HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980/06/04 - Agenda Packeti
n
U
P�CvCA.'4 ,
{fir r
CN Z
F g Z
1977
REGULAR MEETING
June 4, 1980
CITY OF
RAN 40 CICAIVKMA
CITY COUNUIL
AGENEA
AGENDA ITEMS: All items submitted for the City Council agenda most be in writing.
The deadline for submitting items is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and
third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's office receives all such items.
1. CALL TO ORDER. %.'o p.,.n
A. Pledge to flag.
B. Roll call: FFcost Mikels k , Palombo n, Bridge_ k , Schlosser.
C. Approval of Minutes of May 21, 1980.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A. Recognition of John Cawi and Bert Leyva for services to the City.
B. Advisory. Commission meeting, Thursday, June 26, 6:30 p.m., Lion's Park
Community Center.
3. COMMISSION REPORTS.
A. Advisory Commission.
B. Historical Commission.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR.
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.
a. Approval of Warrants - Register No. 80 -6 -4 for $428,307.97.
b. Refer claim in the amount of $1531.47 by Mr. and Mrs.
EcNard Heisen to the City Attorney for handling.
c. Approval of modification to Resolution 79 -48.
U,
City Council Agenda -2- June 4, 1980
Recommendation: That the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga adopt Resolution No. 79 -48 -A, amending
Resolution No. 79 -48, and correcting a clerical error
to reflect an hourly rate of $4.32 per hour for the
Senior Recreation Leader to be effective July 2, 1979.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -48 -A 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79 -48 TO CORRECT
HOURLY RATE OF SENIOR RECREATION LEADER
FROM $4.23 TO $4.32 PER HOUR.
d. Authorization to conduct the second annual Founder's Day 11
Parade. The Parade will take place November 7 at 10:00
a.m.
:,e. Authorization to seek bids for the construction of the
"North Town" Street Improvement Project.
-Y f. Clarification of allowable credits to Systems Develop-
ment fees.
• Lewis Homes has requested a determination from the City for
credit of Systems fees toward the construction of a bridge
over Deer Creek at Church Street. It is recommended that
the credit be allowed.
g. Agreement Time Extension - M.S. 77 -0655.
Requested extension on Parcel Map to be able to complete
improvements on previous parcels before more work can be
done on the present parcel. Requested extension by the
developer is 6 months.
h. Approval of Lien Agreement - Wes Bonneville.
Recommend the postponement of street improvements to
he made by Wes and Rebecca Bonneville and that the Lien
Agreement between the Bonnevilles and the City be approved
by Council. Also, approval of Resolution No. 80 -53
authorizing the Mayor to sign the lien agreement.
12
15
2
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -53 25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN
AGREEMENT FROM JOSEPH W. BONNEVILLE AND
REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
City
Council Agenda
-3-
June 4, 1980
•
i. Release of the
following bonds:
Tract 9397.
Located
on southwest corner of
Hillside Road and
Amethyst Street. Owner:
Crowell /Leventhal,
Inc.
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$ 41,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
12,000
Tract 9401.
Located
on southeast corner of
Hermosa Avenue and Lemon
Avenue. Owner: Olympus
Pacific Corporation.
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$137,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water on -site)
35,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water off -site)
24,500
Labor &
Material
Bond (sewer on -site)
22,500
Labor &
Material
Bond (sewer off -site)
11,000
Tract 9409.
Located
on west side of Ramona
Avenue north of Foothill.
Owner: Coral
Investment,
Inc.
Labor &
Material
Bond (sewer)
$ 20,500
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
13,500
•
Tract 9421.
Located
on northwest corner of
Banyan Street and Amethyst
Street. Owner.
Nubank
International, Inc.
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$ 45,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
21,500
Tract 9424.
Located
between Jasper Street and
Sapphire Street at
Whirlaway Street,
Owner: Alta Loma 18 Inc.
(partnership)
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$ 18,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
8,500
Tract 9429.
Located
on north side of 19th Street
at Cartilla Avenue.
Owner: Valle
Verde Lt.
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$ 39,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (sewer)
17,500
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
16,000
Tract 9449.
Located
on southeast corner of
Base Line and Ramona Avenue.
Nwner: Thompson & Associates.
Labor &
Material
Bond (road)
$ 76,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
23,000
Labor &
Material
Bond (sewer)
15,500
Tract 9450.
Located
between Ramona Avenue and
Hermosa Avenue at La Vine
Street. Owner: Inco
Homes.
Labor &
Material
Bond road)
$ 57,000
Labor &
Material
Bond sewer)
16,500
Labor &
Material
Bond (water)
23,000
City Council Agenda
-4-
June 4, 1980
•
Tract 9451.
Located on southwest corner of
Base Line and Ramona
venue. ner: Royal Oaks Homes.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 37,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
10,000
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
4-Yr9BB
Tract 9475.
Located at northeast corner of
Haven and Lemon.
Owner: J. Anthony
/Rancho California Homes,
Ltd.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
E 41,000
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
15,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
15,000
Tract 9569.
Located on east side of Amethyst Street between Wilson
Avenue and Hillside
Road. Owner: Don Lee Construction.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 67,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
15,500
Tract 9586.
Located on northeast corner of
Haven Avenue and 19th Street.
Owner: Lewis Homes of California.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 84,000
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
16,500
•
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
31,500
Tract 9587.
Located south of Highland Avenue and east of Haven Avenue.
Owner: Lewis
Homes of California.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 39,000
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
12,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
13,000
Tract 9595.
Located on northeast corner of
Banyan Street and Carnelian
Street. Owner: Gary Miller.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 52,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
23,000
Tract 9616.
Located on west side of Hellman
Avenue at Devon Street.
Owner: M. J.
Brock & Sons.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 61,000
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
19,500
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
22,000
Tract 9617.
Located on west side of Hellman
Avenue north of Arrow Route.
Owner: M. J.
Brock & Sons.
Labor &
Material Bond (road)
$ 42,000
•
Labor &
Material Bond (sewer)
14,000
Labor &
Material Bond (water)
13,000
City Council Agenda -5- June 4, 1980
•
• 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
•
A. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE. An ordinance designed to provide
park land dedication or fees to provide park improvements to
the residents of new subdivisions.
ORDINANCE NO. 105 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF
FEES, OR BOTH, FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND
IN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED COMMUNITIES.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AVERAGE COST PER ACRE. A resolu-
tion in support of Ordinance No. 105 which addresses park
dedications, or fees in lieu of, in subdivisions. A formula
contained in that Ordinance has a factor of development cost
per acre which is recommended be set at $40,000 per acre.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
AVERAGE COST PER ACRE TO DEVELOP PARK LAND IN
RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
B. REVISION TO ORDINANCE NO. 8 WHICH ESTABLISHES A PARK AND
DEDICATION TAX FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
ORDINANCE NO. 8 -B (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
RECREATION TAX FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, AMOUNTS,
AND CREDITS THEREOF.
C. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -04 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - ACACIA _
CONSTRUCTION. A zone change from A -1 to R-3 for property
located on the southwest corner of Baker and Foothill Boulevard.
ORDINANCE NO. 106 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207 - 191 -31 AND 26
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND BAKER.
26
34
41
42
42
City Council Agenda -6- June 4, 1980
• 0. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -06 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - DELL MC-
DANIEL, INC. A change of zone from A -1 to R -1 for property
located o n the northeast corner of Ramona and Church.
43
ORDINANCE NO. 107 (second reading) _43
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 301 -37 FROM A -1
TO R -1 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
RAMONA AND CHURCH.
E. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE CHERBAK HOUSE AS AN HISTORIC 44
POINT OF INTEREST - located at 9983 Hillside Road.
ORDINANCE NO. 108 (second reading) 44
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE CHERBAK FAMILY HOME, LOCATED AT 9983 HILL-
SIDE ROAD,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A SIGNIFICANT
HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OF THE CITY AND
THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY POINT OF
HISTORIC INTEREST.
• F. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE GARRETT AND COMPANY WINERY
AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK.
The Garrett and Company Winery, commonly referred to as the
Virginia Dare Winery,located at the northwest corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, is recommended for a
City Historic Landmark designation.
45
ORDINANCE NO. 109 (first reading) 51
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE GARRETT AND COMPANY WINERY AS A SIGNI-
FICANT HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY AND THERE-
FORE DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK.
G. VACATION OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA.
Vacation of a triangular portion of 19th Street at the corner
of Ramona and 19th Street. Vacation has been approved by
CALTRANS and notices have been advertised and posted. This
vacation is being done in conjunction with an apartment pro-
ject at that location.
RESOLUTION N0. 80 -50 _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING
TO BE VACATED A PORTION OF 19TH STREET, AS
SHOWN ON MAP (NO. V -007) ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
52
•
11
City Council Agenda
-7-
June 4, 1980
H. REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF SAPPHIRE STREET. 56
A proposed revision to Ordinance No. 39 redesignating the
speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph on 19th Street to Banyan
Street.
ORDINANCE NO. 39 -B (first reading) 59
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 39 PERTAINING TO THE SPEED
LIMIT ON SAPPHIRE STREET.
6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
A. PROJECT ESPERANZA - Quarter Annual Reprt
o. - A presentation
60
will be made by the Project Esperanza's staff outlining
the program's progress in Rancho Cucamonga.
B. INDUSTRIAL AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND POLICY REPORT.
68
Presentation of consultant s report for revised master
plan in the Industrial Area south of Foothill Boulevard
between Deer Creek and Day Creek. Report will include
a recommendation from the Storm Drain Committee.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council adopt the
proposed plan.
C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 1980 -81. The Engineering
75
Division will be reviewing the proposed program to
expend approximately $850,000 for streets and roads and
$560,000 for storm drain purposes.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council adopt
Resolution No. 80 -52 which approves the Capital Improvement
Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -52
83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE 1980 -81 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM.
D. PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT RELATIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
84
Larry Hendon, Coordinator o Affordable Housing Committee,
_
has submitted a proposed policy statement for the City's
consideration. It is recommended that Council oppose the
policy in its present form.
RESOLUTION NO. 80- 54
91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING
THE PROPOSED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TASK FORCE POLICY STATEMENT.
City Council Agenda -8- June 4. 1980
•
7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
•
•
R867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WARR N VEN N V E N D O R N A M E
5140 INLAND POWER SWEEPING
2336 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
0025 4EITFR DEVELOPMENT, A H
1500 SLUE CROSS
2441 CU OF SAN BERNARDINO
7905 POSTAASTER
7985 PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT S
3407 ESSI;. ROBERTA
1201 BANK OF AMERICA NT E SA
7778 PICKHAM, KIM
7525 NELSON. ADELE
DY C
ACISA
F. SA
NT BA
RVICE
T DER
I5T
V A H
CY
TS
A SHO
ING
C IAL,
IE IN
TTLING CO
INC
TRANSPORTAT
RSON
WATER DIST
1111.1, YI.LVCI,
DAILY REPORT
DEPT OF GEN SERVICES
DIETRICH -POST CO
DVORAK, GAYLE
OYAINN, DIANE
E.MPEY, HARRY J
F G E CHECK PROTECTOR
FILMS INC
CITY OF FREMONT
GLNERAL TELEPHONE CO
G[NGF CONSULTANTS
f,IIROONS INC
GRANT, JERRY R
,REF-1N RUCK GARDENS
HANSEN, JACK
hOGAN, BARRY K
HOLLcY, WILLIAM L
HUBBS. LLOYD
IBM
I'VLANO EMPIRE TUIF SUPP
INTL ASSCC OF BUDGET OF
WARR /80
WARR �OI,COUNT
DATE
NET
13
1.
5.
100,
5.
1,
100.000.00
150.00
2,097.89
100.00
193.85
12T.73-
5,903.00
18.87
212.00
24.17
105.42
36.57
31.43
100.00
364.58
1,498.00
318.22
75.00
140.80
40.36
128.87
802.00
36,445.82
13,290.12
165.37
23.27
81.00
36.00
230.49
3.95
19.53
99.00
9.00
75.00
85.05
107.00
15.00
2,885.42
4r 506.19
223.05
75.00
34.33
30.00
75.00
125.00
125.00
1,263.68
131.61
20.00
R867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WARR Y VEN N V E N 0 0 R N A M E
04097
5278
INTL CONF BLDG OFFICIAL
04098
5280
INTL INST OF MUNI CLERK
04099
6175
JOBS AVAILABLE
04100
6600
ICING ENGINEERS, L D
04101
6618
KRUSE, JOAN
04102
6619
KUNTZ, CHARLES
04103
6630
LAM, JACK
04104
6640
LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO
04105
6770
LEWIS HOMES OF CA
04106
6783
LINVILLE- SANDERSON -HORN
04107
6875
LOWES POWER TOOLS
04108
7125
M P A INC
04109
7188
MARSH G MC LENNAN INC
04110
7294
MC MASTER -CARR
04111
7320
MISSION CAR WASH
04112
7375
MONAHAN, CLAUDIA
04113
7510
NATL SANITARY SUPPLY CO
04114
7630
OLIVA. FRANK
04116
SERV
7600
PACIFICC SCIENTIFIC
04117
7736
PAS GRAPHICS INC
04118
7770
PATTON SALES CORP
04119
7790
PITNEY BUWES
04120
7860
PUBLIC DESIGN PRESS
04121
8020
RAM.IREZ, CONSEPCION
04122
8075
RAPD DATA INC
04123
8200
ROBINSON. JAMES H
NANCE INC
F EDISON
F GAS CO
ER CO
EWWRITER SV
RP
ATION
ELSOTRIB
ING0SYSTEM
RINTING
OURNAL
0
14
WARRANT
WARR
DATE
r.
IUNT NET
10,
17.
1,
18,
15.
47,857.35
209.56
239.69
76.86 45.0
471.56
89.01
2.500.00
212.16
39.42
165.00
50.00
496.00
44.52
3.00
4 3.00
19.32
428,307.97
Ll
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
ORIGINAL FOR FILE
INSTRUCTIONS
• 1. Claims for death, Injury to person or to personal properly must be filed not
later than 100 days after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2. Claims for damages to real properly must be filed not later than 1 year after the
occurance. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
3. Read entire claim before filing.
4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locale place of accident.
5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom.
6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET,
7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. tGov. Code Sec. 915x)
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Home Address of
of Cla;"rmt
to which you desire notices or communications to be sent
8714 Avalon Street - Alta Loma, CA 91701
and State
l Hr 14
RESERVE Q FILING STAMP
CLAIM No.
CIIY'
:'i i 9 1996
718,91101,11 )W1? 121$1x1LPN
of Claimant (if natural person)
Home Telephone
How did DAMAGE or NJURV occur? Give full particulars.
Water and mud damage to pool and pool accessories (pump motor and heater) as well as well as
rear of house. Mud in pool required pumping pool out to clean out mud and acid wash. Pump
motor burned up, pool heater pilot assembly replaced because of mud and rust. Vacuumed 70
gallons of water from carpet in rear of house.
e en n Lid DAbtAGE or INJI7RY occur? Give full particulars, dale, time of day:
b. 15, 1980 approximately 11:00 a.m. - water and mud accumulated in rear neighbor's yard, then
flowed across entire rear fence onto my property.
Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locale on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give
street names and address and measurements from landmarks.
Damage occurred to our property located at 8714 Avalon Street, Alta Loma, CA. Located on the
corner of Avalon Street and Carnelian.
What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or
damage. it knowm
The act of widening Carnelian, lowering the curb without providing storm drains.
What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted Give full extent of injures or damages claimed:
Pool filled with mud water. Pool motor burned up, Pilot assembly for pool heater covered
with mud and rust. Carpet in rear two closets and rear two bedrooms,
What AMOI:NT o yell clone r,,, n,,mmt of each Orin of injury or damagc as of date of presenlauon of tors claim, giving balls of
compumtjon'. Pump pool, clean mud out and acid wash - $125.00 (See Attached)
Replaced pool motor - 116.57
Pool heater repair, Pilot assembly - 51.40
Rental on vacuum for water in carpet - 11.00
rte F.S'm%IAT(:i) AMQUNT as far a'u nown you ciaun m accmirt of each item of pmepcclnc Injury or damage, giving basis of
place carpet it rear two (2) closets and rear two (2) bedrooms: 37.5 yds. @$20.00 = $750.00
My personal labor - 25 hrs. @ $19.10 = $477.50
ec,: eJ.ILIC 1.
C'JY v wA d
-- - -- -
SEE E4GE 2 (01'P.I0 TI {IS CLAI'.t MUST RF. SIGNED O\ REVERSE Sij)E
Insurance payments received, if any, and names of Insurance Company:
None 0
Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date — Iteml (Amount)
NA
Name and address of
and
•
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident claims place an following diagram names of streets, including North, Fast, South, and Nest; indicate place of
accident by ':C" and by showing house n uri of distances to street corners.
If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "II" location of yourself
or your rehcce when you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of accident by "A -1" and location of yourself or your
vehicle at the time of the accident by "13-1" and the point of impact by "R."
NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant.
FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS
CARNELIAN CURB
PARKWAY
SIDEWALK
% a /
8714 Avalon St. Rear neighbor
�o �o Alta Loma, CA z property
n ce
ce
Property of '
Mr. & Mrs. E. Heisen
Rear
FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS
L
Si4nature of Claimant or person filing an his behalf giving Typed Name: Dale
nmrely Unn.h� to Clan nt:
�,_J�,2 Edward W. Heisen 5/15/8
NOTEr presentation of a false clot is a felony (Cal Pen. Code Sec. 72)
CLAIMS M"T BE FILED NITII C CLERY (GOV. CODE SEC. 915x).
0
I
J
I
i
I
I
su
7248 ARCHIBALO AVE. ALTA LOMA. 11.11)01
(114) 2111
COMPLETE PARTS, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
mans. Llolons mvmG eOARDs. gaOLOOVERs
EATLRS. ryM1S SLIDES LIGHTS ACID WISN
CXEHIC J
Customer's
Order No. _ Date Z I 1B�
Name L—'� �Ij
Address
G0.0 BY
U ^�
CASH
COD
CY4RGE
'ESi RIPiION
ON ACCT
NO
A E TO
PRICE
AID OUT
4MOrINi
0
I LI
CASES
TOTAL
SDC JUGS
SALES TAN
n n, I 'I
TOTAL TS OR cPEDXSf
THIS
FAY THIS TOTAL
An OaIL due by 0e 1111 .1 Ine monm
All [Iaima anJ r¢lurneC iooES
VUST pe a[companieE py rbq piR _
Recd bV
S
i
I
i
5,
•
•
r1
L_J
.. roan UI I L_i ....... n. u... ouro y..
7
t
owe -
POMONA VALLEY POOLCHLOR
.'
1420 N. Claremont Suite 106D
)
_ CIAREMONT.CA91711
_
(714) 624 0095
? I
1
.. roan UI I L_i ....... n. u... ouro y..
7
oowESS /J A
owe -
1.13 no / /v
_ ... ay.
. ,, .
oESCwipnov oa wow.
DAY �OM
� cogTRAOT
A HUNT.'v
fy? ��ic:.__ __ .- _, .•PRICE
R DESCIPT_ ION'S S. �''
_
1
I
LABOR
HWR6
PATE
AMOUM
T 4 RMLS
-
1
TOTAL LABOq
oRa oaoeaao ar
TOTALTA%
LABOR
•. i i I
��� w�T�i!l
WI:J 1A{
W I:JQW OQO�^
3 3 3 8
u.rE COmvIAEO
%Jlank`You TOTAL?
L ,'J .1
—E., w,... ...�.�........ ....a,.,.,— ......, ... �. w
.. roan UI I L_i ....... n. u... ouro y..
7
I'
POMONA VALLEY ,POOLCHLOR
L - 1420 N. Claremont Suite 106D
_ CLARE6IONT CA 91711
(714) ,624.0095
r +
:......_ :.... «,.. '. - .- .•, ter.-- ..+r.:a�
: J:,.'• -((..
nAME i •'li• t` �, �. +.j.. �• - ".
OA1fi OF OROEw
ILI 14, i In
PHONE _
-. v
A
AiE PROMtSEo
AB NnuE /LOCnTIOn • -, r T. � • _ / r -
_
RoER IAXEry wY
Sc.PTiOry OFWORX
COHT.. c,
_
-
ERTM
Ol'T.4:,.'yFSCRIPTiON
,p'.�y k
-�
'PRICE-
AMOU'T
_.1
._P-•/p �..__.q. ell:'.° '
..
��G
L_
--a --
- - - --
-- .- -
'
-- -- --....
I
t
LABOR
HOURS
MTE
AMOUM
TOTAL MATERIAL$
TOTAL LIBOR
QO
.I
wX Owoe O
TOTAL
-
A.
G70L•3C3 O02E[Rm
`�
i1]Cf-.�tG 71ank`You
TOTAL
I I d
cn
1623
wER.... i... MXwi. ...wRnw..em..Xen.��M.w.......
»a ....
AN
•
0
•
•
•
0
CITY OF RANCI-10 C LJCANIONGA
STAFF REPORT
May 30, 1980
TO: City Council
City Manager
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Modification to Resolution 79 -48
Resolution 79 -48 was adopted July 2, 1979 establishing salary ranges
and holiday, sick leave and vacation benefits for all non - mangement
employees. However, a clerical error was made for the part -time
Senior Recreation Leader's hourly rate. The Resolution should have
read $4.32 per hour, rather than $4.23 per hour. Since July of
1979 our part -time Recreation Leaders have been compensated at the
carrect rate of $4.32 per hour,but the Auditors have discovered
this clerical error and recommend that a correction be made to
our existing compensation Resolution so that proper authority is
established to pay the correct amount.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
adopt Resolution No. 79 -48A, amending Resolution No. 79 -48, and
correcting a clericial error to reflect an hourly rate of $4.32 per
hour for the Senior Recreation Leader to be effective July 2, 1979.
JR /vz
Attachment (Resolution 79 -48A)
1
0
RESOLUTION 79 -48A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION
79 -48 TO CORRECT HOURLY RATE OF SENIOR RECREATION
LEADER FROM $4.23 TO $4.32 PER HOUR
WHEREAS, a transposition error was made in Resolution 79 -48
reflecting an incorrect hourly rate for the Senior Recreation Leader
of $4.23 per hour; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been paying the
correct amount of $4.32 per hour since July 2, 1979; and,
WHEREAS, the incorrect hourly rate was an error in transposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California as follows:
• SECTION 1: Section 2 of Resolution No. 79 -48 is hereby amended
to reflect the correct hourly rate for the Senior Recreation
Leader to be $4.32 per hour to be effective July 2, 1979.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
�v
0
•
CITY OF RANMO CUCANK)NUA
STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Second Annual Founders Day Parade
Theme: The Wild West
We request authorization to conduct the second annual Founders Day
Parade. As before, it is a community involvement activity which
seeks the support of local entities to provide advertizing, trophies
and labor. This support was very strongly evidenced in the first
effort.
Parade will take place November 8, at 10:00 a.m., with a route as
last year, along Base Line from the High School to Archibald.
Street closure will again be from 9:50 a.m, until about noon.
P.S. While it is still early, and if you wish to participate this
year, you may want to "round up" a suitable "Wild West"
participant vehicle to enter.
BH /mw
•
A
I
CITY OF RAiNCIA) CLr M )NC k �
STAFF REPORT <�
CY
a
DATE: May 29, 1980 —
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorization to Seek Bids for the Construction
of the "North Town" Street Improvement Project
Plans and specifications have been completed for the construc-
tion of Phase I of the "North Town" street improvement project
and approval to seek bids received from the County Economic
Development Department. Phase I will include the construction
of Humbolt, 24th, 25th and 26th Streets at an estimated cost
of $330,000.00.
Staff is currently scheduling the bid opening for July 8, 1980.
Construction could begin toward the first of August.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council authorize Staff to seek
bids for the "North Town" street improvement project.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH: jaa
lZ
7
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANION :A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 29, 1960
1977
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Clarification of Allowable Credits to
Systems Development Fees
Attached for Council review is a request from Lewis Homes
that the City provide them with written assurance that the
construction of a bridge over Deer Creek at Church Street
would credit against the payment of Systems Development
fees for the Terra Vista Project.
The Systems Development fee was designed to recognize the
need for major capital expenses related to the overall
city street system functioning,but not specifically related
to a specific development. It is the Staff's opinion that
this improvement falls into that category.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the Council approve the credit against
Systems Development Fees for developer construction of a
bridge over Deer Creek at Church Street and direct Staff to
notify Lewis Homes of this finding.
Respectfully submitted,
LB11i jas
Attachment
13
Q
LEWIS HOMES
1156 No6h Mountain k ue 1 PO. Box 670 / Uplond. CA 91786 / 714 085-0971
April 9, 1980
Mr. Llovd Hubbs, City Engineer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
Re: Church Street Bridge Across Deer Creek - Terra Vista
Dear Llovd:
CITY OFyRANCHO UCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
APR 14 1980
AM PM
71819110111112111213141516
I am writing this letter as a letter of understanding /agreement of the
referenced item which we discussed approximately two months ago.
At that time the City Traffic Study as well as the traffic study on Terra
Vista indicated a City need for Church Street, at Haven Avenue, to align
with Church Street to the west. We discussed this additional unusual
street cost and agreed it should be paid out of the Street and Highways
Systems Fee.
On this basis Lewis Homes has revised the Terra Vista plan to show the
alignment requested which necessitates the bridge.
Therefore, before any further time goes by we would like to have written
concurrence that the cost of the bridge will be a cost covered by the
Systems Fee. Reviewing the Ordinance it appears the City Council must
designate where funds will be spent. Would you kindly tell us how to
proceed?
Cordislly,
Ron Nottingham
Engineering Coordinator
pu:bc
�I
u
n
U
0
•
r1
u. • v. ... •���,V lil.V \IYM RV\
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 16, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager JJ11..►►{{'�
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Enginee>��,1 '
SUBJECT: Agreement Time Extension (M.S. 77 -0655)
The subject agreement was accepted by Council on May 15, 1978.
The purpose of the agreement was to fulfill requirements of
street construction prior to recording a Parcel Map. There
was also at that time, a cash deposit for street work and a
bond for a block wall accepted by the County. The present
bonds and agreements for street improvements are for Parcel
3 and 4 as shown on the attached map.
Since the date of acceptance, there was a street plan approved
for the required improvements on Foothill Blvd. However, the
commencement of installing said improvements has not taken
place and no permit has been issued for inspection.
Those who have been held accountable for the installation of
said improvements have requested that the time of performance
be extended. The City Engineering Staff prepared extension
request forms for the developers use and suggested a six month
extension.
The City Staff has worked diligently with developers for Gemco
(see Map, Parcel 1) and Western Commercial Properties (Parcel
2). Indications to date are that both are scheduling con-
struction in 6 to 12 months.
Presently Parcel 3 and 4 are recognized as potential public
health and safety hazards due to water ponding. When the
developments on Parcel 1 and 2 commence, the hazards on 3 and
4 will increase significantly.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council grant the 6 month extension.
Further, it is recommended that Council direct the City
Engineer to notify the concerned parties of the extension.
Further, that each party be instructed to pursue with all
diligence the completion of the required improvements. There-
by indicating the City's desire that the existing hazard be
eliminated prior to impending development of Parcels 1 and 2.
LnN:JLM:jaa
Attachments
/.J
5AN BERNARDIND
W �
4
I
a THOM4f FU7UQE
Q
Y WINERT GEMCO I
u1 51 T E
,
FOOTHILL
r-I
►J
W
TRACT I.ID BA 67
'a
: •
a
O O
BLVD.
NORTH
CITY OF
ITEM; MINOR
SUB NO 77.0(('55
/ `
RANCI K) CUCANIONGA
TITLE; AGREEMENT TIME EETENSION
•
EXHIBIT:-SCALE:
1"400'
l�
•LEO "Oi1 TiC:;'.5, 5315 :;CtT ;7r 30YAt. :'RIVE, LC6 A'1Ci:I:`5, 0'' +I.IF01 N, 90011
May G, 198.0
City of Rancho Cucamonga,
Cucamonga, California
Dcsr airs:
It hLs .just heeu bro.aght to my atten-
tion that there w.:s a t.+o ,Year li : ^,it for
nerfoe ^ante on instillation of the curb
and gutter on Parcel f3 (see rii.Acram attached).
I wig not aware of this time factor.
•
As : +on are all +are, there is a c-;nh
bond of 3;.T "1,00 to insure this performance.
Unfortunately, I was not apprises of
this fact a::d find it impossible to facili-
tate this installation at this time.
Therefore , I respectfully rep uest
your approval of the suggested six month
extension.
Think you, sincerely,
Leonora Thnnas 1' j; �' ! V [. V
C11Y CT Rld+Ct o CUCAMONGA
COMtdUNITY CEVE'OPIdENT DEPT.
cc; •Tolm P. Coman, Fsq. I,j ftY 1 `% 1980
Iuca, L.atO Co. AM PM
7i8t9i101Ilt12t1tztJl9i5iG
Leonora Thnnas 1' j; �' ! V [. V
C11Y CT Rld+Ct o CUCAMONGA
COMtdUNITY CEVE'OPIdENT DEPT.
cc; •Tolm P. Coman, Fsq. I,j ftY 1 `% 1980
Iuca, L.atO Co. AM PM
7i8t9i101Ilt12t1tztJl9i5iG
Date:
5 .a (0 13 a
Honorable City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
RE: TRACT No,MS 77 -0655 .
BOND NO. Cash
Gentlemen:
Itis hereby requested, by the undersigned, that the time be extended for a
period of SIX months to complete the required improvements as providad
for in the Subdivision Agreement of the above referenced tract for the following
SURETY OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
ACX.NOWLEDGEMBNT
By:_
Date:
) 0
DATE EXTENSION APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL:
CITY ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION: CITY PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION:
_Approval Disapproval --Approval Disapproval
By: By:
Date: Date:
COr1V1()N,A COUNTY WATER CISTRICT
cc: Surnty or Financial Institution RECOMMENDATION:
City Engineer
—.—Approval Disapproval
D'/:
i
11�
suety of
March 14, 1980
\NCFIO
CUCA NIONGA
Ms. Leonara Thomas at al
234 East Avenue 41, 1.2
Los Angeles, CA. 90031
Re: Minor Subdivision on Foothill at Lion Street (77 -0655)
Dear Ms. Thomas:
The subdivision for the land on the northside of Foothill at Lion was conditionally
approved by the County on January 20, 1978 (see enclosure).
Prior to the Final approval and recording of the Parcel Map, securities were
required for /or installation of,street improvements. Enclosed please find a receipt
and letter of acknowledgement to the deposit of 54,000 from you, in accordance with
the County's conditions. At that same time a bond from Lewis Homes, and an Agreement
and Bond from Robert Packer were also accepted. All of these were accepted in lieu
of constructing the required improvements on May 15, 1980,
The County, then followed their Ordinances and State Law by the issuance of an
agroement to install the required improvements within two years and allowed the map
to record so that land could be sold.
Please be informed that the two year time agreement will expire on May 15, 1980.
Therefore, enclosed for your use, is an extension request form, Should you wish
•
pursue an extension request through the City Council, the attached forms are to be
used. These should be accompanied by a statement of the reason for the requested
extension and a schedule of completion for the improvements.
If we receive no response by May 15, 1980 we will assume you have no interest in
extending the time agreement. Council will then be free to make a decision on the
outcome of your subdivision, cash deposit and agreement without your approval.
In the meantime should you have any questions, please contact John Martin of this
office at (714) 989 -1851.
Very truly yours,
CO'P4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Lloyd D. Hubbs,
`�j7,f gr�"
John L hart
in
Assistant Civil Engineer
• Enclosure:
cc: City r uuil Ron Dougherty, City Attorney
City I•lanager• Lewis Homes
Lucas Land Co. Robert Packer
POST 0I I'ICI( nnx 7,�1, R,\ UCMIONGA. r }11,IPORNIA 'it 7.10 (714) 989.1851
17
0
•
QTY OF RANCHO CUCAWMA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 29, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Lien Agreement (Wes Bonneville)
The City Attorney (Bob Dougherty) has drafted a Lien
Agreement which was executed by Wes Bonneville pursuant
to City Council Resolution 80 -38.
The Agreement is herewith submitted for Council accep-
tance by resolution and will allow the postponement of
street improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution directing the Mayor to sign the lien agreement
on behalf of the City.
Respectfully submitted,
VW
U,
LBII: JLM: j as
Attachment
C�")V
24 11, St.
zo
SUMMIT
CITY OF
RANCI10 CUCINAUNGA
ITENL
AVE
v �
NORTI I
TITI,17: 90 NNEVILLE LEIN CGCNMT.
GXHI BIT: _`SCALG: N.T.S.
0
0
so
WHEN RECORDED MAIL 'P0:
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 20th day of
Mav 1980, by and between JOSEPH W. BONNEVILLE
and REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE (hereinafter referred to as "Developers "),
and the CITY OF,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corpora-
tion (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, includ-
ing curbs, gutters and pavement, adjacent to the property to be de-
veloped; 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 Developers enter into this Agreement requiring Developers to
construct said improvements, at no expense to the City, after de-
mand to do so by the City, which said Agreement shall also provide
that the City may construct said improvements if the Developers
fail or noglect to do so and that the City shall have a lien upon
the real property hereinafter described as security for the De-
velopers' performance, and any repayment clue City.
NOW, THEREFORE, Till-, PARTIES AGREE:
• 1. DevcIOPQrs hereby agree that they will install off -
site street improvements, inc Ludinq curbs, gutters and pavement,
in accordance and compliance with I^//tea/ /ill applicable ordinances, reso-
and along the westerly one -half ;1/2) of the extension of East
Avenue adjacent to Developers' property hereinafter described.
2. The installation of said improvements shall be com-
pleted not later than one (1) year following written notice to De- •
velopers from the City to commence installation of the same. In-
stallation of said improvements shall be at no expense to the City.
3. In the event Developers fail or refuse to complete the
installation of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at
any time thereafter, upon giving Developers 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 Developers.
4. To secure the performance by Developers of the terms
and conditions of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to
City cf•any funds which may be expended by City in completing said
improvements upon default by Developers hereunder, Developers do •
by these presents grant, 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. 1 of Parcel Map number 3213 as per
map recorded in Book 28 of Parcel Maps,
page 77, records of said county.
5. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purposes
described above.
6. Now, therefore, if the Developers shall faithfully per-
form all of the acts and things by them to be done under this Agree-
ment, then this conveyance shall be void; otherwise, it shall re-
main in. full force and effect and in all respects shall. be con -
si.doreci and treated as a mortgngo on the real property and the
rights and obl,igaLions of the parties with respect thereto shall
be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the State of
California, and any other appliC98 5 statute, pertaining to mort-
to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors
• and assigns of each of the parties hereto.
ment as a mortgage, the term "Developers" shall mean "mortgagors"
and the City shall be the "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 pro-
visions of this'Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is en-
titled to recover from Developers hereunder or to foreclose the
right of the Developers to redeem the above - described property from
the mortgage created hereby, then the prevailing party shall be en-
titled 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
Agree^.ent on the day and year first above written.
CITY: DEVELOPERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, a municipal
corporation �1 -,
JO PH W. BONNEVILLE 7
REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE
3Y;
PHILLIP D. $CHLOSSER
Mayor
ATTEST:
• LAUREN J 4LISSERMAN
City Clerk
Ml
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL
• PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
FROM JOSEPH W. BONNEVILLE AND REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE
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 on May 7, 1980, to es-
tablish requirements for landlocked parcels where no subdivision
is occurring; and,
WHEREAS, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3213 as per map re-
corded in Book 28 of Parcel Maps, Page 77, records of the County
of San Bernardino, State of California, is a landlocked parcel
within the meaning of said Resolution No. 60-38; and,
WHEREAS, Joseph W. Bonneville and Rebecca A. Bonneville
have provided the dedications required by Resolution No. 80 -38
and have 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 Improvement 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 day of
1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
•
City Clerk
IN
`]
I—
L-1
STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Ordinance 105, Report No. 2
The first staff report submitted to Council on May 15, and this
writer's verbal presentation to Council on May 21, covered the
Ordinance and it's ramifications. We will not further review
that information here.
The central issues rest on: Do we as a City provide a park system that
will grant future residents the park and recreational opportunities
afforded through a well planned community? And, do we secure and utilize
every resource at our disposal? In my opinion, we "do" and we "must ".
The five acre standard has been challenged as excessive. It is not.
It is the national standard for a Community (district) and Neighborhood
Parks program. Similar standards are held throughout the area.
The Ordinance has been challenged as the City's method of Providing a
park system for the already developed segments of our City. It is not.
The Subdivision Map Act states (paraphrased) 'that the dedication or in
lieu fees will bear a reasonable relationship to the resident of the
assessed subdivision'. Further, "105" is only one tool in our program
for providing a balanced park system. Other such tools (and they will
be utilized in retrofitting existing areas with park amenities) are
State and Federal Grants, the general fund, anH private donations.
The amounty of in lieu fees resulting from the application of "105"
formula has been challenged as excessive. It is not. It is the actual
cost of land and development to implement the standard of 5 acres per
1000 population. It bears no relation to the existing tax levied by
Ordinance 8, nor does it bear any relationship to what Upland charges,
Fontana charges, or what Irvine charges. It bears relationship only to
what it costs to implement the 5 acre per 100 standard. The area for
adjustment of in lieu fees is not contained in the formula, but in what
standard our City will provide in the way of recreational opportunity for
future residents. In short, if we have no real methods of achieving a
goal of 5 acres per thousand, let us not have such a goal..
Staff recommendations: Give second reading to Ordinance 105, as presented
on June 4, 1980
I request the opportunity to sit and discuss with each of you, at your
convenience, any concerns or questions which you may have on "105 ".
Thank. you.
Ad t: Staff Report 5/15/80
R. Lewis letter 5/15/80
Ordinance 105
- -- CITY OF RANCHO CCCMXO A ocicn,uo
STAFF, REPORT ter. ;A
May 15, 1980 p
>• n
E U
UL-
To: City Council and City Manager 1977
Prom: Rill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
Subject: Park Dedication in Subdivisions:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has demonstrated through past actions,
a commitment to provide park and recreation services to the residents
of our community.
The question is, in lightof the current receding grant market and the
lack of viability of the general obligation bond, how do we "guarantee"
that commitment to continue for future residents and generations?
At this time, the best avenue of approach to that guarantee is the Quimby
Act. The attached Ordinance is offered as Rancho Cucamonga's application
of that Act.
The balance of this report will be divided into three segments:
• The Ordinance
Ramifications
Recommendations
The Ordinance
This proposed Ordinance is available for City enactment through the
enabling provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, State of California.
(excerpt attached.) These provisions, commonly referred to as the
Quimby Act, are in wide application throughout the state. The attached
Ordinance is based on Ordinance 2126, drafted, reviewed, refined and
adopted on behalf of County Service Area No. 50 by the Board of Supervisors
in June of 1977. Much of the language in the Ordinance is quoted directly
from the Quimby text. The formula featured is designed to reflect current
market vaules and is not subject to inflationary loss as would be annually
revised "flat fees ". hhile the initial impression of the formula is that
is is one of complication, worked out, it is very simple.
Example: Lovely Meadows Subdivision
N = 87 lots
S 5 acres per one thousand population set as the City park standard
P .3.2 population per dwelling unit as determined by latest census
L = $20,000 per acre fair market value of land
D - $40,000 per acre development cost of parkland
NS L-D) = minimum fee or 87 x S x 3.220.000 - 40,000) = $83,520
,I 1000
o27
Staff Report - pg. 2
5/15/80
subj: Park Dedication in Subdivision
•
This figure of $83,520 breaks down to $960 per home.
The question is always asked "how does this compare to other cities ?" The
answer, depending on the cities selected for the survey, could show it to
be too low, exactly average, or too high. The more important aspect of the
formula is the recognition that is is tied to "true" per costs.
That is, "How much will it cost to buy park land now and to develop it ".
The balance of the Ordinance is fairly clear and will not herein be further
elaborated upon.
Ramifications
Negative:
I) Developers will not like the Ordinance as they will claim
it requires more out front investment. It will.
2) It will be said that it will raise the cost of the house
to the buyer. It will.
3) Developers will claim that the City is relying exclusively
on new development to pay for and build park system. Not true.
(a) The "P" factor relates to the parkland requirement of
the particular subdivision and its residents; •
(b) General funds are also allocated for park and recreation
purposes;
(c) Other ave.iues are also being utilized to develop park
and recreation facilities, such as 74 and 76 Bond Act,
SB 174, and CDBG Funds.
Positive:
1) In the developing areas of our City, we will be ale to
meet our "commitment and obligation" to the future
residents and generations for open parklands and family
play areas.
There are other positive factors, but the above is the real issue and must stand
alone.
E
v
Staff Report - pg. 3
5/15/80
Park Dedication in Subdivisions
•
Recommendation:
Recommend that:
•
1) Council give First Reading to the proposed Ordinance
on May 21, 1980.
2) After Second Reading on June 4, adopt resolutions that:
(a) Set standard for park acreage ( "S ") at 5 acres per
1,000 population as recommended in general plan; and
(b) Set park acre development cost ( "D ") with a provision
for a twice yearly Council review of that figure.
(Item 2 of this Recommendation is a separate issue from this Ordinance and is
brought up at this point only to fill out the full picture a little more clearly.)
If you have any questions prior to the meeting, I will be happy to address them.
Thank you.
1
B11/mw
C�,�
1156 N MOUNTAIN AVENUE
LEWIS NOMQS P.0.80 %870
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786 •
(716) 985-0971
BUILDERS Of FINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
May 15, 1980
Mr. Fred Etzel
Sedway -Cooke
325 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
Dear Mr. Etzel:
I appreciated the chance to see your latest General Plan version at the
May 10 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting. All in all, it seems to be
a forward- looking and sensible plan, but a feul things concern me. I'd
like to explain some of the points I raised at the meeting.
One of my big concerns is the land use at the northeast corner of •
Foothill and Haven, Your layout showed institutional uses at that
corner. This contradicts the clear direction given by the City Council
at its March 27, 1980 special meeting. The motion made and passed by
the Council was:
The Council and staff suggest to the City general planning consul-
tant that they consider a regional center located at Foothill
Boulevard and I -15 and a major community center at Foothill and
Haven, northeast corner of Foothill and Haven; and that a draft
general plan be prepared for public hearing.
It was also made very clear during the meeting that by "major community
center" the Council meant a major community shopping center as well as
some civic or community uses. The enclosed excerpts from the minutes
of the Council meeting leave no doubt that the Council intended a major
commercial center at Foothill and Haven.
The major commercial use at Foothill and Haven has already been decided
by the City Council. This is not something to be planned or debated.
The Council acted after repeated hearings and discussion, during all
of which it was clear that Foothill and Haven was to serve the shopping
and commercial needs of the community in the same way that the regional
center is to serve the needs of the region. To show purely institutional
uses at that corner contradicts not only what we want but what the City
has clearly decided it wants. .
- 1 -
3d
Mr. Fred Etzel - 2 - May 15, 1980
• The minutes of the March 24, 1980 Planning Commission meeting are not
yet available, but at that meeting it was clarified by Jack Lam that a
community center is a shopping center anchored by one or more department
stores, oriented to the needs of the community and smaller than a
regional center. After that explanation, the word "major" was added
to the motion before the Commission to indicate that the center at
Foothill and Haven was to be larger (with more than one department
store anchor) and also different from the typical community shopping
• center. It was clear that both the Commission and the Council wanted
special treatment for this corner in terms of its design and that
they wanted some community uses integrated with it, but it was never
intended that it not be commercial as well.
Our intention is to provide a combination of commercial, office, and
community facilities in and around the Foothill and Haven intersection.
We feel these uses can be integrated with landscaping and open space to
create the type of town center that the City has indicated it wants.
I feel your General Plan draft should reflect what the City has asked
for and what we intend to provide.
My second major concern is parks. The plan you showed the CAC on
Saturday has a large park east of Haven near Base Line, in addition to
smaller parks and greenbelts. No one is against a district or citywide
park, but having one at this location is, I think, a new idea. In our
discussions with the City over the last few years, to my knowledge, no
• one has suggested that we plan a large citywide park on our land in
addition to the normal park area that will serve our residents. A large
park was shown by Blayney but it was my impression that the City had
decided they didn't want it, probably because they couldn't afford it -
the land (which is very expensive), the improvements, or the maintenance.
The greenbelt we proposed seemed to be what the City wanted.
My point about this park is that the City would have to buy the land,
since it would be a park to serve the entire City. That land is prob-
ably worth about $40,000 an acre (we just paid $57,000 an acre up the
street, and other builders are willing to pay more than $40,000 for sites
within our project). At $40,000 an acre, 100 acres for a park amounts to
$4,000,000 in land cost, plus the cost of improvements and maintenance.
Where will the City get the money for this7 If the City does not know
where that money will come from, it does not seem responsible to show
the park on the plan. I realize that the park and recreation element
of the General Plan will address funding, but in these post- Proposition
13 days it seems highly unlikely that the money for such a large park on
such expensive land will be available. It is desirable to have a city
park, but to be able to realize that goal, it would seem more sensible
to site the park a little farther out where the land is less expensive.
In a nutshell, if the park is in that location, it will be expensive
for the City to buy; and if the City does not have the money to buy real
estate that expensive, then I feel your plan should not show the park on
such a choice site. From our point of view, of course, placing the park
3�
Mr. Fred Etzel - 3 - May 15, 1980
there throws a lot of our plans out the window. It seems both the City •
and we lose if the park is shown there on the General Plan but in reality
cannot be actually acquired and developed. We lose because we can't do
something else with the land, and the City loses because the less expen-
sive, more feasible sites will have already been zoned and developed in
other ways.
I also want to point out what seemed to be a misunderstanding about park
dedication requirements. Some of the people at the CAC meeting were
quoting from the Master Plan of Parks and Recreation draft to justify
a park dedication requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 population. The
standards cited in the draft do add up to 5 acres per 1,000 (2.5 acres
of neighborhood parks and 2.5 acres of district parks). The point that
I think was missed is that not all of those acres are acquired through
developer dedications. As the report makes clear, there are many other
ways that a city acquires park area, including purchase, outright gifts,
use of school facilities, and use of utility, flood control, and trans-
portation rights of way. The city also has the use of park and recrea-
tion facilities that are provided and financed at the regional or county
level. So while the City may rightly want to end up with 5 acres of
park per 1,000 population, to require that developers dedicate all of
that is extreme.
A park dedication requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 would be far above
national standards and would run up housing costs. It would be an
excessive requirement that would make it even more difficult for us to
provide affordable housing. With a land value of $40,000 per acre, the •
cast of this dedication would be $600 to each new home buyer. That
would raise the price enough to disqualify some buyers who could other-
wise have afforded a new home. The actual cost to the home buyer, after
that $600 is amortized over the life of the mortgage, is probably two or
three times as much. In effect, the new home buyer in our project
would be paying for twice as much park as the normal standard in order
to subsidize people who already live in the City. I can't help feeling
that the sentiment for excessive park dedications would dwindle consider-
ably if the people asking for it were going to be the people paying for it.
The figure of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population had been used in our
informal discussions with City staff. That is a sensible figure and
in line with dedication requirements elsewhere. We are glad to provide
our fair share of park, but we don't feel our new home buyers should
pay for all the park in the City. Part of it should, as usual, be
bought by the City with the cost shared by all the City's residents,
not iust the newcomers.
I mentioned a few other points at the CAC meeting:
1. The plan showed single- family at the northwest corner of
19th and Feryl. We are building apartments there right now.
2. The plan showed a neighborhood shopping center on Haven
between Church and Foothill. We. are preparing to submit an •
application for a neighborhood center at Haven and Base Line,
which we feel is a more logical location.
3c2
Mr. Fred Etzel - d - May 15, 1980
• 3. The plan showed low density residential at the northwest
corner of Rochester and Foothill. He feel that corner should
be in commercial use. It is presently zoned for commercial
and has been for many years. It has been our experience that
people do not like to live right next to major traffic thorough-
fares such as Foothill. High density residential uses can work
if they are planned correctly, but we have found that families
simply do not want to live in single - family houses on major
arterials if they have a choice.
I offer these comments in a spirit of cooperation and hope they can be
incorporated into your thinking.
Very truly yours,
Ralph M. Lewis
Chairman of the Board
Enc.
cc: Jack Lam
Barry Hogan
•
0
33
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULA-
TONS FOR DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF FEES, OR
BOTH, FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND IN SUBDIVISIONS
AND PLANNED COMMUNITIES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Intent and General Provisions. The intent of this
ordinance is to provide for the development of park and recreational
facilities through subdivision regulations, in an area where the need
for parks has been determined. Each subdivider of land for residential
use, shall, as a condition to the approval of a final parcel map, final
subdivision map, or planned community, dedicate lands or pay fees in
lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and /or recreational
purposes. Dedication requirements shall be conveyed to the City concurrent
to recordation of the final parcel map or final subdivision map or prior
to issuance of building permits. In lieu fees shall be paid to the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
Section 2. Requirements. Land or fees required under this
section shall be conveyed or paid directly to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The City in accepting such land or funds shall develop the land or use
the funds as herein provided:
(A) Use of Land and Fees. The land, fees, or combination
thereof are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational
facilities which will reasonably serve or benefit future residents of
• such subdivision.
(B) Establishment and Development Time. Any fees collected
under this ordinance shall be committed within five (5) years after the
payment of such fees or the issuance of building permits on one -half of
the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If such
fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and paid to the then
record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of
their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision.
(C) Land Disposition. In the event that opportunities
for better recreation facilities than those provided by the dedication
materialize, the land so dedicated may be sold with the proceeds there-
from being used for suitable park and recreation facilities which serve
the neighborhood in which that subdivision is located.
(D) Only the payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions
of less than fifty (50) lots unless agreed otherwise by the City Council
and the subdivider,
(E) Standards for Dedication, The amount of land to be
dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to
the use of benefits of the park and recreation facilities by the future
residents of the subdivision. The City Council hereby establishes a
ratio of five (5) park acres to one thousand (1,000) population, in
accordance with the adopted Park and Recreation Element of the City's
Gen ^ral Plan.
(F) Amount of Park Fees Required. When the requirements
of this code are complied with on the basis of providing park fees, the
minimum amount of fees to be paid shall be computed by using the following
formula. 73�L
NSP (L +D )
= minimum fee
1,000
WHERE:
N = number of proposed dwelling units.
•
S = planned park acreage per 1,000 population.
P = population per dwelling unit on a scale and
density set by the responsible public agency.
L = fair market value of parkland per acre as
represented by the land being subdivided.
D = average cost per acre to develop park as
determined by the public agency.
(G) Amount of Land Required. Whenever the requirements
of this section are complied with on the basis of providing park land,
the minimum amount of land required shall be the amount which could be
purchased with the fees computed in Section 2(F).
(H) Park and Recreational Use Land Fair Market Value.
The fair market value shall be determined at the time of recordation
of the parcel map or final map in accordance with the following criteria:
(1) The fair market value as determined by the
City Council; or,
(2) If the subdivider objects to such evaluation
he may, at his own expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a
•
qualified real estate appraiser from the general area approved by the
City, which appraisal may be accepted by the City Council if found
reasonable
(I) Combination of Park Land and Fees Required.
When a combination of land dedication and in lieu fees are required
as a condition of approval, the fair market value of the land to be
dedicated, as determined pursuant to Section 2(H), and the in lieu
fees, as computed under Section 2(F), shall be of an equal value to
provision of Section 2(F) applied to the entire subdivision or planned
community.
Section 3: Procedure. The requirements of this Ordinance shall
be met concurrent to the approval of the final parcel map, final subdivision
map, or the planned community, or prior to issuance of building permits,
by the provision of park land in whole or in part, the payment of a
park fee, or by a combination of both as required by the City Council.
(A) City Option. At the time of filing a tentative
tract map or a minor subdivision plat for approval, the City shall
determine whether dedication of property for park and recreational
purposes or in lieu of fees are necessary. If the City desires dedication,
the area shall be designated on the tentative tract map when submitted.
(li) Action of City. At the time of the tentative tract
•
map approval, the Planning Commission shall determine as part of such
approval, whether to require a dedication of land within the subdivision,
payment of a fee in lieu thereof, � combination of both.
th _ 11 ACC. al _ _
the same shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of
building permits.
(D) Determination. The Planning Commission shall
determine whether to require land dedication, require payment of a fee
' in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, by consideration of the
following:
(1) Recreational element of the general plan; and
(2) Topography, geology, access and location of
land in the subdivision available for dedication; and
(3) Size and shape of the subdivision and land
available for subdivision.
(E) Park and Recreational Use Land - Credit for Private
Open Space. Where private open space for park and recreational purposes
is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately
owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, such
areas shall be credited up to fifty (50) percent against the requirement
of dedication for park and recreation purposes, as set forth in Section
2(G), provided the Palnning Commission finds it is in the public interest
to do so, and that the following standards are met:
(1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other
open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations
shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and
(2) That the private ownership and maintenance of
the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and
• (3) That the use of the private open space is
restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants
which run with the land in favor of the future owners of the property
within the tract; and
(4) That the proposed private open space is reasonably
adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration
such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of
the private open space land; and
(5) That Facilities proposed for the open space are
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element
of the general plan, and are approved by the Planning Commission.
(F) Park and Recreational LandCredit for Planned Communities.
Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided
in a planned community and portions of or all such space is to be privately
owned and maintained by the future residents of the planned community,
credit against the requirement of dedication for park and recreational
purposes, as set forth in Section 2(G) shall be determined through the
adoption of the planned community text provided, however, that the park
standard for said planned community is the same as for any other development
and that the Planning Commission finds it is in the public interest to
do so, and that the following standards are met:
(1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other
open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations
shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and
(2) That the prriivate ownership and maintenance of
the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and
(3) That the use of the private open space is
restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants
which run with the land in favor of the future owners of the property
within the tract; and .
(4) That the proposed private open space is
reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking
into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology,
access and location of the private open space land; and
(5) That Facilities proposed for the open space are
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element
of the general plan, and are approved by the Planning Commission.
Section 4. Exemptions. The provisions of this Ordinance do
not ap;,ly to coamnerciai or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply
to condominium projects which consist of the subdivision of airspace
in an existing apartment building which is more than five (5) years
old when no new dwelling units are added.
Section 5, Severability. If any subsection, subdivision
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in the ordinance, or any part
thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections of
portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby
declared that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional. •
Section 6. Enactment. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance
and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall
cause the some 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, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
37
•
0
\J
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGX
STAFF REPORT
May 28, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Resolution regarding park development cost per acre
ordinance 105 contains a formula which has as a component part
the cast to develop park land per acre.
Staff is recommending on the basis of an informal survey of park
development contractors, landscape architects and other governmental
agencies, a figure of $40,000 per acre.
This figure of $40,000, is not one that can be precisely determined,
such as twelve inches to a foot or sixteen ounces to a pound. it is
an average. There are several variables that should be considered when
reviewing sample costs, i.e.: how much grading is needed; what are
utility fees (front footage in our instance); restrooms; lighting and
walkways; and, density and types of plant material, to name a few.
These are respresentative of discussions we had with different sectors:
1) Moulder Bros., Inc., Larry Tyler, Vice - President
(Moulder Bros. is one of the largest park development contractors
in the southwest). Tyler said three sample developments they are
involved in currently are as follows:
a) 125 acre nature park @ $30,000 per acre. (includes large
segments of landscape left in a natural state)
b) 30 acre community park @ $40,000 per acre. (includes normal
amenities, restrooms, trees, parking lot, etc.)
c) 20 acre soccer field @ $18,000 per acre. (includes fine grading,
irrigation and turf only, no restrooms, trees, parking lots, etc.)
2) County of San Bernardino, Special Districts Department, Bill Howell.
Based on community park development projects underway at this time
a figure of $40,000 per acre is occuring. (includes grading, turf,
trees and irrigation)
3) City of Riverside, Parks and Recreation Department
Basic cost of development $25,000 per acre. This is minimal
development of land (not including grading), minimal planting,
etc. Trees and other amenities are "add items ". Restrooms
0 $75 per square foot, walkways @ $2 per square foot, etc.
Page 2
Staff Report 5/28/80
Re: Resolution regarding park development cost per acre
•
4) City of Irvine, Community Services, John Defrena
Development cost per acre $45,000 - $60,000 per acre.
Cost includes all park amenities except special structures,
such as tennis courts or community center.
5) Gary Miller, Landscape Architect
Miller tells client in design phase to expect $30,000 - $35,000
per acre for minimal development.
6) City of Chino, Parks Department.
(while I relay these figures for your information, they were
not considered as a base for this recommendation as they were
inconsistant with other sources) $80,000 - $90,000 per acre
for development, excluding special structures.
Summary: A case can be built either way, higher or lower, however,
I believe that a figure of $40,000 per acre is a fair reflection of
what it costs to develop an acre of park land today in Rancho Cucamonga.
If I can answer any questions you may have, please let me know.
BH /mw
•
11
RESOLUTION No. 80 -46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AVERAGE COST PER ACRE TO DEVELOP PARK
LAND IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
has adopted Ordinance 105, relating to regulations for dedications of
land, payment of fees, or both, for park and recreational land in
subdivisions and planned communities; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance 105 establishes a formula requiring as a component,
"(the) average cost per acre to develop park land as determined by
the public agency ";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. That the City Council shall determine and set by resolution
the average cost per acre to develop park land in Rancho
Cucamonga; and
2. That the City Council shall review and adjust, by resolution,
if warranted, the cost per acre to develop park land in Rancho
Cucamonga at the first regular City Council meetings in January
and July, commencing in 1981.
• 3. The average cost per acre to develop park land in Rancho Cucamonga
is hereby established at $40,000 per acre, and it is this figure
of $40,000 per acre that will apply in the application of
Ordinance 105.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1980.
ATTEST:
0 City Clerk
v
Mayor
•
A
ORDINANCE No. B -B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
No. 8, ESTABLISHING RECREATION TAX FOR NEW RES-
IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION, AMOUNTS AND CREDITS THEREOF.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
Section 1: The provision of Ordinance 8 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, shall not apply to residential dwellings
or subdivided land with respect to which the dedication of land, or
the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for
park and recreation purposes, has been required as a condition of the
final map or parcel map.
Section 2: The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the
City clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage,
at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation,
published in the City of Ontario and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1980.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4I
ORDINANCE NO. 106
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 207- 191 -31 AND 26 LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND BAKER
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing
held in the time and manner prescribed by law,
recommends the rezoning of the property herein-
after described, and this City Council has held
a public hearing in the time and manner pres-
scribed by law as duly heard and considered
said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• C. This rezoning will have no significant environ-
mental impact as provided in the Negative
Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
A -1 (limited agriculture) to R -3 (multiple- family
residential).
Said property is located on the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Baker, known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 207 - 191 -31 and 26.
SECTION 3: Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its
passage at least once in The Daily ReporT, a newspaper of general circu-
lation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1980,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lanron M. Wasserman, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 107
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 301 -37 FROM A -1 TO R -1 LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RAMONA AND CHURCH
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing
held in the time and manner prescribed by law,
recommends the rezoning of the property herein-
after described, and this City Council has held
a public hearing in the time and manner pres-
cribed by law as duly heard and considered said
recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environ-
mental impact as provided in the Negative
Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
A -1 (limited agriculture) to R -1 (Single
family residential)
Said property is located on the northeast corner
of Ramona and Church known as Assessor's Parcel
Number 1077 - 301 -37.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The 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 21st day of May, 1980,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
• Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 13
u
ORDINANCE No. 108
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE CHERBAK FAMILY HOME, LOCATED AT 9983
HILLSIDE ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A
SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OF
THE CITY AND THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A
CITY POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that the
Cherbak Family Home, 7983 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamor,3a, has met the
criteria established by Ordinance No. I0 -8 for Historic Preservation, and
therefore, and with the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission,
designates the Cherbak Family Home as a Historic Point of Interest of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once
in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the
City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
• ATTEST:
it�C Prk
•
7
•
CITY OF RANKM CLUAN ONG k
STAFF REPORT
May 28, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Hill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Garrett 6 Company Winery - Historic Landmark
Staff carries this forth on behalf of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
The Garrett b Company Winery, commonly known as the Virginia Dare
Winery, at the north /west corner of Foothill and Haven, is recommended
by the Historic Preservation Commission for Council designation as
a Historic Landmark.
Hon Development Company (not to be confused with the Ernest Hahn
Company of regional shopping centers) is currently working on
a commercial project designed to save and utilize the main structure
on the corner, the "crusher" area, and the two buildings to the rear
of the lot. (see attached)
It has been explained to Andrew Melilli of the Hon Company, that
all normal planning process will still. be followed.
The Historic Preservation Commission request that the Council give
first reading to the Ordinance designating the Garrett and Company
Winery as a Historic Landmark.
BH /mw
attached: Site Plan
Historic Landmark Application
y5
0
CP` e••
e
sa:as oxsvo ]L3+.m �� YVTV1�.�
+ adrvadmo :.
Yo r
�- a{a•Oam
® �mm
."�
El
' � •.t Yllif I .� .
�frl II/u9 Q V.1• VHAI 'I
I
4
ApP1 iC a,;,On .`or % /
HISTORIC LA :2`ARK
Desirna ti on
ID:NT1F1C1T 1C11
1. Cca:non nam.: .VIRGINIA DARE" (Pacific Coast Head uarters Garrett and
2. Historic nave, if known: MISSION WINERYd- (%lusmar. and Post 1910 -1918)
3. Street or rural address: Northwest Corner of Haven Ave and Foothill Blvd.
San
City: Rancho Cucamonga ,CA Zip; 91730 County: Bernardino
T 1 N R TJ
Assessor's parcel no. NE Qtr. Sect 11 Zone:
Legal description:
0
T 7, N_ R 7 W. NE Qtr.. Sect. 11 San Bernardino 14erid
Dr. Jack W. Japenga
4. Present owner, if known: Dr Harry Alexon Address
City: Glendora , CA_ Zip:. Ownership is: public _
privateW
5. Present Use: NONE Original Use: Winery 1911 -18
Plant to manufacture grape Concentrate ( 1918 -33)
Other past uses: Garrett tt£=anndjompnny, After repeal of Prohibbtion Act
q7
E
L
Ll
DESCRIPTION
6. Briefly describe the present physi cal appearance of the site or structure and
describe any major alterations from its original condition:
The present physical appearance of the main structure is primarily
the concrete walls and floor. The wooden roof and facets were destroyed
by. fire in 1964. Six other outbuildings are in various states of
deterioration and disrepair. The building have been excessively van -
dalized.The area is fenced for protection , except for some acreage
behind the buildings. There is a large crack in the east wing of the
main building supported by metal plates and bolts. This is attributed
to the 1932 earthquake, Repaits were made by Earl Gallaher and others
in 1942 .
7. Locational sketch map (draw and label B, Approximate property size:
site and surrounding streets, roads, ,
and prominent landmarks): Lot size feet)
00 °t
lir. .-inia Dare
Q
FOOTHILL
0
2
u
BLVD. (Route
Frontage 3
Depth 300 £t.
or approx. acreage 5 1/2
(( 0 vin al q 0 acres)
9. Conaion: (1G�iet t5 one1
a. Excellent_ b. Good_
c. Fair_ d. Deteriorated XX
Vandalized
e. No longer in existance_
10. Is the feature a. Altered? XX
b. Unaltered? Vanaal—lzed
�f)11, Surroundings: (check more than one
if necessary)
a. Open land XX b. Residential_
c. Scattered buildings XX
d. Densely build -up_
e. Commercial— f. Industrial xx
g. Other_
'T
12. Threats to site
a. done known_ b. Private development xx e. Zoning
d. Public Works Project_ e. Vandalism_ f. Other
Earl Gallaher 1956
13. Oates of enclosed photograph(s) Leonard R. Gorezyca 1979
NOTE: The following (Items 14 -19) are for structures only.
14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone_ b. Brick_
C. Stucco d. Adobe _. e. Wood XX f. Other Cpnerete
1S. Is the structure: a. On its original site ?XXX b. Moved? •
c. Unknown? ,
16. Year of initial construction 191Q This date is: a. Factual ---
b. Estimated
as repor ted
Same architect that designed the Mission Inn
17. Architect (if known): 'iri "Riverside "California '
18. Builder (if known): Klusman and Post (191T, ...:
19. Related features: a. Barn_ b. Carriage house__ C. Outhouse_
d. Shed(s) e. Formal gardens) f. Windmill
g. Watortower /tankhouse h. Other xx i. None
6 Buildings
u
0
SIGNIFICANCE
20. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates,
events, and persons associated with the site when known):
Mission Winery reported as built in 1910 by Klusman and Post. It was
leased by Garrett and Company in 1912. Surrounded by 750 acres of
vineyards. The Company bought the Winery in 1918. With Prohibition
the Virginia Dare grape concentrate manufacture began, and lasted
until 1933. With repeal of Prohibition Act wine production rezumed.
Operated until June 30,1962. Sold on July 15, 1962 to a Mr. Galwert( ?)
for approximately $ 500,000.
21. Main theme of the historic resource: (check only one): a. Architecture
b. Arts 8 Leisure_ c. Economic /Industrial xxx d. Government
e. Exploration /Settlement f. Military_ g. Religion
• h. Social /Education
22. Seurc s: List hooks, documents surveys, perso al intervi %as, and th it dates.
L:ghei Over the Mountain - bon Clucas 197. Daily eport 113/74 Peraza
(by Jar. Cleveland. Sun Telegram, 9/15/75/) Earl Gallaher employee
of Garret and Co. 1936 -61)) Parsppnal nterview }/17/ ttached.
�2 hapt 'n• tker mployee t' y2. G}uc onn e �%c Na 23. l7 a�e orm �'Pe pa re��� -�6{� �t�an�e'7. %onA d �0Y N
Address: 7426 Onyx Ave/ City: Rancho Cucamonga , CAZip: 91730
Phone: 987 -3234 Organization: Chairman- Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Preservation Commission.
'!0
ORDINANCE No 109
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE
GARRETT AND COMPANY WINERY AS A SIGNIFICANT
. HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE
DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that the
following features of the Garrett and Company winery (Virginia Dare t.m.)
have met the criteria established by Ordinance No. 70 for Historic Preservation
within the City, and therefore, and with the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission designates these features of the Garret and Company
winery (Virginia Dare t.m.) a Historic Landmark of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. The main winery building of approximately
31,500 sq. ft. fronting on Foothill Blvd.
and Haven Avenue.
2. The two auxiliary buildings of approximately
3,780 and 3,312 sq, ft. located directly behind and
to the north of the main building.
• 3. The crusher area of approximately 480 sq. ft.
located in an area north of the main building.
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to
be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in
The Daily Aeport, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City
of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
�� Mayor
0
L
CITY OF RANCHO CUC WNGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 22, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Vacation of 19th Street At Ramona
The subject vacation was requested by Vanguard Companies
to vacate a portion of 19th Street in order to clear
title on a piece of property to which the City owns an
underlying fee. Since CalTrans has previously vacated
this portion, there is no longer a need for Public use
and maintenance.
The City Council adopted Resolution of Intention to
Vacate No. 80 -44 on May 7, 1980.
RECOMMENDATION:
1977
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached
resolution ordering the vacation of 19th Street and direct
the City Clerk to cause a certified copy of the resolution
and attached legals to be recorded with the County Recorder.
Respectfully submitted,
Lloy- d B. Hubbs
City Engineer
LBH:SK:jaa
Attachments
i
0
o�
Lei NORTH
�Q
CITY OIL ITE.M.: VACATION OF 171'n ST.
RANCHO CCCANdO \GA TITLE \L 00-7
L\HII31T SC,\I.E; N.T.S.
S3
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -50
• 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 19TH STREET, AS
SHOWN ON MAP (NO.V -007) ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 80 -44, passed on May 7, 1980,
the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga declared its intention
to vacate a portion of a City street hereinafter more particularly
described, and set the hour of 7:00 p.m. on .Tune 4, 1980, in the
Lion's Park Community Center Building, located at 9161 Baseline,
Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time and place for hearing all
persons objecting to the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, such public hearing has been held at said time and
place, there were no protests, oral or written, to such vacation;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council hereby finds from all the evidence
submitted that a portion of 19th Street is unnecessary for present or
prospective public street purposes, and the City Council hereby makes
• its order vacating that portion of said City street as shown on Map
N. V -007 on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description
which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A ", and by reference made
a part thereof.
SECTION 2: The Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this
resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San
Bernardino County, California.
SECTION 1: The Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and
be in force.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTF,ST:
Lauren M rm
. Wassean, City Clerk
J
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF .
A PORTION OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA AVENUE
That portion of Nineteenth Street formerly known as Olive Street, as
dedicated for public street and being shown as lying adjoining the South
line of Lot 27, of the Foothill Frostless Fruit Company's Tract No. 2,
as per plat recorded in Book 20 of Maps, page 34, said Nineteenth Street
is now delineated on being shown as lying South of and adjoining the
South line of Parcel No. 3 of Parcel Map No. 3713, as per plat recorded
in Book 34 of Parcel Maps, pages 18 and 19, (said Farcel Map. No. 3713
being a division of said Lots 25 and 27 of said Foothill Frostless
Fruit Company's Tract No. 2), all in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
County of San Bernardino, State of California, and more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of Parcel No. 3, of Parcel Map No. 3713,
as per plat recorded in Book 34 of Parcel Maps, pages 18 and 19, records
of said County, said Southeast corner being South 890,44',46" West 16
feet from the Southeast corner of Lot 27, of the Foothill Frostless
Fruit Company's Tract No. 2 and being the West 16 feet of Ramona Avenue
as vacated and abandoned by the Board of Supervisors of said County,
dated March 25, 1935, thence from said point of beginning South 890,
44', 46" West along the North line of Nineteenth Street said North line
also being the South line of said Parcel No. 3 and also being the South •
line of said Lot 27 a distance of 155.24 feet; thence South 810, 23',
33" East to a point that is South 00, 31', 17" East from the point of
beginning; thence North 00, 31', 17" West to the point of beginning.
•
15�—
•
•
10
— — CITY OF RANCHO C XAbNX\1GX
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 29, 1980
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
Oho CJCn.NOnc7
{r
F � Z
U >
1977
SUBJECT: Reduction of Speed Limit on a Portion of Sapphire St.
A review of the speed limit on Sapphire St. was recently
completed and resulted in the conduct of a "Traffic and
Engineering Survey" on the portion of Sapphire between 19th
St. and Banyan St. This survey is required by State law
and City ordinance and the speed limit on a street such as
Sapphire must be in conformance with such a survey for radar
enforcement to be legal.
The present speed limit on Sapphire St. is valid for about
another three years based on the previous engineering survey.
Since the completion of that survey, additional development
has occurred on Sapphire south of Banyan in the form of
single family houses fronting on the street. The prevailing
speed of traffic on Sapphire remains at between 45 and 50
MPH and accident history is as shown on the attached speed
survey form.
In conducting the engineering survey required by law, items
which are considered are (1) the "critical" or 85 TH per-
centile speed, (2) accident history, and (3) hazards not
readily apparent to the driver. The most significant of
these is the critical speed, which can also be called the
prevailing speed of traffic. This is the speed below which
858 of all traffic travels. It has been found that the
closer a speed limit is set to this speed, the more extremely
fast and slow drivers change speeds to conform to the majority.
If the speed limit is set more than about 10 MPH above or
below the "critical ", there is no effect on traffic speeds.
The reason for this is that the majority of drivers are
reasonable and prudent people and are able to select a safe
speed, based on the roadside conditions evident to them.
In measuring and examining the spread of speeds in a group
of drivers, it can be seen that about 158 deviate significantly
from the majority at both the fast and slow ends. Thus, the
selection of the "critical" speed which separates prudent
from careless drivers. Speed limits set appreciably below
the critical speed are looked on by drivers as unreasonable
and are ignored, thus causing severe enforcement problems
6�
_ i . v,. _ _ L. .t a
May 29, 1980
Page 2
Because the law so emphasizes the importance of having speed
limits on an engineering survey, most courts have been re-
quiring a close correlation between the posted limit and the
critical speed. This is particularly so with regard to radar
enforcement.
In the case of Sapphire St. from 19th St. to Banyan St.,
the Engineering Division finds that, while the accident
history is good and the hazards which may be present are
evident to drivers, the residential development immediately
fronting the street is marginally sufficient cause to
establish a 40 MPH zone. It should be stressed, however,
that compliance is expected to be quite low and the danger
exists of thus impairing the effectiveness of other speed
zones in the city.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council determines that the reduction of the speed
limit on Sapphire St, as discussed herein is appropriate
it is recommended that Ordinance No. 39 -B be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:PAR:jaa
Attachment
'5_7
•
r1
LJ
•
oAP PHI Rt.
• �G�
BANYAN
AL TA LOMA
N /GNLANO y
GARDEN
19
II
i
H /GNLAND
4^
4' �v
I
W
lc;•
I
I �
I
H /GNLAND
4^
4' �v
I
W
T
Q
0
E
ORDINANCE NO. 39 -B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 39, PERTAINING
TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON SAPPHIRE STREET.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: That Section 5.0 of Ordinance No. 39 is amended
as follows:
Section 5.0. Increasing State Speed limit in Certain Zones
It is hereby determined by City Council Resolution and upon
the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed
Permitted by state law upon the following streets is less than is
necessary for safe operation of vehicles thereon by reason of the
designation and signposting of said streets as through highways and (or)
by reason of widely spaced intersections, and it is hereby declared that
the prima facie speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth on those
streets or parts of streets herein designated when signs are erected
giving notice thereof:
Name of Street of
Portion Affected:
Declared Prima Facie
Speed limit:
I.
Amethyst Street - Baseline north to end of maintenance
35
mph
2.
Beryl Street - Baseline to 800' north of Lemon Avenue
40
mph
3.
Hellman Avenue - Foothill Boulevard to Banyan Street
35
mph
4.
Ninth Street - Grove Avenue to Baker Street
35
mph
S.
Sapphire Street - 19th Street to Banyan Street
40
mph
6.
Sapphire Street - Banyan Street to end of maintenance
45
mph
7.
Vineyard Avenue - Carnelian Avenue to Baseline
40
mph
8.
Wittram Avenue - Etiwanda Avenue to City limit
40
niph
9.
Haven Avenue - Highland Avenue to Wilson Avenue
45
mph
10.
Grove Avenue - Eighth Street to Foothill Boulevard
40
mph
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall siqn this Ordinance and
the
City
Clerk shall cause the Sallie to be published within fifteen (15)
days
after
its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper
of
{general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California,
and
circulated
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1980.
ATTEST:
Lauren -M. Wdsserman-�- Lity-Eierk
S�
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
J
•
0
aTY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA
STAFF REPORT
May 29, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Project Esperanza
Armando Navarro, Director of N.I.C.D., will give Council a
briefing on project status to this point. They are ready to
begin their summer program shortly.
In the City budget you will he reviewing shortly, you will find
a continuation for 80 -81 of Council's direction on logistical
support of Esperanza (rent, utilities, etc.).
You will find attached a budget request submitted by Esperanza
to City 5/27/80. Staff has no recommendation an "new" personnel
request, other than it be carried to the budget process with
total City budget for Council consideration.
A bit of background, however, on why this "new" personnel request
has surfaced, As Council is aware, many grant sources are drying
up. Esperanza will run out of money at the end of September. No
new source of revenue is on the horizon. CETA is untenable, really,
for program leadership (no continuity, and in most instances, little
quality). Art Ayala's funding source is also running out in September.
Navarro is seeking funds from every source available to keep the
program alive.
If you wish any specific information regarding program, let me know.
Att: Budget Synopsis
Progress Report 4/80
Board Minutes 4 /28/80
6 o
National Institute for Community Development
Dr. Armando Navarro
FXeCUbVeDirerfor
894W Rain Avenue
PROJECT BUDGET SYNOPSIS San Bernardino. CA 92410
RANCHO CUCAMONGA 714-888-0207
Project Esperanza will continue to provide areas
of recreation, consumer aid, social service referal, and
job development. For purposes of providing more stability
and continuity for Project Esperanza, the NICD is requesting
$33,002.00. If approved the aformentioned amount will
provide funds for the hiring of two salaried staff persons
and administration. Those positions and administration
will be supplemented by CETA Title II positions and other
resources.
Personnel
Executive Director $ 1,200
Recreation Coordinator 10,500
• Local Service Coordinator 10,500
(Fringe benefits 118) 2,442
Administration:
Rent (12 x 250) $ 5,000
Phone (12 x 80) 960
Utilities (12 x 100) 1,200
Insurance 1,200
Grand Total
&I
$24,642
8,360
$33,002
National Institute for Community Development
Q�
Dr. Armando Navarro
EXeCUULTDireCror .
894 W. Rialto Avenue
San Bernardino. CA 92410
--
714.888 -0207
May 8, 1980
PROJECT PSPERANZA (HOPS)
TO:
FRO:t Sub Grantee
National Institute for Community Delvelopment
Project Esperanza
1GC71 Faroe Bouievard •
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Progress report for the month of Apri1 1980 pursuant to contracf agreement.
Armando Yavarro, Ph. D.
Executive Director
4
Project csperanza's monthly activities for 1980 include the following:
• 1. Administration
2. Job Development
3. Social Service
4. Consumerism in Action
5. Recreation
6. Future Activities
Administration-
Administratively, Project Fsperanza continued to improve. Planning,
coordination, and increased implementation of services was emphasized. The Project
Director continued to satisfactorily implement the Executive Director's administrative
and Programatic directives. Of special concern was maximizing the existing persoanelts
time and energies for purposes of ensuring that Project's various components were
funtional and its goals being realized.
• The realization of the aformentioned was complicated in that any CEMA VI slots
available were frozen, meaning that according to County Manpower all Title VI slots
that have not been filled will not be filled. Without the additional (2) staff e.g.
Job Developers, Social Service Coordinator, the Project's output capability and
efficiency in providing services will be strained. However, adjustments in personnel
responsibilities, are being made to ensure that all services are provided as stipulated
according to the contract.
Ehposure for Project Esperanza's diverse services was also accentuated. The
Project Director on a weekly basis continued to give a summation report en radio R2)ISE.
Moreover, an Open Hcuse was held on April 30 for purposes of disseminating information
on the project. Several dignatories from Rancho Cucamonga, community people, and
members of the press were present. Written paraphernalia on the Project was also produced
and distributed, especially within the Projects targeted area- the barrio.
Project :speranza personnel continued to act as facilitators in the formation of
a Cub and Boy Scout troop. Soldiers for Christ and other groups, such as Conision Fe.enil,
are coatinuein, to use the Center's facilities for meetings. The Upholstery class
continues to draw approximately 20 participants.
Overall, as was stated by the Sheriffs Dept. at Open house, Project Esperanza has been
I viable contributor in lowering the crime rate in the Barrios cf Rancho Cucamonga.
In sun, Project Esneranza is doing em very well. Problems developing st from
insufficient staff and resources, in particular, the latter.
Job Development-
Despite the termination of the Job Developers and the freezing of CG.A vI slots,
�3
Project ?speranza continued its job development efforts. With the assistance of
Mr. Ayala and other staff members, nine persons were placed in diverse jobs. Three
were placed wih Schlosser Forge Co.; three with Westhoff Development Co.; and •
three with Cr am'
nursery. Central problem impeding Project's job development efforts
is the lack of staff. Job development as mentioned is being provided by other staff
who have other job responsibilities.
Social Services-
April was an exceedingly busy month in the area of social services. Attributable
to increased publicity and effectiveness of services being offered, some 150 clients
were served during the month. Calls by people requesting information on a variety of
areas e.g, social security, unemployment,census, etc. increased tremendously. Several
agencies such as the Mexican Consul of San Bernardino, Campesinos Unidos, Welfare
Department, Social Security and Legal Aid visilted.the Center and disseminated information
on the services they offer. `
Social Service personnel continued to make contact with govexmental agencies and
community ''cased organizations for purposes of gathering information on their available
services and programs. During April, efforts were also initiated to squire at least
20 slots under the Spedy Program, The Preceding, if granted, will he part of Project
Fsperanza's Summer Barrio Beautification Program, which will entail assisting low
income families in painting homes. cleaning yards, and in general'inproving the overall
p'iysical appearance of the barrios of Rancho Cucamonga. Furthermore, contact was
made with U.S. Department of Agriculture for purposes of applying for their Summer
Food Service Program.
Recreation:
•
The Recreation program greatly improved. The Project's various recreational activitie
were better coordinated. A schedule was formulated end distributed throughout the
community. The Projects schedule centered on recreational activities from 3 to 7:00 p.m.
and on Saturday's from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Activities included sacs and crafts,
baseball, basketball, ping pong, soccer, and hardball. Special recreational events were
held. For example, on April 19 a painting contest was held for youth between 5 and 12
years old; on April 25, a baseball tournament held; and on April 25 a record Disco
Dance was held which drew some 50 youths.
With most special recreational activities, such as the tournament and dance, besides
staff, adult supervision is always provided. The number of youths daily participating
in Project F;peranza's recreational activities is approximately 40. Recreational staff
members continue to be instrumental in the formation of the Cub and Roy Scout troops.
Consumerism in Action:
During the month of April the Consermerism in Action Program resolved approximately S9,000
worth of disputes makeing a total savings to the consume. of approximately $2?,000. CETA
Personnel are becoming more skilled in handling consumer disputes. Training and discussion
of cases and approaches to cases takes place on a weekly basis.
Future
Planainv is proceeding on developing a more comprehensive social service strategj, .
W'
for the ensuing summer months. Project Esperanza was iWded by Commnaity Services
Department for $2,300 for a Summer Recreation Program. This wiL allow the present
recreational activities to be supplemented with field trips and farther intensification
4W f arts and crafts.
I
•
J
National Institute for Community Development
Dr Armando Navarro
F.ceCurtce Dee ^.•Or
. — e94w Rialto Avenule
San Bernardino. CA92410
t "'•. "`• 714 -888 -0207
BOARD M" NG \UNUTES
April 28, 1980
5:20 n.m.
)Aizutes were read. v /S /C to approve the minutes, entitling Gil 3ca end
Josephine renenoz to become 3eard members.
A discussion followed on reorganization of the A.I.C.D. 3oard. Arnold 'urtiaga
suggested the names of Luis :flora, Luis Gonzales and Solly littler as
possible new 3oard members. Dr. `Javarro recommended Cindy Jauriqui, Sister Lein,
Margaret Tighe and Sara Ramos. Josephine Penemoz recommended Agustin Rios
from Colton.
Mar! Zapor gave the financial report. She reported an the following accounts:
- Project ?Speranza $92,000
- Consumerism in Action$ 7,CC0
- United 'Way $11,000
Dr. Navarro Vie. ^.boned that a breeakdowa on expentitures wit be ava_abie at
the next meeting. M /S /C to accent the financial report. •
Osvaldo Pelayes gave a progress report on Project ?speranza. .. -.e described the
following aspects of the prcjec.:
- Administration
-Job Daveiopment
- Social Serrices
- Consumerism in Action
Recreation
- :utre Activities
Urtiaga mentieaed that he spent some time at the site spea:dzg •.ac. �_107ees.
There were no zeg_ti-re remarks except that more mosey is needed for equipment.
Some time 'Was spent discussing the relationship with Aztlan and the police
department. Vsl- to approve Sr. Palsies's report.
The Board dizvassed setting np a special account for Project ?- speranza. `:cmies
from fund r :ising actin -ties •— be set aside to be used as ecergenc• fords
for Project' Zssperanza. :our signatures will be rcq=ed on the cheeks.
M ,/S /0 to annrove the new account.
!ar Zapor re_orood on the Consumerism in Action project. ;.PP- c :dMat=_l7 815,^CC
has been retlamed to consumers. 1s. Zapor also reported on ?roject Crganize,
She metiomed that tan off' -cial c ^enters have been fcared (C ? • U.) and tree or
r
fou are _n tee process .. toeing _,=ad. : +IS :C to spprcve ?s.Zazcrls
•
`f' r
Dr. Navarro reported on the Summer Youth Program. The project has been funded
$2,300 by C.S.D. for recreation, ax Ys and crafts, cultwra1 traps etc. at the
' Cacamoaga site. He also snake on the possibility of sponsoring the Summer
Nutrition Program. M1311: to look iato the lunch program.
The by -laws were reviewed. d revision in the by -laws on p. 2 (2.07) (e)
will read, "Regular meetings w"1 1 be held on the 1st Tuesday of every
third month...." tVS /C to tentatively accept the by -laws with the revision.
Dr. Navr_.:o sooke on our need to pay more money for better help. Re proposed
looking into future funding for all areas.
IVS /C to adjourn. The nett meeting will be on Tuesda^, :une 3rd at 7:00
and ever three months after that.
•
n
�J
WA
CITY OF RAN U CUUANX)WA oc�`� ^•wc
STAFF REPORT <�
r
DATE: May 29, 1980 ['-
U
TO: City Council and City Manager 1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Industrial Area Drainage Master Plan and
Policy Report
Transmitted under separate cover is the Draft Drainage and
Flood Analysis Report for the Industrial Area. This report
is the product of Phase 4A of the Master Plan Storm Drain
contract. The Industrial Area includes the area between
Deer and Day Creeks from Fourth Street north to Foothill
Boulevard.
The report recommends adoption of storm drain Alternative
No. 1 which has been attached for your review. The reasons
for the selection of this alternative are fully described
in the report. The recommended alternative was also review-
ed by the Storm Drain Committee which concurred in the re-
commendation stipulating that suitable equivalent design
options be considered. (See the attached minutes of the
Storm Drain Committee)
In addition to the adoption of the recommended plan, the
Committee dealt with several policy issues which resulted
in the following recommendation:
1. Raise storm drain fees in the study area from $2,500
per acre to $4,600 per acre
2. Temporary retention facilities may be allowed to
mitigate interim drainage problems related to develop-
ment subject to approval of the City Engineer.
3. Retention facilities may be made permanent if develop-
ed in conjunction with green belts, athletic fields or
other joint uses subject to approval of Council and Plan-
ning Commission.
4. That a special impact zone be established bounded by
Milliken on the East, Haven or the West, the Santa Fe
Railroad on the South and Arrow Route on the North.
Within this zone no building permits shall be issued
without development of drainage solutions to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
W
and Policy Report
May 29, 1980
Page2
Of these policy recommendations, the most significant issues
relate to the establishment of an increased fee for the
industrial area and the designation of the special impact
zone.
Storm Drain Fee Increase
This issue has been reviewed with the City Attorney and it
is his recommendation that no changes be introduced to the
fee ordinance at this time. At adoption of the full storm
drain master plan, the ordinance should be restructured to
establish fee zones which provide sufficient fees to complete
the facilities within that zone. This restructuring will
facilitate assessment district formation and insure the
future development of storm drain facilities in the major
undeveloped areas.
The original fee was established on a City -wide basis
because the current master plan was not sufficiently
accurate to allow the more detailed zone breakdown.
Two things are apparent as a result of the current study:
1. Fees currently in effect are not sufficient to insure •
responsible development and should be increased.
2. Fee increases should not be instituted until the City-
wide study has been completed. At that time, the City
should be dividied into zones of benefit and variable
fees established for each zone.
Special Impact Analysis zone
The area above the Santa Fe Railroad to Arrow Route is unique
in that the Railroad acts as a natural drainage barrier
which blocks or channels drainage to the south. This has
resulted in the creation of severe drainage impacts caused
by the creation of a drainage sump at Vincent Street and
the concentration of flows at Utica Street.
is the Staff's
to
The best solution to these drainage problems would be the
construction of Master Plan Storm Drain 5d. In lieu of
this construction, any development should be required to
retain drainage on site so as to not increase or contribute
a�;ded storm runoff or the release of non -storm nuisance •
water flow off of the site.
6�
•
Industrial Area Drainage Master Plan
and Policy Report
May 29, 1980
Page 3
All building permits issued for this area should require that
a drainage study and mitigation proposal be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer
for his review and approval. only after written approval by
the City Engineer of the drainage plan can a building permit
be issued.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council adopt Storm Drain Alter-
native No. 1 as presented in the L. D. fling Industrial Area
Storm Drain Study.
Council direct Staff to accomplish the following:
To establish implementing policies and design standards
for the construction of temporary and permanent storm
retention basins.
2. To revise the storm drain fee ordinance to insure that
fees are adequate to allow the full development of the
• master plan system in conjunction with responsible
development.
To develop the appropriate policy documents to establish
a special impact zone in the area bounded by the Santa
Fe Railroad on the South, Arrow Route on the North,
Milliken Avenue on the East and Haven Avenue on the West.
Within the zone boundaries no building permits will be
issued without the preparation of a drainage study and
mitigation proposal being prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The drainage report would be required to demonstrate
that the development will not increase runoff from the
site during storm conditions and will release no non -
storm related waters from the site.
Respectfully submitted,
LDll:jaa /
Attachments
rL
- FOOTHILL _ BLVD
I1�
LEXISTING I 1 -_. SUMP I i.
{ - �' I s' 5d RIO
I��
I wl 1 �4'`PROf OSED - __ /1 =z000'
i w I fig: 4EY; I PROP( SED
DEVE
OPME_ NT� { LEGEND
LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
._ 1 ' / /''/ _ •' I I¢ o EXIST. ENCLOSED DRAIN
7e /9a EXIST. OPEN DRAIN
PROPOSED STORM
. .. I DRAIN
7
e STORM DRAIN NUMBER
`
: I I 7a �-
f i
CITY
1 RANCHO CUCA MONGA
P'
19b COMPREHENSIVE
VI[Iwbl I lao STORM DRAIN PLAN
I
;?•'; s1 __ -"', \// I INDUSTRIAL AREA
ALTERNATE NO, I
- -- -_- - _ -- -, ----` -_- - ---- _- ..___ -� -(i - - - RECOMMENDED PLAN
FIGURE NO -
STORM DRAIN REVI °W
COMMITTEE
Minutes
April 29, 1960
The Committee convened at 7:00 pm in the City Manager's Conference
Room.
The purpose of the meeting was to review the L. D. King report and
recommendations for master plan storm drains in The Industrial
Area between Deer and Day Creeks from Fourth Street to Foothill
Boulevard.
L. D. King was represented by Bill Mann and Barrye Hanson. Mr.
Mann made a presentation of the various alternative drainage systems
studied, design constraints, policy issues and flood protection mea-
sures.
Most discussion related to the proposed policy alternatives and the
use of temporary and permanent retention facilities.
The proposed policy options were
•
1. A development moratorium until such time a drainage facilities •
and a drainage outlet was available to serve the development
area.
There was general concurrence that each development shall be
required to solve all drainage problems associated with develop-
ment, however., no formal moratorium should be declared in the
area.
2. Partial construction of the Master Plan of Storm Drains.
This policy relates to the previous issue in that many develop-
ments can be allowed to continue with partial provision of storm
drains. There was general agreement that development should be
allowed to go ahead with partial storm drain construction. It
was explained that this policy taken with policy Number 1 will
tend to force phased development to occur from the down stream
outlet to the north. Properties in the upper portion of the
study area will be presented with the most severe development
constraints.
3. The assessment of drainage fees.
Because the estimated cost of the system exceeds the current
drainage fee of $2500 per acre, development is not currently
r_rntributinq a sufficient share to the ultimate construction •
of he system. It was pointed out that this fact has generally
made the formation of an assessment district more difficult
and could ultimately result in extreme difficulty in completing
7.2
the drainage system as development occurs.
4. The development of retention basins as temporary or permanent
facilities.
This issue generated the most discussion. It was expressed
that retention of added runoff on site in retention facilities
is the only way that will allow the development of upstream
properties in lieu of constructing the full drainage system.
It was generally agreed that this solution should be allowed
if designed properly with sufficient provisions for maintenance.
Each property owner would also be required to contribute his
proportionate share to development of the ultimate system.
Members of the audience wished to consider a more permanent use
of retention facilities in conjunction with the overall storm
drain design.
It was generally agreed that this type of facility could be
used in conjunction with open space and recreation areas where
maintenance arrangements can be sucessfully worked out and soil
conditions are conducive.
The following motions were made and approved by the Committee:
Motion 1.
Moved: Tolstoy
• Seconded: Buquet
Vote: Unanimous
That the Committee recommend for Council Adoption the
system proposed in Alternative No. 1 or an equivalent
engineered plan.
Motion 2.
Moved: Tolstoy
Seconded: White
Vote: Unanimous
That the Committee recommend to the Council an increase
in storm drain fees from $2500 per acre to $4600 per acre
in the study area and that the fee should increase every
year as of July 1 in accordance with the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index.
-2-
Motion 3.
Moved: White
Seconded: Tolstoy
Vote: Unanimous
•
That the Committee recommend the use of retention basins
as temporary facilites to mitigate drainage problems
caused by development prior to completion of the storm
drain system. These interim facilities would not credit
against storm drain fees.
Motion 4.
Moved: Buquet
Seconded: Tolstoy
Vote: Unanimous
That the Committee recommend that retention basins may
be considered as permanent if such uses are developed in
conjunction with green belts, athletic fields or other
joint uses with the approval of the Planning Commission
and Council with proper provisions for maintenance.
Motion 5.
Moved: Tolstoy
Seconded: Buquet
Vote: Unanimous
•
The Committee moved to establish a special impact zone
bounded by Milliken on the East, Haven on the West, the
Santa Fe Railroad on the South and Arrow Route on the
North. Development within this zone would not be able
to proceed without development of drainage solutions to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
-3-
73
•
•
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
Bill Mann
Barrye R. Hanson
Art Bridge
Chuck Buquet
Allan J. Kielhold
Joe Di Iorio
Tim Beedle
Jack Lam
Dick Schmid
Peter Tolstoy
Dennis L. Stout
Joe White
Lloyd Hubbs
7�—
L. D. KING
L. D. KING
CITY COUNCIL
ADVISORY COMMISSION
F.C.D.
R. C. LAND
CITY STAFF
CITY STAFF
WILLIAMSON E. SC124ID
PLANNING COMMISSION
ADVISORY COMMISSION
ADVISORY COMMISSION
CITY STAFF
9
•
I 1
I
CITY OF RANCHO Cl,'CAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 29, 1980
To: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Capital Improvements Program
Attached for the Council review and approval is the
recommended Capital Improvement Program for the 1980 -81
fiscal year.
This program basically follows the priority ratings esta-
blished by the Council last year with the exception of
additional resurfacing projects on Lemon Avenue between
Hermosa and Haven, Hellman Avenue, Foothill to Monte Vista
and the widening of Grove Avenue.
Most of the resurfacing and reconstruction scheduled for
this year was not accomplished due to funds required for
storm damage repair and clean -up.
Sufficient funds do not appear to exist to complete all
projects. This may change as reimbursements are received
from Federal Disaster Funds. The balance contingency
projects recommended are the Carnelian Street and Archibald
Avenue resurfacing projects.
Some new projects have been proposed for construction in
the long range program. These are listed and are given a
recommended priority.
The Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission review-
ed and approved the program as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council adopt Resolution 80 -52
approving the Capital Improvement Program.
Respectfully submitted,
J �
LBH: jaa
Attachments
7_
`J
•
PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
REVENUE
Gas Tax (2106,2107)
SB325 (TDA)
Systems Development (includes carryover)
Road Maintenance Budget
Total Road Fund Available
Total Storm Drain Funds Available
(includes carryover)
PROPOSED ROAD PROJECT EXPENDITURES
1. Special Studies
- Grade separation applications for Haven and
Milliken Avenues
- Grove Railroad Crossing
- Seventh Street Ramp
- Miscellaneous Circulation Studies
2. Cucamonga /Deer Creek Bridges
3. Carnelian Street Realignment
Church Street to San Bernardino Rd.
4. Fourth Street and Archibald Ave. Signals
(Cooperative project with Ontario)
5. Grove Ave. - 8th St. to Foothill Blvd.
Minor widening and striping
6. Base Line - Cambridge to Haven
Design for alignment,widening, reconstruction,
resurfacing
7. Vineyard Avenue - 8th Street to Arrow
Design and Right of Way Acquisition
Total
$ 474,187
514,382
450,000
,438,569
- 581,323
857,246
$560,000
$ 25,000
$100,000
$250,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
8. Roadway Reconstruction
Church St. - Ramona to Archibald
50,000
Highland Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
50,000
100,000
9. Resurfacing Projects
*Carnelian St. - Highland to Banyon
$120,000
Alta Cuesta - Red Hill to Camino Norte
40,000
Lemon Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
20,000
Hellman Ave. - Monte Vista to Base Line
40,000
Church to Foothill
Hellman Ave. - Alta Loma to Orange
20,000
*Archibald Ave. - 4th to Base Line
1,50,000
Resurfacing SUB TOTAL $390,000
TOTAL PROJECT PROGRAM $1,065,000
*Indicates Balance /Contingency Projects
SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDS
1. Base Line Reconstruction Federal Aid Urban $230,000
2. Base Line @ Hellman Signals Federal Aid Urban $118,000
Archibald @ Church St. Signals Federal Aid Urban
3. North Town Street Improvement HUD, CDBG Funds $357,000
X705, 000
STORM DRAIN PROJECT PROPOSAL
1. Carnelian Storm Drain $500,000
2. Misc. Design and Planning Studies $ 60,000
60,000
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
*1. Carnelian Street Improvement Project $600,000
phased construction
*This item is a carryover from the current program but was not
included in the program submitted to the Plannino Commission.
77
lJ
•
•
-2-
8.
Roadway Reconstruction
Church St. - Ramona to Archibald
50,000
Highland Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
50,000
100,000
9.
Resurfacing Projects
*Carnelian St. - Highland to Banyon
$12^.000
Alta Cuesta - Red Hill to Camino Norte
40,000
Lemon Ave. - Hermosa to Haven
20,000
Hellman Ave. - Monte Vista to Base Line
40,000
Church to Foothill
Hellman Ave. - Alta Loma to Orange
20,000
*Archibald Ave. - 4th to Base Line
150,000
10.
Vineyard at Foothill Signal Modification
5,000
11.
City of Montclair Fund Transfer
126,000
TOTAL PROJECT PROGRAM
$1,196,000
*Indicates Balance /Contingency Projects
SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDS
1.
Base Line Reconstruction Federal Aid Urban
$230,000
. 2.
Base Line @ Hellman Signals Federal Aid Urban
$118,000
Archibald @ Church St. Signals Federal Aid Urban
3.
North Town Street Improvement HUD, CDBG Funds
$357,000
$705,000
STORM DRAIN PROJECT PROPOSAL
1.
Carnelian Storm Drain
$500,000
2.
Misc. Design and Planning Studies
$ 60,000
560,000
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
i
*1.
Carnelian Street Improvement Project
$600,000
Phased construction
*This item is a carryover from the current Program but was not
included in the program submitted to the Planninq Commission.
n
ESTIMATED COST
$ 330,000
10,000
150,000
450,000
75,000
400,000
250,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
400,000
175,000
200,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
200,000
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LONG RANGE PROJECT
PRIORITIES
•
RECOMMENDED
MAJOR PROJECT PRIORITY
RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY
STREET
LIMITS STATUS
1
1.
Vineyard Avenue
Arrow Route to City Limit- In Process
FA.0
2.
19th Street
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETE
2
3.
Carnelian Street
Foothill to Base Line
Realign & reconstruct
3
4.
Base Line
At Hermosa
Widening & drainage
7
5.
Hellman Avenue
San Bernardino Road to Church Street
4
6.
Hellman Avenue
At Foothill Boulevard
Signals, widening & drainage
8
7.
Hellman Avenue
Base Line to SPRR
Widening & drainage
40
8.
Archibald Avenue
19th Street to Highland
10
9.
Ramona Avenue
At SPRR
Widening & drainage
11
10.
Hermosa Avenue
At SPRR
Widening & drainage
12
11.
Hellman Avenue
At AT & SFRR
Widening & drainage
13
12.
Turner Avenue
At Foothill Boulevard
Signals, widening & drainage
14
13.
Turner Avenue
At AT & SFRR & Bth Street
15
14.
Hellman Avenue
Base Line to 19th Street
Widening
16
15,
Amethyst Street
Base Line to 19th Street
Widening & sidewalks
17
16,
Hermosa Avenue
South of Bristol
Widening & drainage
New
Project Prougsals
'
1.
'Wilson Avenue
At Alta Loma Channel
5
2.
Grove Avenue
At 8th Street
Widening, drainage and crossing signals
7X
ESTIMATED COST
$ 330,000
10,000
150,000
450,000
75,000
400,000
250,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
400,000
175,000
200,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
200,000
J
L
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LONG RANGE PROJECT
'
PRIORITIES
RECOMMENDED
MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY
STREET
LIMITS STATUS
ESTIMATED COST
1
1.
Base Line
Vineyard to Hellman - EAU Contract
$ 130,000
Awarded
2.
Lemon Avenue
Opal to Beryl COMPLETE
30,000
7
3.
Carnelian Street
Orange to Banyan
30,000
4
4.
Alta Cuesta
Red Hill to Camino Norte
12,000
5.
Base Line
Alta Cuesta to Nest City Limit DELETE
20,000
5
6.
Church Street
Archibald to Turner
25,000
9
7.
Victoria Street
Etiwanda to Pecan
12,000
10
B.
Arrow Route
Madrone to Vineyard
20,000
11
9.
Base Line
Etiwanda to City Limit
20,000
6
10.
Hellman Avenue
100' South Alta Loma to Orange
15,000
a
11.
Archibald Avenue
4th Street to 19th Street - Misc.
400,000
12
12.
Etiwanda Avenue
19th Street to 23rd Street
40,000
13
13.
Etiwanda Avenue
I -15 to Base Line
35,000
14
14.
Hermosa Avenue
19th Street to Banyan
50,000
15
15,
East Avenue
19th Street to Summit
25,000
16
16.
Base Line
Day Creek to Rochester
15,000
*
Various Local Streets
260,000
*
These projects are on local
residential streets which are not
recommended for
funding this year.
Agate Street - Roberds to
LaVine Dorset Street - End
East - 0.2 M
Garnet Street - Baseline
N 0.2 M LaVine Street - Hellman
to Amethyst
Malvern Avenue - Stafford
N /Effen Ramona Avenue - SEER
to 19th Street
Stafford Street - Turner
E /Center Ninth Street - Sierra
Madre to Grove
Baker Avenue - Ninth Street to AT & SFRR
New
Project ProiTsals
2
1.
Lemon Avenue
Hermosa to Haven
20,000
3
2.
Hellman Avenue
Foothill to Monte Vista
40,000
J
L
AMENDED
PRIORITY - STREET
1. Highland Avenue
2. Archibald Avenue
2 3. Hermosa Avenue
3 4. Beryl Avenue
4 5. Hermosa Avenue
5 6. Church Street
6 7, Arrow Route
•
C
RECOMMENDED
MINOR WIDENING PRIORITY
LIMITS STATUS
ESTIMATED COST
Hermosa to Haven
$ 35,000
Banyan to Hillside COMPLETE
25,000
300' south to Mignoette
10,000
Lemon to 500' north
35,000
North of Banyan - Realign & widen
50,000
Center to Haven 0 Church Street Basin 40,000
Archibald to Haven
60,000
•
RECOMMENDED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
►1
U
•
RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY
INTERSECTION
STATUS ESTIMATED COST
-
1.
Archibald and Church
Under
Construction $
80,000
-
2.
Base Line and Hellman
Under
Construction
80,000
-
3.
Haven and Amber
Complete
80,000
1
4.
Archibald and 19th Street
Under
Study by CALTRANS
60,000
2
5.
Archibald and Fourth
50,000
6
6.
Modify Grove and Arrow
120,000
4
7.
Carnelian and San Bernardino Road
To be
completed by
60,000
developer
7
8.
Modify Grove and San Bernardino Road
160,000
8
9.
Modify Grove and Ninth Street
150,000
5
10,
Base Line and Beryl Street
50,000
-
11.
Grove and 8th Street
Moved
to Major Project
150,000
List
9
72.
19th Street and Beryl Street
50,000 •
10
13.
19th Street and Amethyst
50,000
11
14.
19th Street and Hellman Avenue
50,000
12
15.
Sapphire and 19th Street
50,000
13
16.
Foothill and Red Hill Country Club Drive
60,000
Proposed
Project
3
1.
Archibald and Sixth Street
80,000
►1
U
(
STORM DRAIN
PRIORITIES
. (No Change Recommended)
Status
•
i
1. Storm Drain Master Plan Update (Phased) In Process
2. Day - Etiwanda - San Sevaine System In Process
3. Carnelian Channel
4. Red Hill - Beryl Storm Drain - Project 2a -2b
5. 19th Street Storm Drain - Project 4b
6. Baseline Storm Drain - Project 4c
7. 8th Street Storm Drain - Project 5d
8. Hellman Avenue Storm Drain - Project 6a
9. Arrow Route Storm Drain - Project 5c
10. Foothill- Turner Storm Drain - Project 5e
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$ 75,000
25,000
500,000
1,600,000
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,250,000
1,300,000
1,000,000
$ 9,750,000
Funding for each project will be phased to provide optimum construction
scheduling and potential for capture of grant furdine. Projects will be
completed as funds are received. The Engineering Division has been esti-
mating approximately $500,000 per year.
M
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -52
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 1980 -81 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, on the 4th day of June, 1980, the Rancho Cucamonga
City Council held a meeting to consider the attached proposed Capital
Improvements Program; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and
Advisory Commission concurred in the recommended program as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga
City Council. hereby:
Approves the attached proposed Capital Improvements Program
for the 1980 -81 fiscal year.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
AYES:
NOES:
• ABSENT
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
0
S-3
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
CITY OF RAND -10 CU'CANIQIY A
STAFF REPORT <�
• DATE: June 4, 1980 %
C
T0: City Council and City Manager �
E
V
FRO;f: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 1977
SUBJECT: PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT RELATIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This
is a request submitted by Larry Hendon, Coordinator of the Afford-
able Housing Cccnmittee of San Bernardino County for consideration
by the City Council for adoption by the San Bernardino County
Board of Supervisors
ABSTRACT: City representatives have met on two occasions to discuss the at-
tached document submitted by the Affordable Housing Committee. You will also
find attached a letter from Larry Hendon, Coordinator for the Affordable Hous-
ing Committee. The basic feeling of the City Planning Directors is there are
a great deal of Housing Committees, agencies, etc., at the present time and
to create another might have limited benefit. Additionally, we were concerned
that while the Affordable Housing Task Force will serve as a public forum re-
commending body, it still was a subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors with
the members serving at the pleasure of the Board.
The Planning Directors concurred with many of the general statements made in
the attachment and took exception to specific details. It was felt that it
would be more appropriate, if there is to be an Affordable Housing Task Force,
• that its members be appointed through the SANBAG Board and serve at the plea-
sure of the SANBAG Board. But, the consensus of opinion was that the Task
Force is not necessary.
The authorization and powers of the Task Force will be an infringement upon
local control and set the Board of Supervisors up to opposing practices that
a City may employ, if in the opinion of the Task Force, the actions, policies
or procedures of any element of the City's housing do not promote housing op-
portunities for all economic segments of the society. Additionally, attach-
ment No. 1 seems to give the Task Force a great deal of power and set another
layer of government to deal with. There are certainly enough groups "in the
public interest" that will watchdog cities without creating one of our own.
At its meeting of May 28, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Re-
solution No. 80 -31, recommending the Rancho Cucamonga City Council go on
record in opposition to the proposed Affordable Housing Task Force Policy -
in its present form.
REC0!WTD1DATICI:: That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution advising
the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors of its opposition to the proposed
Affordable H-,usinr, Task Force Policy in its present form based upon the reasons
contained withi, `.he Resolution.
Re spetfu L'. y/! si mitteQ,
`JACK ^!t', Direc', - --
Community Uevelopment
Attachments ^
•• EARL GOODWIN
AJmmuvanm Olhn,
May 13, 1980
COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
County Civicauildin9 Eaat
157 An, Fifth Street
Sen Bnnihmno, CA 92915
(71413433�¢011 e
Mr. Jack Lam
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Dept.
9340 Baseline
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Lam
WAROOF SUIPER VISORS
Jame L Mavheld. Cnauman . Fin, or—,
r., WElwnn ................ Skcaq on-1
boon NamEe,R . ............ o,,1Diob 1
RoCen0 Toxnend .......... Fwnh Ombrc,
Bob Nammak .. ..... ..... th PO,.,
We have appreciated both your written and personal responses to the proposed
policy statement and scope of activities which would guide the activities of a
county -wide affordable housing task force.
We have met with City representatives on two occasions, to enlist your support,
consider your concerns, and make changes in the position statement and scope of
activities to make it more acceptable to cities.
We believe this final draft (attached) challenges, equally, the County, other
public bodies, the cities, and the private sector to cooperate in a coordinated
effort to lower the cost of housing -- without impinging on the responsibilities
of any element.
Will you please go back to your Council and Planning Commission again, report
the progress made, share this latest draft of the position statement with them,
and seek your city's support and participation in the Housing Task Force
activities.
Then, please, report your city's official response to me and to the Board of
Supervisors.
This proposal to form a task force will be scheduled for Board hearing on May
27th. We will appreciate your attendance at that hearing to express your
support and /or concerns.
iCordially,
9
UTY OF PANCHO ClJONIONGA
LARRY H. HENDON, Coordinator COS1MUNITY OE1910pONT DEPT,
Affordable. (lousing Committee j4ff L G 1LI G'.I
LHH:j qn
Attachment
AM PM
YIS(9(1011t(i?111`�IaId1516
PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT RELATED TO "AFFORDABLE HOUSING"
SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SITUATION: Reaffirming the need for society to ensure that its
citizens have a decent place to live, the Board of Supervisors
takes official notice that the cost of housing is such that home
ownership is out of the reach of most First time buyers, of many
young families, and many senior citizens; and takes official notice
that in many areas of the County, rental housing is not sufficient
to meet the needs of citizens of San Bernardino County.
The Board realizes that high interest rates, the cost of labor and
materials, the cost of utilities, the cost of conventional construc-
tion methods, the cost of land, high profit levels, delay in con-
struction time, and speculation in land and residential purchase
and resale are primary elements in increasing housing costs; so any
efforts to lower the cost of housing must address these primary
elements.
The Board also recognizes that housing costs are influenced by
other factors which can be addressed effectively at the local
level. Some of these are:
Land Use Patterns
Design Standards
Public Facilities and Services
Development Fees
Federal, State snd-Local Housing Policies -
Combined with the primary elements of the cost of housing outlined,
these factors have contributed to the growing inability of people
to afford housing.
Recognizing that many of the factors which have led to the current
housing situation have raised the level of public expectation in
housing types and sizes and are institutionalized through public
procedures and community attitudes, the Board of Supervisors takes
the position that housing for all economic segments of the pooula-
tion can be provided only through substantial changes in public
and private sector cooperation, in the level of public expectation,
and in public policy - - - insuring that cost savings generated
will be preserved for the original and subsequent hc'ma buyers.
PROPOSAL: In order to address the problem, the County of San
Bernardino hereby establishes a standing Affordable Housing Task
Force (or council, or coordinating committee) comprised of indivi-
duals representing a balanced cross section of public and private
housing interests.
4
• I
El
-2-
This Task Force shall report to the Board of Supervisors through
the County Administrative Office and through it the Board will
authorize and encourage every reasonable action appropriate to
meet the housing needs of all people within the County of San
Bernardino. The actions and activities of the Task Force shall
concentrate an four areas: Mortgage Financing; Project Development;
Coordination; and Legislation. The attached list details the auth-
orized actions and activities of the Task Force.
The Affordable Housing Task Force will serve as a public forum and
recommending body and is formed to provide positive assistance to
cities, to the County, to related departments and agencies, and to
private interests in providing housing throughout the county which
its citizens can afford. However, if the Task Force finds that
the actions, policies, or procedures of any element of the county's
public or private sector concerned with housing do not promote
housing opportunities for all economic segments of society, the
Task Force will recommend to the Board of Supervisors that it oppose
such practices through every appropriate means.'
These means will include, but not be limited to: (1) Official
testimony of the impact of such actions, policies, or procedures
to the governing body or appropriate element of the private sector;
then notice to regional, state, and federal jurisdictions or other
appropriate bodies; (2) Full public review of circumstances with
recommendation for change; (3) Suspension or withholding of services
and /or funds controlled by the County to elements of either the public
or private sector, including County participation in assisting or
funding local projects.
CONSTRAINT: Nothing in the above shall be construed that the Board
of Supervisors housing emphasis through this Task Force has in any
sense preempted the administrative and regulatory authority or res-
ponsibility of any County or City Department presently assigned a
role related to housing and land use; nor does it intend to assume
the role of the private sector in continuing its task as the primary
provider of housing. The Task Force is instructed to work with and
through these bodies in implementing its program.
The Board directs all appropriate bodies to recognize that the cost
of housing is a major problem, to take official notice of the Board'
assignment to the Housing Task Force, and to reevaluate their pro-
grams and pay particular attention to increasing the supply of
affordable housing for the citizens of our County,
The Cities propose that this be changed to read: "the Task Force
'4111 recommend to the Board of Supervisors, or to the appropriate
City Council, that it oppose such practices through every reasonable
means."
1�7
ATTA,:H!d ENT ND. 1
The Affordable Housing Task Force is authorized to pursue the
Following, but not be limited to these:
1. Take the lead, through appropriate departments and
elements of the private sector in programs known to
lower the cost of housing. Specifically:
a. Actively promote and participate in programs which
make use of tax free mortgage revenue bonds and
other tax free devices for mortgage financing for
eligible citizens.
b. Develop incentives for developers, utilities, and
local agencies to promote construction of housing
which is energy efficient and results in lowered
operating costs.
C. Insure that the savings in projects which are
"publicly" assisted in any substantive way be
passed through to the original and subsequent
buyers -- except for an inflation factor and
reasonable selling costs.
d. Promote the use of creative and newly developed
techniques and procedures through the use of:
(1) Design standards and creative space planning
in housing.
(2) Creative and more efficient patterns in
land use.
e. Promote the use of grant and /or public financing
for land purchase, and on and off site improve-
ments.
2. Join with the public and private sector to plan and
develop demonstration projects in all areas of the
County that combine all possible means of achieving
affordability. Such projects could include single
Family units; planned unit developments; multiple
family units; a diversity of housing types and
patterns in a single development project; mixed land
uses within a project or neighborhood for both rental
and purchase to show what can be accomplished through
creative cooperative efforts.
3. Encourage cooperative efforts to join the public and
private sectors in combined programs which will lower
the monthly cost of housing for the consumer.
4. Insist that all communities and cities in the County
recognize their public responsibility to provide housing
for citizens at all economic levels and authorize its
fair share for all segments.
lsifi
Kul
ATTACHMENT N0. 1
April 30, 1980
Page 2
S. Review and recommend appropriate amendments to documents
which give "points" or positive consideration to items
which drive up the cost of housing and which exceed
health, safety, welfare concerns and reasonable community
values.
6. Review Current and Proposed policies of all County and
City agencies dealing with Planning and Building and
Safety which regulate the provision of housing, and make
appropriate recommendations for change to the governing
body.
7. Develop and support legislation to fund local government
and other service entities and improve their ability to
provide needed public services and facilities.
B. Analyze Current and Proposed development fees in two
ways:
a. Does the proposed fee bear a reasonable relationship
to the cost of the service?
b. Is the proposed fee appropriate for requirements
for public health, safety and welfare?
- -and report exceptions to the governing body.
9. Work with Agencies concerned with rehabilitation to
preserve existing housing - -with the constraint that
housing rehabilitation with public funds should not
cost more than replacement.
10. Analyze the inventory of surplus County, State, and
Federal lands and consider joint public- private
projects for appropriate parcels.
a
A
POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE (COUNCIL)
C�
PRIVATE
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
MANUFACTURED HOUSING INSTITUTE
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
SAVINGS AND LOAN TASK FORCE
COMMERCIAL BANKS
SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
PRIVATE DEVELOPER REPRESENTATION
MANUFACTURED HOUSING BUILDING REPRESENTATION
AT -LARGE MEMBER FROM EACH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
PUBLIC
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CAD
COUNTY PLANNING
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
CITY REPRESENTATIVES
LIAISON YlITH GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
SUPPORT BACK UP
COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS DEPARTMENT
COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
A
RESOLUTION NO. 80— 54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
• OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OPPOSING THE PROPOSED SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK
FORCE POLICY STATEMENT
WHEREAS, On May 13, 1980, the Coordinator of the Affordable Housing
Committee requested that the Planning Commission support and participate in
the Housing Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is supportive of Affordable }lousing and seeks to provide its fair
share allocation under SCAG's Fair Share Allocation Model; and
WHEPEAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is working on a General Plan
that will address the issues of affordable housing in Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, we are in opposition to another level of government which
will provide another roadblock to cities' exercise of local control,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby oppose the present proposed policy statement
related to Affordable Housing as submitted by the Coordinator for the Afford-
able Housing Committee to the Board of Supervisors on May 27, 1980.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY JF JUNE, 1980.
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
inuren M. 'Wasserman, City Clerk
0
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
�f
,f- __.
?,ancho Cucamo:ya Chamber of Commerce
9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701
TELEPHONE: 714i987-1012
June 3, 1980
To: lAuren Wasserman, City Manager
Proms David Humphrey, Cha�leirr�,a1/pautive
Subject: Proposed Policy Statement Relative to Affordable Housing
The Chamber of C=c rce wishes to go on record as supporting resolution #80 -54.
We are most interested in supporting efforts to lessen rather than increase
bureaucracy.
We wish that members of Council be made aware of our position in this matter.
The Chamber is particularly anxious to work with the city to aid in adoption
of an effective housing element for our General Plan.
?,ancho Cucamo�a Chamber o f Commerce
9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701
TELEPHONE: 714/987-1012
Tune 3, 1980
To: Lauren Wasserman
From: David Humpht�ay�ecutive
Subject: Designation of Historic Landmarks
The overwhelming majority of the Chamber members and directors agree that we
support the en -going effort to protect, preserve, and restore points of hist-
orical significance within our city.
An interesting paradox is presented to the city, with the request by the Hist-
orical Commission to have the Garrett and Company Winery declared a "Historic
Landmark ". On one hand the importance of the preservation of this structure
cannot be denied, on the other hand at what point does the coat of preservation
pass the point of fiscal possibility and responsibility? We understand that
the new owners of the property say it in economically feasible to reinforce
the structure making it safe for public occupancy. Are they really positive of
this? How are they to proceed if they find the integrity of the structure can-
not be maintained? Would it be better, since the owners intent is to save the
structure, to withhold "Historic Landmark" designation at least until restora-
tion is accomplished? This would keep the options open on the property.
In no way does the Chamber wish to appear to be opposed to a restoration effort
on this or any other structure, but we do ask you to express our concern to the
members of Council in locking property and therefore the owners into limited
improvement optima.
w th v• ..o 01 .. I _ Map Mcc. _ m_
the same shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of
building permits.
�I
(D) Determination. The Planning Commission shall
determine whether to require land dedication, require payment of a fee
in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, by consideration of the
following:
(1) Recreational element of the general plan • and
(2) Topography, geology, access and location of
land in the subdivision availabl for dedication; and
(3) Siz d shape of the subdivision and land
available for subdivisions
1l� ar rd Recreational Use Land - Credit for Private
Open Space. Where iv open space for park and recreational purposes
is provided in a p posed subdivision and such space is to be privately
owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, such
areas shall be credited up to fifty (50) percent against the requirement
of dedication for park and recreation purposes, as set forth in Section
2(G), provided the Planning Commission finds it is in the public interest
to do so, and that the following standards are met:
(1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other
open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations
shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and
(2) That the private ownership and maintenance of
the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and
00 (3) That the use of the private open space is
restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants
which run with the land in favor of the future owners of the property
within the tract; and
(4) That the proposed private open space is reasonably
adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration
such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of
the private open space land; and
(5) That Facilities proposed for the open space are
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element
' of the general plan, and are approved by the Planning Commission.
r
(F) Park and Recreational Land Credit for Planned Communities.
Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided
in a planned community and portions of or all such space is to be privately -'
owned and maintained by the future residents of the planned community,
credit against the requirement of dedication for park and recreational x 0 f• Ci ,� p^t
purposes, as set forth in Section 2(G) shall be determined through the r�;.�.v f
adoption of the planned community text provided, however, that the park �M "1 Ain °�
standard for said planned community is the same as for any other developmen% G
and that the Planning Commission finds it is in the public interest to 7
do so, and that the following standards are met: u
(1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other C {Ric
open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations
shall not be included in the computat n of such private open space; and
(2) That the private ownership and maintenance of
the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and
(3) That the use of the private open space is
restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants
which run with the land in favor of the future owners of the property
within the tract; and
(4) That the proposed private open space is
reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking
into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology,
access and location of the private open space land; and
(5) That Facilities proposed for the open space are
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element
of the general plan, and are approved by the Planning Commission.
Section 4. Exemptions. The provisions of this Ordinance do
not apply to coor�erciei or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply
to condominium projects which consist of the subdivision of airspace
in an existing apartment building which is more than five (5) years
old when no new dwelling units are added.
Section 5. Severability. If any subsection, subdivision
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in +he ordinance, or any part
thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections of
portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby
declared that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional. AhL
Section 6. Enactment. 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, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1980.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
37
Mayor
tI
Ms. Fred Etzel y _ May 15, 1980
3. The plan showed low density residential at the northwest
corner of Rochester and Foothill. We feel that corner should
be in commercial use. it is presently zoned for commercial
and has been for many years. it has been our experience that
people do not like to live right next to major traffic thorough-
fares such as Foothill. nigh density residential uses can work
if they are planned correctly, but we have found that families
simply do not want to live in single - family houses on major
arterials if they have a choice.
I Offer these comments in a spirit of cooperation and hope they can be
incorporated into your thinking.
Very truly yours,
Ralph M. Lewis
Chairman of the Board
Enc.
cc: Jack Lam
Barry Rogan
33
0
•v
Uk 1 ..
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center,
9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, June 4, 1980. The meeting was
called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in the pledge to
the flag.
Present: Councilmen Arthur H. Bridge, Michael A. Palombo, Jon D. Mikels, James C.
Frost, and Mayor Schlosser.
Also present: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; City Attorney, Sam Crowe; Assistant
City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer,
Lloyd Hobbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley.
Mayor Schlosser called an Executive Session at 7:04 p.m. Council reconvened at 7:20
p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present.
Approval of Minutes. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to approve the
minutes of May 21, 1980. Motion carried 5 -0.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Mayor Schlosser presented a Resolution to John Cawi and Bert Leyva commending them
for their services to the City. Mr. Cawi and Mr. Leyva were County Road Maintenance
employees who had been working for the City :rider contract. As of July 30, 1980,
the City would be assuming its own road mair.cenance.
b. Historical Commission meeting on Tuesday, June 10.
c. Frost suggested that a letter of appreciation be sent to Dr. Gerald Smith,
Director of the County Museum, for his efforts in obtaining $20,000 designated to
the Raines House for sprinklers and landscaping.
d. Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting on the General Plan, Saturday, June 14,
at 9:00 a.m. at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Center.
e. David Humphrey, general manager, Chamber of Commerce, made an announcement
regarding the First Annual Spring Clean -up Campaign which will begin on June 14
through June 21. He said that arrangements had been made with the Milliken Land Fill
so residents could use the facility free of charge.
f. Meeting of Mayors in Chino on Thursday, June 5, to discuss the affordable
housing issue.
g. Council set aside June 9 and 16 to discuss the budget, and June 19 to discuss
employer- employee relations. All meetings would be at 6:00 p.m. in the Lion's Park
Community Center.
h. Tonight's meeting would adjourn to another Executive Session to discuss a
personnel matter.
3. COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Advisory Commission. There were none.
B, Historical Commission. There were none.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR.
Council had the fallowing discussion on Consent Calendar items "e ", "f ", and "g"
Item "e ". Mikels said that we have committed ourselves to a three -year program
under the Community Development Block Grant for street improvements. He wondered
if the issue being discussed in Chino regarding affordable housing would have any
affect on this grant. Mr. Wasserman said not this particular one; but perhaps
it would with future grants.
Item "f ". Frost asked if this bridge could be constructed at a cost to the Corp
of Engineers. Mr. Hobbs said not at this time.
Item "g ". Frost asked that if after two years it would be appropriate to extend
the time further. Mr. Hubbs said that the amount of deposits were not sufficient
for the City to put in the improvements. The applicant is still willing to
install the improvements; it would be to the city's benefit to work with him.
Councilman Palombo left the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar as
submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost,
and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo.
a. Approval of Warrants - Register No. 80 -6 -4 for $428,307.97.
b. Refer claim in the amount of $1,531.47 by Mr. and Mrs. Edward Heisen to the
City Attorney for handling.
C. Approval of modification to Resolution No. 79 -48.
Recommendation: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt
Resolution N0. 79 -48 -A, amending Resolution No, 79-48, and correcting a
clerical error to reflect an hourly rate of $4.32 per hour for the Senior
Recreation Leader to be effective July 2, 1979.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -48 -A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO'J`7CIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA= CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 79-48 TO CORRECT HOURLY RATE
OF SENIOR RECREATION LEADER FROM $4,23 TO $4,32
PER HOUR.
d. Authorization to conduct the second annual Pounders Day Parade, The parade
will take place November 7 at 10 ;00 a,m.
e. Authorization to seek bids for the construction of the "North Town" street
improvement project.
f. Clarification of allowable credits to Systems Development fees.
Lewis Homes has requested a determination from the City for credit of Systems
fees toward the construction of a bridge over Deer Creek at Church Street.
It is recommended that the credit be allowed.
g. Agreement Time Extension - M.S. 77 -0655.
Requested extension on Parcel Map to be able to complete improvements on pre-
vious parcels before more work can be done on the present parcel. Requested
extension by the developer is 6 months.
h. Approval of Lien Agreement - Wes Bonneville.
Recommend the postponement of street improvements to be made by Wes and Rebecca
Bonneville and that the Lien Agreement between the Bonnevilles and the City
be approved by Council. Also, approval of Resolution No. 80 -53 authorizing
the Mayor to sign the lien agreement.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CON-
TRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM JOSEPH W.
BONNEVILLE AND REBECCA A. BONNEVILLE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
SIGN THE SAME.
i. Release of the following bonds:
Tract 9397. Located on southwest corner of Hillside Road and Amethyst Street.
Owner: Crowell /Leventhal, Inc.
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 41,000
12,000
Tract 9401. Located on southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Lemon Avenue.
Owner: Olympus Pacific Corporation.
Labor 6
Material
Bond
(road)
$137,000
Labor S
Material
Bond
(water
on -site)
35,000
Labor S
Material
Bond
(water
off -site)
24,500
Labor S
Material
Bond
(sewer
on -site)
22,500
Labor S
Material
Bond
(sewer
off -site)
11,000
Tract 9409. Located on west side of Ramona Avenue north of Foothill.
Owner: Coral Investment, Inc.
Labor S Material Bond (sewer)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 20,500
13,500
Tract 9421. Located on the northwest corner of Banyan Street and Amethyst
Street. Owner: Nubank International, Inc.
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 45,000
21,500
Tract 9424. Located between Jasper Street and Sapphire Street at
Whirlaway Street. Owner: Alta Loma 18 Inc. (partnership)
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 18,000
8,500
Tract 9429. Located on north side of 19th Street at Cartilla Avenue. Owner:
Valle Verde Lt,
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (sewer)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 39,000
17,500
16,000
Tract 9449. Located on southeast corner of Base Line and Ramona Avenue.
Owner: Thompson S Associates.
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
Labor b Material Bond (sewer)
$ 76,000
23,000
15,500
Tract 9450. Located between Ramona Avenue and Hermosa Avenue at La Vine Street.
Owner: Inco Homes.
Labor S Material Bond (road)
Labor S Material Bond (sewer)
Labor S Material Bond (water)
$ 57,000
16,500
23,000
4
Tract 9451. Located on southwest corner of Base Line and Ramona Avenue.
Owner: Royal Oaks Homes.
Labor d Material Bond (road) $ 37,000
Labor d Material Bond (water) 10,000
Labor d Material Bond (sewer) 41,000
Tract 9475. Located at northeast corner of Haven and Lemon. Owner: J.
Anthony /Rancho California Homes, Ltd.
Labor S Material Bond (road) $ 41,000
Labor 6 Material Bond (sewer) 15,000
Labor 6 Material Bond (water) 15,000
Tract 9569. Located on east side of Amethyst Street between Wilson Avenue
and Hillside Road. Owner: Don Lee Construction.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 67,000
Labor S Material Bond (water) 15,500
Tract 9586. Located on northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 19th Street,
Owner: Lewis Homes of California.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 84,000
Labor d Material Bond (sewer) 16,500
Labor 6 Material Bond (water) 31,500
Tract 9587. Located south of Highland Avenue and east of Haven Avenue. Owner:
Lewis Homes of California.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 39,000
Labor 6 Material Bond (sewer) 12,000
Labor 6 Material Bond (water) 13,000
Tract 9595. Located on northeast corner of Banyan Street and Carnelian Street.
Owner: Cary Miller.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road)
Labor 6 Material Bond (water)
$ 52,000
23,000
Tract 9616. Located on west side of Hellman Avenue at Devon Street. Owner:
M. J. Brock S Sons.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 61,000
Labor d Material Bond (sewer) 19,500
Labor S Material Bond (water) 22,000
Tract 9617. Located on west side of Hellman Avenue north of Arrow Route.
Owner: M. J. Brock 6 Sons.
Labor 6 Material Bond (road) $ 42,000
Labor S Material Bond (sewer) 14,000
Labor 6 Material Bond (water) 13,000
51 PUBLIC HEARINGS
5A. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE. An ordinance designed to provide park land dedi-
cation or fees to provide park improvements to the residents of new subdivisions.
Staff report by Bill Holley.
Mr. Holley presented some changes which had been recommended. The City Attorney
said that the ordinance could not be changed unless Council desired to have the
first reading again this evening. Council decided to approve Ordinance No. 105
as written and have Mr. Crowe draft an amendment tonight for first reading.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 105 (second reading).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF
FEES, OR BOTH, FOR PARR AND RECREATIONAL LAND
IN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED COMMUNITIES.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to waive further reading. Motion carried
by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Palombo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
Ray Matlock, Lewis Homes: She said the 5 acres per 1000 population was excessive
and was not reflective of neighboring communities. She said she had taken a
survey herself and discovered 2 or 3 acres to more accurate. She urged Council
to reconsider this.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed by the Mayor.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to adopt Ordinance No. 105 for the present
time. However, to instruct staff to come back to Council upon completion of the Park
and Recreational Element of the General Plan for reconsideration of amending the
ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser.
NOES: None, ABSENT: Palumbo.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AVERAGE COST PER ACRE. A resolution in support of Ordinance
No. 105 which addresses park dedications, or fees in lieu of, in subdivisions. A for-
mula contained in that Ordinance has a factor of development cost per acre which is
recommended to be set at $40,000 per acre. Staff report by Bill Holley.
Mayor opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was:
Phil Gustafson, 3164 E. La Palma, Anaheim. He was the site engineer on
an apartment project at 19th and Ramona. He asked for an estimate of what
the costs would be for his project. Council directed him to speak with
Bill Holley, Community Services Director.
There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public portion of the meeting.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve Resolution No. 80 -46 and to
waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels,
Frost, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. City Clerk Wasserman read title
of Resolution No. 80 -46.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
AVERAGE COST PER ACRE TO DEVELOP PARK LAND IN
RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
City Attorney, Sam Crowe, read in full the amendment to Ordinance No. 105 which
the Council had requested. The full text is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 105 -A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 105.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Section 3 -F of Ordinance No. 105 is hereby amended as follows:
"Park and Recreational Land Credit for Planned Communities. Where
private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a planned
community and portions of or all such space is to be privately owned and
maintained by the future residents of the planned community or publicly ded-
icated and maintained by a special assessment district, credit against the re-
quirement of dedication for park and recreational purposes, as set forth in
Section 2 -G shall be determined through the adoption of the planned community
text provided, however, that the park standard for said planned community
is the same as for any other development and that the Planning Commission finds
it is in the public 'nterest to do so, and that the following standards are met:"
Section 2. All other portions of Ordinance No. 105 should remain in full
force and effect.
Section 3. 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 Dally Report, a newspaper of
general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, and circulated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga.
Mayor set June 18 for second reading of Ordinance No. 105 -A.
5B. REVISION TO ORDINANCE NO. 8 WHICH ESTABLISHES A PARK AND DEDICATION TAX FOR
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Staff report by Bill Holley.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 8 -B.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RE-
CREATION TAX FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, AMOUNTS, AND
CREDITS THEREOF.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Palumbo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to adopt Ordinance No. 8 -B. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Palumbo.
5C. ZONE CHANCE NO. 80 -04 AND EWIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - ACACIA CONSTRUCTION.
A zone change from A -1 to R -3 for property located on the southwest corner of
Baker and Foothill Boulevard. Mikels stated he would abstain from voting on
this item and left the table. Staff report by Jack Lam.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ORDINANCE NO. 106. (second reading).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S ?ARCEL NUMBER 207 - 191 -31 AND 26
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND BAKER.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to waive further reading. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES:NOne.
ABSENT: Palombo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to approve Ordinance No. 106. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Frost, Schlosser, NOES: None.
ABSENT: Palombo. ABSTAINED: Mikels.
5D ZONE CHhNGE NO. 80 -06 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - DELL MC DANIEL, INC.
A change of zone from A -1 to R -1 for property located on the northeast corner of
Ramona and Church Street. Staff report by Jack Lam.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ORDINANCE NO. 107. (second reading).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 301 -37 FROM A -1
TO R -1 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
RAMONA AND CHURCH,
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Palumbo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to approve Ordinance No. 107. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Palombo.
5E. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE CHERBAK HOUSE AS AN HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST -
located at 9983 Hillside Road. Staff report by Bill Holley.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ORDINANCE NO. 108. (second reading).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE CHERBAK FAMILY HOME, LOCATED AT 9983 HILL-
SIDE ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AS A SIGNIFICANT
HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST OF THE CITY AND
'THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY POINT OF
HISTORIC INTEREST.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES:
None. ABSENT; Palumbo,
Navor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Bridge asked if any consideration had been given to the other homes nearby. He
felt the street should be maintained as is (narrowed) with the homes clustered
around as they are. Mr. Hobbs said this had not been looked into, but it could
be studied and perhaps some thing could be done.
Leonard Gorczyca, Chairman of the Historical Commission, said they had designated
the main home first. In the original draft of Ordinance No. 70 all the homes
were listed, but not in the adopted ordinance.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Hikels, seconded by Frost to approve Ordinance No. 108. The
motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo.
LA.YDN . The Garrett and Company Winery, commonly referred to as the Virgini
Dare Winery, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven
Avenue, is recommended for a City historic landmark designation. Staff report
by Bill Holley.
Mr. Holley turned the meeting over to Andrew Mililli of the Hon Company. He
stated that his company would be able to preserve the original buildings so
they could be used by the public.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ORDINANCE NO. 109. (first reading).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOGNIZING THE GARRETT AND COMPANY WINERY
AS A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY
AND THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY HISTORIC
LANDMARK.
Motion: Moved by Mikelp, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Palombo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Those addressing Council
were:
David Humphrey, Chamber of Commerce, stated the historical designation
should be withheld until the restoration process was completed.
Leonard Gorcyzca, Chairman of the Historical Commission, encouraged
adoption of the ordinance.
Gene Billings, Historical Commission member.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Schlosser set June 18 for second reading of Ordinance No. 108.
Mayor Schlosser made this additional announcement at his time since he felt meey
were still present in the audience waiting for Council to make appointments for
the Planning Commission. He said Council would make appointments at the June 18
meeting.
Mr. Crowe said that under Ordinance No. 13-A the terms of office could be extended
up to a period of six months by minute action.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to extend the Planning Commission's
terms of office to June 18. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge,
Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo.
Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
with the following Council members present:
Arthur Bridge, Jon Mikels, James Frost, and Mayor Phillip Schlosser.
Michael Palombo had been absent since 7:45 p.m.
5G. VACATION OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA. Vacation of a triangular portion of
19th Street at the corner of Ramona and 19th Street, Vacation has been approved
by CALTRANS and notices have been advertised and posted. There have been no
objections received. This vacation is being done in conjunction with an apart-
ment project at that location. Staff report by Lloyd Hobbs.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to adopt Resolution No. 80 -50 and to
waive entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels,
Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. Title read by City Clerk Wasserman.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO BE
VACATED A PORTION OF 19TH STREET, AS SHOWN ON
MAP (NO, V007) ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
5H. REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF SAPPHIRE STREET. A proposed revision
to Ordinance No. 39 redesignating the speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph on 19th
Street to Banyan Street. Staff report by Paul Rougeau.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of ORDINANCE N0: 39,B. (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 39 PERTAINING TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON SAPPHIRE
STREET.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to waive further reading of Ordinance
No. 39 -8. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost,
Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Those addressing Council
urging Council to reduce the speed limit were:
Jacob Bela, 8288 Highland
Roger Troutman, 6544 Sapphire
Carl Owen, 6512 Sapphire
Ray Dalghren, of the Sheriff's Department, explained why it was
necessary to maintain speed limits that are set by traffic study.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Schlosser set June 18 for second reading.
6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
6A. PROJECT ESPERANZA - Quarter Annual Report. Staff report by Bill Holley.
Dr. Armando Navarro, Director of National Institute for Community Development,
gave an oral quarterly report for the project. He requested Council to consider
giving the project some financial support for the next fiscal year.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to accept the report and to take
the financial request Into consideration. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Bridge, Frost, Mikels, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo,
6B. INDUSTRIAL AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND POLICY REPORT. Lloyd Hubbs intro-
duced Bill Mann of L. D. Ring who made an oral report for the revised master plan
in the industrial area south of Foothill Boulevard between Deer Creek and Day
Creek. Barry Hansen, Project Engineer, was also present and assisted in the pre-
sentation.
Mayor opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was Joe
DiIorio. He gave a brief summary of the status of his projects. He questioned
the timing of the policies and stressed the need to move ahead.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to adopt the Drainage Master Plan, but
defer until June 18 the policy issues in order to study them further. Motion carried
by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Palombo.
6C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 1980 -81. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs.
Mr. Hubbs reviewed the capital improvement program pointing out that two additional
projects had been added to the proposed Road Project Expenditure list which were:
10. Vineyard at Foothill signal modification 5,000
11. City of Montclair fund transfer 126,000
A total of approximately $850,000 is proposed for streets and roads, and $560,000
for storm drain purposes.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to adopt Resolution No. 80 -52 and to
waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge,
Mikels, Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. City Clerk Wasserman read
title of Resolution No. 80 -52.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -52
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE 1980 -81 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM.
6D. PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT RELATIVE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Staff report by
Jack Lam.
A request had been submitted by Larry Hendon, Coordinator of the Affordable Housing
Committee of San Bernardino County for consideration by the City Council for
adoption by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lam recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 80 -53 advising the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors of its opposition to the proposed
Affordable Housing Task Force Policy in its present form.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to approve Resolution No. 80 -54 and to
waive entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bridge, Mikels,
Frost, Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. City Clerk Wasserman read title
of Resolution No. 80 -54.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 -54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE PRO-
POSED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TASK FORCE POLICY STATEMENT.
7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
Mr. Crowe had nothing to report.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Bridge to adjourn to an Executive Sersion
to reconvene on Monday, June 9, at 6:00 p.m. for a budget meeting in the Lion's
Park Community Center. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk