The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980/03/05 - Agenda Packet0 AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Lion's Park Community Center 9161 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga Regular Meeting March 5, 1980 AGENDA ITEMS -- NOTE: all items submitted for the City Council agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting items is 5:00 p,m. on the Thursday prior to the first and third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. A. Pledge to Flag. B. Roll Call: SchlosserL, Mikels_.�_, Palombo_�(_, Bridge "C , Frost. jl7 • C. Approval of Minutes: February 19, 1980 and February 20, 1980. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Historical Commission, Tuesday, March 11, 7:00 p.m. Lion's Park Community Center. b. Advisory Commission, Thursday, March 20, 6:30 p.m. Library Conference Room. c. SCAG General Assembly Meeting, March 5 -6. d. SANBAG, Tuesday, March 11, 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon, San Bernardino Convention Center, California Room. e. Omnitrans Board of Director's meeting, March 11, 8:00 a.m., San Bernardino Convention Center, California Room. f. Council g. Staff 3. COMMISSION REPORTS. a. Advisory Commission b. Historical Commission U lJ City Council Agenda -2- March 5, 1980 4. CONSENT CALENDAR. )� The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the council at one time with- out discussion. any Council members, staff member, or interested party may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. a. Approval of Warrants: Register No. 80 -3 -5 for 1 $ 318,053.92. b. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License for Son 0. 3 Reid and Franklin H. Yun, The Tempura Parlor /Suny's Fish 8 Chips, 9730 19th Street -- on -sale beer. c. Tract 9525: Release of bond. 4 Located 250 feet north of Arrow Route and 300 feet west of Turner. Owner: Arnold D. Anderson Landscaping bond $38,300.00 d. Set public hearing on March 19, 1980 for Pluess - Staufer appeal in regard to Director Review No. 79 -32. e. Tract 9325: Release of T.O.P. bond to Hughes 6 Development Corporation. Purpose: Conversion of sales office to garage at 8545 Hawthorne Street. f. Approval of improvement security for St. Peter and St. 7 Paul Catholic Church. Performance bond (surety) $ 34,600 Labor 8 Material (surety) $ 34,600 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -18 and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -18 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVE- MENT SECURITY FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. W91 -55 (ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL CATHOLIC CHURCH). City Council Agenda -3- March 5, 1980 g. Parcel Map 5545: Acceptance of Map, Agreement and 9 Bonds. Consists of 3 parcels on 4 acres of land located on the north side of Baseline west of Archibald Avenue. This site is zoned and general planned for commercial development. Developer: Lewis Properties Performance (cash) $ 20,000 Labor & Material (cash) $ 20,000 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -19 and direct: The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the city, and The City Clerk and City Engineer sign the map on behalf of the city, and The City Engineer forward the map for recording. • RESOLUTION NO. 80 -19 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5545, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5545) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. h. Parcel Map 5760: Acceptance of Map, Agreement and Bonds 12 Consists of 7 parcels on 64 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Milliken and 6th Street. Site is zoned and general planned for industrial develop- ment. The development is being phased and the first phase consists of two buildings. Developer: O'Donnell, Brigham and Partners. Performance Bond (surety) $446,500. Labor & Material Bond (surety) $446,500. Monumentation $ 1,550. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -20 and direct: ThE Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the city, and The City Clerk and City Engineer sign the map on behalf of the city, and City Council Agenda -4- March 5, 1980 • The City Engineer forward the map for recording. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -20 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5760, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5760) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. i. Installation of Security Alam System in City Facilities 16 (City Offices, Lion's Park Community Center, and the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center). Recommendation: It is recommended that authorization be given to the Community Services Department to negotiate with various vendors to determine the level of service required and to award contract for the purchase and installation of equipment in the City Offices, Lion's Park Community Center, and the Neighborhood Center. Amount not to exceed $4500 from the contingency fund. r( j. a oun Y n e— figrBEment. 17 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the extension of the County Road Maintenance Agreement from July 1, 1980 to July 30, 1980. This 30 -day extension will allow the city time to "gear -up" to assume this function. k. Agreement for Engineering Services on Church Street 20 and Highland Avenue. The contract is for engineering services relating to the resurfacing, reconstruction, and minor widening of Church Street from Archibald to Hermosa and Highland Avenue from Hermosa to Haven. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement for the Engineering Services by Linville- Sanderson -Horn and Associates; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. S. PUBLIC.. HEARINGS. A. Reversion to Acreage of Tract No. 9399 and 9400. 25 North side of Banyan, west sr a of fiery . Staff report by Jack Lam. is City Council Agenda -5- March 5, 1980 At the last Council meeting, staff was directed to set the public hearing for the reversion to acreage of Tracts 9399 and 9400. If the Council retains the decision to revert these tracts back to acreage, then staff recommends that Council: (1) Direct staff to have the Parcel Map prepared for reversion to acreage of Tracts 9399 and 9400. (2) Appropriate expenditures of not to exceed $1,000 from the contingency fund for the above (funds to be received from the bonding company). (3) Make the following findings that: a. Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes, and b. None of the improvements required to be made have been made within two years from the date the final or parcel map was filed for record, or within the • time allowed by agreement for completion of the improvements, whichever is the later; or c. No lots shown on the final map or parcel map have been sold within five years from the date such map was filed for record. i- B. General Plan Amendment 80 -01A - Lewis Develo ent Co. 28 6i request to designate t e sout east corner o Riven and Baseline Road as Neighborhood Community from v" the previously designated Alternative Land Use, Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 80 -OIA and Issue a Negative Declaration. C. General Plan Amendment 80 -01B - Daon /Barton. 36 A request for a change in the Land Use Element 1'I of the General Plan from Industrial Land Use - classification to Neighborhood Community for the northeast corner of Haven and Arrow Route. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 80 -OIB and that the effective date of such amendment be at the time a conditional use permit is approved for the development of the site by the Planning Commission and that such review and approval of the d' City Council Agenda -6- March 5, 1980 • conditional use permit must be accomplished by the applicant within one year from date of this action. D. General Plan Amendment 80 -01C,, Cit of Rancho _ 46 u_c�am_o_n_ga�. propose amen ment to t e interim' and d use element of the General Plan to relocate the neighborhood commercial asterisk presently , located midway between Lemon and Highland Avenue, on the eastside of Haven, to the intersection of Highland and Haven. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 80 -01C. E. A Resolution amending the adopted interim _land use 53 e emend t of the enera an. Recommendation: If all three General Plan Amend- ments are approved (80 -01A, B, and C), then it is recommended that Resolution No. 80 -21 be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -21 53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. Carnelian Street Parkway Improvement Program. 57 Staff report by Lloyd Hu s. Six proposals were submitted for the parkway improve- ,i +l ment program for Carnelian. Genge Consultants were selected by a staff committee for this project. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement with Genge Consultants for the parkway improvement program on Carnelian. Phase 1 will cost approximately $7,500 to come from the Beautification Fund. Phase Ii will be presented to Council for approval once Phase I is completed. 8. Request for Proposals for design of Carnelian Channel. 58 Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. , Authorization is requested to seek proposals for the 71 design of Carnelian Channel construction to the Demens w� Channel. • City Council Agenda -7- March 5, 1980 The design will be paid for through the storm drain fees. C. Operation Stop. Staff report by Capt. Tom Wickum. The proposal requesting funding assistance from the Office of Traffic Safety to implement a traffic safety project has been approved. D. Report re. Emergency Preparedness Plans. Oral report presente— d by Bill Halley, y, Coiimunity Services Director E. Recommendation b staff for rea ro riation of funds for rior ear 1978 -79 programs. Staff report by Harry Empey, Finance Director. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. a. Report on Agins vs. City of Tiburon case. • 8. NEW BUSINESS. a. Council b. Audience 9. ADJOURNMENT. rJ 59 62 { R867 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WARR N VEN 9 V E N 0 0 R N A M E 00422 1'00 BANK OF AMERICA 00423 7200 MASSAR. THOMAS G DELORE •OC424 9290 WEST ENO UNITED WAY 00425 8313 SAN 8RNONO CO EMPLOY C n U I TER D INTL- INE LLA, RETIREMENT S CENTERS FREIGHTITIES R ER SWEEPING PING ER(CAH, HARRY F ARBORICULTU , A H V CY PPLY A SHO L SA A LOMA C IVIL_E ER DIST TROPHY CORP 03392 3303 THE VI PIRERGOJ 03393 4050 FED !BART 03394 4007 FILMS INC 03395 4270 GSC 03396 4500 GEANNES, SHIRLEY 033q7 4590 GENERAL ELECTRIC 03396 4600 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO 03399 466C GLUECKERT NORMAN 03400 4775 GRANT. JERRY R I WARR DATE 05180 DISCOUNT NET 4. 1. is 3. 5, 139• 84, 8. 1. 2.920.00 107.20 5.997.70 609.63 2.704.60 600.00 4.50 24.77 63.77 1,204.16 64.30 75.00 1,596.00 192.00 913.72 21.60 10,338.92 799.92 15.00 75.00 R867 CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA 41ARR M VEN R V E N 0 0 R N A M E 03401 4779 GREEN ROCK GARDENS 03402 4812 HARNISH, MORGAN L CAUSE 03403 4827 HAYNES, C 03404 4828 HAYNES, MATTHEW WARR DATE ___s -L 7 NET 1 1. 3. 6 3 1.6 9,5 1,7 1, 5,463.88 38.14 20.00 267.21 157.94 165.00 665.00 1,320.00 297.00 16.40 686.64 17.17 318,053.92 • 03407 4915 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC LLOYD 003408 309 5110 IBMBS, 03410 ROF 1 6603 KIWANISG CLUB R C 03412 6630 LAM, JACK 03413 6850 L A TIMES - E E SMITH 03415 716E LONG C'CT7ICMICHAEL BUSINESS MACHINE 03417 7195 MARTIN, JOHN 03416 7220 VATCHAM, KAREN C 03419 726C MC COYS FEED 03420 7293 MC ELENNEY, F 03421 7375 MONAHAN CLAUDIA 03422 7765 PLANNING. CNTR, THE 03423 7777 PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 03424 7790 PITNEY BOWES 03425 8075 RAPID DATA INC 00 ROA BI JAMES H 03427 8301 S MSSN• 03428 8306 SAFECO TITLE INS CO I 03429 8311 SAN BOND CO SURVEYOR SHAZEL0 034301 8357 SAMMONS 03432 8368 SHITH-BFNNETT CO INC 03433 8390 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 03434 CD 3435 8398 SCUTHLANO PAPERGCO 03436 337 8476 SPECIALTY TYPEWRITER SV 03438 VOIC VENDOR NO. 8525 03439 8525 STATIONERS CORP 03440 8530 STOCKWELL L BINNEY 8544 DOCUMENT 03442 20 UU 5E RENTAL 03443 9030 UPLAND VACUUM C SEWING 03444 9148 VANGUARD LEASING SYSTEM 03445 9179 W/W MOBILE SWEEPERS 03446 9181 WALKER, SCOTT 1 9185 WARO. EL IE 03447 3448 9270 WEST COAST NETTING INC 03449 9990 XEROX CORP 03450 9999 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 03451 VOID FINAL TOTALS t WARR DATE ___s -L 7 NET 1 1. 3. 6 3 1.6 9,5 1,7 1, 5,463.88 38.14 20.00 267.21 157.94 165.00 665.00 1,320.00 297.00 16.40 686.64 17.17 318,053.92 • DOPYd.,arh_h.1me.11 copse. i one Not Write Above This Limit Headquarter. ofse Only NPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES) Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 1215 O Street Sacramento, Calif. 95814 San BDTTav'd' *O— syeImrT +rav ;na,ae.na.l The undersigned hereby applies for licenses described as (allows: 1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO, ' ON roars BM Applied under Sec. 24044 0 Effective Date: FEE NO. GEOGRAPHICAL , CODE -e Date Issued 2. NAME(S) OF APPLICANT(S) Temp, Permit I Effective Date: ' 3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) FEE LIC. TYPE S ^()0 np 41,0 AN�t7,JAT, R -0 4. Name of Business C"T 20 he Tempura Parlor /.Sotto is Fish & Chips S. Location of Business — Number and Street 9730 19th Street _ City• and Zip Code County ilanC}l0 CucaL10n.a 91730 San Bernadin RECEIPT NO. 51,176 TOTAL $ 38µ,g. 6. If Premises Licensed, 7. Are Premises Inside Show Type of License City Limits? x? 8. Mailing Address (if differenl from 5)— Number and Street (T-0 (P.,) 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Have you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per - Ne` n ining to the Act ?_ Ay, 11. Explain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. 12. Applicant agrees (a) hot any manager employed in on -sale licensed premises will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. 13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Bernardino _ Date 2113180 _ noon undo, m•ala of w.ian. tone assn n ... a apprp Mlow nnq., and w I0 H. S. vpnta am N IM appfta as an e1Re 1 of IA. applit mod ai If. bnaaine applit duly ulAw ud says; mat. This vPPI'rt s bM1dl; 12I IMI Fr Ihe, .ad S. tons. pain. opplim and nikno aIh.� IAnaal and than atb end ell of th. IMr. mad. olll IMI n ,an eS., IAan Ihr applit opplim s Ihas on, di,. indent : Ih. PPlit• o t Iw,;n a b. wndrn.d anon l Is. In n(,I tar —hi,x m;• applit moH; PI Ihas It. ntiv applit p•e -std sl mad. hly 'the pan of of a Iw, a Nun o oea nd i Iban y IN, days pnnoina a41 day a wLUM1 a1M oppl t• s 1.1.4 -:IS 1M D.par . pain bEli1M1 a yr fin w It ndib rof ...nd.r d.fl.d a an, md'nor of ImminasL(31 IMI IS.nlwns4r apalkalion mar Iso nwilM1drawn by .ih.r So spli —I or IM lit.n. 41 no nwhi,s WhIll, le .". IM Mpanm.m. [ 14. APPLICANT ') Jd�.r I //(ern r�V (•�. SIGN HERE A 1) of I je /mete APPLICATIO TRANSFEROR r • STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ... .. Date undo p.rolly of Mriury. oath ynown wtow ,i.rwmr. apPan Indoor, anlien end says: 111 N. is Ow IianNe, w an xi-Ii- e1Mx of IM agpnass lit. . in M. Impair, band., eoaliortan, duly aulhniwd 1 nsaw this IradslM appl ;lalien on in Mholf; 121 had sho Swishy mass, epplitation to swt.Mn NI 11 In Iha stressed M. .•hI drstdMd III and Ia ',.nor., m ,M apphaam ands ISi Indlmlol an he apps paean d Ihi, epencou.. Stan It lsod hmdn h opp,a..d by ans hretln: Ul Ma, IM Olmmfor areli -liar to mepnrd I ml., mod. 1. w0f, IM ..m.m el o loan a, le MAN sys aas..IMM .Morse Into m r Ihnl .11 dots prradiM for day a whl,h IM I min applk.N. is filed with Mr bpa firsom w to NIn o ,.Nish a :g prrrerrll • t. a In . 1 ardila d 11—Star, or ro t1i n It an, na.dit. N ironstone; la that M. Lands appemeon may M oilhd,own 6y •r1IMr IM ppplkam .r IM Ihmen wire - nwmp liability le me bodam.m. `'� t w lit, Name(,) of LkenseHU ... 17. Signmme(s) of Lkemae(s) 18. license Number(,) • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Jack Lan, Director of Community Development Subject: CONSENT CALENDAR Release of Bond - Tract 9525 - Located 250 feet north of Arrow Route and 300 feet west of Turner Owner: Arnold D. Anderson 520 North Euclid Avenue Ontario, California 91762 • Bond: $38,300.00 - Complete Landscaping for Tract 9525 Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM Director of Community Development JL : am 0 ACf i h . - _ rcj • IN MC COVNTYOF SCN OC,.': 4PO..'NO �o • rs(pAS vx er•v nc r, ..a'a ur.owu lrrfe.c .••r•' 1 ': 'a' ;"ie', .rn(,tr c.0 .. r v. r sr. n••s..'• (;n NrrT f''G fP'nr1 lu.v(r0! v; VrrlMr f •Ir; f.P r.vr.. ' I.l � \f f�•(r f.11f n.: J(rIG(r t r( izi .j ,o el Aw Ac. a n .ro,•.r r;rr 1�1 e�f.yfr• fle..f ' < ;°p '( M1 I r�re"am SIN• s L { n�ro'Xr h Ln:e .(. .: ra(.. _.°,'�) �g,o-�„�.��•i��r� - .,,. °.: ;:,�� ,. ,; „•ij- '•p °:;r7w ` . T.ti.m• 'p _ -- --` 9TLaCEN ^vul, PL Y��" i -L —= qA�CEM1'J_Sr'PffT r ,,, f( , fNO •r JV Im� > ev! r. I •'Q r / \n rrCr.V grr lT Pl -��rrr r'lo,n 26 -27 M B 6I2 .F, 9194 i o NO 'RAC o , • BASIS OF BEARINGS ANO M77f'S 'L \f fturo�Ga eumc�r.r (v(nr,.`,vr fr ..;..r url.. sG nc fs'. rn l+rL%rr.. .f ne.:n f. or.o.' +r rro r ors ralwl If . e 1 no �su . r cr n ..a,'n .. e.v.n.ns NArrrr(J I Grl rnf IrcG(O 1, YO ,rlfrlr -Ilr f� ry r.rl r(nl J✓'GZ E Npf1r(J � rN rfiG1011 N,rII Nfnrll Ql� NfIfI1Il u vI (O OJI II Y+v. [Y ): v(1.nf d Ir(1 f(+rNGf p Ir(, frtl I[ rry (O IM A( O / /�(r OIK WMIIVMM (;n NrrT f''G fP'nr1 lu.v(r0! v; VrrlMr f •Ir; f.P r.vr.. ' I.l � \f f�•(r f.11f n.: J(rIG(r t r( • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 1980 To: City Manager and City Council From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: CONSENT CALENDAR - RELEASE OF BOND Release of T.O.P. Bond for Hughes Development Corporation - Work for the following tract has been completed and the bond is hereby authorized by the Planning Department for release to Hughes Development Corporation: Tract No. Lot No. Amount of Bond Receipt No. Purpose /Location 9325 121 $2,000.00 02687 Sales Office /Garage Conversion at 8545 Hawthorn • Street Re pec [ful ly submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:nm • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council 8 City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ST. PETER 8 ST, PAUL CHURCH The above mentioned church has received approval to construct a new sanctuary on the southeast corner of Beryl Street and Banyan Street, As a condition of approval, the church is required to install and widen Beryl Street. Part of the condition is that the post bonds prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the interest of construction timing, the contractor for the church, Earle T. Casler, Inc., has posted securities for the street improvements: Performance Bond (Surety) $34,600.00 • Labor 8 Material Bond (Surety) $34,600.00 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City, Respectfully subm' ted, 41�s City sneer LBH:deb • 7 RESOLUTION NO. 80 -18 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. W91 -55 (ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL CATHOLIC CHURCH) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on January 31, 1980, by the St. Peter and St. Paul Catholic Church, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southeast corner of Beryl and Banyan Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as Site Approval No. W91 -55; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk James C. Frost, Mayor • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP 5545 - ACCEPTANCE OF MAP, AGREEMENT AND BONDS The subject Parcel Map consists of 3 parcels on 4 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line west of Archibald Avenue. This site is zoned and General Planned for commercial development. The developer, Lewis Properties, has made arrangements with the Cucamonga County ''dater District for the installation of their facilities. The following improvement securities have been submitted for acceptance by the City for street improvements: Performance (cash) $20,000.00 Labor & Material (cash) $20,000.00 • RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and direct: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. 2. The City Clerk and City Engineer to sign the map on behalf of the City. 3. The City Engineer to forward the map for recording. RE • I RESOLUTION NO. 80 -19 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5545, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.5545) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, tentative Parcel Map No. 5545 submitted by all cities engineering, and consisting of three (3) parcels, located on the north side of Base Line, west of Archibald, being a division of Lot 6 of Block 8 of Cucamonga Homestead Subdivision was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on December 17, 1979; and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5545 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable improvement security by Lewis Properties as developer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and . said improvement security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said improvement agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Parcel Map Number 5545 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: James C. Frost, Mayor ATTEST: • Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk r I -TENTATIVE PAPCEL MAr W2 • 0 empe LINL, • VIC,ItJlrY MAf' 0 empe LINL, • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP 5760 - ACCEPTANCE Of MAP, AGREEMENT AND BONDS The subject Parcel Map consists of 7 parcels on 64 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Milliken and 6th Street. This site is zoned and General Planned for industrial development. This development is being phased and the first phase consists of 2 buildings. The developer, O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners, has made arrangements with the Cucamonga County Water District for the installation of their facilities. The following improvement securities have been submitted for acceptance by the City for street improvements: Performance Bond (Surety) $446,500.00 • Labor & Material Bond (Surety) $446,500.00 Monumentation $1,550.00 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and direct: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. 2. The City Clerk and City Engineer to sign the map on behalf of the City. 3. The City Engineer to forward the map for recording. Respectfully submitted, WLovldl ub s te City gineer LBH:deb RESOLUTION NO. 80 -20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5760, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.5760) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, tentative Parcel Map No. 5760, submitted by Joseph Hyde Engineering Co., and consisting of seven (7) parcels, located at the northeast corner of Milliken and 6th, being a division of Lot I of Tract No. 2205 was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 26, 1980 and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5760 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable improvement security by O'Donnell, Brigham G Partners as developer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and • said improvement security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said improvement agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Parcel Map Number 5760 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST; Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 13 James C, Frost, Mayor TENTATIVE . I IARCEL PIAP NO Z —� 5760 EuG�uEEN: A4rru p .a[ 6p C Ohl O¢�[N�Vi�ou • we 4[u[PU uar owu TENTATIVE PikRCLL MAP N0. 5760 \ L,,,\\ND USE :\AGRICUL'fURE ,1 lzo (�P1RCE ' 2 PARCE� I\ �� _...... tp. R /E 6'IE \IlP EL /I 4 \;` .J \} '�.' .�ofenr � t._iDZ• rnpvi I � �/I \`� \�� \ I F\ I�j�� MILUKEN„ � ZN VEZ LL Yom• .. LAND USE: A9RICUL7URE ZONED "M -2 `^ • M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 28, 1980 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Subject: Installation of Security Alarm System in City Facilities Request Council authorization for staff to have installed security alarm systems at the City Offices, Lion's Park Community Center and the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. Services required are as follows: 1. City Offices - After hours audible entry alarm, connected to Sheriff's Station. In addition, the cashier's station would be equiped with a silent "hold -up" button, again, connected directly to the Sheriff's dispatch. 2. Lion's Park and Neighborhood Center - After hours audible entry • alarm. The purposes of the audible systems would be to make the intruder immediately aware that his presence was know and his venture in jeopardy, forcing him to withdraw. This would prevent expensive office equipment loss in any quantity and extended interior property vandalism. Companies offering alarm systems have two basic approaches: 1. Lease of equipment, with monthly service charge; and, 2. Sale of equipment, with or without monthly service charge. Quotes received thus far range from $3,615 for purchase of equipment, to $4,347 for lease of equipment. ' Request authorization for Community Serivices Department to negotiate, with various vendors, the level of service required (company proposals suggest wiring everything in sight, which seems to be an "overkill" for which we pick up the tab) and award contract for the purchase and installation of equipment in the above listed facilities, not to exceed an amount of $1500. (Should be significantly less.) Funds to be appropriated from contingency. Request an agenda date of 3/5/80 for Council consideration. • BH rtn� 1� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council 8 City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: COUNTY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Attached for Council approval is an agreement extending the county Road Maintenance Contract from July 1st to July 30, 1980. This is merely a one -month extension of the current agreement to allow gear -up time for the City maintenance function. The July 30, 1980, date was established by recent Council action. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the County Maintenance Agreement extension from July 1, 1980 to July 30, 1980. Respectfully submitted, • ZogVA rr� ub s Ciineer LBH:deb J I TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT County of Son Bernardino 825 East Third Street - San Bernardino, CA 92415 - (7141383 1365 PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IDNN R. SNONE. Dre,,IOr fGI [Flr.ei I I I - ". m\ F.m t $yOM FI RAT , —0 flnMnO Tnr��V�d FF". Om.M February 1980 eea N.m..,.e Fiplr D,.. „r, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 6n G-11% 11 AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR A`n' M B• 11,I Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, Director Public Works Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 783 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Hr. Hubbs: Enclosed is an original and four copies of the amendment to the Road Maintenance Contract N78 -459 A -1, as requested in your letter dated January 25, 1980. Please have these documents signed by your City and return them to • my office. The copies will be submitted to the Board of Suoervisors for approval. You may retain one copy for your files; a fully executed copy will be forwarded to you at a later date. 8LI:gm Enclosures (5) 1 Very truly yours, JOHN R. SHONE Director of Transportation BY r.,'9 f ✓i.y.l..... B. L. INCRAN Assistant Road Commissioner Operations (11 IM' nl3(Ud'1i1w13N)Ir11(i 18 Aveon Manapenant . ebn.,, end EAdlne NR,, • Road OReoriont T vun :i,..-n iFj nrrTnnTETt- ((F -- .I P.W.A. - Transportation 78 -459 A -2 0 f,,.unty nona. r,.r „r �mvari n•rr r nv - - - - - -- s COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO B. L. Ingram• 1001 13 n"e'al".. AA T... • STANDARD CONTRACT ”" m E•• I � DI LoL _ C .r Chrzl Onr f_1 E.nernnnm 0 II, rna.•Ios inn.. iM1a�n �eaym mar ma,mr, S5n +inl.n rr,e lnll,nrng. n Fngtlpv ^r Ip ANENDIIENT — —" - " " - ^— J- --' - "- - THIS CONTRACTAis entered into in the State of California by and between din. County of San Bernardino, hereafter called the County, and CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA hereafter railed CITY IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: lUsr Ira "r hlln;v rll d 111115,, I'd, of loan d n1,rIM Set forth Wrrlre to he rendered. avinnnt to Ir1 pair!, manner o1 voylrrrnt, tear far portonn,Tnrr nr covd letio", do tenninatrOrr of .gtlsfd, ro,y prrlorrnan, a 11+11 ra ✓m for frnnArnunn, ether turns anrf coorhnwr,, and att O, plans, Nmrifirannns, and adJrrrda. if any I WHEREAS the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino have entered into Contract A78 -459 A -1 for the performance of street and road maintenance, and 14HEREAS the parties have agreed that amendment be made to such Contract NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT Section 13 of the Contract shall be amended to read as follows: n c 13. If, at the termination of the agreement, COUNTY has on hand anIY e7taeetrrA CITY funds which is in excess of any obligation of CITY to COUNTY for the performance of such functions by said Road Commissioner, any such excess shall thereupon be paid to CITY by COUNTY. 1`1 %`t This contract shall have an effective date of July 1, 1980, and unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this agreement shall run for a period ending July 30, 1980_ Any provisions on the reins, side and referenced attachments hereof consti Rrte a part of this contiarl and are incornoraled heron in hill. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO _ -- Dated By IAn Arlrrr.rd Shvon,,rl��______ ATTESTED. Dated Tille _ Clerk of the Buarrl nl 8unervlsnrs Arldrrss 1, nlovnd as I nrn Rn,.im,l rd a, br hndnm r.p,n,dih v.• Conn1Y Cnnnetl Cdony AAnrinlstr,0ivr Urnre nna• I nr 121}x9, lot lsrnq ,anal I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INN00=- 181W DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ON CHURCH STREET AND HIGHLAND AVENUE Attached for Council execution is a contract for engineering services related to the resurfacing, reconstruction and minor widening of Church Street from Archibald to Hermosa and Highland Avenue from Hermosa to Haven. Both streets are in poor repair and were budgeted for reconstruction this year. The firm of Linville- Sanderson -Horn & Associates were selected based on the lowest cost proposal for the services. Actual construction of the project will be delayed because of cash flow related to disaster funding. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends execution of the contract. Re 5i1pe�c tfulyy su itt d 6. ubbs Cit Engineer LBH:deb 20 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT • FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS I% THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA This CONTRACT, made and entered into this day of , 1980, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCA11O11GA, hereafter referred to as "CITY ", and Linville-Sanderson- Horn and Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY intends to widen and improve Church Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa, and Highland Avenue between Hermosa and Haven Avenue. • AND, WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has signified his willingness to undertake the Engineering work in connection therewith. NOW, THEREFORE, CONSULTANT, for considerations herein- after named, agrees to perform the following services: 1. Perform all necessary preliminary and construction surveying for the construction and completion of the project. 2. Prepare Improvement Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate to the satisfaction of the CITY. 3. Represent the C11Y at all meetinr.s, as req %issted or as necessary for the completion of the project. -I- PART A ENGINEER'S FEE Principal ......................... $38 /hr. Technician ........................ S22 /hr. Secretarial ....................... $15 /hr. Survey Crew ....................... $86 /hr. PART A ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR SERVICES 40 Preliminary Surveys ............................ S2,000.00 Design and Drafting Improvement Plans .......... $1,600.00 Meetings - Principal ........................... $ 190.00 . Specifications and Engineer's Estimate ......... $ 300.00 Construction Staking 51,000.00 Total "Not -to- exceed" fee for Engineering and Surveying, except for construction staking is $5,000.00. PART C METHOD OF PAYMENT The ENGINEER shall submit invoices for partial payment at monthly intervals for work accomplished at hourly rates. Each monthly invoiccs shall identifv the charges for particular engineering accomplished. • _2- 2 G-. 0 PART D TERMINATION The right is reserved by the City to terminate the agreement at any time upon written notice to Engineer in the event the Project or any portion thereof is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed, or in the case the Engineer's services, in the judgment of the City, are unsatisfactory or because of the Engineer's failure to prosecute the work with diligence or within the time limits specified; or because of Engineer's inability to perform. In any such case, the • Engineer shall be paid the value of the services rendered up to the time of termination by prorating the lump sum fee for elapsed time under this agreement. If the services of the Engineer are terminated for fault on his part, the City may procure the completion of the services or work in such manner as it deems best and shall charge to the Engineer any excess cost over that provided for in the agreement or any damages the City may sustain by reason of the default. • 23 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day first above written in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Attest: BY Clerk, City of Rancho Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga LINVILLE- SANDERSON-HORN 6 ASSOCIATES BY Kenneth N. Linville, P.E. President 24 0 • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: March S, 1980 To: City Council and City Manager From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: RLURRSION TO ACREAGE OF TRACT NO. 9399 AND 9400 - North side of Banyan, west side of Beryl At the last Council meeting, Staff was directed to set the public hearing for the reversion to acreage of Tracts 9399 and 9400. Discussion of the two tracts which were in default of their Improvement Agreement was con- ducted during the two previous meetings and the Council indicated their intent toward reverting these tracts back to acreage. If the Council retains such a decision, Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff to have the Parcel Map prepared for reversion • to acreage of Tracts 9399 and 9400. 2. Appropriate expenditures of not to exceed $1,000 from the Contingency Fund for the above (funds to be received from the bonding company). 3. Make the following findings that: a. Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or aban- doned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes; and b. None of the improvements required to be made have been made within two years from the date-the final . ps -p °54°1"° was filed for record, or within the time allowed by agreement for completion of the improvements, whichever is the later; or ' "L c. No 1 is shown on the al map or parcel map -ruw@ been sold withi five years'from the a such map was filed for recor Res ectful y .ubmitted, /) JACK LAM, Director of Community Development • JL:nm 25 1 z IOTS 113AC f V10. IN THE Ut:MCORF7R4TE0 ER TR12RY OFTHECOUNTY OF 3AN BERNARDEIO enN„ . ueo'v�YJN or r .. a:.•v or .x ix. c_acn . - ...ws. 4^, 4li�f•D .i10 C'ar.ON G4 =Et .t 4T ttlr/. iJ•[�'i \D.! -•-p Oi lO1 y.�NU�'tl :OlD] JI 54N pltW.G]iry0 MJ.h, bi•r� W�GOfN R•.S�OCisTlp� INC D >VID L. WL[OEN, CIVLL ENBN!!R NOV[Ne[M1 ,f11G. NOTES I. G noa.'!s oovp 4 ^vn: a .e�eo G NC ✓lS Set Txl V.:l:':l N +DP a¢Ntimftugl uTeO ND C('lt all l':r t,��l. naC:�'• M1r'.[nr.♦'{1!: r :'r.4x -ry. (e•:! • N•'.:• +.r J•!I[ � • ^� I '4'( _i a lC! 9iK17['1�M1 1 Glut rCr.: tylAS rQR R p ror•I!s v_ vu 'Ll. e. Ju e.::..eaw! o-r4G wmu[e ( dp 1F( -i ] 1x ei :n. ] • [♦ - 4�.:['Y '4l COwlr Mlf01f � lOi�G aVCO w(t .t[n[aD pv yyW.?! =9A 1S_lSRLJ L I ECG! lId:JAp 9e'firyh4]NGCOMYDQ4WL! sJV.ENFNT. 1•EI:[iwJ I Ii i ICJ e a. 1 s t r F t ] i f�• is a� ;�..- ...------ 2 LOT id' —9,0C/f i4 BASIS OF BEAR114GS n" •x: a•ms �l.e•4 .n -e4 JJ[f e(seo oN •.l5`�' `[••e• 4s �y�yN pN TRM! 4D 4Np /EN[A i'a als u![[fwl e! v] ty l; i1M1• s - - •'i 'i; sir a .iiM 4 n fz EOTS ( RAc 1 .1,10 IN THE UNMCORPJR AT ED TERIC RIRY OF•THE COUNfY OF iAB BERNARDINO D[a.., . wlDry >•oN ur : -v or v. vt i•F.D eiGJC'ai•pY �4 •fth AT (.Ei........... '..0 -�3 O� f- �[ir «v'`nR• tEC>[GS :N S4v DFtWS >iV SinT( O&V.v �g9pClnTl4, INC D4VIO LWryIOlN, (YVII ENGINFlR NOVf NDf/,1114. NOTES ! I4Jfv[S SC[[TII ^..Y:' a� C:'V \:Nf:'Mtn:1 wSE0 A Q•. f-l.:n.> a a� -, .Cw 5ll.f nit 4CcG,C .,: \ra•S .w •., �zo•!ci �:.c az �: r a t:e ,.c•r �w .a ar 1 Q mcc.;O eDry %ter ;,t. >v^ v:::wtLVU dirtS 4cntom! n etG w. \. Dt . eD � :w[ c•+:[ �.'•.e <own rvA.e.vt. G 1v5 a¢' w •1 �1 wt5 T �GPM1S l I.CU 'N.S stt..[tO M J.Lw4 w- wgl, AC E jkL>T _�•ssyel,_A!.J9S D G Gt �MP�.1[S luxCMf iirY4 W! 1. SBCrE nIGCATU Szr: iiCrtlC >ND CPNTY Dg4NAA!!A:ENlNT t S Y t T t i if ri-f •vain! r!' •: Ty u- i.� %i %i, ail,?Cl% i4 PANS OF BEARINGS p•. u! D.s I, 13471, .S VI •.e•f. -: a . »! If.)rlU '• �1 J owe P•80' M z. }. go w,•'o �lnE fug SJ' IL� lU Iy \u Q ii WOMM!, w: [:[ •G.nt .. —� ��.. Crlf'.nto GC• NGA •l4MG }q VD d• ' I � ft ��••:'9 � NH' >e'oe'f i4.•Fu u•'�i' I:. .�W' . i .A1'.. �� rf 1J t S Y t T t i if ri-f •vain! r!' •: Ty u- i.� %i %i, ail,?Cl% i4 PANS OF BEARINGS p•. u! D.s I, 13471, .S VI •.e•f. -: a . »! If.)rlU '• �1 J owe P•80' M z. }. go w,•'o �lnE fug SJ' IL� lU Iy \u Q ii WOMM!, w: [:[ •G.nt .. —� ��.. Crlf'.nto GC• NGA •l4MG }q VD d• ' I I i.!1 t,- I L 1 . ? . 4 1 T L -) IN THE UN:-NCCANJRAIED lthRii6lil THE COUNTY OV SAN EIERNARDINO DAVID L. W&LCEN, CfVIL ENGINCEEK NOVEMBER .,1916. NOTES 'I �.T 11, BASIS OF BEARINGS He 1'rtn TRACE No. 9400 14110- t...Wr 7 5 • r1 L -A 9 Ll 10 4 rE 12 'o 54NY J, 5 • r1 L -A Mb' 57KEET Ll Mb' 57KEET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -OIA - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to designate the southeast corner of Haven and Base Line Road as Neighborhood Community from the previously designated Alternative Land Use. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 23, 1980, held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the General Plan for the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Base Line Road from the present designated Alternative Area to a Neighborhood Community designation. At the conclusion of the public hearing and after review of the request, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration. This corner is part of the 1300 acres which Lewis Homes is presently preparing a specific plan for the development of a Planned Community. Since the majority • of the Lewis property is located within the Alternative area of the General Plan, no development can occur until such time that the General Plan is amended to reflect a proposed land use designation. It is Lewis Homes' intent to be able to develop a neighborhood commercial center on this corner in the near future. Attached is an excerlatof the minutes of the public hearing proceedings before the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the pro - posed Terra Vista plans. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 80-OIA and issue a Negative Declaration Respectfully-submitted JACK JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:kds Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Planning Commission Minutes - January 23, 1980 Part I Initial Study ' W Q Z W Q PEASE LWEJ ROAD 5L18J EGT SITE ♦JOFZTH - 3cALZ: 1'. Zw P�o�°o�EI� 51"ReET NAVE�J /t3ASE LIIJE FIEIGHSGrZHoOD cENTEP, L WE, PF-VFLopMEHT CO. ewes; wj t-gcr�cTl�� r. o, f3 ox x"10 L}PL -ANN, GA. cflla(0 • v• P A W' 'E0- Ol k 4:140tr 1 0 COCSPIT CAIPTAR_ • root ^lc IIFARl!r LfGATTVF. DECLARATION AM GENERAL PLAN AIIF.NDNCIrT tiny 80 -OIA - LEVIS Dt7l ELONIF_T R rgimst to place a nr ighho rhuod crmmrrcfal des ignnt tmn on the =rut hea.st corner of Haven Avcnue and Rase Line presently designated as Al ternnt lve Land Uses. Barry Itognn, Senior rl nnnrr, rovlrwed the staff rernet. Staff rrrnmmrnds aprrnant of General Plan Amendment No. 80 -OlA doll granting the southeast Tero on corner Of Haven and Rase Line Road as Neighborhood Cotrnntnfty. phnirman Rempel nskrd for questions from the Cotmnisston of the staff. There hcing none, Chairman Rompel opened the pull I, hcnrfnq. itr. Gran Ilnpga t t, ri pr Poem ing Lewis Dry elr pnrnt, st at�Ii th,•Ir pro lest is ready h hrpin rrnnt nu't iai .nnl a,krd that lhn Cnemin;Intt consider npptrvil of Lhr C,•nrral Nmi Amendment In nrdrr thnr rh`v enq pr'rcrd, Ito stI ed if [Ile Com- mission Ims aov quest Ions he would he harpy to answer them. Ht. Pae ld Her rn drrn, In!, ir, pepper Street, asked if the adopted General Plan Is snblrct to ra,Ifrnl rha ngr. baw1d nn drvrlepor intrust. In tilts City, most Inter•;ect ton, hnvv shnrPlnr rent ,•r•: of one kind or ;mot hor nlrendv drvvioped on them. There is .ilso n rr. 6., P ,j al of rnrant o war frmt t.tgr in those centers. Ile ask rd if n drmnFrnph it nerd h.n, been shown [e warrant anv further shopping center ronstrnrHnn. planning Commfs,(on tlimrtrs _p_ January 23, 1980 `f O Cb!lr -nn Rr,p�l stn! II r^ n Inrge dr•g,er this site tins in with thn, total pI anned rem -•in it, :Iry rI II"cnt of Terra ^i -tn. At the Terra VIstn devolop- mcnt plan, this rern^r is nhewa as A r, , -- rclnl center. Three will he al'Prrcirntely 6,500 homes built within 11,n Terra Vista development over • the next 15 to 20 years. t!r. I-nn stitcd if anyone In the audience Is Interested in the Terra Vista plans but hn,v not ,rrn tbrm, they arc welcome to come into the planning Divisinn to look at the exhibits. Since incorporation, this Citv's effort Itns been to upgrade all development standards and promote more orderly growth in the City. 111 regard to this Conceal Flan Amendment, It Apr env nd tonight this does not mean that the shopping center has boon approved. Mist Lewis mist do if the. Amendment Is approved is seek n zone change and site PL!" nor ro vn 1. The residents in the area will be notified prior to the public hearing nn the zone change and site plan review. At this time everyone will have on opportunity to take a look at the plans and to make judgements as to what you like or don't like about the particular project. There I'v L,e no further Comments from the audience., Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing.. Cnrmi - ion or (are in =tat ed in rrrvieus meet logs, the pons iblllty of requiring A fell ihil it,. study of all commercial developments was d!scussed. Re asked If such a study will be required of this development. Mr. Lam asked that the Commission gfve guidance tonight regarding this matter. The Zoning Ordinance At this time allows the City to require a market analysis. There was, hnt,ever, some opposition to that reqnlrement when the Issue was raised Previmtsly. The eprosi Non raised was that anyone could get A market analysis • and have it sav whatever Lhev want It to say. The other Part of the argument was that for someone to rake an investment they would do their own market analysis. Cnsmissinnrr Carcin stoted the reason he hronr.ht this up Is the fart that we are rearhtnr, saturation point of . shopping centers within the Present rommuntty. Ire is roncr rn rd [hot there ore several existing shopping com ors that are having trouble finding tenants it till;: time. This should he cnrefully analyzed prior to any addiN rnal drvclnrmcat bring approved. This doesn't mean that he is oprosod to this general Plan amendment as part of the planned community of Tetra Vista hot he dors want to he rnutinns that Ihlq project comes at the N gilt time s, that it can be supported by the population. "hail -It, Romrcl stated In rrr.ird to a market stndv. It is hie, opinion a deer L•prt is going to take tint into, rnnsldeeitinn before a development is ptr'p ^sod to inmir^ tint. It "Ill he ernnemlral.ly f ^nsihlo. The area which lion east If haver Aermie nt tills rime has no shopping area. It is Ills opinion a cnoter of Oils nature is needed. A rot inn was r,,dr br t'n••. ^L;s loner Paltl, xrm,drd iv Coll'isslonrr Jonrq to rrronm,•nd ndrptinn of Crneral plan Amendment ?to, 80 -OIA and that such rnrommrndntinn he forwarded to file City Cnubcll, AYM DAIII., JONES, CARCIA, TOLSTny, Rf11PE1, Nnfs: Nn +IE ARSLNr: NONE r -I LJ I'lnnning Commission fli na tos -d- January 23, 1980 31 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Corcnittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. • C, PROJECT TITLE: Haven /Base Line Neighborhood Center APPLICAIT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: LE141S DEVELOPMENT CO. and WESTERN PROPERTIES P.O. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786, 7141985 -0971 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Gene Noggatt, c/o LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO, and WESTERN PROPERTIES P.O. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786, 714/985 -0971 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Haven Avenue and Base Line Road (southeast corner), Rancho Cucamonga _ AT 01077 -091 -1 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None Y -( 32 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • • r , DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Neighborhood shopping center with 30;000 square foot market, 50,000 square foot drug /hardware store, and 50,000 square feet of shoos (aaudre faor gp gynroximato) ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 12.37 acres to contain a proposed shopping center of approximately 130,000 square feet DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOWLATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): site contains a oraoe vineyard: to the east, north, and south are grace are located to the because or the age of me Vines Dut also because or air pollution tram Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Site is on the western edge of the Alternative Areas and the Terra Vista planned community. z - z .33 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _cX 3. create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X _ 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 45 , x 6, create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 4. Chance from existing zoning, of A -1 to neighborhood commercial. 5. See attached sheet. IMPJRTAtT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. • CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information reauired for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact=_, statements, and information presented are true an° correct to the best of my Rnowle_dge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature -� rIq FTi tie .7� r•!__� 1 !�-f�� Y..'A Z / { / • Attachment to Page I -j. 5. Forty -five eucalyptus trees in the future right -of -way of Base Line Road must be removed in connection with the development of the project. These trees are undesirable as a landscape tree in any event, since they shed a great amount of debris and oil which damages car finishes. Further the high amount of volatile oil makes them a significant fire hazard and causes them to explode like a torch in a fire. Also eucalyptus have shallow roots which causes them to fall over in high wind storms and as a result are a significant casualty liability for the City and /or the property owner. • • 3S CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM • DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -OIB - DAON /BARTON - Request for a change in the Land Use ement o [ e eneral Plan from Industrial Land Use classification to Neighborhood Community for the Northeast corner of Haven and Arrow Route. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment is in conjunction with the proposed development of 270 acres of land, generally located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route as the north and south limits and Haven Avenue on the west to approximately Milliken on the east, as a Business and Industrial Park. This planned development would eventually produce 270 acres of industrial, business related uses and supporting commercial uses. Enclosed in the packet is a book- let entitled, "Rancho Cucamonga Business Park." This booklet is provided by the applicant as an introduction in explaining the applicant's desires in relation to this amendment and its interrelationship to the total over -all development. The subject property is presently vacant of all structures and is used for agricultural purposes. Property to the north, south and east are vacant and the southwest corner of Arrow and Haven contains the La Mancha 9-hole golf course. Within the booklet provided by the applicant, several sketch plans, near the end of the booklet, have been provided to show different types of commercial centers that could be developed on this corner. These sketch plans are proposal and concepts only and do not depict the final design or develop- ment of the subject property. Final site plan review and design will be subject to a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 13, 1980, held a public hearing to consider this request. Attached is an excerpt of the minutes of those proceedings. After review and consideration of the request, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment with the condition that the General Plan Amendment would not take efrecL until a conditional use permit was approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was concerned with the type of commercial uses that could be placed on the site. They felt that the center should not merely be another neighborhood center. 3� City Council and City Manager March S, 1980 Page 2 • RECOMMENDAT104: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve enera'. Plan Amendment 80 -018 and that the effective date of such amendment be at the time a conditional use permit is approved for the develop- ment of the site by the Planning Commission and that such review and approval of the conditional use permit must be accomplished by the applicant within one year from the date of this actlion. : Res ectfully ub- tted, (1 f� d JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:kds Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Planning Commission Minutes - February 13, 1980 Part I Initial Study 37 1 • • la'> kI mnaa. GI • i SOW ZTC M -F, M -s /V �! � CGM UN TY uMM�aA�c 4- f vIG�N I "TY MAP CIF A V -ag 0 FBI, oN NEOA'RVE DR71A_RA I ON AND GUNVRAI, TI.AN MIENIT CI NO. SO -01B - DAOH /BAR'TON - Request L:[ change in the General plan from Industrial 1: :le igbbnrhond /Community Commercial land use designation for property located on the northeast corner of Ilaven Avenue and Arrow Highway. Barry Hogan reviewed staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve General Plan Amendment No. 80 -018 to the City Council. Commissioner Tolsloy asked if Arrnw RouLe is projected to be six lanes. Paul Rougeau explained there would he only four. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Jack Corrignn of Daon stated they feel this would be nn asset to Lite Community and If there are any questions they would be happy to answer them. Chairman Rcmpcl asked the Commission for questions of the applicant. There being none, Chairman propel opened the public hearing There being no comments from the Public, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing and asked for Commission discussion. Commissioner Garcia felt that the traffic issue should be discussed in reference to the shopping centers along haven Avenue recently proposed. Barry Hogan stated that this commercial designation requested would not be for the • centers iiko we have recently discussed, Those centers are considered neighborhood centers and whit we arc tolkinn about at this point in time is a renter that has a major tenant rnt the order of regional or semi - regional basis and would probably take in our tlity as its service lien and perhaps some of Fontnna and Ontario, which is not competitive in that rce ❑r.l to those other centers. We are not aware of the uses proposed other than the major tenant. Paul Rougeau stated that the mn jot lease" that Iiaven at this loratlon should be able to handle traffic generated by this kind of center is that Haven Aemwe, at present, and in the future carries rnmmuter traffic. Commercial and commuter peak boors of traffic do net coincide and the traffic will he spread throughout the day. Haven is situated with right of way that we ran provide six or eight thrnngh lanes plus extra lanes at intersections fnr turns so that the intersection will work effectively. Arrow is a 4 lane through lone street and there are provisions for turn lanes and even right turns at the major intersections like Ilaven and Arrow. .lark 1.1m stnlod that the Citv will he looking at median islands ninng Haven whi.rh means tiro turn mnvem,,ots will hn farther controlled and there will not. he the haphazard left. turn n•,ov,rellts by I nrric•: of curl, outs. Anv rah cots going, Into thr project site will be right tune only ,and control will he nt the Intersections with signals. Planning Commission Minutes ^ February 1!, 1980 Comm iss inner Dnhl stated that ho docxn'I f... •t that this is in area that we want to get inve i vcd with in determin tag if a market r,t grocery store type use should he allowed. •lie also stated that he does not feel the f:i t,v has renched a saturation point in that arc❑ and feels that the Commission should host act on the basis of whether or not to allow Commercial /Professional designation, or retain the Industrial use. Commissioner Tolstnv stated thnt he would like to see the Industrial Aren preserved and that does not exclude commercial. lie feels Commercial in the Industrial Area is a good thing and the main concept should be for service of the hnslness park and does not feel that the area should contain a market. lie is not against Commercial hot feels Commercial should be of a certain flavor and that it should be mostly to serve the business park people. Commissioner Dahl stated that there is also a high density designation abutting to the area and this would he the only service area. Jack Lam sue£csted that it the present time if tile, Commission is undecided silent the feasibility of of the appropriate type of use, mid if the Commission is considering appruvnl, that the Commission rlare A condition Oil this amendment recommending to the Citv Council that the General plan Amendmont does not take effort until approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If the General Plan Amendment is approved there are two steps in order to accomplish the project rezoning :vn%istQnt with the Ceneral Finn ehaoge and the actual Conditionnl Use Permit. Those wooJd happen concurrently and the nest step Is the actual site approval for the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission will then have the still ity to condition the Conditional Ilse Permit and specific uses _r: the C.U.P. and address specific Vises at the time of the C.U.P. and then further condition it nt the discussion on that date. • Commissioner Garcia asked if this will cancel the G.P.A. Rnrry Ifo£an stated that it would Commissioner 'I'olstoy slated that he Is not against Commercial just against certain typos of commercial in that partirular area. Clwirman sompol stated that he feels that any type of commercial venture on Haven Avenue would be viable. Cnnnnissioner Jones stated that pos5ibly in the Arrow area, commercial would be very better icial. Chnlrmnn Renrel stated ho feels the architectural design proposed in this instance would make haven a scenic route. Upon motion hY Commisafancr Carcia, sornnded by Commissioner 'lolstuy, to approve Genera] Plan Amendment N,,. 80 -019 to the City Council that the r:.F.A. does not take effort until the npproenl of the C.U.P. and add a condit inn that the C,ILP. should be approved wihl In ono year nr appruvnl expires. .: AN IIS: Care la, to l stns, ,tours, pnhi, Rr•nprI ❑O1:5: None • AR59Nr: None Planning Commission Nlnutes -6 -1 ,, Februory U, 1980 CITY OF RANCBO CUCAMONGA • INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Reviev Committee will 'meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration'will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied • by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park APPLICA�"r'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: DAO'UBarton 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca. 714 -152 -1855 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: fil Martinez. Proiect DJ rector. Phillios Brandt Reddick, 901 Dove Street, Suite 2fi0, Newport Beach Ca., 92660 714 -752 -9223 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS A6, ASSF$SOR PARCEL No.I r .,.,.,n.. r of Raven Avanuc and Foothi'l Blvd. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Prnce55r General Plan Amendment. Zone Chance. Buildin❑ Permits. To our state, or I -1 ,4 I • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • • 1 I DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See Attached. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING Ae10 PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Presently, the site is unoccu ied. acres are proposed, with the main entry to t e deve ppment being the Ht ror tity review. -Square rootage to he determined. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMInMAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCII..'DING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): at the present time. See Attached for remaining information. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? —See above. dESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This application addresses a 20' acre section of an over —all 1—project encompassing approximately 290 • acres to be developed as an architecturally integrated business/ industrial park with supporting commercial uses located adjacent to the major arterial highways (Foothill and Haven). The 20- acre section will be designed to serve the commercial needs of the industrial tennants and secondarily to fulfill neighborhood cor,mercial needs such as banking and semi - professional offices. Site plan design alternatives are presently being prepared for City review and will besubmitted at the appropriate time for site development review and a zone change to a commercial zoning classification. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Relevant Pin he enema lannan designates the areas south and east of the site for industrial uses. North of the site is shown in three alternatives, • each including a majority of residential uses, with some commercial and mixed uses and community support uses such as parks, open space, and school sites. Mixed use is defined as apartments, offices, and institutions. • ti �� MILL THIS PROTECT: • YES NO x 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration! 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! X _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or .general plan designations? _X _ 5: Remove any existing trees! How many? 1 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flanmables or explosives? • Explanation of any YES answers above: See Attached. • IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units,- complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature Title 2-1 Ll T._'A WILL THIS PROJECT: 2. Change from agricultural to commercial uses will result in an • increase in noise levels. 3. Demand for public services created by the proposed project would not exceed the demands created by industrial or manufacturing uses as designated by the General Plan. Contacts with the Chinn Basin Municipal Water District, Cucamonga County Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, and General Telephone indicate no problems in utility capacity as a result of the project. 4. Approval of the application predicates a change in existing general plan and zoning. 5. Two olive trees. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A traffic study for a previous General Plan nen men was comp eted by Weston Pringle 6 Associates in May, 1919. • At this time the City's computer traffic model was not available f;.• coordination and reference. Studies for the adjacent G. L. Lewis properties have been done by L. D. King (drainage and flood control) and have been used for reference on this project. 11 15 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -OIC - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed amendment to the interim land use element of the General Plan to relocate the neighborhood commercial asterisk presently located midway between Lemon and Highland Avenue, on the eastside of Haven, to the intersection of Highland and Haven BACKGROUND: As the City Council will recall, at a previous General Plan Amendment hearing in late 1979, the Council directed staff to prepare and initiate an amendment to the General Plan to consider the relocation of the asterisk for alternative neighborhood commercial sites to the intersec- tion of Highland and Haven Avenue. Presently, the General Plan indicates neighborhood commercial on the southwest corner of Lemon and Haven and an asterisk on the eastside of Haven midway between Lemon and Highland Avenue. • As the Council will recall, a commercial developer would like to have the flexibility of the General Plan to develop a neighborhood commercial center on the southeast corner of Highland and Haven. With the asterisk presently shown on the eastside of Haven between Highland and Lemon, there is no flexibility to make the finding that such a development would be consistent with the General Plan unless the asterisk was located to the inter- section of Highland and Haven. The Planning Commission at its meeting of January 23, 1980, held a public hearing to consider such an amendment. An excerptfrom the minutes of that meeting and proceedings are enclosed for your review. The Planning Commission recommended four to one that the Council approve the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Jones was opposed to the amendment because she felt that additional commercial along Haven Avenue was not warranted. By moving the asterisk to the intersection rather than leaving it only on one parcel, allows the flexibility of the City to determine the best suited site for a neighborhood commercial center in this immediate area. Without the amend- ment, the foregone conclusion is that only a neighborhood commercial center could be built upon the property where the asterisk now lies. Based upon the premise of the General Plan being general and flexible, Commission felt that such flexibility should be contained within the General Plan and recommended moving the asterisk to the intersection. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 80-0IC. !__j pec [f ly submit ed, Jack Lam, Director of $ Community Development JL:kds A):tac hmen[s: Exhibit "A" - Location Map ` / /�� Planning Commission Minutes /1/23/80 Part I Initial Study P LOW x U) OFN51'ry = � NE14 HvaR► D - LoMMuNIT' r, T' T LOW DeN `l-f Y O Z school LOW OENSrTY LOW Dmogy MIXFV V5E Rl;lc[RIE AEI RVK ALTVKATNm fi Non+ Cx4AT)IT m /r. /I . v. P. Pc. * So- of C 47 L R NlCfiD COCAliO MAA - Request for a chango in tiro General Plan to rel Oca to the Asterisk presently designated midwa-+ !,etwecn Leron and Highland on is the east side of Haven to the intersection of Highland and Haven. Barry Ungar, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file In the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commts- sion recammond to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 80 -CIC to relocate the asterisk on the east side of Haven Avenue between Lemon and Highland Avenues to the intersection of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenues. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff Commissioner Jones stated as she recalls the policy at the present time is that no more than one center is allowed per intersection. Mr. Hogan stated no, the policv adopted is to allow two centers per intersection. That policy was set quite early in the general plan process. There being no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Hempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Vito DeVito Francesca, representing Mr. Jack Sylvester, stated if the asterisk is moved to the intersection of Highland and Haven, this would allow two proposed developments at the intersection. The reason Mr. Rlayney did not feel a regional center should he located in this area was due to the free- way problem. By moving the asterisk to this intersection, there will again be the problem of the freeway. If the asterisk is moved down to Highland and • Haven they would want to he assured that Mr. Sylvester would be able to proceed with his plans starting at the Leman Avenue and Haven intersection. He hopes that this will be elastic enough to allow devalopment of a center in this loca- tion working down toward the proposed freeway. lie would like it placed in the minutes that Mr. Hone's proposed project really does not conflict with the other two centers. Mr. Dognn stated the asterisk is elastic enough to allow Mr. Sylvester to develop from the intersection of Lemon and Haven down toward the freeway. In regard to Mr. Hono's property, the center he Is proposing will have specialty shops that will not be competitive with and does not count as a shopping center toward the two center policy. Mr. non F.vnns, representing T 6 S Development, owners of property on the south - oor.t corner of Highland and Haven, stated he would he liappv to answer any ques- tions the Commission may have concerning their proposed development. Chairman Rempel st.atcd qunntfnns concerning the project Itself can not be an,wered it this time as this request tonight in for a Cenoral Plan Amendment Only and not review of the sltc plans. In regard to the proposed Foothill free- way, thin Commission fill gore on rcrord favorin0 protection of that right- of -way. We are going to look vory closely to env development to insure it does not encroach onto that right- of -wny. There being no further romments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the • public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- Janvaty 23, 1980 -Tg >1, I a m st et rd during. the CrnoraI Plan di ^rus = ions ,hon wr develoI, rd the po!ir•( of no ,More than t•.:e ce ate r<, al tin I. point the Commission mul Staff took tho Position that only the northerly site would count as a renter. The • applicant in that case down to be c o. argued that the asterisk should be moved o- sistent with this policy and let whoever was able to secure tenants for their center to proceed and build a center. The Council agreed with this and felt the asterisk should be moved to the intersection of Highland and %oven to be consis- tent with that policy. That is why this is before the Commission this evening. This was initiated by the Staff at the request of the Council. After examining both sites, staff finds that both Mr. Sylvester and Mr. Evans have no more advan- tape over the other because the freeway goes between those two sites. It is really up to whichever development interests are able to secure tenants and able to move forward on the center. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to point out that by approving the General Plan Amendment It does not mean that we have to approve either site. Zoning has not been approved as yet. Also, development plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to any development. A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to rero,rmend 1cloption of General Plan Amendment No. 80 -OIC and that such recoianenda- tion be forwarded to the City Council. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEl, NOES: JONES ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Jones stated she is opposed to the amendment as she does not want • to see any additional commercial developed along Haven Avenue. Chairman Hempel called a recess at 8:15 P.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all Corm ission members present. • R It R APPEAI, OF SITE APPROVAL 110; 79 _19 - ATLANTIC RICIir IELD COMPANY (Referred back to the Coamission by the City Council) - Improvement:+ and conversion to exiseing service station located at 9573 Foothill into a mint -mart station, llirhavl fnirin, Assor Lato Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends Not the Planning Commt:alon review and discuss the Is-ties and provide the noeeveary lirpetion to staff and applicant for revisions to plans, if required, and final compilation of condltions of approval. Chairman Rcmpel asked for qurstlenq from the Commission of the staff. Cormisninnor Talst0y ^.tntod it the last moetlon at which this it on was reviewed, he '.:a.: In nb it. rt ton to the devrl0pta,•nt heea,iso of the layout of the site and circulotion problem::. Thrrr, air eirn,lntinn Prnhlems PrttinP onto the site iron Foothill and Milarhitr, 'fherr err 111:0 on-sito clrculotion problems. The • Crmminsion stated in Its rnrifor rpvirx that nor of the drivew9vs along Foothill aaulev.ird he closed: h0wrver, the Council to its review did not see any problems Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 23, 1980 _ Ir1IY nr "N'r'P„ ('Dr'.V!1INGA INITIAL ST17DY PART I - PROJECT TITFORMATION STIEF•T - To br completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 I'or all projects requirinu en,•ironnrcntal review, this form must he completed and sul,mi.ttcd to the Development Review Committee through the department where the projocL application is made. upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analys.i.s staff will prepare rnrt IT of the initial Study. The P•, rlr e��mnr arvirw Commit.f ^e will meet ar.(7 Lnke action no later than ten (10) days 1`rforr tho public mrr•timT el. ,ch .i.ch time the project. is to I,o heard. The Crmmit.l.00 will make one of thror dctr rminat ions: 1) Thr project will have no cnvirrr:rr ^nin? impact and a Nogaticr I1 ^cl3ration will 1•c filed, 7) Th° project wil.l hnve an (nvironmcntal impact and an invironmental Impact Report: will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report rhould be svppliod by the iT,plicrtnt giving further information concerning • the prr.F.sed project. Arrl,TC:ANI "S VANE, ADDRESS, Tt LGPNOW: NANO, At`I `r:ER S, Trd.FI`IIONE OF PI'RSON TO PE CONTACTED p �h CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: IOCA' INI OF PROJECT (STRFET AuDRVSr, ANn AS;ISSFOR PARCEL No.) LIST OTID'R rrpl•ITTS NECESSARY I'vorl LOr1L, P,CG IONAi„ STATE AND FEDERAL A(71(NCTI'F AND THE AGrNCY T SAIMIC SUCtl PERMITS: I.1 no PRO,IIC'I' nIISCRi P'I -TON DESCRlr'r1011 OF PROJECT: ACRI'.AGC of rl:n,TFCT AREA ANn SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDIUGS, IF MY: V2 ACr`�j V2 0 DFSCRTPI' 'flit: vw,iroigm EC TrAl, f- 1:'I"rTNG 01' 'rI1C PROJrCT SI'rl, I NCMINTIG TNM. T?!!1Tl0 i7 011 ']nrnc:PAT11Y, PIA7rs (TP.rES) . ANTTIALS, MY CUT,Ttm'\I„ NISTOPiCAL OP. f,CM71C ASPECTS, IISr OF Sill: ;,(,l,':n1iR; PrOPFFTIES, AND TIT Dl- ^CrT.PTION of ANY EXISTING STRICTURES AND THEIR USE (A'TTAC'H NECESSARY SIIrI C6) : Is tho rrcioct:, part of a lnnier proirct, one of a sorir, of cumulnlivr artionn, which nith)unh individually small, mny ae a ,:holy have significant rnviro!mrntal impact? I- 2 51 n l J .j WTI If, 'III I': TIM. I'( "I': yfI£ 11, , 1. Crcat- a substantial change in ground contours? _ 2. --a'� -• Create a s,bstantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial, change in demand for �[ municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! �i 4. Create chan ?e= in tho rxi.sting zoning or general plan designations? _ 5: Remove any existing trees? [low many? _ 6. Create the nrod for use or disposal of TTT"' potentially hncnrdous ref. -rialn such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? , Explanation of any M answers above: IR IMP)RM!tr! If the project involves the construction of residential units, comple Lo the form on tho next page. CCRTf['rc':\'1'in N: I hereby crrtify t.hnt the statements furnished above aml in tl,e attached exhihitr preront the datn and infnrmition rrnnired for thir initiil rvnl.,IOtion to thr• host of r'y al•i lily, and that th^ fncl rt:atonuv(t:a, and inforrnl ion pi,••�vntml are trn� afel rnrr ^r.t: to the best of my 1:11 •wl"hln and helic£. I further and ^rstnnd thit nrblit ionnl infnrvntinn mny 1,, rr,lnirod to he ;:nbmitte(1 befnrr in m h -lunte evaulaLion can he made by the Dn%,,Jopoont Review Committee. - Date— I� Signa Lurr�c^" - V RESOLUTION NO. 80 -21 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City has established the second meeting January as a General Plan Amendment hearing date for Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comm ission has held a public hearing to consider amendments to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, comments were heard and considered both pro and con regarding the requested General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended for consideration by the Council the following General Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on March 5, 1980, to consider comments pro and con regarding the General Plan Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga City Council does hereby amend the General Plan Land Use Element as follows; SECTION 1: General Plan Amendment No ends • ` ��'- m, d Use e southeast corner of Haven A enue Ins as N— eTgF�oPfiwd- -Ca -cJ=aL orbit "A "). SECTION General Plan Amendment No. 80 -018 - Amends the Interim Land Use Map of the General Plan to show approximately 20 acres on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route as Neighborhood Community Commercial with the condition that final approval of the amendment would not be effective until a Conditional Use Permit has been granted by the Planning Comm ission for the site (Exhibit 11811). SE General Plan Amendment No. 80 -OIC - Amends the _ Interim Land s General Plan eeatir'tFa asterisk ng Alter m Commercial Sites from the vies even Avenue between High a moron ntersection of Highland and Haven (Exhibit "C "). SECTION : It is recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted for each of the General Plan Amendment/ No.^ 80 -010 and_§M4W based upon the completion of the Initial Study and its findings. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1980. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: James C. Frost, Mayor 3 Lauren M, Wasserman, City Clerk W Q Z \W Q i i BASS LINE r CAD �:Ucr JEG—f' Nc)gTH S=ALE! 10- 11;1' rrcro-f-Ep �s1-f2EET GNAN6E To N�IVHEzNcop COMMUNITY CCMMWC.IAL- . vAloir 'W ��•z Z Ll F.3 jI . �f1C L ., G�I r "ll i5 i g(J&Fc Koff9 -z t -- CChM(E TO NEIC NeoR4iw[ COMLAOMtTy CCMM 4AL. av1. E: Vlc,(N i-rf MAF GpA 'W—aal�' EKHIJ ,1 7 55 IJ L-Ow kl� OFn15lTY HE14NvaN D GaMMuM IT( LO',W Qr. ITY Ln, O i sCNool Low DEN srrr ExmlbIt ° G„ LOW DEA6ITY MIXED VSE fiELccmc- Afgjzi C S� 1 ALTf4W- lyF- E: • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 T0: City Council & City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CARNELIAN STREET PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Attached for Council review and approval is the design agreement for the approved parkway demonstration program on Carnelian Street. The agreement is with Genge Consultants who were selected by a staff committee from six proposals. Copies of all the proposals were transmitted to the Council under separate cover. The agreement is for two phases. Phase 1 will deal with conceptual design through approval of the design concept. This will include cost estimates. Phase II will include detailed design of a project determined at the comple- tion of Phase I. Phase I fees are $7,500 and Phase II fees will be negotiated . and presented to the Council at a future date. All costs will be paid through the Beautification Fund. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the agreement. Respectfully su itted, L Oyd u bs City ngineer LBH:deb • 57 0 AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES This agreement is made and entered into this day of 1980, between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and GENGE CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, duly licensed Landscape Architects of 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Irvine, California, 92714, hereinafter referred to as "ARCHITECT". WITNF55ETH: WHEREAS, the City has need for landscape architectural services to conduct an analysis of existing conditions germain to landscape development of the parkways along Carnelian Street, southerly of Hillside Drive to southerly of Baseline Avenue (approximately three miles in length) and to prepare two alternative conceptual designs for same, herein referred to as "PROJECT'. WHEREAS, the CITY has need for landscape architectural services to provide landscape construction drawings and contract administration for CARNELIAN STREETSCAPE SOUTHERLY OF HILLSIDE DRIVE TO SOUTHERLY OF BASELINE AVENUE, herein referred to as "PROJECT'. WHEREAS, the CITY has invited the ARCHITECT to provide required land scaping services for the CITY; WHEREAS, the ARCHITECT has specialized knowledge, training and experience ' in landscape design and construction AND, WHEREAS, the ARCHITECT indicates willingness to perform landscaping services for the CITY under contract. NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and the ARCHITECT, for the considerations hereinafter named, agree as follows: / P ARTICLEI: The ARCHITECT agrees to furnish and perform the various professional • services, pertinent to conceptual landscape designs as follows: A. Preliminary Site Mapping and Visual Analysis - Research CITY maps of record for existing improvements within the project area and conduct on -site data col- lection /mapping of all existing conditions germain to landscape development of the project. These shall include the following: 1. Existing plant material (in particular, dominant tree species, as windrows). Plant material within project area and adjacent surroundings. 2. On -site drainage and flood condition associated with the area. 3. Approximate location of tract walls and fences. 4. Slopes directly adjacent to project. 5. Existing irrigation systems. 6. Land uses as they relate to project (schools, commercial, older and new homes, etc.) 7. Significant views (outward from Carnelian Street to adjacent community, inward from housing areas to Carnelian Street, distant mountain view, etc.) 8. Limited survey of entire CITY and "foothill' community area to identify existing elements which could be integrated with the project design. 9. Interface with appropriate CITY staff to review specific concerns, needs, expectations, etc. B. Conceptual Landscape Design - Based on a careful analysis of existing site conditions, constraints, view opportunities, etc., proceed with the preparation of two (2) alternative conceptual designs for the Carnelian Street Streetscape Development. Illustrative site plans @ 40 scale with sections will delineate r1L schematic location of tree masses, shrub and ground cover areas, landscape grading concepts, hard surface (walks), rock or "cobbled" areas, and other elements which may be identified by Sedway /Cooke in their preparation of the • 5'7 B • City's Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Unified landscape design and maintenance considerations will be the two most vital criteria in generation of the alternative concept plans. Preliminary cost estimates, based on prevailing costs, will be submitted with the conceptual plans. Review the concept plans with the City staff, Planning Commission, Advisory Commission and City Council. C. Landscape Construction Drawings - The preferred Streetscape Design approved by City Council shall serve as the basis for preparation of the following contract documents: 1. Staking /layout plan with fully dimensioned paved and planted areas, width of walks, etc. General construction notes and references included. 2. Landscape irrigation plans for a fully automatic sprinkler system, to include location and types of all equipment, details, legends and speci- fications. 3. Landscape planting plans for all planted areas. All trees, shrubs, ground covers sized and located: legends, details and specifications included. Landscape grading shown on planting plans. 4. Hardscape plan, indicating the type and configuration of walkways and "cobbled" hard surface areas. Details and installation specifications furnished. 5. Location of street furniture (benches, light fixtures, etc.) as outlined by Sedway /Cooke. 6. Final cost estimate. D. Contract Administration /Supervision - Upon initiation of the bidding process by the CITY, ARCHITECT will perform the following tasks: 1. Answer contractor's questions regarding clarification /interpretation of plans during bidding. 57C n 2. Evaluation of bids. 3. Preparation of addendums. 4. Assistance in preparation of change orders. 5. Construction observation at key stages of construction to insure plan conformance. E. Reproduction Original tracings shall become *property of the CITY upon completion of this Agreement. Costs for reproduction of plans and specifications will be borne by the CITY at the direct costs of reproduction, plus l0% for handling. ARTICLE II - The CITY agrees to pay the ARCHITECT, as compensation for the above -named professional services: A. For all items listed in Section A and B of Article f, the CITY will compensate the ARCHITECT at the hourly rates attached as Exhibit "A ". The total of these • hourly charges shall not exceed $7,500.00. B. For all items listed in Sections C and D of Article I, the CITY shall negotiate a fee with the ARCHITECT following City Council approval of the items of work under Sections A and B, Article 1. C. The ARCHITECT will submit monthly billings including a summary of the hours worked by each classification, the hourly rate, and the total charges for each classification. ARTICLE III - If the work is suspended indefinitely or abandoned prior to completion of the Landscaping Services set forth in this Agreement, the CITY agrees to pay the ARCHITECT, at the rates set forth in Article If above, to the time of said suspension or abandonment, which payment is to be the full and final settlement for all the work performed by the ARCHITECT to said time, and such work shall become the property of the CITY upon said payment. • ARTICLE IV - All terms, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind • the parties herein, their successors and assigns. ARTICLE V - The ARCHITECT hereby designates J. Stephen Long, Project Manager/ Director of Planning and Alan Fishman, Assistant Director of Planning /Landscape • Architect as its representatives for this PROJECT ARTICLE VI - The ARCHITECT shall begin work immediately following the approval and signing of this Agreement. The ARCHITECT shall perform the work in a timely manner calculated to achieve City Council approval of Sections A and B, Article I, within 63 calendar days. The schedule for Sections C and D, Article 1, shall be negotiated following City Council approval of Sections A and B, Article 1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Attorney, Rancho Cucamonga MSAmss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: By: City Clerk GENGE CONSULTANTS OF 57 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Pr6siden 400 EXHIBIT "A" Genge Consultants Of SOUTHERN CA LIGORN I4 HOURLY RATES AND BILLING POLICY (Schedule II) CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATES Engineering Regular Principal $60.00 Director of Planning /Project Manager Project Manager 48.00 38.00 Project Engineer 40.00 Associate Planner Senior Engineer /Licensed Surveyor 37.00 29.00 Engineer 36.00 Research Assistant Designer 32.00 Design Draftsman 29.00 Draftsman 25.00 Junior Draftsman 20.00 Surveying Regular Overtime One Man Party $45.00 $52.00 Two Man Party 77.00 91.00 Three Man Party 99.00 119.00 Planning Principal $60.00 Director of Planning /Project Manager 48.00 Asst. Director of Planning /Landscape Architect 38.00 Senior Planner 36.00 Associate Planner 32.00 Assistant Planner 29.00 Graphics Illustrator 25.00 Research Assistant 20.00 Clerical Secretary Messenger $15.00 15.00 1. In the event of any increase in costs due to the granting of wage increases and /or other employee benefits due to the terms of any labor agreement, such increase shall be adjusted proportionately to all hourly rates. 2. Cost of filing, checking fees and other outside charges will be billed at cost, plus service charges at the rate of 10 %. 3. Cost of normal survey stakes and other field supplies are included in the above rates. Special type monuments will be charged at cost. 4. Billing will be monthly. Invoices are due and payable upon presentation. Interest at the rate of 0.833% per month an annual percentage rate of 10 %, commencing 30 days after invoice date will be charged on delinquent accounts. 5. Genge Consultants shall have the right to curtail any work in the event payments for services are not kept current, 7 5(/ 900 • J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council 8 City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN OF CARNELIAN CHANNEL Staff would like to obtain authorization to request proposals for the design of Carnelian Channel construction to D,mens Channel. The design will allow a detailed construction estimate for future funding options. The design will be paid for through the storm drain fees. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval. Res ectfully submitted, • �oyd' ub s / City ngineer LBH:deb • 15'V INTER - OFFICE MEMO G DATE February 29, 1980 G»u, wino • FROM Thomas Wickum, Captain PHONE 989 -6611 Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station TO Lauren Wasserman, City Manager 17 City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBJECT Office of Traffic Safety Grant - "Operation STOPP" (Operation Serious Traffic Offenses Prevention Program) In September, 1978 this office applied for a traffic grant through the Office of Traffic Safety in Sacramento. Since that time we have been in constant contact with then in negotiating the grant through Patricia A. Hill, Regional Coordinator. On February 19, 1980 we received a letter from 11s. Hill advising that our proposal for the traffic grant had been tentatively approved. The original proposal was for six officers and three fully equipped units to be used for the enforcement of hazardous traffic violations. Once we had demonstrated the need for the grant, we then negotiated over the number of officers and units. Those negotiations • resulted in five officers and three units being accepted. Final approval of the grant is contingent upon our submitting an acceptable grant agreement. We are presently preparing the agreenent and 11s. Hill will be at our office on March 5, 1980 to review the agreement and assist us with the final draft. Purpose of Grant: As you are aware, the purpose of the Grant is to reduce the incidents of injury and fatal traffic collisions through enforcement, by dedicating the five officers to traffic enforce- ment only. Method of Enforcement: The officers assigned to the "Operation STOPP" detail will be placed on varying shifts, consistent with peal: hours of traffic. The areas of assignment will be arterial and feeder streets which experience the highest level of speed and right -of -way violations. Those streets with the highest number of injury and fatal traffic accidents will also be included. Grant Goals: • During the 1979 Calendar Year the City of Rancho Cucamonga experienced 304 injury traffic accidents, 10 fatal traffic accidents and 833 non - injury traffic collisions. This comes to a grand total of 1,147 accidents. I2-1367 -CW R.,. 1 /7I 5_�? Nemo to Lauren Wasserman, City Manager February 29, 1980 Page Two As the purpose of the Grant is to reduce injury and fatal accidents, we have set some rather ambitious goals for "Operation STOPP" during the grant period. Those goals are set forth below: 1. To reduce injury and fatal traffic accidents by 20 percent the first year and an additional 10 percent the second year. These reductions will be calculated over the 1979 base year figures. 2. To increase the number of hazardous citations written during the 1979 base year by 75 percent the first grant year and 40 percent the second grant year. 3. To develop a comprehensive public educational /infor- nation program to encourage safe driving through the use of films and presentations at schools, service clubs, churches, etcetera. 0 Grant Costs: Although the costs outlined below are not exact figures due to inflation, salary increases, gas and oil increases, etcetera, the following is an estimated cost of the grant program, "Operation STOPP." • GRANT COSTS CITY COSTS First Year Costs: $ 212,554.19 $ 12,737.70 Second Year Costs: $ 98,268.26 $ 111,588.26 TOTAL $ 310,822.45 $ 124,325.96 "Operation STOPP" GRAND TOTAL $ 435,148.41 It should be noted that the Grant covers almost 100 percent of the costs the first year and 50 percent of the costs the second year. However, the City has to agree to pay the following first and second year costs: (1) The total cost of gasoline, oil and maintenance for the units; (2) Some of the miscellaneous standard equipment items for the units, including such things as shotguns, blankets, traffic cones, etcetera: and (3) 50 Percent of the total cost of the Grant for the second year. NJ 6& 11 STATE OKULIFaAMIA— BUSINESS AND TRANSMORTATION AGENCY EDMUND O. BROWN )R., G*wr CIFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ' ` (- �FRANKLIN BLVD.. SUITE SOD KRAMENTO, CA 938I3 41 n . February 19, 1980 Captain Thomas Wickum Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 9333 Ninth Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91703 Dear Captain Wickum: Your proposal requesting funding assistance to implement a traffic safety project has been tentatively approved. Final approval is contingent upon the submission of an acceptable grant agreement. Enclosed to assist you in the structuring of your agreement are Program Manuals and copies of the project agreement. Two draft copies of the agreement should be submitted to this office as soon as possible. Signatures are not required at this point. If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, lyy �j 7`L �V`eG PATRICIA A. HILL Regional Coordinator (916) 445 -9734 PAH:bg Encls. (l 0 a M E M O R A N D U M TO: James C. Frost, Mayor Jon D. Mikels, Councilman Michael A. Palombo, Councilman Phillip D. Schlosser, Councilman Arthur H. Bridge, Councilman FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney DATE: February 27, 1980 ._ RE: Agin$ V. City of Tiburon. At the request of Council, we have been in communication with Mr. Bob Konn, City Attorney for Tiburon, regarding his mayor's recent request for financial assistance in defending the • above case in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Kenn estimates that it will cost the City of Tiburon approximately $40,000.00 to pursue the case in the Supreme Court. He advises that several cities in California have already con - tributed funds to the defense and that the contributions for cit- ies in the 25,000 to 50,000 population range have varied from a low of $100.00 to a high of $1,000.00. Mr. Kenn states that the City of Tiburon will be greatly appreciative of any sum that the City of Rancho Cucamonga feels it can contribute. In the event - the City of Tiburon receives contributions in excess of the costs of defending the case, it will refund -the overage on a pro rata basis. As I stated at the last meeting, Agins v. City of Tiburon is an extremely important case for cities, particularly for cit- • ies with planning philosophies similar to Rancho Cucamonga's. We (03 _r would therefore recommend that the Council favorably consider a r' contribution in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Also, Bob Logan, City Attorney for San Jose, plans to file an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court. All cities in California have been invited to join in the brief. This involves only the lending of our City's name to the effort and it w4.11 be at no expense to the City. We recommend that the City Council authorize us to communicate to Mr. Logan that the City of Rancho Cucamonga joins in the brief. RED:sgg &y r1 LJ • 2.a. R� 7971 .Sago Cmtf dQan rre nucareors�a, ear(/, o ;}': [ f1th µy KIYVi) i AU0.1 UK4 1NL PfMtC l-D JIU U - Ctkt li A 1YV. URIC ? NNA A� � tPI j +,ltf'CIlUO(ikEf� "1 14N:l:WAY�[ �liflz� . t7f Ll A �-I fHA`EMAIC) WAIN IdtUiaW)C(Avui 11LLC I Wt rt t.INt. CCbI ililtill,I II CClai%I� I ; TUI.) L-f L4Ak lta!` *(, 41t i Ui -t.t.. Iu uU.t� i'fu3CWt�. llCi 140Y -Y rn.fua RLt INiRIa" ILA ILt")Jkl' yo.0I RIC iNztilch Lf 4 G1 A I r01 i I, c6yu.) Ayi.LA . It(l i+1 _a NkKr I'IUX106 � �t, l_ trat- 15 A CfiW VA, HjU'L iU. Wi U. e0A lT � l U.tS1T'��CII W JMi CC L YIZ6u(Ct q /wo %fie. Uey,� l}te�v7 O' we, yw,,t ")Of Y.. �e.nttt &Y tltE c.at LdateXce¢,CJ c .r✓-cB.caA� Qe " '�u1•w c�n.� -tom �/.e, f�,�;,o fit;l�e(, GQ�1yhula�ioz• wu, � e- u- e- E.e�syrvrn�.t•e.�e..Qe�e eG ..e-� retu�.,� Lgut: ,S CC J c L7�L(� list Q -tZc iu.�c t`fuct tt. ✓u� ,t22/.cr�E. .- rrarc� %u. V&tA- � cui rG �uJ 1,c44ect ko wad, dLAk c 4WL t t lc.L tL* tF4 .�Y �Q ✓GCS c. kl4LL, (.�Q�' C�/LC+O �.(.•f 11 �d�n.Qc.eLthe� -`cam . ' V'llaxt c A44 — i l�ku 8 U./EV "-,:; eRalr r Chu . 9112 30 ee: uj often. l /h mb -er-s EXPLANATION OF OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER GUr�r� �G,�rma� Our best chance to defeat the proposed "neighborhood commercial" center being proposed for the southeast corner of Haven /Baseline is to present a united front of opposition. Please read the rationale for our opposition 'and do whELtever you can to express your opinion. Attached is a list of key names and phone numbers -- contact these people and register your complaint with them. Even one phone call from concerned homeowners in our neighborhood will help -- these people need *to know our feelings about this development in our community. If at all possible, we urge your attendance at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 7:00 pm at the Lyons Park Community Center, 9161 Baseline Road. The City Council will be holding a public hearinq on the feasibility of the shopping center -- your support is needed. You can lend that support by just being in attendance to show unity and solidarity on this issue. Several of your neighbors will make presentations to the Council to attempt to show them why they shouldn't approve the center. Your participation will be welcomed if you are so inclined, but please do come to hear what our neighbors and the Council have to say! LACK OF NECESSITY: We have 12 shopping centers containing 8 supermarkets, at least 4 hardware stores, numerous drugstores or market - contained drugstore areas, etc. There are also 4 other proposed and near - certain shopping centers slated for the area. All these areas are located within approximately 3 miles of our neighborhood. Many existing businesses are having a hard time making a go of it and netting their projected incomes. Our contention is that there already is enough shopping to serve both existing and projected tracts in the area -- the City's growth is not proportionate to proposed shopping. We do not wart to see overcommercial- ization! We have been told that a neighborhood commercial center, in good land use planning policies, should occur approximately every mile to mile and one -half. If. wn assume this contention is true, then we are already saturated, and the new center would further aggravate this condition. To truly serve the new areas planned for the land east of Haven, south of Baseline, and to serve existing areas, IF this center is developed, it would have much greater impact by developing it further east. INCREASED TRAFFIC: We all know how busy Haven Avenue is, and how busy Baseline is becoming. There have been many accidents at this intersection, and these would undoubtedly increase with so much come- and -go traffic in this area. PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE: In the City's General Plan there is the possibility of locating a school on Baseline in the vicinity of this center. We oppose this type of planning as a means of preventing any problems associated with traffic, loitering, vandalism, etc. ROAD CLOSBRF.S /FLOODING: More concrete means more run -off, and more flooding. With each new vast expanse of concrete, we further increase chances of more flooding in the area. Baseline east of Haven has been closed in several recent storms; how is this going to affect access? OTHER ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS: We oppose the increased neon signs, waste paper, noise, etc. associated wit's a center of this nature, am', , t;±e widening of 3aneline anC, the removal of the eucal,,t) a trees. M� Tn G6µ- cQ- Lt/.L��l/C� ✓ ,per QG «_ f ,4hr J, Ncr• -! Ha.�c �i.�t %SLc' s'+ -SIN �,•. � rt ,... ✓ -r �'c'.�' -1 c,�2.. %% L3 �[�[Yc�' ��' ,/�[7`; .•',.i >,l a�c..2 ! C'Cs?[CZ. �"�-t f -1 Q,� ^'.. � ..� /��t«.t : K � -2 .:i'� 2�f41."' �f. -Cie2 f• . -C'�-F.•CE'LClC2_ -rte � ,iuUt•ei' e��: �� . ��rK�:t-.. G,' J -r T ..11 Z" Cc � ,� �•�. —!s c'<t�✓J • �:.P.rc.�'>2 e.. .t/ J v� '. �c ,��'4't�t.�,o , v?.f't�F.�� •!'�f7'l.t� tYz��Cl.. .. - � Q - C1��1• >'IlaC�4 � :�' .cam`- �.+o -rfi� {�Q.�q�v tt !V Jr, ,x ll-j�eell-ot� "I (re-r,r L, el>A-m 17 67 1-72 ew� Honorable Mayor Frost Administration Office City Hall P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA. 91730 Dear Mayor Frosts March 3, 1980 Our name is Mr. and Mrs. Daniel F. Rosso, we live at 10475 Pepper Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. We address this letter to you to protest Lewis' proposed amendment to the General Plan of the block of property on the southeast corner of Haven and Baseline, in which he proposes a Community Shopping Center 550 feet by 1000 feet. When we initially decided on the Rancho Cucamonga area, we went to City Hall and obtained a copy of the General Plan and all Sts' apedifioations. After studing and analysing them this determined us to buy the house we are presently living in. We protest the high - handed manner the Lewis Development Company has shown by putting their personal wants above the needs of the community. We do believe that if this amendment is allowed aolthis neighborhood shopping center is built It will completely destroy and distort any General Plan which Is adopted by the city. Please find enclosed a copy of the Petition and Explanation for Opposition to such a canter, as well as a diagram of our tract and just how large this project actually is, mud how many of us will be directly affected by it. Yours gratefully,l Mr. and Mrs. Daniel F. Rosso cce Jon Mlkels Lauren Wasserman Art Bridge Jack Lam Mike Palombo Phil Schlosser encl. Petition and Explanation Diagram .a PETITION We the undersigned respectfully request the denial of a community shopping center at the intersection of Haven /Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, for the following reasons: WHEREAS there is a total lack of necessity for this center at this location, with 12 shopping centers containing 8 major supermarkets to serve a population of 53,000. All are located within a maximum of 3 miles from this particular intersection. We stress better land use planning, citing the proximity of all the other centers, and suggest that a center of this nature is not appropriate for this site; WHEREAS we are concerned about increased traffic at an already busy intersection. It is a matter of public record how many accidents occur at this intersection. In just one 10 -day period just this past Dec/ Jan. those of us homeowners closest to this intersection witnessed 3 accidents in which the police /paramedics were called; WHEREAS there are already several other shopping centers proposed for the Rancho Cucamonga area, we are concerned that over - commercialization will not enhance our positive community image and will add to the existing problom of saturation; WHEREAS the community is already besieged by flooding and road closures, we are = oncerned that another large concrete area will negatively affect our roads. Baseline has been closed off east of Haven in several recent storms due to flooding, already limiting access, and we also cite the example of the negative effect of development at Baseline /Archibald on run -off down Archibald and through Foothill; WHEREAS there is a proposed school site across Baseline from this center, we are opposed -to the effect this could have with both traffic and loitering (example: proximity of Alta Loma Village to Alta Loma High School); WHEREAS we think more attention should be paid to ecological concerns such as neon signs, waste paper, noise, widening Baseline and removing the eucalyptus trees that add to Haven Avenue's significance as a "scenic route "; Therefore be it resolved that the above concerns do not correlate with our desires to locate our homes and families in the community of Rancho Cucamonga as a family= oriented town, and we wish to make it known that we firmly oppose the proposed development. we ask that our elected officials pursue viable alternatives in planning this land area, and we ask that you keep Rancho Cucamonga as a community of balance. NAME ADDRESS �DRAX4 St- COX 10v7s Pk-#;k7Z 13'r. AG(? eA" ��'f1� -- 74ao �'ldriKE Luca . C�a. NAME/1 I�.ta'J -�C[ -ate olll ° C ul ael,oi�f va G� (ni xx�(ar -r-3, ej� �' -, I 1Z ADDRESS 7(-fl 14U "Fit4s Ave R NAME/1 I�.ta'J -�C[ -ate olll ° C ul ael,oi�f va G� (ni xx�(ar -r-3, ej� �' -, I 1Z ADDRESS 7(-fl 14U "Fit4s Ave PETITION We the undersigned respectfully request the denial of a community shopping center at the intersection of Haven /Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, for the following reasons: WHEREAS there is a total lack of necessity for this center at this location, with 12 shopping centers containing S major supermarkets to serve a population of 53,000. All are located within a maximum of 3 miles from this particular intersection. We stress better land use planning, citing the proximity of all the other centers, and suggest that a center of this nature is not appropriate for this site; WHEREAS we are concerned about increased traffic at an already busy intersection. It is a matter of public record how many accidents occur at this intersection. In just one 10 -day period just this past Dec/ Jan. those of us homeowners closest to this intersection witnessed 3 accidents in which the police /paramedics were called; WHEREAS there are already several other shopping centers proposed for the Rancho Cucamonga area, we are concerned that over - commercialization will not enhance.our positive community image and will add to the existing problem of saturation; WHEREAS the community is already besieged by flooding and road closures, we are concerned that another large concrete area will negatively affect our roads. Baseline has been closed off east of Haven in several recent storms due to flooding, already limiting access, and we also cite the example of the negative effect of development at Baseline /Archibald on run -off down Archibald and through Foothill. WHEREAS there is a proposed school site across Baseline from this center, we are opposed to the effect this could have with both traffic and loitering (example: proximity of Alts Loma Village to Alta Loma High School); WHEREAS we think more attention should be paid to ecological concerns such as neon signs, waste paper, noise, widening Baseline and removing the eucalyptus trees that add to Haven Avenue's significance as a "scenic route "; Therefore be it resolved that the above concerns do not correlate with our desires to locate our homes and families in the community of Rancho Cucamonga as a family- oriented town, and we wish to make it known that we firmly oppose the proposed development. We ask that our elected officials pursue viable alternatives in planning this land area, and we ask that you keep Rancho Cucamonga as a community of balance. 1 'yy NAME YZ�/ I'4l � IM,I. rte( . ✓ ��LL AZL p" e. n> Jv •,.rc. 1'i.- ..•„cam ADDRESS "1.3 -11 tiibGt l 1 y. �.0 C1. 7761' Sip rT NAME �7� fJ�'c'llaan., Y' T ADDRESS ��rz� MESApA qv�. ;)ut / Oar elflct% airc�hc� �fl.c�ao!Lc`7LQLL, '7 ys l /Y,�Syc hl i/ .lY 6f /�1 ♦3I �:. 12, L t l L u f Cc vii- t)y�,e ,a 73e'i SACo 7176 §,vr R,C, 77173. J / PETITION 12'122 acres We the undersigned respectfully request the denial of a community shopping center at the intersection of Haven /Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, for the following reasons: WHEREAS there is a total lack of necessity for this center at this location, with serve a population of 53,000. All are located within a maximum of 3 miles from this particular intersection. We stress utter find use p-Sann n� citing the proximity of all the other centers, and suggest that a center of this nature is not appropriate for this site; WHEREAS we are concerned about at an already busy intersection. It is a matter of public record how many accidents occur at this intersection. In just one ii P+ `mil just this past Dec/ Jan. those of us homeowners closest to this intersection witnessed • accidents in which the --'-'-'-"Ai ^` were called; ' WHEREAS there are already several other shopping centers proposed for the Rancho Cucamonga area, we are concerned that sy will not enhance our positive community image and will -a^ *^ '- WHEREAS the community is already we are concerned that another large concrete area will negatively a eC` our roads. M -- storms dtM to fkaedi *T, already itmiking °^^aa°, and we also cite the tfemphe of the negative effect of development at a _ __bald on run-off down Archibald and through Foothill: 114•11; wet't WHEREAS there is a across Baseline from this he center, we are opposed to t effect this could have with both 494£4i,a and isim sm (ems, p proximity of Alta Loma Village to Alta Loma High School); WHEREAS we think more attention should be aid to -0cuwg such as eucalyptus trees that add to Haven Avenue's significance as a route "; Therefore be it resolved that the above cc terns do not correlate with our desires to locate our homes and familie in the community of Rancho Cucamonga as a family- oriented town, and we wish to make it known that we firmly oppose the proposed development. We ask that our elected officials pursue viable alternatives in planning this land area, and we ask that you keep Rancho Cucamonga as a community of balance. NAME � c �aar�i� �tJnn.>�ts ADDRESS > �/ 7.l5�d' 7/%[•f�vu. /ter/ c� C'< 73[J' .p /a2�;� /!NAME ADDRESS !/le+�ce F� Ta ag 73yt9 Hati.-.,e 14ve • CA ,9j-1,36 Jt, �Pe. / G Re, tic i}c Luca 91T;d !:,'/Ij,G °^ C�GL JY'% ' �iJre r•�6 ` >,t. l'r 5T 141q cdo L Qc'r y� t,)ffg PALO ,fl.Tn, nUC McAtgA, G 9 %,3n 9AW eo i lug d,•� r'?'- -- � ' r ;, J,..� lC� /(•�' Yr /t: �w,.z l0 y77�7c p,� sec GZC °l /7a� PETITION We the undersigned respectfully request the denial of a community shopping center at the intersection of Haven /Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, for the following reasons: WHEREAS there is a total lack of necessity for this center at this location, with 12 shopping centers containing 8 major supermarkets to serve a population of 53,000. All are located within a-maximum of 3 miles from this particular intersection. $is stress better land use planning, citing the proximity of all the other centers, and suggest that a center of this nature is not appropriate for this site; WHEREAS we are concerned about increased traffic at an already busy intersection. it is a matter of public record how many accidents occur at this intersection. In just one 10 -day period just this past Dec/ Jan. those of us homeowners closest to this intersection witnessed 3 accidents in which the police /paramedics were called; WHEREAS there are already several other shopping centers proposed for the Rancho Cucamonga area, we are concerned that over - commercialization will not enhance our positive community image and will add to the existing problem of saturation; WHEREAS the community is already besieged by flooding and road closures, we are concerned that another large concrete area will negatively affect our roads. Baseline has been closed off east of Haven in several recent storms due to flooding, already limiting access, and we also cite the example of the negative effect of development at Baseline /Archibald on run -off down Archibald and through Foothill; WHEREAS there is a proposed school site across Baseline from this center, we are opposed -to the effect this could have with both traffic and loitering (example: proximity of Alta Loma Village to Alta Loma High School); IMREAS we think more attention should be paid to ecological. concerns such as neon signs, waste paper, noise, widening Baseline and removing the eucalyptus trees that add to Haven Avenue's significance as a "scenic route "; Therefore be it resolved that the above concerns do not correlate with our desires to locate our homes and families in the community of Rancho Cucamonga os a he proposedndevelo development. We make it electednofficials town, and we firmly oppose the prop Pm pursue viable alternatives in planning this land area, and we ask that you keep Rancho Cucamonga as a community of balance. NAME ADDRESS ,� °. n n NAME ADDRESS lof"n %e/,3� %` C IRP.I 1 WWWWW CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 1980 To: City Council From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: LEWIS NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSAL A couple of you have expressed some concern about the Lewis Shopping Center proposal on Base Line and Haven that you will consider at tonights' City Council meeting and wonder how to articulate your concerns relating to the "bigger picture ". The following is a very rationale argument for why the General Plan Amendment should not be approved at this time. This particular proposal is a small part of an overall Planned Community for approximately 1300 acres. This Planned Community consists of commercial, various forms of residential, and public uses all planned for the entire acreage interlaced with the circulation system and other provisions. Their planned community which was proposed to the City shows in concept the location of one Neighborhood Center at Base Line and Haven as well as others on their concept plan. These locations are proposals by the Lewis Company, not by the City. In other words, when the City formally reviews the Planned Community it must, among other things, look at the proper distribution of land use in relationship to the overall needs of the community. We are in the process of completing our Genecil Plan and within a three month period we will have available refined alternatives that would develop our final General Plan choices for the Planning Commission and City Council to review. In order to assess the overall feasibility of a neighborhood center at this location relative to the long term needs of the community, we must examine not only the relationship of the concept proposed in Terra Vista with the General Plan but also determine the internal consistency of distributions of land use within Terra Vista itself. At the present time a traffic analysis has been done for Terra Vista which shows signifies nt circulation and drainage issues that must be addressed. The Lewis Company is currently trying to address these; however, the Internal consistency and relationships of Terra Vista itself have not been resolved let alone those relationships with the General Plan. Furthermore, the Terra Vista site shows a regional center that is also in competition with another site on the Victoria Plan. The General Plan at the end of Its process most develop a reasonable land use plan that reflects the proper relationships of a regional center and Its peripheral uses. This process can not be accomplished by showing two regional. sites; therefore, the City must within the next six months during the General Plan process decide where there must be a regional center. The General Plan can not work with multiple sites. Given these kinds of problems; examining the rela- Lewis Neighborhood Shopping Center Proposal March 5, 1980 Page 2 1 We soon will have an opportunity to gain the perspective of the bigger picture and how the pieces such as Terra Vista and Victoria would fit. The project proponents of Victoria have already acknowledged to staff that they will not seek any approvals until after the General Plan has been adopted. If the City Council chooses to deny this application based upon the above argu- ments it should make certain to articulate the fact that it is not being denied because it is just one piece of a bigger project since we require master planning of all uses in the City, but for the reasons stipulated above in conjunction with the piecemealing of such a large project having so many different facets. This neighborhood center is intended to serve a neighborhood which has not been approved visavis the Planned Community. Also thrown into the argument could be the issue of appropriate timing in relationship to the number of neighborhood centers currently existing which are anchored by a major grocery store. All this needs to be examined in the context of both the General Plan and Terra Vista. I hop this memo assists you in making up your own mind about the Lewis proposal. R�speltfully submitted, - ! L J LAM, Director of Community Development JL:um CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 1980 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Communit y eve I opmeD SUBJECT: POTENTIAL OPPOSITION REGARDING SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSALS Currently there are a number of neighborhood commercial centers proposed along Haven Avenue. It appears as though the centers proposed near exist- ing residential areas have generated a great deal of interest among resi- dents of those areas. In particular, we have the following proposals: I. Southeast corner of Base Line and Haven - Applicant /Lewis Company 2. Haven Avenue between Lemon and Highland - Applicant /Jack Sylvester 3. Southeast corner of Highland and Haven - Applicant /T E S Development 4. Southwest corner of Lemon and Haven - Applicant /Doug Hone The Lewis Center is the subject of a General Plan Amendment that the Council will hear at their meeting on March 6th. The Sylvester Center is a subject of a rezoning request that was recently denied by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. The T E S Center is the subject of a General Plan Amend- ment which again the Council will review March 6th. (As you will recall, Staff and the Planning Commission originally recommended denial; but the Council directed Staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment for T 6 S and thus it is returning to the City Council for their final endorsement.) Doug Hone's Center is not like the other proposed centers since it is small Nacres) and will not contain a major grocery store. This center has been in the planning stages since the City was incorporated and has, therefore, been viewed on the General Plan as a committed site. Doug Hone's center was the subject of a Site Approval /Conditional Use Permit which was approved by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. When the Sylvester property went before the Planning Commission for rezoning at their last meeting, there was tremendous opposition by the residents in the area who opposed the creation of any shopping center no matter how attrac- tively designed. The Planning Commission denied the rezoning request because it felt the timing was too early for a center at this location. The Commission did, however, state that a center may be able to locate on that site at some future date. Mr. Sylvester has indicated he will appeal. During the same meeting, Doug Hone's center was the subject of the Conditional Use Permit /Site Approval process. The same residents in the area, especially those living within the Garden Apartments, opposed certain uses and design aspects of the center. The residents knew that Mr. Hone already had commercial zoning on the City Council and City Manager March 4, 1980 Page 2 site although it was quite evident from the comments made at the meet- ing that these residents would prefer no center at all. The Planning Commission approved this Site Approval; but we hear that there is an effort afoot by residents of the area to appeal this project to the City Council. The Lewis project went before the Planning Commission for the General Plan Amendment a number of meetings ago and the General Plan Amendment hearing resulted in a handful of residents who expressed concern about a center across Haven. We hear that there is an effort afoot to oppose the Amendment at the Council meeting of March 6th. The T E S Center, the subject of the General Plan Amendment on March 6th, has not resulted in any public opposition or debate, but we have been contacted by a number of sources that indicate the residents directly adjacent to the site will oppose the center. 1 am informing you of the above just to indicate that there is potential opposition to each one of these projects over the next couple of weeks. It appears that any time a center is proposed for a site near existing residential areas, that there will be opposition to the request. The responses from the residents clearly communicate the thought "put it in somebody elses' neighborhood." A subject which arises whenever there is considerable opposition to a commercial center request is the issue of proper timing. In other words, is it the right time to approve another neighborhood center when we have so many in the City at the present time? This in turn raises the greater philosophical question of whether the City should be concerned with private initiative and private risk taking. I raised the issue at a prior Planning Commission meeting in which I indicated to the Planning Commission that our Ordinances allow the City to require a market analysis and that if this question of timing is to be addressed it should be addressed more intelligently with the benefit of an independent study. The Commission at that time indicated that the Staff should develop some information regarding standards for certain types of centers but that the study of timing and feasibility should not be a requirement of the City. However, the reason given for disapproval of the Sylvester zone change was inappropriate timing. While the issue of timing is indeed arguable, we feel that some form of independent analysis would serve as a better foundation for examination. Therefore, if you wonder why Staff has not looked into that issue, you will know that we raised it and was rejected previously by the Planning Commission. However, I suspect that the Planning Commission will bring it up themselves at a later date and redirect Staff. But for the time being for the projects described above, there has been no examination into market feasibility. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. JLtkds 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 29, 1980 T0: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasse City Manager SUBJECT: Cash Flow Proble s Because of the recent storm damage in Rancho Cucamonga, it has become necessary to repair some streets which were not scheduled for major repair this year. As a result of this need, we wanted the Council to be aware that we may experience somewhat of a cash flow problem over the next few months. The City has the money to pay the bills. However, most of it is presently invested at a 15% interest rate. Most of the funds are in special funds which have been designated by the City Council. It is significant to note that the costs incurred for storm damage repairs will be almost entirely reimburseable by the Federal Government. However, the Federal process is cumbersome and the City will be required to "front" the funds to pay for repairs immediately with federal reimbursement coming some time within the next two years. We feel that the process can be accel- erated somewhat and we will be contacting Congressman Jim Lloyd to seek his assistance in jarring loose some of the Federal funds for street damage. In summary, the funds are available to pay for all road damages and to maintain our planned capital improvements, which were a part of our budget commitment for this year. However, the City will be required to pay in advance for a great proportion of the cost incurred from recent storm damage. While we will be reimbursed for most of these expenses, we will be using, until reimbursement is made, funds that have been invested at high interest rates. If members of the Council would like additional information concerning any of the repairs or our cash flow problem, please contact me. LMW /vz CC/ Harry Empey, Finance Director Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer MEMORANDUM DATE: February 29, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Maintenance Program 4 or tex Fiscal Year As Council may recall, a commitment was made some months ago to cancel our contract with the County for street maintenance beginning in July of 1980. As a part of that commitment, Lloyd will be preparing a more detailed report for you concerning the service level alternatives which appear to be feasible for next year. In addition, we will be providing you with a list of major equipment which will be necessary in order for the City to assume street maintenance activities. In order to ease our overall cash flow problem, we will be recommending that major equipment be purchased on a lease purchase plan rather than an outright cash purchase. The City has received a commitment for an interest rate of approximately 8% which is far below the market interest being charged by commercial lenders. It is significant to note that by lease purchasing we will have more funds available to earn the currently high rate of interest which is being paid on City investments. Again, Lloyd will be providing Council with a more detailed report prior to our next City Council meeting. However, it is important to note that if we are to begin our maintenance activities in July, we must make a commitment to seek bids and purchase the necessary heavy equipment. Unfortunately, that commitment doesn't really tie in with the City's overall budget schedule. We must authorize the purchase of the equipment within the next few weeks in order to have it available by July. Fortunately, it is doubtful that we will make any lease payments until the next fiscal year. Please contact either me or Lloyd if you have any questions concerning the program. LMW /vz CC/ Harry Empey, Finance Director Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer MEMORANDUM DATE: February 29, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserma City Manager SUBJECT: Budget Schedule For your information, we are enclosing a copy of our staff budget schedule. Please note that we are somewhat behind this year due primarily to the uncertainties connected with the Gann Initiative (Proposition 4) and the newest initiative authorized by Howard Jarvis (Proposition 9). Our past experience has indicated, however, that putting the budget together in March is actually to our advantage since we will have more reliable revenue estimates to work with. You will also note that ample time is reserved for the City Council and the public to review the budget for next year. The overall budgetary outlook ranges somewhere between terrible and disastrous due primarily to the probable loss of funds which will result when and if Proposition 4 is approved by the voters in June. Proposition 4 will represent probably the most significant impact upon the City, since it will undoubtedly result in d loss of bail -out funding. The City was in a somewhat better position when Proposition 13 was passed, since we had not actually commenced with our City operations; we therefore merely adjusted to the $550,000 loss of revenues at the time. It should also be noted that, in addition to a loss of State bail -out funds, the City's revenue sharing will also be decreased since the revenue sharing formula is based upon a number of factors which also tie in with our budget. We also anticipate a loss or reduction in cigarette taxes and other major revenues which the City has been receiving over the past few years. In summary, the purpose of this memo is to let you know that we have started the budget process. However, we are somewhat behind schedule when compared to previous years. Council may be assured that adequate time exists for a full review of the proposed budget. If any Council members have suggestions for possible programs, please let us know as soon as possible and we will provide you with cost data. LMW /vz Enclosure E M 0 R A N D U February 25, 1980 T0: Department Head FROM: City Manager ., SUBJECT: Budget Schedule Period Activity Responsibility Feb. 25 -29 Preparation of departmental work Finance sheets. Entering of historical data and related information. Mar. 17 Distribute budget schedule, in- Finance and structions and work sheets to City Manager departments. Mar. 17 -25 Preparation of non - departmental Finance, City budgets and schedule of proposed Manager, and capital projects. Departments Mar. 26 Budget session at Cal Poly. All Dept. Heads Mar. 18 -26 Preparation of departmental budget Each Dept. estimates and requests submitted by March 26. A written justification of major programs or acquisition of equipment is required. Mar. 26 Work program preparation (two -three Each Dept. page memo). Your proposed Work Program should include suggestions on 1) those current services provided by your dept. which you think should be expanded, re- duced, or deleted; 2) new services that, in your opinion, should be added; and, 3) capital projects that should be ac- complished this coming year with regard to adopted capital improvement program. Program costs should not be discussed in the work program except for capital projects Apr. 5 Initiate salary review board process. Personnel & City Mgr. Apr. 2 -30 Preparation of City Manager's proposed budget, revenue estimates, and other budget information. Apr. 5 -May 15 Additional budget sessions scheduled City Mgr. & Each or as needed. all Dept. as required May 16 Submit preliminary budget to City Council. Provide distribution to City Depts. and make copies available for public inspection. Set schedule for budget adoption. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager �— SUBJECT: Financing Flood Co ZroF i ties- - A Plan of Action At our last City Council meeting we outlined a number of possible alternatives for financing the City's unmet storm drain needs. It now appears that the only feasible means of financing storm drain improvements which are needed in the area of our community west of Haven Avenue is to for special assessment districts. By forming special assessment districts, costs for improvements are normally apportioned to each property on the basis of benefit received. Each property within the assessment district bears a relative portion of the total cost which cannot be met by state or federal grants, storm drain fees or from funds avail- able from the County Flood Control District. The primary advantages to the assessment district are: (1) costly public improvements whichtareedeemedatom benefit rthe entire community. (2) Costs are shared proportionately by all who benefit from the improve- ments. Future homeowners are not paying for improvements which benefit present homeowners. The Building Industry has frequently pointed out that new home buyers should not pay the costs for solving all of the City's problems. (3) The creation of an assessment district can commence immediately. (Feasibility Study). (4) An assessment district is one of the few alternatives available to the City which can raise sufficient funds to cope with a problem of such a large proportion. (5) The formation of assessment districts is not prohibited by Proposition 13, Proposition 4, or Proposition 9 (.Jarvis II). The staff's previous cost estimate for completing the priority storm protects is approximately $10,250,000. The priority listing adopted by the City Council is as follows: City Council -2- March 5, 1980 Since it obviously is not feasible to finance all projects simutaneously or to design and construct the storm drain network in a single project, it will be necessary to phase the work over a number of years. For those areas where there exists a critical need and where the degree of vulnerability is readily apparent, smaller districts could be formed to expedite earlier and more expensive con- struction. ASSESSMENT AREA Most of the area of the City east of Haven Avenue will be provided with storm drains as a requirement for development and through the collection of storm drain fees. However, since most of the area west of Haven Avenue is already in existence, the assessment district formation is probably the only way to finance needed storm drains. PROJECT ESTIMATED COST 1. Storm Drain Master Plan Update (phased) $ 75,000 2. Day - Etiwanda - San Sevaine System 25,000 3. Carnelian Channel 500,000 4. Red Hill - Beryl Storm Drain - Project 2a -2b 1,600,000 5. 19th Street Storm Brain - Project 4b 500,000 6. Baseline Storm Drain - Project 4c 1,000,000 7. 8th Street Storm Drain - Project 5d 1,500,000 8. Hellman Avenue Storm Drain - Project 6a 2,250,000 9. Arrow Route Storm Drain - Project 5c 1,300,000 10. Foothill - Turner Storm Drain - Project 5e 1,000,000 Subtotal - 1979 $ 9,750,000 Inflation 500,000 Grand total $10,250,000 Since it obviously is not feasible to finance all projects simutaneously or to design and construct the storm drain network in a single project, it will be necessary to phase the work over a number of years. For those areas where there exists a critical need and where the degree of vulnerability is readily apparent, smaller districts could be formed to expedite earlier and more expensive con- struction. ASSESSMENT AREA Most of the area of the City east of Haven Avenue will be provided with storm drains as a requirement for development and through the collection of storm drain fees. However, since most of the area west of Haven Avenue is already in existence, the assessment district formation is probably the only way to finance needed storm drains. City Council -3- March 5, 1960 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Normally assessments are based on either total acreage or on a per - parcel basis. The total acreage formula is recommended since all property owners will then pay a proportionate share of the costs based on total benefit received. Assessment on a parcel basis may result in owners of large parcels paying the same rate as residents. The need for a complete storm drain system has been made clear in recent weeks, and there is a necessity for developing a com rehensive funding program. In some respects the drainage problems have c ty -wi ide significance as evidenced by the excessive damage to city streets, public utilities, and public transit. The cost for debris removal and minor street repairs is approximately $25,000 after a moderate rainfall. As a result of our recent storm, the revised estimate of damage to up blic property is approximately $800,000 - $1,000,000. The extent of damage to private property is still being calculated. The timing for initiation of Aaa program to solve our drainage problems will never be better. However, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga are really willing to pay the costs required to solve the problem. There is no way to estimate the annual costs to taxpayers for storm drain improvements which are financed through a special assessment district. The cost - spread comes much later, after projects have been clearly identified and cost estimates are firm. We also will have a much better knowledge of costs after our updated Storm Drain Master Plan has been adopted. If the City Council shares our concerns regarding citizen willingness to parti- cipate in special assessment financing, the Council may wish to consider placing an advisory ballot measure for consideration of voters on June 3rd. The wording could be: "Shall the City Council create special assessment districts in order to raise the funds required to construct storm drain facilities throughout the City ?" (The City Council must ultimately determine whether the district is "city- wide" or not. The areas east of Haven Avenue will be taken care of as development occurs. The area west of Haven will not generate sufficient drainage fees to finance major projects). The primary advantage of the advisory ballot measure is that a seasonal pro- blem will be kept in the public eye. In addition, it is probable that a majority will support the proposal. The disadvantage to any advisory measure is the pre- cedent which is set for dealing with major problems which should be dealt with by elected policy- makers, the City Council. The Council must, therefore, determine whether you wish to proceed immediately or to place the advisory measure before the electorate on June 3, 1980. Please note, however, that the deadline for submission of ballot issues to the Registrar of Voters and the County Board of Supervisors is March 21, 1980• City Council -4- March 5, 1980 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEDURES There are three types of special assessment district procedures. These alterna- tives have been previously outlined for the City Council and are attached for your review. Because of the poor condition of the bond market, our bond counsel, F. MacKenzie Brown, has recomnended that we utilize the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The disadvantage of the 1915 Act is that administrative costs are generally high and additional personnel may be needed to handle bond payments and re- demptions. These costs are, however, included in the assessment costs and are not paid out of the City's general fund. RECOMMENDATION If the City Council wishes to begin a program to solve our critical storm drain problems, it would be appropriate to instruct the staff to begin the procedure to form special assessment districts. The Council should also determine whether you feel comfortable with this action or whether you wish to place an advisory measure on the June 3rd ballot. The assessment district process is quite cumbersome and very time - consuming. Therefore, if that method is selected, we should begin as early as possible. It will also be necessary to secure an attorney specializing in special assessment districts to guide the staff through the process. In addition, the staff should be instructed to re- evaluate the existing storm drain priority list to determine a phasing schedule for construction. The staff is available to assist the City Council in whatever action you deem appropriate. LMW:ba attach. D.7 al" All. 'r C'aPPa of A I,N,4 0 E E A NE A 1. —17 16 , b a m MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 [DIVISION 12, STREETS AND HICHNAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA] The "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 ", hereinafter referred to as the "1913 Act ", is a procedural act only, which provides for the formation of a special assessment district, the levy of the assess- ment, and creation of the lien and obligation on the property. Said Act does not, within itself, contain any provision for the issuance of bonds, and the bonds to finance the improvements will issue under either the provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915" [Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code] or the "Improvement Act of 1911" [Division 7 of said Code]. Under the "1913 Act ", a Resolution of Intention is eventually adopted, which is the jurisdictional Resolution setting forth a description of the work, the boundaries of the Assessment District, the intent of the Agency to proceed with the formation of a special assessment district, together with a declaration as to the type of bonds to use to finance the improvements, and furthermore, orders the formal preparation of an Engineer's Report. The Engineer's "Report" consists of the following: a. Plans and specifications of the proposed improvement; b. A general description of the works of improvement and riqhts -of -way or land to be acquired; An estimate of the costs of the improvement and the costs of all land, riqhts -of -way, easements, and inci- dental expenses in connection with the proceedings and improvement. The cost estimate would reflect any con- tributions or funding from any source. A diagram showing the Assessment District and the boun- daries and dimensions of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District; The proposed assessment of the total assessable amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvement, pro -rated upon the several subdivisions or parcels of land within the district, in direct proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each parcel. The amount or percentage of any contribution would first be deducted from the total estimate costs and expenses. Upon the presentation of the Engineer's "Report ", the legislative body sets the matter for a public hearing. The amount of the assessments levied at this time is based upon the Engineer's esti- mate of the costs for the acquisition and improvements. Notices are then transmitted to the property owners, based on the Engineer's estimate. Normally construction bids, and possibly bond bids, would be received prior to the scheduled public hearing so that all assess - menrs may he modified and adjusted to reflect the actual construction bids received. This also gives the legislative body positive assu- rance that the construction contract will be within the budget as preliminarily approved for the project and that the bonds can be sold and the improvements financed within the perimeters previously set. The normal matters to be considered at the Public Hearing are the following: a. Boundaries of the proposed Assessment District; Extent of the works of improvement and acquisition; Method and formula used for assessment spread. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, the public Agency, if it wishes to proceed with the project, will confirm the assessment and order the improvements. At that time a lien is created against each parcel of property within the boundaries of the Assessment District, said lien being in the amount of the special assessment as confirmed against said parcel. At that time the property owners are mailed . notice of their final confirmed assessment and notified that their assessment is due and they have thirty (30) days to pay all or any portion of their assessment in cash. Property owners, during this 30 -day period, can discharge their property from the obligation or make a partial payment and thus reduce the amount to go to bond, without the requirement of any interest charges or prepayment penalty. At the end of the cash collection period, bonds will automatically be issued to represent the balance of the unpaid assessments. Bonds will be issued pursuant to the provisions of the bonding act as set forth in the Resolution of Intention. When the bonds are delivered to the purchaser and the cash proceeds received, the work will progress as a cash contract and the con- tractor would be receiving progress payments for completed portions of the work, all in accordance with the specifications as previously adopted by the legislative body. Under the "1913 Act" there can be one or more contracts as determined by the Agency, and these con- tracts would be administered as the Agency administers any public works cash contract. Under the "1913 Act" the interest will accrue on the assessments upon the date of the bonds. Thus, the property owners will be paying interest before the work has been completed. The provision for cash contracts should provide for the most competitive situa- tion possible under the other contrasting applicable special assessment procedural statutes. A local public district cannot use the "1913 Act" procedure for the levy of an assessment in a County or City unless permission of the legislative body of the applicable City or County is obtained Prior to the adoption of the Resolution of Intention. IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 [DIVISION 7 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) BONDS The bonds issued under the "Improvement Act of 1911 ", hereinafter referred to as the "1911 Act ", constitute a direct and specific lien against each specific parcel of property within the boun- daries of the Assessment District. An analogy could be drawn to a "tax exempt trust deed ". The special assessment lien created is on a parity with general taxes and takes priority and precedence over any private lien, such as a deed of trust, mortgage, or attachment. These bonds are issued in various denominations, from $50.00 up, with the amount of each assessment reflecting the individual assessment as imposed upon the particular parcel of property re- presenting said parcel's proportionate share of the costs of the works of improvement. The principal on the bonds is payable, normally, in equal annual installments of principal, by coupon on each January 2nd. Interest on the unpaid principal is then pay- able by coupon semi - annually on each January 2nd and July 2nd. By law, the maximum legal interest rate of said bonds is 8%; however, the bonds may be sold and oftentimes are sold, at a discount. The local Treasurer normally bills the property owner for the principal and interest installments as they become due, collects the payments, and remits and makes the payment of funds to the bondholder. The law does authorize the appointment of a fiscal agent, if that is desired. In the event any property owner fails to pay an installment of interest or principal, the bonds will become delinquent and penal- ties are added on at the rate of 18 per month. If redemption of a delinquency is not made, the holder of a bond has the legal right to institute a foreclosure action against the property and said action normally can be completed in a one and one -half. (1 -1/2) year period. The property owner does have a year's period of redemption following the date of sale. The foreclosure alternates available to the bondholder are two -fold: Foreclosure action through the local Treasurer's office; Foreclosure action through the local Superior Court. Any hond and assessment can be discharged prior to the full maturity by the payment of the following amounts: Unpaid principal; Interest to the following January 2nd or July 2nd; Any p,naltics (1: per month); Redemption premium, if applicable. A redemption premium of five percent (58) can be included in the bond indenture and is a matter determined by the. legislative body at the time of adoption of the Resolution of intention. The Reso- lution of intention, if the bonds are to provide the 5% redemption premium, must recite the fact that the premium will be applicable, to these proceedings. The sole security behind a "1911 Act" bond is the value of the property, inasmuch as there is no pledge of credit by the public agency and there is no fiscal responsibility or economic obliga- tion or pledge on said agency. The law for the "1911 Act" bonds provides for a maximum term of 25 years; however, the vast majority of issues generally extend over a 10 -15 year period. These bonds are normally issued as bearer bonds, and are exempt from Federal and California personal income tax.under existing statutes, regulations and court decisions, and said bonds are exempt from all California taxes except inheri- tance, gift and franchise taxes. IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915 DIVISION 10 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [BONDS] Bonds issued under the provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of ' 1915" (hereinafter referred to as the "1915 Act ") , unlike the 1911 Act bonds, do not constitute a direct and specific lien against the property, but are secured by a redemption fund for the pro- ceedings. The redemption fund then in turn is secured by the in- dividual assessments as levied on the properties in proportion to the benefits received from the works of improvement. This assess- ment lien created is also on a parity with general taxes and main- tains the same rights as that for other special assessments. The bonds will be serial bonds and normally are issued in denomi- nations of $1,000.00, $5,000.00, or $10,000.00, with the amortiza- tion schedule generally being structured in such a way so that over the life of the assessment and bond, the property owners' debt service installment for each year will be approximately the same for the full term. Principal on the bonds matures on July 2nd of each year, with interest payable semi - annually on January 2nd and July 2nd. The maximum interest rate allowable by law is 8%; how- ever the bonds may be sold at a discount. These bonds are subject to call and redemption on any January 2nd or July 2nd following a 60 day notice procedure as determined by the Treasurer. These assessment installments, unlike the 1911 Act bond, are collected on the regular tax bill in the sane manner as County pro- perty taxes and carry the same penalty in cases of delinquency. If any installments of the assessments are not timely paid, the property is then sold in the same manner as delinquent property for non - payment of County property taxes. The entity is required to advance available funds to the redemption fund in order to purchase the de- linquent property. If no revenue source is available to be advanced to the redemption fund, the Code provided that the entity levy a tax on all taxable property within its jurisdictional boundaries up to 100 per $100 of assessed valuation to cover the delinquency. With the passage of the Jarvis /Gann Initiative, it now appears that there is no contingent responsibility to levy the 100 tax in cases of de- linquency and no available funds, thus the security at this time for the bonds will be the value of the property bearing the assessment responsibility, and the amount of available funds that could be used as a loan to the redemption fund until assessments are brought current. An alternate procedure is available for delinquencies, and that is within the discretion of the public agency as to whether or not to institute foreclosure actions through the local Superior Court. This procedure can be clone annually and tends to expedite the proceedings to bring delinquent assessments current. The law for the 1915 Act bonds provides for a maximum term of 40 years; however, the vast majority of issues generally have extended between 10 -25 years. These bonds are normally issued as bearer bonds and are exempt from Federal_ and California personal income taxes under existing statutes, regulations and court decisions. William J. Logan Dawn L. Logan 7391 Sago Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 March 3, 1980 Mayor Jim Frost Mayor of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 9340 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California Re: Proposed Neighborhood Commercial Center at Corner of Baseline Road and Haven Avenue Dear Mayor Frost: We do not believe the establishment of a "neigh- borhood commercial" center at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Baseline Road is in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are 12 shopping centers containing eight supermarkets, at least four hardware stores and numerous drugstores within approximately three miles of this proposed site. The Angel's - Albertson's shopping center at the southeast corner of Baseline and Archibald is .9 mile from the proposed site, while an Alpha Beta - Thrifty shopping center at the Northwest corner of Archibald and Baseline is one mile away from the proposed site. There is also a retail shopping area at the southwest corner of this same intersection with plans to build additional retail shops. We have specifically noted that the Angel's - Albertson's center has had vacant retail space since opening in 1979. Vacant stores and shops become a burden upon a community. Upkeep is neglected, vandalism is invited and while providing little value to the community, police and fire service must still be maintained. We also object to the establishment of this center because of the noise it would create, lights from parking lots and store signs shining into yards and homes and the apparent necessity of uprooting old, established eucalyptus trees. After many years these trees have reached the stage where their beauty and usefulness to the community can be appreciated. They cannot be replaced for many years. Mayor Frost -2- March 3, 1980 The City of Rancho Cucamonga should not let "overcommercialization" destroy the harmony we felt existed between the residential, commercial and industrial sectors of the City. As a new city with room to grow, Rancho Cucamonga must exercise restraint in its decisions and help provide for the total well -being of the residents of the City. For the reasons listed above we object the the development of a neighborhood commercial center at Haven Avenue and Baseline Road. Sincerely, lk! J"' WiWilliam J. ga &17 �P� Dawn L. Logan cc: J. Mikels A. Bridge M. Palombo P. Schlosser March 5, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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, March 5, 1980. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor James C. Frost who led in the pledge to the flag. Present: Councilmen Phillip Schlosser, Jon Mikels, Michael Palombo, Arthur Bridge, and Mayor James C. Frost. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs. Absent: Community Services Director, Bill Holley; and Harry Empey, Finance Director. Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to approve the minutes of February 19, 1980 and February 20, 1980. Motion carried 5 -0. iy lol IM ditty 1.9! a. General Plan meeting, March 11, 7:00 p.m. at the Neighborhood Facility at 9171 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga. b. Mikels announced he had been attending the SCAG General Assembly meetings. It had been announced at these meetings that the new site for the next regional airport had been selected which was to be in the Long Beach harbor. Financing for this project was now being studied. Mikels also announced that SB -84 is a gill that would implement motor vehicle in- spection programs. Included in the Bill was a measure that would reduce the emission standards in California and make them the same as the federal standards. c. Mayor presented a proclamation to Chuck Buquet who was representing the March of Dimes declaring March 23 as March of Dimes Walk -a -thon Day. d. Staff requested that Consent Calendar item "j" be removed for discussion. Staff also requested an item be added to the City Manager's staff reports. New item 6F, Report on alternatives for providing storm drain facilities in the City. 3. COMMISSION REPORTS. 3A. Advisory Commission - none 38. Historical Commission - none 4. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants: Register No. 80 -3 -5 for $318,053.92. b. Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License for Son 0. Reid and Franklin H. Yun, The Tempura Parlor /Suny's Fish 6 Chips, 9730 19th Street -- on -sale beer. C. Tract 9525: Release of bond. Located 250 feet north of Arrow Route and 300 feet west of Turner. Owner: Arnold D. Anderson Landscaping bond $38,300.00 City Council Minutes _ March 5, 1980 Page 2 d. Set public bearing on March 19, 1980 for Pluess - Staufer appeal in regard to Director Review No. 79 -32. e. Tract 9315: Release of T.O.P. bond to Hughes Development Corporation. Purpose: Conversion of sales office to garage at 8545 Hawthorne St. f. Approval of improvement security for St. Peter and St. Paul Catholic Church. Performance bond (surety) Labor 6 Material (surety) $ 34,600 $ 34,600 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -18 and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. W91 -55 (ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL CATHOLIC CHURCH). g. Parcel Map 5545: Acceptance of Map. Agreement, and Bonds. Consists of 3 parcels on 4 acres of land located on the north side of Use Line west of Archi- bald Avenue. This site is zoned and general planned for commercial development. Developer: Lewis Properties Performance bond (cash) Labor 6 Material bond (cash) $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Reconmendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -19 and direct: The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. The City Clerk and City Engineer sign the map on behalf of the City. The City Engineer forward the map for recording. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCAL MAP NUMBER 5545, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5545), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. h. Parcel Map 5760: Acceptance of Map, Agreement, and Bonds. Consists of 7 parcels on 64 acres of land located on the northeast comer of Milliken and 6th Street. Site is zoned and general planned for industrial development. The development is being phased and the first phase consists of two buildings. Developer: O'Donnell, Brigham and Partners. Performance Bond (surety) $446,500. Labor 6 Material Bond (surety) $446,500 Monumentation $ 1,550 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 80 -20 and direct: The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. The City Clerk and City Engineer sign the map an behalf of the City. The City Engineer forward the map for recording. City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 80 -20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL HAP NUMBER 5760, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5760) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. 1. Installation of Security Alarm System in City facilities (City Offices, Lion's Park Community Center, and the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center). Recommendation: It is recommended that authorization be given to the Community Services Department to negotiate with various vendors to determine the level of service required and to award contract for the purchase and installation of equip- ment in the City Offices, Lion's Park Community Center, and the Neighborhood Center. Amount not to exceed $4500 from the contingency fund. j--- Appreve3 e! -!he 6ennly- Me4Mertnnee- Agreement. Item removed from Consent Calendar. k. Agreement for Engineering Services on Church Street and Highland Avenue. The contract is for engineering services relating to the resurfacing, reconstruc- tion, and minor widening of Church Street from Archibald to Hermosa and Highland Avenue from Hermosa to Haven. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement for the Engineering Services by Linville- Sanderson -Nom and Associates; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the Consent Calendar with the deletion of item "j ". Motion carried 5 -0. Item "j ": Approval of the County Maintenance Agreement. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the extension of the County Road Maintenance Agreement from July 1, 1990 to July 30, 1980. This 30 -day extension will allow the city time to "gear -up" to assume this function. Mr. Hubbs stated that the reason staff had requested the item to be removed from the Consent Calendar was there were some corrections which needed to be made in the contract. The body of the contract should be as follows: "If, at the termination of the agreement, COUNTY has on hand any unexpended CITY funds which is in excess of any obligation of CITY to COUNTY for the performance of such functions by said Road Commissioner, any such excess shall thereupon be paid to CITY by COUNTY. This contract shall have an effective date of July 1, 1979, and unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this agreement shall run for a period ending July 30, 1980." Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to approve the County Maintenance contract as corrected. Motion carried 5 -0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5A. Reversion to Acreage of Tract Nos. 9399 and 9400. Located north side of Banyan, west of Beryl. Staff report by Jack Lam. Staff had been directed to set the public hearing at the February 20 City Council meeting for March 5, 1980 to consider the reversion to acreage of Tract 9399 and 9400. Mr. Lam stated these two tracts were approved by the County of San Bernardino on September 19, 1977. Improvement agreements were signed on August 22, 1977. Agreements must be filed two years from the date of approval, or September 19, 1979. Requirements for the agreements is that improvements for the two tracts must be completed two years from the date of approval of the tract, or September 19, 1979. Mr. Lam then handed the signed agreements to the City Clerk to be recorded in the offical record. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reported for the record that no improvements had been made on these two tracts and that the dedications were not needed for public 1 City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 4 purposes at this time. The City Attorney asked Mr. Hubbs if he anticipated that the dedications might be needed for prospective public purposes. Mr. Hubbs said no. The City Attorney presented copies of the recorded tract maps to the City Clerk which showed they were filed for record on September 22, 1977. Mr. Dougherty, City Attorney, stated that under the findings, number 'b ", the word parcel map should be deleted since these were both final maps. The mayor opened the meeting to those who were directly involved with the tracts. There was no response. Mayor then asked if there was anyone who would like to speak. Lynn McNamara, representing both the land owner and the developer, came forth to address the Council. Her question to Council was what was wrong with the design? She then went on to defend the position that the design was compatible with the other tracts already developed in the area. She read a petition supporting the development of the new tracts which had been signed by those living in the area. Ms. McNamara pointed out that the Council could extend the deadline. She said several were given time extensions on their bonds at the last meeting. Schlosser asked staff if other developers had been given special favor? Mr. Lam stated this was the only one In default and had been so since August 1979. In this case it would require Council to accept new bonds for those in default. All the other cases had been simply time extensions on bonds not yet in default. Mr. Dougherty said that although a letter had been written by staff dated December 18, 1979, Council could have taken action to revert to acreage anytime after the 22nd of September 1979. The mayor closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palumbo to revert to acreage Tract Nos. 9399 and 9400 and to establish the following findings: a. That dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or pro- spective public purposes, and b. That none of the improvements required to be made have been made with- in two years from the date the final map was filed for record, or within the time allowed by agreement for completion of the improve- ments, whichever is the latter. And Council directed staff to: 1. To have the Parcel Map prepared for reversion to acreage of Tracts 9399 and 9400. 2. Approve expenditure of all unused portions of fees up to an amount not to exceed $1800 for the purposes of reversion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikele, Palombo, Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Bridge. Bridge said this was due to the fact that there was an interest on his part on the property. He said he did not think his interest was abnormal since he was interested and very concerned with the entire community. City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 5 58 Cenral Plan Amendment 80-OIA - Lewis Development Company. A request to de- signate the southeast corner of Haven and Base Line Road as Neighborhood Com- munity from the previously designated Alternative Land Use. Staff report by Jack Lam. Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing to those in favor of the project. Those speaking were: Jerry Bryan, Lewis Home. Re addressed some of the issues posed by the mayor that were of concern to local residents regarding storm drainage, refuse, traffic. Steve Redenour, Vice President of C.V. D Commerical Properties and a partner in this venture with Lewis Development. Speaking in opposition to the project were: Daniel Rosso, 10475 Pepper Street Ron Tannebaum, Etiwanda resident and member of the General Plan Advisory Committee Doug Todd, 7388 Sago Court Jim He rase , 7405 Sago Court Allan McLaughlin, 10470 Pepper Street Steve Stevens, 7361 Sago Court Charles Vollaro, 10415 Ironwood Street David Herenden, 10476 Pepper Street Bruce Hhisler, 7431 Marine The public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to deny General Plan 80 -01A by the Lewis Development Company at Base Line and Haven Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 5C. General Plan Amendment 80 -01C - Daon /Barton. Jack Corrigan asked Council if the next item could proceed. They were waiting for part of their displays to arrive from Orange County. Request was granted. Mayor called a recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. SD. General Plan Amendment 80 -OIC - City of Rancho Cucamonga. A proposed amendment to the interim lend use element of the General Plan to relocate the neighborhood commercial asterisk presently located midway between Lemon and Highland Avenue, on the east side of Hawn, to the intersection of Highland and Haven. Staff report by Jack Lam. The meeting was opened for public hearing. Dan Evans, T 6 S Development, requested a continuance in order to proceed with plans, meet with citizens, etc. He said this request was because of the feelings raised from the last item surrounding development of neighborhood shopping centers. He said their company would like to proceed with all of the backup work which normally proceeds a rezoning. The City Attorney said this needed researching to see if the matter could be continued, He had never heard of this being done. However, to be on the safe . side, he said the Council could proceed with the hearing this evening or withdraw to the next General Plan hearing time. They were the applicant in this case. City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Vito DeVito Francesco, representing Jack Sylvester, a property owner at High- land and Haven, stated that should Council move the asterisk to the intersection of Highland and Haven, then he requested that the minutes reflect that the policy is that the Council will allow two centers per intersection and that the Doug None is not of the type of development to be considered as one of those two. Also, he requested that even though the asterisk is moved to Highland and Haven, it should be elastic enough to stretch up to Lemon and Haven. Mr. Evans said that realizing the feelings of the homeowners which had been expressed, he recommended a continuance to the next General Plan hearing. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to withdraw General Plan Amend- ment 80 -OIC since the applicant was the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The public hearing was closed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 5C. General Plan Amendment 80 -01B - Daon /Batton. A request for a change in the land use element of the General Plan from industrial land use classification to neighborhood community for the northeast corner of Haven and Arrow Route. Staff report by Jack Lee. Meeting was opened for public hearing by the Mayor. Gilbert Martinez, land planner, made a presentation using maps and sketches as to ways the property could be utilized. Speaking in favor of the project were: David Herenden and Jeff Scerenka The public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to approve the General Plan Amendment 80 -01B by Daon /Barton. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 5E. A Resolution amending the adopted interim land use element of the General Plan. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. 80 -21 and waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Number and title read by Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 80 -21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN. City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 7 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 6A. Carnelian Street Parkway Improvement Program. Staff report by Lloyd Hobbs. Out of the six proposals which had been submitted, Genge Consultants had been selected by a staff committee for this project. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the agreement with Genge Consultants for the parkway improvement program on Carnelian. Cost of Phase I to be approximately $7,500 to come from the beautification fund. Also, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreements on behalf of the City. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6B. Request for Proposals for Design of Carnelian Channel. Staff report by Lloyd Hobbs. A request for authorization to seek proposals for the design of Carnelian Channel construction to the Demens Channel. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to direct staff to seek proposals for the design of the Carnelian Channel construction to be paid for through storm drain fees. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6C. Operation STOPP. Staff report by Capt. Tom Wickum. Capt. Wickum said on February 19 he had been notified that the application through the Office of Traffic Safety had tentatively been approved. The grant would be starting May 1 although we could begin recruiting and training of officers immediately. Capt. Wickum given an outline of the purpose of the program and highlighted how the grant would be utlized. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to receive and file the report and to authorize staff to execute a letter of intent and other documents as re- quired by the grant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT! None. 6D. Report re. Emergency Preparedness Plans. Staff report was to be given by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. However, Mr. Holley was ill. Mr. Wasserman suggested this be referred to the next meeting. Council concurred. 6E. Recommendation by Staff for Reappropriation of Funds for prior year's (1978 -79) programs. Mr. Empey, Director of Finance was to give the report. However, he was on military leave. Mr. Wasserman made the presentation. He stated it was necessary to reappropriate monies for projects which had previously been deleted in the budget process or had expired when the fiscal year ended. As each item is brought up for funding, it will come to Council for final approval. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Schlosser to reappropriate funds from the 1979 -80 budget for the following items: Approp. (reserve for C.B. Bldg. improvements) $192,000.00 Approp. (reserve for C.D. Dept. expense) 53,000.00 Approp. (reserve for Heritage Park acquisition payment) 86,000.00 Approp. (reserve General Plan elements - State mandate) 100,000.00 Approp. (reserve - City facilities fund - future land acquisition)300,000.00 Approp. (reserve - purchase 3 vehicles - pool car use) 19,500.00 Approp (reserve- Finance /Planning Computer program) 48,000.00 Approp. (reserve - purchase misc. office equipment) 71,000.00 Approp. (reserve - purchase Sheriff Dept. Patrol vehicles) 90,600.00 Approp. (reserve- modify telephone system -City Hall) 7,500.00 Approp. (reserve - traffic circulation study - General Plan) 20,000.00 Approp. (reserve - traffic circulation plan - Industrial area) 15,000.00 Approp. (reserve - Specific Plan - 19th Street) 10,000.00 g i City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 8 Approp. (reserve - aerial topo maps - Engineer) Approp. (reserve- Specific Plan -Spec. Blvd. Study) Approp. (reserve - parkway maintenance equipment) Approp. (Libility and general ins. reserve fund) Approp. (reserve -City Hall operational expenses) Approp. (reserve - Retirement - contr. additional employees) Approp. (reserve - equipment replacement fund SB -154) 25,000.00 30,000.00 24,500.00 50,000.00 4,500.00 45,000.00 205,000.00 $1,396,600.00 Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6F. Added item: Financing Flood Control Facilities -- A Plan of Action. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. Staff vas requesting direction from Council. It was felt that the establishment-of special assessment districts was the best way to proceed in the financing of flood . control facilities. Staff asked if Council wished to put an advisory issue on the ballot to read similar to the following: "Shall the City Council create special assessment districts in order to raise the funds required to construct storm drain facilities throughout the City ?" Mikels said he felt this should go on the ballot to get the public input. Therefore, he made the following motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to prepare the necessary material to place an advisory issue for financing flood control on the June ballot. Bridge said he felt staff should go ahead and prepare the material, but present it to Council at the next meeting for consideration. Mayor said he felt a survey of some type should be done since a ballot would give us the opinion of only about 15% of the people affected. Doug Hone, Hone and Associates, said the City could do a good survey for the cost of placing something on the ballot. Bridge called for the question: Motion: Failed by the following vote: AYES: Mikels. NOES: Schlosser, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. ABSENT: None. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to direct staff to investigate further regarding the establishment of special districts -- the cost, legal counsel required, additional staff needs, etc. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Mr. Dougherty made a report to Council regarding the amount he would recommend if we supported the City of Tiburon in its case defending zoning policies (Aging vs. Tiburon). He recommended that Council send $250 from the contingency fund to aid in the cost of this case since we would have considerable interest in its out- come. Also, he asked if the City Council would endorse the amicus curiae brief which wag being prepared by the City Attorney for the City of San Jose. This would simply be in support of this position with no financial assistance involved. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to support the project for the City of Tiburon with $250 to be taken from the contingency fund. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Palombo to authorize the support of the amicus curiae brief. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 1 City Council Minutes March 5, 1980 Page 9 Hr. Dougherty said he had also talked with the League of California Cities' attorney for an interpretation of what Howard Jarvis meant by 213 vote. He said no one really knows, however, the League's attorney is of the opinion the courts will determine 2/3 of those persons who actually vote. We will never really know until someone really tests it, said Mr. Dougherty. 8. NEW BUSINESS. A. Council. None. B. Audience. None. 9. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Schlosser, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Frost. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. , Respectfully sud, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk