147cr_
SPIE..
FONTANA .
KAISER STEEL PLANT
LN 2Ep"A"01,10 .1"Iff
A
0
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
October 15, 1980
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Building Official
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 S, 1980 as the date for public hearing and second reading.
2Y
ORD. SECTION CODE '
N0. SECION NO. REASON /SIGNIFICANCE
1
Deletes S. B. Co. regs.
2
Informational
3
Definitions
4A
UBC /204
Establishes Board of Appeal consisting of Members of Citl
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.
4B
UBC /205
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 Resolution
also establishes retention fee on refunds.
4E
UBC /305
Coordinates Bldg. approval with other developmental •
requirements.
4F
UBC
Deletes fee table in UBC for consistency with Rancho
Cucamonga fee policies
4G
UBC /420
Establishes swimming pool definition
4H
UBC /1111
Establishes swimming pool as regulated construction
41
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.
U
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.
4L
llpC/
c iaPtcr 16
Establishes additional requirements for construction
within the "High Fire Hazard Area" - re: roof coverings,
attic and underfloor areas.
4M
UBC /1704
Restricts use of "ordinary" roof coverings in all at
to roofs not over 3000 sq.ft. in area and min. 10 fee
from property lines.
�3
ORD. SECTION CODE
NO. SECTION NO. REASON /SIGNIFICANCE
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
DEC
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 4118
7005
4T
UBC
Revises UBC consistent with Ordinance 4118.
•
Appendix/
7006
41)
UBC
Revises fee schedule consistent with Rancho Cucamonga
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
4Y
UBC
Expands and makes more specific, erosion control methods
Appendix/
and slope irrigation requirements
7013
5A
IIIIC /:03
Establishes City Council or their appointees as Appeals
Board
5B
UIC /204
Penalty Section - required by law for enforcement
ORD. SECTION CODE`
NO. SECTION NO.
REASON /SIGNIFICANCE
5C
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
UCABD /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 "public works
thru
901 -905
director" to "building official ".
6T
•
7A
UBSC/
Revises Uniform Building Security Code consistent with
thru
4101 -4115
recommendations of Citizen Advisory Commission
7H
8A
USC /103
Violation Penalty - required by law for enforcement
8B
USC /303
Modifies Uniform Sign Code consistent with Rancho
BE
Cucamonga sign ordinance
9
Expressed findings necessary for modification of publish-
ed codes - stipulated by State Law
• UBC Uniform Building Code
U11C Uniform Housing Code
UCABD Uniform Code for Abatement
UBSC. Uniform Security Code
USC Uniform Sign Code
of Dangerous Buildings
0s
•
•
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.
PROPOSED
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, consltuction,
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 Balking
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 are hereafter deleted, modif ted 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 fallowing names or terms are used in said
codes, such name or term shall be deemed and construed to have the meaning
ascribod 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
designated representative.
Ok"
Ordinance No.
Page 2
D. Building Depar [mant shall mean the Building and Safety Division of
Cormmunity 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. follows: Section 205 of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read as
Section 205. VIOLATIONS AND PENALITIES. 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
consr.itute 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 (f). 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
agenr In control of said property,upon receipt of notice In writing from •
the Ueparnment 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
R/
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- extinguishinp 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_dqubled. 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 so 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 ink official capacity on behalf
of the state or of this or anv county, ciyt district, or other political
subdivision shall pay or deposit any fee %uired 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.
S
Ordinance 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 (80%) 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 (807.) 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.
C. 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:
b/
Ordinance 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 Code 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
ocher 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 swimming 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) any 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
shall comply with the requirements of subsection (a).
K. Section 1210 (a) of said Uniform Building Code is amended to read
as follows:
F�)
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 he 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 placed 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.
L. 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
1 North, Range 7 West;
'7(
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. Roof 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 1!i" net thickness or
plywood flooring of I -1/8" net thickness need not be enclosed or
fire- protected.
Section 1605. OPENINGS. Openings into enclosed 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 already 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.
17,)
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 •
III, 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
3Y" in thickness.
2. The support of buildings by posts embedded in earth shall be
designed as specified in Section 2907 (f). 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).
0. 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 or 3116" thick cast iron plate. Perforations or openings in
spark arrestors shall be not less than one -half inch (� ") and not larger than
five - eighths inches (5/8 ") and shall he of sufficient number so as not to
•
Q3
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.
u
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.
17//
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 storm 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 the 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:
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.
T. Section 7006 of the Appendix of said Uniform Building Code is
amended to read as follows:
•
7-15,
Ordinance No.
Page 11
Section 7006 (a). PERMITS REQUIRED. Except as exempted in
• Section 7003 of this Code, no person shall do any grading without first
obtaining a grading permit 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 be
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. Location 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 proposed
grading operations.
6. Size, type and condition of vegetation that is to remain.
7. Legal restrictions such as property lines, easements, setbacks,
etc.
74
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 9% 5 feet
Over 9% 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 uilding
Official shall be incorporated in the grading p ospecifications.
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 recommendations
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.
•
r�L
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.
Ordinance No.
Page 13
6. The place and manner of disposal of excavated materials
is 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.
8. 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 (1). 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 reas as 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.
�y
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 pursuant 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 ........ 0% of the cost of grading work. •
Over 100,000 cubic yards........... 507.. of the cost of the firs[
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:
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.
3. 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.
9 �
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 bond shall
remain in effect until the work authorized by the grading permit is
completed and approved by the Building Official.
Section 7008 (f) . DEFAOLT 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
permit 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 Cross Section for fills.
In the absence of an approved soil engineering report these
provisions may be 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 -soil and other unsuitable materials scarifying to provide a bond
wit`i the new fill, and, where slopes are steeper than five to one, and the
/1-1G
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 Buidding Official.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Pills 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.
1. 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 be 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.
le
Ordinance No.
Page 17
Section 7010 (g) . DRAINAGE AND TERRACING. Drainage and terracing
is 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. 1 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 height 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:
1. Planting need not be provided for cut slopes, rocky in
character and not subject to damage by erosion, when
approved by the Building Official.
2. Slopes may be protected against erosion damage by other
• methods when such methods have been specifically recommended
by a soils engineer, engineering geologist, or equivalent
and found to offer erosion protection equal to that provided
by the planting specified in this Section.
16)
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 Cade 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 Cade is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon
conviction of any such violation such person shall he 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
foll ws: •
/n3
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 he 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 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 any 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 Cis 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 r:gulations 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 he 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:
7j
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.
S. 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 most 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
M45^
0
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.
i
D. 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 be 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 b, followed.
E. Said Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended
by deleting Section 802 in its entirety.
Section 901 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings is amended to read as follows:
16C
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.
Ne 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 and hour fixed for the hearing the
City Council shall hear and pass upon the report of the Building Official
together with any such objections or protests. The Council may make such
revision, correction or modification in the report or the charge as it
may deem just; and when the Council is 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.
le, 7
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.
9
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 Buil<ing 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.
165
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
(9/16 ") 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
(4 ") 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 (Y ") 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 be placed between studs at door lock height for three (3) stud spaces
each side of the door openings. Anv 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.
•
I ��
Ordinance No.
Page 25
Section 4106 M. 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. WINDOWS. 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.
C. 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:
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 (c). LOCKING DEVICES. All locking devices utilizing
a cylinder lack shall have a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation with the
locking bar or bolt extending into the receiving guide a minimum of one
inch (l "). Slide bolt 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 less than one and one -half inches (11 ") and shall be
attached with three (3) bolts that are not removable from the outside.
. Rivet: shall not be used to attach slide bolt assemblies.
)/T
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 he 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:
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 (IV) 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) footcandles 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 he 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.
"Burglary Resistant Glazing" means those materials as defined in
Underwriters Laboratory Bulletin 972.
•
Ordinance No.
Page 27
2. "Double Cylinder Deadbolt" means a deadbolt 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 deadbolt lock which is
activated from the outside 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 4115, 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,
any 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
pemitted, and upon conviction of 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.
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 101 (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 any sign or sign structure in the City or cause or permit the
same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions 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
• thercof 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 by a fine of not more than
11
Ordinance No.
Page 28
$500.00 or by imprisonment of not more than six months or 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 its' 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 similiar signs specifically
designed for the use of replaceable copy.
Any permit issued for erection of a sign in violation of
this Code or 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 Housing 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.
)/3
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 adapt 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.
is SECTION 10:
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this
ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by
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:
• Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
J Y�
0
•
0
CITY OF RANCHO CLCANUNGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Annexation M1 to Landscape Maintenance District Al
for Tract 9637
Attached for Council's approval is Resolution 80- ordering
the work in connection with annexation R1 to Landscape
Maintenance District !1 for Tract 9637. Annexation to the
Maintenance District is a routine policy for all new tracts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve Resolution 80- ordering
the annexation of Tract 9637 to Landscape Maintenance District
il.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:BK: jaa
Attachments
IU
• RESOLUTION NO. 80 -102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN
CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER ONE TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR
TRACT NO. 9637.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did
on the 1st day of October, 1980, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 80 -78
to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation Number 1
to Landscape'Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention
No. 80 -78 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 No. 80 -78, 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
lJ
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 -78, 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 -82 and method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby
approved.
y/k,
Resolution No. �-
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980. •
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor
117
•
.I
L
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -77
A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 1 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that:
WHEREAS, on the 5th of July 1979, said City Council directed the
City engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report in
writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk
of said City a report in writing as called for under pursuant to said Act,
which report has been presented to this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and
every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should
be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:
1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses
of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained
in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and
confirmed.
2. That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to
and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed.
3. That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of land
in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be
received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily
approved and confirmed.
4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Report
for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed
district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1980.
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
i /�� GHser, Mtay r
Phill' D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION #1 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1;
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to
the provisions of the Landscaping and lighting Act of 1972, being Division
15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, does
resolve as follows:
Description of Work
Section I: That the public interest and convenience require
and it is the intention of this City Council to form a maintenance
district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and operation
of those parkways and facilities thereon dedicated for cocoon greenbelt
purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries
of the proposed maintenance district described in Section 2 hereof.
Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of any
sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings, landscaping, ornamental
lighting, structures, walls, in connection with said parkways.
Location of Work
SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located
within roadway right -of -way and landscaping easements of Tentative Tract
No. 9637 enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly
described on a map which is on file in the City Clerk's office, entitled
"Annexation No. 1 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ",
Description of Assessment District
SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of
said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and
the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the said work chargeable
upon a district, which said district is assessed to pay the costs and
expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows:
All that certain terrirory of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon
that certain "Map of Annexation No. 1 to Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1" heretofore approved by the City Council of said City by Resolution
No. 80 -77, indicating by said boundary line the extent of the territory
included within the proposed assessment district and which map is on
file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City.
11�
V�
\J
•
n
U
Report of Engineer
1
SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No.
L 80-77 has approved the report of the engineer of work which report
indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
L assessment zones, detailed description of improvements, and the method
Landscape assessment. The report titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 1,
Landscape Maintenance District No. I" is on file in the office of the
City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for
all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the
extent of the work.
Collection of Assessments
SECTION 5: The assessment shall be collected at the same
time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected. The City
Engineer shall file a report annually with the City Council of said City
and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon said report at
their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments for the
next fiscal year will be determined.
Time and Place of Hearing
SECTION 6: Notice is hereby given that on the 3rd day of
September, 1980, at the hour of 7: p.m. in the City Council Chambers at
• 7105 Carnelian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons
having any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district,
may appear and show cause why said work should not be done or carried
out or why said district should not be formed in accordance with this
Resolution of Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a
description of the property in'which each signer thereof is interested,
sufficient to identify the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk
of said City prior to the time set for the Hearing, and no other protests
or objections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not
shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of San Bernardino County
as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest
must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is
the owner of the property so described.
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
SECTION 7: All the work herein proposed shall be done and
carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State
of California designated the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
�aa
Publication of Resolution of Intention
SECTION 8: Published notice shall be made pursuant to
Section 6961 of the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution
and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the
hearing, at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general
circulation published in Ghe City of Ontario, California, and circulated
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 1980.
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
^
auren M. W-"�Wasserman, Ci[y Clerk �
Phil4Xp D. Schlosser, Mayor
0/
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
• Annexation Number 1 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 along the frontage of Amethyst Street of Tentative Tract
No. 9637 into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council
has determined that the areas to be landscaped will have an effect
upon all lots within Tract No. 9637 as well as on the lots directly
. abutting the landscaped areas. All landscaped areas to be annexed to
the district are shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or
easements to be gratned to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
0
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been pre-
pared by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement
plans for Tentative Tract 9637. The plans and specifications for
the landscaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission con-
ditions of approval of said Tract No. 9637.
Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map and the assess-
ment diagram for the exact location of the landscape areas. The plans
and specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report
-1-
7�
to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached
hereto.
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 maintenance 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
(including Annexation No. 1 comprised of 31 lots and 2,520 square feet
of landscaped area) is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.40 x 170,043 square feet
Per Lot Annual Assessment
68,016.80 - 735 lots
Per Lot Monthly Assessment
$68,016.80
92.54 per year
= 7.71 per month
1
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumeraged in Section 6 and
the attached Assessment Diagram.
SECTION 5. Assesrrent Diagram
•
A copy of the pr000sed assessment diagram is attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A "; by this reference the diagram is hereby
incorporated within the text of this report.
•
-2 I�3
SECTION 6. Assessment
• Improvement for Annexation No. 1 is found to be of general
benefit to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be
equal for each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1980,
to determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs
incurred by the City during the 1980/81 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 ;q
CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT *I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
N � i
2y 25 26 27 IB 29 30 31
22 _[_Z s APRICOT ST,
2/
6 7 B
LEMON AVE.
it
TRACT 9637 I EXHIBIT
A
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
• DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council r-q Im
Up �w
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner 1977
SUBJECT: ZOA 80 -02 - Interim Zoning Ordinance
ABSTRACT: As the City Council is aware, the City adopted Ordinance 17 early
in the City's history in order to provide the community with some guidelines
for development in the interim until we are prepared to adopt the City's
first comprehensive zoning ordinance. The document that the Planning Com-
mission has recommended to you for approval is a step towards the City's
first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the Interim Zoning
Ordinance is to clean up and make the City's use of the County Development
Code, as adopted by Ordinance 17, a more workable document. It is not,
however, the final look at the zoning issue.
DISCUSSION: The Interim Zoning Ordinance amends the residential sections,
PUD section, parking and administrative sections of the Code. In order to
give Council a definitive idea of what those changes are we will divide
this Discussion Section into five parts:
- Residential
- PUD
- Parking
- Area and Height Requirements
- Administration
RESIDENTIAL: There are many changes that have occured in this area. Spe-
cifically we have limited the number of R -1 zones to form areas ranging in
lot size from one acre to 7200 square feet. We have required minimum lot
width and depths for each of the four R -1 areas with maximum lot coverages.
Additionally, we have created more flexibility in the R -1 zones to allow
variable setbacks and lot sizes.
In the R -2 and R -3 areas we have restricted the pyramidal provision to go
back only one zone classification, i.e., R -2 is allowable in R -3 and R -1
is allowed in R -2 but R -1 is not allowable in R -3.
The signing provisions have been eliminated, because there is already a
City Sign Ordinance, from each of the Residential categories.
PUD; The basic changes to this zone are in two particular areas: Simpli-
fication and a change in the status of the PUD zone to make it a combining
zone.
The districts title is changed to a PD (Planned Development) title. The
preliminary plan review process is eliminated. The approval process is
simplified. The section. as presented to you .fQr_jppTAya_L_cuts _ levelo _er and
City review time by one to two years. The PD section if adopted would over ay
on : base zone such as R -1 -20 PD, R -2 PD or R -3 PD. In areas where the PD
g6
November 5, 1980
ZOA 80 -02 - Interim Zoning Ordinance
Page Two •
is silent, the base zone would apply.
PARKING: The changes in this area are only in the residential category
and some minor administrative areas. It is not a comprehensive look at
parking. The changes made are to conform to the requirements o the re-
cently adopted Condo Conversion Ordinance and other City Standards.
GENERAL PROVISIONS: The changes made in this area were to transfer some
of the requirements to the Residential categories and to clean -up problem
areas such as wall heights.
ADMINISTRATION: This is probably the area of the most significant change
in the Interim Zoning Ordinance. It sets forth the areas and types of
review procedures for zoning. It changes Director Review to Development
Review, Site Approval to Conditional Use Permit, clarifies the Minor De-
viation, Zoning and amendment procedures. This area of Administration
will probably not be changed when we prepare the City's first compre-
hensive zoning ordinance sometime next year. The changes recommended in
Administration will bring the City more into line with proper and accepted
practice in zoning. It is important to remember that this is an interim
document and if the Council spends a great deal of time in its review, it
will defeat its purpose. In order for the document to be useful, it should
be passed before the end of this year.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt ZOA 80 -02 as described in the attached Ordinance.
Attachment: Ordinance
07
W
n
u
0
0
� ..!
CJ
0
CITY OF RANUiD CLr_AMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Vacation of Chestnut Street
On October 1, 1980, the Council adopted the resolution of
intention to vacate the portion of Chestnut Street from
Hermosa Avenue to 1350 feet west (see attached map) and set
November 5 as the date for public hearing. The subject
vacation has been requested by Mr. Victor A. Cherbak.
Chestnut Street in this area is comprised of offers of dedi-
cation of 80 feet (in width) with no physical improvement.
The centerline of the offers of dedication corresponds to the
City Limits. One half of the offer of dedication lies within
the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. On July 'i,
1980 the County approved the vacation of its port ?on of
Chestnut Street subject to City approval for the vacation of
the southern half. If the City approves the vacation of its
portion of the offer of dedication, the vacation documents for
each portion would be recorded simultaneously.
The portion of Chestnut Street covered by the subject vacation
traverses severe mountainous terrain. To construct a street
along this alignment would involve mass grading which would,
in the opinion of the Engineering Division, be financially and
environmentally highly undesirable. Based on these physical
constraints, Engineering did not object to vacation proceedings
conducted by San Bernardino County. Through the hearing process
on the County's vacation action, property owners along the
street objected to the vacation for two reasons:
Private access easements underlie the offer of dedications
in favor of Mr. Cherbak. In order to insure no road con-
struction over the alignment its was the desire of these
residents that the easements be quit- claimeO prior to vacation.
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 3200 (see map) is a land locked parcel
with no access to a public or private easement except over
the Chestnut offer of dedication. Vacation of Chestnut would
eliminate legal access to this parcel.
lag
November 5, 1980
Page 2
In order to work out the objections of property owners, it is
the Staff's recommendation that no vacation be allowed until
the underlying private access easements have been quit - claimed
and alternative access to Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 3200 has been
obtained. To allow the applicant time to accomplish these
actions, it is recommended that Council continue the hearing
on the subject vacation to January 7, 1981.
Respectfully` -��,
LHH: jaa
Attachments
13d
11
•
•
I. I N. vv.
C"- 'Y N't 1 1 " i It. , ., J, ,,, " // , .'., /,-:, ;
RANCH: CU-AMCKGA
NOR7Y 130LJNAFY-1- A t
PAP.2 PAP.3 N PAR.
PAR, a PAR 4
PAR
41,3 Qlt"
PAPI PA�-, PAP. PAR .I P �L 7329S
see-45,14"w
OFFE?. 0;7 <
INDICATES COUNTY TO V4CATL
=-INDICATES CITY TO VACATE
NORTH
CITY OF ITEM:
RAINCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: V- 0"
ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: A SG%LE: M.T. S.
A t"
`&*,,rV
a4a ui ea en aini.►"`r'ru:.•+w.," �. _
CA 9 110 1
25 July 1980
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Dear Mr. Hubbsi
The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors on 7 July approved the
abandonment of Chestnut Street east of Ramona Ave, Mr. Shone.
Director of Transportation, has Indicated that he has prepared
the paperwork necessary to abandon the County's side of Chestnut
Street.
The Board of Supervisors were advised that Rancho Cucamonga had
no objection to abandoning that portion of Chestnut Street lying
to the east of Ramona Ave within Rancho Cucamonga boundaries.
In order for Mr. Shone to complete the paperwork for Chestnut
Street abandonment would you please send a "letter of intent"
to Mr. Shone Indicating that Rancho Cucamonga will abandon
Chestnut Street as Indicated above when proper application is
made. His address 1s3
John R. Shone •
Director of Transportation
Public Works Agency
825 East Third Street
San Bernardino. California 92415
I would appreciate a copy of your letter to Mr. Shone.
rJ.t PIt
4 15 19 119 111i!'il i` =iii ? W i6
Thank you,
113;
G4
- •
To Lloyd B. Rubbs, City Engineer, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
• Subjects Chestnut Street Abandonment
References Item X63, San Bernardino Board of Supervisors agenda
7 July 1980 (cont from 6/30)
Your letter, signed by John L. Martin, to Cherbak,
same subject, dated 30 July 1980
i
It is requested that Rancho Cucamonga vacate that portion of '
Chestnut Street extending from Ramona Ave to Hermosa Ave and '
lying in Rancho Cucamonga. This request per agreement of
Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino.
Attached Is check for 4100.00 processing fee.
Attached are copies of deeds of affected owners of record.
The only easements crossing various properties south of Chestnut
Street are those easements along Almond Street, Ramona Ave,
and Pepper Lane and will not be abandoned. These private ease-
ments provide access from Hermosa Ave and run with the land.
If you have any further questions please advise.
Victor A. Cherbak Jr.
9820 Cinch Ring Lane
Alta Loma, Calif. 91701
714 989 5911
cc John R. Shone
=F__ --
I
i
July 30, 1900
CCC IA N I U N G A
r 1
LJ
Victor A. Cherbak Jr.
9926 Ilillside Pd.
Alta Loma, California 91701
RE: Chestnut street Abandonment
Dear Mr. Cherbak,
hb arc in receipt r\f your letter elated duly 25, IgAO requesting
the City send a letter of "intent. to Vacate" Chestnut Street.
The City Enginecrimi Staff will forward the resnlution of inten-
tion to City Council for adoption after you have provided us
with:
1. Vacation request in writing
2. Vacation processing fee $100
3. Title reports covering the lands adjacrmt to Chestnut Street
4. your written intention to abandon blor.l:ot end precise easements
crossing various properties south of Chestnut Street
Please forward you information to my attention At your convenience. •
Cordially,
C011t.lUNITy DEVL'I,OPNIENT DEPARTMENT
EMG£NLERING DIVISION
Lloyd R. ilubls
City Engineer
A' tl L. etCivil il n
V Asskisstant Civil
I I,DiI:J LFt: jaa
ee: '101111 Shale '
i S. B. CO. '1'11111,inn tntion
14"1 till$( l ltl l \9U. it\ \(1111111 \M0%A. \.(\I 111111 \1\1117111 iii 'IN9 IN11
4 •
my q•rtr 1Wr 11, 1978
.r
10)
• ecmlva :7, 1979
WNC I icy
CUCAMONGA
Director of Transportation
825 East 3rd Street
San Bernardino, California 92415
ATTN: Dennis Brown, Engineering Services
RE: Chestnut Street Abandonment (Cherbak)
Dear Mr. Brown:
At the request of the County we have reviewed the Abandonment Application.
FINDINGS:
1. The suhject Street was offered to be dedicated as a County conditional approval
of Parcel Clap No. 1620 (recorded).
2. The subject Street runs east -west having a network of Street Dedications running
to and from it.
3. The present alignment of the Street is over mountainous terrain.
• 4. The subject Parcel `lap 'offer" is out of the Citp limits (but in our sphere).
The offer is for the north half of proposed Chestnut Street only.
5. The south half of the St?ect is in the Citv limits.
6. Following the offers of dedications in this area it is found that they all are
interdependent.
7. Hermosa Avenue is the only street in this area which is in the Maintained Road
System.
B. According to the Assessors reriirds, there are a number of properties which were
evidently allowed division, subject to dedications which lead to Hermosa.
DFTERXl!1, \710:7$:
1'Ite elimination of any one of the "links" in the "chain' of srreets world interupt
the rontinnnus flow of d1•dlc.rtinns. Oi, , in tarn, would crente land locked parcels
'-high prosently have dedications Icmlinq to Ilrrmosa, '1110 ,Hlnndunment of Chestnut
world leave the City with half of a street and the task of obtaining more dedications
to make o for that which is nb:md..md.
RIfCl1H!Illl Ll f I DN:
It is reco=,ended that the Comity deny the abandonment.
Pn1: l nl l I l' Itnv ,i I. u...n„ I.I 1 13 l I I ..I.. ... ..
'I"
AegrrllCgnt —"I'l I...... d tr.tff it <tudr made and recommend an acceptable alternate
to C%rstmit .R root. Ibt•:ihly a street that followed the natural terrain more
r�.tl lot iralip, rhrn ol.andnnmont by relocation could be considered. The Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power should be in agreement to any alternates.
The City appreciates this opportunity to cement on this action under consideration
by the County.
If we can be of any further assistance in this matter please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
CO`MIINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
E.NC.INE.ERING DIVISION'
Lloyd Ilubbs
City Engineer
�/�
by: John L. Martin
Assistant Civil Engineer
LBli : JLD1: cd
ce:John Perevuznik
Assoc. Planner
San Bernardino County Planning Dept.
1111 E. Mills'Street
San Bernardino, California 92415
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -91
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CHESTNUT STREET FROM
HERMOSA T01399f FEET WEST AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V -011 ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed
under Section 8300, et seq, of the Streets and Highways Code, also
known as the Street Vacation Act of 1941.
SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby declares its
intention to vacate Chestnut Street an offer to dedicate a City
street, as shown on Map No. V -011 on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, a legal description of which is attached hereto marked
Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereto.
SECTION 3: That the City Council hereby fixed Wednesday,
the 5th day of November 1980 at 7:00 pm in the Community Services
Building, located at 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California,
as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the
proposed vacation for the purpose of its determining whether said
City street is necessary for present or prospective street purposes.
SECTION 4: That the City Street Superintendent shall
cause notices to be posted conspicuously along the line of the
street or part thereof proposed to be vacated at least 10 days
before the hearing, not more than 300 feet apart and not less than
three signs shall be posted, each of which shall have a copy of
this resolution on them and shall have the following title in lettering
not less than one inch in height: "NOTICE OF HEAPING TO VACATE
STREET."
SECTION 5: The subject vacation shall be subject to the
reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities or record.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall cause this resolution to
be published once in a newspaper published in the City 10 days before
the date set for the hearing.
SECTION 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect
and he in full force.
APPROVED AND PASSED this day of , 1990.
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk ' S7
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
•
L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N
(V -011)
The northerly 40 feet of Parcel Map No. 3298, Parcel Map No. 1823
and Parcel Map No. 3200 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County
of San Bernardino, State of California shown on said maps as
"offers of dedications ". Parcel Map No. 3200 being filed in Parcel
Map Book 29 Page 27, Parcel Map No. 3298 being filed in Parcel Map
Book 30 Pages 79 and 80 and Parcel Map No. 1823 being filed in
Parcel Map No. 17 Page 75 of official records of the County Recorder
of said County.
`
(3F�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
C
TO: City Council
At the time the agenda was assembled, staff had not received the Abandoned
Orchard Ordinance from the City Attorney's office. It will be added later
or hand delivered to you prior to the meeting.
Rev.
•
13?
rI
L.
ABANDONED ORCHARDS 27.051 - 27.053
\
Chapter 5
- ' -'
ABANDONED ORCHARDS
Sections:
27.051 Purpose.
27.052 Definitions.
27.053 Prohibition of Neglected or Abandoned Orchards.
27.054 Notice of Neglected or Abandoned Orchard.
27.055 Appeal of Commissioner's Determination.
27.056 Removal of Trees.
27.057 Legal Action to Compel Removal.
27.051 Purpose.
The Board of Supervisors finds that neglected or abandoned orchards in
the unincorporated portion of this County are places where the trees
constitute a fire hazard, are places where vagrants or dissolute persons can
•
dwell, are places which constitute ugly and unsightly conditions which
adversely affect neighboring property, are places from which agricultural
pests develop and spread. and such orchards are public nuisances.
`
27.052 Definitions.
Whenever in this chapter the following terms are used, they shall mean
as follows:
(a) "Commissioner' means the San Bernardino County Agricultural
;fit +ro,•= dw7tilpif+:r =sr
Commissioner and regularly appointed employees of the San Bernardino
County Department of Agriculture acting pursuant to his instructions;
(b) "Orchard" means any of ten (10) or more trees that are of the
type that bear stone fruits. citrus fruits or pone• fruits, situated together as
in a grove:
(c) "Neglected or abandoned" means an orchard or part of an
orchard, the trees of which being in such a condition that the limbs are
'
moribund and the leases or branches of which are dead. and that the
individual in charge of same is not taking such ordinary care of the orchard
as may be required for a harvested orchard and is not watering or discing or
spraying inch trees, all for a period of at least six (6) months, which period
of time need not be continuous.
(d) "Removal" means cutting the trees and gathering the trunks,
limbs, and debris in such a manner that the land thereof will contain no
limbs or debris. or only such material neatly stacked such as firewood, all
only in accordance with the applicable fire code. and in an area of the land
set apart for only firewood.
27.053 Prohibition of Neglected or Abandoned Orchards.
No orchard shall be permitted to be neglected or abandoned, in the
unincorporated part ofthe County of San Bernardino.
136.3 ittrv3)
27,054 — 27.056 PUBLIC MORALS, SAFETY, WELFARE
27.054 Notice of Neglected or Abandoned Orchard.
The Commissioner shall give written notice by registered mail to the
owner of, or the person in charge or in possession of. any orchard which the
rrs'eo�y�c -:awsm Commissioner shall have determined is neglected or abandoned. The
Commissioner shall use the best available information of public record for
determing the address for such notice. which shall he sufficient regardless of
receipt of same. The notice shall describe the orchard in question, shall
inform of the Commissioners determination, and shall demand compliance
with this chapter within Iwcrimeight 128) days. The running of this period
of time shall not be stayed. Such notice. or a copy of such notice, shall in all
cases be mailed to the record owner of the orchard.
27.055 Appeal of Commissioner's Determination.
Any person who is affected by the notice mentioned in Section 27.054
may appeal to the Board of Appeals within the time for compliance with the
order, by an appeal in writing tiled with the issuing officer or department
supervisor of such officer. Timely appeal shall stay any further action until
the date set for hearing. The officer receiving the written appeal shall inform
the for bearing before the Board of
•
the issuing officer, who shall set matter
Appeals and notify the appellant of the date set for such hearing, at least
fifteen (15) days prior to such date. If the appellant resides outside the
be at least twenty - five (25) days.
County, the above period of notice shall
The Board of Appeals shall act on the appeal and its determination shall be
conclusive. The Board of Appeals shall consist of five (5) persons. and shall
be comprised as follows: one member shall be an officer of the department
of the issuing officer, but not the issuing officer: one member shall be a
+.: _�. -�•.�h
deputy of the agency administrator of the County Agency which serves the
department of the issuing officer: one member shall be a deputy of the
County Counsel: and two members shall be selected directly by the Board of
Supervisors. These two members shall be persons selected from individuals
who have a background as an orchardist, or as a member of the Farm Bureau
of San Bernardino County, or as an academician whose field was, or is,
agriculture.
27.056 Removal of Trees.
Unless otherwise determined by the Board of Appeals as provided in
Section 2 7.055, above, the orchard in question shall he brought into
conformance with the requirements of this chapter, by removal of all
neglected or abandoned trees within twenty - eight (28) days after the
sending of written notice as provided above, or, in cases of appeal to the
Board of Appeals, within twenty - eight (28) days of the sending of written
notice to the appellant of that Board's decision. If there is not compliance
within that period of time, the owner or any other person in charge of. or in
possession of the orchard, who shall have received notice hereof. shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. Each period of one ( I1 week thereafter. during
which time the orchard is not in compliance with this part. shall constitute a
•
separate misdemeanor.
..,... ,.... .. .'N,p,T,•.:.Y f67ore1 136.4
G
ABANDONED ORCHARDS 27.057
C)
27.057 Legal Action to Compel Removal.
The Commissioner shall cause any orchard hereof to be brought into
yjp
compliance with this chapter after the expiration of twenty- eight(28)days
after the last notice is sent to the applicant. either the notice to remove or
the notice of the determination of the Board of Appeals. The compliance
shall be achieved as reasonably and economically as possible in accordance
with the discretion of the Commissioner. The County Auditor shall pay the
cost of such compliance from the funds of the Agricultural Commissioner.
The total cost of such compliance shall be computed and an administrative
fee of twenty percent (_205c) of such cost shall be added thereto. A bill for
the entire sum of the costs and administrative fee shall be mailed to the
record owner of such orchard and a copy shall be sent to the County
Auditor. The bill shall include an itemized statement covering the work
necessary for such removal. If the record owner of the orchard or his agent
does not pay the bill within thirty (30) days after said mailing, the
Commissioner shall certify to the Auditor the demands remaining unpaid on
.
said bill together with any information required by law in such cases. The
County Auditor shall cause the amount of the same to be entered on the tax
roll as a special assessment and tax lien on the property from which removal
C
was accomplished. The special assessment shall be included on the next
succeeding tax statement Thereafter the amounts of the assessment shall be
collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are
collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties, and the same procedure
and sale in cases of delinquencies as provided in ordinary taxes. All or any
portion of such special assessment. penalty. or costs entered shall on order of
the Board of Supervisors be cancelled by the Auditor if uncollected or
refunded by the County Treasurer under order of the Board of Supervisors,
if assessment, penalty, or costs were entered, charged or paid:
(a) More than once;
(b) Through clerical error:
(c) Through the error or mistake of the Board of Supervisors or of the
Commissioner in respect to any material fact including the case where the
costs rendered shows the County abated the orchard, but such was not the
fact:
(d) Illegally:
(e) On property acquired after the lien by the State or any city,
county, school district, or other political subdivision and because of this
public Ownership not subject to sale for delinquent taxes.
No order for refund under the foregoing shall be made except on a
claim verified by the person who paid the special assessment or the
representative of such person or his estate and said claim is filed within three
(3) years after making the payment to be refunded.
•
The above cancellation or refund shall be determined upon by the
Board Appeals
of pursuant to appeals procedures similar to, and functioning
in the same manner as the appeals procedures set forth in Section 27.055,
above.
1670761
xT136-5
II 01
CITY OF RANU-10 CUCAM0NQ1 oCV1UA.w,Jn
STAFF REPORT�l
DATE: November 5, 1980 F a
1977
TO: City Council and City Manager ..
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 C F E 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 Pgrtable7
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
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, ILI, 616—�
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:kp
Attachments: Memorandum from Building Official
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report
Ll
W
0
•
... .1...1 ... ..
MEMORANDUM
6M d: lsb
X181 °t!yi'�'iit.i '
wt 1tS r
,dctober 29, 1980
T0: planning Division
FROM: Building Official
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.
146
X.-
p IV
. . . . . . . . . .
scow,
t „wh
NEW BUSINESS
CLARIFICATION 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.
• Commissioner Sceranka asked what the crosshatched area represented.
Mr. Hogan 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 Tolstoy stated that this was true and that he remembered it, but
that :'r. Hogan had explained thin by stating that it was believed to be in the
right -of -way but that nobody knew where the right -of -way was at that time.
• Plan;:ng Commission Minutes -9- October 8, 1980
/V/
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 he 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 bad 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 net 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 right -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 appraisal
of the sign, input should be received both 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 some 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.
Pia, wing Commission Minutes -10-
)y?
October 8, 1960 •
Considerable discussion took place on the definition of por::able 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. Hogdn stated that it would be. Further, if the County had enforced its
sign ordinance, that sign would not be here today.
4
Commiss�oner Tolatoy 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 Cit5r 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
Building 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 knew not to be permanent that the City
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 value. Fur-
ther, that the ordinance is clear cut but that as a Planning Commission they
want to do everything they can to work with the Moffatts. 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.
Commissinners 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
can continue to be consistent in sign enforcement and uphold the interests
of the community without its removal,
Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion.
There d. some discussion about when the sign should be removed.
ChairmanDahl stated that a time for removal should also be set. He stated
. `hat therr'staff report has that date set as October ;1 and that Commissioner
a
Sc-rnkal may want to change that date in his motion, keeping in mind that the
Planningt'Commission Minutes -11- October 8, 1980
/I /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 emended 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.
Commissioner Tempel returned to the table.
w w w w w
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
WORK. PROGRAM PRIORITIES
City Planner, Barry Hogan, reported to the Commission on the current projects
and the new projects that the Planning Department is currently and forecasted
to work on. He reviewed the ongoing projects where no firm date for completion •
is set, the growth management items and those items that are intermittent in
scope such as the Community Development Block Grant, Housing Assistance Plan
and the Industrial Assessment District.
Mr. Hogan also provided the Commission with the history of the various consul-
tants who have worked on the General Plan and advised the Commission of the
proposed schedule for completion in January of 1981.
Chairman Dahl asked about the schedule that Was set by the Commission at the
Cal Poly workshop in early September.
Mr. Hogan stated that he had included those items in this report.
Mr. Hogan provided a timetable for completion of the Industrial Specific Plan
in December. He statred that it is hoped that the City will become an entitle-
ment city in July of 1981 and the City Would be entering into a Housing Assist-
ance Plan. It was hoped, he stated, that a Housing Coordinator Will be hired
and coordinate these areas.
Paul Rougeau provided the Commission with information on the Industrial Assess-
ment District, stating that public hearings are scheduled to begin at the end
of November.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see something done on the
street names. Further, that if the Historical Committee would like to have
some lssistance in that regard, he would be willing to work with them. •
Mr. Hogan provided a schedule for the Victoria Plan and stated that it was
contingent on the time involved for City Council action.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- //2 October 8, 1980
0
•
QTY OF RANCHO CLr_AtvKWGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 8, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner
SUBJECT: DETERM[NATION OF STATUS OF SIGN STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL RNA 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 pro ib tedin 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."
)q
October 8, 1980 i
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 Sins 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, 19806
Respectfully submitted,
�tJ l�Jv1�J11! /J /A .
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:kp
I �J`
•
c C
City of
RANCIA0
CUCAMONGA
August 30, 1979
Red Hill Coffee Shop
8111 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
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 disnlayed in the public right -of -way. Violation of
Sign Ordinance Section 5.4.
A final inspection will be conducted ou or about 7 September 1979 to ensure
compliance. If the sign in question is still being displayed at that time,
the City will have no choice but to refer this matter to the City Attorney for
legal action. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
me at 989 -1851.
Sincerely yours,
C0:- j:hltliTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARINENT
P[AM1101; DIVISIOu
/Gary L Richards
Code Cnforcement Officer
OPoR: cc
K3
RA NCIIU
CUC'ANIONGA
August 1, 1979
Robert E. Deates
C/o 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.
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.
Portable 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 on or about 13 August 1979 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 J.. Richards bt�
Code Enforcement Officer
. GWR: cc
I)q
r1
U
r10EIVE9
CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
SEP 29 1980
AM PU
7181911A111p2111213141516
September 29,1980
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Barry Hogan
9320 Baseline
Alta Loma, CA 91701
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Subject: Supposedly Temporary Sign Structure southeast corner of
Foothill and Grove
Li 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 ordfance. 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,
" concenuing 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 91730
• Mr + MA= 7 ofEa [G
OWNERS
cc: Phil Schluasvr, Herman Rempel, Lauren Wasserman, Cary Richards
P9
City' of,
R\NC110 ,
July 1, 1890 COCANIONGA
Red Hill 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. 5 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-and 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 that the City has
soughtand succeeded in removal of all temporary 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,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
J ING DIVISION
x 10
anner
BKH:cd •
cc: Herman Rempel, Lauren Wasserman, Gary Richards
P(Itir ottj( F R(IC x117 • R %�" 11() (1( (11❑IRC1191710 ;II nyn.ix',I
OCT 14MR:
Mr. Lauren Wasserman Ail py
City Clerk 7181911011411213044 &«r.�k`Q
9320 Baseline Road . P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 .4cF.'`4.u-t/
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt from Planning Commission Decision
concerning sign at Red Hill Coffee Shop U�yy
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 vear 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 4250.00.
Additionally. the Moffatts'sign was expressly used as in 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 henr nothing back from your office within Forty -eight (48) hours, we
S111111 nssume that this appeal was effectively taken.
Very truly yours,
TRACY LOWMAN TIRBALS
• OF JO':ES AND PIT'TUI,IA
A Prolessionnl Corporation
TI.'r:jb
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Edward A. Hopson, Esquire I�/
,Aw OI E6
JONES AND PITTULLO
•
...o.o..o... L..., con•o... o.
v....
V
•.,o N coNEZ
UPLAND. LALIMRNIA 91786
RAYMON� oC—N
own.,. nexus
.e�s..o.,e �i.- 9.a -aave
October 14. 1980
CITY of A%Cno CULAw;GA,
AO^.11NISTRATIO'1
OCT 14MR:
Mr. Lauren Wasserman Ail py
City Clerk 7181911011411213044 &«r.�k`Q
9320 Baseline Road . P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 .4cF.'`4.u-t/
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt from Planning Commission Decision
concerning sign at Red Hill Coffee Shop U�yy
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 vear 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 4250.00.
Additionally. the Moffatts'sign was expressly used as in 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 henr nothing back from your office within Forty -eight (48) hours, we
S111111 nssume that this appeal was effectively taken.
Very truly yours,
TRACY LOWMAN TIRBALS
• OF JO':ES AND PIT'TUI,IA
A Prolessionnl Corporation
TI.'r:jb
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Edward A. Hopson, Esquire I�/
•
QTY OF RANr_F10 CUCANIQ *NGk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 5, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Barry K. Hogan, City Plan
SUBJECT: COMPLAINTS ON BOARS HEA fE OB'S BIG BOY CENTER.
ABSTRACT: In December 1978 the Planning Commission approved Conditional
Use Permit No. 78 -03 allowing the location of Bar and Restaurant in the
Bob's Big Boy Shopping Center located o„ the northwest corner of 19th Street
and Carnelian Street. As par'L of thL Lohditions of approval of the
Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission required review twenty -four
months after operation, at which tii.* the Commission may add or delete
conditions. Additionally, the approied Resolution stated that, "in
requiring conditions the Commission may sat requirements necessary to
protect the health, safety and general welfare" and that, "the Use will
not be objectionable or detrimental to the existing Uses permitted in
the Zone District in which this project is located". Attached please
find the letter from Mr. Futrell, relative to a noise problem with the
• Boars Head Restaurant and Bar. The letter requests that they be heard
before the City Council for a resolution of the prob'IFan.
As you can see, the City Manager has made efforts to resolve the situation,
but the situation has not improved. From a review of the conditions of
approval (see attached) the City, through the Planning Commission has the
authority to revise the conditions of approval. These revisions would
be:
- limitation on hours of operation
- noise attenuation
- increased lighting
- provision for Security Guard
There may be additional means of accomplishing a solution to the situation.
Since the Planning Commission has a requirement to review this application
anyway, the Council could direct the Staff to take this item to the
Planning Commission for their review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council refer this
tem ti o the Planning Commission for their review and consideration on
the November 26, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting.
JL:kp
Attachments
H`
City of
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
September 11, 1980
Mr. Mel Futrell
6623 Topaz Street
Alta Loma, California 91701
Dear Mr. Futrell:
Thank you very much for your recent letter concerning the problems you are ex-
periencing from the shopping center adjacent to your home. Mayor Phil Schlosser
has asked me to personally check into the problem and, hopefully, to resolve
it.
I have met with the owners of the Boar's Head and the owners of the shopping
center to discuss the problem. They have indicated to me that they have made
every effort to minimize the noise problems. They pointed out the fact that at
• their expense a wooden fence was constructed to provide better sound and sight
protection for you and your neighbors. In addition, since the problem was brought
to their attention, Mr. None, Mr. Gorgen, and Mr. Robert have all made an effort
to personally check into the problem during the late evening -early morning hours.
•
Mr. Corgen indicated that the lighting would be changed to provide more lighting
on the parking lot. All of us feel that by having the lights on until 2 a.m.
there will be less loitering in the parking lot.
In addition, the Boar's Head has changed its clean up schedule in order to provide
more quiet early in the morning. While previously bottles were dumped at an early
hour, that is now being delayed until approximately 10 a.m.
In reviewing the problem, it appears that both the owners and tenants in the
shopping center adjacent to your home have made a concerted effort to supervise
the problem. Please remember the property is zoned for commercial activity, and
it is, therefore, extremely difficult if not impossible to provide complete quite
at all times. This is particularly true since the Boar's Bead is open until 2 a.m.
each morning.
After reviewing the situation with all affected parties, it appears to me there
wnnld be little benefit from discussing the issue at a City Council meeting. The
pry;. rcy is zoned for commercial activities and the operation of a bar is permitted
in the shopping center.
/5g
POST OFFICE BOX 793, RANCHO CUC.AMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (710) 9891851
Mr. Mel Futrell
September 11, 1980
Page Two
It is my suggestion that you allow the owners of the shopping center additional
time in which to rewire the lighting to provide for the lights to remain on until
at least 2 a.m. While that certainly will not solve all of your problems, it may -
help to minimize some of the noise problems particularly just before and after
the bar closes.
As a citizen of our community, you do have the right to personally present your
views to the City Council if you desire. Hopefully, the city's concern combined
with a sensitivity exhibited by both the owners and tenants of the shopping center
will minimize the problem. If you still wish to address the Council, please
contact me at City Hall, and we will schedule you for a future council agenda.
Sincerel ,!Wasse��J�yy /�
Lauren M. �
City Manager
LMW:baa •
cc: City Council
Boar's Head /Dick Robert
D. Hone
161-tl
r
e-z-
xv
�Zd
roi
• �t'Z �%)Jr -vim C`n..ecc�v�i>t�, �!1 � �...t+.c�L _ _
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 27, 1978
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
on Wednesday, December 27, 1978.
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Hempel who led the meeting
with the Pledge of Allegiance.
* * * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Laura Jones (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior
Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner;
- and Nancy McAllister, Secretary
* * * * *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Hempel and unanimously
carried the Special Study Session minutes of November 21, 1978 were approved subject
CO the following change:
Peter Tolstoy to be shown as absent at this meeting
Jorge Garcia to be shown as present at this meeting
Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously
carried, the Special Study Session Minutes of November 29, 1978 were approved subject
to the following change:
Page 2, the last sentence in the first paragraph to be changed as follows:
Appointed to that committee were Commissioners Jones, Garcia and Rempel.
Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC IIEARING
Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -03 - HONE - Request to allow a restaurant, related bar
facilities and musical entertainment within a proposed neighborhood shopping center
located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the C -1 zone.
Q
•
c �
. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on
file in the Planning Division. He indicated a letter was received from the Mayor
of the City of Upland which stated that the present Boars Head in the City of
Upland has been operating for over four years. It is a well run business estab-
lishment which hasn't caused any problems for the city. It stated it is an asset
from the City's viewpoint. (Letter on file in the Planning Division). He reported
Condition 04 in the Resolution regarding hours of operation should be completed by
the Commission. Also, Condition 05 was left open for the Commission to consider the
granting of the CUP for a period of time. He recommended that the Commission approve
Resolution No. 78 -40 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the com-
pletion of Conditions 04 and 05.
Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission for the staff.
Commissioner Dahl asked if a CUP is subject to revocation at any time if the con-
ditions are not met. what would be the reason for placing a time limit on the CUP?
Mr. Hogan stated yes, the reason for a time limit is to review the CUP at the and of
a stated period of time. In the future, homes will be built in this area with new
residents who may have complaints about the use and not know how to voice that
complaint. This gives them as well as the Commission the opportunity to nip the
problem in the bud rather than have it go on and become a major problem. He indi-
cated a Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed at any time, but Staff felt better
to put a period of time on it and that the applicant be made aware of this.
• There being no further questions from the Commission to the Staff, Chairman Rempel
opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the applicant.
Mr. Doug Hone stated Mr. Downey who owns the Boars Head in Upland will be operating
at this location. He stated if this business is allowed to develop and should there
be any trouble in the future whereby the Police Department has to respond to calls,
this use could be reviewed at that time. Mr. Downey is investing a lot of money
in this business and does not want any trouble. This will be a very high quality
business establishment that serves dinner and lunch and one which will be an asset
to the community.
Mr. Downey, applicant, stated he would be happy to answer questions from the Commis-
sion. He stated the Boars Head will be approximately 2,700 square feet. It will
he more plush then the present Boars Head in Upland. They will have a very limited
dance floor. The music will begin at approximately 9 p.m. and play until 1:30 a.m.
No noise will he heard outside of the building. The heaviest business will he between
the hours of 9 p.m. and 1:30 a.m, at which time the rest of the shopping center will
be closed. They will have a larger kitchen then the present Boars Head and will have
a larger menu.
Chairman Hempel asked Mr. Downey what the normal hours of operation are for this
facility.
Mr. Downey stated they would like to open at 11:00 a.m. and close by 2:00 a.m.
Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion that a time limit should he placed on the
• granting of the CUP because most of the surrounding residential area is not occupied
yet. It should definitely he reviewed in a specified period of time to insure there
is no problems rather than waiting until there are complaints.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 27, 1978
W
c c
Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned about the entertainment proposed. He
felt the reason some of the facilities are successful such as Upland is due to the .
fact the community is well developed. He asked what is proposed in terms of security.
Mr. Downey stated the best security he can think of is the way the business is
operated. They will have a host that will stand at the door to check I.D.'a and
on -site security for special events.
Commissioner Garcia asked what is the maximum capacity requested for the facility
Mr. Downey stated the maximum capacity will be approximately 130.
Doug Hone stated in talking with the Police Department for the City of Upland, they
had nothing but praise for the Boars Head located in their city.
Ted Hopson, City Attorney, stated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board submits pros-
pective applicants to the local police department and if they object to the business
it is grounds for the ABC not to issue a license. Therefore, the Sheriff's Department
will have input as to whether or not the license is granted.
Chairman Rempel asked if there will be sufficient parking in this center with the
Boars Head addition.
Doug Hone stated they have exceeded the required parking on the site for the center.
Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Downey if he objects to Condition 05 in the Resolution
in regard to placing a time limit on this CUP.
Mr. Downey stated he feels that there is already a conditional situation on this •
permit. If there is any problem in the future, they would expect to be notified
of this at the time the problem is noted. He does not feel placing a time limit
on this use is really necessary.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a new operator should take over this business in the
future, would he haveto apply for a use permit?
Mr. Hogan stated no, this use permit runs with the land, not the owner.
Mr. Hopson stated he would feel more comfortable with the approval of this develop-
ment if an additional condition were placed in the Resolution stating that the
applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval.
Commissioner Dahl suggested that Condition #5 in the Resolution be reworded as
follows: The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with Planning Com-
mission review after 24 months of operation at which time the Commission may add
or delete conditions.
Commissioner Garcia stated he is still a little concerned about the parking, and
whether or not it is in compliance with the codes.
City Attorney stated the ordinance reads that one parking space shall be required
for every three seats within a restaurant.
Jack Lam stated the parking proposed would more than meet the standard of the ordi- •
nance as to the calculations in terms of square footage for eating establishments
versus retail and office uses.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 27, 1978
J/� �7
Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion that Condition 44 in the Resolution should
be worded as follows: Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
Chairman Rempel asked if any one else in the audience would like to speak for or
against this CUP.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the
public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to
approve Resolution No. 78 -40 subject to the findings and conditions as listed
with the following changes and 'additions:
Condition 04: Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
Condition 05: The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with
Planning Commission review after 24 months of operation
at which time the Commission may add or delete conditions.
Condition 67: The applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within
60 days from approval.
AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: .ZONES
MOTION CARRIED.
OLD BUSINESS
Utilization of Trailers for Sales Tract Offices (Planning Commission Interpretation)
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report in detail,
this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff requests that the Planning Com-
mission determine whether their interpretation of Section 61.0219(A)5 will allow
trailer coaches to be used for tract sales offices, and if so, that such usage
will be allowed subject to the approval of a location and development plan (Site
Approval) as provided in the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Garcia stated during past years we have seen a tremendous amount of
these in operation within the City. He is very concerned that in many tracts the
trailer was put up prior to any type of development taking place. Some of the trailers
remained for the total sales of the tract. It is his opinion that trailers should
be used until model homes are completed and; conversion of the garage has been com-
pLeted. However, he doesn't feel that trailers should be installed and be used for
business until the tract is complete. He feels they are a nuisance to the community
and he is not receptive to that type of usage as it detracts from the aesthetics of
the City. lie would be receptive to a temporary usage of the trailer for business
purposes until conversion of the garage is completed.
• Mr. Hopson stated there have been cases where a tract developer does not have model
homes. What would be done in this case?
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 27, 1978
J
15
RESOLUTION NO. 78-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF CUP 78 -03 - HONE -
TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH RELATED BAR FACILITIES
AND MUSICAL ENTERTAII9ENT WITHIN A PROPOSED NEIGH-
BORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
CARNELIAN AND 19TH STREET IN THE C -1 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 5th day of December, 1978, a complete application was
filed for review on the above described property; and
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of December, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved
as follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
13
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the proposed use, and landscaping and setbacks are pro-
vided which are compatible with existing development in
the surrounding area.
2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and •
highways properly designed, both as to width and type
of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic
generated by the subject use.
3. There will not be an adverse effect upon abutting pro-
perty.
4. In requiring the conditions in the report, the Commission
deans such requirements to be the minimum necessary to
protect the health, safety and general welfare.
5. This project will not be objectionable nor detrimental
to existing uses permitted in the zone district in which
this project is located.
6. This project will not be contrary to the objectives of the
proposed Master Plan and will not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That the Planning Commission sets the following conditions on
the above described project;
1. Developer shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing
Code, National Electric Code and all other applicable codes. •
U
� c
1
2. Approval of this request shell not excuse compliance
with all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
this time.
3. All signing shall be in conformance with the adopted
uniform signing program.
4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
5. The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with
Planning Commission review after 24 months of operation at
which time the Commission may add or delete conditions.
6. Bar and entertainment facilities must be used in conjunc-
tion with the restaurant usage.
7. The applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions
within 60 days from approval.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th - DAY OF December , 1978
PLANNING COOMMISSION OFF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
erman Hempel, Chairma
RrrESr I 4 _,:./WL
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day
of December. 1978.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA. REHPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONES
4S
C
I Agree and Consent to all conditions listed in Resolution No. 78-40 as
approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission on December 27, 1978.
/Ilignature
5�'-7V.
Date
Cj
C ,
J
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Arthur H. Bridge, C011111ilman
Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager
PROM: R, 11,V t R, ugherty, Assistant City Attorney
DATE October 31,
RE: Abandoned Orcha, ordinance.
Enclosed please find a proposed Abandoned Orchard Ordinance
which we submit for your review and consideration.
We have used Art's proposed definition of "neglected or
abandoned" orchard; however, unlike the Cow,ty's definition, the
def ,ii.it.ion proposed by Art would encompass orchards which may be
brought. into compliance by remedial action other than removal of
thpz ecs. We have therefore suggested, and have included, another
step . the process outlined in the County Ordinance, and that is,
we have provided for a ninety (90) -day period, after notice, for
the property owner to correct such problems as may be corrected
short of total removal of trees.
We have changed the procedure previously employed by the
Coluity for collecting removal costs where the removal is done by
th. County, or in our case the City. Instead of the cumbersome
lien proceedings outlined in the County Ordinance, we have pro-
vided for collection by ordinary legal action and have included
provisions for court costs and attorney's fees.
May I please have your comments concerning the enclosed
proposod Ordinance at your convenience.
RED: sgg
Enclosure
LAW OFFICES
JONES AND PITPULLO
SiOrvE• w
M Oirvv P CLO
November 5, 1980
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
9320 Baseline Road, P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Lauren. Wasserman, City Clerk
ep 5i OFFICE BO% 6J8
.On NO Pv M1UE
UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 91766
'C �[Fr.OM1[ lIn Bn6 -66v9
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 § 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.
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 § 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 exceptions provided for in this act are
signs erected pursuant to a written agreement with the munici-
pality providing for a removal of the sign after a fixed period
of time. This exception does not apply in the Moffatts' situation.
'Phis new Business and Professions Code section is an amendment
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 & TIBBALS
A Professional Corporation
TRACY LI MAN TIBBALS —'
TLT:, b
cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Robert Dougherty, Esq.
LGW OFFICES
JONES o ND•W c7ToULLO
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
=os. oerieE eo. ana
UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 91788
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Mof f att, Red Mill Co£f ee Shop
Dear Mayor Schlosser:
On behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs- James 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 the current sign ordinance.
lie 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, Metromedia Inc. vs. Cit
of San Diego (].980) 26 Cal 3d 848. The court at cage
she 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 commensurate
with the investment involved are legal in California. Metromedia
,It. 882 -884.
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Hill Coffee Shop
November 3, 1980
Page Two
The legal standard for amortizations, however, depends upon the
reasonableness of its application and terms. The action of the
Planning Commission is ep r se invalid for the reason that even
the procedure set forth in 'tie 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 Moffatts the right to challenge the legal
sufficiency of that procedure.
Also, we should like to make a formal protest concerning the
$1.00.00 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 for the fact they stopped 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 corue.r 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 Moff.atts'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 poriod of time. Moreover, their investment and commercial
v:;lue received from that sign is in excess of fifteen times the
original city estimate of value making it manifestly unfair to
abate any sonz ^r than the five year period.
Lastly, we should like the city to consider at the very least
a do] y in deciding the issue before it on this appeal until a
' The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Re: Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. James Moffatt, Red Hill 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 STOCKOM 6 TIBBALS
A Professional L W Corporation
TRACY LOW IBBALS
TLT:jb
cc: Mr.. and Mrs. James Moffatt
Robert E. Dougherty, Esquire
DRAFT INTERIM
FOR ❑I CUS:i:::.iCJ PURPOSES ONLY
ZONING
ORDINANCE
G�)CALgo
_.
E"
U
L �
1977
CO3N4MUNITY
DEVELOP1/IENT
DEPAIUMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 123
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.
AMENDMENTS TO INTERIM RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING ORDINANCE
RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING SECTIONS _
R -1 District
Page 1
ZONING CODE
61.024A R -1 DISTRICT
61.024A
The following regulations shall apply in R -1 Single - family Residence
Districts:
(a) GENERAL USES PERMITTED:
(1) One- family dwelling on each lot.
(2) Truck gardening, tree farming, nurseries and greenhouses
used only for the propagating and cultivating of plants, provided that:
(A) Retail sale from the premises of such products or
comodities raised on the property shall be permitted only on lots having
an area of at least twenty- thousand square feet, excluding retail nursery
and sale of livestock, poultry and rabbits.
(3) Small livestock, cows, goats and fowl may be kept on
areas of five (5) acres or more prior to residential use, subject to the
following limitations:
(A) One (1) cow or two (2) goats for each one (1) acre
in area of the parcel of land on which the same are kept, or one - hundred
(100) fowl for each one - quarter (:) acre in area of the parcel of land
on which same are kept; and further that such animals or fowls be kept
at least fifty (50) feet from front property line, and seventy (70) feet
from buildings used for human habitation, public parks, schools on
adjoining lots or parcels.
(4) Cats and dogs. Not to exceed the keeping of two (2) cats
and /or twc_(2) dogs.
(5) Public and private uses as follows shall be permitted if
a conditional use permit is approved, as provided in Section 61.0219(o).
(A) Civic or community clubs.
(B) Country clubs, including the incidental serving of
alcoholic beverages, together with golf courses, excepting miniature
courses and similar commercial enterprises. (Am. Ord. 1413.2/26/68)
(C) Fire and police stations.
(D) Schools, excluding colleges or universities.
(E) Churches, excluding rescue missions or temporary
revival.
(F) Cemeteries.
(G) Museums not operated for profit.
(H) Parks and playgrounds.
(I) Electrical distribution substations. (1413.2/26/68)
(,7) Social Care Facilities for a total of seven (7) or
more persons, excluding operator, operators, family and /or staff.
(K) Conference Center, including incidental serving of
alcoholic beverages. (Am. Ord. 1413.2/26/68)
(L) Lakes Private.
(b) ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED:
(1) Guest house (bathroom plumbing only).
(2) Private garage with space for maximum of four (4) cars.
(3) Home occupation pursuant to Ordinance 72 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
(4) The keeping of horses (private stables) on lots of twenty -
thousand (20,000) square feet and over in area. The number of horses
permitted on any lot or parcel being limited to one (1) horse for each
R -1 District
Page 2
61.024A
ten - thousand (10,000) square feet of lot area up to a total of six (6)
horses. An educational animal project shall be permitted as a substitute
for horses. The following number of animals shall be permitted as a
project:
PERMITTED ANIMALS
One bovine per 20,000 sq
Two calves per 10,000 sq
Two sheep per 10,000 sq.
Two goats per 10,000 sq.
MAXIMUM
NUMBER
ft. or .............3
ft. or .............9
ft. or ..............9
ft. or ..............9
Combinations of the above - listed animals shall be permitted
provided the total density shall not exceed that herein specified,
except in the case of young animals born to the project animal, which
may be kept in the R -1 District until such animals are weaned.
The keeping of an educational animal project shall be subject
to the following: A permit issued by the Department of Community
Development as provided on forms available in the Planning Division
Office. The educational animal project shall be kept only on an improved
and occupied lot or parcel.
"Educational Animal Project" for the purposes of this provision
shall mean an animal- husbandry activity which is part of an educationally
oriented youth program or organization.
(A) Such animals shall be kept at lease seventy (70)
feet from buildings used for human habitation, public park, school,
hospital or church buildings on adjoining lots or parcels, and shall
maintain a clearance of at least five (5) feet from interior side and
rear property lines and fifteen (15) feet from side street rights -of-
way, excepting an alley or bridle path, unless the animals are confined
by a five (5) foot chain link fence or a five (5) foot wood fence with
horizontal members no more than six (6) inches apart. Which fence may
be located on an interior side or rear lot line and fifteen (15) feet
from a side street right -of -way. The area of human habitation shall not
include cabanas, patios, attached or detached private garages or storage
buildings.
EXCEPTION: Those parcels of land upon which a use of
keeping and maintaining a horse, or horses, has been established prior
to the date of construction of a building used for human habitation
located on a neighboring parcel, regardless of any other provisions of
this Code, shall have applicable to them a nonconforming use right
pursuant to Section 61.0219(e). Such nonconforming use right shall be
only that a horse or horses may be kept at a minimum of fifty (50) feet
from buildings used for human habitation on adjoining lots or parcels
providing the following are complied with:
(I) Shall maintain a clearance of at least five
(5) feet from interior side and rear property lines.
(II) Shall maintain a clearance of fifteen (15)
feet from side street rights -of -way, excepting an alley or bridle path.
(III) Fencing located within the seventy (70) foot
setback area pursuant to Section 61.024A(b)(5)(A) which is used specifically
for the confining of horses shall be five (5) feet in height and constructed
of solid wood, masonry or other appropriate screening materials. Otherwise
the fencing and the keeping of horses shall comply with Sections 61.024A
(b)(5)(9) and 61.024A(b)(5)(C),
R -1 District bl. Ue4A
Page 3
(B) The location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns,
stables, stalls and similar enclosures used to confine horses shall
conform to the clearances as set forth in paragraph (A) above the Section
61.0219(k). Street Setback Regulations. Whenever the words "keeping" or
"kept" are used in this section, it shall mean and include maintaining,
grazing, riding, leading, exercising, tying, hitching, stabling and
allowing to run at large. The foregoing, however, shall not preclude
the riding or leading of horses to or from the premises in order to gain
access to a bridle path, alley or street.
(C) Fences shall maintain a height of at least five (5)
feet and shall be of such construction as to preclude the escape of
(5) A temporary sales office may be located in a subdivision
developed in accordance with the Subdivision Code, subject to a valid
temporary occupancy permit. Said sales office may be used only for
conducting the necessary activities related to the initial sale or
initial lease of the land and /or structures located within the subdivision
in which the sales office is located, or such adjacent subdivisions that
are a part of or a continuation of the same development.
Prior to the establishment of such sales office, an
application for temporary occupancy permit shall be filed with the
Planning Division. After receipt of such application, the City Planner
shall issue a valid temporary occupancy permit for a period not to
exceed twelve (12) months from the date of approval of the temporary
occupancy permit. Extensions of time for a maximum of twelve (12) more
months may be granted by the City Planner, providing the following
conditions are met:
(A) Application for extension and a payment of the
required filing fee, as established by a City Council, must be filed
prior to the expiration of the temporary occupancy permit.
(B) The applicant must show that circumstances beyond
his control have caused unusual delays.
(C) The City Planner determines that the continued use
of the sales office will not constitute a nuisance or be objectionable
to the residential uses in the neighborhood.
The temporary occupancy permit shall be permanently
displayed in the sales office.
The temporary occupancy permit may be subject to such
conditions as the City Planner may require which will assure that at its
expiration, the sales office will be removed and the premises restored
to a condition in compliance with the provisions of the zone in which it
is located.
(6) Social Care Facilities that will accomodate up to and
including six (6) cared - for persons, excluding operator, operators,
family and /or staff.
(c) SIGN REQUIREMENTS: See Ordinance 65.
(d) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Automobile parking requirements as
provided in Section 61.0219(b).
(e) HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: Building or structures and the enlargement
of any buildings or structures shall be hereafter erected or maintained
not to exceed two and one -half (21;) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in
height.
R -1 District 61.024A
Page 4 61.0246
(f) MINIMUM AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF LOTS: Lot Size (in sq. ft.)
(in ft.) (in ft.) Setbacks (in feet)
Lot Size Corner Min. Min. Front Side Street Rear %
(in sq.ft.) lot Width Depth Yard Yard Side Yard Yard Cover
7200 -8500 70 60 100 25 5/10 15 20 40
10000 -15000 80 80 100 25 5/15 15 25 30
20000 100 90 135 30 ** 15 35 25
(1 AC) 43,560 120 120 160 30 20/20 20 40 25
* *15' on one side with both setbacks to average 25' but in no case be
less than 5'.
All dimensions are to be measured after dedications have been subtracted
in accordance with the adopted circulation Element Plan map and the City
Engineer.
(1) Each lot or parcel on a dead -end street, cul -de -sac, or
on a curved street lot width at the required front yard shall meet the
minimum lot width of the zone.
(2) Where a minimum area requirement greater than the seven -
thousand- two- hundred (7,200) square feet required in requested and
established in the district, it shall be designated by a number following
the district designation symbol, numbers less than one - hundred (100)
indicating acres, and numbers more than one - hundred (100) indicating
minimum square feet of area required per lot.
(3) Lot coverage shall include all buildings and accessory
buildings and structures.
(4) A forty (40) percent reduction in the required front yard
for the dwelling may be allowed on one -half (1i) of the lots within a
subdivision so long as the minimum setback from the ultimate right -of-
way or property line is twenty (20) feet to the garage or carport.
(5) On each lot within the R -1 zone there shall be a 10' side
yard free and clear to the sky with less than 2% slope.
(6) The minimum lot width on a cul -de -sac, knuckle or curved
frontage lot shall be (40) forty feet.
(7) Variable lot sizes may be permitted, less than the minimum
square footage of the zone, on twenty -five (25) percent of the lots
within a subdivision, however in no rase shall variable lot sizes be
reduced below the minimum in the R -1 -20000 or R -1 -1 zones. In all cases
the minimum lot widths and depths shall be met.
61,0248 HELD IN RESERVE
R -2 District 61.0240
Page 5
61.024D R -2 DISTRICT
The following regulations shall apply in R -2. Two - family Residence
Districts:
(a) GENERAL USES PERMITTED:
(1) Same as R -1 District (Section 61.024 A(a)(1) through
61.024 A(a)(4).)
(2) Two - family dwellings or two one - family dwellings of a
permanent nature on each lot.
(3) Public and private uses, as allowed by Section 61.024A(a)(5),
shall be permitted if a conditional use permit is approved as provided
in Section 61.0219(0).
(A) Mobilehome parks on parcels of ten (10) acres or
more with a maximum density of six (6) 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
mobile home park be compatible with the adjacent low- density residential
uses. These conditions may include, but not be limited to:
(I) 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 mobielhome 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) Private garage with space for maximum of 4 cars.
(2) Home Occupation pursuant to Ordinance 72 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
(3) A temporary sales office may be located in a subdivision
developed in accordance with the Subdivision Cade, subject to a valid
temporary occupancy permit. Said sales office may be used only for
conducting the necessary activities related to the initial sale or
initial lease of the land and /or structures located within the subdivision
in which the sales office is located, or such adjacent subdivisions that
are a part of or a continuation of the same development.
Prior to the establishment of such sales office, an
application for occupancy permit shall be filed with the Planning Division.
After receipt of such application, the City Planner shall issue a
temporary occupancy permit for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months
from the date of approval of the temporary occupancy permit. Extensions
of time for a maximum of twelve (12) more months may be granted by the
City Planner providing the following conditions are met:
(A) Application for extension and a payment of the
required filing fee, as established by the City Council, must be filed
prior to the expiration of the temporary occupancy permit.
(B) The applicant must show that circumstances beyond
his control have caused unusual delays.
R -2 District
Page 6
61.0240
(C) The City Planner determines that the continued use
of the sales office will not constitute a nuisance or be objectionable
to the residential uses in the neighborhood.
The temporary occupancy permit shall be permanently
displayed in the sales office.
The temporary occupancy permit may be subject to such
conditions as the City Planner may require which will assure that at its
expiration, the sales office will be removed and the premises restored
at its expiration. The sales office will be removed and the premises
restored to a condition in compliance with the provisions of the zone in
which it is located.
(c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Same as R -1 District.
(d) HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: Same as R -1 District.
(e) MINIMUM AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF LOTS:
(1) Each lot or parcel shall have a width of not less than
seventy (70) feet at the building setback line, a depth of not less than
one - hundred -ten (110) feet, and a net area of not less than eight -
thousand (8,000) square feet.
(2) Each lot or parcel on a dead -end street, cul -de -sac, or
on a curved street lot width at the required front yard shall be seventy
(70) feet.
(3) All buildings and structures including accessory buildings
and structures on any lot, shall occupy not more than forty percent
(40 °) of the area of such lot.
(4) Where a minimum area requirement greater than the eight -
thousand (8,000) square feet required is requested and established in
this district, it shall be designated by a number following the district
designation symbol, numbers less than one - hundred (100) indicating
acres, and numbers more than one - hundred (100) indicating minimum square
feet of area required.
(5) Where a lot has four - thousand - five- hundred (4,500) square
feet of area or less and was of record at the time the ordinance adopting
this section became effective, said lot may be occupied by a one - family
dwelling and accessory buildings only.
(6) The minimum lot width on a cul -de -sac, knuckle or curved
frontage lot shall be forty (40) feet.
(f) FRONT YARD REQUIRED: Twenty -five (25) feet from the ultimate
right -of -way.
(g) INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIRED; Five (5) feet on one side, Ten
(10) feet on the opposite side.
(h) REAR YARD REQUIRED: Twenty (20) feet from the ultimate right -
of -way.
(i) SIDE STREET YARD REQUIRED: Fifteen (15) feet from the ultimate
right -of -way.
(j) DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN MAIN BUILDINGS: The distance
between main buildings on the same lot shall be at least ten (10) feet.
R -3 District 61.024E
Page 7
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.
(8) 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.
(D) 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 law- density residential
uses. These conditions may include, but not be limited to:
(I) 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) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: See Section 61.0219(b).
(c) LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS: Loading space to be provided in
accordance with Section 61.0219(b).
(d) HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: 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 -�) 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
Curimonga.
R -3 District 64.024E
Page 8
(e) MINIMUM AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF LOTS:
(1) Each interior lot or parcel shall have a width of not
less than eighty (80) feet at the building setback line, a depth of not
less than one- hundred (100) feet, and a net area of not less than eight -
thousand (8,000) square feet.
(2) Corner lots or parcels shall have the same width at the
building setback line and the same depth.
(3) Each lot or parcel on a dead -eand street, cut -de -sac, or
on a curved street where the side lines thereof are diverging from the
front to the rear of such lot or parcel, shall have a width of not less
than eighty (80) feet, measured along the building setback line established
by the required front yard for the main building and between the side
lines of such lot or parcel.
(4) Each lot or parcel on a curved street where the side
lines thereof are converging from the front to the rear of such lot or
parcel, shall have an average width of not less than eighty (80) feet.
(5) All buildings including accessory buildings and structures
on any lot, shall occupy not more than sixty percent (60 %) of the area
of such lot.
(6) Where a minimum area requirement greater than the eight
thousand (8,000) square feet required is requested and established in
the district, it shall be designated by a number following the district
designation symbol, numbers less than one - hundred (100) indicating acres
and numbers more than one - hundred (100) indicating minimum square feet
of area required.
(7) Where a lot has four - thousand- five- hundred (4,500) square
feet of area or less and was of record at the time the ordinance adopting
this section became effective. Said lot may be occupied by no more than
two (Z) family unit(s).
(8) The ordinance creating or extending an R -3 District may
limit the density of residential units. A figure in parenthesis before
the district designation symbol shall mean that the total lot area in
terms of square feet divided by the number of dwelling units placed
thereon shalt be not less than said figure (Am. by Ord. 1228. Ad 4/26/65).
(9) The minimum lot width on a cul -de -sac, knuckles or curved
frontage lot shall be forty (40) feet.
(f) FRONT YARD REQUIRED: Twenty -five (25) feet from ultimate
right -of -way.
(g) INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIRED: Interior side yards on each side
of each lot shall be not less than ten feet in width.
(h) REAR YARD REQUIRED: Rear yards shall be at least twenty (20)
feet in depth.
(i) DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN MAIN BUILDINGS:
(1) Fifteen (15) feet, except where:
(2) Buildings front to front and where arranged around an
open court shall be thirty (30) feet.
R -3 District
Page 9
61.024E
(j) SIDE STREET YARD REQUIRED: Fifteen (15) feet from the ultimate
right -of -way.
(k) OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: Each multiple dwelling unit shall be
provided with a minimum of 100 square feet of open space in a patio,
deck, atrium or other similar area.
61.0216
PD District
Page 10
61.0216 PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) COMBINING DISTRICT
(a) PURPOSE: It is the intent of this section to achieve development
superior to that which can be achieved through the application of conventional
development standards. Specifically, the purposes of this section are:
(1) Greater administrative flexibility in reviewing development
plans.
(2) Minimum disruption and maximum utilization of natural
site resources.
(3) The allowance of mixed residential land uses where desirable
and compatible.
(4) The encouragement of diversity in housing types, styles
and price ranges.
(b) SCOPE:
(1) The Planned Development is intended to be a combination
of Development review and zoning. The zone change, development review
analysis shall be conducted and reviewed simultaneously with necessary
hearings on the zone change and development review held concurrently.
(2) The maximum density of a Planned Development project
shall be determined by the general plan for the particular property and
shall not exceed the densities as listed below:
Zone District Maximum density /gross acre
R -1- 7200 -8500
6
6
R -1 -10000 -15000
4
R -1 -20000
4
R -1 -1
15
R -2
25
R -3
(3) The adequacy of the development proposal in meeting the
requirements of this section shall be determined by the Planning Commission.
(4) Unless specifically changed within this section, all
adopted City ordinances, standards and policies apply to a Planned
Development project, including those set forth in the Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan.
(c) DEFINITION: For the purpose of this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) "Homeowners Association ". A private organization composed
of residents within the Planned Development project which may awn common
property and shall be responsible for the maintenance and management of
commonly owned property.
(2) "Open space ". The total area of land and /or water within
boundaries of a Planned Development designed and intended for use and
enjoyment as open -space areas.
(A) Open space includes:
(1) Are: of the site not covered by buildings,
paved areas, or accessory structures except recreational structures.
(11) Land which is accessible and available to all
occupants of dwelling units for which use the space is intended.
PD District 61.0216_
Page 11
(B) Open space does not include:
(I) Proposed and existing street rights -of -way and
private streets.
(II)
(tI[)
(IV)
accessory
the buildings,
thereof.
Open parking areas, driveways.
School sites.
Commercial, industrial, or office areas and
buildings, parking and loading facilities
(3) "Open space, common ". Open space within a Planned Development
owned, designed and set aside for use by all occupants of the Planned
Development or by occupants of a designated portion of the Planned
Development. Common open space is not dedicated to the public and is
owned and maintained by a private organization made up of the open -space
users.
(4) "Open space, private ". That open space directly adjoining
the living areas of dwelling units, which is intended for the private
enjoyment of the residents of the dwelling unit. Private open space
shall in some manner be defined such that its boundaries are evident.
(5) "Planned Development ". An area of land, controlled by
the applicant to be developed as a single, unified project which meets
the standards, regulations, criteria and intent set forth in this section.
(6) "Project ". The total Planned Development area, with
boundaries as defined in the development plan.
(7) "Private streets ". Shall mean the streets and roads
within the project, used for general travel, not dedicated to the public
and shall not be construed to mean driveways, alleys or parking areas.
(d) APPLICABILITY:
(1) In making an application for a Planned Development the
applicant must show the following:
(A) The property in question shall be comprised of five
(5) gross contiguous acres or more.
(e) GENERAL USES PERMITTED: Any use shall be permitted in the
Planned Development District which is indicated by the base district for
the subject property; in addition the following uses shall be permitted:
(1) Condominiums.
(2) Zero -lot line homes i.e,, dwelling units with no setback
on one side yard or one side yard and one rear yard.
(3) Patio homes i.e., detached dwelling units having private
open space and attached garaoes.
(f) ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED:
(1) All accessory uses permitted in the base District shall be
permitted in the Planned Development.
(2) Horses shall be permitted on lots twenty - thousand (20,000)
square feet or greater subject to the regulations of the R -1 zoning
district. Where lots are less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square
feet, horses shall be permitted subject to the following conditions:
(A) Horses shall be clustered onto common lots.
(B) The maximum density of horses shall not exceed three
and two - tenths (3.2) horses per gross acre.
PD District 61.0216
Page 12
(C) All standards and regulations of the San Bernardino
Department of Environmental Health Services and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga shall apply.
(D) Maintenance and management of the clustered facilities
shall be provided by a Homeowners Association.
(g) CIRCULATION:
(1) The vehicular circulation pattern shall be designed such
that:
(A) It provides adequate vehicular access to and within
the project in accordance with adopted City standards.
(B) It is coordinated with external transportation
networks in terms of location and loads.
(C) It is integrated with the natural landscape.
(D) It is designed such that noise levels from vehicular
traffic shall comply with the Noise Quality Standards of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan.
(E) The Planned Development project and each phase
thereof, has two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from surrounding
streets, one (1) of which may be emergency only. Where the applicant
can show that this is a physical impossibility, this requirement may be
waived by the Planning Commission.
(F) Private streets are acceptable if they are built to
City Standards.
(2) The pedestrian - circulation pattern shall be designed such
that:
(A) It is separated from vehicular traffic where possible
and designed to discourage pedestrian crossing of the vehicular network,
except at controlled points which are designed for pedestrian safety.
(B) Hard - surfaced, safely lighted pedestrian access to
common open space, recreational areas, community facilities and other
logical terminal points shall be provided.
(3) All common off - street parking areas shall be designed
such that:
(A) They provide adequate, convenient, well - marked, and
safely lighted parking.
(B) With the exception of building - enclosed parking
structures, they shall contain, appropriate landscaping to minimize the
effect of large areas of asphalt or concrete. Parking requirements are
listed in Section 61.0219(b)
(h) OPEN SPACE:
(1) The Planned Development project shall have a minimum of
forty percent (40 °,) private and common open space, not including balcony
area.
(2) Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum contiguous private
open -space area as follows:
(A) Ground Floor - two hundred - twenty five (225) square
feet.
(B) Upper -story dwelling unit with no ground floor -
one- hundred (100) square feet.
PD District
Page 13
61.0216
(3) Provisions for the maintenance and management of the
common open space and common facilities shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission. Such approval shall be based on the following
criteria:
(A) The applicant shall establish a Homeowners Association
prior to the selling of any lot or occupancy of any dwelling unit.
(i) SITE RESOURCE UTILIZATION:
(1) The Planned Development shall be designed and developed
in such a manner as to minimize the cutting of trees, the disturbance of
ground cover, cut - and -fill work, drainage alteration and hillside development.
All tree removals shall be in accordance with City tree removal permit
procedures.
(2) A drainage analysis shall be prepared and shall accompany
the Development Plan.
(j) SITE AND STRUCTURE RELATIONSHIP:
(1) The spacing of buildings shall be governed by the building
code requirements for adequate light and air, proper access, fire regulations,
and the need for visual and auditory privacy.
(2) Whenever possible, dwelling units shall be arranged to
take advantage of views and vistas with consideration given to pleasing
relationships of building mass.
(3) The Planned Development shall be designed to minimize the
likelihood of criminal activity by:
(A) Minimizing those areas that are neither clearly
private or public.
(B) Planting landscaping such that maximum observation
is obtained while providing the desired degree of aesthetics.
(4) Building height is regulated by the base district.
(5) No structure for human habitation shall be placed in an
environmentally hazardous, fragile, or unique area.
(6) Front and side setbacks required where applicable shall
be those of the base district and shall be landscaped except where
utilized for drives or access. In the event of varying side yard setbacks
the greater setback shall be required. In the event of zero lot line
homes and /or patio homes the greater side yard setback shall be required.
(k) SUBMITTAL ITEMS: The applicant shall submit all information
required on the Development Submittal Forms with any additions as determined
by the City Planner to be necessary to delineate the proposal.
(1) DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
(1) The applicant shall file a Development plan which shall
include such information as will enable the Planning Commission to judge
whether the proposal meets the adopted criteria and fulfills the purposes
set out in this section. Such an application shall constitute a request
for a zone change.
(2) Such information shall include, but not be limited to
that information required as part of the submittal for Development
Review Application and Zone Changes.
PD District 61.0216
Page 14
(3) A tentative tract application shall also be filed concurrently
with the application for Development Review and Zone Change. The submittal
shall meet all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
(4) A processing fee established by the City Council shall be
charged when a Planned Development application is made. A Tentative
Tract application and fee shall be filed concurently.
(5) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the Development Plan. Upon completion of the public hearing, the
Development Plan shall be referred to the City Council with a recommendation
to approve, or approve conditionally. If the Planning Commission denies
the application, the matter shall die unless appealed to the City Council
in accordance with Section 61.222.
(A) The Planning Commission may alter the Development
Plan and impose such restrictions and conditions as it may deem necessary
to insure that the development will be in harmony with the intent and
purposes of this section and with the adopted plans and policies of the
City and /or guidelines as approved by the Planning Commission.
(61 If the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Development Plan and zone change, the City Council shall hold a public
hearing on the Development Plan and zone change simultaneously. The
City Council shall approve or disapprove the zone change and Development
Plan. If the Development Plan is not approved the City Council shall
notify the applicant in writing of said decision. An approved plan
shall be considered as part of the ordinance approving the zone change.
Parking Requirements 61.0219(b)
Page 15
61.0219 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(b) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: These regulations are established to
provide for the on -site parking of motor vehicles that are attracted by
the use or uses on the premises. The facilities required by this section
for the parking and maneuvering of motor vehicles are assumed to be the
minimum need for such facilities created by each particular land use.
It is intended that these regulations will result in properly designed
parking areas of adequate capacity that will reduce traffic congestion,
promote increased business and enhance public safety. Every main use of
the land of every main building hereafter erected or structurally altered,
shall be provided with minimum off - street parking accommodations as
follows:
(1) General Conditions:
(A) Off- street Parking Location: The required parking
spaces shall be located on the same site with the main use or building;
on premises contiguous thereto, or in a location and developed in accordance
with a plan approved by the City Planner. Property within the ultimate
right -of -way of a street or highway shall not be used to provide required
parking or loading facilities.
(B) Change in Use: When the occupancy or use of any
premises is changed to a different use, parking to meet the requirements
of this section shall be provided for the new use or occupancy.
(C) Increase in Use: When the occupancy or use of any
premises is altered, enlarged, expanded, or intensified, additional parking
to meet the requirements of this section shall be provided for the
enlarged, expanded, altered, or intensified portion only.
(0) Where two (2) or more uses are located in a single
building or a single premise, required parking shall be provided for
each specific use.
(E) In case of a practical difficulty or hardship, a
minor deviation may be requested in accordance with the provisions of
Section 61.02190 ) (A)(V).
(2) Minimum Design Standards applicable to Multi- residential,
Administrative - Professional, Commercial, Industrial and Educational
Uses:
(A) Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9)
feet wide by nineteen (19) feet long, with adequate provisions for
ingress and egress by a standard American passenger vehicle. This
standard is applicable to all uses, including single - family and two -
family residential.
(B) One way access drives leading to aisles within a
parking area shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet.
(C) Where two -way traffic is desired, aisle widths and
maneuvering areas shall be a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet.
(D) The parking area shall be designed so that a car
entering the parking area shall not be required to enter a street to
move from one location to any other location within the parking area
of premises.
(E) Parking and maneuvering areas shall be so arranged
that any vehicle entering a vehicular right -of -way can do so traveling
in forward direction.
Parking Requirements 61.0219(b)
Page 16
(F) Where curbs and gutters do not exist and where
vehicular access to the private property is not restricted by barriers,
head -in parking which would necessitate full frontage access to the
street or highway shall not be permitted.
(G) All off - street parking facilities shall be so designed
as to limit access to the private property from streets and highways to
a minimum number of standard commercial driveways per the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's Engineering Department locations and specifications.
(H) Any lights provided to illuminate such parking areas
shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining residential
premises and public thoroughfares, (Amended by Ordinance 1413. 2/26/69)
(1) Individual parking stalls shall be clearly striped
and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines on the surface
of the parking facility, with the two (2) lines being located an equal
nine (9) inches on either side of the stall sidelines: arrows painted on
paving shall indicate direction of traffic flow.
(0) Minimum Aisle Width for Two -way Traffic: For two -
way traffic, aisle widths and maneuvering areas shall be a minimum of
twenty -six (26) feet in width.
(K) Minimum Aisle Width for One -way Traffic:
Stall Stall
Width Length Parking Angle /Aisle Width
9.0 ft. 19.0 ft. 300/12 ft. 450/14 ft. 600/19 ft, 900/26 ft.
(3) Parking and Loading Area Requirements: Every parcel of
land hereafter used or maintained for residential parking, public parking,
private parking, new car sales lots, used car sales lots, mobilehome,
camper or trailer sales lots, boat sales lots, or other uses of a similar
nature, shall be improved as follows; including loading spaces and
access drives;
(A) Every business, commercial, hotel, hospital, institution,
industrial or special use hereinafter established or erected on land
which abuts upon a street or an alley, shall have one (1) permanently
maintained loading space of not less than ten (10) feet in width, twenty
(20) feet in length and fourteen (14) feet clear in height for each
five - thousand (5,000) square feet of building floor area provided,
however, that not more than four (4) such spaces shall be required per
use.
(D) Truck terminals or yards and motor vehicle storage /impound
facilities may be provided with a dustproofed surface of oil impregnated
slag, crushed rock or equivalent if approved by the Planning Commission,
otherwise they shall be paved with asphaltic concrete or portiand concrete
cement.
(C) Where such parking areas, excepting in R -1 or R -2
Districts, abut property located in R -1, R -2 or R -3 Districts, they
shall be separated therefrom by a solid fence or masonry wall six (6)
feet in height, measured from finished grade of the parking lot, provided
such fence or wall from the front property line to a depth equal to the
required front yard on the abutting "R" classified property, shall be
four (4) feet in height, measured from finished grade of parking lot.
(D) The required parking area shall not be used for any
purpose other than the temporary parking of motor vehicles, during the
time the use that requires the parking is in operation.
Parking Requirements 61.0219(b)
Page 17
(E) All parking areas shall be paved with asphaltic
concrete or concrete to the standards of the City. Additionally, all
parking and access areas shall be separated from any landscaping area by
a six (6) inch high concrete curb. Other materials as approved by the
Planning Commission may be substituted - such as bricks.
(4) Business and Commercial Uses:
(A) General business, except as herein specified: One
(1) parking space for each two - hundred (200) square feet of building
floor area. A minimum of four (4) parking spaces shall be provided.
(B) Amusement enterprises, commercial recreation and
similar uses such as shooting ranges, race tracks, miniature golf courses,
pitch and putt courses, parks and zoos: One (1) parking space for each
four (4) persons using or attending the facilities.
(C) Automobile sales, boat sales, mobilehome sales,
retail nurseries and other open uses not in a building or structure: One
(1) parking space for each two - thousand (2,000) square feet of open area
devoted to display or sales, provided, however, that where such area
exceeds ten - thousand (10,000) square feet, only one (1) parking space
need be provided for each five - thousand (5,000) square feet of such area
in excess of the first ten - thousand (10,000) square feet contained in
such area.
(D) Bowling alleys and billiard halls: Five (5) parking
spaces for each bowling lane and two (2) parking spaces for each billiard
table.
(E) Chapels and mortuaries: One (1) parking space for
each three (3) fixed seats and for every twenty -eight (28) square feet
of seating area where there are no fixed seats, all to be within the
main chapel, and one (1) parking space for each four - hundred (400)
square feet of floor area outside the main chapel. Eighteen (18) linear
inches of bench or pew shall be considered a fixed seat.
(F) Child care centers: One (1) parking space for each
employee or teacher and one (1) parking space for each five (5) children
the facility is designed to accommodate.
(G) Children's homes: One and one -half (1�) parking
spaces for each employee on the largest shift.
(H) Churches: One (1) parking space for each four (4)
fixed seats or for every twenty -eight (28) square feet of seating area
within the main auditorium where there are no fixed seats. Eighteen
(18) linear inches of bench or pew shall be considered a fixed seat.
(I) Dance halls: One (1) parking space for each twenty
(20) square feet of dance floor area and one (1) parking space for each
three (3) fixed seats and for each twenty (20) square feet of seating
area where there are not fixed seats.
(J) Golf courses and driving ranges, but NOT to include
miniature golf courses: Four (4) parking spaces per hole on all golf
courses and one (1) parking space per tee for driving ranges.
(K) Hospital: One (1) parking space for each two (2)
patient beds and one (1) parking space for each staff member and employee
on the largest shift.
(L) Medical offices, clinics, veterinary hospitals: Five
(5) parking spaces for each doctor or dentist.
Parking Requirements
Page 18
61.o219(b).
(M) Offices, banks, building and loan associations,
business and professional uses: One (1) parking space for each two -
hundred (200) square feet of floor area. A minimum of four (4) such
parking spaces shall be provided.
(N) Organization camps: One and one -half (1;) parking
spaces for each staff member and or employee.
(0) Restaurants, including drive -ins, cafes, night
clubs, taverns and other similar places where food and /or refreshment
are dispensed: One (1) parking space for each three (3) seats and for
every fifty (50) square feet of floor where seats may be placed. A
minimum of ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided.
(P) Skating rinks, ice or roller: One (1) parking space
for each three (3) fixed seats and for each twenty (20) square feet of
seating area where there are no fixed seats and one (1) parking space
for each two- hundred and fifty (250) square feet of skating area.
Twenty -four (24) linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed
seat.
(Q) Social care facilities: One (I) parking space for
each three (3) residents in accordance with the resident capacity of the
home as listed on the required license or permit, plus one (1) parking
space for each staff member and employee on the largest shift.
(R) Swimming pools, commercial and swimming schools: One
(1) parking space for each five hundred (500) square feet of water
surface area. A minimum of ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided.
(S) Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, sport arenas,
gymnasiums and similar places of public assembly: One (1) parking space
for each four (4) fixed seats and for every twenty -four (24) square feet
of seating area where there are no fixed seats.
(5) Educational Uses:
(A) Schools, accredited general curriculum, kindergarten
through grade nine: One (1) parking space for each staff member, faculty
member and employee.
(B) Schools, accredited general curriculum, grade ten
through twelve, colleges and universities, business and professional
schools: One (1) parking space for each five (5) students plus one (1)
parking space for each staff member, faculty member and employee.
(C) Special schools or trade schools: One (1) parking
space for each three (3) students plus one (1) parking space for each
staff member faculty member and employee.
(6) Industrial Uses:
(A) Industrial uses of all types, including warehouses
or buildings used exclusively for storage purposes, wholesale houses and
distributors, and public utility facilities including but not limited to
electric, gas, water, telephone, and telegraph facilities not having
business offices on the premises: One (1) parking space for each employee
on the largest shift or one (1) parking space for each one- thousand
(1,000) square feet of floor area, whichever is greater, and one (1)
parking space for each vehicle operated or kept in connection with the
use.
Parking Requirements, Site Approval 61.0219(b)(c)(d)
Height Requirements, Area Requirements (e)(f)(g)
Page 19 (h)
(1) Residential Uses:
(A) Single Family Dwellings, Two (2) parking spaces in a
garage, or carport if approved by the Planning Commission, on the same
site with the main building for each dwelling unit. Such parking spaces
shall be located to the rear of the front setback line. Tandem parking
shall be prohibited.
(B) Multiple family dwellings: Two point two (2.2)
spaces per dwelling unit, one space shall be in a garage or carport, all
others may be open and uncovered.
(c) CLUBS: conference centers, fraternity and sorority houses,
rooming and boarding houses, and similar structures having guest rooms:
One (1) parking space for each three (3) guest rooms. In dormitories,
each one - hundred (100) square feet shall be considered equivalent to a
guest room.
(d) MOBILEHOME PARKS: Two (2) parking spaces (which may be in
tandem) on each mobilehome lot. There shall also be established and
maintained within each mobilehome park, one (1) parking space for each
ten (10) spaces or fraction thereof within the mobilehome park, for
visitor use.
(e) MOTELS, HOTELS AND MOTOR HOTELS: One (1) parking space for
each unit.
(f) WHEREVER IT IS STATED in this Code that uses may be permitted
in a district, if the location and development plan is approved as
provided in Section 61.0219(f), uses shall be required to meet all of
the requirements of Section 61.0219(0).
(g) STRUCTURAL HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS:
(1) General Buildings or structures and the enlargement of
any building or structure shall be hereafter erected, reconstructed or
maintained only in conformance with the height limit established for the
zone wherein such building or structure is located, except as hereafter
provided.
(2) Exceptions:
(A) Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of
elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment
required to operate and maintain the buildings, and tire or parapet
walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, or similar
structures may be erected above the height limits herein prescribed, but
no penthouse or roof structures, or any space above the height limit
shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space.
(h) AREA REQUIREMENTS:
(1) General: Buildings, structures or the enlargement of
building or structures hereafter erected, located or maintained on a lot
shall conform with the area regulations of the district in which the lot
is located, except as hereinafter provided:
Area Requirements 61.0219(h)
Page 20
(A) Yards for institutions, churches, etc, in "R" Districts:
(1) An institution, hospital or similar use permitted
under the use regulation of this section shall be located at least
twenty -five (25) feet from any lot or boundary line of adjoining property
in any "R" District. No required front yard or side street yard is to
be used for the parking of automobiles.
(2) A church, library or museum shall be located
at least fifteen (15) feet from side, side street and rear lot lines.
(3) In the case of a church, library or museum
where such institutions are in "R" Districts, the parking of automobiles
shall be permitted in the interior side and rear yards provided such
parking is located at least ten (10) feet from the side lot line of an
interior lot. In all instances the automobile parking areas and driveways
shall be paved with an asphaltic or concrete surfacing per city standards
and shall have appropriate bumper guards, raised concrete curbing or
other substitute approved by the Planning Commission.
(B) Yards or other open spaces required around an existing
building or which are hereafter provided around any building for the
purpose of complying with the provisions of this section, shall not be
considered as providing a yard or open space for any other building: nor
shall any yard or other required open space on an adjoining lot be
considered as providing a yard or open space on a lot whereon a building
is to be erected.
(2) Exceptions:
(A) Loading space provided in accordance with this Code
may occupy a required open rear yard.
(B) An accessory building not exceeding one (1) story or
fourteen (14) feet in height including heating and cooling units shall
be at least ten (10) feet from the nearest point of the main building
wall excluding eave overhang and three (3) feet from the side property
line. In no case, however, shall an accessory building be located in
any part of a required front yard, or side street yard, nor shall a two -
story accessory building occupy any part of a required rear yard.
(C) Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills or other similar
architectural appendages may project to a point no more than three (3)
feet into a interior side property line. A front yard, rear yard or
street side yard provided such appendages are supported only at, or
behind, the building setback line or from the main building or structure.
(D) Fire escapes may extend or project into any required
front, side street or rear yard not more than four (4) feet.
(E) Open, unenclosed stairways, or balconies, not covered
by a roof or canopy may extend or project into a required front street
side or rear yard not more than four (4) feet.
(F) Uncovered porches, platforms, or landing places
which do not extend above the level of the ground floor of the building
or do not exceed a height of forty -eight (48) inches above grade, may
extend into any front or street side yard not more than six (6) feet and
in any interior side yard may project to a point no more than three (3)
feet from interior side property lines.
Area Requirements 61.0219(h)
Page 21
(G) Openwork fences, hedges, walls or similar landscape
architectural features, and guard railings for safety protection around
depressed ramps, if not more than four (4) feet in height, may be located
in any front or side street yard.
(H) In R Districts, a fence or wall not more than six
(6) feet in height or a hedge maintained so as not to exceed six (6)
feet in height may be located on the side or rear lot lines provided
such fence, wall or hedge does not extend into the required front yard.
(1) Swimming pools shall not be located in any required
front yard or side street yard or its projection to the rear property
line.
(J) Attached, unenclosed patio roofs may be located in
the required rear yard, provided said patio roof shall be at least five
(5) feet from the rear property line and, further, provided that the
area of said patio roof in the rear yard shall be included as a part of
the total lot coverage.
(K) On corner lots an attached or detached garage may be
located in the rear yard within five (5) feet of the rear property line
if located at least twenty (20) feet from the side street line.
(L) Fireplace structures and planting boxes may be
located in a required yard, provided they do not reduce said yard by
more than two (2) feet.
(3) Computation of Yards:
(A) If any future right -of -way line has been established
by provisions of a specific ordinance, the Adopted Circulation Plan, any
Adopted Precise Plan, the measurement of the yard shall be made from the
future right -of -way line or future property line.
Minor Deviations 61.0219(1)
Page 22
(1) MINOR DEVIATIONS
(1) In order to provide flexibility necessary to achieve the
objectives of this ordinance, selected site development regulations and
applicable off - street parking requirements generally applicable throughout
one or more zones are subject to review and minor adjustment in those
circumstances where such adjustment will be compatible with adjoining
uses. To achieve these purposes, the City Planner is empowered to
review and evaluate the applicable circumstances pertaining to each
requested adjustment, and to approve or to deny such requests and to
impose reasonable conditions upon such approval, subject to the right of
appeal.
(2) Application and Fee:
(A) An application for a minor deviation shall be filed
with the City Planner, on a form or in such manner as the City Planner
may prescribe. When authorized by the City Planner, an application for
a minor deviation may be combined with and made a part of an application
for a building permit or other permit or approval required by the City.
(B) The application shall be accompanied by a fee established
by Resolution of the City Council.
(3) Minor Deviations Allowable:
(A) Only the following minor deviations shall be allowable,
and no applications for adjustments minor deviations in excess of the
limitations prescribed below may be accepted.
(I) Fence Height: In any zone, the City Planner
may increase the maximum height of any fence, wall, hedge or equivalent
screening by not more than 2 feet, where the topography of sloping sites
or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants such increase
in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain effectiveness
of screening, as generally provided by such fence, wall, hedge or screening
in similar circumstances on flatter, sites.
(II) Yards: In any R zone, the City Planner may
decrease the minimum yard by not more than 10 percent where the yard
does not serve as the principal pedestrian access to more than one
dwelling unit or is not required as an essential open space or recreational
amenity to the use of the site, and where such decrease will not unreasonably
affect abutting sites.
(III) Coverage: In any R zone, the City Planner
may increase the maximum coverage by not more than 10 percent of the lot
area, where such increase will promote improved site planning or architectural
design, creation or maintenance of views, or otherwise facilitate highly
desirable features or amenities, and where such increase will not unreasonably
affect abutting sites.
(IV) Off -Site Parking Facilities: The City Planner
may authorize not more than 50 percent of the required parking for a use
to be located on a site not more than 250 feet from the site of the use
for which such parking is required, where in his judgement such off -site
parking will serve the use equally as effectively and conveniently as
providing such parking on the same site as the use for which it is
required. The City Planner may require such covenants and guarantees as
deemed necessary to ensure utility, availability, and maintenance of such
joint use of off -site parking facilities.
Minor Deviations 61.0219(1)
Page 23
(V) The City Planner may authorize not more than a
10 percent reduction in the required off street parking requirements
when it is proven that it will not result in a traffic hazard or reduce
necessary parking for the use.
(4) Notification:
(A) Prior to consideration of a minor deviation the City
Planner shall cause notice to be given to applicant and contigious
property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to the decision on the
application. Said notice shall state the following:
(I) extent of request.
(II) location of request.
(III) name of applicant.
(IV) date on which a decision will be made on
said request.
(V) name of City Planner and telephone number of
City Hall.
(8) Notice of the decision on the minor deviation shall
be given to the applicant by mail within 5 days of the decision.
(5) Action by City Planner:
(A) Within 15 days after an application for a deviation
has been filed, the City Planner shall act on the application. The City
Planner may grant approval as requested in the application, or may grant
approval in a modified form or subject to conditions, or may deny the
application. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to,
requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and
screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping
and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and
dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic circulation;
regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other charateristics of
operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements
establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or
completion; and such other conditionsas the City Planner may deem necessary
to insure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public
health, safety, and welfare, and to enable the City Planner to exercise
the judgement required by this section.
(6) Effective Date:
(A) The decision of the City Planner shall be effective
14 calendar days after the date of the decision unless an appeal has
been filed with the Planning Commission.
(7) Appeal to Planning Commission:
(A) The decision of the Director may be appealed within
14 calendar days to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any
other person as prescribed in Section 61.0222.
(8) The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing
on the application as prescribed in Section 61.0222 if an appeal has
been filed within the prescribed 14 day period.
(8) Appeal to City Council:
(A) The 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.
Minor Deviations 61.0219(7)
Page 24
(B) The City Council shall hold a Public Hearing on the
application of Minor deviations as prescribed in Section 61.0222 if an
appeal has been filed within the prescribed 14 -day period. The decision
of the City Council shall be final.
(9) Lapse of Minor Deviation Approval:
(A) Unless a longer time shall be specifically established
as a condition of approval, an approved Minor deviation shall lapse and
shall become void eighteen months following the date on which such
approval became effective, unless prior to expiration a building permit
is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion on the site which was the subject of the application, or a
certificate of occupancy is issued for the structure which was the
subject of the application, or the site is occupied if no building
permit or certificate of occupancy is required.
(B) An approved Minor deviation subject to lapse may be
renewed by the City Planner an additonal period of six months, provided
that prior to the expiration date, a written request for renewal is
filed with the City Planner.
(10) Modification of Minor Deviation Approval:
(A) Sections 61.0219.1(2) through 61.0219.1(7) shall
apply to an application for modification, expansion, or other change in
an approved Minor deviation, provided that minor revisions or modifications
may be approved by the City Planner if he determines that the circumstances
or conditions applicable at the time of original approval remain valid.
(11) suspension and Revocation:
(A) Upon violation of any applicable provision of this
ordinance, or, if granted subject to conditions, upon failure to comply
with conditions, an approved Minor deviation shall be suspended upon
notification by certified mail to the applicant, owner, or operator of
the use or site.
(B) The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing
within 40 days of such notification, in accord with the procedure prescribed
in Section 61.0219(0)3 and if not satisfied that the regulation, general
provision, or condition is being complied with, may revoke the Minor
deviation or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with the regulation, general provision, or condition.
(C) The decision of the Planning Commission may be
appealed as prescribed in Section 61.0219(1)8.
(12) New Applications:
(A) Follwoing the denial or revocation of a Minor
deviation no application for the same or substantially the same Minor
deviation on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed
within one year from the date of denial or revocation.
(13) Approval to Run With the Land:
(A) A Minor deviation approved pursuant to the provisions
of this section shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid
upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was the subject
of the application.
Development Review 61.0219(n)
Page 25
(n) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(1) Purposes:
(A) In order to give the use regulations the flexibility
necessary to achieve the objectives of this ordinance, selected uses in
certain zones are allowed only subject to Development Review, and in
some instances to issuance of a permit authorizing a temporary use or a
home occupation. Because of their site development requirements or
operating characteristics, such uses require special consideration so
that they may be located and operated in accord with the objectives of
the zoning regulations and in a manner wholly compatible with uses on
surrounding properties. The Development Review process is intended to
afford an opportunity for review and evaluation of these requirements
and characteristics, and to ensure adequate mitigation of any potential
unfavorable impacts on nearby uses. To achieve these purposes, the City
Planner or the Planning Commission, as may be applicable, are empowered
to review and evaluate the applicable circumstances pertaining to each
use subject to Development Review, and to grant or deny applications
therefore and to impose reasonable conditions upon such approval, subject
to the right of appeal.
(2) Application and Fee:
(A) Application for Development Review shall be filed
with the City Planner on a form prescribed by the City Planner and shall
include the following data and maps:
(I) Name and address of the applicant.
(II) Address and legal description of the property.
(III) If the applicant is not the legal owner of the
property, a statement that the applicant is the authorized agent of the
owner of the property.
(IV) A statement describing the nature and operating
characteristics of the proposed use, including any data pertinent to the
findings required for approval of the application. For uses involving
public assembly or industrial processing, or uses potentially generating
high volumes of vehicular traffic, the City Planner may require specific
information relative to the anticipated peak loads and peak use periods,
relative to industrial processes and the ability of the use to meet
performance standards, or substantiating the adequacy of proposed parking,
loading, and circulation facilities.
(V) Site plans, preliminary building elevations,
preliminary improvement plans, and such additional maps and drawings,
all fully dimensioned, as required to illustrate the following:
(a) Existing and proposed location and arrangement
of uses on the site, and on abutting sites within 100 feet.
(b) Existing and proposed site improvement,
buildings, and other structures on the site, and any off -site improvements
related to or necessitated by the proposed use. Building elevations
shall be sufficient to indicate the general height, bulk, scale, and
architectural character. radio
(c) Existing and proposed topography, grading,
landscaping, and screening, irrigation facilities, and erosion control
measures.
Development Review 61.0219(n)
Page 26
(d) Existing and proposed parking, loading,
and traffic and pedestrian circulation features, both on the site and
any off -site facilities or improvements related to or necessitated by
the proposed use.
(VI) The City Planner may require additional information
or plans, necessary to enable complete analysis and evaluation of the
application. The application shall be accompanied by a fee established
by Resolution of the City Council.
(3) Action by City Planner:
(A) Not more than 30 days after acceptance of an application
for Development Review, the City Planner shall act on the application.
The City Planner may grant approval as requested in the application, or
may grant approval in a modified form or subject to conditions, or may
deny the application. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited
to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences,
walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of
landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements
and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress, and traffic
circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics
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 City
Planner to make the findings required by Section 61.0219(n)5.
(8) If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the application
for Development Review involves unusual site development requirements or
unique operating characteristics, or raises questions of development
policy substantially more significant than generally pertain to applications
for development review and which require Planning Commission consideration,
the City Planner shall refer the application to the Planning Commission
for action within 30 days of acceptance of the application for Development
Review. The City Planner shall notify the applicant of such referral by
mail.
(4) Action by the Planning Commission:
(A) The Commission may grant approval as requested in
the application, may grant approval in a modified form or subject to
conditions, or may deny the application. Conditions may include, but
shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces,
buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and
maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements
for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress
and egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of
hours or other characteristics 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 Commission may deem necessary to insure compatibility
with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare,
and to enable the Commission to make the findings required by Section
61.0219(n)5.
Development Review
Page 27
61.0219(n)
(5) Findings:
(A) The City Planner, or the Planning Commission if
applicable, shall make the following findings before granting approval
pursuant to Development Review:
(I) That the proposed use is in accord with the
objectives of this ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the
site is located.
(II) That the proposed use, together with the
conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
(III) That the proposed use will comply with each of
the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
(6) Effective Date:
(A) The decision of the City Planner, or the Planning
Commission if applicable, shall be effective 14 calendar days after the
date of the decision unless an appeal has been filed with the Planning
Commission or the City Council if applicable.
(7) Appeal to City Council:
(A) A decision of the City Planner, or the Planning
Commission if applicable, may be appealed within 14 calendar days to the
Planning Commission or City Council if applicable, by the applicant or
any other person as prescribed in Section 61.0222.
(B) The City Council shall hold a Public Hearing on a
Development Review application as prescribed in Section 61.0222 if an
appeal has been filed within the prescribed 14 -day period. The decision
of the City Council shall be final.
(B) Lapse of Development Approval:
(A) Unless a longer time shall be specifically established
as a condition of approval, a Development Review approval shall lapse
and shall become void eighteen months following the date on which such
approval became effective, unless prior to the expiration of eighteen
months a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and
diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject
of the application, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
structure which was the subject of the application, or the site is
occupied if no building permit or certificate of occupancy is required.
(B) A Development Review approval subject to lapse may
be renewed by the City Planner for an additional period of one year,
provided that prior to the expiration date, a written request for renewal
is filed with the City Planner. Applications originally approved by the
City Planner may be extended by the City Planner. If the application
was approved by the Planning Commission, it may be extended by the
Planning Commission.
(9) Modification of Development Review Approval:
(A) Sections 61.0219(n)2 through 61.0219(n)B shall apply
to an application for modification, expansion, or other change in a
Development Review authorization, provided that minor revisions or
modifications may be approved by the City Planner if he determines that
the circumstances or conditions applicable at the time of original
approval remain valid, and that changes would not affect the findings
prescribed in Section 61.0219(n)5.
Conditional Use Permits 61.0219(n)(o)
Page 28
(10) Suspension and Revocation:
(A) Upon violation of any applicable provision of this
ordinance, or, if granted subject to conditions, upon failure to comply
with conditions, a Development Review authorization shall be suspended
upon notification by certified mail to the applicant, owner, or operator
of a use authorized pursuant to Development Review.
(o) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
(1) Purposes:
(A) In order to give the use regulations the flexibility
necessary to achieve the objectives of this ordinance, selected uses in
certain zones are allowed only subject to the granting of a Conditional
Use Permit. Because of their unusual site development requirements or
unique operating characteristics, uses subject to a Conditional Use
Permit require special consideration so that they may be located and
operated in accord with the objectives of the zoning regulations and in
a manner wholly compatible with uses on surrounding properties and
within the City at large. The Conditional Use Permit process is intended
to afford an opportunity for broad public review and evaluation of these
requirements and characteristics, to ensure adequate mitigation of any
potentially unfavorable impacts, and to provide for adjustment of certain
site development regulations and performance standards when authorized
by the zoning regulations. To achieve these purposes, the Planning
Commission is empowered to conduct public hearings, to review the applicable
circumstances pertaining to each use subject to conditional use review,
to evaluate such adjustments as allowed by the zoning regulations, and
to grant or deny applications for a Conditional Use Permit and to impose
reasonable conditions upon such approval, subject to the right of appeal.
In order to achieve these purposes, the Planning Commission is empowered
to grant and to deny applications for use permits for such conditional
uses in such zones as are prescribed in the zone regulations and to
impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of Conditional Use Permits,
subject to the right of appeal to the City Council or to review by the
City Council. In all cases Conditional Use Permits are required for
shopping centers.
(2) Application and Fee:
(A) Application for a Conditional Use Permit shall be
filed with the City Planner on a form prescribed by the City Planner and
shall include the following data and maps:
(I) Name and address of the applicant.
(II) Address and legal description of the property.
(111) If the applicant is not the legal owner of the
property, a statement that the applicant is the authorized agent of the
owner of the property.
(IV) A statement describing the requested use, or
describing the nature and operating characteristics of the proposed use,
including any data pertinent to the findings required for approval of
the application.
(V) Three sets of typed, gummed labels listing the
name, address and the assessors parcel number of all property owners
within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject
property. The list shall be obtained from the latest equalized assessment
rolls of the San Bernardino County Assessor's office and keyed to a
radius map drawn on Assessors Parcel maps.
Conditional Use Permits 61.0219(0)
Page 29
(VI) Site plans, preliminary building elevations,
preliminary improvement plans, and such additional maps and drawings,
all fully dimensioned, as required to illustrate the following:
(a) Existing and proposed location and arrangement
of uses on the site, and on abutting sites within 100 feet.
(b) Existing and proposed site improvements,
buildings, and other structures on the site, and any off -site improvements
related to or necessitated by the proposed use. Building elevations
shall be sufficient to indicate the general height, bulk, scale, and
architectural character.
(c) Existing and proposed topography, grading,
landscaping, and screening, irrigation facilities, and erosion control
measures.
(d) Existing and proposed parking, loading,
and traffic and pedestrian circulation features, both on the site and
any off -site facilities or improvements related to or necessitated by
the proposed use.
(B) The City Planner may require additional information
or plans, necessary to enable complete analysis and evaluation of the
application.
(C) The application shall be accompanied by a fee established
by Resolution of the City Council.
(3) Public Hearing:
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one
Public Hearing on each application for a Conditional Use Permit. The
hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed below:
(I) Notice shall be given to the applicant by mail
at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(II) Notice shall be given to owners and occupants
of sites within 300 feet of the subject property by certified mail at
least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
(III) Notice shall be given by publication at least
10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(IV) At the option of the City Planner, additional
notice may be given to any or all owners or occupants of sites within
600 feet of the subject property by regular mail at least 10 days prior
to the date of the hearing. At a public hearing, the Commission shall
review the application, and drawings submitted therewith and shall
receive pertinent evidence concerning the application, particularly with
respect to the findings prescribed in Section 61.0219(0)5.
(B) The City Planner shall make an investigation of the
application and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be available
to the Planning Commission and to the applicant prior to the public
hearing.
(C) Notice of the decision of the Planning Commission on
a Conditional Use Permit shall be given to the applicant by mail within
5 days of the decision by the Commission.
(4) Action by the Planning Commission:
(A) Not more than 21 days following the closing of the
Public Hearing on i Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
shall act on the application. The Commission may grant a Conditional
Usp Permit as the permit was applied for or in a modified form or subject
to conditions, or may deny the application. Conditions may include, but
shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces,
Conditional Use Permits 61.0219(o)
Page 30
buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and
maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements
for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress
and egress, and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of
hours or other characteristics 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 Commission may deem necessary to insure compatibility
with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare,
and to enable the Commission to make the findings required by Section
61.0219(o)5.
(5) Findings:
(A) The Planning Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit:
(I) That the proposed use is in accord with the
General Plan, the objectives of this ordinance, and the purposes of the
zone in which the site is located.
(II) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
(III)That the proposed use will comply with each of
the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
(6) Effective Date:
(A) The decision of the Planning Commission shall be
effective 14 days after the date of the decision unless an appeal has
been filed with the City Council.
(7) Appeal to City Council:
(A) 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.
(B) The City Council shall hold a Public Hearing on a
Conditional Use Permit as prescribed in Section 61.0222 if an appeal has
been filed within the prescribed 14 -day period. The decision of the
City Council shall be final.
(a) Lapse of a Conditional Use Permit:
(A) Unless a longer time shall be specifically established
as a condition of approval, a Conditional Use Permit shall lapse and
shall become void eighteen months following the date on which such
permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of eighteen
months a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and
diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject
of the application, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
structure which was the subject of the application, or the site is
occupied if no building permit or certificate of occupancy is required.
(B) A Conditional Use Permit 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 City Planner.
(C) The Planning Commission may grant or deny an application
for renewal.
Conditional Use Permits 61.0219(o)
Page 31
(9) Pre - Existing Conditional Uses:
(A) A use legally established pursuant to a Conditional
Use Permit, Site Approval, or Location and Development Plan Approval
prior to the effective date of this ordinance or prior to the effective
date of subsequent amendments to the regulations or zone boundaries
shall be deemed a pre- existing conditional use and shall be permitted to
continue, provided that it is operated and maintained in accord with the
conditions prescribed at the time of its establishment, if any.
(B) Alteration or expansion of a pre- existing conditional
use shall be permitted only upon the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit as prescribed in this Chapter, provided that alterations not
exceeding $2,500 in value as determined by the Building Official shall
be permitted without the granting of a Conditional Use Permit.
(C) A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the
reconstruction of a structure housing a pre- existing conditional use if
the structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or
by the public enemy to a greater extent than 50 percent. The extent of
damage or partial destruction shall be based upon the ratio of the
estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition prior to such
damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost after depreciation,
of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates
for this purpose shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and Building Official and shall be based on the minimum
cost of construction in compliance with the Building Code.
(D) A Conditional Use Permit or Location and Development
Plan filed with and approved by the County of San Bernardino prior to
incorporation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, shall become null and
void upon the effective date of this ordinance, unless such has been
activated by the occupancy of the site, commencement of the use or
issuance of a building permit,
(10) Modification of Conditional Use;
(A) Sections 61.0219(o)2 through 61.0219(0)8 shall apply
to an application for modification, expansion, or other change in a
Conditional Use Permit, provided that minor revisions or modifications
may be approved by the City Planner if he determines that the circumstances
or conditions applicable at the time of original approval remain valid,
and that changes would not affect the findings prescribed in Section
61.0219(0)5.
(11) Suspension and Revocation:
(A) Upon violation of any applicable provision of this
ordinance, or, if granted subject to conditions, upon failure to comply
with conditions, a Conditional Use Permit shall he suspended upon notification
by certified mail to the applicant, owner, or operator of a use subject
to a Conditional Use Permit.
(B) The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing
within 40 days of such notification, in accord with the procedure prescribed
in Section 61.0219(o)3, and if not satisfied that the regulation,
general provision, or condition is being complied with, may revoke the
Conditional Use Permit or take such action as may be necessary to ensure
compliance with the regulation, general provision, or condition. Within
14 days following the date of a decision of the Commission revoking a
Us,, Permit or location and development plan, the City Planner shall
transmit to the City Council written notice of the decision. The decision
Conditional Use Permits 61.0219(o)
Page 32
shall become final 28 days following the date on which the Use Permit or
location and development plan was revoked unless an appeal has been
filed within the prescribed 14 -day appeal period, in which case Section
61.0219(o)7 shall apply.
(12) New Applications:
(A) Following the denial or revocation of a Conditional
Use Permit application, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for
the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the
same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial or
revocation.
(13) Approval to Run With the Land:
(A) A Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter shall run with the land and shall continue to
be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was
the subject of the Conditional Use Permit application.
(14) Concurrent Applications:
(A) Application for Development Review and for a Conditional
Use Permit including the same property may be made concurrently. In
such event, responsibility for action on the Development Review application
shall be vested in the Planning Commission.
(B) Application for a Conditional Use Permit may be made
concurrently with an application for a change in zone boundaries including
the same property, subject to the fee applicable for both a Conditional
Use Permit and for a rezoning application. The Planning Commission
shall hold the public hearing on the zoning reclassification and the
Conditional Use Permit at the same meeting and may combine the two
hearings. For the purposes of this section, the date of the Commission
decision on the Conditional Use Permit application shall be deemed to be
the same as the date of enactment by the City Council of an ordinance
changing the zone boundaries, provided that if the Council modifies a
recommendation of the Commission on a zoning reclassification, the
Conditional Use Permit application shall be reconsidered by the Commission
in the same manner as a new application.
Variances 61.0220
Page 33
(a) VARIANCES
(1) Purposes and Authorization:
(A) Variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable
to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,
the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicintiy and under identical
zoning classification. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such
conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall
not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated.
(B) The Planning Commission may grant Variances to the
regulations prescribed by this chapter, in accord with the procedure
prescribed in this chapter, with respect to fences, walls, hedges,
screening, and landscaping; site area, width, and depth; front rear, and
side yards; coverage; height of structures; landscaping; usable open
space; performance standards; and off - street parking and loading facilities.
(C) The power to grant Variances does not extend to use
regulations. Flexibility to the zoning regulations is provided pursuant
to Development Review and Conditional Use Permit provisions of this
ordinance.
(2) Application and Fee:
(A) Application fora Variance shall be filed with the
City Planner on a form prescribed by the City Planner and shall include
the following data and maps: applicant.
(I) Name and address of the app
(II) Address and legal description of the property.
(III)lf the applicant is not the legal owner of the
property, a statement that the applicant is the authorized agent of the
owner of the property.
(IV) A statement describing the precise nature of
the Variance requested and the practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship that would result from a strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of the specified regulation, together with any other
data pertinent to the findings required of the Varianlabels listing the
(V) Three sets of typed, gummed
name, address and the assessors parcel number of all property owners
within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject
property. The list shall be obtained from the latest equalized assessment
rolls of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office and keyed to a
radius map drawn on Assessors Parcel maps.
(VI) Site plans, preliminary building elevations,
preliminary improvement plans, and such additional maps and drawings,
all fully dimensioned, as required to illustrate the following, to the
extent related to the Variance application:
(a) Existing and proposed location and arrangement
of uses on the site, and on abutting sites within 100 feet.
(b) Existing and proposed site improvements,
buildings, and other structures on the site, and any off -site improvements
related to or necessitated by the proposed Variance. Building elevations
shall be sufficient to indicate the general height, bulk, scale, and
architectural character.
Variances 61.0220
Page 34
(c) Existing and proposed topography, grading,
landscaping, and screening, irrigation facilities, and erosion control
measures.
(d) Existing and proposed parking, loading,
and traffic and pedestrian circulation features, both on the site and
any off -site facilities or improvements related to or necessitated by
the proposed Variance.
(B) The City Planner may require additonal information
or plans, if they are necessary to enable to complete analysis and
evaluation of the application, and a determination as to whether the
circumstances prescribed for the granting of a Variance exist.
(C) The application shall be accompanied by a fee established
by Resolution of the City Council. A single application may include
requests for Variances from more than one regulation applicable to the
same site, or for similar Variances on 2 or more adjacent sites with
similar characteristics.
(3) Public Hearing and Action:
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one
public hearing on each application for a Variance. The hearing shall be
set and notice given as prescribed below:
(I) Notice shall be given to the applicant by
certified mail at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(II) Notice shall be given to owners of sites
within 300 feet of the subject property by certified mail at least 10
days prior to the date of the meeting.
(III) Notice shall be given by publication at least
10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(IV) At the option of the City Planner, additional
notice may be given to any or all owners of sites within 300 feet of the
subject property by regular mail at least 10 days prior to the date of
the hearing. At a public hearing, the Commission shall review the
application, and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent
evidence concerning the application, particularly with respect to the
findings prescribed in Section 61.0220(5).
(B) The City Planner shall make an investigation of the
application and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be available
to the Planning Commission and to the applicant prior to the Public
hearing.
(C) Notice of the decision of the Planning Commission on
a Variance shall be given to the applicant by mail within 5 days of the
decision by the Commission.
(4) Action by the Planning Commission:
(A) Not more than 21 days following the close of the
public hearing on a Variance application, the Planning Commission shall
act on the application. The Commission may grant a Variance as the
Variance was applied for or in modified form, or subject to conditions,
or the application may be denied. A Variance may be revocable, may be
granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to conditions
as the Commission may prescribe.
(5) Findings:
(A) The Planning Commission shall, on the basis of the
application and the evidence submitted, make findings of fact that
establish that the circumstances prescribed below do apply, before
granting a Variance:
Variances
Page 35
61.0220
(1) That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of
this chapter.
(II) That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to
the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
(111) That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone.
(IV) That the granting of the Variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties classified in the same zone.
(V) That the granting of the Variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(B) Parking; Additional Findings: The Planning Commission
may grant a Variance to a regulation prescribed by this ordinance with
respect to off - street parking or loading facilities if, on the basis of
the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes findings
of fact that establish that the following additional circumstances also
apply:
(I) That neither present nor anticipated future
traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or the uses of sites in
the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation.
(II) That the granting of the Variance will not
result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a
manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic of the streets.
(111) That the granting of the Variance will not
create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the
objectives of this ordinance.
(6) Effective Date of Variance:
(A) A decision of the Planning Commission on a Variance
shall be effective 14 calendar days after the date of the decision
unless an appeal has been filed with the City Council.
(7) Appeal to City Council:
(A) A decision of the Planning Commission on a Variance
may be appealed within 14 calendar days to the City Council by the
applicant or any other person as prescribed in Section 61.0222.
(B) The City Council shall hold a public hearing on a
Variance as prescribed in Section 61.0222 if an appeal has been filed
within the prescribed 14 -day period. The decision of the City Council
shall be final.
(B) Lapse of Variance:
(A) Unless a longer time period shall be specifically
established as a condition of approval, a Variance shall lapse and shall
become void eighteen months following the date on which the Variance
became effective, unless prior to the expiration of eighteen months a
building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently
•,ursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the
Variance application, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
site or structure which was the subject of the Variance application, or
the site is occupied if no building permit or certificate of occupancy
is required.
Variances 61.
Page 36
(B) A Variance 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 City Planner.
(C) The Planning Commission may grant or deny an application
for renewal.
(9) Suspension and Revocation:
(A) Upon violation of any applicable provision of this
ordinance, or, if granted subject to conditions, upon failure to comply
with conditions, a Variance shall be suspended upon notification by
certified mail to the applicant, owner, or operator of the use subject
to the Variance.
(B) The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing
within 40 days of such notification, in accord with the procedure prescribed
in Section 61.0220(3) and if not satisfied that the regulation, general
provision, or condition is being complied with, may revoke the Variance
or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the
regulation, general provision, or condition.
(C) Within 14 days following the date of a decision of
the Commission revoking a Variance, the City Planner shall transmit to
the City Council written notice of the decision. The decision shall
become final 28 days following the date on which the Variance was revoked
unless an appeal has been filed within the prescribed 14 day appeal
period, in which case Section 61.0220(7) shall apply.
(10) New Applications:
(A) Following the denial or revocation of a Variance
application, no application for the same or substantially the same
Variance on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed
within one year of the date of denial or revocation.
(11) Variance to Run With Land Or Structure:
(A) Unless otherwise specified at the time a Variance is
granted, a Variance shall run with the land and shall continue to be
valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure to which it
applies.
Admendments 61.0221
Page 37
(a) AMENDMENTS
(1) Initiation:
(A) A change in the boundaries of any zone may be initiated
by the owner or the authorized agent of the owner of property by filing
an application for a change in zone boundaries (rezoning) as prescribed
in this chapter. If the property for which rezoning is proposed is in
more than one ownership, all the owners or their authorized agents shall
join in filing the application.
(B) A change in the boundaries of any zone or a change
in the regulations may be initiated by the City Planning Commission or
the Council.
(2) Application and Fee:
(A) Application for rezoning shall be filed with the
City Planner on a form prescribed by the City Planner and shall include
the following data and maps:
(I) Name and address of the applicant.
(11) Address and legal description of the property.
(III)If the applicant is not the legal owner of the
property, statement that the applicant is the authorized agent of the
owner of the property for which rezoning is proposed,
(IV) An accurate scale drawing of the site and the
surrounding area showing existing streets and property lines, and existing
and proposed zone boundaries, for a distance determined by the City
Planner to be necessary to illustrate the relationship to and impact on
the surrounding area, but not less than 300 feet or more than 600 feet
from the property proposed for rezoning.
(B) The City Planner may require additional information
or maps if they are necessary to enable the Commission to determine
whether the change is consistent with the objectives of this ordinance.
(C) An application initiated by a property owner shall
be accompanied by a fee established by Resolution of the City Council.
(3) Public Hearing:
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one
public hearing on each application for a change of zone. The hearing
shall be set and notice given as prescribed below:
(I) Notice shall be given to the applicant by
certified mail at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(II) Notice shall be given to owners of sites
within 300 feet of the subject property by certified mail at least 10
days prior to the date of the meeting.
(111) Notice shall be given by publication at least
10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(IV) At the option of the City Planner, additional
notice may be given to any or all owners of sites within 300 feet of the
subject property by regular mail at least 10 days prior to the date of
the hearing. At a public hearing, the Commission shall review the
application, and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent
evidence concerning the application, particularly with respect to the
findings prescribed in Section 61.0221(4).
(V) Three sets of typed, gummed labels listing the
name, address and the assessors parcel number of all property owners
within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject
property. The list shall be obtained from the latest equalized assessment
Amendments 61.0221
Page 38
rolls of the San Bernardino County Assessors Office and keyed to a
radius map drawn on Assessors Parcel maps.
(B) The City Planner shall make an investigation of the
application and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be available
to the Planning Commission and to the applicant prior to the Public
Hearing.
(C) Notice of the decision of the Planning Commission on
a change of zone shall be given to the applicant by mail within 5 days
of the decision by the Commission.
(4) Action by the Planning Commission:
(A) Not more than 21 days following the closing of the
public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a specific finding as
to whether the change is consistent with the objectives of this ordinance
and with the General Plan, and shall recommend to the City Council that
the rezoning or change be granted, granted in modified form, or rejected.
(5) Alternative Classification in Lieu of Proposed Classification:
(A) When the Commission determines, following a public
hearing on a proposed rezoning, that a change to a zone classification
other than the proposed classification specified in the hearing notice
is desirable, the Commission may recommend alternate classifications in
accord with the following schedule:
Proposed Zone Described Alternate Zones That
In Public Hearing Notice May Be Considered
A NONE
R -1 -1 A
R -1 -20 A or R -1 -1
R -1 -10 A, R -1 -20 or R -1 -1
R -1 -7 A, R -1 -10, R -1 -20 or R -1 -1
R -2 A or any R -1
R -3 A or R -2
AP A
C -1 A or AP
C -2 A or AP or C -1
MR A or none
M -1 A or MR
M -2 A or MR or M -1
Any Combining Zone None, except as applicable
to any proposed base zone
(B) In order to more properly accommodate these alternate
zone classifications, the notice of public hearing shall indicate the
alternate classifications, if any, which the Planning Commission or City
Council may consider.
(6) Appeal to the City Council:
(A) A decision of the Planning Commission involving an
application for a change in zone boundaries may be appealed to the City
Council within 14 calendar days by the applicant or any other person as
prescribed in Section 61.0222.
ORDINANCE NO. 124
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING NEGLECTED OR ABANDONED
ORCHARDS PUBLIC NUISANCES, PROVIDING FOR THE
REMOVAL THEREOF, AND ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL
PENALTIES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali-
fornia, does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds that neglected or
abandoned orchards in the City are places where the trees
constitute a fire hazard, are places which constitute ugly
and unsightly conditions which adversely affect neighboring
property, are places from which agricultural pests and
rodents develop and spread, and such orchards are hereby
declared public nuisances.
SECTION 2: Whenever in this Ordinance the following
terms are used, they shall mean as follows:
(a) "Code Enforcement Officer" means
the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
(b) "Orchard" means any ten (10) or
more trees that are of the type that bear stone fruits,
citrus fruits or pome fruits, situated together as in a
grove.
(c) "Neglected or abandoned" means an
orchard or part thereof that has not received the minimum
care necessary for it to remain in a healthy, productive
condition, or one which is infested by insect pests on the
trees or rodents within the orchard.
(d) "Removal" means rc -oving the trees
and all portions thereof in such a manner that the land
thereof will contain no portion of the tree or any debris
therefrom, except such portion of the tree as is neatly
stacked as firewood, all only in accordance with the applic-
able fire code, and in an area of the land set apart for
only firewood.
SECTION 3: No orchard shall be permitted to be ne-
glecteT or abandoned in the City.
SECTION 4: The Code Enforcement Officer shall give
written notice by personal delivery or by registered mail to
the owner of, or the person in charge or in possession of,
any orchard 'which l.he Code Enforcement Officer shall have
determined is neglected or abandoned. The notice shall des-
cribe the orchard in question, shall inform of the Code En-
forcement Officer's determination, and shall demand that the
deficiencies described in the notice be corrected within
ninety (90) days after the date of the notice.
SECTION S: After the expiration of the time for
compliance stated in the notice given in accordance with
Section 4 of this Ordinance, the Code Enforcement Officer
shall inspect the subject orchard to determine if the defic-
ienc:.es described in the notice have been corrected. If
the deficiences have not been corrected, the Code Enforce-
-1-
ment Officer shall give further written notice by personal
delivery or by registered mail to the owner of, or the per-
son in charge or in possession of, the subject orchard. The
notice shall describe the orchard in question, shall inform
of the deficiencies described in the previous notice which
were not corrected, within the time for compliance shall
state that said abandoned or neglected orchard is a public
nuisance and shall demand removal of all neglected or aban-
doned trees therefrom within thirty (30) days from the date
of the notice.
SECTION 6: Any person who is affected by a notice
describes n Sections 4 and 5 of this Ordinance may appeal
to the City Council within the time for compliance with the
notice. Any such appeal shall be in writing and shall be
filed with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall inform the
Code Enforcement Officer of the filing of any such appeal.
The City Clerk shall set a date for the hearing of the ap-
peal by the City Council, which date shall be not less than
twenty (20) nor more than forty (40) days after the date on
which the notice of appeal was filed. The appellant shall
be notified of the date set for such hearing at least fif-
teen (15) days prior to such date. The City Council shall
act on such appeal and its determination shall be conclu-
sive.
SECTION 7: The time periods specified in Sections 4
and 5 of this Ordinance shall not include any period of time
during which an appeal is pending, or forty (40) days,
whichever is less.
SECTION 8: Unless otherwise determined by the City
Council, upon appeal, the orchard in question shall be
brought into conformance with the requirements of this
Ordinance by removal of all neglected or abandoned trees
within thirty (30) days after the date stated in the notice
given under Section 5 of this Ordinance, or, in the case of
an appeal, within thirty (30) days of the sending of written
notice to the appellant of the City Council's decision to
deny the appeal. If there is not compliance within such
period of time, the owner or any other person in charge of
or in possession of the orchard, who shall have received
notice hereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each
period of one (1) week thereafter, during which time the
orchard is not in compliance with this ordinance, will
constitute a separate misdemeanor.
SECTION 9: Any abandoned or neglected trees which
are not removed before the expiration of thirty (30) days
after the last notice required by this Ordinance is sent,
may be removed and disposed of by the City and the record
owner of the orchard shall be liable to the City for the
cost thereof. The total cos` of such removal and disposal
shall be computed and an administrative fee of twenty percent
(208) of such costs shall be added thereto. A bill for the
entire sum of the costs and administrative fee shall be
mailed to the record owner of such orchard. If the amount
of such bill is not paid within thirty (30) days after the
date Of mailing, the City may commence legal action against
the record owner of such orchard in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover the amounts stated in such bill, and
in any such action the City shall also be entitled to recover
court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
SECTION 10: The City Council hereby declares that it
-2-
would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsec-
tion, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespec-
tive of the fact that any one or more sections, sub - sections,
sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion
of this Ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitu-
tional, then all other provisions thereof shall remain in
full force and effect.
SECTION 11: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and
the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15)
days after its passage, at least once in The Daily Report, a
newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of
Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
1980.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
Mayor
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitfed to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
c.c4. i- (L�.a� C r.�.e�917A
A, (-�
C
i%� 4"It,
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 81.11
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment wit), similru free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
_ Ate. Lii!S.Lr_
� �J�-r� J v
Elm l 7 / J /O 5,1-17
r
e
f
CUCA -. .1
We, the undersigned, hereby petition thu City CUUncil LO
reverse the action of the Planning Couunission in regOrd to Ulu
free standing sign outside the Rod Hill Gilfoe Shol,, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. Wu buliuvu
that this sign is entitled to uqual trCa Unu,t with simil.lr true
standing signs in the city cf Rancho Cucn�nUng,i,
NAME
�^U-
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coftue shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar Creu
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
21 , �t C:—jk:�
Cb-
n h
�Z u, /-,
i(, , , n
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
/ NAME (ADDRESS
r
l
i
j
/
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91130. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
r
/
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council Lo
reverse the action of the Planning Conunission in rugurd to Lhv
free standing sign outside Chu Rud ❑ill COIIUc ShuF, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Idancho Cucmnony.e CA 91730. Wu bvlievu
that this sign is entitlud to equal Lrevbuunt with simil,ir Lruv
standing sujns in thu city of Itaflchu Cuc.ununqO.
NAME AMMESS
- /r0A /11 (1
i�' 1L.,9,^ t'i ^ �✓� Y1� "i 3l
' 1
�r� n
3l /�� ✓, ���,tN�� ��lw /T
V, c. -C L/ i/- 7
�__ � Fo, 6c ✓ I��S
35
e4
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Conuiussion in regard to Lho
free standing sign outside tho Red Ilill cl4f,,u Shop, at gill
Foothill Boulevard, R.mcho Cucamonga, CA 11730. We beliuve
that this sign is entitled to equal trey UUOilt w;.tli simil..r tree
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME
n SV `
eei
e
f
CCH-c-
A ?l A
We,, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We bolievo
that this sign is entitled to equal truce Unent with similar frcu
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cuc.unouga.
NAME ADDP.F,S'S
J
'�-'J 3
r�
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the fled bill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal tru.itment Witt' similar true
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NCR n ADDRf:SS
T
6
n. rig 3e)
l
?7;(, C
r.
(r730 I k'C ° r7E)
AI�C-
C 9iQ�o /
2531 L7Coe— cOroj(4 /06/7
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside th,i Red Hill Cu Ffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We bulievc
that this sign is entitled to equal trua Lment with similar (rou
stand in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
ADDRESS
r J
/ ,/ /
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment With similar Free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga_
111 N. yyRJ,�andl�( OR�7ih:
P s
n
/Ar" %l. p
w 'L %%w✓
M
rL .EGA
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
' r
SW E
AV61
` 1L OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
We, the undersigned, hereby Petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coftee Shop, at 8111 -
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. free
i
^ NAME ADDRI:SS
In
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
1;
FriC
Quo ~f L 9tl"' i- ,.ten
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red f {ill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
�1
;4
JI
I
go
9
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Rill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
7
1
r�2i�1
7
1
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
V Z- Oc n
3.
LD
A
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
Lk
6"166
Ov,.4No A 1734
�2GeGN- Lt o`ycr� S� l cSPt�•� c+- a /��i �� v''�i.
,. K 2 27 iy rRjE41991AR Cd aAIA 9 72C
8039
s3s uo a j i7d � CTI-71
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Ned Hill Coffee Shop, at 6111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
9 " - W6
K
FY79 A/7r'- k'
7
i
/'/2 yL 4Avow0
,a ?/ L:�.,���.
ti--
.-l. L c% '119r /' bl' / � I . /'
CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 6111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
ADDRESS (�
0100
W
l \ ;
10
i
We. the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the fled Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. we believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
y
rr�zZi
�i►�3 �L//RT
/YeMrol/I
"A
RIX 14e wa
PC 61 n
t
X151 �p
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
! free standing sign outside the fled Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
f NAME. ADDRESS
f Fiji! /�Y)A/f7U(� I k'd 2z 1= { ` S i
�v �lF0A)
V
i
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA- 91730- We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga;
/T �/ ,-
fE C';E,�k.r-aiiY� GL�D
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the (led Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
t
n �
:\ -\ P r
l7
�(1
s
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the fled Bill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
CiI'�f�'� �/l$IipylP� lle%�
0 C r'-Ll
v
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the city Council to
reverse the action of the Planning commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
!-- ADDRESS
i
�T�� ^ :5`7'7 1 �- �,4�1y ���A �_�✓�nl�
1-C C)
1
CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
e 'b,41 .56koKh f} r+) +-4 Ldw+u
V 6� .;3k
ev-,
OF _ .d1ONGA
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the planning Commission in regard to' the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
J(NAME I� ADDR1iS5
a h n /f r r ,19
s -5iL 7c75
e-o
7
/v
✓lc.. wi.w y'.ScPCc.Y � D l7 P Jfi''l /f'��i �. f C+..ctR �/%u�27
i
i
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA- 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
JAL
,, C
Voo _I )
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the qed Hill Coffee Shop, at sill
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
J (.
� r
/ C' r C // /._,
We, the undersigned,
reverse the action of the
free standing sign outside
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho
that this sign is entitled
standing signs in the city
NAME
hereby Petition the City Council to
Planning Commission in regard to the
the Red Hill coffee Shop, at 6111
Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
to equal treaduent With similar Irec
of Rancho Cucamonga.
ADDRESS
7
9/76 z
7j
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red bill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
We, the undersigned,
reverse the action of the
free standing sign outside
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho
that this sign is entitled
standing signs in the city
NAME
hereby petition the City Council to
Planning Commission in regard to the
the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Cucamonga, CA- 91730. We believe
to equal treatment with similar free
Of Rancho Cucamonga.
ADDRESS
301 A), -Ad n L). W44,
gI115
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Bill Coffee Shop, at 8111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA- 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
3
YL'
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the iced Hill Coffee Shop, at Bill
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
1.11_K.z{ ,--r
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City Council to
reverse the action of the Planning Commission in regard to the
free standing sign outside the Red Hill Coffee Shop, at 6111
Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. We believe
that this -sign is entitled to equal treatment with similar free
standing signs in the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
NAME ADDRESS
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 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, November 5, 1980.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who
led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Present: Councilmen Arthur H. Bridge, James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael
A. Palombo and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; City Attorney Sam Crowe;
Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; City Planner, Barry Hogan; City Engineer,
Lloyd Hobbs, Community Development Director,Jack Lam; Community Services Director,
Bill Holley; Financ- Director, Harry Empey.
At this point, Mr. A. Neuman, President of Sunrize Shopping Center Merchants Assoc.
made a presentation of an Octoberfest gift to the City.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilman Frost made the following change to the October 15, 1980 minutes:
Page 6, 5C under City Manager Report (last sentence): "Councilman Frost said
he wanted staff to look into the capacities of underground utility conduit"
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the corrected minutes
of October 15, 1980. Motion Carried 5 -0.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. November 3: Financial Task Force at 7:00 p.m. -- Lion's Park Community
Center.
b. November 6: Zone 1 Advisory Committee special meeting at 2:00 p.m.
San Bernardino County.
c. November 10: Planning Commission Meeting- -7:00 p.m.- -Lions Ctr. Re: Victoria Devl.
d. November 13: Historic Preservation Commission- -7:00 p.m.- -Lions Ctr.
e. November 17: Plans Commission--7:00 p.m.- -Lions Ctr. Re: General Plan
f. November 18: Adjourn meeting of City Council to meeting with Foothill Fire
District Board of Trustees at 7:00 p.m.- -Lions Park Community Center
g. November 20: Advisory Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. -- Lion's Center.
h. Mayor added Resolution No. 80 -103 (honoring Esther Boulton Black) as Item E
of the City Manager's Staff Report (this item later deleted and continued to
next City Council meeting).
i. Mayor Schlosser announced that there would be an executive session after the
meeting to discuss pending litigation.
J. Jon Mikels announced that at the SANBAG Board of Directors Meeting, the City
received unanimous approval by the Board for the inclusion of Rancho Cucamonga
on the Airport Ground Access Study and for enlargement of the boundaries to
include most of the City.
k. Councilman Palombo wished the City a "happy birthday" and passed around
a copy of a newspaper article regarding our incorporation three years ago.
1. Mr. Wasserman announced the removal of Item 4E (Proposed Abandoned Orchards
Ordinance) from the agenda and the continuance of this item until November 19th.
m. Mr. Wasserman announced that the City received a mailogram from the Bureau of
Census indicating the preliminary census count for Rancho Cucamonga is 54,708
and the preliminary housing count is 17,836.
n. Councilman Palombo requested that items "n" and "b" be removed from consent
calendar for discussion. Mayor Schlosser requested that Item "o" be removed
for discussion.
3. CONSENT C.ILENDAR
The Following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontro-
versial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion.
Z
a. Approval of Warrants -- Register No. 80 -11 -5 for $282,769.65
b. A< gnieie} en- ef-£ rn< k- 8edier.-- Reee�s�neMnC }en- ehnl- lhrG {17- 6eune43
authorize the Finance Director to purchase two (2) dump truck bodies as
supplied by Arrow Truck Bodies, the lowest qualified bidder, as per City
specifications, for the bid price of $12,052.12.
C. Tract 9435: Located east of Haven and south of future 19th Street.
Owner: Chevron Construction Co. Acceptance of map, bonds and agreement.
Faithful Peformance (surety) $117,000
Labor 6 Material (surety) 58,500
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9435.
d. Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance District #1. A recommendation
to City Council to approval a resolution of intent to add Tracts 9176,
9225, 9435, and 9567 to Landscape Maintenance District A1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENINGEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1;
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.
e. Lien Agreement: Dr, Melvin Kornblatt. It is recommended that Council
approve the lien agreement submitted by Dr. Melvin Korblatt that will
allow the postponement of street improvements.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
CONTACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DR. MELVIN B. KORNBLATT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
f. Release of bonds.
Tract 9302: located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and
Lemon Avenue. Owner: Vanguard Builders, Inc.
Labor S Material (road) $44,000
Tract 9402: located on the south side of Lemon Avenue at Mayberry Avenue.
Owner: Olympus Pacific Corp.
Tract 9402 (Continued)
Labor
6 Material
(road)
$27,000
Labor
5 Material
(water
n- site.)
7,000
Labor
6 Material
(water
off -site)
3,500
Labor
6 Material
(sewer
on -site)
7,000
Labor
S Material
(sewer
off -site)
5,500
Tract 9458: located on the southeast corner of Ivy Lane and Baseline.
Owner: Fred Schneider,
Labor S Material (road) $38,000
Labor S Material (water) 17,500
Labor S Material (sewer) 10,000
Tract 9422 -2: located west of Turner Avenue and southerly of Church
Street. Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
Cash Staking Bond
$ 3,400
Tract 9588: Located on the northside of Wilson between Amethyst and
Archibald. Owner: Golden Bear Construction, Inc.
Performance Bond (road)
$ 48,000
Tract 9440: located on the west side of Hermosa, 500+ feet north of
Banyan. Owner: Chevron Construction Company.
Cash Staking Bond
$ 3,450
Tract 9422: located south of Church Street between Ramona and Turner
Avenue. Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
Cash Staking Bond
$ 3,100
Tract 9422 -1: located east of Ramona Avenue and southerly of Church Street.
Owner: Marlborough Development Corp.
Cash Staking Bond
$ 4,000
Tract 9482 -2: located on the north side of Wilson Avenue at Beachwood
Drive. Owner: The Deer Creek Company.
Faithful Performance (landscape) $ 6,270
Parcel Man 4957; located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Hellman
Avenue. Owner: Douglas K. Hone.
Set Aside Letter (road)
$15,000
g. Forward claim by Timothy J. Weckerle to City Attorney for handling.
h. Forward claim by Kelly Weckerle to the City Attorney for handling.
i. Forward claim by Santibanez Family to the City Attorney for handling.
j. Set Public Hearing for review of Zone Change No. 80 -20 by Vanguard for
November 19, 1980: A zone change request from R -R to R -1 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. ,
k. Set Public Hearing for review of Zone Change No. 80 -19 by Diversified to
November 19, 1980: A zone change request from R -1 -5 to A -P on 16 acres of
land located on the northeast corner of Baseline and Archibald. APN 201-
1.81-12, 21, and 22.
4
1. Set Public Hearing date of November 19, 1980 for Zone Change No. 80 -18
by R.J. Investments: A change of zone from R -1 -T to R -3 on 5.5 acres of
land located south of Foothill Boulevard, west of Baker Avenue, AIN 207-
191-49 and 48
m. Set Public Hearing date of Novmeber 19, 1980 for Zoning Ordinance Amendment
No. 80 -03; an amendment to the C -2 (service conunercial) zone district
regulating the location and development of adult businesses.
rt. Orben- Fereerry- 6rnne- App } }eefie + r.-- epp } }eeC4en -fer- $58;000 -fe he- p}nnring
of trees in front yards of residences and parkway strips under the California
Department of Forestry; participation by the local groups is a requirement
of the Grant. The Rancho Grande Kiwanis is our participant.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, SUPPORTING THE CITY'S APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM.
o. Updnee- en- pre5rene- ef- Finee }- Nede }- end- e- regaeer- ro-eppreve- ehe- exeerteiert
of the Fiscal Model Development contract between the City and M.K.G.K.,
Inc. Recommended that City Council approve the contract extension as
proposed.
Discussion of Items "n ", "b" and "o"
"n" Urban Forestry Grant Application -- Councilman Palombo requested additional
information regarding this grant application. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner
discussed the City's application for funding under the California Division
of Forestry's Urban Forestry Grant Program. He stated that the intent of
the program is to provide $50,000 in funding which would be used to purchase
approximately 1600 trees for City parkways and residential front yards.
Should the City's application be accepted, the City would participate with
an in -kind cost of $5,000 (10%) with the remaining 905 ($45,000) being
provided by C.D.F. Mayor Schlosser gave special recognition to the Rancho
Grande Kiwanis who are participants in the program.
"b" Acquisition of Truck Bodies - -In reply to inquiries by Council, Mr. Wasserman
stated that these are the truck bodies that will go on the chassis that
have already been delivered. Mr. Butts stated that it would take about three
weeks to put the truck bodies on the chassis.
"o" Update on Progress of Fiscal Model - -Mr. Wasserman stated that an extension
of time is being requested only with no additional cost. He stated that the
project is being delayed at the request of the City because we want to wait
until the General Plan process is a little further along before we start working
out some of the financial alternatives.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 5 -0.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4A AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUILDING REGULATIONS This item was delayed to later
in the meeting when Jack Lam, Director of Community Development would be
present.
4B ANNEXATION 41 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #1 FOR TRACT 9637. Report
by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer.
Title of Ordinance was read by City Clerk Wasserman.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION
WITH ANNEXATION NO. 1 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9637.
Motion: Moved by Frost and seconded by Palombo to waive further reading.
Motion carried 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no
response, the hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Frost to approve Resolution No. 80 -102
Motion Carried 5 -0.
4C INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80 -•02. Staff report presented
by Barry Hogan, City Planner, regarding amendments to the San Bernardino
County Land Use and Building Regulations as adopted by Ordinance No. 17
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically:
Sections 61.024(A)
61.024(D)
61.024(E)
61.024(F)
61.0216
61.029(b)
61.029(f)
61.029(g)
61.029(h)
61.0219(1)
61.0219(m)
61.0219(n)
61.0220
61.0221
R -1 Districts
R -2 Districts
R -3 Districts
R -R Districts
PUD District
Parking Requirements
Site Approval
Height Requirements
Area Requirements
Minor Deviations
Minor Deviations
Director Review
Variances
Amendments
for the purpose of providing interim guidance relative to development within
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. Hogan stated that the Interim Zoning Ordinance was coming before Council
due to the inordinate amount of time it is taking to get the General Plan
to the public floor. He stated that as an interim measure, it was necessary
to "clean -up" and :cake some administrative changes to existing Zoning Ordi-
nance 117. He stressed that this is an interim document only and not the
final Zoning Ordinance, which he estimated would be adopted around September,
1981. Mr. Hogan reviewed the various changes covered by Ordinance 123.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ordinance.
ORDINANCE 123 (First 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 Bridge and seconded by Frost to waive further reading.
Motion carried 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing.
Jim Banks inquired if this Ordinance created any inconsistencies
with the existing general plan. Mr. Hogan replied it did not.
Eugene Biachim expressed concern about whether all of the info -
mation would still be reviewed. Mr. Hogan stated that the total
package, with all of the information included, would be reviewed
at one time rather than piecemeal.
Doreen Warren asked if this Ordinance had anything to do with the
parking of trucks. Mr. Hogan replied it did not.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Mikels indicated that he had suggestions for some changes in the
Ordinance and made a motion to continue first reading until November 19th.
Seconded by Councilman Palumbo.
Sam Crowe, City Attorney, advised that Council had already legally had first
reading and therefore it could not be continued. However, he stated that
if substantial changes were made at the second reading, another first reading
would be required. Councilman Mikels stated that he would give some input
regarding changes to staff prior to the next meeting.
Mayor Schlosser set second reading for November 19, 1980.
4D VACATION OF CHESTNUT STREET,
Mr. Hobbs, City Engineer, stated that on July 25, 1980 Victor Cherbak
presented a request to the City that we consider the vacation of Chestnut
from Hermosa Avenue to 1350 feet west. This was following a similar request
to the County for a like vacation of the other half of the street which
lies in the County area.
Mr. Hobbs stated that property owners along the street objected to the
vacation for two reasons:
1. Private access easements underlie the offer of dedications
in favor of Mr. Cherbak. In order to insure no road construction
o,,er the alignment, it was the desire of these residents that the
easemerts be quit - claimed prior to vacation.
2. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 3200 is a land locked parcel with no access
to a public or private easement except over the Chestnut offer of
dedication.
Mr. Hubbs recommended that the vacation of Chestnut street be continued,so
these objections can be worked out, until January 7, 1981.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing.
Jim Meyers, resident on parcel 2, recommended that the Vacation be
continued until January 7, 1981 and discussed some of his objections.
Bob White related his objections to the abandonment of the road and also
to the proposed development of cluster housing on the County portion.
Ed Cherback discussed the action taken by the County and replied to some
of the objections raised by the other residents.
Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Bridge to continue until January 7, 1981,
in accordance with staff recommendation. Motion Carried 5 -0.
At this point (8:20 p.m.), Mayor Schlosser called a brief recess.
Mayor Schlosser called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m. with all members of
Council present.
4E PROPOSED ABANDONED ORCHARDS ORDINANCE This Item Continued to a later meeting.
4F A REVIEW OF THE "COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS STUDY OF TRANSIT SERVICE
IN RANCHO CUCIMONGA iV`iD THE WEST %ALLEY AREA.
Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager, stated that Mr. Bob Chafin and Mr. Paul Marsh
from Omnitrans were present to discuss an analysis of fixed routr and dial -i-
ride /lift ,ervices in Rancho Cucamonga and outline specific recommendations
deve'oped as a result of this comprehensive transit study.
Mr. Bob Chafin discussed the report and stated that it included the recommended
elimination of the major portion of the Alta Loma- Cucamonga route north of
Baseline and substantial modifications to the Route south of Baseline. The
Chaffey College route was only modified to the extent that the frequency
of service was increased from 40 minutes service to 30 minutes service.
4A AM ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUILDING REGULATIONS
Mayor Schlosser announced that Jack Lam was present and this item could now
be discussed.
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated that since we are adopting
the new Uniform Building Code by reference, it is necessary to hold first
reading in order to set an official public hearing date. He briefly reviewed
the Ordinance and recommended that December 3, 1980 be set for the public
hearing.
City Clerk Wasserman read Ordinance No. 122 for First Reading.
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 CODE STANDARDS, AND MAKING CERTAIN
CHANGES THEREIN NECESSARY TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS.
Notion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading.
Motion carried: 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser set the public hearing for December 3, 1980.
In the discussion that followed,
with the change of the boundaries
for the maximum retardant type of
we would be remiss if we did not
due to the fire problems created
Foothill Fire District concurred
stated he agreed with Councilman
mandate that "B" type roofing be
the additional cost.
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
Councilman Bridge stated that he concurred
of the Fire Hazard area and the requirement
roof in this area. However, he felt that
require a "B" type roof throughout the City
because of the winds. He noted that the
in this recommendation. Councilman Frost
Bridge but had difficulty with a Council
required throughout the City in view of
5A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE SIGN FOR RED HILL
COFFEE SHOP
City Clerk Wasserman stated that a letter of appeal had been received and
the appropriate fees paid. He indicated that a petition, with approximately
530 signatures indicating that those who signed it believed the sign in
question should be given equal treatment with similar free standing signs
in the City, was also received.
Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the decision of the Planning Commission
directing Mr. and Mrs. Moffatt, owners of the Red Hill Coffee Shop, to remove
the sign by November 7, 1980 as outlined in his staff report. He also
referred to correspondence received from the applicants' attorney, Tracy
Lowan Tibbals, dated November 3 and November 5, 1980. He stated the primary
reason for the direction of removal by the Planning Commission was that the
sign is wholly within the public right -of -way. Issues of portability and
permanancy were also discussed, but were not the reasons for sign removal.
At this point, Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Tracy Lowman Tibbals, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Moffatt, stated he
felt the removal of the sign should be on a five year amortization
basis as outlined in his letters to Council dated November 3 and
November 5, 1980. He requested this item be tabled until recently
enacted State legislation (Business and Professions Code 5412.5)
could be studied.
Sam Crowe, City Attorney, indicated he could not give a legal opinion
until he had the opportunity to review the legislation in question.
Mr. and Mrs. Moffatt said it was their understanding that they would
have five years to :'emove the sign, based on a slide presentation that
was shown at the initial sign ordinance meetings. Mr. Moffatt also
indicated he felt the value of the sign was much more than the value
established by the City Building Official.
The following people spoke in favor of the Moffatt's appeal:
Doreen Warren
Tom Dietl
Doug Hone
Bruce Chitiea
Emma Cowan
Bob Lasondak
Neil Westlihorn
Based on the philosophy of the Ordinance, Councilman Frost moved to uphold
Planning Conmussion Decision. Seconded by Councilman Mikels. Motion was
not voted on at this time.
After considerable discussion, previous motion and second were withdrawn.
Motion: Moved by Mikels and seconded by Palumbo to continue this item
until December 3, 1980 to give the Moffacts an opportunity to provide
documentation regarding value of the sign and the City Attorney an opportunity
to research the language of Business and Professional Code 5412.5.
Motion Carried: 5-0.
Mayor Schlosser called a brief recess at 10 :45 p.m. Meeting was called
back to order at 11:00 p.m. with all members of Council present.
5B. COMPLAINTS ON BOARS HEAD IN THE BOB'S BIC BOY CENTER
The following residents spoke to Council regarding complaints they had about
the noise generated by the Boars Head restaurant /lounge in the Bob's Big
Boy Center:
Mrs. and Mrs. Mel Futrell
Mr. George Odor
Mr. Isaac Peters
Doreen Warren suggested that the residents use plantings
to reduce the noise.
Mr. Douglas None and Mr. Gorgen, owners of the shopping center, indicated
that they would continue to work with the residents to resolve these problems.
5C STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE CITY'S EDA GRANT APPLICATION
Mr. Wasserman stated that since Mr. Pope was not present, a memo would he
sent to Council outlining this Grant.
5D PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY CONSULTANT DOUG AYRES
Mr. Ayres briefly reviewed the Proposed Employee Rules and Regulations.
After discussion, this item was continued until December 3, 1980 to
allow Council additional time to review.
5. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS . There were none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to adjourn to Executive
session, not to reconvene. Motion Carried 5 -0. Meeting
adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Virginia Zientara
Acting Deputy City Clerk