The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995/04/25 - Agenda Packet - Adj. Joint w/CouncilAGENDA JOINT MEETING OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL and the PLANNING COMMISSION Adjourned Meeting April 25, 1995 - 5:00 p.m. Tri Communities Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Alexander Barker A. CALL TO ORDER , Biane , Curatalo , Gutierrez , Williams , Lumpp , McNiel , Melcher , Tolstoy_ B. ITEMIS) OF DISCUSSION DISCUSSION ON THE VALUE OF PLANNING DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION PARTICIPATION DISCUSSION OF MODERNIZATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting April 25, 1995 Page 2 , 5. 6. 7. , DISCUSSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES BASED ON PI-HLOSOPHY DISCUSSION OF PLANNING VS. PROJECT PROCESSING DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OF ON-SITE ANCILLARY STRUCTURES DISCUSSION OF ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS. I.E.. MINIMUM LOT SIZE. SIDEYARD AND STREET SETBACKS DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND MARKET STUDY (Continued from April 19, 1995 City Council meeting) DISCUSSION OF ITEMS OF MUTUAL INTEREST C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council and the Planning Commission. State law prohlbib the Council and the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council and the Conm~uion may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent muting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual D. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. AdamJ, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, aeaarate eopy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 20, 1995, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the me~ting per Government Cod~ 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.. SUNDAY April 16, 1995 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY S.B., Rancho Cucamonga: A tale of two very different cities · Though separated by only 15 miles, San Bemardino and Rancho Cucamonga are as different as night and day. By REBECCA FAIRLET RANEY Sun Staff Writer On a cool, misty Friday night in San Bernardino, officer Paul Willjams rolls out on patrol an hour late. Williams has to finish a homi- cide report from the night before -- not unusual in a police crimpart- merit that logs six murders a CRIME IN SAN BERNARDINO Myth & I I t I Reality I II i I I I I one in an occasional series month. The biggest button on the cus- tom-made computer terminals in San Bernardino police cars is a red key -- it says 11-11 -- and to push it is to alert dispatchers that an officer is in troume. On another Friday night, in Rancho Cucamonga -- a slow- paced, rainy night -- Sgt. Tim Wilson starts his patrol on sched- ule. No 11-11 button dominates the computer terminals in Ran- cho Cucamonga's police cars. There's little need. In Rancho Cucamonga, police work is a different story. "A lady called us the other night because her son refused to eat vegetables," Wilson says. "Another lady called because there was a lizard on her screen." · Fifteen miles stand between Rancho Cucamonga and San Ber- nardino -- 15 miles and a slew of disparities that go to extremes. There's the money: In Rancho Cucamonga, the average house- hold income is more than $50,000 a year. San Bernardino house- holds have an average income of about $25,000 a year. There's the dole: In Rancho Cucamonga, 5 percent of the total population is on welfare. In San Bernardino, 40 percent. And, to be sure, there's the crime: Rancho Cucamonga has a reputation as one of the safest cit- ies in America. San Bernardino has ranked high on some of the nation's most-dangerous-cities lists. Rancho Cucamonga is a study in how to build for prosperity. From the outset, when the city incorporated in 1976. its founders set down a tightly con- trolled plan to encourage upscale housing and tree-lined streets. They stuck to the plan. The city that emerged matched the blueprint. "The reason for that is this planning process," said Dennis Stout, who was mayor of Rancho Cucamonga for eight years and is now the county's district attor- ney. "It really, really works. That's why the city has such a low crime rate." The image drew the settlers. Mike Wasiuk moved his family there from La Puente in 1987 largely because of Rancho Cuca- monga's reputation. "We'd see stories in the paper that said: 'There are only 30 gang members in Rancho Cuca- monga,' '; said__W. asiuk~_38. "I know they have higher building standards out here. I think a lot of what they've done is really cre- ated a nice environment." · San Bernardino is a study in how to build a welfare mecca. The trend started in the early 1980s with low-end investors buy- ing inexpensive property in hopes of making money in the Southern Calitbrnia real estate boom. Instead. they lost money. the property decayed and the in- vestments became a stock of' run- down rental housing that ac- counts for more than 50 percent of the city's housing. said City Ad- ministrator Shauna Clark. The City Council added to the stock. They approved the build- in~ of millions of dollars worth of low-income housing. During the past five years. the city has spent $7 million of rede- vefopment money either building low-income housing or providing mortgage assistance for poor fam- ilies. The low-rent property at- tracted the poor. "We started seeing a real exo- dus from Los Angeles, South- Central L.A.." said Wayne Harp, San Bernardino's assistant police chief. "These folks were fleeing Los Angeles because it was cheaper to live out here." The police were the first to see the trouble. "I think any police o~cer you talk to will tell you there's a link between run-down rental prop- erty and crime," Itarp said. The image is hard to over- come. It hurts business for Marcela Saunier, a real estate agent who lives in north San Bernardino. "When I'm trying to sell a house, people say. 'Any place but San Bernardinc.'" said Saunier, 26. Even though she lives in a nice neighborhood in the thor- hills. she's not offended by un- kind words toward the city. "If it has a reputation. it's be- cause it deserves it." City officials are trying to get to the bottom of the problem. With computer-generated maps. the>' recently have studied rental properties and violent crime locations. The maps show crimes clustered like measles on the rental properties -- a clear and dramatic correlation be- tween violent crime and rental property. "They matched very well," said Ruth Parish, who coordi- hated the study. "The correlation was so obvious." In other parts of the city. places with few rentals, the map showed few violent crimes· · Officer Willtams doesn't need a computer-generated map to see that. He spends much ofhis time in the places that show up on the crime maps. The calls come even on quiet nights: children living in filth, men hitting women. wom~n hitting men. the neighbors' bul- lets coming through the walls. He knows the houses that are rented to gang members. and he knows the names of the people who rent them. There's nothing he can do about them -- except keep answering the calls of beat- ~ngs, brawls and gunfire. Gunfire is rare in Rancho Cu- camonga. And in Rancho the police have time, Wilson said. They re- spond to every call -- from re- porting to a woman that police found her stolen ID to resolving a dispute between a woman and a neighbor who was using her trash 2an. Sgt. Wilson spent an hour and a half of one recent shift dealing with three grade-school kids who set off sprinklers in an aban- doned building. Wilson took time to lay down the law after breaking through a bogus story the boys told. "You could have saved a whole lot of time with honesty," he told the wide-eyed boys. "I am not going to prosecute you. But I don't want to find you in some- one's business where you don't belong." From Wilson's perspective, it's important to take,time to talk about right and wrong with kids the first time they get into'trou- ble. He has a willing audience: On the streets of Rancho Cuca- monga. youngsters generally greet police with waves and smiles. On the streets of San Bernar- dino. youngsters tend to greet po- lice with their hands on their heads. The crime rate in San Bernar- dino is 12.8 per 100.000 people. The crime rate in Raneho Cu- eamonga is 4.8 per 100,000 peo- ple. according to the most recent FB1 statistics. The median rent in San Ber- nardino is $422 per month. The median rent in Rancho Cucamonga is $642 per month. according to 1990 Census data. Half the housing in San Ber- nardino is rentals. Only a third of the housing in Ranch6 Cue. amonga is rentals. San Bernardino's unemplo>- ment rate is 10.7 percent. accord- ing to the state Economic Devel- opment Department. Rancho Cucamonga's unem- ployment rate is 4.8 percent. The staffsties allude to a con- ventional finding in criminology= With poverty comes crime. The ]ink has come up in studies that go back to the 1930s. "There is a strong connec- tion," said Llad Phillips. an econ- omist with the University of Cali- fornia. Santa Barbara, and an authority on the issue. "Economic opportunities make a difference. For any par- ticular individual. it's going to de- pend on their opportunities. Oth- er things being equal, income makes a difference." Dale Seehrest, California State University, San Bernardi- no, criminologist. contends pov- erty in San Bernardino fosters crime. "If people don't have money. they'll go find it," he said. "People are raised in an envi conmerit and they see opportuni- ty for crime ,--- the opportunity to make money illegitimately -- the opportunity to sell drugs. Where- as a kid in Rancho Cucamonga sees a job at the gas station on the corner as opportunity." The current conditions in the cities started with the region's rapid development in the late '70s. Rancho Cucamonga was pre- pared for it. San Bernardino wasn't. The state o~'preparation is ob- vious in the cities' general plans -- their basic blueprints for de- velopment. The appearance of the docu- ments is telling: San Bernardino's general plan at the time -- 93 pages long -- was written in 1964. Its words were typed in the uneven strikes of a manual typewriter. Rancho Cucamonga's plan -- 351 pages written to guide the newly incorporated city -- had the slick look of commercial printing. The introduction of Rancho Cucamonga's plan states its pur- pose clearly: The city was found- cd. it said, "to begin a process for planning the orderly and effic.~ent design of a new commtlnity." It was a guide for tightly controlled development. By the late 1980s. when San Bernardino officials revised the city's 25-year-old plan. the lack of a modern plan was clear. The introduction to the gem era] plan even made reference to it: "The extended time (without an updated plan) resulted in in- consistent dath, policies and pro- grams, and lack of conformance with c.ommunity objectives .... Many of the Plan's policies were vague and provided inadequate guidance or criteria for meaning- ful land use decisions." Further, it said, the goal of the plan by that time reflected "a consensus that there are current · .. conditions which threaten the quality and character of the City's physical, economic, and social on- vironments." Rancho Cucamonga'~ commit- ment to looking good and attract- ing settlers was clear in its plan. The words "high-qualitY,' visual environment" come up often. Five pages are devoted just to policies on trees, i-ncluding a · 'Tree Planting Guidelines-and Standards" section detailing items such as planting eucalyptus in medians. placing "round-head- ed" trees on curbside planting strips and spreading evergreens between rows of parking stalls. San Bernardino's old plan had this line on landscaping: · 'Where possible. landscaping should be encouraged." Rancho Cucamonga's housing segment -- which took up three chapters -- stressed the use of master planning to guide devel- opment. Master planning means approving only large housing pro- jects with specific guide'lines on street layout, lot size. sidewalks_ and architecture. "The plan is not just a piece of paper," he said. "It's something that actually happens. The basic premises that were set down were followed." The plan made a place people wish they could live. Terrie Blanct~ i, one ol them. Blanco, 34. lives in Upland but takes her children to the park in Rancho Cueamonga because, she believes, they're around a better- behaved set of kids there. "Is there any chance for the lower class to live here?" she said. wishfull3'. "Ill was financially set, I wouldn't mind living here." The housing segment in San Bernardino's updated general plan stresses the opposite of Ban- cho Cucamonga's plan: affordable and low-income housing. Eight pages in the housing section go into how the city can encourage low-end housing. The plan states this goal: "Ob- jective: Use available local. state and federal housing funds to the fullest extent possible to meet the housing assistance needs of lower income households." Three pages of related po Cies follow. While the city has spent $ million building more Iow-incom~ housing during the past five years. it has spent much less -- $4.8 million -- refurbishlug run- down units. The policy to add low-income housing was set in response to a state mandate. "At that time. from the state level, we had to do it." said Jack Rei!ly, a former city planning di- rector who was on the City Coun- cil when the plan was approved. "Many cities objected. It seemed there was nothing much we could do." Rancho Cucamonga was sub- ject to the same mandate, but ex- ecuted it differently. "It's done in high quality." Stout said. "There's a very strict makntenanee provision. You don't ha~e to let affordable housing de- stroy your city." San Bernardino is adopting that philosophy. City A_dminis_trator Clark hopes the city turns toward fixing run-down property instead of building more. "We have more than our share," she said. "I'd like to see the city focus RDA money on attracting jobs in- stead of low-income housing. I'd like to see it go to improving what we have before we build more." But Clark does not believe that San Bernardino's lack of an updated general plan for 25 years damaged the city's development. "I honestly don't think that was a contributing factor," she said. "The new general plan -- has it turned the crime rate around? It hasn't." But the effects of the decline of housin stock have not been lost on li~time residents of San Bernardino. Lucille Patterson, 43, believes it's the root of San Bernardino's problems. "We cannot stand what's hap- pening in San Bernardino," she said. "It needs to be more pleas- ant. more decent, more hospita- ble." · In San Bernardino, the city is working on a new attack on blight that has brought the city itsgmm reputation, sending city cars and fire trucks on slow patrols through neighborhoods to identi- fy run-down housing. Fourteen people are being hired to help in the Rental Hous- ing Program. The City Council has already approved more than a half-million dollars for the pro- gram. Clark has high ambitions. "I'd like to see halfthe rental property converted to owner-oc- cupied." she said. · '! think in the next five years. we can show a drop in crime and an increase in property values." By contrast. the talk of the fu- ture in Rancho Cueamonga is not filled with the sense of bailout and mobilization. It's much simpler. "If the leadership has the for- titude to continue. it's only the beginning," Stout said. If Clark's ambitions come to pass. maybe a Friday night police shift in San Bernardino someday will wrap up more like one in Rancho Cucamonga. As of 10:30 p.m. -- close to shift change -- no calls were pen- ding in Rancho Cucamonga. An officer spotted a stolen truck. Six police units were on hand to help. The officers were well-covered as the driver and passenger were instructed to back out of the truck slowly with their hands on their heads. Ll: t{anchu Uuc~nlonga. son said, this was excitement. The end of a quiet Frida~ night in San Bernardino gave Of- ricer Williams a different oppor- tunity. He had the time to cruise Base Line and make it tough for the hookers to do business there. He followed their customers and asked them if they had ever heard of AIDS. He asked them about their wives. Even on a quiet night, he fig- ured. he could still keep someone from dying. SUN STAFF r NELLY MINFrhe Sun Ranch~ Cucamonga Civic Center San Bernardino City Hall. ERIC PARSONS/The Sun RANCHO CUCAMONGA Founded: 1976 Populatioe: 115,000 Median household Income: $50,3~9/year Median ant: $642/m0nth Rosldtnts on wolfam: 5 percent Unemployment rde: 4.8 percent Crime rmt~ 4.8 per 100,000 SAN BERNARDINO Founded: 1810 Population: 187,000 Median household Income:. $25,533/yea r Median msrb $422/month Residents on welfare: 40 percent Unemployment rate: 10.7 percent Crime tab: 12.8 per 100.000 PLANNING The Planning Division creates and maintains an environment for positive economic development opportunities resulting in viable, quality environment for living and working. The primary objectives of the Planning DMsion are: to develop comprehensive plans to achieve this goal; to implement the plans through efficient and effective management of growth and review of all development proposals; and to maintain a balanced, quality environment in developed areas of the community. Responsibility for meeting these goals and objectives rests with Current Planning and Advance Planning sections. Highlights for the 1995/96 fiscal year include: Economic uncertainties will likely continue to result in limited smaller residential projects. This will limit the developer's financial exposure. Many of these will be in-fill developments which may result in greater community involvement. Commercial growth will continue to grow with several large shopping centers planned or under construction, such as Town Center Square, Terra Vista Promenade, and Masi Plaza. Business retention and attraction will continue to result in industrial expansion with projects such as Mission Foods and BHP Steel. The Northtown Housing Development Corporation, using City Redevelopment Set Aside funding, has an aggressive program to construct affordable detached and attached dwelling units in the Northtown area. There will continue to be an even greater interest in our Home Improvement Program in 1995/96. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission is required by the State law to review and act on matters dealing with planning and land use throughout the City. The five member advisory body to the City Council is charged with ensuring that the quality of development within the City retains its high standards. IAFINAL\GAILNMEMOS~BUDCOM. WPD PLANNING DIVISION Function Planning is one division of the Community Development DepartmenC. The Planning Division functions as the professional and technical advisor to the City Council, Planning Commission, and Historic Preservation Commission on policy matters and issues concerning the planning and physical development of the community. To provide a comprehensive planning program, the Division is divided into two sections: Current Planning and Advanced Planning. Current Planning is primarily responsible for review and processing of development applications. This involves Design Review, Technical Review, Environmental Review, plan checking, and inspection. Other critical duties include providing information to the public and enforcement of City codes. Advanced Planning deals with the administration and update of the General Plan and specific plans, overseeing historic preservation, conducting special studies, administering the community Development Block Grant Program, and monitoring intergovernmental relations. Major accomplishments of the Planning Division have related to providing planning documents which articulate community goals and objectives, provide policies and procedures to regulate development, and establish design guidelines and technical standards to promote quality development. The results of this effort have been the following plans: - General Plan - Development Code - Industrial Area Specific Plan - Haven Avenue Overlay District - Etiwanda Specific Plan - Victoria Community Plan - Terra Vista Community Plan - Caryn Community Plan - Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - Etiwanda North Specific Plan - Trails Implementation Plan Divisional Goals The following is a listing of the primary goals for the Planning Division. 1. Encourage proactive rather than reactive long-range planning by initiating special studies, such as the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, to recognize and solve problems before they occur and take advantage of opportunities while they exist. 2. Promote citizen awareness in support of community goals, objectives, policies, and programs. 3. Provide the highest quality planning services by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Development Review and Inspection process, improve the overall quality and responsiveness to public inquiries, and enhance the responsiveness of the Code Enforcement program to maintain the image and appearance of the community and eliminate public nuisances. 4. Continue to update and maintain the City's General and specific plans. 5. Provide technical assistance to the City Council, Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, the general public, other City departments, and other City commissions. A. Relationship to the entire community. I. Would the proposed change be contrary to the General Plan land use policies map'? 2. Is the proposed change incompatible with established land use patterns? 3. Would the proposed change alter Ihe population density pattern and thereby increase the load on public facilities such as schools. sewers. streets etc.. beyond community desires. plans. or capabilities? 4. Are presenl districl boundaries properly drawn in relation to existing conditions or development plans. with respect to size. shape. position and the like? B. Changed conditions I. Have the basic land use conditions remained unchanged since adoption of the existing zoning? 2. Has development of the area conformed to existing regulations'? C. Public welfare I. Will the change adversely influence living conditions in th~ neighborhood? 2. Will the change create or excessively increase traffic congestion'? 3. Will the change adversely affect property values in adjacent areas? 4. Will the change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations? 5. Will the change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual as contrasted to the general welfare? D. Reasonableness I. Can the property he used in accordance with the existing zoning regulations? 2. Is the change ~quested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the community? 3. Are there adequate sites for the proposed use in districts permitting such use? 4. Will an undesirable precedent he set by allowing the zone change at this location, at this time? E. Economic Considerations When Reviewing a Proposed Project I. Employment a. Short term -- construction jobs. b. Long term -- what kinds of jobs will he available? Will they use the particular skills of the locally unemployed? If not. where will the employees come from? What will wages be? 2. Impact on Housing Supply a. What are the particular housing needs of the area? b. What will be provided (price, siR)? c. What effect will it have on the existing housing? ZONE CHANGE CHECKLIST ("Questions To Ask") 0 0 0 E 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental effects of a project must he taken into account when considering a general plan, zoning permits, rezonings, zoning variances, specific plans, subdivisions and any other projects within the meaning of the Act. CEQA establishes the framework for environmental protecnon in six important ways; · ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: CEQA establishes a State- wide policy of environmental protection; · SOLVING PROBLEMS: CEQA provides a mechanism for idenlifying and solving environmental problems; · PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: CEQA increases a citizen's ability to participate in governmental decision-making. · COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION: CEQA enhances communication and coordination among governmental agencies; · DISCLOSING INFORMATION: CEQA requires government decision makers to disclose the environmental impacts of their actions; · GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY: CEQA requires government decision makers to explain their decisions. Patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted by the state legislature in 1970. it applies to local government-initiated plans, projects, and regulations and to private projects requiting discretionary approval from a state or local agency. The basic purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act is to: I ) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potentially significant environmental effects of proposed projects; 2) Idealily ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3) Prevent significant, avoidable impacts to the environment by requiting changes in projects through the use of altematives or mitigation measures when the government agency finds the changes to be feasible; and 4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a govemmental agency apptoved the project if significant envirom~ntal effects are involved. (Guidelines Section 13002). CEQA requires agencies to prepare and use an initial study of environmental effects of a ~ project. If the initial sludy reveals that the project may have significant environmental effects which cannot be mitigated, the agency musl prepare an environmental impact report. CEQA states that public agencies sAom'd not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives of mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. However, CEQA also states that if the lead agency finds that specific economic. social or other conditions make infeasible such project altematives or such mitigalion measures, individual projects may he approved in spite of significant environmental effects. Public input and participation is the key component of the CEQA process. and controversy and conflict can he minimized if the public and affected agencies are involved in the process from the beginning. E C O 0 x~ 0 ~IENERAL PI,AN PR()CESS Legal Authority Ihc Cdifi~mia Legislalure inlended thai Icn:al govem~ncnts '-el f~H'lh their devclopmenl policje'~. ohjecljvcs and qandards m a ~cncral plan composed of various elements of land use ~( ;o~ I. ('tale 65(}30. 653n2. 65302.2). I'hc gcrlcr;ll phlns and their conMiltlcnl clcnlenls ;ire mtw lhe h~t';d conqtltllion~ with which all h~al devclopmenl in ils III;111% ~llltJ vark'd phasc~ Ifltl%l coolply. Elements I 'ruler Cdil'ornia pk, nning law. each city mu,~l adopt a tomprel'~cnsivc. long-lore1 general plan I'or the physical dc~chtpmenl o1' a city and of any land outside ils ~undaries ~ hich. in its .iudgmenl. telales to its planning. ~e general i~hm aml ils elements mu~l comprise an integrated. internally c~,lslslenl and compatible slalemenl of policy t~r the adoplmg a~ency. The general plan nol only includes a lexl. ,elljog fonh ohjecliveN. principles. slamlards anti plan i~ropo~alN. but also a diagram or map. Umler slate law. each cfi)'~ general plan must conlain ~even mamlatory elements: I,and I]se · Housing · ()ln'n Space · Safety ('irculation · Conc, ervation · Noise Fhe general plan wilh its mandatory elements must meel the rcquircmcnls conlaincd in Ihe ,;tare law or il will be deemed legally inadequate and no valid hind use appnwal can be granled. Adoption Proeess I'he adoption of a general plan or any amendments must h,llow the provisions of Government Code §65350 et seq. 'Fhe adoption is by resolulion if the city has a planning commission. and then one public hearing by the city council. Approval by the planning commission must be done by the aff irn~alive votes of not less than a majority of its total voting members (Government Code §§65354). rhe "General Plan Process" flow chart on the opposite page identifies the eight sleds which are generally followed in [onnulating and adopting an element of a communily general plan. l'he chart on the opposite page also identifies "potenlial impads to consider in assessing general plan alternatives." *lllese impacts are categorized as environmental. land use, ,,cryice. economic. and social impacts. T : !j,:, ,, :, ]iJjJ,ll]= ,: .il,jiji ] t[ .. · _, itli, Ill'. April 20, 1995 SUBJECT: ?~: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PREPARATION OF A COMMERCIAL ~%i~AND USE AND MARKET STUDY. Dearinf~i~d Party: . "' ~C.i~ of Rancho Cucamonga is in the process of evaluating current economic trends, constraints, opportunities and practices of commercial/retail activities as they relate to our General Plan. Because economic development is an integral component of the City's planning activities, we seeking a qualified consultant to prepare a commercial land use and market study. Recently attention has focused on the commercial retail sector of our community because of the positive fiscal impact it has on the City's overall economic base. In September 1987, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FSP) to provide land use policies and standards for future development of public and private projects along Foothill Boulevard. In deciding land use designations, the City had the benefit of a baseline economic study from which to determine appropriate levels of commercial development within the community. From the study it was determined that while the City did not have enough existing retail commercial development to meet the needs of the community, the City had a surplus of commercially zoned land. In 1991 the City used a second report to evaluate a proposed commercial amendment along Foothill Boulevard. The focus of this second study was to find if the assumptions and conclusions made in the first study ('87) were still valid. The conclusion was that some retail commercial land could be added with little or no negative economic impact to the City or to existing commercial land values. In light of significant changes in recent years in the development environment, the City wishes to take a fresh look at not only the General Plan, as it relates to commercial/retail activities, but the current economic basis upon which decisions should be made with respect to land use decisions. SCOPE OF WORK: The Scope of Work will consist of the preparation of a study that outlines, in a clear and logical format, the tasks envisioned necessary to complete the project. Data is to be obtained through a combination of field surveys and secondary sources. Local economic development data to be collected and analyzed includes: City wide commercial (retail, office, and quasi-industrial retail services) land use inventory, developed and undeveloped. 2. Local and market area economic base: a. major employment sources b. retail performance analysis c. current re~leakages and sectoffal strengths Identify c ~ rojected market conditions that define the major retail, general commerci~g~fice development oppommities (and shortcomings) within the City. · 3. Demographic profile of consumer strength: '~i~!~!!i!'a. ~'i~';~i!!!~?~ population trends at community and market area levels. :-." 'l*:'~i'~'~B:~ ::' household characteristics (size, age, mix and purchasing power) housing absorption estimates 4. Econometric model of future retail potential: a, 1995/96 conditions; and two future horizon dates 2000 and 2010 Dollar values are to be translated into square footage and acreage potentials using various capture rate assumptions. Above-mentioned studies should be formatted to provide answers/direction on the following questions/issues: What types of commercial and related uses are needed to satisfy the City's fiscal balance? What levels of commercial development establish a threshold beyond which it is likely that a healthy business environment and stable tax base will be significantly eroded? What is the commercial land absorption ability for the City in the next 5 to 10 years? Are the currently designated commercial land use areas ~scally balanced in context of other land uses (i.e., residential in support of commercial development; industrial employment in support of commercial)? If not, where should commercial land be added, or reduced? Does development of commercial uses in the industrial area dilute the City's fiscal balance, and, if so, to what extent? How does additional new commercial land affect the existing occupied commercial sites in terms of vacancy factors? TIME LINE: The contract for services is planned to begin in early June 1995, and to conclude in November 1995. TI~..~~ d~tes are as follows. ~ Con May 25, 1995 · Co ac d by suitant by · .~~% be confirmed by City Council on June 7, 1995 /~ ~ ~: The consultant will attend two meetings (last week of June and July) with City staff ~g~ to review progress of work. · Consultant to submit 10 copies of final economic and market analysis by September 28, 1995 · Consultant to attend one Planning Commission meeting in October 1995. · Job Completed after attendance at City Council meeting in November 1995. We are inviting interested parties to submit a letter of qualifications containing the following information: Statement of personnel available to work on this project Statement of ability to commit to the scope of work Statement of ability to meet the time constraints of this project Statement of ability to produce the required documents on schedule Fee schedule Statement of general qualifications Submit a statement of interest as soon as possible to Brad Buller, City Planner, P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. Letters of interest and all accompanying literature must be submitted to the City no later than 5:30 p.m., Thursday, May 11, 1995. If you have any questions, please call Alan Warren, Larry Henderson or me at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, Brad Buller City Planner H:MADVANCE\ECONXRFQECON 1 .WPD DECLARATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA JAN SUTTON states and declares as follows: I presently am, and at all times mentioned herein have been, the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Acting in that capacity, on April 20, 1995, at 3:50 p.m., I posted a true and correct copy of the meeting agenda dated April 25, 1995 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 20, 1995 at Rancho Cucamonga. DEBRA J. ADAMS, CMC, CITY CLERK City of Rancho Cucamonga BY: City of Rancho Cucamonga Open Letter to the Rancho Cucamonga Mayor and City Council April 25, 1995 Good evening, Mayor Alexander and City Council Members. My name is Donald Kurth. I reside at 10569 Apple Lane, Rancho Cucamonga. I would like to make it clear that I am speaking to you in the capacity of a private citizen. I shall try to limit my comments to Mayor Alexander's ten second rule for opposing points of view. Mayor Alexander, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Curatalo, and Mr. Biane: The last time we met here, the four of you caught yourselves in a bald faced lie. At this time, the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga would like you to follow the example set by that great American president, Richard Milhouse Nixon. And that recommendation is: resign. Resign, my dishonest friends. Resign while you can still do so with some modicum of honor. Thank you for your time. cityc425.stm