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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981/03/04 - Agenda Packet ca~rY of Rnn~-lo c~JCnnaoHrn CITY COLTI~K,'IL AGENIl~ March 4, 1981 All items submitted for the City Council agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting items is 5:00 p.m, on Thursday prior to the first and third Nednes- day of each month. The Ci [y Clerk's office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. A. Flag Salute B. Roll Call: Frost ~ Mikeis ~ , Palanbo_, Bridge=, and Schlosser v . C. Approval of Minutes: February 4 and February 18, 1981. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. • a. Monday, March 9, 7:00 p.m., Lion's Park Community Cetitcr, General Plan public hearing before City Council. b. Tuesday, March 10, 7:00 p.m., lion's Park Community Center, Historical Commission meeting. c. Week of March 8 through 14 is proclamed as Giri Scout Week. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81-3-4 for $ 181,789.49. 1 b. Acceptance of Parcel Map 5703: located on the west side 4 of Center Avenue between Victoria and Monte Vista. RESOLUTION N0. 81-24 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiI OF THE C[TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI- FORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 5703. '~ c. Acceptance of Parcel Map 6627: located on the south side 9 ar Wilson on the west side of Hermosa. City Council Agenda -2- March 4, 1981 • RESOLUTION N0. 81-25 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RPPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 6627. d. Approval to advertise the Carnelian Channel Construction 12 project to seek bids for the construction of Carnelian Channel. Estimated cost -- $374,000. e. Property Transfer Tax. Recommend engaging the services of Mr. Gene Tidwell at a fee of E5.00 per hour plus repro- duction costs to research the County's tax records re- garding property transfer fees. f. Set public hearing date of March 18, 1981 for Zone Change No. 80-12 -- Barmakian•. A request for a change of zone from A-1-5 (limited agriculture, 5 acre lot minimum size) to R-1-20 (single family residential, 20,000 square foot minimum size lot) for 24.36 acres of land located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN 1061-171-02. g. Alcoholic Beverage License for Lily T. Tribis, La Mariposa 14 • 8807 Center Street. Item had been removed from the February 18 agenda for investigation. A full sheriff's report has been submitted to Council. h. Rpproval of State Agreement No. ~8-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3. This will enable the City to take advantage of Federal Aid Emergency Relief funding for the emergency opening of FAU Routes -- R190, R060, R051, R066, and R194 (Hellman Avenue, Arrow Highway, Base Line Road, 4th Street, and Carnelian Street) as result of the January-February 1980 storm. RESOLUTION N0. 81-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LOCP.L AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT N0. OS-5420 ANO PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT N0. 3, i. Request to set March 18, 1981 as a public hearing date for 20 consideration of the proposed modifications to the Omni trans routes in Rancho Cucamonga. j. Request for Conmunity Services Director to attend the Parks and Recreation Society Annual Conference, March 6-9. Request is a budgeted item. • City Council Agenda -3- March 4, 1981 k. Release of bonds: Tract No. 9423: located southwest corner of Beryl Street 22 and south of Base Line. Owner: Coral Investment, Inc. x,,. Gash Staking Bond ~ 2,350.00 ~~, ~ .~ 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The following items are public heartngs in which concerned citizens may voice their opinion. Please wait tc be recrognized by the Mayor end address the City Council From the public aucrophone by giving your name and address. If possible, rnnmients should be limited to 5 minutes. Please register on the "Sign-up Sheet" before taking your seat. A. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE N0. 105. RELATING TO PARK DEDI- 25 CATIONS IN NEW SUBDIVISION. ;o~N~, lr?..~ .~~ Staff requests that Ordinance No. 105-B and supporting Resolution No. 81-13 be withdrawn from consideration and not be given second reading. • B. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMME"'.OATION TO DESIG- 26 NATE H 5 L L N KS. ORDINANCE N0. 138 (second reading) 27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~'~'(~;; o~- t OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE ALTA LOMA HONOR ROLL, THE PALM RND EUCALYPTUS STREET TREE PLANTINGS ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA AND ETIWANDA AVENUES, ANO THE CHAFFEY-GARCIA HOUSE AS CITY HISTORIC LANDMNRKS. C. INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 79-01 pg Staff requests City Council's consideration of the Debt `~'~~~°-+~-<<( Limit Report for the proposed assessment district and '` ~ the Resolutions determining necessity and overruling `cat 1' protests. Staff also requests direction as to the appro- priateness of restructuring of the 0lstrict. I-1 i,.J - City Council Agenda -4- March 4, 1981 RESOLUTION N0. 81-29 38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REpUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS ANO APPURTENANCES SUBSTAN- TIALLY AS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTI- GATION, LIMITATION, AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931," AND THAT THE PROJECT [S FEASIBLE, AND THAT THE LANDS WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT. RESOLUTION N0. 81-31 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FIND- INGS AND DETERMINATIONS ANO OVERRULING ANO DENYING PROTESTS IN R SPECIAL RSSESSMENT DISTRICT. D. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. For the past several years the Planning staff has been working on the development of a comprehensive code pro- gram. The City Council in past actions has adopted an ordinance and resolution authorizing and specifying City personnel to issue citations on city ordinance violations. It is felt that the establishment of a warning citation and a final citation which would re- quire court appearance and potential fines is necessary in order to create a strong citation program. ORDINANCE N0. 139 (first reading) 43 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ` ~`' ' ` ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING i, '~.,~,..~;~~'.,, A GENERAL PENALTY FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AS INOIATED ON A CITATION ISSUED FOR V10LATIONS OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RAPICHO CUCAMONGA. RESOLUTION N0. 81-30 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY n .~~«t:~. OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING ~ CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL PRIh1ARY ANO SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN. • City Council Agenda -5- March 4, 1981 5. CITY MRNAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. RECOhMENDATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIINI FOR 45 LL C TI N R DDI ON LI ELIN T S. Staf report by Lauren Wasserman. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City join with other communities of the West End of San Bernardino County to request the Public Utilities Commission to have the Southern California Edison Company transfer the West End frnn Region C to Region H, thus making the area elibible for lifeline rates. If the lifeline allocations are ex- tended, it will result in a special lifeline rate for electricity used for air conditioning during the hot summer months. In addition, the change will particularly benefit the elderly and those with respiratory diseases. RESOLUTION N0. 81-28 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI- FORNIA, REQUESTING TRANSFER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S ONTRRIO DISTRICT FROM REGION C TO REGION H. B. RECOMMEND ENDORSEMENT OF SENATE BILL -2, A MEASURE 47 C NCE IN TH S E C to report by Lauren asserman. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council support pre-print Senate Bill 2 and that the support be communicated to our locally elected representatives in Sacramento. C. THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE JOHN 52 BL PI LTE N TIVES RE Staf report y ack am. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 7. AOJOIIRPIMENT. v :r r ~ I a •/ + ~ v J l 1 r ~ J ~~ _. rA .x. ~, J O V JV ¢2 V Z6 Z aW O CLL 30 u mY rv - Or nnP .I N r • W N . J K U U N U w ' L a LL JO Z Ujn K2 u Z U M1 W K u 2 Hr ~ NU O N V •, u >- Y~Nr 04GU w O '1 C} ¢ Y W S O u >YJOCw >' N z ¢ 1 ..,.:+ r z euNO u Y N~.a cT -Nw - N,:rol-uy Wu ->2 P FO<w LL2 6 ~ UUUn V nK r > a o7 U C ¢ N O 2SUOJ FW C ¢} W >Y< nVp 2 o 2v UCS WZ¢ YV • Kt2 C r M _ _ __ F F O N w O J.._> wV0 ZNCJ 2LL m M1o•- V ¢¢ gNY6 n LLLL K V C I O W ZNS^] •-O ? r u.' U Cr Or Y Y.7 Y Yc S.. T rOW nTwYWUj ~- YYYY m J vNYIYVJpCKUr N 2 r yN •pq K}Y¢YN-pN•iNV Cg2JK u J JJ 0V>2.1 ' U O w >S.u N~ N -'r>S V..O= V~ N UUwK K./ ¢mKYrUU2JSVw96 UV r¢f 6-OOJ~2tl •<.i • O u2s rme jaKWGms z i _oJtll u.uuuuygu r a-u w.au ou..u awuorcn R n~~m-uouu~o N"',)ur '-. O . 6 ^.• Va CYU -'JL- r. r -'v L[:.[LLS.: ]NU~C.ra- YC .. ^_F •t G'n J 0 YNOJ >rTLL %r .:. Upww w-2Nn • ZF S wL •¢~um • NC;ZKOLy22i> wrt> O 2 o Q V q J NWF Z ^CO%¢V 2wa.]U=Y6- 2NV Vy N K LL •+UrO ¢oS 2KC¢ ppYWKTCniR Vrt ar¢ wT .Y a¢oN ...ouuoWraHwuJZ xJ .q>N .tc-rc¢zzw} ^.W wu¢ to~,¢ JiowwJCaY-_¢ ^r NY Se~J'aq d LL p' JuCN 'J :.v W..V~aF G. ~Y~~-.)J 7 n~ ~¢SY Jw ~2GJ:tl JJ NN Yu .> ..~ g Jw LY- Yr22wOJw--JNVNV w LrFKZF> >!J n J rv u7K w>'U JrS ~O.G JrrrySO___ NKttI SSFUN¢'K rC Y']-aUTnJYNr JV ~9'Y»•IW<R-M12 Jl G ~ r W ¢t < w C¢¢_UCOO_._.7}222 G¢¢VUU-pJ w'••¢yywV-^C6CJtltl¢tl w•~C O>C^4>^N`-; ~I:JUVU'J ^ -l'IY KYYJJri'Z S>CS L: .^. ..U SL a.fc'l 16'.4Sirap ctt N.JVV`vtJ V.N I'.N N V o z mNmomoroNrNUOnJOnmmomaaemn-mJaaonNNOOOroJ-NGnnreNronnPnooon-mmnNNeocrvmNNVOm rna omr9orKPP nfnncaomP OmmnmPPa P..nJr..JJnn mpNnn n..N m o-•rNn.n m-., - J S^ o A ar F n' n TP PlT^rrvrv~rnnnJn n:... ~•..~ n-r Nv n 1S000U••^h^m •rnn n.n nCn.+J.^. V nOr l Y ffffJfJffJJfffNNNNaLaaaaaJJFFFnnM1n ~n nFnnrM1nnnnFFnnm009SmOm0900m60>mm0>09mPP • - Cn TP±r±aS±dnmPOrNnJNdnmPU-rvnfNarcpOrNmJNdnFP O'~Nmf VranmPO-NmJNJFmPOrNmJNaFxP fJJfN'n NNNNNNNNJaa a.nJ JJdJ rnFFFnnnF 6m(mm00mrG9PCanppPPPpOeofi00 00h - U Y UOCOOOJOUOVOaoGOOCUC;)C.000COGCU~~UUC[.GOUCeVUOU VUOV00001'O CUGOOOOOOO~+-~-~~-~• JJYYJa..JJ 4Y J.%.;J UUaaail.:vil-Ia AJ..-0pYJaJaJ..aJ UVJJau..a aaOJJJ YJYJaYaaaJaaaL:,a Y 0000000000 UOOOPOODOOOUOOGOOppUU00pGGOU00U Oa000(Je 00000o0:]OpU00JOVUUCUU UO CC[`00 i i " i oPNarmN~mo°PO rypOON P 1`NPPmUhnnm 2 VO N0 P hNVV 2 J O V m Q N O F J 2 2 J ~W 2 JW O Ou V ~w K K E snnrmmx1.:xmzr ai<`.iauiiie iea l0 OOOOOOOOCOGO000 mnmm~nmmmmmmmmn a u z " z i~ ~ z o o a u d U)NYV -r z wdsaW `> a Sruohsi .J.°> m S •%Ww4 r WO 42 U w^j d V q~WJO.`.O QO QGGNVr _O J~UjO OOO Q O JN2 PENN Zi.1N VUGdJ wha"v~ V J>O LLVLIO rS.2 23E'13EY3%%YN POONNOOOO.vm WO O 2 npppP ~NJPPPP~ myY~~N SOP PPPp T > PpPPPPPPPPPPPP> Orrv myLl I•m=NrNmJ V JOad-l .1dd V m (OOC40000pG0000 . ; `` S ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~L L L L 4~. L ~ 1 1 1 1 CITY OF RANC1-(O ClX'AMOrK,A STAFF REPORT • DATE: March 4, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map 5703 The subject Parcel Map was accepted by Planning Commission on November 26, 1980 for the subdivision of 1.17 acres into 7 par- cels in the R-1 zone located on the west side of Center Avenue, north of Monte Vista. Offsite improvements excepting sidewalk and drive approaches have been constructed. Sidewalk and drive approahces will be constructed prior to occupancy. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Counc it adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign Parcel Map 5703. Respectfully submitted, ~J~~J~:7 LBH:BR:jaa Attachments 1, I1 u a.i -~ ~i. ,.M TENTATI\ E um I or , uun PARCEL MAP NO. 5703 „„L,,,,,{N.,x{1., Ix i2 Clry O' xYgp LllwVfJ MM9•CAINLM. RUG L SIlGIY12~0{ R l0i l1 6 14LLi b 91Oa N RCU4]I lx 9p1 IN U W%. NTS SI, ! .G if Rm105 R nC OANn 6 SW RIpWpIW. 5111E 3 4LU9N4 RRIINRII' M .Ut[ [>yI Rt110 N[x: CLIfIOI f .V[J. JI p0x6R' MSO[IIffO (MPf4L 10W VIII 10101 VIII JIi MSI'f'Sf f[M(L01. [I NIOI f[M1i05.4 1N01 IMI0.4 N)4 i~l.1N.MN )M.1N.WI /I x.Ni.11N Nz Tfl C Iaa+.K~. em.93 S 1 i TflgCT M rcrxxu w ~ ~IKKie%e.. qe. VICTOfll4 STREET ~ i • r .. 1. . , ~ ~ .~...e r ~r / m I Y xv' S. R I ______ L •• ~ m :: , . ~ ,:, :. .; ,. ~ n ~ // ~ m Via( .IrtLe ., Y ..- _ i _ - ' ' _ . ~ ' V ~ ~- ~ J . ___ ~. =" L ~~ : ~ ~ I ,: I' ~~ A t li I ~ xvrts .~eZ .t y ~e w ~~.^~. .~ Tw x.. h ~~ ~ I ~ I . I I ~ i ll:: - I I: ~ ~ s _ R ~,.,i~= ~- _ i _! - II . J d' ile 't ~ h .n. M1 W' ~ r ~.~_n ...~~•-L MONiE ~ m 14 Y ~' ~ VISTA I. STREET T L i I<, .n.lf:~ II .e ,~.I I•. n. vn a ~. s+ "n'` ~.. TRACT N6 9311 r .n m, Td1,I S cM~r~E~>' ~ci~r,~ ur,,~urz d~tu~ s~~e~ct oi~tRic~ ~ U 0 0 °~ ~OV~OOf f~VS,!!4 ~~~~ ~nr..., r.. n .... rn~~~i ~... .., . ~. • ~i.. iin. ..:: ~. ...:. ..v .r tirn.ly is[. •~~n~v~,. Cn~rvn.. Re: The Jones Co. Box 1178 Cerritos, CA 90701 LPI 1 %Y nl l1rl i (i:•.,l inn nl .. rl:nnl I, i::lt irl C.,!r„:itv .:I L\~,I Ih. r'4.1 !'' .I,:i r1 1'r.~ n. '!i~11: :.rl,:...I tq; ' .~ I l riot. a~u: the Alta Lo'.na high School ,•I tl~m; ~ „ I,uln,~l: (r'lb~ Cor Yhc Lnrnl irn,,'I r, •:;r, i!,I ,n,,: llpst siAe of CenF.nr hetr:een V_i_ctori a_ __ anJ ;tnnt.e Vista in thn City of Ita n~hn fucnnwm,la -Tentative Pa rcel_I!lap __.S1U3, suhJ i',i;ion,cl Lut 34. Tra,.t ".~'t .. __ .. _..___._.. ,_._ m.,l:'.~.~~ +~t ., ! I.„ ~,~,: irvvl, ('1) stm~lc fn_Inily d:,ellings _ 9'iu. .:,, ,!i..• rl I'„•,. I, .. ~' I' i+~:: ll;.,+ I hr .',i~,l%il` fo:._ ., ~. '' ,'~ ;n:ha of Lhc cor:\llr.l f~, n+'~I lht .r!,nvr~ I•ru i:' .. '1'hl:; ~.rl.i 1'i i';tti en i.s •!ivv:n O,~ L''Ip ~qlr!" i'::1 li Irn ;.I ,rl~ of ,:!1 iG~t t,l.'. COtI;'1'P.I':.: I :. ..~~ ..+ ..~ I~ nV : !t, :.,.:,,. 1., •,, ~:,'/bul :h;tso`:\ct of 1'171., rn m\•; ^uccr':•:nt I\rl, in sorb nnnllu+l LhdC Ltu• SCa Lc nl lucnl i'+:, ::l,,;rJ u;ay Irma nll r.nc~•vl IntilJit,q In'njor:PS urilcY ils curl onl rn l,.:: ,:wl rr~l'tlnt i,"Ir. n'i Ut~,vt I~, inl'i Cp loin CS. '1'h~• Crnur:i :... ".,I n1 :4i•'. r::i~n%ll': ::h,ll :i,p Ln tl;:to of 1Li:: I„ ''1:1 d.tps f.ro:n Y.Lc r In•t. il!,I,: ,,+; ,II „f tLr fin.•I :v.,l\ nr Uto iscu,u,c,. c+. huildilr, I„•t r,i lr. L; II,: 1•i l'; 1,1 I!:n.~'h:: '1,c,nurln,tn wilhiu Lh„f ott~ar; i"'li(~,i :I,nl' v,llill:l;,• :.u%h rnrnnilru•nl. ,t,n,: l t,,l, In:r n!....,::t :;'a,•,:r~ulenclonC yEc: I'lau:n nn 111 ~. 'I :::.In !'ily r'C I,.,ro ~hn r'.,.. I~..., ., ., JAN 7 7 1941 u „i ':"r~ [p;, vl^;171 r, l'r:ra Ui~,`~r^017GA D[p~ .. ;{ it iJ\', .,CI "'dat^1!OI IIII~Ilh1:J1 dl$I~f .. :~ G Alta ,Loma School District 9350~f Baseline Road. Pest Ofltce BOx 370 Rancho Cucamonga. California 91701 ~ 714/9870766 Established 1885 BOARD OF TRVSTEES RORLRT 5 1'ROST ROBERT W TA Nf,EMAN M 0.5. NARf.Y K KETTLE: MRS. SAN VRA A OF.N LY JOIIN C BOOK JO fI `! E. McM URTRY February 26, 1961 suprrtnfinernr FLOYO M. STORK PrrsonneUSUpport Servires STAGY NELSON Businns Serv¢rs MILLI STRAIN l~mrulum/Sperm( Pmjrrts LETTER OF CERTIFICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY I I t9ithin Alta Loma School District and Alta Loma School ^istrict attendance boundaries for the following described pzojec t: Location/Description Parcel Map 5703 Number of Dwelling Anticipated Completion Date Unknown . Gentlemen: The Alta Loma School District hereby certifies that the capacity for four (4? students will be provided within 24 months of the completion of the above project. This certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy F. Gree re Lease/Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations Board may fund 'all school building pru j.:cts under its current rules and regulations without priority points. The commitment of this capacity shall expire 60 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that 60 day period shall validate such commitment. Sincerely, /~ ~..~yY/~1,.~'~~l J F lapd M. Stork Administrator Personnel and Support Services cc: Planning Division, City of fia ncho Cucamonga jh 7 RESOLUTION N0. 81-24 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 5703. (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 5703) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 5703, submitted by The Jones Company and consisting of 7 parcels, located on the west side of Center, between Victoria and Monte Vista, being a division of Lot 34 of Tract No. 9305 as recorded in Book 138 of maps, pages 37, 38, and 39 was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 5703 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Parcel Map Number 5703 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 , 1981. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: P i ip 0. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk `I pTY OF RANQ-10 CUCAMONC;A STAFF REPORT DATE: March 4, 1961 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBSECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map 6627 The subject map was approved by Planning Commission on February 25, 1981 for the division of 29.355 acres of land into 2 parcels within the R-1 zone located on the south side of Wilson, west side of Hermosa Avenue. Tentative Tract 11609, approved by Planning Commission on February 1981, will be rnnstructed on Parcel 2 of the subject parcel map. Off site improvements will be constructed at time of building permit issuance for Parcel 1 and at time of tract development for Parcel 2. It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk and ,pity Engineer to sign Parcel Map 6627. Respectfully submitted, ~~-~~. LBH:BK:jaa Attachments • ~ ~ TENTATIVE MAP r PARCEL MA'P~ N0. 6 6 2 7 IIIIIT C. IN.. T, .,,,LI.,IYIxYINIIC{ IN THE CITY OF RpNCRO CUCpA10NGp awq, CYNYga [EING a YNISION Of a VOIITON 0E iM MRxwESi OuaniCN O! SEC11M 1[, p[CtYYl11 1[[0 L,IM,IE1rl. SB Y,IM TM LOVMii Of SMI [f I1X1ROIM, 5i1iC Of UUiO[Nla. QW. [AI wOA,IC1Nt N'DICN$pN OINIOCY,IK )< ~f i~r'.Im A WC~f C STRCT CN{a010. Cp M162 T4')V Ittl ~ ~, cv 2 ~C TM[T[I1Y [ GITIIY[ OIIOY[ ,4 n n ti~ TY ~/Mn.ran r f alq'l~l T,us.l ~ r .. u~~~` • ~~`.. ~ s.a` ...` ~ rr.M~ of ~ `~ na2?iT'L-~ \ a '~L - ` .~ ; IL IC `_'' - r[ciFT apx~ ~ ~+ ry ~ •~~- % ~ ` ~e r ., ~_ 1 .:5'_~ ' Y ~ ` w f ~ it :. . . ~~ ~ ... - ~ a ~ ~ f r~ I~~ ~ `I-Aa~R ~1~'. "~ I I [IxON[ rXY1lT [[~IO[YTINI ~[[~ •.~w vwn~ •.r.m ~o eF a~ ..-....,,... ,..; ..~ ~ .. ~, n . ~ ~ ~ a /~ ~.><' a t,~..,....r ., L J z x lrn a YICIYITf YU RESOLUTION N0. 81-25 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RPPROVI NG PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6627. (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 6627) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6627, submitted by Bab Jensen Builders and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the south side of Wilson, west side of Hernrosa, being a division of the Northwest quarter of Section 26 in the County of San Bernardino, State of California was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 6627 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements estahl fished as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Parcel Map Number 6627 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 1981. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phi tp D. Sch osser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren fi. Wasserman, City Clerk ~/ C17'Y OF RANCfiO ClJ('A~1GA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 4, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: ,Lloyd B. Bubbs, City Engineer SUHSECT: Carnelian Storm Drain Authorization is requested to seek bids for the construction of the Carnelian Storm Drain from Demen Channel to Beechwood Drive. This project will substantially dewater Carnelian Street and is estimated to cost $374,'000. Bidding and construction of this project has been designed to provide maximum coordination with the Corp cf Engineers project. , RECOMMENDATION It is recoimnended that Council approve advertisement of the Caznelian Storm Drain. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ i LBR:jaa ~~ lJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Dale: February 23, 1981 To: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager From: Harry Faspey, Finance Di ector Subject: Property Transfer Tax Mr. Gene Tidwell and I met on Friday afternoon to discuss the poseib it ity of him researching the County's tax records regarding property transfer Eees. IC appears, as was suspected, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not receiving all of. the property tranaf er fees due it. Mr. Tidwell, at his own expense, researched one page from one of twelve books [hat pertain to property transactions in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and found that out of eight documents, two were voids, two actually did get recorded to the City (5198.00), and four were credited to the County of San Bernardino ($173.65)-four that should have been recorded to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Tidwell hae offered his services to the City, and will research the County records to provide us with the documentation necessary to make a claim to the County for those property transfer fees that have been erroneously credited co the County Sna[ead of the City. Mr. Tidwell's fee is $5.00 per hour, plus the cost of reproducing the necessary documents to support any claim the City might have against [he County. IC seems like a good recommendation, as City staff is not available, nor does anyone have [he experience to research chose documents. T would also recommend that if chic venture with Mr. Tidwell is fruitful, the City engage hls services to research [he court records to ascertain similar infonna[ion as to distribution of court Eines. H.1F.:cam ~~ ' INTER-OFFICE MEMO ~, DATE February 24, 1981 H~K~°,a,,',`,~'ro . FROM James F. Penn, Sergeant PHONE ,;;;-;~ ~~ Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station TO Thomas Wickum, Captain Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station SU&IECT Request For Information - La Mariposa Market On February 23, 1981, I had Deputy Mike De St Germain, Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station, make contact at the La Mariposa Market at 6807 Center Street, Rancho Cucamonga. Deputy De St Germain obtained dates of birth and physical in- formation on subjects: Tribis, Lilly T., Herrera, Dionisio V. and Herrera, Mary P. Using the information obtained by Deputy De St Germain, I re- quested office personnel at Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station to run the subjects' CII, NCIC and for California DDL histories. All three subjects were also run County C N I. Records checks were negative, with the exception of Dionisio • Herrera who has a County C N i printout which indicates that he has been the victim of a malicious mischief and an armed robbery. All three subjects have valid•California Driver's License and are negative in CII and NCZC. This memorandum respectfully submitted for your information. JFP:amh ~~~ ,;~ .w e.r dM.rlre.rorn ett a.,].. ~~~~~~PY a Ner wru. Above ]FL 13n.-ISr Npedq.enos OIF.. On\ ---.riCATIGN FOR d1lCONOLIC 6EVERAGF LICENSF(S) 1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO. ._. _epartment of Alcoholic Beverage Control ,s,s O street sax sue':~~ ~ a " FEE NO. • o I Socramenw, Calif. 95Bld lalrpmn uevlep wc.nnx' a C+`+ .iQlp. d~5 ~L & :"~ ' GEOGRAPHICAL CODE j jlrj The undersigned hereby applies For licenses das<rib'ed as lollowr D61e Issued Z. NAME(S) OF APPLICANT(S) Temp. Permit 1~~ ~3R ~~ ~~ APPlied under Seim d~dTiCe ^ ERecdve Dote: ERective Date; 2~9'$~$rl p ^~y ".29 3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) FEE LIC. TYPE R~ ~~. ~. Name of Business I.la ~sari;usa CT ?.~ 5. lo<afion of Business-Number and Street $907 COtter ~treot tv E~L~.3n`Lifc$~inlA 41733 aAt4vnN~O• RECEIPT NO. '.1(]A~ TOTAL S~w00 Premises Licensed, 7. Are Premises Inside Tee Shaw Tvoe of License City Limils7 8. Mailing Address (il diRerent from 5)-Number and Street ~ R•mpl fp.rm) 91359 ::Dnda:i.n ;t.e'.anCho 1',utslorr^a,_ ~r+' 917fl7 P'::'Sfi 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Hove you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Bevernge Control Act or regulogons of the Department per- loining to the Aet? I1. Eeplain a "VES" answer to items 9 ar 10 on an attachment which sholl 6e deemed port of this applicatlon. 1Z. Applicont agrees (a) Thal any monoger employed in omsale licensed premises will have all the qualifications of D lirensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provision> of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. 5:x B~L?3L2DIx0 2/9/C2 13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ... Dote . ,. ... ..... UM•r wneu] vl wrirn, •prF p•rwn wFmr dpmwn •pwpn Mlew. t view one w PI M• • rA• avpfeanb « of rM •vepronD, o agnw el rF• epplimm t m•d i rM lanpoine appllwYran, duly emberiud ro maM IFif oppfwrion on IM1 MM1pll, RI IMr M Am rr•pd rM Iw•. gain applia and \ne vrrM IM1«wl end dm aq and nll of d• • IF•r mnd• a I]I rMr v ryn e1Mr IM1un IM oppliuv epplimnn Faf v v dbM a ind iwrvli Ib vevl%rtenr's a epplrtmn bwm•m•rarM wndurryd undo rlM liem«Ia tar w1:iaF rFb eppliwlien i mpM: (1 IMI IA• I nll•r appl~wrian pr PropewA fr ml•r i modp r lilh IM pnrmwr el a loon p p lul(ill a apw•m•nl r n•d into m • IF•n n n•\Y Po) dart pr«•dingar • dvY a wl:i<A IAe 1 nfl•r eppl;wrion ~r rM1led w'nA rFa a•porrm•nl p a 9vin o robl'nA p pnHrwo- I w tart enY n•dirwrpl rr ml•rar w tv 0.lrvad e e r r•d;b el vaml«on ry; trot rM vonrln appllanion moy b• wirFArv_n by •irF« rM eppl%mnr pr M• linnw wnF nv m•Irinq Ilabilnr r IM D•panm•w,r Id. APPLICANT SIGN HERE ~ .. .. . .... ... ...... . meD APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR .s /~. /d 1~IATE OF CALIFORNIA County of J6tr 9aP:iAR?IL;C' Dale 4/7[°S Undn wnabr vl wrirrr, m<A pwren w dv~•mr. pewan blew, a nifiw ovd r fll Nr IM1. Ilw «wio a1M« er rM rwp«oro Inm IwmN in rM Iwgmnp rrpndo epv11aA1aq•dulY vulFwind rv mob rFir Inmpr appliawien a r brFOll,rtll pFnl M MrAY m^b• applieorian la rrrrrWn all Im« rM v atMd liunubl d•vrilxd 6•low oM r mbr p rM appriavnr end.wrlxnriN indamN a IM rppn pwrien d Mir •ppliwtl•n Iw it •rrM1 r andv apprv.N b rM Dime UI rMl vM•n nrlrr applimtian nr wopprN r ndw i• r mpN r wlirly IM peYmmr vl a loan nr b IrlRll vYw •nl mbrrd in • Man nmq doP wwrdirq rMrdaY o wMaF rM b•nd« nPoliwrian ir^Rlyd wi1F rM Drpunmml w rp pain w nrnbliM p pN•rmw rn w Iw NY n.dnw d u•nd•w er ro drlrrM w iniw ant rY nl nawbrw; Iq IMr rM rrwax aeplkpnon nwY M .nMrpvn br rirMr M• • / t reelM•IN w Nn INwwr wIM M nwl0q IiabilBr ro Mr D•perFn•m, Sy 16. Nome(sl of Licenue0) 17. SignaWre(s)of Lirensee(s) lS ~_~ `_B _~.,~_,~1 R. Liceme.Number(t) CITY OF RAI\Y:tiO C(;CAMQ:VGA STAFF REPORT DATE; March 4, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Federal Aid Emergency Relief Funding Approval of State Agreement No. 08-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3 is requested. This will enable the City to take advantage of Federal Aid Emergency Relief funding fox the emergency opening of FAU'ROUtes - R190, RH 60, RO51, R066, and R194 (Hellman Ave., Arrow Nwy., Base Line Rd., 4th St., and Carnelian St.} needed as a result of the January-February 1980 storm. It is recommended that Council approve State Agreement No. 08-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3. Ries/p/ectfully su§mitted, ~ R .ni cP~.a~ ~~/ LBH:MP:jaa Attachments 'a . '. • , Supp ement o. 3 io Local Agency-State OR1G1N'-~:?. Agreement No, os-saza PR06RAM Laat Fkfl`1C'f FE-ERAL AIn Er>,1cErcr ?,ELIEF PRUIECT IN T1iE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Local Agency • Pursuant to the Federai Aid far Emergency fteiief Act, the attached "Program" of Federal Aid for Emergency Reiief Projects marked "Exhibit 8" is hereby 5ncorporated in that Master Agree- ment for the Federal-Aid Program which was entered into between the above named LOCAL A6Ei1CY and the STATE on December 5, o 1979 ,and is subject to all of the terms ana conait~ons thereor. s o'~ ~ 3 ~~-` ~: The subject program is adopted in accordance with Paragraph Z ; ° ~~, ~ , of Article II of the aforementioned agreement under authority of ~ ~ ~ _..< City/tbi[nZy Resolutions No. approved by the City ~, !--' o ' Counci1F83aYGxatt:Si+~t;i3hti"'kU'iF o~ ~ ~ i 'M (See copy attached). ;, `b ~ s _.. _.( ~'" ~ y. 9 ' '~: ;2 7 0 v { CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ •~ 2 Lacat Agency ' ~ y ~ j ' ~ b i j ~ a i BY ~ ~ ~ Title C ~ - ~ 1 ~,'_.._..' Approved for State Attest: ~ .~ ~ ' ~ .,~ ~. CSerk ~~ __~ Dist:>ct aixector of T:ansporta [ion ~J15tr1[t f1•~ Oa iB Cepar L:~ent ai ira n5portatl0n off-OLA-257 (4-77) "~ y. ~ G „~ ~~ V' _-~ ~{ii M .7 H m X w { t~ c C G U .~ u J L '. `w C L" t.7 A C J ro G t E C U au T v 4 u J m 0 r W w 6 C C a m ti w 7 a w c U ~ N V b a c # .-. . i N N 4 ,, 1 j •"I U 0 C 0 L . O c 4 ' N W ° ; ` Vl s ~ , y Y e A O .. ... L V ~ U ~ .. .. : I: ~•:' • .. ~ . N .; ~ ~ - O o w . .. o _ . ... _.. _ .. _ ._ N N ~ O w r N C N N N ~ c N >r.1C O• . W N O+ ro N w H 01 ul ' a+ C H C~ N/ -roa 3Tf N O U O w G N m ENO X w V N W •-N m. + U , , .-.+o\~>, ro w>>. rnA me •.~ ua Nmo m.u u as C ro C 9 w aov wa ,^~~ ••o ,.a - ~v y Nw No ro xa+>.~ a a yl N a ro U C O X W O c ?~ L c N V w U N .1 T O~ o H C 3 N N u 1 7 C C .'O N e N N .M 4 N ..~ .-• N L C C b O N ~.1 a'N U U ti ~~+ 1/I 'ti 0 N u 61 a E.i 3 w -X N W N.C U E ~ c VI .+ N O C) r-1 N tr Ia N C u G ro N I^ H b H C .O In N C O b tl N O ~+ N U N m<~m N..+co N.ti\o Nro Opt c E on. .,-tea`. roaux2aouW~~u w 0 u o ~ c ~ e a W ,~ ro U N 01 C 'n 0 0 0 N b m ^~ W N U C ri w r-I 7.H b roC • N ~ J .Q G Nm °A ~ •O c T•o ec i U •-1 M OI ro N G C rl ro v N .i •.+ 0i G ~ ro ro 0 o 3 E' •+ + ro N W 9 C uun.-IWUi O O U Nul W OIE >. E'AAG be W H W w .-1 N W U H C.~ICOU E L,N•'I •.i NC ro m ro E 3 a m H y o o = i m w m a a •.i H •O ~~ •M to N CL aw ro 9 roa+ro W H b 27 yl N L C• C -•i W Ol •.~.tiw G0Q N'OL A'.I -ti ~N I w v'H 910 N 9 7 ti N N N O W E . ~[ • O N H W R x E'U O U 3 r N N ti b w Km Aav ro o > + Exvi a~ ti •• H . +~ T G C .Irvuroti v 3 w n'W , E ^ o U • N W N N R L CJ U N NrRJNL 3.1 N w U N W a tll G o.+t a a E !d L F O) N" M 4 C4 N 4 L CW 1 N tl b Ow N .+O.n ro>.~~ro ro G A++N £ F •+ m m M b OI'O U •O Uo GN•.1 >. V' U E a~ m o ti . -I rr •~row~w.+ v ENV ro 0! U N ~ 0++++ U O a C N t C ~•+ C H r a C b W t 0 4 • H +~ E ro E 0 m m 0..1 varo ~„ O,w Nrv by c mvoo i u., ~ >.Ea. .+~ ~ c ro T W ti a'O A.ti ++ ~ N 0 0 0 U o m N c c ~ ro MF••+ N Nr c-C 0 L 44^_ av'O C C I~ • RESOLUTION N0. 81-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LOCAL AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT NO. 08-5420 AND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 3. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to take advantage of Federal Aid Emergency Relief Funding for the emergency opening of FAO Routes: 8190, R060, RO51, 8066, and R194 (Project No. ER-980(1)); and WHEREAS, said funding requires the execution of Local Agency - State Agreement No. OB-05420 and Program Supplement No. 3 by an authorized agent. NOW, TREREFORE, BE IT RESOLVID, that the City Council o£ the City of Rancho Cucamonga approves the execution of Local Agency - State Agreement No. 08-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3 and authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on its behalf and transmit to the Slate for processing. PASSID, APPROVED, and ADOPTID this 4th daq of March, 1981. AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, Ci[y Clerk ~~ , M ,l ~.. ...v..v ~.~.~ u..v..v STAFF REPORT February 27, 1981 T0; City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Assistant City Managergp- SUB,IECT: Request to Set March 18, 1981 as a Public Hearing Oate For the Proposed Modifications to the Omnitrans Routes in Rancho Cucamonga l J This past week the Qnnitrans Board of Directors met in a workshop session to discuss the proposed reductions in service recommended to meet the SB 620 fare box requirements and dovetail the recently completed Comprehensive Operational Analysis. As you may recall, the Omnitrans Staff had recommended drastic reductions in hours of operation, specifics ily for Route 50 which services primarily the Alta Loma and Cucamonga communities of Rancho Cucamonga. These reductions were proposed to meet SB 620 which requires that 20% of the cost of operation of the route he generated from fare box revenues. The Omnitra ns Board recommended that each City evaluate the proposed reduction to meet the SB 620 requirements and at the same time evaluate alternative routes that would be compatible with each Cammuni ty's specific needs. As you are aware the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission had made specific recommendations for modifications to the existing Route 50. Staff is currently evaluating and costing out the feasibility of the Advisory Commission's proposed route. The proposed route modification affecting Rancho Cucamonga will be provided to you under separate cover and well in advance of the March 18, 1981 pu611c hearing. JR/vz o~ ..,mar ,v~ n ~ n~~_v~ n v~• ~.vv~v'~n .~~~CAMn ST'AF'F REPORT Feburary 27, 1981 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Subject: Request for Community Services Director to Attend Pazks and Recreation Society Annual Conferences March 6-9. This item has been approved in the current budget and is submitted to Council for authorization to appropriate necessary funding from account 01-50-25 (travel, mileage, meetings - Community Services Department). ~et° ~' ~~ ~ ~ i U a ^ F `d U 1977 al CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIOI`K,A STf1FF REPORT DATE: March 4, 1981 C~'CAMO c'~ ~O~ C , > r u O '- O F ~ Z U > 1977 TO: .City Council and City Manaqer I' FROM: Lloyd B. Bubbs, City Enginee ///7_j~ SUBJECT: Release of Bonds Tract No. 9423 - Southwest corner of Beryl Street and South of Base Line OWNER: ~COral Investment, Inc. 540 S. Pasadena Avenue Glendora, California 91740 Cash Staking Bond LBH:jaa $2,350.00 /~ Associated Engineers CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS • 318 EAST 'E' BiflEET • ONTARIO. CA IIFORNIA 9176{ • 17161 988-8818 ~! t~ ~ ~s U C!iY OF RP.NC?0 CUCAMOPIGA fAR1MUNITY DEVEI OPMENT DEPT. "rid 13 1981 AN ~ q 18j911011111Z 111213141516 February 9, 1981 En9ineertng Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 9161 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Subject: Final Monuments - Tract No. 9423 Gentlemen; • This is to certify that all subdivisSon monuments and markers have been set throughout Tract No. 9923. This is to also certify that Z have received payment for setting said final monuments and markers and will not hold the City of Rancho Cucamonga responsible for any payment far setting said monuments end markers. TS es were mailed to you on January 2B, 1981. Very truly yours, ASSOCIATED E/NG~INEERS ~1"'J j~' 4: "/t/vim L. N. Noreen L. S. 3002 LffN/ql t ec: Coral Investment, Tnc. Job No. 76-BS ~~ iIANNING DESIGNING SURVEYING zl ~ a m 1 ~ n. o 0 L'1° 3 L~~ ~o ~~ _ ~ n ~ x _ 6 a S m ~^ ~ o ~ m O ~ F ; ~ ° m ~ z ° a ~ ~ ~~ W U E € \ a ~ • 2 C! I O C 09 y z,TEi ~ n -OI C P m ~ .T.. <Ni Y Q O O ~E ~I 3 _rx a a ow "" O z c~ (, • COR_1L INVESTJiEi1T L\TC. ~~Os~~2203 3a0 50. YASADE\A AV$ 333^OBJ _ •~ '`~:' . ~ ,: " ., GL%NOORA. CALiF. B1P40 '_ ~~.'.%- ~ ~- ~. . - - •~ ~~,, ~Mn.rh~ 1L '-J_l~.$1L 1220 "~i~lll `l' ' ~ J pEGIST~tic l) ~]~ ''" ' '' •••~-~••-~ -Ll-'.3N:i&<:65-fC~.1-~~~I~ ~ CTS ~ .-. C-~ ~'. -DOLL.\RS CORGI. INVSSTVEA^C IYC. ' BANKoFAMERICA gwE51fWMRgO:T.tfVUq •. ~ ... ;~••..~~.. . . GENNM, ULU. lA0 .. ' / i~•002203~i' !:1 2 2000 6 6 11: Od4Y0~1~0123in' G7'['Y OF RA(~t10 (:UGMOIVGA STAFF REPORT • Date: February 27, 1981 To: City Council and City Manager £rom: Bi.il Holley, Director, Coa®unity Services Department Subject: ORDINANCE lOSB (Second Reading) Staff requests of Council that Ordinance lOSH be withdrawn from consideration at this time and that it not be given second reading. This is not recom- mended as a postponement but as an abandonment of the proposed amendment. Reason: While this amendment would, as proposed, constitute a logistical benefit to the majority of residential developers in the City (especially smaller ones), and provide an administrative benefit to the Building and safety Division during collection of fees, a somewhat complex "Catch-22'• involving the amendment has developed. mhat "Catrh-22'• could mean theore- tically the City could be shortchanged when dealing with a dedications' gross size while not being shortchanged in dollar value. This obviously is not an acceptable situation. As I indicated previously, the process for that circumstance to arise is rather complicated. Dn less you wish to discuss it in detail, I will take no more of your time With specifics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw proposed Ordinance 10 SB from further con- sideration at this time. NOTE: Ordinance No. 105 will remain in its original form by adopting staff reccnsnendation, insuring proper and equitable park dedication and/or fees through development. ~5 n~ r~ U M -STAFF REPORT W February 11, 1981 To: ~ City Council and City Manager From: ~ Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Subject: Attached Ordinance, Historic Preservation At the February 10 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission public hearings were held regarding the Chaffey-Garcia Hause, the street tree plantings on the northeast and southwest corners of Victoria and Etiwanda Avenues, and Lhe Alta Loma Honor Roll. It was unanimously decided by the Commission to recommend Historic Landmark designation for the above mentioned three City features. J NOTE: In the motion concerning recomnendaticn as City Historic Landmark for the Alta Loma Honor Roll, it was also recamnended that Council work directly with the Foothill Fire Protection District Board of Directors in obtaining permission for placement of the Honor Roll on Oistri ct Property at the Amethyst Fire Station. (attached are minutes of the February 10 meeting for your review.) If you have any questions regarding these recommendations 6y the Conission, please contact me. BH/mw ~~ ca,~,,,,,~,.~.. N~ rag AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIR, RECOGNIZING THE RLTA LOMB HONOR ROLL, THE PALM AND EUCRLYPTUS STREET TREE PLANTINGS ALONG THE NORTHEAST ANO SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA AND ETIWANDA AVENUES, ANO THE CHAFFEY-GRRCIA HOUSE AS BEING SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FEATURES AND, THEREFORE, DESIGNATING EACH AS A CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that the Alta Loma Honor Rol ocated on Pmethyst Street in the 7100 Klock, has met the review criteria established in Ordinance No. 70 for historic preservation, and therefore, and with the recortmendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, designates the Alta Loma Honor Roll as a City Historic landmark. SECTION 2: The City Council finds and determines that the Palm and Eucalyptus street tree plantings along the northeast and southwest corners of Victoria and Etiwanda Avenues have met the review criteria established in Ordinance No. 70 for historic preservation, and therefore, and with the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, designates those Palm and Eucalyptus street trees as City Historic Landmarks. SECTION 3: The City Council finds and determines that the - Chaffey-Garcia House,-located at 6295 Etiwanda Avenue, has met the review criteria estabii shed in Ordinance No. 70 for historic preservation, and therefore, and with - the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, designates the Chaffey- Garcia House a City Historic Landmark. SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15J days after its passage, at least once in The Oa~ily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, RPPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1980. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: ~_.. y e l,7 CITY OF RANCt-IO CCJCAMIXVGA Si'AFF REPORT DATE: March 4, 1981 TD: City Council and City Manager f'PLM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Industrial Assessment District 79-1 Attached for Council review are resolutions finding that AD 79-1 is feasible and correct and that the District as formulated should proceed. These resolutions would be applica Lbe should the Council choose to proceed with 'the District as currently structured. To date, the City has received three significant protests. The Daon Corporation has requested removal, Jack Sylvester Wishes to be excluded for the area north of Sixth Street from Cleveland to Milliken, and a substantial number of land owners west of Haven have indicated their desire to form their own District. Attached under separate cover will be an analysis of specific concerns that have been raised and several alternatives which the Council may wish to consider at the March 4 meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~~/ 7~~, i ~'J LHH:j as Attachments O' ~C qTY OF RAhC:FiO ClIG1~\IO\G:\ STAFF REPORT DATE: March 9, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Industrial Assessment District 79-1 As you are aware, we have held numerous meetings on the Industrial Assessment District and generated the usual controversy. On March 4 the Council will hold a formal Public Hearing and further issues will likely be raised at that time. To date, we have received two significant statements of protest: First, the area west of Haven has registered approximately 758 protest and have requested forma- tion of a separate district to construct an independent system serving their area. The second protest comes from Jack Sylvester who owns approximately 160 acres north of Sixth Street between Cleveland and Milliken Avenues. Mr. Sylvester does not wish to be included in anyway in the District (see attached letters). Other than Mr. Sylvester's desire to be excluded from the District, there seems to be no significant opposition to the street improve- ment program. Unless further opposition arises at the hearing, a District for streets could likely move ahead in a restructured form excluding assessment on the Sylvester property until time of devel- opment. DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY The major area of concern and controversy is the drainage portion of the District. We have reaffirmed the extreme difficulty that exists in establishing benefit related to drainage improvements and the general lack of strong legal precedence to establish an equitable cost sharing mechanism for the distribution of costs of drainage improvements. The district as currently constructed spreads the cost of the system over the complete drainage area on an equal basis. This approach recognizes the general henefit to the area provided by completion of the total system. Types of benefits include provision of traffic safety and movement and overall economic benefits to openiny the entire area for development instead of only the new areas currently adjacent to storm outlet channels. All property owners would bene- fit from the highly active development community. h ~ n. J::.. .. Industrial Assessment District 79-1 March 4, 1981 Page 2 This philosophy also recognizes that in general all properties contribute runoff to the system in equal amounts and therefore should be equally responsible for a portion of the system. This philosophy o1: general benefit was embodied in the original fee ordinance and the subsequent fee ordinance establishing the $4,600 per acre charge in the industrial area. Because the fee is in effect, the District becomes a mechanism for financing the fee and encouraging full development of the system at once, The key issue raised at this time hits at the general theory of benefit. The group west of Haven contend that because of their proximity to Deer Creek, are capable of mitigating their drainage problem more cheaply than the people east of Haven and therefore should have reduced assessments which are proportionate to the need created by their development. The logic of this argument is true, however, is extremely difficult to administer on a Citywide basis. Under this philosophy, an owner's responsibility would increase proportionate to his distance from a suitable outlet exclusive of the amount of runoff or exposure to flooding from up- stream properties. The tendency of this policy would be to increase upstream property owner responsibilities for storm drainage even though they are the least impacted by flooding problems. This policy would therefore reverse a philosophy that increases responsibility because of relief from damage dve to inundation and place it on a basis of distance from facilities. Neither method has been clearly ratified by the Courts. If Council should wish to modify the approach currently established through drainage ordinances, the area could be broken into drainage areas corresponding to the areas served by each drainage system. This would have the impact of creating five separate drainage assess- ments varying from approximately $3,100 to $6,500 per acre. The area drainage assessments are shown on the attached Figure 6. This approach in itself would not mitigate the concerns of the west of Haven Group and would in fact, increase the problem by increasing their assessments. To mitigate their concerns would require a fur- ther division of the drainage area establishing a separate area and system west of Haven. Preliminary calculations indicate that assess- ment would be reduced to $?,000 to $2,500 per acre. There would, however, be a corresponding increase in assessments east of Haven to approximately $7,000 to $7,500 per acre. This process could be continued indefinitely providing numerous systems and an infinite variety of assessments from 0 up. This philosophy recognizes only proximity to the channel as a source of benefit. r1 lJ ~ ~~ -~ _. STAFF REPORT Industrial Assessment District 79-1 March 4, 1981 Page 3 • If a drainage area concept is developed it would be required to review and revise existing drainage ordinances to reflect this philosophy.. Fees would therefore reflect system cost and would vary throughout the City. This is an issue that can be considered with adoption of the updated Storm Drain Master Plan. OTHER ISSUES The following is a brief discussion of other issues raised in the hearing process: • Drainage Plan - The current master plan of drainage has been questioned as to it's appropriateness and cost effectiveness. The basic criticism related to running drains in the north- south direction taking advantage of grade and thus reducing pipe sizes. This question was dealt with extensively when the current plan was adopted and was found to not be true for drains Sc and Sd. Two alternatives exist for the outlet of these flows; Deer Creek and the Ontario Motor Speedway drainage system which currently . drains to Deer Creek. In either case, the flows must be taken westerly to over the same distance at flat grades. The system would be cheaper .if the water was simply delivered to Ontario and no provision made there. Attached is a letter from Ontario on this subject (see attached letter). • Ontario Speedway Drainage - It has been maintained that O.M.S. diverted natural flows and therefore they have a responsibility to make adequate provision for those flows and Rancho Cucamonga should not be required to incur additional expenses because of this diversion. The City of Ontario therefore has a responsibi- lity of accepting all drainage from the north. A case could likely be made in this direction in Court. Because there has been an accepted drainage master plan in the area for eleven years, Ontario could contend that it was incumbent on Rancho Cucamonga to implement that plan and thus remove drainage from Fourth Street. In any case, the problem would require lengthy coordination and possible litigation to resolve. The current plan reduces the impact on Ontario and allows our City to plan its own destiny. slze of D1sTalcT The o~~e rall size of the district has been questioned in relation to • the marketability of bonds. The district as currently proposed may be difficult to market even in an improved bond market. In relation I _ STAFF REPORT Industrial Assessment District 79-1 March 4, 1981 Page 4 to this concern it is suggested that problem drainage areas or all drainage be removed from the district. TIMING Because of the difficulties being experienced with drainage policy and the need to complete extensive drainage cronstruction plans, it has been suggested that the drains be removed from the District and streets be constructed as soon as possible. DESIGN FUNDING Questions have been raised as to the source of design funds. It would appear that to proceed with the District would require the City to provide $200,000 to 5300,000 in front end money for design of the system and other procedural expenses. This will be a key budgetary issue. ALTERNATIVES At this point, the staff has identified five alternative methods of • proceeding: 1. Abandon the District: It currently appears that there is suffi- cient support for a street system to preclude this approach. 2. Proceed with Existing Proposal: The Council could ratify the current approach to spread with only minor corrections and alter- natives. This alternative would likely produce significant opposi- tion from the west of Haven Group and potential foz future legal action against the District; would provide the ultimate in improve- ments spreading costs over the entire area and would provide a significant impetus to development. 3. SPLST THE UItA1N AGE ll`1't'U JUYaz eaa w,. u. va iuu. r.~~~-~•••~-••- -°- exclude west of Haven from the District: This alternative would increase assessmen.;s signi icant ly on some o£ the areas. This could likely encourage a different protest from other areas and invite suit; would require revision to current master plan and duplicate drains. 4. Eliminate the west of Haven Group and distribute costs to remai ing district: This would raise the overall cost of the ^istric and would represent the implementation of two philosophies of benefit which would be incompatible. Could raise new protests. 5. Abandon Drainage from Assessment District and Proceed with Streets: This alto rnat wed modified to a iminate t e Sy vester property ~" STAFF REPORT Industrial Assessment District 79-1 March 4, 1991 Page 5 L would be the least controversial and could proceed the most quickly. It would not solve the drainage problem and would leave us with all the drainage issues related to the existing fee ordinance. Respectfully submitted, LBH:jaa Attachments • ~'~f_ jeG-. 3, 175"~ i).3c} f - ~~ t ~ ~JSSn1nT, A'.. I3 ., l~tc:y ~-f- r .f sSe s]e n'S M<-. .V ~~l'.T~L _G y L~.~F.v`w-Gr ~~Z.« ~.~.,ci{1e-~-ti~ L~t~~.~6-(~uLtuT - f ~ - i ,I J !~ J~ ,'• Y- l ,'tn~d .2,iLr. ~-.t-11tL, r.~ .~ ~./t-c-C~i-h'rt..r~-Le-, ,f ~Jly Fe.-LCLC, _~ t j'_ .~ 5~/ ' b,5 to ~~ i i?4-.i,-, «~.;,.aG ~ - 2L i `1 ,..f. ~,^,IL~. %~.C 2Fl LL<.LO ;.CELe.tA J.'iYtf~'s.p'1 1. CLLI /?i-C'~~ "t :'L.rL~ / J / /ZG~f f k/~Lec, c(..LYt L1-l/L,i iCr ~,/f-'f/L-f~E~ ~L2G~_, ~: G L,:...LI'2 ~ C`~t. LF- 7r ~s .. ti-t,~ o- 1 X711 .. i-r-1`_-_ • ~ - J C.[.ri.~ ; ; Lt Lv~ tc.ti"l ./ ~ i. (.~ ~~.1 B. w. BO No Southern California Edison Company ~°`~ .~, ~°a.w,«°~° .~E ~o~.r° ~..,~°A,.~. o~,., February 17, 1981 ;`~ ~;;°;;, City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Proposed Assessment District AD 79-1 You have informed Southern California Edison Company of a public hearing to be held March 9, 1981 relative to forma- tion of an assessment district. We understand the purpose for formation of such dustrict is to provide storm drains and street improvements for industrial development within the proposed boundaries. A review of the proposed assessment district reveals that a • portion of Ed ison's West Lugo-Mira Loma S00 kV transmission line is included within the assessment boundaries as Assessment No. 225. information indicates that if the Edison Company's property remains a part of the assessment district, the ratepayers of Edison would be expending a substantial sum of money in support of adjacent industrial developments in the area. We feel the transmission line property would receive no direct benefit from the proposed improvements and should be excluded from the assessment district boundaries. Therefore, we request that the assessment district's easterly boundary be changed to coincide with the westerly property line of the transmission line rights of way. Sincerely, R^~ RWB:mb cc: Ptayor Phillip Schlosser • Lloyd Hubbs ~~ ~ .~ BROWN 8 NAZAREK 2111 CAMPUS DRIVE. SUITE 980 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92 E15 f McC6ENLE BRanN pte12$2~B]9d l05 {nGf lFS I1~]I Sl ~~O55 JGnNR NRRPER >f.N DIEGO IfI EI ]55 ]p90 "aRll NOPxINS gmER510E Iffy ]59~SE59 OSEPn] NUGnES EUGFrvE { N1 AgEx February 11, 1981 Lloyd B. [tubbs City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCADIONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Assessment District No. 79-1 (6th Streat Industrial Areal Dear Lloyd: Enclosed herein find the following documents with regard to the above-referenced Assessment District: 1. ORDER OF PROCEDURE: Sets forth the general presen- tation of all matters for the public hearing scheduled fox March 4, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. • 2. RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS: If any protests, oral or written, have been submitted, this Resolution should 6e presented if the agency wishes to proceed with the project. 3. RESOLUTION DETERMINING NECESSITY: This Reso Lution should be adopted by a 4(5ths vote. ' The hearing of the Debt Limit Report and the consideration of the enclosed RESOLUTION DETER}IIN RIG NECESSITY and RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS should yenerally be conducted in the manner and form as set forth in the enclosed ORDER OF PROCEDURE, which ORDER OF PROCEDURE should he helpful to you in the preparation of your minutes for the public hearing. As written protests are filed against these pcoceedings, I would ^ppreciate conformed copies thereof being transmitted to this office. If there are to 6e any changes or modifications to the proceedings, it will be nee essary that a RESO?.UT ION ORt7ERING CII:\`:GES AND htOD?FIC AT IO N5 be prepa rf:d Eor consideration. At this time, no changes or modifications have been formally proposed. NOtc in the ORDER OF PROCEDURE that tha RESOI,UT ION DF,TER.q WING NECE^SITY requ.i res a 4/Sths vote for its adoptioc. 7 ~^ BROWN & NAZAREK Lloyd B. Hubbs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA February 11, 1981 • Page Two Upon your review, if you have any questions please call. I am planning on being present at the public hearing scheduled for the 4th of March, 1981. Ve r}f tru ly yours, /i L~_ ~. F. MACKENZIE BROW.+I FMB:jlm ends cc: Walt Hamilton, Willdan Assoc. Beverly Authelet, City Clerk • • ~ ~ ~/ `. rJ RESOLUTION NO. 81-29 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVEN- IENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANCES .SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMITATION AND FLAJOAIT'L PROTEST ACT OF 1931," AND THAT THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE, AND THAT THE LANDS {JILL BE ABLE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLIOWS: SECTION 1. That all protests and objections be overruled and denied upon the express Finding that they are made by owners of less than one-half (1/2) of the area of property to be assessed. SECTION 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require certain public works of improvement and ap- • purtenances and appurtenant work in a special assess- ment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 79-2 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) substantially as set forth in the "Report" thereof filed under the provisions of the "Special assessment Investigation, Limitation and bla jority Protest Act of 1931," being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 3. That the project is feasible and that the lands to be assessed will be able to carry the burden of the pro- ~osed assessments and that the limitations on the amounts of assessments provided in Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California be cli sregarded both with resoect to the limitation on the District as a whole and as to the limitation on individual specific assessments. SECTION 4. That by this Resolution it is the intention of this Council to rake all findings by the affirmative C/S vote of all meml.r_rs thereof that all de tcrmir.a tions as to necessity and feasibility and necessity to disregard the limiter Lions and proceedings set up in Uivision M1 as therain provided be made and d^_tcrained. 7 A and is d, r of rwYOR _ • ATTEST: CITS O° RANCHO CUCt4NONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY CLERri CZTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF. CALIFORNIA • • xx RESOLUTION NO. 81-31 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, this City Council has heretofore commenced proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investi- gation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931," being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction of certain public works of improve- ment, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work, in a special assessment district, said assessment district known and designated~as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"); and WHEREAS, this City Council sets a time and place for public hearing, pursuant to said "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931". • WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was given in the manner and form as required by law, and, at the time for the public hear- ings, this City Council considered all protests, written or oral, to the. proceedings, and all matters related to the report for the Assessment District, and all persons had an opportunity to appear and present testimony relating to said Assessment District; and WHEREAS, at said time set for the public hzarir:gs, the City Countil considered all matters as to the method and formula of the assess- ment spread and the determination as to whether or Iiot the property did receive a benefit and whether the assessments were apportioned in accordance to benefit. NObl, THERE r'O RE, IT IS HERE©Y RESOLVED DY Ti{E CITY COUNCZI. OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC A.`tONGA CALIPORNLA, AS FOLLO:rS: SECTION 1. 'Chat th_ above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That all protests and objec do^s of every kind and nature be, and the Same hereby are, overruled and denied, and it is furCher determinad that said pro- tests and ob7ec[ions are made by the owners of less tha r. one-half (41 of ehe area o' property to be assessed for Said improvements within said Assessment District. yG SECTION 3. That is is hereby further determined that all prop- erties within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a local and direct benefit from the works of improvement as proposed for said Assessment District, and it is hereby further determined and declared that all assessable costs and expenses have been apportioned and spread over the properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District in direct proportion to the benefits received thereby. SECTION 4. That the Engineer's method of spread and apportion- ment of all costs is hereby adopted and approved as being a correct and proper apportionment and distribution of all assessable costs for these works of improvement. APPROVED and ADOPTED this _. day of _ __ MAYOR • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA • L~ pTY ()F RAl\'Ctip Cl1CAM0lvGA STAFF RLPORT DATE; March 4, 1981 T0: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM • BACKGROUND: The Planning staff, for the past several years, has been working an the development of a comprehensive code program. The Lity Council in past actions has adopted an ordinance and resolution author- izing and specifying Lity personnel to issue citations on City ordinance violations. Since the adoption of that ordinance, staff has been working on the implementation of the citation program. Recently, staff was suc- cessful in obtaining approval from the courts of fines for various code violations, We have established a warning citation (entailing no spe- cific fine) and a final citation which would require court appearance and potential fines. As in most citation programs, in order to encourage vfolators to appear at the court hearing, a statement is added to the citation which states, "Willful failure to aDPear on this citation shall constitute a separate violation for which the violator may be punished by 6 months in jail and/or 5500 fine." We believe that this addition is necessary in order to create a strong citation program. Please find attached, a copy of a proposed ordinance which establishes the penalty for willful failure t0 appear on a citation issued_for a violation of a City code, and, if adopted, will be printed on the reverse side of the citation. In addition to the attached ordinance, please find attached an amended resolution specifying the employees authorized to issue citations. The list as provided in the resolution is the same as was previously adopted by the City Council with the exception of the addition of Claudia Monahan, Business License Inspector. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider any input on this matter, Upon due consideration of the itc~n, and ff the Council concurs with the proposal, then adoption of the attached Ordinznce and Resolution would be appropriate. ReEpectfu~y/ mitted, arry,K. H ga Li//ty;'P la nn BKH:hIV:jk Attachments; Ordinance and Resolution P ~^ ORDINANCE N0. 139 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL PENALTY PROVISION FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AS INDICATED ON A CITATION ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Willful failure to appear as promised, or indicated on a citation issued for violation of any City Ordinance, shall constitute a separate violation for which the violation may 6e punished by six (6) months in jail and/or five hundred ($500) dollar fine, regardless of the disposition of the original charge. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Dar i1Y Re ort, a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phi lip D. Scholsser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk u ~~ u A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAII FORNIA, DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN. SECTION 1: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 54 the fallowing ~~'~ city employees are designated to enforce city ordinances ~i~ all primary and secondary codes referred to therein: RESOLUTION N0. 81-30 Gary Richards, Community Code Representative Jerry Grant, Building Official Barry Hogan, City Planner Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Claudia Monahan, Business License Inspector PASSED ,APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, ity Clerk ~.~ ~~ 4TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT • February 27, 1981 T0: City Council FROM; Lauren M. Nassennan City Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation to lic Utilities Commission for Allocation for Additional Life-line Rates The communities of the west end of San Bernardino County have united in an effort to request from the Public Utilities Commission that the Nest End cities be changed from Region C to Region N of the Public Utilities Commission life-line rate climatic region. The purpose of requesting the change is to ohtain additional life-line allocations between the months of May to October because of the hot, climatic conditions which exist in our area. If enacted by the Public Utilities Commission, the change in life-line rates will result in a savings to local residents in the monthly charges for electricity, The primary effect of the change is to recognize the need for air conditioning during the extremely hot and smoggy summer months. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City join with other communities of the West End of San Bernardino County to request the Public Utilities Commission to have the Southern California Edison Company transfer the West End from Region C to Region N, thus making the area eligible for life-line rates. If the life-line allocations are extended, it will result in a special life-line rate for electricity used for air conditioning during the hot summer months. In addition, the change will particularly benefit the elderly and those with respiratory diseases. LMW:boa T~ • RESOLUTION N0. 81-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING TRANSFER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S ONTARIO DISTRICT FROM REGION C TO REGION H WHEREAS, daytime temperatures frequently reach a temperature of 100 degrees during the summer months in the West End of San Bernardino County, which includes the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, severe smog conditions can and do occur as Stage 1 and Stage 2 air pollution episodes during the months of May through October, with July, August, and September being particularly critical months, thus endangering the health and welfare of many of the citizens of the West End; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the West End -- particularly the elderly and those with respiratory diseases -- it is necessary to operate mechanical air-conditioning equipment to obtain a more healthful environment indoors; and NHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are not currently included in a lifeline region which provides an additional 7ife- • line rate during the hot, smoggy summer season; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA does hereby resolve to request the California Public Utilities Conmiss ion to transfer the Southern California Edison Company's Ontario District from Region C to Region H of the Lifeline Rate Climatic Regions, in order to obtain the additional lifeline rates for West End citizens, PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1981. Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk '!~ CITY OF RANQ 10 QX~4MONC,A `moo c~~-'~ N~,y~a STAFF' REPORT February 26, 1981 0 F U 1977 T0: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Recommend Endorsement of Senate Bill-2, A Measure Concerning the Statewide Planning Process The City Council has received a letter from the President of the Southern California Association of Governments requesting endorsement of pre-print Senate Bill 2 which is proposed by Senator Paul Carpenter. The purpose of the legislation is to improve both the statewide planning process as well as coordination between different Tevels of government within the state. The measure was authored by Senator Carpenter at the request of the Southern California Association of Governments. • The primary purpose of the proposed legislation is to ensure that there is adequate protection of local and area wide plans from arbitrary state modi- fication. Preprint SB-2, if enacted, will establish a uniform public hearing process for such a modification of local elements of state plans. If a state agency still desires to alter a local or regional plan after the public hearing process has been completed, it may do so only after obtaining an executive order from the governor. In recent years cities have encountered serious problems resulting from state agencies overstepping the authority granted to them by law. The problems which occurred with the adoption of the Air Quality Management Plan in 1979 is only one example of a state agency ursurping the planning role established for locally elected officials. Coastal cities have also encountered serious problems in having their local coastal elements approved 6y the state without substantial changes. the measure proposed by Senator Carpenter is an attempt to return to an equitable balance between state and local planning efforts. RECOMMENDATION: tt is recommended that the City Council support pre-print Senate Bill 2 and that the support be communicated to our locally elected representatives in Sacramento. LMW:baa - - - - -/~ ~~ • R /outxERn cnuFOamR Rl/OCIRTIOn OF GOVERnRIERT/ " 600 loath Commonureolth Pvenue Juite 1000 • Lor Rngebi • California • 90005 .213/385-1000 February 23, 1961 Hon. Philip D. Schlosser Mayor P. 0. Box B07 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91130 Att: City Clerk Dear Mayor Schlosser: For several months, SCAG has worked with Senator Paul Carpenter to frame legislation that would improve hoth the statewide planning process and the coordination between different levels of government in the state. Basically, we are interested in ensuring that there is adequate protection of local and areawide plans from arbitrary state modification. Preprint SB 2 would establish a uniform public hearln9 process for such a modifica- tion of local elements of state plans. If a state agency still desf res to • alter a local or regional plan after the public hearing process has been completed, it may do so only after getting an executive order of the Governor. We feel that such a process would help maintain the integrity of planning efforts of local governments. We have drafted this bill in response to the recent problems that local governments have had with state agencies overstepping the authority granted them by law. The problems that occurred with the adoption of the Air Quality Management Plan in 1979 is just one example of a state agency usurping the planning role established for local elected officials. qn of her example would be the problems local governments have had in getting their local coastal elements approved without significant changes. This bill is an attempt to return to an equitable balance between state and local planning efforts. This is clearly an important issue for all cities. After you have studied the enclosed Preprint SB 2 (Carpenter), I hope you will urge your council to support the concept. If you have any comments or questions, please call Jeff Frost of the SCAG Government Relations staff. Sincerely, SOUTHERN CALIFOR "IIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 1~. ~~~~ Henry W Wedaa President HVIW:JF :1 e Enclosure 11~ ^t 7 ~- PREPRINT SENATE BILL No. 2 C Proposed by Senator Carpenter January 7, 1981 An act to add Chapter 23 (commencing with Section 65070) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to state agencies' hearings. LEGISLATIVE COLOVSEL'S DIGEST ' Preprint SB 2, as proposed, Carpenter Public hearings. • Under existing law there is no uniform public hearing process which is required to be followed whenever a state agency amends or alters any regional or local element of a state plan that has been mandated by state or federal law. C This bill would establish such a uniform public hearing process. The bill would require a state agency to conduct a public hearing, pursuant to a specified procedure, if the state agency proposes to amend a regional or local element of a particular state plan, unless the state agency and the affected C local government agree, in writing, on changes to the plan. The bill would permit the state agency to make any proposed changes, covered in the public hearing, which it determines are in accordance with the law only if the Governor approves such changes by executive order within 30 days aker the conclusion of the hearing. The bill would provide that its provisions shall prevail over any other conflicting provisions of general law except where amore specific process for arbitrating disagreements over any L plan, or element thereof, has been established by law. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. Slate mandated local program: no. L L' _ w ~n '~ pSB 2 _g_ The people of the State of California do enact as follows: I SEC77ON 1. Chapter 23 (commencing with Section 2 65070) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Gov t 3 ernmen Code, to read: 4 5 CH APT£.R 2,3.. PUBLIC HEAnINGS Pq OCESS FOR STATE 6 PLANS / t 7 \ 8 65070. Whenever any state agency has the authorit 9 y or [he responsibility to amend or alter an re ional 10 y g or local plan that has been mandated by state or Federal law 11 , such state agency shall follow the uniform public hearing I2 process set forth in this chapter. l3 65071. (a) A public hearing shall be held by the state • 14 agency in any instance in which a regional or local 15 element of a particular state plan is proposed to be I6 amended by such a state agency. The hearing shall not be l7 required to be held if the'state agency and the affected 18 local government agree, fn writing, on changes to the 19 20 plan on an informal basis as permitted by law. b f ( ) I the public hearing is required pursuant to ~ 21 subdivision (a), a puSlie notice shall be issued b the st t 22 y a e agency explaining the proposed change in the plan and 23 24 establishing the time and location of the public hearing. The hearing shall be held in the local jurisdiction ff t d 25 a ec e by the proposed change in the plan The heari h ll b 26 . ng s a e held not less than 30 or more than 60 da s from th ti 27 y e me of the notice of any such hearing is made ubli 28 p c. 65072. At the public hearing, off.•cial representatives 29 of the affected jurisdictions, the regional planning 30 agency, and the general public shall be provided the 31 32 opportunity to presanl relevant written and oral evidence. 33 34 fi5073. If the, state agency determine3 that any proposed change covemd in the public hearing is in / 35 accordance with the law and that it is to he carried out 3fi , it shall make such a change only after the Governor 3i apprtrves it by an executive order The state agency may Sri not make any such chunr;e if the Governor does not issue .: ~iJ w 5a :~ -3- pSS 2 1 I an executive order authorizing such a change in the local 2 or regional plan, or any element thereof, within •30 days 3 after the conclusion of the public hearing 4 65074. In cases in which a more specific process for 5 arbitrating disagreements over any plan, or any element 6 thereof, have been established by law, such more specific C 7 S procedures shall take precedence over the procedures of thi h t t th H t th t h i i s c ap er. owever, e prov o e ex ent a t s ons 9 of this chapter conflict with any other general provision 10 of law, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. • C C o • L ~~ w eo CITY ()F RAf~'C110 CUCANIQ'VGA oC~'cn.Mr, STAFF REPORT ~~ , DATE: March 4, 1981 ~'~'' ti' c T0: Members of the City Council ~ a • u FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Ian SUBJECT: THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE JOHN BLAYN EY ALTERNATIVES AREA Please find attached two documents; the first is the original Office of Planning and Research approval letter for Rancho Cucamonga's General Dlan extension. The second document is a letter just received from the Office of Planning and Research modifying condition 1-A of the first letter. As you recall, condition 1-A stipulates that prior to approval of any devel- opment application durf ng the General Plan process a finding must be made that the project is consistent with both the existing and the proposed General Plan. The intent of the State condition nrodification is to allow the City in those alternative areas the flexibility of proceeding with development applications if the City Council opts to do so. The Lewis Company has filed a number of development applications in the alternatives area and in order to process their development applications, land use determinations nxrst be made in those areas (the area in which these applications are submitted is the triangular piece from Church all • the way to the railroad tracks abutting Deer Creek). One development application leaves an area open far a neighborhood shopping center on the northeast corner of Base line and Haven. As you recall, the City Council denied the location of such a center on the southeast corner last year. Evaluation of the tract cannot proceed without a determina- tion whether there will or will not he a neighborhood center at this location. The Planning Commission during the General Plan meetings has included such shopping center at the location. The City Council must determine whether it wishes to opt for the new condition or not. If it does not, the original condition will remain and the tracts cannot be approved until after the General Plan is approved by the City Council. If Council opts for the new condition, processing and approval can pro- ceed and presupposes approval of a neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner of Base Line and Haven. Resp ctf~ u6 fitted, JACK LAM, Director of ~__ ~_ Community Development JL:jk Attach. ~~ l5 ac,reS - l~l4 a~f-~r 2 Stio pth' Ce u-f~ IIg15 IIg18 --, ~iL~II ' ~~(~ 11111;f!??~~ll CI' L 1' 01~ R.•\\CI-IO CL:C.A~IU\G~A PL:\\\'i\G DI1't`IO\' 1151 t\O{ZTf i nr\I:Tf t1595~ 115971595 •!, 'i In.l: 1.LL~ATION IUD",P L\IIII4IT SG\LG~ - ~~ ~1 ~fttte of Cnttlifmnitt I GOVERNOR'S OFFICE "~ ~ ~- OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH C - t400 TENTH STREET • SACRAMENTO 95at• - EOMUNO G.^BROWN JR. (9I6) 322-2318 -~-~~~.~'~~,-;~~~, - ~ - _ 'J - -~ LJ„ January 20, 1981 ,_ Mr. Jack Lam Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 793 Rancho Cucamon ¢a, California 91730 Dear ~I r. Lam: Recently, our staffs have discussed interpretations of the OP R's general plan extension conditions. Specifically, I understand that the interim General Plan does not provide any planning poli- ties for the development ~of some areas of the Ci[y. Conse- C quently, when develop ment is proposed in those areas, the City wouid be unable to make the finding required by extension . condition la: consistency with the existing plan. At the time OPR set the extension conditions, my staff was not aware of the interim plan's. deficiency. 1 am satisfied that the remaining conditions will effectively promote the planning interests of the City and [hose sef forth by the Legislature. It .would be contrary to the Legislature's intent to administer the extension conditions in a manner to unreasonably screen projects from consideration. There ore, if the City Council concurs, I will modify my letter of November 5, 1980, to add the following new condition: ~- ~~ Where the existing General Plan does not contain any adopted land use policy, the City Council shall-substitute the following finding for finding la: _~ There is reasonable probability [h a[ the land use pro- . posed by a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, zone change, or land use permit will be consistent with the proposed general plan. Con d,t ions Ib and lc will still apply. ' I feel that this proposed modlfic aticn is consistent with pro~i- slons of s[a [e law since tt is based on the statute's previsions for newly-incorporated cl[tes (Government Code Sec tton 67302.5)• • J ' ~~r. Jack Lam -2- January 20, 1981 F h i ill id ~ u ct er, t w prov e the City necessary flexibility without ' prejudicing the General Plan. Please let me know if the City Council finds my proposal acceptable. if so, I will formally issue - the new condition. Sincerely, .~~ 9~- Deni Greene Director _ DG:ky ' cc: Assemblyman ]im Cramer - ' Assemblyman Terry Go¢¢in _ Senator Ruben Ayala • - __ ~'~ J ~ Mate of L~li£mnia .. -. ~. 1 \ ~ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE C :`Y ~('•:, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH • id00 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 93GIa EDMUND G. BROWN JR, ~ ^I~l .. -- 'I' _ /. - covttnOn ~ Vi ~ Vf I~i+!I~r ~r' 1. ,, %•t11IJ i`~~Jl - ia~:,:urdr'r Dtae c;uer+r etPr. tdovember 5, logD AAi R;l '?13;9;!~~ti;L' i1121u!glo;6 ~ .. \I r. Jack Lam - Director of Community Development ° City of Rancho Cucamonga _ Pose Office Box 807 - Ranchc Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~ ' Dear .'r. Lam: i am pleased tc inform you that_1 have appcoved Vour revues[ for an exten- sten of time fcr the adoption of tF.e Land Lse, Ciralla [ion, !iou sine, Conser- varen, Cpen Space, Seismic Safety, ~!oise, Scenic Ilig h•:~a v, and Sa Fety E le.^.'.en[s of [he Ci[y of F.anche Cucar:onFT general Plan. The exte nsten, as provided in Government Cede Section 653D2.E(dl- provides the Citv immunity -frcn la+.vsuits raising the issue of whethec the Citv has aden[ed an ade- euate scr.e ral plan. This extension is cranced from receipt of this letter until "ay 3, 1991, oc the adoptten of the elements, whichever is ea rdter. C Thls extension waives [he reGuicements of Government Cede Sections 65302, 65:53, 655u7, 65960 6591C, 6673.5, b6~74(a),. or EF47~(h) only for those • land use decisions made after.[he effective dale of this extension. In era nine this extension, 1 note the finding made by the City Council [hat the feller: ine reasons exist as [he basis for the grantinr of an exten- sion as specified in Government Code Section 65302.6(a): 4!F',F,R EAS, the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, since its incorporation has proceeded diligently towards the adoption of all mandatory elements to the comprehensive General Plan by the adcption of interim elements of the General Plan inctu dine Land Use, Circ ulatien, Public.Facff trio s, and F.ecrea- tion, and by the near completion of the drat[ General Plan; and, !:'H EREAS, the City eF Rancho Cucamonga, contracted services with the p rofesstcnal planning firm Df Sedway!Cool:e, to complete all elements to the General Plan including the Lnnd Use, Circulation, You stns, Con Servalien, Open Space, Seisr is Safety, Noise, Scenic Hinhwav, Sa fe[y, and lFe option- al elements of Fec rca tien, Cormunity Desirn, and Enercy: and, '•'P':P EP S, jhe contract Cer services v~ith-the pro fe_s stonol nla nninc consu lta n[ firr.: of Sed~.va v; Ceol<e, set fo r[h [he [trees Sl for adoption cf ell c fear eats of th r, Gcncral nlan ~rnh ut the pre sc rihcd ti re allowed under - CaL Forn i:l State Governrrn[ Cedr Sec [ton GK.3C3,=, but the ion cu l[ant (i rr a: as fnrc ctt to extend the ncces nit' ume ro ecrr nlem [h r. re matnlnr work on the draft pfd n. • ~~ 'r. jack Lam _y_ "evemher 5, 1980 • L'nd er [he autho ntv ?ranted by Government Code Section 65302.6(c), I.have C dz[e r...in ed that th.e fellow inq con ciitions are necessary, Pen r'~inr adop tiro of --°a cem.nlcte and adze ua[e pln r., [o ensu rc full mmnliance wi[fi [he State P la nnine and Zcnin= Law: ~ - A!o tentative subdivision map, pa reel reap, zone chance, er land use perm rt shall be approved, unless the Citv Ccu ncil finds, based upon substan [ial evidence in [he record, [hat the proposed action is consis- tent ~:•ith the goals, policies, and objectives of: a. [he exist;nP General Plan adop [ed by the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga; and, b. all aoplic able dra f[ general plan elements, fe llowin¢ its submis- sion to the planninc cemnis Sion for public hearing; and, c. [he Grew th :'a nailer. ent Crdinanw cf the Ci[y of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Tice City Council shall net amend existin? elements of the General Plan exec of to adopt new and rev ise:d central plan elements Pursuant to [he work pre cram submitted [c OPR as part of the extension recues[. 3. ~ Residential projects will be encou ra eed which are con sis[e nt with the coals and noLlc ies of the }!ou sine Element to provide affordable • hcusin ~. (. L. The Ci[v Ccuncil may prccess and approve build (nQ permits, vari- ~- anew, ce rti[tc arcs for lop al lots, and any =other ntin iste vial perm its ,t ac cerdinc to Ci[y standards, provided that any underlying discre~~ [ionary approval has not been chaitcnced. 5. Pith in 30 days of the effective date of this extension, the City shall notify the Office of Ptanninq and Research and the Cepartrt,enf of I!cusina and Community Development of the City's decision to adopt the f!ou sink F.lem ent pursuant [o the 1!ousine F.lemen[ Gui<telines of 1977 or Ar Pelt 10.6 of [he Govetnmertt Code as provided for in Chapter - 11L3 of the Soitu [es of lp?0. 6. The Office of Pla nnine and P,esea rch reserves the authanty to en [once - any viola tiros ~f the terms o[ [his extension. 7• =1'!re City shall suhc;i[ [o the Stair Clzarin;house of the Office of Pl,rnnine nnc! Research and the Dcpartm ent of !iou sine and Communrty _ Cc.vzfopmcnt the drn ft P~ousinc Element ninety (90) da vs pn or [o ecnsl- deranon by thz City ..Count tl for adoption. All oth cr dra f[ elem. its and thr dra (t environmental decunents perm ininc to rho General Plan shall be su hi°;[ted to the State Clean r.c heu se cf [he Cfficc of Plan- nio^ any! Pcsoa rch for review and cor menl no less than (c rrv-five (!~'. days ,r:or to cons uicrn UOn by [hz !'la nnine Commis lion for adc)•non. ~~ r "r• I•s d: Lar -,- `!ove::~her 5, 19f(1 C __ IC ycu ::ave any nuesticns or nzeA ase istance in any r a[tc r_pertainin¢ [c • ~" either the extensier. cr vcur General Plan, Plza se ccntact Steve ^ikata (9iF; 322-F~12) cr ".ill ~\h6ott lr~lF/LG5-111L 1. ain ,..el„ /~~en~ Director DG:kv cc: City Ccu ncil Sanatur fu^en Fyala nssenbly man T. erry Gec_in Assembly nan mill "c1't[[ic C - • •. ~ O'OONNELL,BRIGHAM 8 PARTNERS/SOUTHERN InEUSirial Devebpers February 27, 1981 City Clerk C ZTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PO Hox 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear City Clerk: Please consider this letter as a protest regarding Assessment District #79-1 inasmuch as it is the opinion of R.C. Industrial Company, the developers of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center, that the assessments that have been assigned to our parcels seem unreasonable in view of the following facts. (1( At the time our building permits were issued, in March of 1980, we paid the amount of $42,114 in drainage fees assessed against the property we developed in Phase lA. 12) An evaluation of the estimated assessments for the seven parcels in question reveal that there appears to be a full assessment for lots 1, 3, and 7 which relate to assessment numbers 2G3, 265, and 269 respectively. It would appear that, due to their proximities, assessment #263 and #269 have received a full assessment, we feel a full explanattion is necessary why assessment #265,which is in the middle of our parcels, should be fully assessed when it Eronts r.e ither on Sixth Street nor Milliken Avenue. it would appear that there is some incongruity in the way the assessments were spread as they relate to parcels with the proximity to the proposed streets. (3( In the sections of the investigation report foz Assessment District q79-1 as well as the information that was included with the letter to the property owners Erom Lloyd Hubbs, dated January 27, 1981, the description of work includes proposed street improvements on Sixth Street from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue and on Milliken Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street. In the course of developing Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center, we engineered and built Pittsburg Avenue running North from Sixth Street to a point beyond Seventh Street and we built Seventh Street from Milliken Avenue 1301 DOVE STREET, SUITE 790 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 42880 I (71q 752.5515 Page Two running East to Pittsburg Avenue. In addition to this, and by seperate agreement amongst ourselves, R.C. Industrial Company and Koll/Lyon engineered and constructed the Easterly two lanes of Milliken Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street and both the North and South halves of Sixth Street from Milliken Avenue to our East property line. The total cost of our portion of the work which we have paid to the Koll/Lyon group is $286,226 and we have received no evidence of the fact we have been granted any type of credit against our assessments for the work that we did at our own expense. It should be understood that R.C. Industrial Company, as developers of the 74 acre Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center, is in favor of Assessment District N79-1 which will provide for the streets and storm drain system that is felt is necessary for the area. However, it is felt that it is in our best interest to submit this letter of protest as the points we have brought up represent a large amount of money that has been expended by us in the development of our project. We feel confident that a proper explanation regarding the spread of the assessment costs over our parcels as well as an explanation regard- ing the credit or reimbursement for monies expended to date will be forthcoming. Sincerely, R.C. INDUSTRIAL COMPANY s est in p oject anager JRN:th enclosures CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 5920 C BASELINE ROAD CPO dOx 807) RAMC NO CUCgMON6A, CA 91730 (714) 989-1851 ASS ESS:M ENT DISTRICT N0. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUST REAL ARE4) THIS 1S NOT YOUR BILL 0 DONNEIL/ORIGHAM PARTNERS 4350 VGh KARMAN STE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CITY OF RF NCNO CUCAMCNGN 9320 C dASEl1NE ROAD (PO d0% 807) RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (714) 989-1851 A SSESSMEhT DISTRICT N0. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) THIS IS NOT YOUR BILL 0 DONNELI/BRIuM4M PARTNERS 4350 VON KARMAN STE 40U NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ESTIMATEC gSSESSMENT: 548,513.98 ASScSSME NT NC. 267 gSSESSOR'S N0. 229-261-48 ~~. C`•. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: 473,712.99 ASSESSMENT N0. 266 q.. 455ES5 OR'S N0. 229-261-47 ~ `:. .6' ~ CITY OF RANCHG CUCAMOhGA 9320 C BASELINE ROgD (VO dOX 807) RA NCMO CUCAMONGA, CA 51730 (714) 9B9-idS1 q SSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 74-' (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL gREP) T MIS IS NOT YOUR BILL 0 DONNELL/BRIGNAM PA RTNERa 4350 VON KARMAN STE 40U NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 ESTIM4 TED ASSESSMENT: 599,714.55 ASS ES S•A ENT N0. 269 ~` ASSEiSGR'S NU. 229-241-30 ~, i 1u CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA 932C C BASELINE ROAD (PO BO% 807) RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (714) 9d9-1851 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ti0. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) THIS iS h0T YOUR BILL 0 DONNELL/BRIGMAM PARTNERS 4350 VON BARMAN STE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 C2TY OF RANCHO CUC AMONGA 9320 C BASELINE ROAD (PO BO% 807) RA NC NO CUCAMONGA, Cq 9173J (714) 9d9-1d51 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 75-1 (6TH STREET 1ND USTRIgL AREA) T RIS !S NOT YOUR BI L! 0 DONNELL/BRIGHAM PARTNERS 4350 VON KAft MAN STE 40C NEWPORT BEACH, Cq 92660 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 [ BASELINE ROAD (PO BOX EU 7) RANCHO CUC AMONGA, CA 9173C (714) 989-1651 ASSESSMENT JI STRICT N0. 79-1 C6TH STREE7 INDUSTRIAL AREA) THIS IS NOT YOUq BILL 0 DONM1ELL/BRIGHgM PARTNERS 4350 VON KAkMAN STE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ESTIMgTED ASSESSMENT: 569,565.78 ASSESSMENT N0. 265 ASSESSOR'S N0. 229-261-46 L•,ijo ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: 551,576.78 4S SESSAE 'T N0. 264 AS SESSJR'S NJ. 229-261-45 ~.-1 ~> ESiIMA7EJ ASSESSM EAT: 576,211.18 0.SSESSME NT N0. 268 L(~ ASSESSOR'S N0. 229-261-G9 10.0'~I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOhGA 9320 C BAS'cLINE ROAD (PO 80% d07) RANCHO CUC AMOhGA, CA 91730 (714) 989-1851 A SScSSMENT DISTRICT NU. 79-1 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: (6TH STREET INDUSTRI AI AREA) T MIS IS NUT YOUR BILL ASSESSME~N'T~ N0. 263 V 0 OCNNELL/BRIGNAM PARTNERS ASSESSOR'S N0. 4350 vUh BARMAN STE 400 229-261-44 N ENPORT BE ACn, CA 92660 -~ .'~9Z. 545,374.41 Weyerhaeuser Company 11363 Mrow Reut~ R~nplq Cue~monpa C~INwnl~ pA30 Febrtuarty 27, 1981 The HonortnbCe G,ty Caunei.C ob The C.i.ty o6 Rancho Cucamonga Poat Ubbice Box x807 Rancho Cucnmanga, Ca.Ci.bortnia 97730 Subject: Prtopoa ed Addedamen.t D.%a.tn.ict No. 79-1 HonortabCe Siva: Ae ,the prtopoaed Aaaedamen.t•Dis.Uii.et No. 79-1 nau rteade, w¢ 6eeC that we cannot Cend our. auppo2t ban .the 6oCZawing rteasons: 11 The artza east o6 MiCCiken Avenue is being oven-asaeaded bon etonm dAai.m by app2oxima.t¢Py $400 pea acne due to .the bac,t .Uiat .the totak eoet 6ort atartm drta,ina ie being dietnibut¢d oven Uie entUee Aedesamen.t Die.tnie.t, a.LU~ough the e.tartm dnaina went a6 MiCZiken Avenu¢ art¢ morte eoatRy .to inaLaCC .than thoae on the eaat aide. 21 AL .the Lime when M%RCih¢n Avenu¢ is 6inaCCy incortpoucted with Foo.t7uCt BouCevartd, wiCC we be brtought .into ano.thert Adaeddmen,t D.i.a.b~-ict 4on .that .imprtovemeni? 15 60, due to .the poaa.ib.%,Q.i.ty 06 overt-Capping Bond Didtn,2eta, we can dee anQy morte prtobCema. The etonm drain auppoaedCy bene biting ourt prtapenty, id oven one-quaAtert mice away and w.iP.C rat 6eneb.it ud untiC MiC4,%h¢n Avenue and .the aaaoei.ated atnnm d„ai„e art¢ inetaCfed. Abtert attending .the Prtopertty Aunerts' Meeting on 7uea day, February 24th, it aeeme that c¢Atnin, Cartge developers nrte a.itempting to rtueh tl~ia prto- paaaX th4.ough in ortden to be rteimburtaed bon imprtovemente apecibied in the Aaaeaament Die.Uciet which .these develapene have already lnstaCXed and paid bon. we can undertatand their 6rtuetnati.on, in that .they have been wai.ti.ng newCy two yeana 6ort thie Aeeeaament District Lo be bonm¢d...but, .that id no reason to pooh a sub-etandand prtopoaal thrtough. At this point, a hand Cook needs to be taken at aQl poaaibCe altertnat%vee, duck aa: 11 An Aaaeaamen.i D.in tnict 6ort the pnopoeed e.tn.eeta, only, and have the de.velopen.a install the rtequ.iw~ed atortm dnai.na as .they develop their land. 21 Divide. the area inS.o sub-dia.tnicta li. e., bleat ob M%GCilzen Avenue, East ob Miklihen Auenuel ao that atortm drtain coeta can be bettert localized, Pna owed Aaaeaament D.iatn.i,ct No. 79-1 e rtuary 7, 981 Page Two 31 The pronoaal, as ~i.t now 6tanda, aeem6 to 6e a piecemeal approach... why no.i Lnelude aXk land beAveen Fountli S.tneet, FoothiRX Boulevard, Deer Creek, and Day Cheek? Ib all .impro vement6 werte eon~ple.ted at the eame .Lime, .i,t would e.Eiminate .the need bon 6unthen Aeaeaamen.i D.i.btr,i.cte on o.then aRXernative 6,iatancing bon 6u.ture .improvem¢nta. 4) I(, .Ui.i.a area .i.a atUiacLi.ve to developers, let them pay .the meoci.- ated coats bon developing the.in land and not apnead .those eoe.ta Oven: a) En.ti_.Li.ea whi,rh hav¢ been developed bon many yearn. 6J Grtoupa wh,ieh one not heady to develop and cannot a66ond thie additional burden. It .is our. a~ineeae hope that .ih¢ propoeed taaeaamen.i D.i6tniei No. 79-1, as it hav neada, +.a not approved. Si.ncen¢ly young, ~! ~ Aav,P,.._._. R. L. arson, font Manager ~_ - . 8apen, an.t ecountartt FPS/hal cc: W. W. Bnoohea - Chesapeake I81 S, J. Eazort -Tacoma, CN 2-24 L. C. Wamten -Chesapeake 181 File 131 GENERAL DYNAMICS Pomona Division P.O. aor 150), Pomona, CaLlomie 91)66 • )14 619 5 7 11 L-81-3155 March 3, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Bancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Property Owner's Protest - Proposed Assessment District 79-1 Gentlemen: General Dynamics Corporation is the owner of certain real property within the proposed Assessment District 79-1. The legal description of our property is: Lots 22, 27 and 30, of Section 13, Township 1 South, Range 7 West, according to map of Cucamonga fruit lands, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 4 of Maps, Page 9, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. Except the North 27 feet of the South 60 feet of said lot 30; being measured from the center line of San Bernardino Avenue, as shown on said map, conveyed to the County of San Bernardino, by deed recorded December 29, 1969 in Book 7361 Page 683 official records. General Dynamics as owner of the above described property hereby protests the proposed Assessment District and the amount of the assessment which is proposed against the property owned by General Dynamics Corporation. General Dynamics also protests the inclusion ~f its property in the proposed Assessment District 79-1. General Dynamics is of the firm opinion that the formation of the assessment district and the work proposed to be done in furtherance thereof would be of no discernible benefit to its property which is included in the district. General GENERAL DYNAMICS Pomona Division L-81-3155 Page Two Dynamics further believes that the work proposed to be per- formed is of specific benefit to particular property owners located in other portions of the proposed Assessment District and that the inclusion of General Dynamics' property within the proposed district would be unfair in that it would be required to carry the expense of work which primarily benefits other property within the district. It is respectfully submitted that in the event the City Council shall proceed with the Assessment District 79-1 and the work proposed to be performed, that the above described property owned by General Dynamics be excluded from the Assessment District. Our property is located at the very corner of the Assessment District so that this exclusion would not create an abnormal boundary line. This protest is being delivered pursuant to the public notice previously given on January 27, 1981. Sincerely, //_ Donald K. elke General/Eourts el DKB:m KOLL CONTRACTOR March 3, 1587 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Assessment District No. 79-7 Dear Council Members: As you know, R. C. Land Company has been an active ana substantial supporter of a proposed assessment district for the financing of public improvements witnin the Ci[y of Raneno Cucamonga industrial area. Our support has been more than merely vocal; we have advanced to the City the sum of $2,000 to assist the City in its efforts in furtherance of the forma- tion of such a special assessment district. in view of that support we are extremely reluctant to take a position in oppo- sition to the investigation report which has peen suumitted to you. However, based upon our own review of that report, our conversations with other property owners whose lands are pro- posed to be included within the assessment district, and our conversations with your staff ana consultants, we reel com- pelled to register our objectron to said report as suoinitted and to urge certain modifications thereto. Notwithstanding our objection to the report, we wisn to reaffirm our support for the concept of an assessment dis- trict. Indeed, as you will note, one of our primary concerns is that the proposal presented in the report is lixely to 4n- volve further delay in a proceeding wnicn has been painfully slow to this point. (~1'he first installment of our advance was paid to the City approxrmate ly 18 montns ago.) It is tnerefore our request that you proceed with the assessment dlstn ct wlctl the modifications set forth in tnis letter, ana we pledge our continued cooperatron and support toward tnat yowl. 4490 Von Karman Avenue • Newport Beach • California 926fi0 • (714) 839.9030 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga vla rch 3, 1981 Page 2 streets - General It has- been, and continues to be, our belief [hat the most cost-effective method of assuriny the successful develop- ment of the industrial area is to construct the street improve- ments now and not to hold those improvements hostage pend my a solution to the controversies surrounding the storm drains. Onlike storm drains, streets are very visible. their construc- tion announces to potential industrial tenants that the indus- trial area is real; they define the physical area and neip to give potential tenants a feel for its character; and, of course, they provide access to the area. The street improvements recommended in the report in- clude only the two centermost travel lanes (and, in the case of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue a 16' unimproved median). While we understand the oasis for Lois recanme naation, we oe- lieve that, for the reasons set forth hereinabove, it is advis- able that these improvements be constructed to ultimate des iyn wherever possible. Therefore, we would urge the City Council to direct the inclusion of street improvements to the ultimate design in all cases in which the adjacent landowner indicates his willingness to bear the additional assessment whi cii will oe reyuired in order to pay for the additional improvements. Streets - Sixth Street In the case of Sixth Street, it is our strony belier [hat the development of the industrial area would be better served if all of the proposed improvements were constructed on one side of the median, rather roan constructiny a single travel lane on each side thereof. We believe that this woulu present a more finished looking s[reetscape. This could be done either by relieving the property owners on one side of the street of the applicable costs and transferring the same to the owners on the other side or by maintaining the existing assess- ments and adjusting applicable subdivision requirements. In this context, we have been advised oy your staff and consultants that one of the property owners proposed to ne assessed Eor the Sixth StceeC improvements has objecteu there- to. 'Che property owner in question is Leonard Rosenthal/Jacx Sylvester and the properties involved are Assessment Nos. 103 through too, inclusive, which comprise approximately ISJ acres of land bounded by Elg htn Street, Milliken Avenue, Six to Street, and haven Avenue. This onjection could be eliminated by adopting our suggestion that the Street improvements in Sixth Street oe revised to delete any improvements norenerly of Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga t9arch 3, 1981 Page 3 the median and to provide for the construction of a complete half street southerly of the median. The Rosenthal/Sylvester parcels could then be relieved of any responsibility for the proposed assessment for Sixth Street and, in lieu thereof, would bear responsibility for the construction of the nortnerly half of Sixth Street as a condition precedent to development. As the owners of the property south of Sixth Street between Cleveland and Milliken, we would be happy to consent to the imposition of an additional assessment in order to construct the southerly half of Sixth Street to the ultimate design thereof. (The Rosenthal/Sylvester parcels could be relieved completely of any assessment for street improvements if the improvements to Cleveland and Milliken north of Sixth Street were revised or deleted. We would certainly have no objection thereto.) Streets - Reimbursement As we hope you are aware, we have proceeded with the construction, at our own expense, of most of the street im- provements for the southerly half of Sixth Street between Milliken Avenue and Pittsburgh Avenue, the full street improve- ments for Pittsburgh Avenue, and the street improvements (with the exception of final paving) for the easterly one-half of Milliken Avenue from Fourth Street to Sixth Street. Virtually all of this work was done in anticipation of reimou rsement Erom the assessment district. We therefore request that the City Council direct the inclusion in the proposed assessment district of the reimbursement to R. C. Land Company for the cost of such improvements (except where they are constructed in public rights of way). In this context, it would be our understanding that our property would be entirely res ponsiole for assessments for the cost of constructing Pittsburgh Avenue, and we are not asking that any other property owner pay any portion thereof. streets - Additional Finally, we believe that the development of our prop- erty between ;dilliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue will reyuire the construction of an additional north-south street. We are prepared to pay the entire assessment for the costs of such a street; and we would request that you direct that said improve- ments be included in the proposed assess~oent district. Storm Drains - General We have two concerns with respect to the proposed storm drain improvements - first, the inclusion in the district Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga March 3, 1981 Page 4 of certain lines as to which there appears to be a substantial dispute, and secondly the basis upon which the assessment en- gineer has proposed to spread the cost of constructiny the storm drains. Rowever, we have no objection whatsoever to the construction of the storm drains wnich will serve our prop- erties or to being assessed for the costs thereof; to the con- tract', we strongly favor the construction of these noncontro- versial lines. Controversial Lines It is our understanding that, of the six storm drain lines proposed to be constructed, only two, and portions of a third, have given rise to any substantial objection. dowever, those objections threaten to delay the construction of the remainder of the storm drains and of the streets. ~Pherefore, we believe that both the City and the property owners tnrougn- out the district will be better served by the elimination from the proposed assessment district of said lines. Our specific comments are as follows. Line Sc (from peer Creex easterly in Arrow Route ap- proximately 6,010 ft.) serves properties which are not proposed to be assessed for street improvements and which are noc served, directly or indirectly, by any of the other storm drains proposed to be constructed. Certain of the pcoperty owners proposed to be assessed for this line have voiced strony objections to the proposed assessment for this line. It is our oelief that this line may be treated separately and constructed either through the efforts of the landowners involved witnout an assessment district or through separate assessmen*_ district proce edings. (In fact, we have been advised tnat one of the property owners in the area will undertake construction of this line without utilizing the assessment district.) Therefore, we strongly urge you to delete Line Sc from Assessment Uistr ict No. 79-1. I,i ne Sd has also given rise to substantial concerns on the part of certain property owners, particularly those west oY Haven. They have questioned the amount of the assessment pro- posed to ne levied against their properties. Various alterna- Cive alig mne nts have been sugges[ed whicn miynt effect a reduc- tion in the cost of constructing this facility. In addition, it is our understanding that one of the landowners whose prop- erty would be served by it will soon commence construction of a portion of this line. Finally, we understand that it may oe possible to obtain an EDA grant to offset part of the costs of constructing this facility and that there are not sufficient Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga March 3, 1981 Page 5 funtls presently available to pay for the detailed eny ineering thereof. Although we can readily understand the basis for your staff's recommendation that this line remain in the proposed assessment district, it is our sincere belief that, in view of all of the foregoing, this line should also be deleted from the proposed assessment district and be considered separately so that the remainder of the assessment district will not oe sub- jected to the delay involved in addressing the problems pre- sented 6y this facility. With respect to Line 7e, the only portion tnereof which is in dispute is the east-west reach thereof in Sixth Street from Cleveland to Millixen; and we have been advised that the Rosenthal/Sylvester properties object to this rear n. Consistent with our request that said parcels be relieves of any assessment For construction of the street improvements, we would recommend that you delete said reach of Line 7e from the assessment district, but retain the north-south teacn proposed to be constructed in Cleveland Avenue from Fourth Street to Sixth Street. is of Assessment The second aspect of our concern with respect to the storm drains is the proposed basis for spreading the assess- ment. The report suggests that said assessment be spread on an area basis throughout the entire proposed 'assessment district. While this ,night be an appropriate basis for the assessment if all of the properties within the proposed assessment district would be equally benefited 6y the construction of each of the storm drains, we do not believe that such is the case here. To the contrary, most if not all of the properties within the overall assessment district will be served by only one of the storm drain lines proposed to be constructed, and the construc- tion costs very substantially among the various storm drains. Moreover, we have been advised that the owners of property east of Milliken (where the storm drains are generally less expen- sive) may be expected to pay for flood control improvements to Day Creek in the future, whereas the owners of property west of Milliken (where the storm drains are generally more expensive) did not have to pay for t:ie flood control Facilities in Deer• Creek. Under these circumstances it seems unfair to ask the former group to subsidize the latter by payiny a unifor;n assessment throughout [he entire disttic t. (de would be re- quired [o pay an estimated $400,000 in sucn subsidies under the proposal presented in the report.) We sincerely believe that a more equitable basis for spreading the storm drain assessment would be to assess earn of the subareas which will be served by Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga March 3, 1981 Page 6 a particular storm drain for the costs of the constructing that line; we ourselves would strongly support such an approach; however, we would not ooject to the basis of assessment if lines Sc and Sd were excluded from the district as we nave suggested. Conclusion In conclusion, we continue to support the concept of an assessment district for the industrial area. However, aicer careful consideration of the matter, we feel very strongly chat the district as proposed in the report is not in the long-term best interests of ourselves, the industrial area, or the City. We have discussed our concerns with your staff and consul cants and we believe that they concur with most of the comments set forth herein with the exception of the deletion of Lice Sd and the change to the basis for spreading the storm dre.in assess- ment. Although we certainly understand and respect their posi- tions with respect to those two items, we have concluded that we must advise you that we disagree with those positions. therefore, unless the district is to 6e modified in accordance with the concerns set forth herein, this letter snoule be con- sidered a formal protest to the report and the specific dis- trict proposed therein. In as much as my own travel schedule mazes it highly unlikely that I will be able to attend the protest hearing 3n person, I. have attempted to set forth our concerns in this letter, and it is my intention that a representative of R. C. Land Company will be present at the hearing [o respond to any questions which you might have concerning our position. Very truly yours, R. C. LAND COMPANY `~~~c,~ RICHARD M. ORTWEIN Division President The Koll Company ec: F. i1a eKenzie Drown, Esq. cc: Mr. Walt Hamilton cc: Mr. I.au ten Wasserman cc: Mr, Lloyd Hubbs y L('~`" .~/FF.L/n,~ .F'A~" Fi:r ,>i/' l~.~i i9iT.-Di i.r i~ .9rJ/IG%/t n f'/F !'f'i=iF : iiF .~ ij ii'TF , St//F~l.'c F . /iA.f'T H t>t 1~'E7rinieFify ~rja rF~ • - - r{/ ~!~ /i'A/~ S 7/'! ' n //FFt _ A"A ~ C~ir l PT ' h ~ ' / ~ i L~~.-„e_ ("~"c 7 - /F ~.,nd i'~=rA A/r~'r v"-~c i,['7/' 'AJ/C pu.~.a naw .H.Inw.m..1 FnoH~~ l~ / ~ (' "' f / • 80UTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 24M WaInW Oravw Avenw Rvaemgod, CalifomW 91770 1~ Rnised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 3331sE ~ F 5507-E Cancelling Revised W. P.U.C. Sheet No. 5308-E SchgdulR No. D DOMESTIC SERVICE AroucnslurY ADDlipble to domestic service including lightivg, heativg, caokiog, avd power or combirution thereof in a single family accommodation; also to domestic Farm aati<e whey mDpged through the farm operator's domestic meter. TERRITORY Withiv the evGre tenitory aened, exeludivg Savta Cataliva Istand. RATES The rates below include all components of the rate including Hesse Rate Charges, Energy Cost. Fuel Collection Balance Adjustment and Conservation Iaad Yfanagement ddjustments v further described in Special Condition Yw. 2, S, and 4. !x Wrw Ix Menlh relel erM per kWh ..................................................................................................... 5.577¢ kWh, per kWh ............................................................................................ 1.507¢ All kWh, Per kWh .............................................................................................................. 8.049¢ ' Includes all kWh in excess of applicable Raaidentiol lifeline allowances m described in Special Condi- tion No. S. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Seoaovol Service: For summer cottage cmlomers and others who normally rtgaire service (or only Dart of the yea, this schedule is applinblt only oo annual cavtnct R. Raw RtM Charges: The nta above ivelud< the bane me charges as showy btbw: Iar MMerlx Wash Olkrr W.E,w Denrnrer lxvke Dxrke Energy Charge: First 410 kWh, Per kWh ....:..:.................................................................... 3.180¢ O.dgO¢ Ex<eaa kWh, Per kWh ............................................................................ 2.410¢ 3.480¢ (tom IeeenaWl ITe d Yrah4 b w,tarl WI M ITe Y areas M ~. l.WGI Advice Letter No. 543-E Edward A. M7en, Jr. Date Filed Daember 31, 1980 Daimon No. 91319, 97330 r E6ective January 1, 1981 Vice Pmidmt o.,,,,•,,,,. ,,,,, SOUTNERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ketdxd Gj, p,U.C. Sheet No. T214 Wvlntd Grove Avenue Rosemwd, Californio 91770 Cancelling Revised Cal. p.U.C. Sheet No. _7 ScMduN No. D DCIMESAC SERVKE SPKIAL CONDhlONS (CoMinuW) 9. EMr9Y Cori Adiusemwh The ntn shove ivNade the Wimtmmt a 9rotided for :n Put G of the Preliminary Stuemmt The aD08nbk mere mat adjmtment billing fatten and fuel colkction balance adjvstmmt billing factor sst (acrd therei4 and bebw, Mye Deen applied to kWh bi0ed aodn tNs schedvk, Gn4 raver agvrrtn DYee raaM t/LYM Anl CeRrrrire SaKeM hrrr Mlma AdWmat+r [Rasdva tleN tilagr MMw dr:wk,. aw,...r. lever p/atyk I/t/BI 2218 Ld70 •0.121 4. Conservation bad Management Adjurimenf: The n<es above ivclnde the adjnstment as provided Eor in Part I of the Prtliminary Statement. The applinbie conservation load management adjustment billing tutors set forth therein, and below, have been applied to all kWh iv r><eass of lifeene kWh billed vuder this xheduk. feel M.,naa.am arpsr,m„r FIFne a.rw. f/kWh fw.iu in 4tau Faln•Ina Wa 4NFm frrvka N nI.F„a A,,,xnn 1/1/8l 0.000 0.000 ~\ 5. lifeline Servltu The tarn above are subject to adjtvement as provided for in Part H of the Preliminaq Statement The applinble lifeline quantity m b< billed under raln designated u applicable to EEeBne strrice sh>R he >ny allowmce for Einsvpport devices permitted under Yut H, Pantt»ph 6, of Mt Preliminary Stalemev4 Dlua tM mm of tfie applicable lifeline quantities, inciading +nq eligible rupDi<mental ettttric space heating dlawan<e Ear parap!eni<s, nuatlraplegia. ar multiple sderosu patients, set forth Eor the customer's climatic region (as described on lifeline Rate Climatic Region Maps) as indicated below. kWk aw MwA ark far,rl.nnMe1 chm.nr IlwiNndel w.w saes spa ak Neon Ilra Nndne Itaedne• et«ti,ra• c.nitxnlna•• W x40 250 550 110 - X 240 250 800 ItA - Y 240 250 1,120 210 - 2 240 250 1,120 270 - C 240 250 - - 0 H 240 ~ 250 - - 280 v zw 2so - - soo • November through April, inelmive •• Mar throvgii J<toher, indmive. L Advice Letttt No. 74j~E 9"2549, 92550, Daisim No. OIl~l9 Edwud A, Myen, Jt. Date Filed December 3t, 1980 Etftttjve Jmttary 1, 1981 Vice Preaidmt R<wlutioa No, .ur SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Revised Cal. P.U.C. Shea No. 5327-E 1111 Walnuf Grove Avettw Roeemevd, Celifemle 91770 5209-E Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 5473-E (~ PREl1MINJUIY STATEMENT (CtaM1..-0 O. ENERGY COST ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE (ECAC) (CenfinuW)•• s\ 11 ReperNnR en RetnenDhbneta d Mw Peld. A report ov the rusovablvveu f the price paid tar fuel and energy pvrthasea will be filed with the PubBe Utilitin Comminiov by ADrU IS of each ye,r. N. UFEIINE SERVICE 1. ApplltohiRfy. Lifeline service shall be made available only to Avmestic service billed on Schedule Nos. D, DE, OM, DAfS-1, DdfS-?, and D-10. 1 ERyibiliry. :\It domestic customers on Schedule Nos. D, DE, DSf. DJ(S-1, D\f5-t, and D-10 art entitled to an allocation of a lifeline quantity of electricity which is necessary to supply the minimum energy needs of the n~vage residential aser. a. Far bade r<sidevtul use; aud, b..If qualified, for water heating and space heating as specified by Decision No. 86087; aed, e If qualified, for an nsential lifervpport device m<d by a fuU-time ruideet of a residential houahotd in accordance with Decision No. 88651; avd d. Far av cvndidaning iv qualified areas as specified by Decision No. 89711. 7. Real< RtwldeMlel UM. Each eligible domestic customer will be allowed a IifeRne quantity of electricity fm lighting, conking, and food refdgentinB, which is apeeified as bssic rnidential me. The IifAine quantity o! elntridry for bssic naidentia] me is set fvreh ov the applicable rate schedules and is to be billed at We nlN deaiRtuttd u appliable to lifeline service 4. WaMr Nw/lrp. Each eligible domnlic customer may be allowed an additonal Iifelive gnavtity o[ eltetridry far water hea[inR• upon application to she CompmY. if electricity is the demesd< customers primary source for warn boring. Th< lifeline quantity of electricity for waterJteating is set forth ov the applinhle me schedule avd is to be billed at the rata dnignated ss apPliuDl< to Iifelive service. 3. 61peu NevNny. Each eligible domestic cutomer may be allowed an additional lifeline quantity of elttMdry for space heating for service rendered during the months of November through April, inclusive. upon applintioo to the Company, if electricity is the domestic customer's primary source for permanently-imtalled space tinting. Each eligible domestic customer, whose permanently installed primary source of space heating is electric, may he allowed a supplemental lifeline quantity of electricity for such space heating for service rendered during the months of November through April, upon application to the Company, where the customer provides certification that a fvll- time resident of the hvua<hold is a DaraFlegic, quadriplegic, or a multiple sclerosis patient with heating needs in excesf of the avenge residential user. The Company may require that the customer provide certification by a medical doctor ar osteopath licensed !o practice medicine in the State of Glifornia that the resident is a paraplegic, quadraplegi<, or a multiple sclerosis patient with heating needs in excess of the average residential user. The Company may also require a new or renewed applica- tion and/or ccrtificaGOn when neMed, in the opinion of the Company. The lifeline puanlity of electricity for space heating is see [orth for each climatic region (aa dexritied on Lifeline Rate Climatic Region Naps) on the appropriate rate schedule and is to be billed at the rata doignated as applicable m lifeline service. ••The EC;\8F's calculated to become <8ective subsequent to 5/I, 80 were calculated in accordance with the proceduref set forth m Iumrim Uecision Yo. 91277 and the formula for rare sprnd adopted by the Commission in D<cisi6n No. 90957. ICesnlnvNl ITe M ~-smN M ni8ry) 4nM ar (tt b iuene/ ar CsL P.V.C) Advice Letter No. 543E Edwud A. M7en, Jr. Due Filed December 31, 1980 tut Decision No. 92350 Edttdve January 1, 1981 Vies Paeaidmt Rgolution Na , 1 SOUTHERN GLIFORNIA FDIEON COMPANY Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 5528-E 22M WoInW Grove Avmw Rosemead, California 91770 Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 72t0-E PRELIMINARY STATEMENT tc..xr..+l H. IIFEIINE SERVICE (CoMinusrd) 6. Life-Supped Devieea In Cualome/a Reaidenee. Each eligible domestic customer may be allowed an additional lifeline quantity of ele<<riciry, upov application to the f.OmDanY, where such cuaeomer provides certification that a fulLtime residevt aF the homchold regululy requ'mes the ux of av essential life-support device, such ar a respirator, irov lung, or Iddvq dulysu muhino Procedure for CertifiuUgn Tfie Company may requ've that: a. The customer have a medical doctor or mteopath licensed to practice medicine in the State of California rovide the Company witfi a letter. acceptable to the Compavy, describing the type of regularly required Pfe-support device and the utilaativn requirements in detail; or b. County, State, or Fedenl agevciea, wing an stablished notification letter to eierric utilities, provide the Company with informatlov relative to patienb whu «golarly require the use of elite-support device in the home. Upon the shove certification, the Company shill estimate the monthly consumption of the particular Iife•rupport device, given the usual hvun of operation per month, and within 15 dap add the incremental estimated monthly usage to the customer's basic lifeline quantity. The Compavy may require a new or renewed apPlicativv and/or certification when needed, in the opivioe of the Compavy 7. Air Conditienlrp. Each eligible domestic customer will be allowed an additional lifeline quantity of elec- tricity for air conditioning Eor urviee rendered during [he months of \[ay through October. inclmive. The lifeline quantity of electricity for air conditioning is act forth for nch climuic region (as described on Lifeline Rate Climatic Region Maps) on the rate schedule and is to be billed at the rates dsignated as applicable for Basic Residential Cse. 0. VeriReatlen. Not more than one lifeline quantity will he allowed for each single-family dwelling or accom- modation en the premiss for each of the end ma set forth in Part H, Paragraphs, 3, !, 5, 6, and 7 above. However. where there are multiple life-support devices at such single-family dwelling or accommodation, all such certified devices shall be totaled far on<liftline quantity, The number of singio-family accommodations on the Dremiso and the existence of the specified end use equipment required to obuin certain lifeline Quantities of <Iteui<ily, as set forth on the applicable rate schedules, are subject to verification by the Company. In the event the Company ascertains that the customer is not eligible for such additional littlint quantity, such customer may be rebilled v if no such additional lifeline quantity had b«n allowed. 9. Termination of Use. 'Customers shall give the Company notice of terminuion of use of eyuiVm<nt or dsvirn set forth in Part H, Pangrapha 4, 5, and 6 above 10, Billing. The rncrRY charge shall he billed in the appropriate blocks at the rates designated a applicable to lifeline .ervice up to the total of the aVViicable lifeline gmntihes as determined m accordance with fart H, Paragraphs d, J, S, 5, and 7 abm~e. Osage in excess of die total applicable li(ebn< quantities shall be billed in the blocks continuing from the poim reached by the total of the appliabl< lifeline quan cities but at the rates designated as applicable to other domestic service. In addition. all kilowatthours sold shall 6e subject to the Energy Cost Adjustment Clause as provided (or in Part G of the Preliminary Statcm<,n s. anJ the Conservation Load )lanagemcnt .4djunment as provided for in Part I of the Preliminary Statement. (GnNtwal) IT M loaned br MAmI Advice Letter No. 34;~E Edwud A. My<n, Jr. ~,ov ITo be ,nulled br UI. y.a.e.l Date Filed D.-comber 3l, 1980 Dcision No. 92549 Vice Praidmt Titls ERative January 1, 19R1 Rewlotioa No. ~ g LL V ~ 2 ° H W ~ W J I 0 Q 9 0 ~ LL J m U u_ 2 Q W O Q y ZZ O c C7 d o 1 . y~ c c ¢ ` D D L N_ rm ~ N a m~ O N m O ~.l V N W ~' C O C !~ n V /1 ~ ~ `J n U ~ m W G C W m Y W qN ~ L S ~ O N C D N 9 ~0 m~ n O q n I c a -° m o~ a c oo° ~ o v m cd ~? m^ a , d.~ ° m n c=>> 3 3 m o `d a a C m 10 n~ c o c `c c E c o c o m F- v c v m e-° n f U~¢ m U i O H> a` =,n w¢ ~ 3 LL ,n > y U U m .~ '~. 11 ~( a LEWIS HOMES 1 ~% NOON Mountain Avenue ; P O. Box 670 ; ^plcrM, G W 7B6 / 710 9850971 March 2, 1981 City Council C1 ty of Rancho Cucamonga 9720 "C" Base Line Road P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Reference: CRneraL Plan - OPR Exte nsl.on Conditions Gent Leme n: Fed nesday night you will he asked to decide whether to concur with [he ruvis ed f~neraL Plan extension conditions suggested by OPR in its Le tcer of January 20, 1981. The proposed revision would exempt projects within the AL[e rnative Area from [he. requirement of conformity with [he Interim Gene rat Plan. The ba sic reason for the suggested revision is that it would ba imposs ih Le for projects within most of the Alternative Area to meet this condition. We ask the Council to concur with OPR. It appears three separate issues have he<ome intertwined: (1) the OPR extension conditions, (2) the boundary of our PC, and (3) our proposed projects at Base Line and haven, including the ne Sghbo rhood shopping center. In our view these are ehree distinct questions that shoo Ld he decided separately. Modifying the OPR conditlo ns does not presuppose anything on the other questions, which will he resolved during General Plan hearings. The OPR conditions affect most property owners wLth in the A Lte rnat ive Area, not just our company. I understand that a ntunber of them wished to submit projects in Aug oat but did not do so because of this tssu e. They deserve the oppo ctu nity to move ahead on an equal foo ring with the rest of the City. This sill be part icu La rly important if there are any u nfo reaeen delays in the General Plen appr oval process. The suggested modif ica[ion resulted Er om an inquiry we made to OPR. When it became clear that the OPR conditions placed our property in a de Eac to mnra [or lum, we cal Led OPR to ask if they might reconsider, in view of the fol Lowing: • With respect to our property, there are virtually no places She re the old and new Ce neral PLa ns show the same land use. This is true of much of the Land In the Alternative Area. • To require consistency with the old General Plan hard Ly seems to make ee nse with a comp le to Ly different new plan nearing adoption. City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Tlarch 2, 1981 Page 2 • Interim General Plan amendments were not accepted during the last amendment cycle and are now forbidden by the OPR conditions. • The Interim General Plan itse Lf is ambiguous because it contained three alternatives. lvhile policy direction fot the new General Plan was given by the Council, actual ad op [Son of any of the three a Lternatives was specff is ally avoided. I[ is debatable whether there is any land use to be consistent with. • We submitted projects in August which we hoped wou Ld 6e consistent with the new General Plan (which was not then available to us). The City had indicated they would be reviewed in due course. Bu[ [he OPR conditions, when issued, threw the projects Snto limbo. • Among our proposed projects were some that We hope will be within the of fo rdab Le range, including one planned for alder adults. The delay resulting from this condition is raising costs with every week that passes. This Ss incons LS tent with adopted state housing policy and with OPR's own extension condition requiring that aEfordab Le housing proje cis be encouraged. • The result is a de facco moratorium on deveLopmene wf Ch in most of the Alternative Area, fol Lowing three prior years of mora [o rlum. For all other property in the City the moratorium ended on August 1, 1980. The effect of the OPR conditions is [o extend that mora Corium fot the Alternative Area for approximately another nine mo n[hs. Our contacts with OPR co ns Ssted merely aE asking if they would be WiLLing to reconsider the extension rood icions in light of these eCfec[s. The decision was entirely the agency's and was arrived at after several dt sc us lions with City staff to asc er Cain the faces. I was to Ld by an OPR staffer [ha[ consistency with She old plan was a stands td requirement on General Plan extensions. However, in this case, OPR waived the condition. `ly interpretation is that OPR found it Wou Ld be unfair to retain the rey ui rement under the circumstances. This is borne out by the OPR DSre ctor'a s[a Cement that: It would be contrary to the Leg is la Lire's intent to administer the extension conditions Sn a manner [o un reasonahly screen projects tram consideration. The ambiguity about the ALte rna tive Ares has puc us and others in a Catch-22 situation. Apps re ntLy OPR cecogn izes that such an amb iguf ty should no[ operate to arbitrarily hold up deve Lo pment. Surely, when the ALte rna ttve Area was adopted, it Was no[ anticipated [ha[ it Wou Ld be stopping deve Lopment Sn a major area of the City two years later, Long after the Location of the regional center Was settled. City Council C1 cy of Rancho Cucamonga March 2, 1981 Page 3 It is hard co communicate the terrible costs associated with de Lays in project approva L Recently Ralph Lewis sent you copies of a HUD study which shoved Chat the goverment approval process - mainly just the sheer Lime it takes - accounted for 20X or 30X of the cos cs of new homes 1n four projects studied by HUD in de to iL. The effect of delays on the of fordab LLi ty of rev homes is unmistakab Le and has been confirmed 6y every organization, governmental or private, that has studied housing costs. To Smpose ad ditlonaL delays now, on our projects and others waiting in the wings, would merely increase the home buyer's burden without serving any purpose. If this condition is Lifted, projects wlil still have to get through growth management and [hey will st SLL have to comply with the new Cene ral Plan. Those two requirements are surely enough [o assure quality projects [hat are in keeping with the City's overall goals. We hope [he Council will concur Sn the modified conditions. Very truly yours, ¢:e.. ii ~ z ~ , Kay Dlat Lo ck Project Manager KM:gk:2031b March 4, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CllCA.MONGA 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 4, 1981. The meeting was called Co order by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Cirl Scouts from Troop 1180 led [he flag salute. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mike ls, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Managet Lauren M. Wasseraan, Assistant City Manager James Robinson, Deputv City Atrorney Robert Dougherty, Community Development Director Jack Lam, City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, Community Services Director William Holley, and Finance Director Harry Empey. Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo Co approve Che minutes of February 4 and February 18, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. 2. e4NN0UNCEMENTS. a. It vas announced [ha[ Mr. Leonard Gorczyca, Chairman of [he Historical Commission, recently passed away and the meeting would be adjourned in his memory. Motion: Moved 6y Frost, seconded by Bridge [o direct the Historical Commnission to prepare a Resolution in honor of Mr. Gorczyca co be forwarded to the City Council for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. b. Councilman Mikels reported [hat at the SanBag meeting which met that morning the County Transportation Commission took action on the Transportation Improve- ment Program (TIP) which will be forwarded to SCAG and then on to the State for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Because of [he formulas that have been adopted For the TIP this year, due Co lack of funding, they do not allow [he Inclusion for funding far any projects [hat were not in the flue year Transportation Improvement Program previously. He said when this was considered last year, our County Transportation Commission recommended the full Efve year funding in the TIP, but when i[ reached [he State level, i[ was no[ approved. Instead the Stale inserted funding for right-of-way for the Foothill Freeway for [he first year only. Under [he guidelines in effect for this year iE it was no[ in the TIP for more than [he current year, you could not place iC in again; it becomes a new project. In effect, the guidelines pre- clude any inclusion of right-of-way protection funding in any year after this. When the California Transportation Commission met in Claremont, they indicated in Resolution form they would provide right-ot-way protection funding through December 1982. SanBag took action to attach a Resolution indicating supporc for the prior ac [ion taken by the Stara Transportation Convnission which will be attached to their TIP submittal. Councilman Frost Sndicated he though[ it was appropriate to send a letter [o our legislators over the Mayor's signature indicating supporc of the action taken by Saneag and relating our concerns. Council concurred with this. c. Mayor Schlosser read a Proclamation [o [he Girl Scouts from Troop 1180 proc laming March 8-1'+ as Girl Scout Week in Rancho Cucamonga. City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 2 3_CONS ENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81-3-4 Eor $181,789.49. b. Acceptance of Parcel Map 5703: located on [he west side of Center Avenue between Victoria and Monte Vista. RESOLUTION NO. 81-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 5703. c. Acceptance of Parcel Map 6627: located on [he south side of Wilson on [he west side of Hermosa. RESOLUTION N0. 81-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 6627. d. Approval to advertise the Carnelian Channel Construction project to seek bids for the construction of Carnelian Channel. Estimated cost -- $374,000. e. Property Transfer Tax. Recommend engaging the services of Mr. Gene Tidwell at a fee of $S.oo per hour plus reproduction costs [o research the County's tax records regarding property transfer fees. f. Se[ public hearing date of March 18, 1981 for Zone Change No. 80-12 -- Barmakian. A request for a change of zone from A-1-6 (limited agriculture, 5 acre lot minimum size) to R-1-20 (single family residential, 20,000 square foot minimum size lot) for 24.36 acres of land located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN 1061-171-02. g. Alcoholic Beverage License for Lily T. Trib is, La Mariposa, 8807 Center Street. Item had been removed from the February 18 agenda for investigation. A Full sheriff's report has been submitted to Council. h. Approval of State Agreement No. 08-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3. This will enable the City to take advantage of Federal Aid Emergency Relief funding for the emergency opening of FAU Routes -- 8190, R060, R061, R066, and R0194 (Hellman Avenue, Arrow Highway, Base Line Road, 4th S[reec, and Carnelian 8[ree [) as a result of the January-February 1980 storm. RESOLUTION N0. 81-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE IXECUTION OF LOCAL AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT N0. 08-5420 AND PROGRAM SUPPLETtENT NO. 3. i. Request to set March 18, 1981 as a public hearing date for consideration of the proposed modifications to the Omnitrans routes in Rancho Cucamonga. j. Request for Community Services Director to attend [he Parks and Recreation Society Annual Conference, March 6-9. Req ues[ is a budgeted item. k. Release of bonds: Tract No. 9423: located southwest corner of Beryl Scree[ and south of Base Line Owner: Coral Investment, Inc. Casli Staking Bond $ 2,350.00 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Che Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimous lv 5-0. Citv Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 3 4. PUBLIC IIEARINCS. 4A. AMENDMENT TO ORDI NeVYCE A0. 105, RHLAT ING TO PARK DEDICATIONS I9 HEW SUe- DIVISI0N5. Staff report by William Holley. Potential problems have surfaced regarding Ordinance No. 105-8. Therefore, staff requested Chae the ordinance be withdrawn from consideration a[ this Cime. The original ordinance would remain in effect. Mayor Schlosser asked if'[here were any objections to the request Eor withdrawal of the ordic~ance. There were none from Che public or council. Council concurred with [he staff's recommendation far withdrawal. Mavor Schlosser announced the Council would adjourn to an Executive Session with the City Attorney. Council adjourned at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m. with all council members present. 4B. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOId.MENDATION TO DESIGNATE HISTORICAL LANDILARKS. StaEE report by William Nolley. This was the second reading for Ordinance No. 138 which would designate [he Alta Loma Honor Ro11, the palm and eucalyptus street tree plantings along Victoria and F.t iwanda Avenues and the Chaffey-Garcia House as historical landmarks. Sin Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 138. ORDINANCE N0. 138 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE ALTA LOMA HONOR ROLL, THE PALM AND EUCALYPTUS STREET TREE PLt4NTINGS ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA AND ETIWANDA AVENUES, AND THE CHAFFEY-GARCIA HOUSE AS CITY HISTORIC LANDMARKS. Motion: :coved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mayor $ch Tosser opened the meeting Eor public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve and adopt Ordinance No. 138. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frose, Mikels, Palombo, Rr idge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 4C. INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 70-01 Mayor Schlosser announced that he would step down from the Assessment District pub ltc hearing since he had his business and owned property in the area under consideration. He stated that Mayor pro-tem Bridge would conduct the hear Sng. Mayor pro-tem Bridge announced chat this was the time and place for hearing the protests or obj e<eions [o the "Report" and proposed construction and all other re La[ed matters in Assessment District No. 79-1. City Clerk Wasserman reported that Notice had been given in the manner and farm as required by law (pursuant [o Che provis inns of the 5[ree es and Highways Code) and an affidavit for the filing of the boundary map and certificate of mailing were on file Ln the Clz rk's off ice. Lloyd Hubbs, city engineer, then turned the meeting over [o Max Rrown, bond counsel for the prof ecc. Mr. Brown summarized the procedure to be taken. He said this was the first of two public hearings relating to the formation City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 4 of Assessment Oistrice No. 79-1. At this time the City Council would be dealing in generalities with the improvements, [he costs, and [he methods of the assess- ment spread. If Council proceeds [o [he second public hearing, then Council would 6e authorizing staff to proceed with detailed plans and specifications. A[ [hat Cime Council would have final plans, construction bids, and proposals for the sale of bonds. However, a[ this tfine, he said [he Council would he dealing with schematics, general nature, location, and extent of the improve- ments. City Council could abandon [he plans, proceed, or continue the matter. Mr. Brown stated that the testimony [o be heard should deal with Che boundaries, works of improvements, or me [hod and formula proposed by [he Assessment Engineer. He said the law requires that assessments be apportioned to [he properties in accordance Co Che 6enef its they receive from [he works of improvements. He then turned [he meeting over the Walt Hamilton, the Assessment Engineer, who presented a report on tilt written protests which had been received. He announced that a total of 46.1X protests had been received up to [he time and place of the hearing. He su,mnarized [he debt report, briefing Council as to the extent of [he works of improvements and explained the method and formula that was used for the spread of the assessments. Mayor pro-[em Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing [o those who had submitted a written pzotes [. Those speaking in protest were: 1. Joe DiIorio, representing Richard Ortwein of the Koll/Lyon Company. He stated they were not totally against [he Assessnen[ District. He said there was disagreement with the street layout. Some property owners were no[ ready to develop [heir proner[y, therefore, did not want [he streets put in at the present time. He said what everyone wanted to do was [o ad~us[ the streets, and he felt [hat if this were tabled foz about thirty days, these ad~us Cments could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. He stated [hat regarding the storm drains, [hey needed about thirty days to work out the philosophy of how to best spread =he costs. 2. Jim Wessling, O'Donnell Brigham. He stated [hey were in favor of [he Eormatlon of [he Assessment District. Regarding the written protest which they submitted, he said they were concerned about the spread of the coats. However, they felt that this could be worked out. He expressed a disagreement with the location of the storm drain 19-A. They wanted [o have this drain put back on [he east property line where St originally had been placed. 3. Sack Corrigan, Daan Corporation. Ne stated [hat they could take care of [heir own problems, and they simply would not want to be a part of the Assess- ment District. 4. Larry Turpin, Assistant City Engineer for Ontario. He stated chat Ontario was concerned about the impact the storm drain would have on the properties down stream in the City of Ontario. 5. Hal Ha ld in, civil engineer representing property owners west of Naven Avenue. He stated that the property owners west of Naven would have to pay conaiderab ly more for storm drains if they ~ofned [his Assessment District. It was more cost effective for them to form their own District. He stated that this area represents approximately 138.32 acres and that about 75 percent of the property owners have protested the Assessment District. 6. Richard Clayton, plan[ manager of Martin Marriotta facility, west of Haven and south of 8th Street. He stated that he was asked to make the following scatemen t: "That their attorney said that by law special assessments required special benefits and they could not see any benefits [o their parcel of land in this assessment and the possibility of legal action is being considered." City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 5 7. Rill Kirk Land of KBIy propercy located south of Bch Street and bordering on the west side of Haven. He said they did not wan[ Che District since this area has Less drainage problems. I[ was a matter of getting value Far [heir dollar and [hat $4700 per acre was not value from their viewpoint. 8. Gregg Fromme, Fromme Inves Cmen[s, property located on 6th Street and Turner Avenue. He stated he was impressed from [he drainage meetings [hat he had attended [hat [he group ease of Haven, who would be paying for [he majority of [he drainage system, was not particularly concerned about [he west of Haven groun. They were not concerned if [hey did have their own drainage district. The Eac[s [ha[ its 149% minimum of an increase added expense to the west Haven group as opposed to a 12~% added expense to the rest of the District if the west Haven group were allowed to form was very important statistics. 9. Jack McKay spoke in favor of proceeding with the Assessment Diserie[. Mayor pro-tem Bridge stated Cha[ Council was now hearing from [hose protesting the forma[ic: ~f the District. 10. Vito DiVito Francesco, representing the Sylvester propercy. He said [ha[ in regard to [he Sylvester property there are no plans to develop [he pro- perty and its not on [he market for sale. In view of these facts, they requested [he Sylvester property be deleted both for streets and drainage purposes. They also wanted to go on record as joining with Joe DiIorio in asking that [he matter be :m~ted back for futher study ao [hat [he District can move fo'.^dard with [he exclusion of [he Sylvester property both as to streets and drainage. He also stated [hat a concern of theirs was that if [he entire dis[zlc[ went Sn, what assurances would property owners have [hat [hey could go fo a future buyer of the property and assure them Cha[ there will no[ be any future drainage problems. 11. Bill MS lliken, member of the west Haven group and manager of [he La Mancho Golf Course. He said only those west of Haven was protesting. The reason East Haven group would like to see [he district formed over as much acreage as possible so they could have as many people pay for this drainage problem as possi- ble; that way it would not cost them as much. 12. Morton DeVore. He handed In a written petition to Mr. Hamilton a[ [he time he spoke. They were owners of Parcel 236 at southeast corner of [he Assess- ment District. Ne said [he only proposed benefit to them would be line 19-D for storm drain benefits. They were protesting the Dis Crlet because they felt the $4700 assessment was not fair for hIs property since they basically did not have storm drain problems. 13. Ben Wick, owner of 10 acres at the corner of Rochester and 8th Scree[. He said he was speaking as part of the previous petition submi[ced by Mr. DeVore. They were requesting the Consultant and Engineering Department to look a[ line 19-D to see iE [hey could become a separate district. It would compose of all the pro- percy owners along Rochester Avenue. 14. Ke i[h Walker, representing owner of Parcel No. 257 south of the parcel owned by Mr. Wick. They were concerned about the method of assessment and protesting inclusion of line 19-D at this time. They were also concerned about the re-routing of Rochester Avenue. Mayor pro-tem Bridge asked iE [here were others who wished to address the issue Sn protest. There being no response, Pir. Bridge 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. City Council Minutes Harch 4, 1981 Page 6 Mayor pro-[em Bridge asked for those who wished to address Council in favor of Che District [o now come forth. Speaking in favor were: 1. Richard Bo rston, Milliken State Investors. He said he had 20 acres just north of 4th Street. 1{e felt Che Assessment District was important far Che development of [he general area and to have the same district vithou[ being fragmented. He said the district would eventually benefit them because with the Assessment District formation, [he development would profit and values would increase. 2. Ceorge H. Minmack, representing B. D. Galleano, et. al, owners of 50 acres on the south side of Arrow Highway east of Haven. They felt Cha[ it was in the best interests of [he entire area [hat Che storm drains be built and be built according to a master plan. We now have a master plan, and [hey think it is workable. He said they were only affected by [he storm drain portion of the plan, He said [hey needed [he drain coming from the Daon property and would like to have i[ completed in a reasonable time. He did not wan[ Co pay his money far drainage and then find someone dumping water onto him, and thus hurting his development. He said that anyone who did not become apart of the plan should be done by a contract with specified timing -- what they will build, when, and how. He expressed [ha[ the cost should be based upon the total acreage, and no[ Let each person cake care of his own problem. He said they did not want any changes on line 5-D which was the line that drains Mr. Galleano's property. He was willing [o pay Eor the benefit. 3. Robert Houtz, chief engineer for the Santo Fe Land Improvement Company and owner of 130 acres on the south of Arrow Highway about where Milliken Street will eventually go. He suggested chat [his be held over for thirty days so the various interest groups could work together to come up wSth some solutions. He said line 9-A served his property. 4. Chuck Caldwell, representing himself and partner, Cadillac Fairviaw. They have BS acres a[ the northeast corner of Haven and 8th Street. They recog- nized [he benefits the Assessment District would bring to the area and were in favor of [he formation of the district. S. Jeff Sceranka, representing the Lucas' family. He spoke in favor of the District and encouraged the Council [o move ahead with SC and not wail. 6. Betty McKay, owner representing 6 acres of land. She felt i[ was Co everyone's benefit to support a master plan. She said the area had been engineered in the past under the County, but there were some who had opposed those plans. If they had proceeded, then the drainage system would he in today. She encouraged Council to proceed. There being no Euriher public responses, the Mayor pro-tem closed the public hearing. Councilman Mikels asked for r. ,:e total percentage of pro [esc9 a[ this time. Mr. Hamilton announced chat [here were 69.04 percent protests. However, Mr. Bridge stated that many were conditional. Motion: "loved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels co continue [he hearing to April 15 in order to give staff time to work out problems with [he property owners. Moc ion carried by th_ following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, and Bridge. NOES: None. ABSENT: Schlosser, who had excused himself from the discussion because he owned property In the area. Mayor pro-tem Bridge called a recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.n. with ali members of Che council and staff present. C ify Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 7 4D. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. Sack Lam presented the staff report. Jim Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 1J9. ORDINANCE N0. 139 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL PENALTY FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AS INDICATED ON A CITATION ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDINA':CES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mike is Co waive Further reading. Motion ce: rted v~animously 5-0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the Mayor closed fhe public hearing. Mayor Schlosser set March 18 for second reading. Councilman Frost wanted to know the need for [his and asked if there have been some problems. Mr. Lam stated Ghat staff felt it was necessary [o put on the citation a penalty for failure to appear in order to give more clout to the C1taCi On pYOgLam. The Ci[y Attorney said [his was a standard procedure for assuring appearances nn [he citation. Mr. Frost said this was in anticipation [o a need, not because of an answer to a problem. The Ci[y Attorney said that was correct, and [hat this was the "teeth" Co the program. Frost then requested more backup when this came up for second reading. Mayor Schlosser asked if [here were any public conunen[s to Resolution No. 81-30. There were none, therefore, the Mavor closed the meeting £or public consnen[. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels [o approve Resolution No. 81-30 and to waive [he entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Jim Robinson read [he title of Resolution No. 81-30. RESOLUTION N0. 81-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DES ICNAT ING CERTAIN CITY EMELOYEES TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINe~NCES A.ND ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN. City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 8 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS SA. RECO?CIENDATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CO"MISSI00 FOR ALLOCATION FOR ADDITIONAL L FELINE RATES. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. The recommendation submitted to Council was [o join with other cmmnunities of [he Wes[ End of San Bernardino Courtly to request Che Public Utilities Corunission to have the Southern California Edison Company transfer the Wes[ End from Region C to Region H, thus making the area eligible for lifeline rates. This would result in a special lifeline rate for electricity used for air conditioning during the hot sutmner months. Jennifer Alloway was present representing the Pu61ic Utilities Connnission to answer any questions of the Council. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting to the oublic for cownent. There being none, he closed the public portion of Che meeting. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo [o approve Resolution 81-28 and [o waive [he entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Jim Robinson read title of Resolution No. 81-28. RESOLUTION N0. 81-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COllNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CU C,4MONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING TRANSFER OF SOUTHERN CALIFONNIA EDISON COMPANY'S ONTARIO DISTRICT FROM REGION C TO REGION H. 5B RECOMMEND ENDORSEMENT OF SENATE BILL-2, A MEASCRE CONCERNING THE STATEWIDE PLe~NNING PROCESS. Staff report by Jack Lam. Councilman Mikels said that had this law been ir, effect, the State would no[ have been able to change the transportation budget which he had talked above at [he beginning of the evening. The law would prohibit state agencies from overstepping their authority, and thus making changes in plans by local or regional agencies. This Bill would establish uniform public hearing process for modifications of local elemencs of State plans. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to support Senate Bill-2 and to direct staff [o convey this [o our locally elected representatives in Sacra- mento. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. SC. THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE JOHN BLAYNEY ALTERNATIVES AREA. Staff report by Jack Lam. The City of Rancho Cucamonga recently received a letter from the Slate Of Fice of Planning and Research (OPR) which modified their original approval of exten- sion for [he General Plan. Originally [here was a condt[ion which stipulated that prior to approval of any development application during the General Plan process, a Finding must be made that the project was consistent with both the existing and the proposed General Plan. The current modification would allow the City to [hose alternative areas the flexib ilt ty of proceeding with development applications if [he City Council wished. OPR said thac where the existing General Plan does no[ contain any adopted land use policy, the City Council shall subs[itu to [he fallowing finding: "There 1s reasonable proba6111 ty chat the land use proposed 6y a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, zone change, or land use permit will be consistent with the proposed general plan." City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 9 The Council spent considerable time discussing this amongst themselves with [he City A[[o rney. Mr. L,ugherty said the Council has to make a finding for [he properey not in the Blayney ALternacive area, and find that project is consistent with the Blayney General Plan. He said eh is gave the city a problem in [he nltecnaeive area because [here was no proposed land use designation. He suggested [ha[ in any map that the Planning Commission Centa[iva ly approves until we have a general plan adopted thae a condition of approval could be inserted and Chat condition be thae the final map not be approved unless iC is consistent with [he general plan aC the time of final map approval. Ralph Levis, Lek'is Homes, said they would agree to such a condition as the City Attorney just outlined. They would take [heir chances. Ooug Hone said he would no[ support such a plicy. He said it was possible that someone could proceed, go through Che Planning Convnission and staff, and have a condition happen that a hearing occur on a general plan on a subsequent date and have a group of citizens at that hearing and Council feel moved to change a consistency situation and the person would not even know about it until he was ready to have his final map done. He said the reputation and credibility of [he City would be very much at stake. Jim Banks questioned how OPR could make such changes. He though[ this was inconsistent with the Government Code. Mr. Dougherty explained [hat our problem was that we only have a land use element not an existing general plan. OPR is saying [ha[ Council can approve a development if it is consistent with [he existing land use element and the proposed general plan. But in that alternative area, there is no existing land use element. So we are excluded from considering any- thing in there unless [he previous condition set by OPR is modified. OPR says if City Council agrees, then the City can go ahead and consider development for [he alternative area if i[ is consistent with [he proposed general plan. Ron Tannebaum felt, that if Council considered this suggestion, they would be opening up to many Problems. Bruce Ch itiea said that a condition like this gave [he Council less flexibility rather than more by moving from an open to closed political process. Doug Gorgen said he had a tract in [ha[ alternative area also and wanted to know how this all affects him. Mr. Lam stated that his tract was processab le because he had a much lower density, therefore, he could come under everyone of the categories. The City Attorney said Chat if Council denied [his recommendation by the OPR, Chen they would not 6e able [o come back a[ a later date until after the final adoption of [he general plan and change your mind. He said that if Council did not cake action, then they were under the old conditions, and when they finished the hearings on the land use element and were satisfied at whae you wan[, [hen you could consider this a[ that time. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to close the debate. The motion carried by [he fallowing vote: AYES; Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser. NOES: Frost, Mikels. ABSENT: None. Mo[Son: Moved by Bridge, seconder by Palombo to table the issue. Motion carried anon irnous ly 5-G. 6. CITY ATTOR.NEY'S REPORTS The City A[[oniey requested time after the meeting to meet with Council in closed session regarding a legal matter, City Council Minutes March 4, 1981 Page 10 7. AD.lOUAATIENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mike is to adjourn [he meeting in memory of Leonard Corczyca, Chairman of the Mistorlcal Commission who passed away recently. Council adjourned [o a Legal Session to reconvene on Monday, March 9, 1981 at 7:00 D•m. for the General Plan public hearings. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p. m. Respectfully submitted, r ~y:~~E L-4 i lc.C~.. ~.C Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk