Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997/09/03 - Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. September 3, 1997 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Williams B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a Proclamation to members of Rancho Cucamonga Citrus Little League Junior Division, Vineyard Little League Major Division, and Rancho Little League Senior Division commending their Championship victory. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints commending them for their volunteer efforts in improving the quality of life in our community. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. 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. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 1997 July 31, 1997 (special meeting) August 6, 1997 August 7, 1997 (special meeting) Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/13/97 and 8/20/97 and Payroll ending 7/24/97 for the total amount of $3,611,061.68. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Rublos Baja Grill, 10798 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 120. 10 City Council Agenda September 3, t997 2 Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Brandon's Diner, Armando & Maria Matilde Benitez, 8609 Base Line Rd. Approval for advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the FY 1997/1998 Pavement Rehabilitation Program, various locations, to be funded from Engineering Prop 111 Funds, Account No. 10-4637- 9113. RESOLUTION NO. 97-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Approval for advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Tapia Via Drive Street Improvements, from Grove Avenue to Rancheria Drive, to be funded from CDBG Funds, Account No. 28-4333-9500. RESOLUTION NO. 97-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS Approval to appropriate $39,290.00 for Fund 23-4637-9120 for General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements for FY 1997/98. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Development Review 96-18, located on the south side of Sixth Street west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Meeder Equipment Company. RESOLUTION NO. 97-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 12 14 20 24 26 31 32 33 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 3 o 10. RESOLUTION NO. 97-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 96-18 Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 4 for Parcel Map No. 14001, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road, submitted by Lewis Development Co. RESOLUTION NO. 97-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 RESOLUTION NO. 97-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 Approval of Map and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Parcel Map No. 15016, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Lewis Development Co. RESOLUTION NO. 97-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 34 38 41 42 45 46 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 4 11. 12. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 97-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG^, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance Distdct No. 7 and Street Lighting Maintenance Distdct Nos. 1 & 7 for Tract Map No. 12659-3, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues, submitted by Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership. RESOLUTION NO. 97-128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP 12659-3 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES RESOLUTION NO. 97-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT 12659-3 Approval of Agreement (CO 97-044) for a plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. Approval of a Resolution enacting an Agreement (CO 97-045) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District for funding fire protection services during Fiscal Year 1997/98. RESOLUTION NO. 97-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES VVITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 48 51 52 53 56 57 58 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 5 14. 15. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-040) with Mt. High Entertainment for Concert Entertainment and Production Services and approval of Budget Appropriation for the October 10, 1997 "Guess Who" Community Concert. Approval to open escrow for the sale of the surplus property at the Grove Avenue Yard Facilities. 59 67 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPLACING PART IV OF CHAPTER 1.08 PROVIDING FOR CITY'S ADOPTION, BY REFERENCE. OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE N(p. 35~(~. RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT. INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS. DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES ORDINANCE NO. 20-A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE ABATEMENT AN D VVEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES 68 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No items submitted. City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 6 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No items submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATING A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FORTHE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL MEETING 72 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT -An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan & building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074- 351-10 and 1074-541-21. RESOLUTION NO. 97-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. 73 185 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 7 o RESOLUTION NO. 97-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. CONSIDERATION OF PROCESS FOR FILLING CURRENT TERMS EXPIRING ON PLANNING coMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REFERENCING NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS (Continued from August 20, 1997) CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENOATIONS FOR THE BOARD (Continued from August 20, 1997) CONSIDERATION TO RATIFY LIBRARY FOUNDATION AD HOC COMMITTEE'S SELECTIONS DISCUSSION. OF CAMPAIGN LIMITATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSITION 208 (Continued from August 20, 1997) PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE (Continued from August 20, 1997) Ao PARKS & FACILITIES UPDATE 1) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) RC Family Sports Center 4) Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 5) Spruce Avenue Skate Park 6) Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site 187 189 191 197 City Council Agenda September 3, 1997 8 7) Annual Soccer Field Renovations 8) East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts 9) Spruce Park 10) Milliken Park 11) Civic Center COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1) Vietnam Memorial 2) I Love RC 3) Senior Transportation 4) 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration 199 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this- meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO ADJOURN TO SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1997, AT 8:00 A.M. IN THE TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM FOR A GOALS WORKSHOP I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 28, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. July 16, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 16, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Mitch Slagerman, Sr. RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Captain Rodney Hoops, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTSPRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Proclamation commending Katherine A. Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent, for 10 years of dedicated service to the community. Kathy Sorensen thanked the City staff and stated that it is very hard to leave Rancho Cucamonga. B2. Presentation of "Portofino Window" by Jim Maestri from the Senior Citizens Fine Art Show. Jim Maestri presented his artwork to the City Council that was at the Senior Citizens Fine Art Show. B3. Presentation from Active Ride Shop from Project Skate Park #2. John and Shane Wallace presented a check to the City in the amount of $7,197 from the Skate Park fundraiser recently held. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. John Verdun asked for the Council to consider putting the issue of yard/garage sales on the agenda because they have so many in his neighborhood. He felt this was a real nuisance and asked if the Council would also consider restricting signage that advertises for these types of activities. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 2 Mayor Alexander stated this would be agendized for the next meeting. C2. Tim Younger, resident and the new Chamber of Commerce Board President, stated the Chamber has rededicated itself to the City and the community. He stated he wanted to present to the Council a Resolution opposing the "stacked deck initiative". (A copy is on file in the City Clerk's office) Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the City's Resolution also opposes this initiative. C3. Bob Lundy, Rancho Cucamonga Visitor's Bureau, presented information to the Council re "Return to the road" caravan to be held in September. Jack Lam suggested that Mr. Lundy meet with Rick Gomez for this event. Mr. Lundy also presented copies of Cowboys and Indians magazine which talked about Route 66. Rick Gomez stated he would be happy to help Mr. Lundy in any way he could and would also report back to the Council. C4. Elder Wilkerson, Sr. Center patron, reported there was a house on Shandon that has a bad weed abatement problem. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he also put in a Council request for this. Mr. VVilkerson also talked about kids that were using the tennis courts and that they are not playing tennis as they should be, but instead are playing volleyball and basketball which he did not agree with. He thanked the Council for the improvements made to the tennis courts. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like to be sure Mr. VVilkerson's complaint got looked into. C5. Mr. Vasquez advised the Council he felt they were doing a great job at keeping the City clean. D, CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/25/97 (96/97), 7/2/97 (96/97), and 7/2/97 (97/98) and Payroll ending 6/12/97 for the total amount of $5,743,282.10. D2. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30, 1997. D3. Approval to transfer City vehicles to the County of San Bernardino for police services. D4. Approval of Agreement (CO 97-032) and Resolution for membership in the California Cities Home Ownership Authority--a Joint Powers Authority. RESOLUTION NO. 97-093 City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE CALIFORNIA CITIES HOME OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY, A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY D5. Approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity 97-02 - Ghayour. A request to make a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Off-Sale General) for a liquor store, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-23. RESOLUTION NO. 97-094 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY AND A REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE FOR A LIQUOR STORE LOCATED AT 8045 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE I-8, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE - APN: 208-101-23 D6. Approval of a Resolution opposing the "Stacked Deck Initiative." RESOLUTION NO. 97-095 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION TO THE "STACKED DECK" INITIATIVE D7. Approval of a Summary Vacation of a portion of previously dedicated right-of-way for Church Street, located at the southeast corner of Church Street and East Elm Avenue (V-148) RESOLUTION NO. 97-096 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CHURCH STREET, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CHURCH STREET AND EAST ELM AVENUE D8. Approval to execute a contract (CO 97-033) with Telecommunications Management Corporation, Inc., for a cable television audit. D9. Approval of DARE Mcmorendum of Undointending (CO 07 034). ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. Jack Lam stated item 9 should be removed from the agenda so that modifications can be made to the MOU. He added this will come back to the Council at their next meeting. D10. Approval of Joint Use Agreement (CO 97-035) for Gymnasium Facilities at Rancho Cucamonga Middle School. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 4 Dll. Approval to accept the Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements, from just south of Church Street to just north of Base Line Road, Contract No. 96-027, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $2,789,889.80. RESOLUTION NO. 97-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONTRACT NO. CO 96-027, HAVEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM JUST SOUTH OF CHURCH STREET TO JUST NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D12. Approval of Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bonds, accept a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of Completion for Tract 14139, located on the southeast corner of 25th Street and Etiwanda Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 97-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14139, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 25TH STREET AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports included in the Consent Calendar with the exception of item 9. Motion carded unanimously 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES El. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT (CO 97-031) FOR G. C. SERVICES TO RECOVER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES (BOOKING FEES) FROM CONVICTED ARRE~TEES Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 581. ORDINANCE NO. 581 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A COST RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR BOOKING FEE COLLECTIONS MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 581. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 5 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fl. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING. INC. - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to limit the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the development of a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff report presented by Tom Grahn, Associate Planner. Councilmember Curatalo inquired if the appeal is only for the hours of operation. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, stated that was correct. Councilmember Williams asked if the hours of operation are for all operations are the same. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes that they are being recommended to be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Williams stated she is concerned about the clean-up portion and that it might need to be done after 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he is interested in hearing what the residents have to say before he makes a decision. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Rich Tate of Texaco stated Texaco wishes to be a good neighbor to Terra Vista. He wanted to submit for the record 7 sites that have developed that are within 500' of residential houses. He stated this would not be franchised out being that it would be owned and operated by Texaco. He stated all of their businesses in the past have had 24-hour operations. He added they are requesting this be allowed to operate between 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and would like for the Council to consider this. He stated it was a concern that the lights do not glare into the residential areas and that they would like take measures to dim them. He introduced Bob Conn with Robert John Kane Associates, Acoustical Engineers. Mr. Conn talked about the noise situation and added they would limit fuel deliveries. He stated the City could monitor the noise through its noise ordinance if they wanted to. Councilmember Curatalo asked if the deliveries could be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and would this hurt their business. Texaco representatives responded they would have to check into this, but if it was a condition, they would go along with it. Randy, Willow Park Homeowner's Association, felt the noise situation would not be acceptable. They asked for the Council to look at this and felt the project was too close to the residences. Mae Harris of Willow Park, asked why the Council felt this would be good to have this project at this location. She pointed out the fact there were other service stations in the neighborhood. She felt the Planning Commission was uncaring and did not feel this should be allowed in the City. She felt the neighborhoods should be kept separate from businesses. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 6 Larry Tyler, President Willow Park Homeowner's Association, stated he did not think the property around this would develop if this project is allowed to be built. He stated he was told when he bought his home this would be a business center or a medical building. He added they would have to smell gas fumes and hear all of the noise from Taco Bell if this is approved. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, stated they continue to want to build a quality community which includes other development opportunities. He stated they support the compromise of the houres Texaco is suggesting. He added they are staying within the zoning requirements and felt this was the best use for this location. He felt Texaco's compromise was a good one. Marty Aloprigada, 7313 Belpan Place, felt people would be littering on this property. He stated he would not be responsible for what happens in Texaco, and that there is no one to protect him. Jeanette Smale, Willow Park, stated what drew her to Rancho Cucamonga is Lewis Homes. She stated this would be the first commercial business that is this close to a residential area that Lewis Homes has built. She stated she did not agree with Texaco working for longer hours than the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. that was suggested by the Planning Commission. Hilda Phillips, Willow Park, stated they are very proud of the community. She felt Lewis Homes is going against their development by supporting this project. She felt this was too close to the residences and that the people do not need it or want it. She asked the Council not to go forward with this project. Rick Tate, Texaco, stated they have not agreed to the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. condition that was imposed on them by the Planning Commission. He stated the property is zoned for a gas station. He also added that the garbage will be picked up every day or two. He mentioned the site will be completely lit and with security cameres and the cashier will be visible from the street. He stated the safes will be locked and are electronic. He pointed out that Texaco would be 230' from the residences. Larry Tyler stated they were not advised there would be a gas station at this location and felt there were numerous gas stations already in the City. He asked that the Council reconsider this project. There being no further response, the public headng was closed. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Planning Commission did limit truck delivery between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. He stated other clean-up did not have a time restriction on it. Councilmember Curatalo stated he could not approve a 24-hour operation, but suggested allowing them to open at 5:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. on a trial basis with conditions that the applicant would submit to staff every six months a survey of the neighbors how things were going. He felt 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for trucks deliveries was adequate and that the whole operation be completely shut down by 12:00 midnight. Councilmember Biane stated a study was done, and this project was a need of the community, and that he would like for the neighbors to give this a chance with the conditions as stated by Councilmember Curatalo. He felt Texaco could be a good neighbor to the residents. Councilmember VVilliams felt the people have very valid concerns. She stated she is very concerned about this being near residential. She mentioned she lives near a 7/11 and Circle K which did impact her. She stated she could not endorse this, but would, at best, go along with the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours of operation as approved by the Planning Commission. She felt there was a better use for this property. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 7 Councilmember Gutierrez stated he felt the owner has the right to get an approved use for his property. He stated he is not opposed to this corner being developed. He felt the hours should start at 5:00 a.m. for the commuters who want to stop and get a cup of coffee or whatever, and then close at midnight with restrictions. He felt 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for deliveries would be better. He felt this would be good for the community and that this would not affect the property values. Mayor Alexander stated the Council is here to listen about the appeal dealing with the hours of operation. He stated he is in agreement with the Planning Commission and the hours of operation they have set. He felt the profile should be lower and the landscaping more mature. He felt this project should be buffered from the residents. He stated the only reason he could extend the hours of operation is if the residents wanted this, which he indicated they do not. He stated he is not opposed to the project and is in favor of the Resolution presented. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo to adopt the Resolution so that the hours are modified as stated above. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated the title of the Resolution would be to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, and modifying certain conditions for the development of the service station. He stated paragraph 5 of the Resolution would be modified to state "The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby modifies environmental mitigation measure number 9 opposed by the Planning Commission by modifying the hours of operation stated therein to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight." He stated they would add a sentence to paragraph 5 indicating "The Council hereby imposes additional conditions to the effect that all deliveries, cleaning and other operational activities on the site be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that the operator on a six month basis survey the neighborhood with respect to any comments or complaints involving the operation and submit same to the City Planner." Brad Buller, City Planner, felt they should add with respect to the delivery vehicles that "all exterior maintenance and deliveries, including f~el delivery, to the subject site, shall only occur during 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." He stated with respect to the survey he felt the form and method should be approved by the City Planner and the City Planner shall consider the results of the survey and determine compliance with the projecrs conditions of approval and address any issues that warrant enforcement or modification to the conditions of approval. Councilmember Gutierrez felt there should be some kind of scientific way of monitoring the noise for the project. He asked if there was a wall around the project. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated no. He stated they have done studies of the location and that they meet the sound requirements. Motion was seconded by Biane. Mayor Alexander stated he agrees with the Planning Commission and that the hours of operation need to stay as is and that he did not agree with the motion. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander and VVilliams voted no). RESOLUTION NO. 97-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO LIMIT THE HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SERVICE STATION, DRIVE- THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND CANOPY TOTALING 7,672 SQUARE City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 8 FEET ON 1.1 ACRES OF LAND, AND A MASTER PLAN OF THE SURROUNDING 1.9 ACRES OF LAND, IN THE OFFICE PARK DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-672-37 F2. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add Auto Centers as a class of signs within Section 14.20.100 Signs - Commercial and Office Zones and Section 14.20.110 Signs - Industrial Zones. Staff report presented by Larry Henderson, Principal Planner. Councilmember VVilliams wondered if this needs to be done now when there isn't a project to go along with this or is it being done to make the City look attractive to prospective new businesses. Brad Buller stated this is an incentive amendment to the sign ordinance for auto dealers. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams read the title of Ordinance No. 582. ORDINANCE NO. 582 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97- 02, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGIONAL AUTOMOBILE SALES AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 582 for the August 6, 1997 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Councilmember Biane felt staff was being very progressive by doing this and commended them for their efforts. F3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO (~UCAMONGA - Consideration of an application to change the use provisions of Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow the development of 15 acres of neighborhood commercial uses, subject to conditional use permit authorization, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue, and to update Subarea 16 standards to reflect previously adopted use provisions. An Environmental Impact Report that assesses the impacts of this proposal has been certified. APN: 210-062-08 Staff report presented by Alan Warren, Associate Planner. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 9 Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Jeff DeBerrard, representing his father who owns property at 6th & Archibald. He thanked the Council for their help on this amendment. There being no further response, the public headng was closed. Debra J. Adams read the title of Ordinance No. 583. ORDINANCE NO. 583 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-02, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FIFTEEN ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHVVEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND TO UPDATE SUBAREA 16 STANDARDS TO REFLECT PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED USE PROVISIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-08 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 583 for August 6, 1997. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS G1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.08.100 I AND SECTION 5.08.120 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BINGO Staff report by presented by James Markman, City Attorney. Councilmember Williams asked if this would affect social bingo. James Markman stated no. Councilmember Williams wanted to make sure people have not misinterpreted this. Councilmember Biane asked why the time of 11:00 a.m. was set. James Markman stated some groups play bingo around the lunch hour, so this is being done to accommodate this. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: AI Newman, President of Rancho Ontario Club, felt bingo should be allowed from 11:00 a.m. to midnight. He stated this is very important to the seniors. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 10 VVilma Stevie, President of the VIP Club, stated she hoped they would not get put in jail if they happened to start a little earlier than 11:00 a.m. The Council discussed this further and concurred to set the starting time at 10:00 a.m. instead of 11:00 a.m. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 90-A for August 6, 1997, as amended. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. ORDINANCE NO. 90-A (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.08.100 lAND SECTION 5.08.120 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BINGO H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATES A. PARKS & FACILITIES 1) Lions East 2) Lions West 3) R.C. Family Sports Center 4) Spruce Avenue Skate Park (see attachment "C" for action to be taken) 5) Don Tiburcio Tapia Park 6) Epicenter COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE 1) Vietnam Memorial 2) I Love R.C. 3) Senior Transportation 4) Lions East- Programming Councilmember Williams felt the updates were fine and she would like to see these come back once per month. She stated she would like to be more involved in Lions West. She stated she would like to know if any research has been done for obtaining grant money for alternate fuel vehicles. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he appreciated the reports. He stated he hoped it would be in the budget discussions to see if there is any money for a van for the seniors. He asked if the Vietnam Memorial is confirmed. City Council Minutes July 16, 1997 Page 11 Suzanne Ota stated they have not been able to get a date confirmed with Mr. DiDio. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PURKISS-ROSE-RSI TO COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR SPRUCE AVENUE SKATE PARK. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to direct staff to proceed with Purkiss-Rose-RSI to complete final design drawings for Spruce Avenue Skate Park. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Williams asked when the Planning zoning topic would be coming back to the Council. She stated she is concerned with the growth happening so fast. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Task Force has been looking at Foothilll Boulevard, not neighborhood commercial. Councilmember Williams stated she is concerned with neighborhood commercial and felt the Council should look at this. Brad Buller stated he would prepare a memo relating to zoning for neighborhood commercial centers in the City for the Council to review. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Jim Frost stated he had concerns with the proposed names for the rooms at Lions East. He did not agree with the names being considered and felt possibly the Histodc Preservation Commission and Council should review these. L. ADJOURNMENT The Council recessed at 9:41 p.m. for an executive session to discuss Labor Negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the Meet and Confer process and Property Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located in the vicinity of Foothill and the 1-15 freeway, Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, Negotiation Party, regarding price and terms of payment. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * July 31, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MINUTES Special Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Redevelopment Agency and Fire Protection District was held on Thursday, July 31, 1997, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were members: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, and William J. Alexander. Councilmember Williams arrived at 6:12 p.m. Councilmember Gutierrez arrived at 6:14 p.m. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Susan Stark, Finance Officer; Ingrid Blair, GIS Supervisor; Alex Ahumada, Administrative Services Officer; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Wait Stickney, Associate Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Chief Dennis Michael, Deputy Chief Bob Corcoran and Battalion Chief Ralph Crane, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Marti Higgins, Disaster Preparedness Manager; Captain Rodney Hoops, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; and Kathryn L. Scott, Deputy City Clerk. B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION B1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 Jack Lam, City Manager, gave an overview of the Proposed FY 1997-98 budgets. He explained that the Budget constitutes the City General Fund, which funds the majority of services of the City; the Fire District budget, which is a separate agency and has a separate budget that deals only with fire services; the Library Services budget, which has funds segregated from the transfer of County Library funds to the City for the operations of a City Library; the Redevelopment Agency budget, which contains restrictive revenues for that Agency and a capital improvements program which also consists of restricted funds for infrastructure improvements, the majority of which come from State and Federal agencies. Jack Lam, City Manager, said overall for this next year, the budget and revenues have been stable and we are looking forward to a projected 5.6% increase from the prior year, the increases being a result of sales tax, permit and development fee revenues, franchise fees and motor vehicle license fees. Jack Lam, City Manager, provided the highlights of each department's budget. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes July 31, 1997 Page 2 Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comment at 6:45 p.m. Bruce Ann Hahn, Park and Recreation Commissioner, asked for the Council's consideration to spend some of the $270,000 in Park Funds on the skate park project and for lights @ Eftwanda Creek Park. Councilmember Williams asked if the Park and Recreation Commission has come up with any dollar amount for Etiwanda Creek Park lights. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated to light both fields would be approximately $200,000. He said with respect to the skate park, the estimate is $65,000 for phase I and $35,00 for phase II. Mayor Alexander left the meeting at approximately 6:50 p.m. Steve Wilkerson, Pop Warner Football, also made a request for lights at Etiwanda Creek Park. He said if this could be done it would relieve a lot of pressure on all of youth sports. Bob Lundy, Rancho Cucamonga Visitors Bureau, said he understands there is not enough money for all the lights, skate parks, etc., so the Bureau is part of the City's economic engine. It is his hope to get direction from the City Council on how they would like the Bureau to make more revenues for the City through tourism. He said the mission of the Bureau is to make sure that Rancho Cucamonga gets its share of the popular nostalgia segment of the travelers. Mr. Lundy said he would like some comment on the ad they are placing jointly from the Route 66 Magazine, which he showed to the Council. Mr. Lundy said tourism is the top source of revenue in Califomia and is here for the City to exploit. Councilmember williams asked if the City were to put any money into their project, would they be willing to expand the facility to allow information on other activities and sightseeing and toudst opportunities in this city. Mr. Lundy he does not make those decisions. He serves at the pleasure of his volunteer Board of Directors who make the policy. He implements the policy. Councilmember Williams asked Mr. Lundy if he has asked the Board. She said she has asked this same question for about four years. Mr. Lundy said what needs to be said is that we do have advertisers consistently year after year. He said while they do not have members, they do have advertisers. Anybody who wants to buy an ad is perfectly at liberty to do so. Councilmember williams said you are asking for a public agency to put money into your private agency and yet you are not willing to respond with advertising for what we consider to be other tourists attractions. She said as guardians of the taxpayers' dollars, she does not see it proper to put money into something that in return does not share and advertise our own city. Mr. Lundy said he agrees with her. He said again their mission is to make sure that Rancho Cucamonga gets its share of the nostalgia segment of travelers. If it is diluted into something that is blatantly unrelated to nostalgia, then they will lose the nostalgia market. Councilmember Gutierrez stated that there might be some ways to look at it, as he thinks it is something that could be brought up to the Board. He said he has a feeling that we would not get very far until we had more of an idea of how we can help each other to share with the tourists that come in regarding history of the City. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes July 31, 1997 Page 3 Councilmember Gutierrez said he does agree with Bob Lundy that there is a lot to be gained if we have some emphasis on tourism, because there are a lot of people coming to Ontario Mills, which will eventually add to our local economy. He said it is very convenient for people to drive up and see us here, and we would like to attract some dollars here. He said he is grateful to Mr. Lundy as he has tded very hard and is very sincere, and he is always happy to entertain his proposals. Councilmember Biane asked if there is an opportunity for the City to rent a space in his shop to promote what the City feels is nostalgic about the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Lundy said absolutely. He referred to his ad once again-Exhibit Vl. He said we are the gateway to the Route 66 hedtage corridor scenic highway to the west, the birth place of the Cucamonga valley wine region, we have interesting new restaurants and old local favorites along Foothill, and we are adjacent to 3,000 top notch hotel rooms. Councilmember Curatalo asked how we could proceed further with this issue without knowing what your Board wants to do. Mr. Lundy answered that is why we are having a workshop. He said he reports to his Board and follows their direction. He said he is confident that the Board would unanimously applaud the Councirs direction. Councilmember Williams, upon Mr. Lundy's request to restate the City's proposal, said the City has more toudsm to offer that just Route 66. We have the unique historical items that deserve a mention. She said we have a County museum in the Rains House and the Chaffey Garcia House and she would encourage when there is an event at any of the venues these be given an opportunity for exposure in their shop. She said we might be interested in working with you on some service exchange, such as promoting other areas in our city. She asked that he and his Board put together a proposal and bdng it back to the City. She said we don't just hand out public money, but we buy services. She said we need a philosophy statement from the Board that says we are willing to promote the entire city. Mr. Lundy agreed to take this information back to the Board. Mr. Tim Younger, President of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, discussed the Chamber's proposal with regard to a partnership with the City of Rancho Cucamonga as it relates to economic development with respect to marketing the City as a whole. He said the proposal is designed to not only create a marketing program for the business community, but they really believe that it is time that the City and the business community take these steps together. Councilmember Curatalo said he thinks the Chamber and the City are on the same track and that they are both here to serve people in this community. Councilmember Gutierrez apologized as he has to leave, however, he stated the following remarks about the budget. 1) He is happy about the lowering of the utility tax; 2) He is in favor of the skate park project and would like to see it completed; 3) He supports the lights at Etiwanda Creek Park and hopes that it is not a one-use facility; 4) With reference to Disaster Preparedness, he noticed there was a reduction compared to last year's budget, and he hopes we are not compromising any disaster preparations that have previously been made; 5) He is supportive of Fire Maintenance; 6) He thinks there is a way to be partners with the Chamber and he has nothing against having the Chamber take a few projects from the City, as it relieves the City of some financial obligations; he is not against looking at the possibility of having the Chamber help in the Shopping Center Conference in Las Vegas; City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes July 31, 1997 Page 4 6) He hopes that in the future that we do not lose sight on finding a way to build towards Central Park; 7) He is happy with the police force and is ready to stay with them, however, he is interested in looking at the contract; and 8) He feels that transportation for the seniors should be a priority. Jack Lam, City Manager, said regarding transportation for the seniors, staff is currently exploring a program which will be presented shortly to the Council for consideration. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated with respect to Disaster Preparedness, the State has restructured emergency funds and we will lose some, however, the department has been reorganized and is now under the Fire Department. Councilmember Williams asked if we are doing an ongoing study or awareness of the Sheriff's contract services versus our own. Jack Lam, City Manager, answered yes. Councilmember Gutierrez left at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Curatalo said he is very pleased with the budget. He wanted to acknowledge that we did have an increase in population here in the City, and as Jack pointed out, we are working with a smaller staff than in 1990. In spite of that, Jack and staff have been able to maintain services--even increased the services-to the citizens within the City. He thanked Jack, his vision, and city staff for being so dedicated to keeping the services going in spite of all the negative forces. Councilmember Biane stated in reference to the budget summary, comments were made with respect to the efforts to beautify Foothill Blvd. To further promote the economic benefit, however, his concern is that we keep stopping at Vineyard and not talking about the full connection to Grove, which is our oldest segment of Rancho Cucamonga, and is probably in the most need of the Redevelopment Agency's beautification project. He would like a policy direction on this. Jack Lam, City Manager, commented that the area to Grove is not in the Redevelopment area and there was an effort to look at the median beyond the Cucamonga Creek area but the train overpass needs to be widened, which is a multi-million dollar project. In terms of a vision it has always been to have that bridge widened so that we can ultimately get the same kind of treatment clear across to Grove, but because the portion on the other side of the pass is not in the Redevelopment area, it is much more difficult. He said he only mentioned the more realistic segments due to the fact that Cal Trans is doing this one portion, and that we have a competitive program with Cal Trans called "ice tea" money, which is a 50% match. If we look at the three segments mentioned, at 50% of the amount we were going to put in the first segment, we can use that for match money and also be able to widen the other bridge on the Deer Creek side. Councilmember Curatalo wanted to acknowledge that he was aware that expenditures balanced with revenues and overall city reserves increase slightly, which means we accomplished this without dipping into reserves. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the reserves is approximately $10 million. Councilmember Williams stated regarding Route 66 and Grove, she completely supports Paul in this, as it has long been as issue. There is an awful lot that can be done out there with plain and simple code enforcement and a few dollars spent. It needs to be cleaned up. She said Grove is still our gateway, and we forget that. She said we need to put attention on property and attract quality business and make it viable. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes July 31, 1997 Page 5 Jack Lam, City Manager, said we could have done more this next year had it not been for the fact that we have to do Day Creek. Council concurred to review this item at the next scheduled workshop. Councilmember Biane said he is concemed about the overall tone of some issues brought up in the summary, mainly regarding planning and building and safety staff and using 1990 numbers as benchmarks. He said a lot of automation has happened at City Hall since that time, and there is a computer on everybody's desk with greater skills and efficiency, and he does not want the public to think we are adding people just to add people because we need to get back to this number we were at in 1990. We've been elected here to ensure that City government is running as efficiently as possible, and he wants to make sure that is what we are doing. Jack Lam, City Manager, said he can reassure him that it was not used for that purpose. He was just showing as a comparison that the level of development has picked up and in order to be able to maintain a higher level of customer service, we need to add a couple more people in that arena, especially since AB 1600 says you have to use development fees for customer service. Councilmember Biane said he would like to consider modifying the pass-thru agreements so that additional tax increment passes to the Fire General Fund. He said in fairness to staff and Jack, it is more of a question because he does not have the numbers to base a decision or to say this is the direction we should go. He would like to take a harder look at it before we reach a final budget agreement. Jack Lam, City Manager, said we need to carefully look at that because there are a lot of other implications to doing that. Councilmember VVilliams said she concurs with that. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated he would like to recognize the Finance Department. He said this is the 9th year we have received a very prestigious award for accounting and reporting purposes. He said there is no city in this region that has won it nine times consecutively. He said most cites are just now trying to apply for their first award. Susan Start, Finance Officer, was applauded for this achievement. Councilmember Williams stated she would like the Council to sit with staff early on to listen to their concerns about next year's budget. She said we have a real generalization of things and she does not have a clue what most of them represent. She wants to be more informed, and next year she would like to work on that. Councilmember Williams stated regarding the animal shelter, she would like an update on the dog licensing. Jack Lam, City Manager, said we contract with the County for animal control which costs us about $75 to $80 annually. The County handles all the animal licensing. Councilmember Williams said maybe we should sit down and talk to them because the average citizen does not have a clue how to license their animal. Jack Lam, City Manager, said if we take over licensing the cost of the service will go up considerably and the estimate determined in a report generated two or three years ago was about $400,000. Councilmember Williams said we need to have discussions with the County and take a look at the contract. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes July 31, 1997 Page 6 Councilmember Williams said with respect to park money, she is supportive of the skate park project. She said we have in our City an asset that belongs to Sanbag, and we need to be aggressive with Sanbag and get a right-of-way for trails--taking rail lines and converting them to trails. She said she feels very strongly about this and would like to see a study. Councilmember Curatalo said he concurs 100%. Councilmember Williams said another great asset is the Epicenter. She suggested that we pull the Epicenter out of Community Services and create it as its own authority--much like a convention center. She would like to hire a marketer, not an events manager under Community Services, as she believes we are missing the boat. She said we need to look at that and maybe use park money to set up a salary and set up their own authority. She said she is in favor of exploring this as she sees this venue as being very productive. Councilmember Williams asked where we stand with the buyout of the library. Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager, replied we have two more years @ $100,000 each year then it drops to $50,000. Councilmember VVilliams asked about the regional project fund under the Redevelopment Agency. Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager, explained the funds. Councilmember Williams said her personal opinion about budgets is that they do not show you the financial picture of the city. She would like to see a real financial picture of our city. She said after the annual audit report she would like to have a workshop to interact with the auditors. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. D. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 3-0-2. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Sincerely, Kathryn L. Scott Deputy City Clerk Approved: * August 6, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, August 6, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager; Jan Reynolds, RDA Analyst; Cathy Wahlstrom, RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Michelle Dawson, Management Analyst II; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Nettie Nielsen, Recreation Supervisor; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation to the City Council by Gino and Joseph Paul Filippi. Gino and Nick Filippi presented a bottle of wine displayed in a case which is used as a commemorative item for the 75th L.A. County Fair. He also distributed to the Council copies of the Tasting and Toudng Wineries Magazine telling them Rancho Cucamonga was mentioned on the cover of it. B2. Presentation of Proclamations for Police Department Promotions & Retirements. Rod Hoops and Mayor Alexander recognized and presented proclamations to those promoted or retiring from the police department. B3. Presentation of Awards from the American Public Works Association for Irrigation Control Modernization Program and the Archibald Avenue Storm Drain Project. Trent Pullian, Southern California Chapter APWA presented Joe O'Neil the award for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. B4. Presentation to the City of a $1,000 Grant Award from Target Stores to assist in the purchase of a Video Printer for the Police Department. City Council Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 2 Rod Hoops, Police Captain, introduced Troy Matiere and Steve Saddleoff who presented the City a check from Target Stores in the amount of $1,000. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. D. CONSENTCALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: April 1, 1997 (special meeting) April 2, 1997 (Biane absent) June 4, 1997 June 18, 1997 (Gutierrez absent) June 26, 1997 (adjourned meeting) July 2, 1997 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/9/97 and 7/16/98 and Payroll ending 6/26/97 for the total amount of $3,979,933.30. D3. Approval to appropriate $9,600 awarded by the California State Library into Library Accounts. D4. Approval of reallocation of funding for Police Mobile Satellite Office. D5. Approval to reappropriate $50,590.16 unexpended Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds to Fiscal Year 1997/98. D6. Approval to adopt a resolution endorsing SCAG'S Congressional Leadership Summit. RESOLUTION NO. 97-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING AND ENDORSING THE SECOND ANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP SUMMIT, ORGANIZED BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG), TO FOSTER UNITY IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DELEGATION ON ISSUES AFFECTING THE REGION D7. Approval of Amendment to Agreement for legal services (CO 86-055). D8. Approval of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Memorandum of Understanding (CO 97- 034) for Fiscal Year 1997-1998. D9. Approval to award contract (CO 97-039) to Holiday Printing for the Quarterly Printing of The Grapevine in the amount of $58,629. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. City Council Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 3 D10. Approval of a Resolution certifying to San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) the City has adequate resources to maintain improvement projects funded by the Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency ACT (ISTEA) of 1991 once they are implemented. RESOLUTION NO. 97-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALl FORNIA, CERTI FYI NG TO SAN BERNAR DI NO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) THE CITY HAS ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED BY' THE INTER-MODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) OF 1991 ONCE THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED D 11. Approval to accept Contract (96-036) for the Hermosa Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, Fourth Street to Sixth Street, North of Sharon Circle to Eighth Street, South of Devon Street to Foothill Boulevard, funded from Measure "r' Funds, Account 32-4637-9520 and S.B. 140 Fund, Account No. 35-4637-9520, and approve the final contract amount of $188,179.20 and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion." RESOLUTION NO 97-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR HERMOSA AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, LOCATED FROM FOURTH STREET TO SIXTH STREET NORTH OF SHARON CIRCLE TO EIGHTH STREET SOUTH OF DEVON STREET TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D12. Approval of a Reimbursement Agreement for frontage improvements, median island landscaping within Base Line Road, in conjunction with the development of Tract 15732, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Lewis Homes Management Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 97-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRACT 15732 D13. Approval to order the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for MDR 94-22, located at the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue, submitted by Frito Lay. RESOLUTION NO. 97-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR MDR 94-22 (APN: 210- 071-28) MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar with the exception of item D9. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 4 DISCUSSION OF ITEM D9: Approval to award contract (CO 97-039) to Holiday Printing for the Quarterly Printing of The Grapevine in the amount of $58,629 Suzanne Ota stated the purchasing department sent the RFP to local printers in Rancho Cucamonga. Councilmember Williams asked how often this bid process is done. Nettie Nielsen stated about every two to four years, depending on the workmanship of the existing printer. Councilmember Williams stated she wanted to make sure that our local Rancho Cucamonga printers are contacted for any type of bidding like this. She felt four years was too long in between to rebid this. Jack Lam stated since this is a one year agreement they can review this with a one year renewal time frame which would make the contract two years. Suzanne Ota stated the contract could be modified to reflect this. Councilmember Williams stated it isn't just performance that needs to be looked at, but also if there are any local businesses that might be able to do the job just as well. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he was contacted by Sir Speedy as to how they can bid on city printing jobs. Councilmember Williams asked if the mailing service is bid also. Nettie Nielsen stated no that it is only about $700 for their services to get this to the post office each quarter. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve item D9 with the amendment to the contract term length. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E, CONSENT ORDINANCES El. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add Auto Centers as a class of signs within Section 14.20.100 Signs - Commercial and Office Zones and Section 14.20.110 Signs - Industrial Zones. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 582. ORDINANCE NO. 582 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97- 02, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGIONAL AUTOMOBILE SALES AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES City Council Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 5 E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an application to change the use provisions of Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow the development of 15 acres of neighborhood commercial uses, subject to conditional use permit authorization, located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue, and to update Subarea 16 standards to reflect previously adopted use provisions. An Environmental Impact Report that assesses the impacts of this proposal has been certified. APN: 210-062-08 Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 583. ORDINANCE NO. 583 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-02, TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FIFTEEN ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND TO UPDATE SUBAREA 16 STANDARDS TO REFLECT PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED USE PROVISIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-08 E3. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.08.1001 & SECTION 5.08.120 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BINGO Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 90-A. ORDINANCE NO. 90-A (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.08.100 lAND SECTION 5.08.120 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BINGO MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and approve Ordinances Nos. 582, 583 and 90-A. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No items submitted. No items submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No items submitted. City Council Minu~s August6,1997 Page 6 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. DISCUSSION OF YARD SALE REGULATIONS AND PLACEMENT OF SIGNS ADVERTISING FOR YARD SALES Staff report presented by Bill Makshanoff, Building Official. Councilmember Curatalo stated a previous City he had lived in allowed yard sales twice a year, and to his knowledge there were not any complaints about that. Councilmember Biane did not think there should be a fee charged for those people having yard sales. He felt when a person does come in to obtain a permit for a yard sale, it should be logged into a book so there is a way to keep track of how many times a certain residence is holding a yard sale. He inquired as to what kind of fee code enforcement was looking at. Bill Makshanoff stated as far as processing a permit, a fee should cover that, but that it is more from the enforcement side of it when you have to go out in the field on a Friday or Saturday and verifying whether or not the people having the yard sales have a permit or not. He stated if someone is found not to have a permit and they don't come in the following Monday to obtain one, the cost to go after them is more than the cost of the permit. He stated he didn't think there were that many people abusing this. Mayor Alexander felt some of the problems that have been identified need to be addressed. Councilmember Williams asked how they should respond when they get letters and calls from residents that are complaining about their neighbors having yard sales for weeks and weeks. Bill Makshanoff stated if people are storing a lot of items in their backyard, there are already code provisions for this which they are already responding to. He felt by adding a code enforcement officer with the adoption of the budget they can help to control the yard sale issue a little better. Councilmember Williams felt the yard sale provisions should be advertised to the public more so they are aware of the restrictions, such as Ontario does. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, stated they could do this through the Grapevine. Councilmember Gutierrez stated all of the yard sale signs are what bothers him. He asked if code enforcement could go out into the City on Mondays and take them down off the poles, etc. He stated on Lemon and Haven on the east side, at the apartments there are people that sit out on the sidewalk and sell things and felt this should be monitored. He stated he did not want to have to tie up someone by monitoring this full time. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public testimony. Addressing the City Council was: John Verdun, 7786 Jadeite, presented pictures for the Council to see. He also had pictures of how people store their things in their yard in between yard sales. He asked if there was anything code enforcement could do for people that abuse this so they can be cited and fined. He stated a neighbor of his does the yard sale very often in the summer especially. He felt the number of yard sales allowed should by limited and the people would not keep accumulating junk on their property. Councilmember Gutierrez felt it would be a good idea to have the rule in place so code enforcement can act on those residents abusing this. City Council Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 7 Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, felt staff had enough information so they could draft an ordinance for the Council to consider. Councilmember Curatalo stated he agreed and felt it would help to make people comply. Councilmember Williams asked if Upland's Ordinance has helped their situation or if the City has had any problems. James Markman, City Attorney, stated no, but that he would help to draft an ordinance to bring back to the Council to consider. Councilmember Williams felt the education process was important also. Mr. Verdun stated people are also parking across the sidewalk which is making it unsafe for children in the area. J, IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like information on laws that deal with housing for sex offenders to come back at the September 17 meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to adjourn to executive session to discuss Labor Negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the Meet and Confer process. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. No action was taken in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * August 7, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT M1NUTES Special Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Redevelopment Agency and Fire Protection District was held on Thursday, August 7, 1997, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:38 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were members: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director; Susan Stark, Finance Officer; Ingrid Blair, GIS Supervisor; Alex Ahumada, Administrative Services Officer; Rose Colurn, Accountant; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Chief Dennis Michael and Deputy Chief Bob Corcoran, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that at the last meeting a number of questions were asked. He distributed information to the Council answering these questions which is on file in the City Clerk's office. With regards to Park Fund Priorities, Councilmember Gutierrez inquired if this would satisfy Pop Warner. Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager, stated this would assist both Pop Warner and AYSO for their spring program. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he wanted to make sure the sports groups have a place to play and felt this would be an improvement. With regards to Stadium Events Manager, Councilmember Williams stated she did not think the City needed someone to manage events and put on parties, but someone to market the stadium. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated he agreed and added he should have used the word "marker'. Councilmember Williams felt it would take a special type of person with a completely different view point to handle the marketing responsibilities. She felt an events coordinator was ridiculous and excessive. Councilmember Gutierrez asked what happened with Mr. Lundy's issue. Joe Francine, with the Visitor's Center, stated he had met with Rick Gomez earlier today. He stated they would like to advertise and promote the City complete, not just Route 66. He added their strength is tourism. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes August 7, 1997 Page 2 Councilmember Gutierrez stated he also hoped the City could be promoted between the Visitor's Center and the Chamber. Mr. Francine stated they are not sure what the Council expects of them. Councilmember Williams asked him if they have a specific request. Mr. Francine stated no, they do not at this time. Mayor Alexander asked if there was anything resolved on marketing with the Chamber. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated they are still working out the details. Mayor Alexander brought up the increase in fees in the City Attorney's contract. Jack Lam, City Manager, commented that the City Attorney had not had an increase in three to four years, and that he is still less expensive than what some cities are paying for their City Attorney. Jack Lain, City Manager, distributed information prepared by Suzanne Ota regarding the Sr. Citizen Van possibility. He asked if the Council would like staff to pursue this. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see this pursued. The Council concurred. Councilmember Biane asked if the seniors like this idea. Mayor Alexander stated he has talked to some of them and that they are happy with this idea. Mayor Alexander stated on the lighting at the parks, he would like to see Joe O'Neil work with Pop Warner and AYSO in reducing the cost of the lighting. He stated he would also like to see the City keep its promise for Central Park. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. There being no response, public comments were closed. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he hoped that in the future, all of the department heads can continue to do a good job and that morale will be high. He added he appreciates the employees of the City and everything they have done. He hoped that the City is very fruitful and united in working together. Mayor Alexander stated he is in agreement with Councilmember Gutierrez. Councilmember Williams stated she still had some questions. She felt a goals session would be a good opportunity to discuss some of her questions. She stated she has questions about the RDA reporting and did not feel the Council has an accounting of how money is spent. She continued to ask her questions with Linda Daniels responding to them. Councilmember Biane stated he had met with Linda Daniels prior to this meeting because he had some of the same questions that Councilmember Williams has. Councilmember Williams stated she wished there could be more explanation in the budget document so that it is more identifiable and easier to understand. Jim Frost, City Treasurer, stated he has worked with many City Council's in the past and that the only way to learn things is to ask questions, and then everyone learn's from that process. City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Fire Protection District Minutes August 7, 1997 Page 3 C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated he needed a decision on the park funding priorities and the stadium manager. Councilmember Williams stated she does not feel they need an events coordinator. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated if the Council wants a marketing coordinator he needs to know this from them so it can go in the budget. Councilmember Williams felt this needs to be looked at more, but definitely did not want an events coordinator. Mayor Alexander asked if the $270,000 needs to be earmarked tonight. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated it could be done at a later date because it is a special fund. Councilmember Gutierrez asked about the Chamber proposal. Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Manager, stated she is working with Bill Holley of the Chamber and hoped to come up with something soon. She stated the money is already in the budget. Mayor Alexander stated he also felt goal setting was needed as was previously stated. D. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to adjourn to August 14, 1997, 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers to adopt the City and Agency budgets and the preliminary budget for the Fire District. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Sincerely, Approved: * Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk ~ ~0~0~0000~0~o00~0~0~0o00000~0~000~00 ~ ~0~00~o~~0~0~~00~0~0~0~ v V V · V V Z .~ V .jr,, ZZZ .u )-4 3: ~ ',r ee !i { Z 0 zu.~ UZ ..J I,.- i.i · · · .,-E · · · · · · .I I lUl · Ni~'i I.--I · · ~I I- I01 Izl A A A A A A ~ ~ A A A ~ V V V V V V V V V V V V VI.~V V V V V Z ~ Z h- E( .J I· Z Z ~ Z · a-C) Z 1-.. T' I'"" I'"' 'O ~' U'~ ,"4 · II · · I · · I'Yl I01 I I--I I ~""~ I I,.- IC21 · · I uJI I HI · I' · · · · II · · · · · II II · · · · II · I · · I · · · · · · · · · · I Im uJ · · uJ · · ,',,' · II I-- · II -I lull m I I I .~" I m I0 I IZ II -.I' I m I · &.tO LU 0~ · · · · · · · · · I z I !Ol IuI I~/~1 lUll i ...-~ i II · i'r I lUll I I..- ! 11.41 · · · · · · · I · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · lUll I Z I · · · I !~ I I uJ I · · (,J ac I °I'l · · · · · I~ · I I · · · I !i i~l,i i I.- I i~.~ i I~l i~ I IuI I~ I I uJ I I C~l · · III~1 iI,Ul ! I · · · · · · I · · · · II · · 1I · I i t I II I I' I I · · · I · · · · I~ · -t · I · · I · · IUJ I I[I I · ! I I~1~ I I o II ! o I ! z I I uJ I · · v v v !i f,. .I I " )' V(/) MJ V I · I · · · · II · · I-.. · · z -~ t I C) ,'.' ,./! ~ · ~. )- ,,' ... owo · !1 DROPPING YES APPL I CATI ON FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE L I CENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 3737 Main St., Suite 900 Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 782-4400 File Number .............. 334012 Receipt Number ......... 1149317 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date ~ 8-11-97 Issued Date PARTNER NO/'(, DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Name of Business: Location of Business: Number and Street City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premise address) If premise licensed: Type of license Transferor's names/license: License Tvr)e Transaction Type RIVERSIDE RUBIOS BAJA GRILL 10798 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 120 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 92122 SAN BERNARDINO YES 5151 SHOREHAM PL 260 SAN DIEGO CA 92122 Fee Type Master DuD Date Fee 1. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ORIGINAL NA YES 0 AUG 06,1997 $300.00 : 2. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 AUG 06,1997 $205.00 : TOTAL $505.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Control Act, or regulations of the deparxment pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be d~emed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale lieensexl premise will have all the qualifications of a licensec, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date AUG 06,1997 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and rays: (1) He is an applicant. or one of the applicants. or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) ' that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more tlian ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filled wi~h the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) RUBlOS RESTAURANTS INC See attached 211 sig RECEIVED AUG - 8 1997 C01 01ic Beverage Contr, Riverside ABC 21] (5/96) z~ / /~._..~____. GPRU3E II cnt t ~ o. ~ t n DROPPING APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number .............. 334132 Receipt Number ......... 1149826 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date... 8/11/97 Issued Date DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Name of Business: Location of Business: Number and Street City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premise address) If premise licensed: Type of license Transferor's names/license: RIVERSIDE BRANDON'S DINER 8609 BASELINE RD RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO YES 9140 SAGUARO RD RIVERSIDE CA 92503 CA 91730 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1997 City o! Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division License T/De Transaction ~vDe Fee Tv~e Master DUD Date Fee 1. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ORIGINAL NA YES 0 AUG 11,1997 $300.00 : 2. 41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 AUG 11,1997 $205.00 TOTAL $505.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed pa~ of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensec, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSIDE Date AUG 11,1997 Under penalty of perjury., each person whose signature appear~ below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly author/zed to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the COAtants thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect in.rest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made; (4) that the Uansfer application or proposed Iransfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the lransfer application is filled with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensec with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) BENITEZ MARIA MATILDE ~' ~-~,~/A~ ~ C,Z~RNELI/~N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, TO BE FUNDED FROM ENGINEERING PROP 111 FUNDS, ACCOU'iq~ NO. 10-4637-9113 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the FY 1997/1998 Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Various Locations, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is $356,576.00. Legal advertising is scheduled for September 9, 1997 and September 16, 1997, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Willia ~m._.j. O,Neil~ ff4~(~ City Engineer WJO:MDL:ls Attachment cc: Purchasing _.2 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1997/98 PAVEMENT REHABII.ITATION LOCATION MAP ,,,--CITY NORTH .BOUNDARY · · . i 111llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _].,% ! __ .= __ - = ,, 'o~ = L~ Collna .; ~-~- /~o\~ ~ ---- . ...~ i =. ]~\\"~. -; .= ---' < J --" Almond Stree' , =.. ~ ,- no,_,.~4'~a ,,,_, Almond--"" __ = ,= ~, /~ ~ ~ _ . ~ _ bas ~_,ij/_. >e , _~Vhirlaway~ St. Wa~taw.~/ m.m,-y< j '" ~ L ' ' Ot .... ,- -' --~ ~ -. -;.-- ..... ; .-. ~:0" ; Valley W~ S~ ~,J = ~ L. - ' I ?7: --' - ' Z I ' ' eelBramble NOTES AND LEGEND: Project Boundary: lil;I[Itllllllltllll Type of paving: Slurry se~ type II Note: See street list- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1997/98 PAVEM'RI~ REHABHITATION MAP "A" ten ~ (~18' '1 , g.m, )1 _ kX ~ l~ ~ i "~ ~ mite ";?" .~l~_ , - ~ ~8~ NOT~ A~ LEGEND: . ' ~oj~t Bounds: T~ of paving: Slu~ s~l ~e H No~: S~ s~r list CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1997/98 PAVEMENT REI~ABILITATION MAP "B" Dr. ~ PACIFIC , I~AILRO~ ~ s, t ' ,' ~E_INE NOTES A~ LEGES: ~oj~t ~ound~: T~ of pavin~: Slu~ Note: S~ s~t list CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1997/98 PAVEMENT P~I:i'ART!'.TTA'r[ON MAP "C1" & "C2" ~r Boulevard NOTES AND LEGEND: Project Boundary: ZlflllflJIflllllllfll Type of paving: Micro seal type II Note: See street list CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1997/98 PAVE~NT RERABII.ITATION MAP "D" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM, VARIOUS LOCATIONS;. IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, sealed bids or proposals for the "FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of FY 1997/1998 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public ~vork is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations t- · RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 2 of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. ~ Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate ~vill also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: mo When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or When the trade can showy that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his .contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight -journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. 21 RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 3 The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. · Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, wor 'krnan, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga a~vards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor ~vill also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 4 No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declarifi'~, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 3rd-day of September of 1997. 2.3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE, TO BE FUNDED FROM CDBG FUNDS, ACCOUNT NO. 28-4333-9500 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications for the Tapia Via Drive Street Improvements, from Grove Avenue to Rancheria Drive, and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Article 19, Section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is $188,735.00. Legal advertising is scheduled for September 9, 1997 and September 16, 1997, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 1997. The project consists of removal and reconstruction of curb and gutter; removal and reconstruction of the asphalt concrete pavement; planting of street trees and the construction of street lights. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer -- WJO:MDL:ls Attachment cc: Purchasing ..2 2¢ RANCHO CUCAMONGA N.T.8. VICINI~ ~ NOTTO SCALE RESOLUTION NO. q 7- ! 2 / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" This project is Federally financed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (24 CRF, Part 57) for the purpose of providing improvements pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and is subject to certain requirements including the payment of Federal prevailing wages, compliance with "Section 3 - Affirmative Action Requirements", Executive Order # 11246 and others. The aforementioned are described in the "Special Federal Provisions" section of the bid documents. Additional information pertaining to the Federal requirements is on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Community Development Department. Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, Califomia, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, sealed bids or proposals for the "TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 2 Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of TAPIA VIA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM GROVE AVENUE TO RANCHERIA DRIVE." A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 30, 1997, at 10:00 a.m., at the City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. All prime Contractors are required to have a representative attend and sign in a the pre-bid meeting. Failure to comply with this attendance and sign-in requirement will result in the Bidder's proposal being found non- responsive to the required bid procedures. At the pre-bid meeting, Section 3 requirements will be explained to facilitate completion of the required Section 3 documents in the bid proposal. Award of the project will be contingent on the content of these Section 3 documents. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, minority business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, in consideration for the award. MINIMUM WAGE RATE: Notice is hereby given that this project is funded with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds and that the rate of wages for each craft or type of workman or mechanic employed under this contract shall be not less than as specified under the U.S. Department of Labor General Wage Decision in the locality in which the work is to be performed as modified within ten (10) days prior to the bid opening date as required under the Davis-Bacon Act. Notwithstanding the conditions hereinabove, the California Labor Code Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles I & 2, stipulates that not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft or type of workman or mechanic needed to execute the contract in the locality in which the work is to be performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California shall be paid to all workmen employed. Where a discrepancy exists between the federal and state prevailing wage rates, the policy of the California Department of Labor is to require that the higher of the two prevailing wage rates shall apply. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. ,7.7 RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 3 Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public work's project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: mo When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or Co When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, Californi, a, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. 2g RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 4 The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herein before mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Ranc~[o Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least 10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashiers' check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. BONDS: The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be 100% of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractor licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; Including but not limited to a C.[ass "A" License (General Building Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. RESOLUTION NO. September 3, 1997 Page 5 The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code," Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS) is non refundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by'~'ayment stipulated above, together with an additional non reimbursable payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, reserves the right to reject any or all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 3rd day of September, 1997. Publish Dates: September 9, 1997 and September 16, 1997. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, this 3rd day of September, 1997. William J. Alexander, Mayor CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA __ STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Shelly Maddox, Engineering Aide APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $39,290.00 FOR FUND 23-4637-9120 FOR GENERAL CITY MASTER PLAN DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FY 1997/98 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve an appropriation of $39,290.00 for Fund 23-4637-9120 for General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements for FY 1997/98. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS General City Master Plan Drainage Reimbursement Agreements are based on the net General City Drainage funds received each fiscal year. The actual revenue received in FY 96/97 was $197,127.00. Consistent with the reimbursement agreements, $39,290.00 of the $197,127.00 received from last year's revenue needs to be appropriated for reimbursement. The remaining funds will be utilized for City projects. Respectfully submitted, .d(-.-- Wiltigrn J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SM:sd 3/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DEVELOPM, F,..NT REVIEW 96-18, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY MEEDER EQUIPMENT COMPANY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving and accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND The Developer, Meeder Equipment Company, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the offsite improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $40,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $20,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully Submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MEP:dlw k,._Attachments RESOLUTION NO. q 7- / 2 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement, by Meeder Equipment Company as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the south side of Sixth Street west of Etiwanda Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as DR 96-18; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey. RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7"t/a~,,~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 96-18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSlV!ENT ~AGRAM LANDSCAPE MAIN~NANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING IVIAINT~NANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOUR:R+S3~EEq"' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA STREET LIGHTS: Dist. S1 S6 5800L EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: DR 96-18 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 2 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Dist. L 3B Community Equestrian Trail ~- D.G.S.F. Turf Non-Turf S.F. S.F. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S6 L3B 11.93 2 2 I Trees Ea. 5 Form Date 10/12/94 EXItIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: DR 96-18 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. S1 S6 NUMBER OF LAMPS 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22.000L 2 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L3B Turf S.F. Non-Turf S.F. Trees Ea. 5 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S6 L3B 11.93 2 2 1 Annexation Date: September 3, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 14001, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, SUBMITTED BY LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map No. 14001, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map No. 14001, located at the southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 1997, for the division of 3.7 acres into 2 parcels. The Developer, Lewis Development Co., is submitting a deposit as security to guarantee the setting of survey monuments per the final map in the following amount: --' Monumentation Cash Deposit $2,500.00 In place of an improvement and security to guarantee the construction of the offsite public improvements, an improvement certificate is shown on the final map. The certificate indicates that full improvements will be completed with the first parcel to develop. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 September 3, 1997 Page 2 Letters of approval have been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R.'s have also been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:PV:sd Attachment ! / MAP LOCATION C?ITY OF RAxNCHO CUCAMONGA ENG~ING DIVISION 5T&FF ~F~T ' ~.~. I q-oo I EXItreIT: t 5//) RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7'"/~ ~¥ .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 14001, submitted by Lewis Development Co., and consisting of two parcels located at the southwest comer of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, being a division of 3.7 acres into two parcels, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on June 11, 1997, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 14001 shown on said Tentative P,~cel Map; and is the final map of the division of land approved as WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by Lewis Development Co. as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related highway purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Parcel Map No. 14001 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Mainte,n~ance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed xvith the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 -. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4, BASE LINE ROAD --,- -'d-- ~ --,,,~ - .a, -- PARCEL 1 LEGEND: · PROP. STRE~-'I' TREE :~ EXIST. STREET LIGHT PARCEL 2 ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CAUFORNIA P.M. 14001 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 14001 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. S1 S4 5800L NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16,000L 22,000L --- '3 --- 27,500L *2 LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L4 0 Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. 0 0 7 (Proposed) Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S4 L4 1 1.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 2.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 Annexation Date: September 3, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 15016, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTFe~ BY LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map No. 15016, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. ! and 4, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map No. 15016, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 13, 1997, for the division of 3.9 acres into 2 parcels. The Developer, Lewis Development Co., is submitting security to guarantee the setting of map survey monuments in the following amount: Monumentation Cash Deposit $2,500.00 Letters of approval have been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William j~. O,~eil City Engineer Attachments WJO:PV:sd RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 15016, submitted by Lewis Development Co., and consisting of two parcels located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Terra Vista Promenade Shopping Center, being a division 3.9 acres into two parcels, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on August 13, 1997, and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 15016 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by Lewis Development Co. as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related highway purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Parcel Map No. 15016 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. B~E LINE MASI DRIVE / ARROW L.zJ Z IJ,J © CHURCH CHERVIL SI'REET ST. ROAD N 8 CITY OF IL-iJNCHO CUCAIMONGA DIVISION VICINITY I~1"' I~,XI-TmrT: A q7 RESOLUTION NO. 97-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 PARCEL 1 '1 '1 " ~ :~ .... ---0 J PARCEL 2 j .I ~.~. u .~ .~,_... · .~ ,_~._,_ ._. ~ ~.... ~ -...f- . FOOTHILL BOULEVARD LEGEND: ..... AREA OF PARKWAY TREES ~ZY2_~J EXIST. LANDSCAPED MEDIAN EXIST. STREET UGHT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CAUFORNIA P.M. 15016 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 15016 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. S1 S4 5800L NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L *3 *2 ...... LANDSCAPING: Community- Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L4 Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... *45 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Existing items installed with original project, P.M. 14022 Parcel Acres S 1 S4 L4 1 1.02 2 2 2 2 2.88 5.8 5.8 5.8 Annexation Date: September 3, 1997 St5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 12659-3, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEStCORNER OF ETIWANDA AND WILSON AVENUES, SUBMITTED BY CENTEX HOMES, A NEVADA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 12659-3, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 7, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 12659-3, located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues in the Very Low Residential District, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1985, for the division of 67.67 acres into 138 lots. Tract 12659-3 is for the division of 14.52 acres into 31 lots. The Developer, Centex Homes, is submitting an agreement and securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Material Bond Monumentation Cash Deposit: $1,275,800.00 $ 637,900.00 $ 3,950.0O Copies of the agreement, securities and the Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer are on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William . 'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:dlw Attachments J RESOLUTION NO. q7-/z g A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP 12659-3 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12659-3, submitted by Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership, and consisting of 31 lots located on the southwest comer of Etiwanda and Wilson Avenues, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 12659-3 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract M,~_ap; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Securities by Centex Homes as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Securities submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 12659-3 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR TRACT 12659-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 7, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the p76visions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. 1" X HIBI 1' 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS.. 1-AND 7 (,8~.~w ' 2~49.s~.) '/ . (F~,~,Y 2,~ ~) . ./. _"i~'-.' "~~ ' WATER DISTPJCT 783t~/g08 O.P,. '. :'..:,.~, ./.., ~." ,.. '(N8~2¢'08'W 2052.02') - ' ' - - '" ...... ;' ' , ~ · N89'2¢'OS'W '1284,0§. I L ' .,¢..;._. ~'?£6£T Z iGNT $Ti~ EE T TREE CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~R 12G5 ~- ~ ~..,~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,.~ EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: TRACT 12659-3 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 3 S7 18 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L 11 ......... LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L7 Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... 99 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel DU S 1 S7 L7 N/A 30 30 30 30 Annexation Date: September 3, 1997 Form Date 11/16/94 .5'.5' DATE: TO: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT September 3,1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR A PLAN OF COOPERATIVE ACTION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Agreement between the City, Agency and Chamber of Commerce which outlines the implementation of economic development services and programs of mutual benefit. The Agreement is consistent with prior Council and Agency program direction. BACKGROUND: The City, Agency and Chamber have longed shared similar philosophies for improving the economic development viability of the community. Recently, Chamber and City/Agency staff have discussed the benefits of implementing programs of mutual benefit to promote and enhance the economic base of the community. These discussions have resulted in the development of the attached Agreement. There are four components to the Agreement as follows: 1. Annual Shop Rancho Cucamonga Brochure - This brochure will be used as a resource to identify the retailers and services that can be found locally and otherwise highlight the benefits of shopping locally. 2. Annual Business Appreciation Week - This program will focus on recognition and appreciation to local companies who have chosen the City as their place of business. 3. ICSC Economic Development Services - This program is designed to combine Agency, City and Chamber staff efforts to attract new retailers and service industries to the City. 4. General Economic Development Services - A number of components are included in this category as follows: a. Develop a Business Resource Team b. Provide business lead contacts c. Develop a Relocation package d. Cooperative regional marketing e. Coordination of business forums and information related to Route 30 f. Participate in New Business Receptions g. Provide Chamber marketing and promotional material h. Provide space in Chamber newsletter i. Provide space at Grape Harvest Festival and Business Expo j. Provide office space and support for Small Business Assistance Center k. Provide quarterly reports on implementation of Agreement I. Recognize the City Council and City Manager as Business Members; Department Heads and other key staff will be Associate Members m. City to accept information for articles for incorporation into City or Agency printed material as appropriate In consideration of the services to be provided in this Agreement. The City and the Agency will be compensating the Chamber of Commerce $32,000 over a twelve month period. A portion of this, $2,400, has been budgeted for by the City. The balance of the Agreement compensation will be paid by the Redevelopment Agency from funds budgeted in 10-50170 (Economic Development). Respectfully submitted, Linda D. Daniels Redevelopment Manager .5¥ - / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AGREEMENT FOR A PLAN OF COOPERATIVE ACTION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This Agreement, effective September 4. 1997, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), the RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic, (hereinafter referred to as "Agency"), and the RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber"), provides as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The City and the Agency have made a significant commitment to promoting and maintaining the economic viability of the community. The philosophy of the City and the Agency is that by maintaining and enhancing a healthy economic base, the quality of life of the community will thrive and both residents and businesses will benefit. Concurrently, the Chamber is organized to promote the general welfare, development and prosperity of the Rancho Cucamonga business community, the Inland Empire, and the State of California, all of which supports the City and Agency's efforts in economic development goals. The City, Agency and Chamber have adopted the philosophy that by developing and implementing cooperative economic development programs, the economic vitality of the City can be enhanced. In furtherance of this shared philosophy, the City, Agency and Chamber have agreed to the following Plan for Cooperative Action for Economic Development. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Section 1. Annual Shop Rancho Cucamonga Brochure A. The Chamber will at its own cost except as expressly provided herein, design, print and distribute to residents and businesses within the City a Shop Rancho Cucamonga brochure: 1) The brochures size and production quality will be similar to that of the City's newsletter, the Grapevine; 2) The brochure's distribution, scheduled to coincide with Business Appreciation Week, will mirror that of the City's newsletter, the Grapevine; 3) The brochure shall contain a joint letter from the City and the Chamber; 4) The brochure's cover shall contain the logos of the City and the Chamber and other major sponsors of the brochure; 5) The Chamber will provide additional copies of the brochure for display and distribution at the Chamber offices,. City Hall, and other sites as the Chamber and/or City may deem appropriate; 6) The Chamber may solicit and accept sponsorships and/or advertisements from local retailers, retail developers, and/or the professional and service sectors to provide additional funding for the brochure; 7) The brochure will contain an alphabetical listing, including address, and phone number, by commonly utilized retail and service categories, of all retail and service providers that are located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga as of the most current list available 120 days before distribution; and 8) The brochure will contain individual lists of shopping center names, and a location map of centers, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga as of the most current list available 120 days before distribution. B. The City and Agency will be considered a major sponsor of this brochure and will receive all of the benefits and incentives that are afforded to all other sponsors of equal value or less. Section 2. Annual Business Appreciation Week: A. The Chamber will at its own cost design, promote, administer and conduct a Golf Tournament and Business Appreciation Post- Tournament Reception during the month of May of each year. The golf tournament and reception date will be mutually agreed to by the Chamber, the City and the Agency. In addition to inviting local businesses, the City and the Agency may request invitations be sent by the Chamber of Commerce to individuals and organizations which would add value to the event and the show of appreciation to businesses. B. The City and the Agency will be promoted as a major sponsor of this event. The City and the Agency will be listed as a co-sponsor for the event in all promotional material. The City and the Agency will receive all of the benefits and incentives that are afforded to all other sponsors of equal value or less. C. The Chamber may solicit and accept additional tournament sponsorships to provide additional resources for conducting this event. D. The Chamber will assist in promoting any City and Agency events for Business Appreciation Week by announcing or distributing City and Agency prepared flyers at its meetings and functions. page 2 3 Section 3. ICSC Economic Development Services A. The Chamber will support and participate with the Agency in the annual ICSC Spring event by attending the first two days of the leasing mall exhibition. The Chamber will identify four representatives, which representative shall be knowledgeable representatives from the active business community, to work in the Agency's booth, meet with companies and answer questions about business opportunities in Rancho Cucamonga from a business perspective and otherwise promote business in Rancho Cucamonga. The Chamber representatives may be called upon by City or Agency personnel to visit booths of companies, or meet with individuals who have expressed an interest in locating in Rancho Cucamonga. Prior to each conference, Chamber, Agency and City staff shall confer on the goals for the upcoming conference in order to establish a team to most effectively represent Rancho Cucamonga. B. The Chamber and the Agency shall meet annually prior to each ICSC event to discuss the leasing mall event, develop booth work schedule, booth protocols, review of information that is provided by the City in the booth, specific themes or business focuses for the event, and to review Agency record keeping of contacts/appointments that are made. Section 4. General Economic Development Services A. The Chamber will provide the following services to the City and the Agency in furtherance of the overall intent of the Agreement: 1) Development of a Business Resource Team to support the City and Agency when called up to meet with prospective companies and answering questions about business opportunities in Rancho Cucamonga from a business perspective; 2) Provide the City and Agency with information on contacts to the Chamber of prospective business interests in Rancho Cucamonga; 3) Development of Standard Retocation Packet; 4) Work cooperatively on marketing of the region; 5) Work cooperatively on coordinating Route 30 information and meetings with the business community; 6) Participate in the City's quarterly New Business Reception; 7) Provide City and Agency with reproducible copies of Chamber's marketing and promotional materials; 8) The City may submit articles to the Chamber for incorporation into appropriate printed materials or information prepared by the Chamber. The Chamber shall retain the authority to edit, condense, or defer such materials as it deems necessary to insure the appropriateness of the material for a Chamber publication; 9) Provide three booth spaces, and parking passes, to the City/Agency at each Grape Harvest Festival and Expo: page 3 10) Provide space one day a week for the Agency's Small Business Assistance Center project, to include use of Chamber's support equipment and assistance as may be necessary to facilitate operations, i.e. telephone, fax, copying machine, desk, chairs, etc. Space will provide a confidential environment for meetings and phone conversations. The Agency will provide one filing cabinet that can be located in the Chamber offices which is convenient for use by the personnel operating the Small Business Assistance Center; and 11) Compile quarterly status tracking reports on implementation of the Agreement from the Chamber's perspective. B. The City and the Agency will in furtherance of this Agreement: 1) By means of this Agreement, the City and Agency are Business Members of the Chamber. In addition, the City Council and the City Manager are recognized as Business Members of the Chamber of Commerce. The City shall designate one of its Business Members as its representative in terms of exercising all privileges outlined in the Chamber Bylaws as a Business Member. Additionally, Department Heads or other key City staff members who frequently interact with the Chamber will be recognized as Associate Members: and 2) The Chamber may submit articles to the City and the Agency for incorporation into appropriate printed materials or information prepared by the City or the Agency. The City and Agency shall retain the authority to edit, condense, or defer such materials as it deems necessary to insure the appropriateness of the material for a public publication. III. CONSIDERATION The City, Agency and Chamber recognize the cooperative benefit in promoting economic development activities as described in this Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development. The City and Agency will contract with the Chamber for the provision of the services by the Chamber as described in the foregoing as follows: Section 1. Annual Shop Rancho Cucamonga Brochure As a major sponsor of the brochure, the City and Agency will contract with the Chamber for Ten Thousand Dollars (810,000) for services as described. It is anticipated that in the initial year of production the project will require longer lead times and preparation than in future years. It is anticipated that the initial project will begin in September and cover nine months through distribution in May. Distribution for the first year will coincide with Business Appreciation Week. Distribution in future years may be adjusted, as mutually agreed between all parties, so as to capture fourth quarter holiday shopping page 4 patterns. The City/Agency will disburse One Thousand One Hundred and Eleven Dollars ($1,111.00) per month to the Chamber beginning on September 30th and continuing to May 30th. Any and all additional costs associated with the production and distribution of the brochure will be the sole responsibility of the Chamber. Section 2. Annual Business Appreciation Week. As the co-host and as a major sponsor of the Golf Tournament, the City and the Agency will contract with the Chamber for Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) for services as described. It is anticipated that this will be a five month project that will begin in January and conclude with the Golf Tournament and Business Appreciation Post-Tournament Reception in May. The City and the Agency will disburse One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per month to the Chamber beginning December 31st and continuing through April 30th. Any and all additional costs connected with the staging, publicizing and administration of the Golf Tournament will be the sole responsibility of the Chamber. Section 3. ICSC Economic Development Services. The City and the Agency will contract with the Chamber for TWo Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) for services described. Disbursements to the Chamber will occur in two equal payments. The first payment of One Thousand TWo hundred and Fifty Dollars (81,250) will occur on February 28th of each year and the second payment, of equal amount will occur on April 30th of each year. Section 4. General Economic Development Services. The City and the Agency will contract with the Chamber for One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) each month for services as described. Payment is to be made on the 30th day of each month following execution of this Agreement. Any and all additional costs connected with the services as described will be the sole responsibility of the Chamber. The City, the Agency and the Chamber recognize the long term nature of the Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development. The Agreement shall commence on the effective date of the Agreement and shall be in full force and affect until terminated by either party. This Agreement can be terminated by either party, without cause, by giving written notice of intention to terminate to the other party not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. Upon such termination, Chamber shall be entitled only to payment up page 5 to the date of termination, prorated if necessary, on a thirty (30) day month basis. V. AMENDMENTS The City and the Chamber recognize in the long term nature of the Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development that unanticipated opportunities of a substantial nature may arise that are not covered in this Agreement. The City, Agency and the Chamber, therefore, may from time to time, with mutual concurrence, amend the Agreement to take advantage of those opportunities. VI. NOTICES AND DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES Any and all notices, demands, invoices and written communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this paragraph VI. The below-named individuals, furthermore, shall be those persons primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this Agreement: Linda Daniels, Redevelopment Manager Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 phone 477-2700 fax 477-2848 Mr. Bill Holley, CEO Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce 8280 Utica, Suite 160 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 phone 987-1012 fax 987-5917 Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by mail, shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee forty- eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above. VII. INSURANCE The Chamber agrees to provide evidence of insurances as required by State Law for workers compensation and liability insurances in amounts consistent with those required in Section 8 of the form Professional Services Agreement, routinely utilized by the Agency for similar services. page 6 .5¥'-7 IX. ASSIGNMENT No assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation of performance hereunder shall be made, either whole or in part, by Chamber without the prior written consent of City and Agency. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties hereto agree that Chamber and its employees, officers, and agents are independent contractors under this Agreement and shall not be construed for any purpose to be employees of the City and Agency. XI. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. XII. ATTORNEY'S FEE In the event any legal proceeding is instituted to enforce any term or provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an amount determined by the Court to be reasonable. XIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, signed by all parties. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga/Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Date For the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Date page 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES RECOMMENDATION Approval of a Resolution enacting an agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District for funding fire protection services during Fiscal Year 1997/98. BACKGROUND As a result of property tax reassessments which reduced tax revenues to the District, the City has agreed to enter into an agreement with the District to fund this revenue shortfall. For Fiscal Year 1997/98 it is projected that the District will have an estimated revenue deficit of $646,000. The City desires that the level of fire protection services be maintained at its current level. This will be the third year the City Council and District Board have entered into this agreement. The attached agreement transfers up to $646,000 in General Fund dollars to the Fire District for Fiscal Year 1997/98 ensuring fire protection services continue at their current level. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam City Manager $7 RESOLUTION NO. 97- /30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of Fire Protection Services within the city to make up a shortfall in District revenues, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that sufficient funds are available to provide to District to maintain existing service levels within the City's boundaries, during fiscal year 1997/98, and; WHEREAS, the attached agreement for funding of fire protection services provides authorization for payment of said funds for fire protection services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement for funding of fire protection services within the City limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga during fiscal year 1997/98. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this __ th day of ,1997 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MT. HIGH ENTERTAINMENT FOR CONCERT ENTERTAINMENT AND PRODUCTION SERVICES AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE OCTOBER 10, 1997 "GUESS WHO" COMMUNITY CONCERT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the approval of an Agreement with Mt. High Entertainment in the amount of $5,000 for entertainment and production services for a community concert. It is further recommended that the budget appropriation for the community concert be approved in the amount of $59,320 from Fund 13 (Recreation Fund). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: At your meeting of June 4, 1997, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the possibility of providing small scale community concerts and entertainment at the Epicenter Stadium. Staff has discussed the production of a "Guess Who" community concert at the Epicenter to be held on October 10, 1997. The co-headliner groups would be Shadows of Knight, Mitch Ryder and John Cafferty. Staff has negotiated an Agreement with Mike Scafuto of Mt. High Entertainment (Mt. High) for this concert. The Agreement provides that Mt. High will negotiate the artist contracts and assist with the concert production set up (procurement of the stage, lighting and technical systems, in-field seating, provide four stage hands, etc). Mt. High would also work with staff on marketing and promotions of the concert. Mt. High's fee for these services will be $5,000. The projected budget revenues of $59,320 are based upon the projected sale of 3,500 tickets. Ticket prices for the concert are $12.00 for 2,000 Grandstand seats; $15.00 for 1,000 General In-field seats; and $25.00 for 500 Front In-field seats. Also included in the revenue projection are proceeds from concessions, parking, and sponsorship contributions. The Community Services Department will produce the concert as a community special event. As with any special event, the main goal will be to provide wholesome, family entertainment for Rancho Cucamonga. No professional promoter nor staff can guarantee that the projected 3,500 tickets will be sold. However, we will use every tool available to attempt to have a break-even concert, but this is a special event similar to the Founder's Day Parade, Art in the Park, Concerts Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Continued... Page 2 in the Park, Movies in the Park and Fourth of July festivities. Revenues do not match expenditures in most cases. The concert budget appropriations are based upon direct costs for the concert with City support services being handled as in any other community special event. In an effort to assist non-profit sports groups with fundraising, ticket discounts of $2.00 for $12.00 and $15.00 tickets and $4.00 for $25.00 tickets will be provided for non-profit sports group sales. FISCAL ANALYSIS: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement with Mt. High Entertainment in the amount of $5,000 and the budget appropriation for the "Guess Who" concert in the amount of $59,320 in Fund 13 (Recreation Fund) which includes the Mt. High Entertainment contract amount of $5,000. Respectfully submitted, Community Services Manager AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTION OF CONCERTS This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation (herein referred to as "CITY"), and MT. HIGH ENTERTAINMENT, a California Limited Partnership (herinafter referred to as "MT. HIGH") concerning the production and presentation of one (1) community concert tentatively scheduled for October, 1997 to be presented at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter Stadium in Rancho Cucamonga, California. A. Recitals. (I) Mt. High is a professional entertainment promoter and production contractor established for the purpose of producing, presenting and making available to the public a community concert and special event. (ii) City desires to contract with Mt. High who is experienced and is an expert in the area of concert production for the production of a community concert during the time period specified herein. (iii) City and Mt. High desire to enter into an Agreement for the presentation of a community concert to be produced at the City's stadium commonly referred to as the Epicenter (hereinafter referred to as "Stadium") on the terms and conditions set forth herein. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the City and Mt. High as follows: 1. In accordance with the provisions hereof, City and Mt. High shall produce one (1) community concert at the Stadium during the time frame of October, 1997. 2. Mt. High shall provide all of the following services in connection with the community concert described in item B. 1. above and shall employ its best professional efforts in doing so: a. Negotiate and secure talent, which has been approved by the City Manager or his designee, review contracts and rider, making necessary changes as needed. Talent fees not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), shall be paid directly to Mt. High. b. Provide professional expertise and advice to City for the production of the community concert. Keep acts, bands, agents, managers and the City informed of details required for the concert, to ensure that the concert runs as smoothly as possible. For their professional management services Mt. High shall be paid a sole, total sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000). c. Provide sound, lights, stage and necessary crew to operate sound and lighting, as well as four (4) stagehands. Provide main stage sound, system, lighting system, stage system, artist performance, stagehands, runner, backline equipment, ticketing through Ticketmaster, if requested by City marketing, merchandising, etc.. Production fees shall be paid directly to Mt. High for maximum amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Any additional items needed for the production of said community concert shall be obtained only upon approval of City. above. Mt. High will present invoices and receipts to City for payment of costs noted o City agrees to provide for the following contract and production services: a. Food and beverage for artist(s) and VIP reception, if scheduled. b. Any and all permits and cost of permits. c. Security/crowd control. d. Fire protection and ambulance service as required by local regulatory codes. e. Electrical power. f. Audio 1 O0 amps per leg, 3 phase X neutral ground. g. Lighting, 200 amps per leg, 3 phase, neutral ground (panels to be within 1 O0 feet of back of stage). h. Ground transportation if required by artist(s). -2- Hotel rooms as required by artist(s) rider, if necessary. One (1) City staff member with full knowledge of Stadium to be available from load-in time to load-out time. Insurance coverage per artist rider requirements. 4. City shall pay all fees in a timely manner. Payment of said fees will be as follows: a. Eight complimentary tickets in the first 10 rows for MT. HIGH b. Artist/talent fees shall be paid as follows: (I.) Fifty percent (50%) due upon signing of artist contract with the remaining fifty percent (50%) due by 3:00 p.m. day of show, rain or shine. c. Mt. High fees shall be paid as follows: (I.) Fifty percent (50%) due upon signing of Agreement with the remaining fifty percent (50%) due by 3:00 p.m. day of show, rain or shine. 5. Mt. High shall advise artist/talent and pay to City 20% of gross receipts from the sale of artist/talent merchandize and novelty sales. 6. The City retains the fight of food and beverage concessions fees from concession sales and the exclusive fight to all parking fees. 7. City's duties and responsibilities hereunder shall be coordinated by City Manager or his designated representative. Mt. High's duties and responsibilities hereunder shall be coordinated by Michael Scafuto. 8. Mt. High agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the City, its directors, officers, employees, and agents from any damage or injury to any person or property from any cause whatsoever which may occur, due to the presence and/or activities of Mt. High's performance of its obligations on or about the premises owned and/or controlled by the City, except for a cause of injury or damage which is the result of the sole negligence or wilful misconduct of the City, its employees or servants, hereunder to the maximum extent allowed by law. -3- City agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless Mt High, its directors, officers, employees, and agents from any damage or injury to any person or property from any cause whatsoever which may occur due to the presence and/or activities of City's performance of its obligation on or about the premises owned and/or controlled by the City, except for a cause of injury or damage which is the result of the sole negligence or wilful misconduct of Mt. High or its employees, hereunder to the maximum extent allowed by law. 9. Mt. High shall not broadcast or permit or allow any broadcast over radio, television or other broadcasting mechanism of any portion or portions of said show without the express written permission of City. Further, Mt. High shall not record or permit or allow the recordation of any portion or portions of the performance by tape-recording, videotape, record or any other means or methods without the express written permission of City. Any such broadcasting or recording permission shall be subject to a separate agreement by and between Mt. High and City. City will permit the news media access to the Stadium to tape interviews or clips of said show. 10. It is understood that Mt. High is not an agent or employee of the City and is not eligible to lay claim to benefits from Social Security, State Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation Coverage, or to those benefits reserved for employees of the City. 11. It is the responsibility of Mt. High for properly reporting all monies earned as a result of work done for the City to the State and Federal Governments. The City shall distribute Internal Revenue Form 1099 to the Federal Government describing monies earned by Mt. High. Mt. High shall receive a copy for tax purposes. 12. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred without prior written consent of City. Should such authorization be granted, Mt. High agrees to inform any subcontractor of all stipulations of this Agreement. 13. The City shall reserve the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, upon the failure of Mt. High to comply with the terms and intent of the Agreement. -4- 14. Any and all existing Agreements or renewals between the parties hereto, covering the same subject matter, are hereby canceled and superseded by this Agreement and such prior arrangements shall have no further force or effect. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed for all purposes under the laws of the State of Califomia. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby enter into this Agreement, Dated: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: William J. Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: MT. HIGH ENTERTAINMENT By: Michael Scafuto -5- EPICENTER CONCERT BUDGET "The Guess Who" October 10, 1997 ESTIMATED REVENUES: Ticket Sales 2,000 ~ $12/ticket 1,000 ~ $15/ticket 500 .~ $25/ticket 3,500 Tickets Sky Box Sales 6 boxes ~ $200/box Concessions - Food & Beverage Merchandise Concessions Parking Fee ($3.00/car) Sponsorships TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES SubTotal $24,000 $15,000 $12,500 $1,200 $1,500 $ 500 $ 2,620 $ 2,000 $59,320 $51,500 ESTIMATED EXPENSES: Maintenance & Operations Marketing & Promotions Reception Supplies Port-a-Potties Misc/Contingency Contract Services Mt High Entertainment Contract Production Costs (Stage, Lights, Sound, Production Staff) Entertainment/Artist Private Security Portable Seating Special Event Insurance TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE $ 7,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,320 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $15,000 $2O,OOO $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,500 $59,320 Revised.' August 27, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO ESCROW FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 111 N. GROVE AVE. KNOWN AS "THE GROVE YARD" RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve entering into escrow for the sale of the Grove Yard with Mr. Michael H. GillJam, using Chicago Title and the Ridens and Associates Real Estate Brokerage Firm for clearance of legal documents. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved the disposal of the vacant corporate yards located at 111 North Grove, Upland. The site is within the city limits of the City of Upland. The County acquired the site in 1928 and the City from the County in 1981. It was used as the Street Maintenance Yards by the County and the City until 1989 when it was replaced by the current City facilities on 9th Street. Since then it has been used for storage of maintenance materials and tools. The County Environmental Agency issued a permit for removal of the fuel tanks and declared the site free of contamination. The site has received a Hazardous Waste, Phase One, Environmental Clearance. Originally the property was appraised at $225,000.00 which did not consider costs to install future street improvements and remove structures on the property. The appraisal was updated considering these factors and the revised appraisal estimates the property value to be between $65,000.00 and $85,000.00. Two legitimate offers have been received for the property, both for $80,000. Mr. Gilliam, a current resident of the City, is recommended. Respectfully submitted, William'-J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:MO:JLM:Is _.2 ORDINANCE NO. 20-A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORDINANCE NO. 3586, RELATING TO REFUSE AND WEED ABATEMENT, INCLUDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO, AND SETTING FORTH PENALTIES. A. Recitals. (i) Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part I of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (Section 50020, et seq.) authorizes the adoption, by reference, of Ordinance No. 3586 of the County of San Bernardino, providing regulations and procedures for refuse abatement. (ii) At least one (1) copy of Ordinance No. 3586, certified as full, true and correct, has been filed with the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk. (iii) A duly noticed public hearing, as required by California Government Code Section 50022.3, has been conducted and concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: SECTION '1. Ordinance No. 20 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and Part IV of Chapter 1.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code adopted thereby, hereby are repealed in their entirety, provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or apply to any violation of Ordinance No. 20 occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION2. PURPOSE. A new Part IV hereby is added to Chapter 1.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "IV. WEED ABATEMENT "1.08.100 Purpose. Ordinance 20-A Page 2 "The purpose of this ordinance is to provide standards and procedures for the abatement of refuse and weeds by the County of San Bernardino within the corporate limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. "1.08.110 Adoption of county refuse abatement procedures. "Ordinance No. 3586 of the County of San Bemardino, amending Chapter 3 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the San Bernardino County Code and providing regulations and procedures for refuse abatement, hereby is adopted by reference, subject to the additions, deletions and amendments set forth herein. "1.08.120 Amendments to Ordinance No. 3586. ~eA. Whenever the term 'County," County Area,' 'County Areas,' 'County of San Bernardino,' 'Mountain Area,' or 'Desert Area' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'City' or 'City of Rancho Cucamonga' unless the content makes such construction inconsistent with the refuse abatement procedures of this Part. "B. Whenever the term 'Board of Supervisors' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'City Council, City of Rancho Cucamonga.' "C. Whenever the term 'Agency' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture' or 'County Agricultural Commissioner.' eeD. Whenever the term 'Board of Appeals' or 'Appeals Board' is used or referred to, it shall mean the Appeals Board established in Section 23.040 of the County Code. "E. Whenever the term 'Fire Warden' or 'County Fire Warden' is used or referred to, it shall mean the 'Chief of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.'" SECTION 5. DELETIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 3586. Section 23.043, as set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3586, and Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3586, hereby are deleted. SECTION 6. PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each Ordinance 20-A Page 3 such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 7. CIVIL REMEDIES AVAILABLE. The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City or County of San Bernardino through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. The City Clerk to certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Ordinance 20-A Page 4 I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 20th day of August, 1997, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 3rd day of September, 1997. Executed this 4th day of September, 1997, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF' REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager DESIGNATION OF A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEETING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council designate a voting representative and an alternate who can be present at the Business Session of the Annual League Meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, in San Francisco. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This year's League Annual Meeting is scheduled for October 12 through October 14, 1997. At the Business Session, which is to take place on Tuesday, October 14, 9:30 a.m., the membership will be taking action on resolutions which will guide cities and the League in an effort to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government within the State of California. The League is requesting each City designate a voting representative and an alternate to be present at the Business Session to vote on matters affecting municipal and/or League policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully sfibmitted, Jack Lam, AICP City Manager JL/dja Attachment !1111! [11/[ / munn League of California Cities Illl~t ~ 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · (916) 658-8200 ill/!.- RECEIVED California Cities Work Together July 18, 1997 To' JUL 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CiTY CLERK The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ronald Bates, League President, Mayor Pro Tem, Los Alamitos Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for Sunday, October 12 through Tuesday, October 14, 1997 in San Francisco. One very important aspect of the Annual Conference is the annual Business Meeting when the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual Conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California. It is important that all cities be represented at the Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 14, at 9:30 a.m. at the Moseone Convention Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Meeting. League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the city council on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form." If the mayor or a member of the city council is in attendance at the Annual Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the city council will not have a registered delegate at the Annual Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please complete and return the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time (no later than Friday, September 26, 1997), so that proper records may be established for the Annual Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the Annual Conference registration area. The voting procedures to be followed at this Annual Conference are printed on the reverse side of this memo. Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Lorraine Okabe at 916/658-8236. League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures o o Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. To cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and rerum the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the Annual Conference registration area. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Meeting, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the Annual Conference registration area. At the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the voting card table located in the front of the meeting room. Exchanges may not be made while a roll call vote is in progress because the Credentials Committee will be conducting the roll call. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials, who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use the city's voting card and who have left a sample of their s. ignature on the Credentials Committee register will be approved. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. G:\policy\acres\voteprox.doc CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. This project was continued from the August 20, 1997, City Council meeting. At that meeting the Council directed staff to prepare two resolutions for the project. The first resolution denies Development Review 97-11 and the second resolution determines that no further environmental review is required for Tract 14771. City Planner BB:TG:taa: Attachments: Exhibit "A" - City Council Staff Report, dated August 20, 1997 Exhibit "B" - Correspondence from Malissa McKeith, dated August 21, 1997 Exhibit "C" - Correspondence from Bill Angel, dated August 21, 1997 Exhibit "D" Correspondence from William Rawlings, dated August 20, 1997 Resolution of Denial Resolution of Determination CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 20, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive- APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals filed in opposition to the project and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the development review application. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 97-11 for the development of 40 single family homes within Tract 14771. The June 11, 1997, and July 9, 1997, Planning Commission staff reports addressing that project and the related development issues are attached. Following the Planning Commission approval two separate appeals were filed contesting the project approval. The first appeal was filed by Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion (CURE). This appeal is premised on safety and environmental concerns regarding the removal of the levee. The second appeal was filed by Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing,the Rancho Cucamonga V- Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. This appeal is premised on the statement that the project site does not have legal access across the private streets within Rancho Cucamonga V. These issues were discussed at length by the Planning Commission. Although the issues appealed appear to be unrelated to the design review process, the City Engineer will be prepared to discuss these issues at the City Council meeting. 7'-/ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT August 20, 1997 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE Notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site and to all property owners within the Haven View Estates. The project site was posted. City Planner BB:TG:taa: Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Letter of Appeal, dated July 16, 1997 Letter of Appeal, dated July 17, 1997 Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 9, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 9, 1997 (includes the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 11, 1997) Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 9 1997 Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 11, 1997 Planning Commission Resolution 97-36, dated July 9, 1997 Correspondence from Malissa McKeith, dated July 23, 1997 Haven View Estates Vicinity Map Resolution of Approval 'Tc~, 212-eO~-.eOO0 372C~ 3,L~ (X)I G7.~Ck( 0'11 LOEB , : EBLLP Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~Ioch.com Hand Delivered Debra Adams, City Clerk CiD' of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 July t6, 1997 F,~CC~U~L £: 213-688-3400 RECEIVED JUl. I 7 1997 City of Rancho Cuearno Planning Division riga Re: Cucamong~ms Unilcd for Reasonable Exp,~nsion Appeal of July 9, 1097 Planning Commission Approval of Laurcn Development/Development Review 97- I Dcax Ms. Adams: Enclosed please lind a check in the amount of Si26 madc payable to the City uf Rancho Cucamo;!ga. CUi:~ appeals the July 9, 1997 Plazming Commission Appro~,al of Luuret~ [)evelopmenffDevclopmcnl Review 97-'11. Please advise me of the date of the hearing as soon as possible. Please also contact Peggy Glorias of my office at (213) 658-3734 immediatc!¥ it' an)~hing eise is needed to perfect the appeal. Th~nk you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK ' le~ MHM:pb Enclosure ICNZ,~313. LOZ Wor..~, R~FE~N & S~mo, LLP July !7, 1997 VIA PACSlM!L~ ~ ~ DELI~RY ci, ' c erk JUL City of Rancho Cucamcnga 105~0 Civic Canter Drive Rancho Cucamon~a, Califo~ia Re: Tenzative Trac~ Rap No, 1~77! {cha "Subjec: Properc~W$/o~ Dear City Clerk: This firm represents Rancho Cucamcnga V-Haven View Es:ares Homeowners' Associa:io~ (the "Association"). Th, Asso=iation has requested that we appeal the July 9, 1997, decision of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission [the "Cammisslon") to approve the application for design review. of the homes to be located on Tentative Tract MaD 14771, originally filed by Brock Homes and assumed by Lauren Development, Inc. {"Applicant"), in %he above captioned matter. The appeal is premised on the fact thac the SubjecU Property does not have legal access through the private sureeta of Tract No. 12332-2. Because there is no legal access to the Subject Property, the Applicant'; request for design approval should be denied unless or until such ~ime that 5he Applican5 estabilshes alternate legal access to the Subject Prcpersy. Enclosed herewith is a check to cover the appeal fee made payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the amount of One ~undred Twenty-Six Dol!ar~ ($126.00) Very truly yours, Enclosure cc: W_Or,F, Association's Board of Directors Daniel C. Shapiro, Esq. Rc.y G. Rifkin, Esq. Richard S. Grant, ~sq. : '. C 3 Q2 2', ~" 5~ ¢:-.e: s '. :i: y-':!-" ~. LLP 77 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1997 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. ANALYSIS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes the requirements and procedures for evaluating the potential environmental impacts resulting from the development of a project. Section 15162 establishes specific procedures when Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations are necessary. The following addresses Section 15162 and why no fur[her environmental evaluation is necessary. 15162. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require revisions of the previous Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: There has been no new information of substantial impodance which was not known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; The current application is the design review of 40 single family homes and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that wound in fact be feasible. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or nor further documentation. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. ,.' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 (c) If the projectwas approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. There are no changed circumstances with respect to the project which would result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The development consists of the design review of 40 single family homes. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:TG:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" CEQA Section 15162 CEQA: CA/..,IFORNIA E~O~ ~UALTI'Y ACT Project 15161. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. TMs type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that woCtld result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project includingpl~n~ing, construction, a~d operation. Note: Authority cited.' Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21]00, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations 1516Z (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be pr..epared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified sig- nificant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (13) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Nfitigafion measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project vropo- nents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an adden- dum, or no further documentation. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in the subsection (a), the subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent E[R or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087; Reference: Public Resources Code 2] 166; Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1065 (1986); Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991). Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CEQA which limit preparation of a subsequent EIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process. This section also clarifies that a subsequent EIR may be prepared where a negative declaration had previously been adopted. Further, a subsequent negative declaration may be adopted where none of the situations described in subsection (a) have occurred. Subsections (b) and (c) explain which agency would have responsibility for preparing a subsequent EIR underdi~erentcircum~tances~Asub~equentE~Rmu~t~f~urs~receivethe~amecirculati~nandreviewas the previous EIR. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT ,. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: July 9, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. (Continued from June 11, 1997.) ANALYSIS: This application was continued from the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to allow both staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to review and respond to the issues presented at that meeting. In addition to a fair representation of property owners within the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association stating their opposition to the proposed project, there was also representation from the Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") and the Spirit of the Sage Council opposing the project through oral and written testimony. The following summation addresses the issues presented at that meeting. In addition, the applicant has provided their own response to the issues raised (Exhibits "D, ""E," "F," and "G"). Failure to Provide Notice. There are two issues regarding notice related to this project. The first concerns the notice for the May 27, 1997, Neighborhood Meeting. As stated in the staff report dated June 11, 1997, these notices were mailed out on May 21, and the meeting scheduled for May 27, to provide community awareness of the project and afford the applicant the opportunity to make any necessary design modifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by the management company for the two homeowners associations. This meeting was not a City function, but rather a Neighborhood Meeting between the applicant and adjacent homeowners. The second issue has to do with notice for the June 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. No notice was provided for this project because the project does not require review as an advertised public hearing. The Development Code requires review and consideration by the Planning Commission, but not as a public hearing, and as such was scheduled as a consent calendar item. B. Invafid Tract Map. Statements that the Tract Map is invalid are incorrect. Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were initially approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990; the initial approval was for two years. On October 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 2 project until November 14, 1993. In 1993, Senate Bill 428 automatically extended, by 24 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by September 13, 1993. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1995. On October 30, 1995, the City Planner approved a one-year time extension for Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 extending the project until November 14, 1996. And finally, in 1996 Assembly Bill 711 automatically extended, by 12 months, the expiration date of any tentative subdivision map that had not expired by May 14, 1996. As the map was still valid on that date, Tract 14771 and Variance 90-08 were extended until November 14, 1997. The extensions granted by the State of California are in addition to any City extensions. The Municipal Code establishes criteria for the extension of tentative tract maps. Section 16.16.170(C) identifies that "Extensions may be granted for a period or periods not exceeding a total of three years." As the City has only approved two time extension requests, one additional time extension request may be considered extending the tentative map and variance until November 14, 1998. Violation of CEQA. Statements that the proposed project violates CEQA are incorrect. The proposed project is the design review of 40 single family homes and, as such, is not subject to further environmental analysis. As part of the initial project evaluation of Tentative Tract 14771, staff completed the Initial Study to analyze and address potential environmental impacts. That evaluation recommended, and the Planning Commission approved, a Negative Declaration for the project. Following approval, the Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination were filed with the County Clerk. Regarding compliance with Fish and VVildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game requirements for evaluation of the gnatcatcher and sage scrub habitat; the applicant's representative stated (as the attached minutes reflect) that the applicant is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act, that they intend to comply with Federal and Stare requirements, and that they are aware that violation carries both civil and criminal penalties. Design and Construction Concerns. Several design and construction concerns were also identified and include: removal of the existing levee, access to the project, unit compatibility, and the financial stability of the applicant. The Conceptual Grading Plan approved with the Tentative Tract Map proposed the removal of the existing earthen levee and the installation of a concrete drainage channel along the northern boundary of the tract. Exhibit "D" of the June 11 staff report clearly shows the existing earthen swale and the proposed concrete channel and, as previously expressed by staff, the proposed Grading Plan is in substantial conformance with the originally approved Grading Plan. Access to the project site will take place from the existing streets within Haven View Estates. The Tentative Tract Map identifies a street pattern, consistent with the surrounding streets, taking access from both Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. Recorded street easement and maintenance agreement documents have been submitted to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT July 9, 1997 Page 3 The project was designed to meet the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations with respect to setbacks, lot coverage, grading, unit massing, etc. The architectural variety was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and recommended to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Residents have expressed concerns with the size of the proposed units. As stated in the June 11 staff report, units range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet which far exceeds the minimum City requirement of 1,000 square feet. Further, they are consistent with homes in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "B" - June 11, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - Letters of Opposition Received after June 11, 1997, Meeting Exhibit "D" - June 30, 1997, Letter from Applicant Exhibit "E" - June 27, 1997, Letter from Hewitt & McGuire Exhibit "F" - June 25, 1997, Letter from Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh Exhibit "G" - June 26, 1997, Letter from MDS Consulting Resolution of Approval with Conditions /- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 11, 1997 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates) which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community (see Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: Background: Tract 14771 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. That approval included a 40-lot subdivision of the project site (see Exhibit "B") and proposed grading (see Exhibit "D"). General: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading (see Exhibit "C"). The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between the garage floor and interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; Plans 1 and 2 have side-slope elevations, while Plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations (see Exhibit "G"). Floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the six different floor plans will result in eleven different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11, 1997 Page 2 The exhibits attached to this report contain the two Grading Plans associated with this project. Exhibit "D" contains the Grading Plan previously approved by the Planning Commission and Exhibit "C" contains Grading Plan proposed for the current project. ProPOsed grading is in substantial conformance with the originally approved grading plan and was designed to minimize the amount of grading associated with the proposed project and maintain the contour characteristics of the existing topography. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman) reviewed the project on May 20, 1997, and recommended approval subject to the following: A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages, therefore, 3 lots should be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed toward the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. Neighborhood Meeting: Representatives from the two Homeowners Associations within Haven View Estates were present at the May 20, 1997, Design Review Committee meeting. These representatives were given the opportunity to comment on the project and raised issues such as: neighborhood compatibility, garage orientation, garage appearance, view of structure from the street, and unit square footage. On May 27, 1997, a Neighborhood Meeting was held in the Rains Room at City Hall. Notices for this meeting were mailed out by Euclid Management Company who manage the two existing homeowners associations within Haven View Estates. Notices were mailed out on May 21, 1997, and the meeting scheduled for May 27, to provide community awareness of the project and afford the applicant the opportunity to make any necessary design modifications prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood meeting was attended by 3 representatives of the project applicant, a Planfling Division representative, and 11 persons representing eight separate parcels (see Exhibit "1"). The following issues were identified: percentage of front facing garage doors, providing additional massing to reduce vertical elements, use of optional design elements (e.g., porte-cochere), building square footage, unit cost, providing additional exterior materials (e.g., stone, brick, metal railings), providing as much architectural variation as possible to create compatibility with the surrounding development, and providing an additional elevation alternative on the single stow elevation. Following the Neighborhood Meeting the applicant indicated their willingness to modify their project based upon staff suggestions, Design Review Committee comments, and comments from the adjacent Homeowners Associations (see Exhibit "J"). The following modifications are proposed: door and window surrounds on all elevations, additional multi-pane windows, reducing the number of front-on garages, reducing the number of Plan 3 homes, providing a second elevation alternative for the Plan 1, reducing the number of optional elements (e.g., making the Plan 3 portal mandatory), and providing additional color schemes. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEV. June 11, 1997 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:TG: Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map "B" Original Tract Map "C" - Detailed Site Plan/Grading Plan "D" - Original Grading Plan Approved for Tract 14771 "E" - Landscape Plan "F" - Potential Corral Pads "G" - Elevations "H" - Design Review Committee Comments 'T' May 27, 1997 Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet Exhibit "J" May 29, 1997 Letter from Applicant Resolution of Approval 2'¢ L_ ~ X 9¢ Z Z Z k-- .< LLJ ,--I LLJ LL~ -f- '¢/7 LU Z < Z < .'1 Z Z : I Z _o El.. 0 D L) U Z Z < Z ,J z 0 ~z "~0 ,,~...::?,.-.~ .~(~ ~ ,?. ~,,' .,~%~. '~::~ j~ '%. ~ ;~'.< Z- i · ~...~.;~.~.~. O~ IZ 5 · Z :7 < (.3 z 0 ~0 ,,-~? ~.:~..~(X) c0 :! %'-:~*,~-Z ~ i Z /i z i z 0 D o u < -F > ,,, ~ Z .j ,,, Z <: Z z 0 :D o F- L) d' > 'T' ,,, Z .~ L) -~ "' 7<:: [---] < ~ 0 -- ~ ~ X 6:40 p.m. Tom Grahn May 20, 1997 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detail:e~l Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, Consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. Ba.c.kground: Tract 14771 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990. The project site is currently vacant with an average slope of 5.9 percent, although some portions reach a 10 percent slope. A man-made levee for flood control purposes is located along the southern side of the site, north of Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street. The site is bordered on the north by a Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light easement, on the east by Flood Control District land, and on the south and west by Tract 12332-2 (Haven View Estates)which is partially constructed. Haven View Estates is a gate guarded community developed with custom and semi-custom homes and private streets. The project site is located on a remainder parcel in the northeast portion of the gated community. Design Parameters: The project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and as such was designed to minimize the amount of grading. The design includes split level pads with multilevel breaks ranging from 36-inches to 78-inches between tile garage floor to interior levels of the first floor. There are essentially six different floor plans; plans ~ hhd 2 have side-slope elevations, xvhile plans 3 and 4 have both side-slope and uphill-slope elevations. The floor plans range in size from 3,127 to 4,307 square feet. These floor plans have three elevation alternatives that include French Country, Spanish Colonial, and Italian Tuscan that when used on the 6 different floor plans will result in I I different houses being constructed on the 40 lots. Elevations were not provided for the Plan 3 side-slope elevation because of the design similarity to the Plan 3 uphill-slope elevation. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. Conditions of Approval for Tract 14771 (Resolution 90-138) identify that a maximum of 33 percent of the lots shall be front-on garages. There are 40 lots within the tract and therefore a maximum of 13 lots may have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots designed with front- on garages, therefore 3 lots shall be revised to a non front-on garage condition. The applicant has chosen a design alternative that technically results in a garage door that fronts- on to the street on an additional 17 lots. The Plan 2 and 4 side-slope elevations provide a garage located to the rear of the house, from 38 to 46 feet behind the front elevation of the house, and situated behind an optional porte-cochere. [t is staffs opinion that these are not front-on garage elevations and would not be subject to the previously identified condition of approval. Secondam Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Commit'tee ,,viii discuss the following secondary design issues. Lots 23 and 39 do not meet the front setback requirement. Project: Title: Exhibit: Date: lid DRC COMMENTS DR 97-11- LAUREN DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1997 Page 2 2. Lot 1 does not meet the'comer side yard setback for the porte-cochere. 3. Provide door and window stucco surrounds on all elevations. Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to the side and rear elevations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commit'tee fo~vard the project to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Public Comments: Bruce Ann Hahn felt that the proposed design svas not compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: Floor plans are too small and garage doors are facing the street. Bill Angel expressed concerns that side slope front elevations were too narrow as viewed from the street. He also stated that some of the side elevations should be redesigned to break-up the flat t~vo-story vertical plane. He opposed the proposed houses because they did ndt'~11 tile width of the lot. Desien Reviexv Committee Action' Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Design Review Committee felt the proposed project presented a "custom home" feel in the architecture and generous setbacks. The Committee noted only a small number of homes have been built within this large neighborhood. The proposed floor plan sizes were deemed appropriatel The Committee noted that the majority of garage doors do not face the street and, in those situations where they face the street, the garage is typically set back 38 to 46 feet behind the front of the house behind an optional porte-cochere. The Committee recommended approval subject to tile following: A maximum of 13 lots should have front-on garages. There are currently 16 lots with front-on garages; therefore, three lots shall be revised to a side-on garage condition or with the garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2. Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3. Provide additional multi-pane ~vindo~v treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. /// Project: ~ ~l'~t/,' Title: ~(,1~t~O~ ~. ~ Exhibit: ~ \.~ Date: LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. May 29, 1997 RECEIVED Mr. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca-91729 MAY 2 9 lC 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION- TRACT 14771 Dear Mr. Grahn: Enclosed are the 8.5" x 1 I" PMT's which you requested. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize revis. ions made to our plans since their original submittal and to propose three additional measures which will further benefit the project. These revisions resulted from suggestions proposed by staff, the design review committee and the three meetings at which the Haven View Estates homeowners ,,,,'ere present. Window & Door Surrounds: We agree with the city's and the homeowner's recommendation to add additional surrounds around all windows and doors. Multi-pane Windows: We agree with the city's recommendation to add additional multi- pane windows to the homes. Front Facing Garage Lots: We agree with the city's recommendation to change the homes on three lots to non-front facing garages. The resulting change to the plot plan brings the project into conformity with the 33% condition referenced in the Conditions of Approval. Reduction in Number of Plan Three Homes: Concerns were raised by the neighbors about the number of Plan Threes and there reception by the public. Although we feel confident that this plan will be well received by the public, we have elected to reduced the number of Plan Three homes from twelve to nine homes replacing them with two of the larger Plan Fours and one Plan Two. This re-plotting of larger homes is in response to the homeowner's request to increase overall project square footage. The average of all units is now 3,988 square feet (outward appearance, optional interior areas expanded) while the median size of the existing Haven View Estates home is 4,086 square feet, a difference of only 98 square feet. CITY OF R AMONGA " ,, PLANNI~_~/ISiON Project: Title: Exhibit: Date: Second Elevation for the Plan One: Although we currently propose to construct only four of these homes, we will agree to the neighbors' request that we provide another elevation for this plan. This new elevation would of course be subject to Planning approval prior to submittal to Building & Safety. The new Plan One elevation we are considering will have a side entry garage. This design would not only satisfy the neighbors concern for additional diversity, but it could farther reduce the number of lots with front facing garages. Making the Portal on the Plan Three Mandatory: We believe the home is very attractive with or without the portal. In fact, this home was designed without it and it was added to create diversity among the plans. However, at our meetings with the neighbors, they felt that this optional item should be made standard. Although we will agree to include this portal as a standard element wherever setbacks allow, it should be noted that the inclusion of the portal as a standard feature, as well as the deletion of three of these plans, will decrease the diversity available. Increasing Diversity With Four Additional Color Schemes: With the addition of the Plan One change, this project xve will have six floor pl.ans, twelve elevations and 12 exterior color schemes. Add to this the extensive list of customizing elements available for both interior and exterior enhancement and we are quite confident that no two homes will be alike. However, to offset the changes made to the Plan Three and to address the concerns of the neighbors to add additional diversity, we would like to add 4 more color schemes. Two of these color schemes would employ brick veneers and two would employ stone veneers. The total available exterior color/material treatments would therefore increase to 16. Of course, these new color schemes would be subject to Planning approval. If you wish to make these last three items additional conditions of.approval, that is acceptable to US. Very truly yours, John L. Allday 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cuc:amonga, CA 91730 909 484-1P_.F~3 FAX ~c~39 484-18E,4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived at 7:30 p.m. and was seated at 9:00 p.m.) William Bethel, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, indicated that staff had been contacled by some residents who expressed concerns regarding Item A and new int'ormafion had been submitted which was bei'ore the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission pull the item from the Consent Calendar, allow public comments, and continue the matter until July 9, 1997, in order to allow staff and the Commission to review the materials submitted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and Macias absent),.1o approve the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of April 9, 1997. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and M,~cias absent), to approve the minutes o~' May 14, 1997. The Minutes for May 28, 1997, were not acted upon because Commissioners Bethel and McNiel had not been present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. ,, e Chairman McNiel pulted Item A from the Consertl Calendar. 1'1' II 11..5 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Planning Commission only~to review the design of the homes. He reported that the tract.map was approved in 1990 and the eh~,ironmental clearance was also completed in 1990. He stated that letters had been presented from attorneys who disagree. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and indicated three letters had been received in opposition to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Allday, Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for its guidance in understanding the Hillside Development Ordinance. He reported they had met with many residents of Haven View Estates and have incorporated many of the comments. He stated the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the grading plan is consistent with the approved tract map and the conceptual grading plan approved in 1990. He felt the development is consistent with the community and stated they had researched the building permits and design review applications of the existing and approved houses in the development. He presented a summary of existing home sizes and a graph showing that 60 percent of the existing homes are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes. He reported that 55 homes have been built on the 243 home sites. Mr. Allday stated that in July 1996 his firm had begun consultations with the existing homeowners associations within the community. He said they met with the members of the boards of the associations earlier this year and the associations expressed concerns about access, development rights, and association management issues. He stated those issues had been resolved years ago in court approved settlement agreements which were recorded against all of the properties. He indicated they also had a neighborhood meeting. He said there have been some recent design changes as a result of comments from those meetings including adding surrounds around all windov,,s and doors, decreasing the number of homes with front-on garages, changing the plotting to increase square footage, and agreeing to provide a second plan elevation for Plan 1. He indicated they have an optional design element on Plan 3 which the homeowners want to make standard even though that will defeat the diversity argument and said they will provide that element where setbacks permit it. He stated they had added four more color schemes which will provide6 floor plans, 12 elevations, and 16 color and material schemes which would allow for up to 264 combinations of homes on their 44 lots. He showed a rendering or'Plan3. following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P.O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Mahlan Sampson, P.O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Tim Resar, 5078 Granada, Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Coud, Rancho Cucamonga Doug Kreinheder, 4146 Clover Place, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Montgomery, 10213 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Ruben Salazar, 4981 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Cantarero, 5122 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga A petition with over 100 names in opposition to the project was presented. Concerns were raised regarding destruction of possible California Gnatcatcher habitat, potential for wild fires, potential for earthquakes, possibility that removal of a levy could increase danger of flooding, increased City liability in the event of a flood, changed water absorption rates and drainage patterns caused by grading, lack of sufficient public notice, reduction in properly values, lots being too small, large equipment traffic for removal of dirt, construction traffic, lack of diversity in architecture and variation in roof lines, lack of review by the existing homeowners association architectural review board, wear '~)~mmission Minutes -2- June 11, :1997 and tear on streets, number of construction workers in the area and possible increase in crime because of the presence of such workers, and possible non-compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding habitat conserv.ation signed by the City. One residefit ~omplained that too many garages will be visible from the street even when they are pulled back and indicated the 33 percent maximum for front facing garages was really an intent to hide garages to give more of an estate feeling. Objections were raised that tract homes should not be allowed in a community that is comprised mostly of custom homes. It was acknowledged that another developer had built tract homes in the community, but those homes were over 5,200 square feet. It was felt the proposed homes will be too small and it was pointed out that houses will expand square footage by increasing interior space, not by expanding walls. It was stated that the average house size built since 1990 has been over 5,400 square feet. Pictures of all of the homes in the gated community were presented. A board member of one of the existing homeowners associations stated that Lauren should join one of the existing associations and pay full fees. One resident requested an opportunity to meet with Planning staff and the developer regarding the designs. One resident stated that Lauren had incorporated in 1988 and he felt that indicated a lack of experience by the developer. The financial stability of the developer was questioned and allegations were made that a prior company owned by the developer had been sued. A request was made that the City determine if there were any problems or lawsuits in connection with prior projects developed by the applicant. One individual indicated a juice bar and private home is located at the business address of the developer. The residents requested further traffic, noise, and air pollution studies because of the funding and approval of the Route 30 freeway and additional biological studies regarding the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage. Itwas contended that the Planning Commission's review of the design reopened the matter with respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One resident requested a full Environmental lmpact Report. Mr. Allday stated there is a business sign on the front door of their business and said he had been a privale planner for over 21 years, a government planner for 6 years, and is a Planning Commissioner in another City. He s~ated there had been many untrue things said and asked that the Commissioners remember that the subject is the design review oi' the houses. He noted that several statements had been made that they had not contacted the homeowners or board members ofthe homeowners association. He asserted they had dealt with Euclid Management Company which handles the day-to-day operations of the homeowners associations and indicated they have written correspondence from the management company. He stated that the project is in compliance v/ith the Hillside Development Ordinance and all City codes. Jeffrey Borum, Gipson, Hoffman, & Panclone, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, stated his firm represents Lauren Development and the company is owned by two people, Bill and Cathy Ford, who have been in the development field for 15 years. He said they are a small firm that does quality worK. He noted that the City code does not require 7,500 square foot homes even'though residents may want larger homes to increase their own property values. He said this was ihe first time they had heard there is serious opposition to the project. He stated there are court settlements which grant Lauren access easements over Ringstem, Tackstem, and Clover. He said those access rights were litigated by Cristiano, the former owner, in the late 1980s and the agreement was signed by representatives for both existing homeowners associations. He stated the developer has not been sued for fraud. He noted that Western Residential was a prior company in the 1980s which broke up because there was another partner involved, not because of a lawsuit. Mr. Borum stated that the court documents regarding access rights also allow Lauren to form its own homeowners association and a final decision regarding that matter has not been made but Lauren is leaning toward doing so. Andrew Hartzel, Hewitt & McGuire, Irvine, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Irvine, said he is the natural resources counsel to Lauren. He stated Lauren is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. He said they intend to comply fully with the Endangered Species Act, both federal and state, and do not intend to take any listed species .:ommission Minutes -3- June 11, 1997 associated with this project development. He stated his client is fully aware that the act carries civil and criminal sanctions. He repoded Lauren Development requested that the Afmy Corps of · Engineers visit the site and the Corps confirmed they do not have jurisdiction on 'the~site. He said they also had the Department of Fish and Game visit the site to be sure there are no riparian areas under its jurisdiction and it was determined that is not an issue. He reported that Lauren hireda team of Gnatcatcher biologists to survey the site and no birds were found on the site or in the immediate area bordering. the site. He stated California Depadment of Fish and Game staff sent a letter in April indicating that the four surveys conducted were not sufficient. He said he called the service in April to ask what its concerns were and still had not heard back from them but he would continue to follov~ up. He commented that Lauren Development is under no obligations to do any further surveys for the Gnatcatcher. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to compel Lauren to do any surveys and said they would continue to dialogue with the service. He indicated he was very familiar with the MOU referred to by Ms. Klippstein and said this project would not violate the MOU. He stated the action before the Planning Commission is a design review issue and not defined as a project for the purposes of CEQA. He said the CEQA issues which had been raised were not relevant to the discretionary action of by the Planning Commission with respect to the design review. He commented that the issues raised by CURE and Spirit of lhe Sage would apply to all undeveloped lots in the community, not just this parcel. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, to continue Development Review 97-11 to July 9, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BETHEL, MCNIEL, NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, MACIAS TOLSTOY - carried Mr. Buller indicated that a copy of the tape for tonight's meeting would be provided to the two Commissioners who were not present so they would be brought up to date. He encouraged residents to visit the Planning Division and noted the applicant had also extended an invitation to meet with residents. He hoped the residents would take the time to understand the proiect before it retumed to the Commission on July 9. Pie stated theCi~yhas met and exceeded the requirements of the state with respect to noticing and public review of the project. He asked the residents to talk to their neighbors regarding the next meeting. Inc Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at which" -' ~ ¢mv Chairman Barker joined the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INC. - A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road-APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 14001. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of A ,environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 96-27. ,, !-'~ "L~I~11" '~"~a'~'"~ Commission Minutes -4- June 11, 1997 6-16-97 To: Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, My family and I have been residents of the Cucamonga area for 42 years. I raised my family on Archibald Ave. (the current location of the Rancho Cucamonga library). In 1986, after years of hard work, I purchased a custom home lot in Haven View Estates. It was expressed to me by Realtors that Haven View Estates, at the north part of Haven Ave., was the prime location in the City to build a custom home. We spent 18 months building . We have a nice custom home of approx. 5000 SF and have enjoyed our living in our neighborhood for the last ten years. It has now come to my attention that a developer is coming into our project to build a tract of homes. I can't believe that the city of Rancho Cucamonga would let a tract development like this come within our gates after many years of continuos custom home building. There are many areas in Ihe city that tract home development can take place, this is one of the very few areas in Rancho Cucamonga that is exclusively designated for custom homes. As you know, even higher end tract homes still degrade and lower the property values (our lifetime investmenl) of individual custom homes. ~ ~ ~.i',"~," ~','7'4 Although I attended the neighborhood/%.~ the developer in May and attended the Planning Commission meeting in June, I regret I am unable attend the July 9'* meeting. I am looking forward to the city's support in keeping our project a custom home development. Sincerely, Earle E Kruggel 4951 Cactus CT. Rancho Cucamonga 91737 RECEIVED JUN 1 6 1997 ~Jdy ol Ranclqo Cucamonga Planning Division EXHIBIT "C" 7/9/97 J~e 23, 1997 Mr. E. David Barker Planning Commission 10500 civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Dear Mr. Barker: On July 9, 1997, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission is scheduled to hear a matter involving a proposed housing development on 26 acres in the northern part of the city, just south of the National Forest and near our home. The application has been submitted by the Lauren Development Co. of Agoura Hills. If this housing development is completed, it has the potential to create a number of problems for the community and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, it is imperative that this proposed development and any proposed in the future be stopped. We do support expansion within the City. However, it must be reasonable. The proposed housing development site is located on steep, hilly terrain near the northernmost point of Haven Avenue. This project would inappropriately alter the natural flood plain and potentially endanger residents in the immediate area after fires and heavy rains, which are inevitable in our area. The proposed development would also have the impact of destroying a sensitive and nonreplaceable wildlife habitat. It is believed that the site may qualify to be a protected area. The developer may have presented misleading information to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whether by accident or design. They claim there are neither geological nor environmental concerns at issue. We along with many members of our community beg to differ. The risks the community and the City face by allowing this development to occur are great and may be very costly. We feel it is your responsibility to determine the facts and stop this disastrous development. Ernie and Mary Maldonado 4947 Calico Court Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91737 June 27, 1917 Re: Haven View Estates Opposition to ' ~.' ~,~., ~,~ Lauren Development Project" Dear Councilmember, The Cucamonga Planning Staff are approving a housing project that place our homes and family at risk of flooding and rock debris. The Project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three "blue line" streams- All of the existing flood ~ontrol'infrastructure (cited to justify removal of 'the levee) is built on earthquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake (15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake). When the flood control debris basins are damaged in a quake, there will be flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. The Planning Staff have not conducted any traffic studies. There are many children in our area and the streets are not designed to hold the amount of new traffic that would be created by the project. No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of thousands of tons of soil from levee removal. The Project is on sensitive habitat land. There are less than 2,000 acres of this type of habitat land. The Planning Staff did not require any biological studies in violation of state and federal law. The planning staff has been biased toward the developer. It has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record. As residents and tax payers, we have a right to fair, responsible planning staff who take our safety into account. If the Project is approved and there is ever flooding in our area, we will sue the City for damages. Irene Santuci Home Owner (909)987-5001 Irene Santuci 5096 Calypso Ct. Alta Loma, CA 91737 June 26,1997 Senator Barbara Boxer 2250 East Imperial Hwy Suite 545 El Segundo, CA 90245 · Mark C. Estupinian 11045 Ranch Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, i2a 91737 (909) 945-3346 Re: Lauren Development Inc. Proposed Site for Homes Dear Senator Boxer: Over the Memorial weekend, while vacationing with our family, we received a letter from our current homeowners Association, that there was a community hearing at the City Hall in Rancho Cucamonga on the Final Approval for the Proposed Home Sites of Lauren Development, Inc. on June,11,1997. This was the first and only letter on the development that we received. It wasn't until several neighbors researched and passed out information on just how the proposed project was going to affect us. At the meeting, Lauren Development spoke of there proposed homes showing us there elevation of the homes and spoke regarding the square footage of these homes and how they would not affect the values of our homes. Being a custom home builder myself, I have tried hard with design to blend to the surrounding environment with indigenous materials in hopes that other builders would follow my practice, but because of cost issues, I understand that when you build for profit, this becomes your sole objective. At first, our primary objective at the meeting was to address these issues, but after learning of the proposed grading plan, this became a more important issue, to protect my family and property. Lauren Development proposed to eliminate a levee that protects our community from several blue line streams which they have concluded are dried up and they say that this levee is not needed. I can't believe our present planning commission could be so out of touch with there surrounding area's. These streams run right to the east of my house and are collected by a catch basin in hopes to catch the run off and protect the community below us. Of course they are dried up during the summer time, but these streams become very active during the rains of the winter and spring seasons. If this levee is removed, it would put my family and surrounding neighbors in danger during a wet winter (such as the winter predicted for this year's El Ninyo). This levee is also the only protection from failure of an infrastructure, a mile above us, that was constructed on a fault line that current studies have revealed (other than their eight-year outdated study) a possible 7.5 quake which is 15 times stronger than the Northridge earthquake. I am currently a member of the Mt Baldy ski patrol and have experienced firct hand the effects on our local mountain of large snow pack conditions With warm tropical rains on top of them. If we have the kind of condition we had during the 1932 flood and the more resent flood of 1968 this levee would be our..only protection from disaster. Many homes would be lost and peoples lives would be at risk. They don't know if that infrastructure will hold during these types of conditions, especially if it had been damaged by an earthquake. In our community we have very limited area of natural habitat left. This is where Lauren Development proposes to construct there homes. I am told that there are less than 2,000 acres of this area left in the world. My daughter and I both like to walk and enjoy the deer and other natural wild life that exist there. Although I have always been in favor in the growth of our Community, I think that it is most disconcerting that when there is so much land in Rancho Cucamonga, from vacant groves to vineyards, that they would tear this sensitive habitat out only to adjoin more than over 100 lots that are undeveloped for over 10 years and in doing so put our families in danger. , This is why I have written to you today. We are in desperate need of your help!!! If this development goes through, it will not only put my family in jeopardy but also the lives of others. I have never written the government before and have never been a firm believer in our system, but when our local government has all but approved such a potentially disastrous situation in this community, I had nowhere else to turn. Please, with your influence, convince our city government to at least have Lauren Development obtain current studies on earthquake, biological and flood control issues. Thank you for your time to here our plea for help. I would appr.eciate a response at your earliest convenience, as I know how busy your schedule is. Respectfully yours, a concerned citizen, Mark C. Estupinian cc: Members of the Rancho Cucamon§a City Council: William J Alexander Paul Baine James V. Curatalo Rex Gutierrez Diane Williams Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission: E. David Barker Bill Bethel Rich Macias Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy and Jay C. Kim /23 E. David Barker Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Dr. P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 Regarding: Lauren Development Project, Rancho Cucamonga We are writting to you because of a growing concern we have about a housing project that if approved will begin. in our neighborhoo~l shortly. As voting taxpayers we feel that we have the right to a fair and responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account before any "approvals" are processed. Our main concerns are the following: 1) The Cucamonga Planning Staff is planning to approve a housing project that place our home and many others at risk for flooding and rock debris. This project involves removal of a levee that presently blocks three blue line streams. All of the existing flood control infrastructure which has been cited by Lauren Development ( the project developer) is built on earhtquake faults where new studies reveal a possible 7.5 quake could take place. A quake of this magnitude or greater would surely damage the flood control debris basin. This could result in serious flooding and debris flow. There are two designated landslide areas within a mile of our home. The levee the developer plans to take out is critical to the safety of our homes and us. 2) The project plans to build on sensitive habitat land. There are less thatn 2,000 acres like this habitat in the world. Isn't it a violation of state and federal law for the planning staff to ignore the requirement of any biological studies on this land? 3) No air quality studies have been done concerning the health impacts on us and our children during grading of the thousands of tons of soil from the levee removal. 4)' We have a 2yr old and a baby on the way. Other neighbors have small children as well. The planning staff has not looked into the design of our streets and whether they will hold the amount of new traffic that this developemerit/project would create in our neighborhood. By the way we pay hefty fees to be a part of our homeowners association. We never intended these fees to pay for non associations members to enjoy our common areas etc. every day at our expense. Our streets were not designed to accomodate all of the anticipated extra traffic. What kind of modifications children with the sizeable increase in traffic. 5) We also are very concerned with the impact these new homes would have on our property values. From what we understand about the tract homes the builder intends on building, is that the value of these homes would be far less than the lower price range of the custom homes in our neighborhood. We as homeowners have worked very hard to be in the position to invest in our current home as well as our fellow association members. This is an investment to us. Isn't there any level of protection we have against a project like this to protect the value of our investment? We know that the value of these new tract hemes will greatly devalue our home (investment) as well as the other c~stom homes in this neighorhood. The developer has blatently ignored this concern. Will the city and county be lowering our property tax bills etc. accordingly?? The people in this neighborhood are some of the higher paying Voting Tax payers in this county. As residents and taxpayers, we have a right to a fair, responsible planning staff who will take our safety and concerns into account. So far the planning staff has been biased toward the developer and has refused to produce documents that are a matter of public record to our association. If this project is approved and there is ever any flooding or accidents resulting from the above concerns we will have the right to sue the City for damages .... especially since more than one of the homeowners here have brought these concerns to the aNention of several city and planning staff members. Please help. Sincerely, :.x , Karen & Lauren Althaus 4907 Calico Ct. Alta Loma, Ca 91737 (909)945-3071 or (909) 466-7636 6128197 . E. David Barker Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dr. & Mrs. Arvind Kumra 5088 Granada Crt. Alta Loma, CA 91737 RECEIVED B City of Rancho Cucamo~ao'tV o[ ~n ¢W' ' Planning Divis~n r, Dear E. David: We are writing this letter to you because we are very concerned about the approval of a housing project located near our home. We wereqsurprised to find out about this project two weeks before it was to come before the planning commis'sion for final approval. We were not aware that this land (which we thought was a levee) could even be developed. The property in question is located North East of Haven View Estates. As homeowners in this area, we are quite worried about the added risk of flooding and increased traffic through our small streets. After investigating the records on the proposed tract, we discovered that a negative declaration was approved for the area back in 1990. It amazes me that the city can determine that there would be no environmental impact to the proposed homes or the homes located south of this levee which they plan to flatten without any research to support this builder. No environmental studies have been done. Isn't anyone concerned about the two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes, or the flooding risks if the flood control debris basins are damaged from an earthquake? We also are quite concerned about traffic and air quality which will affect us and our children's safety and health as they remove thousands of tons of soil to grade and remove the levee. No traffi~ studies or air quality studies have been done to consider our safety. No biological studies have been done to determine if this land should be preserved. · Lauren Development has been quite secretive about their plans to develop this area because I'm sure they knew that the homeowners would strongly object to destroying this levee. There are many many undeveloped lots within RC V, Haven View Estates, and Deer Creek which this developer could build on. Why are we cutting into nature, removing a levee which protects our land, and building homes close to huge power lines which you can hear buzzing overhead, when we have so many lots already available for building with streets and sidewalks and equestrian trails in place. We are appealing to you to support our efforts to stop the approval of this project. Allowing this builder to bypass necessary environmental impact reviews could result in the city's liability for flood damage. Please help us protect our homes and our city. Sincerely, Arvind and Lynne Kumra RECEIVED City of Rancho Cucarnonga June 24,1997 De~ L~ McNiel, Planning Division I m ~t~g to you in reg~ds to a housing ~ct propos~ in R~cho Cuc~ong~ Laden Development is pl~ng approhmately 40 homes m ~e top of Haven Avenue that MI1 remove · e levee ~at presently bloc~ ~ee "blue line" strems. The e~sting flood consol i~tmcmre is built on e~hqu~e faults where new studies mve~ a possible 7.5 qu~e(15 times s~onger th~ the No~dge e~qu~e). ~en ~ e~hqu~e occurs the consol b~ins Mll most likely be dm~ed ~d there may be flooding ~d debhs flow. T~s is ve~ disturbing to me ~ I live below the proposed project. I ~so feel the issue of public s~e~ needs to be addressed. ~ ~e event of a fire or other na~ dis~ter there is a d~ger of only haGng e~ts off Haven Avenue. Being a ~ se~ing where most of the ~ea is in its natur~ state, ~ e~qu~e or fire could block the only e~ts. ~cre~ing ~e gated co~i~ by 40 plus homes wSthout ~o~er escape route is dieter w~ting to happen. Yet ~other concern is the negative impact this project h~ on sensitive habitat l~d. There is less th~ two thous~d acres of this Dpe ofl~d le~ in the world. It is my underst~ding the plying s~ofR~cho Cuc~onga did not require ~y biologic~ studies which I believe to be a violation of state ~d feder~ laws. Unfo~ately lille time is le~ before the Pl~ing Cornssion vote on July 9~ ,1997. I would appreciate if you could Mdress my concerns, ~d I believe a Gsit to the proposed site would ~1ow you to see fi~th~d the adverse impact ~s development, ifilowed, ~11 have on o~ cid. Sincerely, Sue Bradford 5066 Gr~ada Cou~ R~cho Cuc~ong~ C~i~ 19737 /27 LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. June 30, 1997 Mr. Thomas Grahn Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION- TRACT 14771 - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Dear Mr. Grahn: As you requested, the following represents our responses to recent comments made regarding our Design Re,.,ie`.v application. The comments ,.ve are responding to are from the follo'`ving sources: 1. Planning Commission Testimony, 6/11/97 2. Letter from Ms. Malissa McKeith to Cit.'`"s Attorney, dated 6/11/97 (including attachments) 3. Letter from Mr. Bill Angel to Plarming Commission. dated 6/10/97 4. Letter from Mr. Earle Kruggel to Planning Commission. dated 6/16/97 5. Letters from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. dated 4/18/97 and 6/10/97 Even though most of these comments are beyond what we have been informed is the scope of a Design Review application, we `.'`'ill respond to the comments nevertheless. We respectfully reserve the right to add additional responses to these comments or to additional comments you ma`.' receive in the future. In some cases, we have elected to have others respond to specific comments, in ,.vhich case those responses are so noted and are attached to this letter. COMMENT: The city and Lauren Development o. qave inadecluate notification about this project to the residents. Lauren Development did not talk to all the property owners. Horneo`.vners v, ithin 300 feet ,.','ere not notified. RESPONSE: We have made extensive efforts to contact adjacent residents. We have been in contact with members of both existing association boards for at least one year, met formally with members of both boards in May, and met ,.vith other residents and property owners at the Design Review Committee Meeting and at a Neighborhood Meeting also held in May. Ov,'ners of 56% of all the lots in Haven View Estates were represented at the meetings held before the June I 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Subsequent to that time, we have mailed letters to each of the 106 property owners in Haven View Estates (addresses obtained from San Bernardino - L{....-"~ ~,-2.°'°('~ 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamon§a, CA 91730 EXHIBIT "D" 7/9/97 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 2 County Assessor) inviting them to visit our office to see our plans. As of this ,,witlag, we have received no responses. In additionl the city has informed us that Design Review is not a "public hearing item" and notifications to all owners within 300 feet are not required. g detailed chronology of the correspondence and meetings held with our neighbors and their elected homeowner's association board representatives is included as an attachment to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 0 COMMENT: Lauren Development is "takin_,2" endangered species. Lauren Development is violatin~ the Endano~ered Species Act. RESPONSE: This is not true. We have conaplied with and will continue to comply with all city, county, state and federal laws governing listed species. We have conducted more on-site research and met with more government officials on this site than is required by any existing regulation or condition. We are confident implementation of this development -- consistent with approvals granted in 1990 as well as tMs Design Review application-- will not violate any provision of local, state or federal law concerning listed species or result in the "take" of any listed species. Please see fiwther comments in this regard in attached letter.fi'om /It,drely Hartzell of the /cm, firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: The city and/or Lauren Develoament is violatino. q th~ Memorandum of Understandin~ / San Bernardino Multir>le S~ecies Habitat Conservation Plan by aDr>rovin~ this proiect. .. RESPONSE: This is not true. Please seeJ5o'ther comments in this regard in attached letterj5om Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) 90948.4-1863 FAX 909 ,~.4..1864 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 3 COMMENT: City Desio. n Review approval is subiect to CEOA. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issues dealt with as a part of the Design Review process have no potential for impacting the environment or addressing purported environmental concerns and therefore this project -- Design Review -- does not require additional analysis and documentation under CEQA. Please seejSwther comments in this regard in attached letterj5om Andrely Hartzell of the lmv' firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference Exhibit 2) COMMENT: The tentative tract map has expired. RESPONSE: This is not true. Ms. McKeith's letter of June 11, 1997 states that correspondence t'rom Robert Cristiano in city files dated October 14, 1993 "clearly establishes" that an extension application was "not received in a timely fashion such that the subsequent approval of an extension of the Tentative Tract Map violated" a city ordinance and that "the 1993 approval of Cristiano's extension was defective and thus the Tentative Map expired as a matter of law." She is completely wrong. Tile correspondence to which she refers is merely a letter from Mr. Cristiano seeking acknowledgment from the city that the state had recently passed legislation giving an automatic extension to all maps in the state including his map. to which tile city subsequently responded (October 20, 1993) in the affirmative. COMMENT: These homes and the proposed aradino. q are not in compliance with the Hillside' Development Ordinance. Removal of the levee is not allowed by the Hillside Development Ordinance. RESPONSE: This is not true. The house and grading plans we have submitted are in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance, as staff has confirmed in their report. We are proud of that compliance and believe this will be looked upon as a model project in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. An analysis of existing site contours and proposed grading plans was submitted and reviewed when the tentative tract map application was filed in 1990 as required by the Hillside Development Ordinance. A Conceptual Grading Plan was approved concurrent with the 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 ~e<)9 484--1883 FAX ~'9 484-1884 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 4 tentative tract map and a condition was imposed on the tentative map which requires that all future grading be consistent with that Conceptual Grading Plan. Subsequently, the prior owner of the property, Brock Homes, submitted a "Rough Grading Plan" to the city Department of Building & Safety (Plan Check 92-0904), and that Rough Grading Plan was approved by the Planning Department on March 24, 1992 as being consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan. Brock Homes was very near to initiating grading of the property at that time, however due to financial difficulties a grading permit was never issued and the site was not graded. The grading plan which ,.`.'e are now presenting as a part of this Design Review application is consistent with the 1990 Conceptual Grading Plan and the 1992 Rough Grading Plan. A comment was made that the levee cannot be graded, per the Hillside Development Ordinance, because its sides are steeper than 30%. That is not true. The Hillside De,.,elopment Ordinance '"' 0 ret~.rs only to natural features which should be preser,.'ed if the slope is greater than o0¼. The levee is not a natural feature. A re-analvsis of the grading impacts is not necessary at this time. as tile impacts of tile grading plans were evaluated when the tentative tract map was first approved in 1990. Our homes have been designed to step with the slope. and minimal deviation from what was the original grade of the site ,.viii be required. Our six floor plans have major splits inside the homes, of 36", 54", 66". 66", 60" and 78", or from 3 to 6.5 feet. Also, the roof lines are within the building envelope requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and the use of 2:1 slopes, retaining walls and stem ,.vails have been minimized. Our homes comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and city staff concurs. COMMENT: Traffic `.viii adversely affect the community. RESPONSE: This is not true. The issue of traffic `.,,'as raised by the homeowners at the time of the processing of the Tentative Tract Map. According to the Planning Department staff report dated September 26, 1990, the applicant, Brock Homes, conducted traffic studies and certain changes were made to the map to the satisfaction of this Commission and the homeowners. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909484-1883 FAX 739 484-18&,4 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 5 In addition, the Homeowner's Association entered into a separate recorded agreement with the p[-evious owner of the property and agreed that"... no more than 45 homes [shall be built] so as to avoid an overburdening of the... streets... ". Also, the RCV CC&R's further state that this property "... will consist of no more than 42 lots ... ". Both of these documents clearly inform future property owners that this property would be developed and would not overburden the community. Further, we plan to be sensitive to our neighbors during the construction period and construction vehicles will be extremely cautious of the residential nature of the community. Please see fiwther comments in this regard in attached letterJ7om Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph £) Also see comments in this regard in attached letter from Andrew Hartzell of the law firm of Hewitt & McGuire. (Reference £xhibit 2) COMMENT: Remo,.'al of the levee ,.viii endano. qer downstream residents. RESPONSE: This is not true. As ,'vls..XlcKeith testified, she and her consulting engineer did not have time to review all the plans. Further, the conclusion made by her consulting engineer ,.,.'as based solel,',' on a site visitation. In the words oF the civil engineer who prepared the design plans for the new concrete channel, "the replacement of an aged, unlined, earthen training levee that ,.','as constructed years ago to provide flood protection until the Deer Creek Channel ,.'.'as c'omplete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hvdraulic standards, is one where the ben'efit is so obvious that it speaks for itselF." Please see the complete comments in this regard in the attached letterri'ore the civil engineer, Mr. StaMey Morse of MDS Consulting. (Reference Exhibit 4) COMMENT: Lauren Develooment's houses are too small for our community. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently 243 approved home sites within Haven Vie`.,,' Estates, including our 40 lots. Of the 203 other lots, only 55 homes (or 27%) have been built thus Far. The graph and chart 1030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cuc~monga. CA 91730 S09 ~4-18~3 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 6 information ~ve distributed at the last meeting provides a number of facts about the existing and proposed homes in Haven View Estates. · These two exhibits are included as attachments to this letter. (Reference Exhibit 5) This material shows that: * There are five homes in Haven View Estates less than 3,000 square feet, one home over 6,000 square feet and the rest in between. * The median home size is 4,086 feet. * There are more homes in the 3,000 to 4,000 square foot range than anv other grouping. * Our homes range (outsyard appearance, optional interior areas expanded) from 3,143 square feet (and we onl.v have 4 of these smallest homes) to 4,752 square feet. * Approximately 60% of the existing homes are less than or equal to the size of the homes we are proposing. The average size of our homes is 4,107 square feet which is greater than the median size of the rest of' the homes built in Haven View Estates. * The minimum square footage home allowed by the Haven View Estates HOA is 1.800 s.f. * The minimum square footage home allowed by the RCV / HOA is 3,000 s.f. Nineteen Design Review applications have been approved by the city for homes in Haven View Estates. While some of these Design Reviews have been for the larger homes lisied on the charts. the city has also approved Design Review applications for homes of 3,409 sf. 3,924 sf, 4,086 sf, 4,105 sfand 4,208 sf. The 3,900 and 4,200 sfapplications were approved as recently as last >rear. Our homes ,.rill be perfectly consistent with and compatible with the rest of the homes in Haven View Estates. Finall.,,', Ms. McKeith, speaking for CURE, and Mr. Bill Angel, speaking for the RCV Homeowner's Association, both went on record in their testimony to the Commission on June 11, 1997 that the size of the homes proposed is not an issue. 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102 Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730 ~eO9 484-1863 FAX ~.9 484-1884 135 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 7 COMMENT: Lauren Develor~ment's lots are too small. RESPONSE. This is not true. Lot sizes xvere determined when tentative subdivision map 14771 and variance 90-08 were approved in 1990. Our 40 lots have a minimum size of 20,045 square feet, a maximum size of 34,482 square feet and an average size greater than 21,000 square feet. COMMENT: All homes alonzo Rin~stem and Tackstem will be the same plan and ,.,,'ill look the same. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are seven lots which abut these two streets. Three `.','ill be Plan l's, tv,'o will be Plan 2's, one `.`.'ill be a Plan 3 and one will be a Plan 4. All of the above plans have two different elevations. CO,MMENT: Rear o. qarao_.es must be counted as front-racine. RESPONSE: This is not true. When the conditions of approval For Tentative Tract 14771 were being considered in 1990. the existing associations offered testimony regarding the design of the. homes on these 40 lots only ,.vith respect to the orientation of the garages relative to the street frontage. A condition to this effect ,.,,'as imposed, and ,.ve have always planned on fully complying with this design condition. During the early stages of our development we worked very closely with staff to develop plans which ,.vould mitigate front facing garages. The placement of the garages to the very rear of the homes ,.,.'as proposed by our architect and discussed with staff. It `.,.'as agreed that placing the garage to the rear of the home, creating garage setbacks of as much as 120 feet from the street, `.','as an extremely effective way to meet this design objective. It should also be pointed out that front facing garages are at a minimum in this development. Since these garages `.viii be placed significantly toward the rear of the homes, they ,.rill only be seen by passersby from directly in front of the home; when someone is slightly to the left or right of the front of the house, the garage will not be visible due to its position relative to the rest of the house or the neighboring house. COMMENT: Onl'.' ':custom homes" are allowed in Haven Vie,.,.' Estates. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 8 COMMENT: Only "custom homes" are allowed in Haven View Estates. RESPONSE: This is not true. There is no condition or other regulation requiring only custom homes, either imposed by the city or contained in any of the recorded documents governing any of the properties within Haven View Estates. A home-building company by the name of JCC has already constructed non-custom or "tract" homes in Haven View Estates. The construction of these tract homes was subject to existing homeov,'ner association approval (which our lots are not), and said approval was granted. The homes which we are proposing for our forty lots are designed with numerous floor plan variations, different elevations, alternative exterior colors and textures, and other optional design features such as garden walls, portals, Porte-Cocheres and balconies which will allow buyers to select features to individualize and customize their homes. The six floor plans, twelve elevations and sixteen color/texture alternatives allow such flexibility that there are over 264 alternative exterior appearances t~r these homes. It is conceivable that no two homes will look alike. While we are under no obligation to construct "custom" homes. v.'e have striven to make our homes as different t'rorn each other as possible, and thereby to be compatible with the neighboring community. Please see fitrther comments in this regard in attached letlet'from Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 - second to last paragraph on page 4). COMMENT: This development will ruin the nei,..qhborhood and drive down sale~; prices of other properties. RESPONSE: This is not true. Lauren Development fully appreciates the concerns presented by some of the owners over the value of their homes. It is our considered opinion that our development is a quality development and will have the added benefit of stimulating economic activity in this neighborhood. Resales of both vacant lots and existing homes in Haven View Estates have been minimal compared to the surrounding neighborhoods of Deer Creek and north western Alta Loma area, and overall property values for existing lots and homes have decreased over the last few >,ears. While this is an unfortunate circumstance, its cause cannot be attributed to Lauren Development but to general 11030 Arrow Route, Sufte 102 Rancho Cucarnonga. CA 91730 gO94&4-1~.63 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 9 economic conditions in Southern California during the last five years. We believe that the market is showing signs of becoming more active. We are confident that our development is compatible with existing development and can only improve the ultimate market for their neighborhood due to our ability to bring prospective purchasers into the community. Not all prospective purchasers will be interested in purchasing one of our homes, and therefore a greater opportunity will exist for the prospective purchasers to either purchase an existing home or perhaps achieve the dream of building their home by purchasing an existing lot. I can assure this Commission that we plan to offer our homes at prices consistent with today's strengthening housing market. These are large semi-custom homes and will command a commensurate price. We believe our development will stimulate the market for this neighborhood and have a substantial positive impact upon the economic stability and property values of the area. COMMENT: Lauren Developments lots are "Dart of'' the rest of Haven Vie,.,,' Estates and therel'bre must loin existinc_ HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. There are currently two separate homeowners' associations in the 243 lot gated community known as Haven View Estates. There is no requirement that our 40 lots be merged with either of the other two associations. To the contrary, the recorded documents specifically reserve the right to form a separate, third association. The method of determining and sharing common maintenance costs and responsibilities is also included in these documents. The documents referred to herein are the "Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," the "Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," and the "First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easement". and the CC&R's for the Rancho Cucamonga V / HOA. These documents have been provided to city planning staff as background information. The above documents were signed by representatives of the existing homeowner associations. Please see fitrther comments in this regard in attached letterJ5om Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Refere,~ce Exhibit 3 - paragraph O. 11030 An'ow Route, Sube 102 Ranoho Cucamonga. CA 91730 90'9 484.--I~63 FAX .cOo DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 10 COMMENT: Lauren Development's lots are "part of" the rest of Haven View Estates and therefore must _qain architectural amproyal from existin~ HOA's. RESPONSE: This is not true. The court supervised settlement agreements refen'ed to above provide for separate associations and none have review authority over the development of lots in the other associations. There is absolutely no basis for the statement that LDI's homes must be reviewed by the other associations or are subject to their architectural guidelines. As a side note, the only component of the Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowner Association CC&R's dealing with architecture is a minimum house size restriction of 3,000 square feet, which has been in effect since these CC&R's were originally recorded. A similar clause in the Haven View Estates CC&R's includes a minimum house size restriction of 1,800 square feet. While we are not subject to either of these CC&R's, we will meet these two requirements. Please seejSwther comments in this regard in attached letterri'ore Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (Reference Exhibit 3 -paragraph D) COMMENT: This property has no access ri2hts to Haven Avenue. RESPONSE: This is not true. The recorded settlement agreements specify that construction, marketing and permanent day to day access to Haven Avenue by the developer of the 40 lots and by the future homeowners is guaranteed. Please see.fitrther comments in this regard in attached letterri'ore Mr. Darren Hereford of the law firm of Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh. (Reference Ex'hibit 3 - paragraphs A and B) COMMENT: Who is Lauren Development? RESPONSE: Lauren Development, Inc. is a semi-custom home developer and general building contractor, operating under California license number 706178. We are a privately-held ~c~23 4.g4.- 1~53 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - TRACT 14771 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - Page 11 California corporation in good legal standing with the state of California. The California Certificate of Status of Domestic Cort~oration is attached (Reference Exhibit 6) Lauren Development, Inc.'s philosophy is in kind with custom homebuilding: we take pride in quality building and offering personalized service and an array of customized features for our new homes. Our development management team is on-site, available for clients. This development's professional management team has an outstanding history of professional experience, with the members having many years of that experience working together at S & S Construction (Shapell Industries), one of the ten largest builders in the nation, at large developments in Orange County and Los Angeles County, as ,,,,'ell as winning placement on the Los Angeles Times List of Leading Residential Builders. The members of this management team combined have over 60 years of residential construction experience throughout Southern California. Lauren Development, Inc. has the knowledge and capability to professionally develop and market The Heights at Haven View Estates development. More details regarding the experience of the management team are available to the city upon request. The office of Lauren Development, Inc. in Rancho Cucamonga is located at 11030 Arrow Route Suite 102. Our plnns are available fi)r viewing there. We hax;e invited each owner of a lot in Ha,,'en View Estates to come to our office and discuss our plans in as much detail as they would like. [ hope we have addressed all the issues raised. Very truly yours, John L. Allday Please call me if you need additional materials. JUN-27-BT 11:0~ Froa:HE~ITT ~GUIRE T-$B~ P.02 Job-~O~ DF~,,N D UNI,,t- R.q.~ KIN CIIARLF..5 ~. !:-XON 'WILLI^M l~. HALLE ,ANDRI?,,V K. HART~fiJ..L -t'[ UGIt lq e'w rI'T JOI. IND. fIUDSON HEWiTT & McGumE, LLP ATTORNEY.R AT LAW 19900 M=Arthur Boulevard, .guin~ 1050 Irvine, California 92612 ('714) 798-0500 · C714) 798q351! (fax) MARK R. MCGUIRE DF.,~'NIS D. O'Nr~L JAY F. P^LCHIKOFF · PAUL A, ROWE WILMAM L. 'I'WO~.t"EY JOHN P. ¥F.4GER /une 27, 1997 The Honorable David Barker Chairman, City or Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re' Development Review 97-I 1/Lauren Development (Tract 14771) Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: This firm represents Lauren Development, Inc. ("Lauren") in cormcction with the above-referenced project. We are writing to respond to certain specific issues and allegations raised in writ-ten submissions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") by certain homeowners near the project site, acting under the recently named group Cucamongans United tbr Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"), and The Spirit of the Sage Council ("SSC") regarding compliance with certain natural regource statutes, regulations and agreements aad the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Regrettably, both CURE and SSC have elected to rely on misrepresentations and misstatements as the foundation and basis on which to claim non- compliance with, or a "violation" of, the federal Endangered Species Act CESA") and the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding the possible development of the San Bernardino Valley-Wide Multi-species Conservation Program. Both claims are wholly without merit. Moreover, both CURE and SSC demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of CEQA and its requirements as they pertain to the Planning Commission's ro}e in the design review or' this approved subdivision. Planning Commission Approval of Lauren's Design Review Application and hnplementation of the Proiect Will Not Result In Any Violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Independent of, and irrespective of, its local entitlements to construct the rezidential project, Lauren remains subject -- along with every other lot owner of an undeveloped lot in the City or within Haven View Estates -- to the provisions of the ESA. However, given the racks and circumstances or this project, the ESA imposes no restriction on Lauren or the City with respect to design review. issuance of' grading permits or the grading of the property. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \0OC\161 \CORR\97060030. LT2 EXHIBIT "E" 2 The Honorable David Barker Jun~ 27, 1997 Page 2 Simply put, the ESA prohibits Lauren from killing or injuring any' federally listed species -- including the coastal California gnatcatcher ("Gnatcatcher") -- in connection with grading its property.: If grading the property would result in such injury, Lauren would need to obtain an incidental take permit (Section 10(a) permit) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("Service") prior to grading its property. As well-counseled project developers typically do, Lauren has consulted with biological experts in advance of grading to determine whether any listed species exist on its property. Through such consultation Lauren learned that the only listed species which could conceivably be located on the site was the Gnatcatcher, although the probability of one or more Gnatcatchers occupying the cite wag quite low. Although Lauren had no legal obligation to conduct surveys or provide such information to any agency, ir elected to survey its property for the Gnatcatcher in an abundance of' caution. (A copy or thls survey report is attache&) The biologists surveyed the 25-acre site and immediately adjacent habitats completely on four separate occasions in January of thi~ year. As the enclosed report notes, the surveys were conducted by qualified biologists in contbrmance with the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel Survey Guidelines. NO Onamamhers were observecl or otherwise detected. Since Gnatcatchers do not occupy the site, Lauren does not need to obtain an incidental take permit (or any other authorization) from the Service and is under no particular obligations with respect to the ESA, the Service, the California Department of Fish & Game or others. In fact, it would have been rather surprising to find any Gnatcatchers at the site. Only a very few individuals of this species have ever been recorded to have been observed in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County is considered to lie at the very fringe of the range for this species. The Service letter of April 18 to Lauren Developmerlt and its June 10 letter to the City appear to be primarily based on various misunderstandings. The Service appears to believe that Lauren, by germling to the Service its survey result~ (aa required under the biologists' fedoral permits), is requesting an "incidental take" permit from the Service. Lauren is not making such a request· Alternatively, the Service may believe that Lauren ts requesting a written statement from the Service regarding its site; again, Lauren is making no such request. It is even possible that the Service is under the false impression that the Negative Declaration for this project contain.q a condition requiring a letmr of approval from the Service prior to iaguance of a grading permit. Again, no such condition exists· ' 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1996). 06-26-97 3021-flfl002 S:\DOC\1&l\CORR\97~60030.LT2 JUN-ZT-9? II :07' From:HEWlTT ),4CGUI~E The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 3 T14Tg80510 T-692 P.04/09 Job-30B What we do know is that since at least 1993, the Service has accepted three surveys of a site as conclusive of the presence or absence of the Gnatcatcher for individuals requesting permtts from the Service. The Service announced a cicaage in this policy in March of this year (copy attached). Under its new policy, three surveys will suffice in some local jurisdictions, whereas the Service will request more in others. Ironically, most past surveys using the three viait mothodology have been "grandfathered" in by the Service aa "aecoptable." As this is a new and changed survey policy, the Service has welcomed comments as to whether it is actually appropriate and justified, and the regulated community is awaiting the release of the study allegedly supporting this change for comment. In any event, the decision regarding how many surveys to conduct in this instance is a matter solely within Lauren's discretion. Lauren has also appropriately requested more specific information I¥om the Service regarding the allusions in its two letters regarding Gnatcatcher sightings in the area. In a recent phone conversation with Mr. Jeff Newman of the Service, Mr. Newman informed the undersigned that the basis for the Service's June 10 claim that "the property is adjacent to known occupied California gnatcatcher habitat" con_~i~ta of a verbal report from an unknown individual that last year one bird believed by that unknown person to be a Gnatcatcher was seen in or near the North E~iwanda Preserve -- approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the project site.: To date, the Service has not responded [o our request for copies of all written reports, if any, of Gnatcatchers currently living anywhere near the project site, and it is not clear that any such reports exist. Thus. this undocumented, anonymous, unconfh'rned sighting appears to form the basis for the Service's concern. Even it' the Service could establish credible documentation to support this rumor -- whicl~ to date it l~as failed to do -- the existence ot' a sLngle bird a mile or more away from the project site would not give the Service a basis to request anvthin~ from the City or Lauren Development. II. The San Bernardino Valley-wide Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Does Not Require the City to Conduct Any Further Biological Review of the Project Site. The SSC's assertion that the San t~rrmrdino Valley-wide MSt-ICP MOU somehow obligates the City or other governmental entities to conduct some sort of further enviromnental review of Lauren's project is simply incorrect. 2 In addition, Mr. Scott Eliason of the Service has suggested to the undersigned that there may be historical record~ of one. two or three pair~ of bird~ formerly occupying the North Eliwanda Preserve at some earlier time. Or' course, historic reports are of little relevance to the Service's statement. 0~5-26'97 3021-012002 S: \DOC\161 \COR R \970,~00:~0. LT2 JU~-2?-g? 11:07 From:HE~ITT ~GUIRE The Honorable David B~ker June 27, 1997 Page 4 ?14TBBOSIO T-892 P.05/09 Job-3g8 It is rather telling 'that the SSC does not cite any specific set of p~:ovisions in the MOU which require such additional review. In fact, SSC could not do so; since the MOU is designed specifically re preclude any such mandatory obligations. The major purpose of the MOU is to establish some initial conceptual frameworks for a possible multiple-zpecie~ conzervation plan for a portion of San Bernardino County. The development of such a plan is expected to require a minimum of several years at best. (A copy of the MOU is attached.) SSC's first error lies in assuming that the MOU's Interim Project Review Guidelinog ("Guidelines,") apply to projecte which have already been approved and analyzed under CEQA, such as the project at hand. The Guidelines do InO[ contain provisions for retroactive applicatlon. In fact, me Guidelines specifically indicate that they are meant to be applied -- and applied at the local jurisdiction's and project applicant's sole election -- to projects which are jus.t beginning the entitlement process. According to the MOU. the Guidelines are meant to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and [Department of Fish and Game] so that projects which could preclude the successful development of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in Lhe development review process .... MOU Anachment F, at F-1. This voluntary review process is offered to "[eliminate the historic problem in which] comments on proposed projects are not received ~rom the Depa~ uaent of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlil~ Service until very late in the lead agency's decision- making process." MOU at F-1. Thus. the review process requested bv SSC does not even apply to a proiect such as Lauren's that was approved ,,'ears a~o and where the City has ordv limited additional discretion over narrow aspects of the Droiect's-implementation. Nevertheless, even if the Guidelines could be construed to apply to an approved project such as Lauren's -- which they cannot -- the interim review is a totally voluntary process. Tide[ere[e, the City will be in compliaJme with the MOU even ir it chooses not to subject any projects to the Guidelines' agency consultation process. The [Interim Project Review Guidelines] ~pecifically do not create an additional layer of project review nor confer any additiorml authority on the Department lot Fish & Game], the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \D 0C\ 161 \CO~ R \970600~,0. t 12 5 JUH-2~-9? 11:08 From:HEWlTT J,4CGUIRE The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 5 ~14T~80510 T-692 P.05/09 deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. Each lead agency andJar project proponent shall determine whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the [Guidelines] .... The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. MOU Atlaclm~cnt F, at F-1. III. CURE's and SSC's Assertions Concerninc CEOA C~)mpletelv Misstate the Facts and Law. The assertions of CURE's environmental counsel, Malissa McKeith, concern. hag the Ciry's compliance with CEQA are factually and legally wrong. Ms. McKeith contends that because the Planning Commission exercises discretion in connection with design review applications, it must reexamine whether there are changed circumstances requiring additional environmental documentation under CEQA regardless of whether the circumstances have anything to do with the type or' discretion the Planning Conunission exercises during design review. In addition, in complete contradiction to published appellate court decisions. Ms. McKeith argues that she and other project opponents must only make a "fair argument" that changed circumstances are present. First, the fact that the Planning Commission exercises some discretion when considering design review applications does not mean that the Planning Commission must evaluate the current circumstances surrounding all aspects of 'a residential subdivision that already has complied with CEQA in connection with tentative map approval. As a leading CEQA trzatisc status: CEQA does not apply to an agency decision simply because the agency may exercise some discretion in approving the project or undertaking. Instead, to trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the ~,gency with the ability to "shape the project" in order to minimize environmental impacts. Remy and Thomas, Guide to CEOA, p. 42 (1996 Edition) (emphasis added). 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \DOC\161 \CORR\97060030. LT2 6 JUN-ZF-9~ ll:08 From:HENITT ~GUIRE The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 6 114~980510 T-69Z P.07/09 The very case Ms. McKeith selectively quoted from in her letter To the City Attorney makes the same point: "The touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way whtch wollld respond to any of the environmermal concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact reporl." Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d 259, 267 (1987). Of course, Ms. McKeith failed to quote this sentence in her letter. Here, the Planning Commission's discretion in the context of design review has absolutely no bearing on the alleged environmental concerns raised by CURE. To paraphrase the Assistant City Attorney, the decision whether the homes will be French Provincial or Spanish Colonial has no relevance to the alleged environmental concernr, raiged by project opponent. CLrRE's alleged environmental concerns revolve around four topics: (1) vegetation/habitat impacts; (2) flood control; (3) traffic; and (4) air quality. While we believe each and every one of these "concerns" is a complete red herring (and will explain why below), the Corrmaission is certainly familiar enough with its role to 'know that none of thege proposed concerns are addressed or addressable as part of design review. One easy way to illustrate this is to point out that the property owner could record his f'mal map, obtain a grading permit. clear the development portion of the site of all vegetation, rough grade the 40 buildable lots, install all subdivision improvements, including roads, sell the lots to forty (40) different individuals, and then submit up to 40 seesrate desJan review applications. Completing such tasks would moot all of the concerns raised by CURE and SSC but would not preclude the Planning Commission from exercising the type or discretion it exercises in cormaction with desi~on review. To reiter,,te, the mere fact that the Planning Cormnission ~till has some digcretion over a narrow aspect of the project does not mean that the City can or must reevaluate all impacts that will result from implementing existing project approvals. None of the alleged environmental concerns involve aspects of the project that can be modified in any relevant way as part of the design review process. Ms. McKeith knows this; if. she does not know this, she is grossly unfamiliar with the applicable lnw. Even If Design Review Triggered Reevaluation of the Entire Project Under CEOA, the Alleged Changed Circumstances Are All Red Herrino~s. Assuming solely for the sake o15 refuting CURE's other factual and legal misstatements that the City had the authority to reconsider all aspects of the project in connection with its design review process -- which it does not -- there are no'changed circumstances with respect to the project which result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. CURE's allegations that changed circumstances are present do not withstand scrutiny. 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \D(~C\ 161 \CORR \~7060030. L T2 · ,." JUN-27-9? 11:09 From:HE~ITT UCGUIRE The Honorable David Barker June 2'7, 199'7 Page 7 T14Fg805)O T-~92 P.08/05 Job-305 First, the listing Of the coastal California gnatcatcher could only conceivably be a significant new circumstance if the site contained Gnatcatchers, which it does not. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's letter claiming that removal of' "suitable habitat" would violate the ESA severely overstates the Service's authority. This issue is addressed above. There have been numerous species placed on the endangered species list since 1990 in addition to the Gnatcatcher; this project will not impact any of them either, and their listing doe~ not eonztitute changed circumstances either. Second. the vegetation type that will be impacted has not changed since the tract map was approved. It was 'known as a sensitive habitat type even in 1990, although completion of the Deer Creek detention basin and flood control channel have removed the aite from hydrological events that keep the vegetation dynamic and healthy over time (see p. 2 of the attached Gnatcatcher Survey Report). Presumably, the City determined that the small amount of acreage impacted and its location in a residential development area made the impact less than significant. Rightly or wrongly, a determination of insigrfificant impacts was made at the time the Negative Declaration was adopted and even Ms. McKeith acknowledges that the time to challenge that determination has lone: since passed. Third. CURE's allegations of chan~e in circumstances with respect to air quality, traffic and noise do not relate to the project at all and do not create any potential for the project to have sigy~ificant new impacts in those areas. The development/:OhSiSiS of 40 homes, which will generate a relatively small amount of traffic. Finally. the claim that the always contemplated removal of the existing berm and swale on the site is a significam new issue because Lauren Development may not have as many assets as the pt/or developer Brock I-Iomc~ takes the cake. The City will require bonding for subdivision in~provements and will have the benefit of all mechanisms typically available to ensure proper performance of the project. Ms. McKcith's attempt.to characterize her assertion that the Project might not be implemented properly as "significant new information" is novel and a distortion of what CEQA requires. CURE has attempted to create the appearance of real and serious new issues where none truly exist. CURE also contends that it does not need to show "substantial evidence" that these new alleged issues are significant; CURE insists that only a "fair argument" need be made. CURE cannot provide any substantial evidence of significant changed circumstances and CURE'~ counsel conveniently omitted from. her voluminous letter any references to the published cases that expressly state that the substantial evidence test applies even when a Negative Declaration was the initial form of CEQA compliance. See, e.o~_, Benton v. Board of Supervisors. 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467 (1991): Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water District, 43 Cal. App. 4th 425 (1996). These fai}ings 06-26-97 3021-00002 S: \DOC\161 \CORR\9706OD30. LI2 JUH-~F-gF 11:09 Fro~:HE~ITT ~GUI~E The Honorable David Barker June 27, 1997 Page 8 FI4FgBO51a T-892 P.09/09 Job-30B compound the fundamental error that CURE has made, which is that design review does not trigger CEQA review of the entire project. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the very distorted representations made by CURE, SSC and others. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark McGuire or the undersigned at (714) 798-0500. AKH/jmj Enclosures co: William Be~el Peter Tolstoy Larry McNeil Richard Macias Ralph Hanson, Esq. John Allday Andrew K. Hartzell Oa[l Koberich Jeff Newman Bill Tippets 06-26-97 3021-00002 S:\00C\161\CORR\g706003O.LT2 9 JACKSON, A LAW CORPORATION IRVINE;, CALIF'0RNIA 92~523-970,4 DElMARCO & PECKENPAUGH June 25, 1997 (714) 851-7427 fsj037~jdp]aw.com 26427 James Mar 'kmart, Esq. Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney c/o Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curly & Slough P.O. Box 1059 Brea, California 92622-1059 VIA HAND DELIVER Y Re: The Heights at Haven View Estates Tentative Tract 14771 Dear Mr. Mar'k_man: We have been asked by our client, Lauren Development, Inc. ("LDI"), to address certain issues which have been raised by neighboring property owners in connection with LDI's development of 40 lots in Tentative Tract Map 14771 (comprised of Lot 151 of Tract No. 12332- 2 and the Remainder Parcel sho,,vn on the map lbr Tract No. 12332-2) ("Project") in Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically, we have been asked to address the following issues: (1) LDl's legal right of access over property owned by the Haven Vie,.v Estates l-[omeowners Association ("HVE"); (2) LDI's legal right of access over property owned by the Rancho Cucamonga V- Haven View Estates Homeowners' Association ("RCV"); (3) whether. LDI is required to join one or both of the existing homeowners associations; (4) whether LDI is subject to the architectural control committees of one or both of the existing homeowners associations; and (5) whether the development of the Project was contemplated by the applicable development agreements of record. We address each of these issues below. To provide you with a brief background for the documents which are discussed below, in the late 1980's, lawsuits were filed and litigation ensued between HVE and the property owners in what is now RCV, as well as the subject Project. These documents, signed by representatives of all affected properties are as follows: the Developer Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89-056050, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Developer Agreement"); the Association Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement, recorded on February 16, 1989, as Instrument No. 89- 056051, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Association Agreement"); and the First Amended and Restated Grant of Mutual Easements, recorded on March 23, 1990, as Instrument ,, No. 90-111246, in Official Records of San Bernardino County ("Amended Grant"). /q7 JACKSON, DEMA,qCO & PECKEN PAUG H JamesMar'k_man, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 2 A. Access over HVE Property_. The Project is subject to the Developer Agreement. In paragraph l(a) of the Developer Agreement, HVE grants nonexclusive easements to the "Adjoining Landowner" for purposes access, ingress, egress, use and enjoyment in, to and over the "Access Streets" in Tract No. 12332-1 (i.e., Ringstem Street, Clover Place, and Tackstem Street). Paragraph l(b) provides that these easements are appurtenant to and pass with title to the "Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage, any portion thereof.and interest therein." The term "Adjoining Property" is defined as all of Tract No. 12332-2, and the term "Additional Acreage" is defined as the Remainder Parcel of'Tract No. 12332-2. The easements over Ringstem, Street, Clover Place and Tackstem Street within Tract No. 12332-1 are appurtenant to the Project, albeit subject to the covenants contained in the Developer Agreement for sharing of maintenance costs for the Access Streets. Thus, the Developer Agreement ensures access to the subject Project over the "Access Streets" owned by HVE. B. Access over RCV Propert).'. The Project is also subject to Amended Grant. In paragraph 2.1 of the Amended Grant, the parties granted each other mutual and reciprocal permanent, nonexclusive easements for ingress and egress of pedestrians and vehicles and use and enjoyment over all streets located upon the "Brock Property, the Chen Property and the JCC Propert>'... as such streets are shown upon Tract Map 12332-2... and upon and over such streets which may be shown upon any recorded tract map for that portion of the Brock Property ,,vhich is presently shown as the 'Remainder Parcel upon the Recorded Tract Map." It is clear that the parties to the Amended Grant enjoy access over and share maintenance responsibilities for the streets ,.`.'ithin Tract 12332-2. Thus, LDI has easements over the streets in Tract No. 12332-2 for the purpose of accessing the Project. Moreover, we understand that First American Title Company has alko concluded that there are easements over the streets within Tracts 12332-I and 12332-2 for access to the Project, and First American has agreed to insure such access. C. Annexation to Existing Associations. It appears that the "Brock Association" identified in the Association Agreement, ,,,,'as originally anticipated to be a single homeowners' association with jurisdiction over Lots 1 through 151, inclusive, of Tract No. 12332-2, and the Remainder Parcel shown on the map for Tract No. 12332-2. The Association Agreement does not expressly intend or require that a single homeowners' association have jurisdiction over all of Tract No. 12332-2. Moreover, the Developer Agreement, the Amended Grant and the Association Agrcement (collectively "Project JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH James Mar'kman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 3 Documents") do not contain any provisions which expressly require that the Project be annexed to HVE or RCV. The Project is defined as Annexation Property in the Declaration of Establishment CC&Rs for RCV, recorded on June 13, 1990, as Instrument No. 90-231127 ("RCV Declaration"). However, the Project was never annexed to the property subject to the RCV Declaration. Annexation of the Project to the RCV Declaration, without the consent of the RCV members, must be made by a Participating Builder v,,ithin 3 )'ears following the original issuance by the DRE of the most recently issued Public Report for a Phase of the overall development. Assuming that this time period has lapsed, consent of 2/3rds of the RCV members, as well as the consent of the Participating Builder, must be obtained in order to allow the Project to be annexed to the RCV Declaration. As a practical matter, it may be difficult to obtain the requisite member approval to allow such annexation. Nowhere in the RCV Declaration does it require that the Project be annexed to the RCV Declaration. In fact, Section 17.11 of the RCV Declaration expressly reserved the right of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. ("Brock"), LDI's predecessor-in-interest, to no..! annex the Remainder Parcel to the RCV Declaration. We have not revie,.ved the Declaration of CC&Rs for HVE ("HVE Declaration"). Therefore, we do not have any opinion as to `.,,'hat requirements the HVE Declaration may have, it'any, with respect to the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Given that the HVE Declaration ',,,'as recorded sometime prior to the RCV Declaration and the Project is defined as "Annexation Property" under the RCV Declaration, the HVE Declaration should not have any provisions mandating the annexation of the Project to the HVE Declaration. Even if the HVE Declaration did contain such provisions, they would be outweighed by the above-mentioned restrictions. D. Architectural Control. As discussed above, the Project Documents do not require that the Project be annexed to the property subject to the Declaration of CC&Rs for either HVE or RCV. Thus, unless the ProJect is annexed to either the HVE Declaration or the RCV Declaration, the architectural committee of neither association ,.viii have any architectural control jurisdiction over the development of the Project. Clearly no submittal to or approval by either of the other two associations or their architectural committees is warranted. E. Development of Project. It is evident from the Project Documents that the construction of homes and related improvements within the Project `.,,'as intended. For example, Section 2 of the Developer Agreement expressly provides for easements and rights of way over the Access Streets "for the purpose of access by construction personnel, vehicles, equipment and materials to and from the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage... until the construction of homes and related 1! /.,./~ JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH James Markman, Esq. June 25, 1997 Page 4 improvements on the Adjoining Property and the Additional Acreage is complete. ~.." Also, Section l(a) of the Developer Agreement provides, in part: "The foregoing grant with respect to the Additional Acreage shall be effective for the use by owners of no more than forty-five (45) homes in the Additional Acreage, so as to avoid an overburdening of the Access Streets by the ultimate residents in the Additional Acreage." Moreover, the recitals on page 2 of the RCV Declaration provide, in part: "The Remainder Parcel is currently being remapped and it is anticipated that the Remainder Parcel will consist of no greater than 42 lots and may also contain Equestrian Trails, Drainage Facilities and Common Areas." Thus, it is evident that the development of the Project with 40 homes was intended from the beginning, and the members of RCV had constructive notice of this intent when they purchased their homes. The Project Documents encumber the Project and delineate the rights and obligations of RCV, HVE and the owner of the Project concerning access over the streets within Tract 12332-1 and 12332-2, and the sharing of maintenance costs for streets and related improvements, among other things. However, the Project Documents do not contain any restrictions or covenants concerning the type of homes to be constructed within the Project. In the letter dated June 10, 1997, RCV's counsel fails to cite any recorded restriction or covenant encumbering the Project which supports RCV's position that the Project should only be developed as a "luxury. community" characterized by "large custom homes." We have not been asked to address the entitlement and environmental impact issues raised in the June 10, 1997, letter. However, it is evident that RCV's counsel fails to cite any specific authority or policy in support of RCV's opposition to the development of the Project by LDI. To the contrao', the public policy expressed by the California State Legislature is that the construction of housing is a matter of great public need.~ Clearly RCV's myopic and self- serving opposition to the development of the Project is contrary to the express public policy of the State of California. Please call me to discuss any questions you may have regarding the foregoing matters. Sincerely, ./ /""\ .-.. ,,' / ,., warren L. Hereford if..) ~ FSJ:DLH 0259882.03 cc: Mr. William D. Ford Jeffrey M. Boren, Esq. F. Scott Jackson, Esq. IGovemment Code §65913. MDS CONSUL TING ~LANNERS o ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS 17320 Rec~ha{ Avenue, $ult. e 3~0 Indne, CA 92614 [714) 251-.8821 E,~.Y 251-0516 June 26, 1997 Mr. John Allday Lauren Development Post Office Box 790 Agoura Hills. CA 91376 TR. ACT 14771 STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES DearJohn: In response to the Declaration of Bruce Collins dated June 11, 1997, the oral presentation to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission by Ms. Melissa McKeith on June 11, 1997, and the correspondence from Loeb and Loeb to Mr. James Markman, Esq., also dated June 11, 1997, I offer the following comments: I am the president and founding partner of MDS Consulting, and have been in pdvate practice since 1970, starting my own firm in 1976. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering and am a registered civil engineer in California and Arizona. I have practiced civil engineering, including all faceLs of grading and drainage design, since entering private practice. My company has worked extensively in the western portion of San Bernardino Count'/, including the city of Rancho Cucamonga, and has followed the development and construction of many of the major flood control channels, including Deer Creek Channel and ils appurtenances. I have been personally involved in the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations performed on Tract 14771, and in the subsequent processing through the involved approving government agencies. Our company was'retained by Brock Homes in Apdl of 1991 to complete the preparation of various construction drawings for the final phase of Master Tentative Tract No. 12332, a forty tot subdivision named as Tentative Tract No. 14771. The Master Tentative Tract No. 12332 and its related construction drawings were prepared by Associated Engineers. Included in their drawings were detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations including various analyses of offsite drainage conditions. All of these calculations were reviewed and approved by all appropriate government agencies. Our assignment for the forty lot subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 14771)was to update and complete the processing of the FEMA map revisions, both the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which we accomplished. At a project level, we prepared the various hydrologic and hydraulic studies i¢~ accordance with generally accepted engineering practice required to substantiate the design of the hardened concrete drainage channel at the northern property line of Tentative Tract No. 14771. These hydrologic and hydraulic studies were reviewed extensively and were deemed acceptable for permit in December of 1992. The project l.aid fallow (due to the general economic recession) until 1997, when Lauren Development resurrected the project and reprocessed the plans. The hydrology and hydraulic portions of the design have again been determined to be acceptable and the plans are in the final stages of processing for construction permits. We are not sure if either Mr. Collins or Ms. McKeith have ever reviewed the volumes of material available on the design of the various drainage facilit. ies designed for Tra~ 14771, as our company has never been contacted by them. Apparently, they only reviewed the tentative tract map, and, as we atl know. a tentative tract map is just that. a tentative plat to be used as a guide to more detailed construction plans. Even at that, STANLEY C. MORSE . ,x.,,., 7/9/97 GARY DOKICH /V/DS SKIP SCHULTZ /,.5'/ June 26, 1997 Page Two the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires preliminary drainage studies to accompany the tentative tract map, documents that neither of the project.opponents mentioned as being reviewed. in our professional opinion, the replacement of an aged, unlined, earthen training levee that was constructed years ago to provide flood protection until Deer Creek Channel was complete, by a hardened concrete channel designed to current hydrologic and hydraulic standards, is one where the benefit is so obvious that it speaks for itself. As a sidelight, the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District abandoned their drainage easement through Tract 14771 in 1988, as it was no longer necessary for their operation. In other words, the maintenance and operation of that earthen levee is not within any organization currently, whether private or public. By the construction of the concrete channel wff. h Tract 14771, a maintenance association will be in place to take care of the channel. Should either of the project opponents need to perform proper complete research on the project. we are available to meet with them and discuss both the regional facif~es (Deer Creek Channel) and the project level facilities (Tract 14771). Sincerej~ ~ SCM:jo G:~419toC,\C OR',T R 14771,DOC /5'2_ Mofion~olstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. carried by the followm-~z..__~ AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS,"?M64~EL, TOLSTOY '" NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT Motion Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented a staff report and discussed a supplemental staff report which had been issued to the Commission outlining why no additional environmental evaluation is necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He commented that issues raised at the last meeting dealt with compatibility concerns including whether tract homes would be compatible in an area which is predominantly custom homes and the size of the homes. He said the City does not have any specific requirements to prevent tract development and the applicant has met the criteria for design of the homes including compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He noted that City codes require a minimum 1,000 square feet with the proposed homes being in the range of 3,100 to 4,300 square feet. He stated that before the Commission were a number of letters of opposition which had been received. He indicated the letters cited concerns regarding removal of the levee, affect upon property values, and the need for additional studies. He reported that two telephone callers had expressed concerns but could not attend this evening's meeting. He stated the Commissioners also had before them a copy of a letter from Robert Cristiano, the current property owner. Chairman Barker stated that the Commission had received a tremendous amount of information since the last meeting. He felt the additional information had given the impression ofashotgun being fired at the project. He requested legal clarification of the scope of authority and responsibility of the Commission and the options available to it. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission had the City's most detailed design review process for consideration. He reported the Commission was looking at a detailed site plan and building elevations for the project. He commented that the project itself was approved almost seven years ago and at that point it was known that the property would be developed and conditions were established for that development. He said the Commission was now talking about what the development will look like. He observed there had been multiple layers of analysis from the residents and the developer and the issues brought forth had been analyzed in detail. He indicated that many of those issues had been discussed even though they may not apply. He stated that he agreed with the developer's team of lawyers with respect to the legal issues. He reported that a federal lawsuit had been filed against the City and two of its staff members and said he would not comment on that lawsuit. He observed that no injunction had been issued and the lawsuit would not be an impediment to the Commission's decision. He felt that any decision by the Commission would be appealed to the City Council. Chairman Barker said it was his understanding that the issue is design and the Commission could only legally take action regarding design review. Mr. Hanson respondedlhat was correct. He said the subdivision map had been approved years ago and, to his knowledge, the only remaining requirement is to file a final map for the City Council to approve, which is a ministerial act. He stated the design review process is created by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. He commented that the design would not be brought back before the Commission in most communities. He indicated that it was decided years ago that there would be development in that location. Chairman Barker observed that there was no mention in the resolution of the other issues. Pla~nning Commission Minutes -2- July 9, 1997 Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that was correct. Chairman Barker said he was interested in hearing any testimony that he had r~ot galready heard or read, recognizing that anything other than design was in regards to an action taken seven years ago. John Allday, Lauren Development, Inc., 11030 Arrow Route, Suite 102, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have three law firms in connection with a design review. He indicated they had prepared a notebook for the Planning Commission responding to what had been raised at the last meeting. He a~ked if the Commission wished him to go through the responses, issue by issue, or if it preferred that he answer questions. Chairman Barker suggested that he answer questions. Commissioner McNiel commented that he did not see any value in going through all of the other issues raised, as the only action the Commission could take was in regards to design review. He suggested that the applicant be permitted to comment after the other testimony. Chairman Barker asked that everyone limit their discussions to design issues. Commissioner Macias felt the Commission should hear public testimony and allow the developer to address any points brought up following the public testimony. Mr. Hanson commented that the Commission would probably hear opinions which differ from his. Chairman Barker responded that he could appreciate that, but the City pays the City Attorney to advise the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes " Mr. Allday said their house plans, grading plans, and conceptual landscape plans are all in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance. He stated that removal of the levee does not conflict with the Hillside Development Ordinance because the levee is man-made and the Ordinance refers only to natural features. He observed that a comment had been made at the previous meeting that the houses are too small for the community. He said he was not sure that was still an issue because both Ms. McKeith and Mr. Angel had testified that size was not an issue for them. Mr. Allday felt their homes are consistent and compatible with the remainder of the homes. He indicated a statement had been made at the last meeting that all homes facing Ringstem Drive and Tackstem Street would look alike and said that statement was not true. He recalled there had been a complaint regarding the garages which are front-facing but pulled back and stated the garages will be pulled back up to 140 feet and he felt the view of the garage will be shielded by the house. He noted that residents had indicated that only custom homes should be permitted in Haven View Estates and he pointed out that tract homes already exist in the community and those tract homes were approved by the homeowners' association. He said there is no code or legal requirement for custom homes. He said they have provided various options so that the homes will appear very different from each other. He observed there had been questions raised regarding the prices they will charge and a flyer had been circulated indicating they will be selling for S275,000. He said that fears that Lauren will lower the property values are unfounded and noted that property values have decreased in the last few years. He commented that the tract homes built in the early 1990s ranged from $117 to $136 per square foot while recent sales data include homes selling for S99 to Sll32 per square foot. He reported that one resident had visited his office and made the comment that he understood Lauren wl'rl sell homes for whatever the market will bear, but he didn't like that Lauren will be selling in today's low market. He asked if the City should mandate moratoriums until prices improve to where they were five years ago. He said they plan to sell homes for whatever the strengthening market will allow. He stated that Lauren Development is a privately held company in good legal standing. He indicated their office is open every day of the week and stated they had mailed individual letters to all 106 home and lot owners in the tract and invited them to their office and only two individuals called and came to the office. -3- July 9, 1997 Robert Cristiano, 9 Aurora, Irvine, stated he bought the property in 1987 and was restricted to access to his own properly because of the gates. He indicated he sought relief in the-courts and had to pay the homeowners association for access. He said those documents are'recorded and there are no unresolved access issues. He stated that the 40 lots were approved in 1990 with very rigid conditions of approval including removal of the earthen berm. He said he selected Lauren Development because they were able to adhere to the strict requirements and he felt the floor plans and elevations are excellent. He stated he was concerned about the hidden agenda of those who are in opposition to the project, stating he had been told that the plan is to purchase his land for $1'00,000 after the project is defeated. David Tardnel, 6128 Ashton Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been asked to explain how happy he is with the home he bought in Ashton Place, one of 13 semi-custom homes built by Lauren Development. He said he is very happy with his home. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Tom Sheahan, Dames & Moore, 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, #C-110, Ontario Mindy Sheps, Wolf, Rifkin & Shapiro, LLP, 11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Arvind Kumra, 5088 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Joe Stephen, 5067 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Frank Bucalo, Beechwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P.O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Maureen Sampson, P.O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Leo Orvananos, 1097 Carriage Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Millie Morris, president of Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Association, 5109 Lupizzan Place, Rancho Cucamonga Vasin Shane, address unknown Valerie E. Card, 10019 Banyan, Rancho Cucamonga Lauren Althaus, 4907 Calico Court, Rancho Cucamonga Sue Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga Paul Davies, 7398 London, Rancho Cucamonga lanning Commission Minutes Ms. McKeith complained that Rancho Cucamonga has not had commercial growth in the last few years while Ontario got Ontario Mills and an auto mall. She also complained that schools and the library are under funded and commented that building 40 new homes will not address those problems. She presented a notebook containing a letter to the City Attorney and background materials objecting to the project. She contended that because the Commission has to make specific findings in the resolution, the approval of the design review is not a ministerial act. She stated that the City should look at whether the circumstances have changed since approval of the tract and felt she had presented new evidence to show there are changed circumstances. She asserted she would not limit her comments to design issues and said she had advised others not to as well. She requested a-traffic study including a study regarding noise and air quality during construction traffic. She stated there were only 10 homes in Haven View Estates when the tract was approved in 1990 compared to 55 now. Ms. McKeith submitted a letter from Crain & Associates regarding grading of the levee and stated that letters had been received from the Army Corps of Engineers and Flood Control District stating they had not commented on safety following removal of the levee. She corl'fended that the debris basin built by the Army Corps of Engineers was built to withstand a magnitude 5.0 earthquake but it has since been found that the area could suffer a greater magnitude. She stated that six debris basins have failed in Los Angeles County. She thought that even if CEQA does not apply, the Commission must make a determination regarding safety of the project. She stated she had heard a rumor that Lauren planned to start grading on Saturday. She asseded that if the project is approved and homes built, CURE would circulate disclosure statements to all prospective home buyers to make sure no one buys the homes. She stated a lawsuit was filed in Ventura County against a previous company owned by the developer. -4- July 9, 1997 /55' Mr. Sheahan stated he is a hydrogeologist who had been asked by Ms. McKeith to comment on the levee. He discussed the debris basin and swale and stated that if the replacemen..t of the levee is not adequate, there could be erosion. He said the levee is designed to handle rainycater but a small drainage ditch would not be. Ms. Sheps indicated she represented Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association. She presented a copy of documents she had forwarded to the City Attorney alleging that Lauren Homes does not have access rights over the streets within Rancho Cucamonga V bbcause the parcels to be developed by Lauren were specifically excluded from the agreements. There were comments that development is not allowed under Hillside Development Ordinance where existing slopes exceed 30 percent and levee is over 30 percent. Photographs were shown of the site and objections were made to removal of the levee because they considered it a prominent ridge that should not be removed. A comment was made that a Federally recognized blue line stream runs through property. It was noted that the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance is to have homes that flow with the land and it was felt that a 30-foot high fireplace on the end of a home is not in keeping with the ordinance. Comments were made that smaller homes were built when Haven View Estates first developed, but more recent homes are larger. Complaints were raised that the development is not compatible because they are production homes instead of custom. There were comments that the developer has not indicated how much the homes will sell for. A question was raised if there will be more development beyond that point once the road is opened. Objections were raised that the elevations podray different looks but some are options that must be purchased by the buyers and there was no guarantee they would be purchased. A resident said the development will only fit in if each house has a different look and no two look alike. Someone feared that flooding will result because an El Nino is expected next year. A question was raised as to the availability of flood and fire insurance. One resident stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to protect the people in the area. It was contended there was new data regarding the fault which was not known when the Negative Declaration was prepared for the tract and a comment was made that the State is currently retrofitting freeway overpasses because new evidence has come to light regarding earthquakes. A teacher observed that students are taught about loss of habitat in foreign countries but not in their own backyard. She felt it is hypocritical of United States to use natural resources beyond what it is entitled to and that it is important to save the land. A resident stated that Haven View Estates is the only fully gated custom home development in the City and he thought the tract homes would destroy their special neighborhood. Ms. Klippstein presented documents regarding Spirit of the Sage Council, alluvial scrub vegetation, and Shoshone-Gabrielino Indians and their beliefs. She showed pictures of undeveloped land and expressed concern that government is not saving open space. She indicated Shoshone-Gabrielino Indians are opposed to the project because of loss of sacred lands and medicinal plants. She felt all land is public trust land which is privately owned but the private owners do not own the wildlife. She contended that the City had entered into a contract with other agencies regarding habitat conservation. She stated the eco-system needs to be conserved. She requested an EIR. She stated saving the land would not be a taking if the owner were offered fair market value. James Badon, 5552 Canistel Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he suppods the project. He felt the environmental issues had been addressed when the project was originally approved and he did not think the Planning Commission should only be considering them now. He stated that over 70 percent of basic land in the United States is left open for habitat. He thought that once development standards are establi.~q'~ed for a site, the final review should only be to determine if the proposed development meets those standards. He stated he lives in Deer Creek and almost every house has personal touches, making the tract into a custom neighborhood. He said the only question should be whether the quality of the product the developer is offering meets the standards the City originally intended for the area. He stated there is a tremendous amount of vacant land because of the economy changing. He felt quality can be achieved when a series of homes are built at one time. He said he had read a newspaper article that claimed that City staff had misused its power and stated he was uncomfortable that someone would use the ploy that planning personnel would have ,Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 9, 1997 ' F___-z-V personal gains by not informing residents of the development. He felt people should know that once a tract is approved, all other lots will be built. He did not feel the first person on the blook should be able to brock development of other lots so long as standards are met .... - · The Planning Commission recessed from 9:25 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. Mr. Allday stated that all of the arguments presented tonight had already been addressed in materials submitted to the Planning Commission prior to tonight's hearing. He said the rumor that th'ey planned to begin grading on Saturday if the project were to be approved tonight was false. He noted that Mr. Sheahan of Dames & Moore had stated he did not know the details of what is to be constructed in place of the levee and that "if it were not designed to capacity it would be a problem." He said the levee will be replaced by an alternative facility and there will not be a threat to the residents. He felt it was irresponsible for people to spread the rumor that nothing will take the place of the levee and felt it was obvious that no one had bothered to review the plans for the replacement of the levee. He presented a letter from RMA Group, a geotechnical consultant, regarding an analysis of the existing levee and the proposed drainage system. He said the conclusion of the report was that the proposed system would be safer than the existing levee. He commented that civil engineers had submitted detailed hydrology reports for the site to FEMA and FEMA had approved them. He noted that the Flood Control District abandoned an easement they had on the site because of the improvements to the area. He also commented that FEMA removed its requirement for flood insurance for the area. There were no additional public comments. Chairman Barker asked for clarification that there is currently a map for the project. Mr. Hanson confirmed that there is an approved tract map. He said the Planning Commission has no authority regarding the map at this time and indicated a final map is presented to the City Council. Chairman Barker asked for clarification that the Commission has no authority regarding the map. Mr. Hanson confirmed that was correct. He said the Commission would be exercising discretion regarding the design review but it does not have the authority to make any changes to the map. He said the discretion is merely to determine if the project is in compliance with the Development Code and standards. Chairman Barker commented that he knew that most, if not all, of the Commissioners had visited the site. He said he had flown over the site as well as visiting it. He stated he could emphasize with many of the residents in the audience and commented he first became involved in the community in 1981 when a project was proposed in his neighborhood. He said he and his neighbors knew they could not stop the development, but they felt they could affect the quality. He stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to revisit a decision which was made by a previous Commission and certain actions which had been taken several years ago. Commissioner McNiel stated he was still convinced that the Commission is dealing with the design review of the project. He noted the map is in place. He observed there had been some questions raised regarding whether the project meets the standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance. He asked if staff feels the project meets the limitations and spirit of the Ordinance, including building envelopes. - Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner McNiel asked staff to comment regarding removal of the levee and replacement with alternative facilities. Planning Commission Minutes "E- 5 -6- July 9, 1997 Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that overall flood protection of the area depends on a debris facility in the hills and the channel being maintained by the Flood ControLDiStrict. He stated the replacement is designed to handle local flows south of the debris facility. He noted that the Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers were initially involved and FEMA authorized the flood zone change south of the channel to a Zone X meaning that flood insurance is no longer required. He said it is not necessary for the replacement to handle mountain flows. Cbmmissioner McNiel asked if the proposed facility is sufficient to replace the levee. Mr. James indicated he has not studied the capacity of the levee. He indicated the overall system depends upon the debds basin which is maintained by the Flood Control District. He said the local facility will protect from local flooding, not mountain flooding if the debris basin fails. Commissioner McNiel commented that there had been a goodly amount of sniping. He said his concern was that any action by the Commission meets the codes and requirements. He recalled there had been some bad flooding in 1969 and 1978, but stated that things have changed since then. He said it is now possible to drive across town during excessive rainfalls whereas that was not possible prior to improvements being made to the storm drain facilities. He believed Lauren had met the letter of the law. He did not feel the homes will be detrimental to the community. He acknowledged there has been a good deal of changed circumstances over the years, but felt a great deal has to do with the improved flood control facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the issue at hand was design review. He thanked the public for its input. He felt the project met the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and indicated it had gone through the design review process. He stated he had looked very carefully at what was presented and he supported the project. Commissioner Macias stated the developer and homeowner had both spoken. He felt the homeowners have legitimate concerns. He stated he had reviewed everything and listened to the tapes of the meeting he had missed. He agreed with the City Attorney's opinion that the issue is design review and indicated he had served on the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Bethel stated he had been on the original Design Review Committee when the project was reviewed. He noted that he had received a number of letters since that time. He felt it is important to know what the public is thinking but said he still suppods the project. Chairman Barker reiterated his comment that the Planning Commission had no authority to revisit the actions of a previous Commission. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 97-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried Chairman Barker stated that staff would provide details to anyone who wished to appeal. He thanked the audience'for its patience and time. The Planning Commission recessed from Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 9, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA "PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 11, 1997 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMfSSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived at 7:30 p.m. and was seated at 9:00 p.m.) William Bethel, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staff had been contacted by some residents who expressed concerns regarding Item A and new information had been submitted which was before the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission pull the item from the Consent Calendar, allow public comments, and continue the matter until July 9, 1997, in order to allow staff and the Commission to review the materials submitted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and Macias absent), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned meeting of April 9, 1997. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 3-0-2 (Barker and M'&cias absent), to approve the minutes of May 14, 1997. The Minutes for May 28, 1997, were not acted upon because Commissioners Bethel and McNiel had not been present at that meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT - A review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east ~ , of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-351-10 and 1074-541-21. ~ I~'~'ice Chairman McNiel pulled Item A from the Consent Calendar. ,, Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was before the Planning Commission only to review the design of the homes. He reported that the tract.map was approved in 1990 and the~eSvironmental clearance was also completed in 1990. He stated that letters had been presented from attorneys who disagree. Tom Grahn, Associate_Planner, presented a staff report and indicated three letters had been received in opposition to the project. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. John Allday, Lauren Development, 11030 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for its guidance in understanding the Hillside Development Ordinance. He reported they had met with many residents of Haven View Estates and have incorporated many of the comments. He stated the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and the grading plan is consistent with the approved tract map and the conceptual grading plan approved in 1990. He felt the development is consistent with the community and stated they had researched the building permits and design review applications of the existing and approved houses in the development. He presented a summary of existing home sizes and a graph showing that 60 percent of the existing homes are equal to or smaller than the proposed homes. He reported that 55 homes have been built on the 243 home sites. Mr. Allday stated that in July 1996 his firm had begun consultations with the existing homeowners associations within the community. He said they met with the members of the boards of the associations earlier this year and the associations expressed concerns about access, development rights, and association management issues. He stated those issues had been resolved years ago in coud approved settlement agreements which were recorded against all of the properties. He indicated they also hada neighborhood meeting. He said there have been some recent design changes as a result of comments from those meetings including adding surrounds around all windows and doors, decreasing the number of homes with front-on garages, changing the plotting to increase square footage, and agreeing to provide a second plan elevation for Plan 1. He indicated they have an optional design element on Plan 3 which the homeowners want to make standard even though that will defeat the diversity argument and said they will provide that element where setbacks permit it. He stated they had added four more color schemes which will provide6 floor plans, 12 elevations, and 16 color and material schemes which would allow for up to 264 combinations of homes on their 44 lots. He showed a rendering of Plan 3. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Malissa McKeith, Loeb & Loeb, LLP, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage Council, P.O. Box 77027-102, Pasadena Bill Angel, 12968 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga Mahlan Sampson, P.O. Box 1327, Rancho Cucamonga Tim Resar, 5078 Granada, Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga '. Doug Kreinheder, 4146 Clover Place, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Montgomery, 10213 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga Ruben Salazar, 4981 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga Robert Cantarero, 5122 Equine Place, Rancho Cucamonga Tom Bradford, 5066 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga A petition with over 100 names in opposition to the project was presented. Concerns were raised regarding destruction of possible California Gnatcatcher habitat, potential for wild fires, potential for earthquakes, possibility that removal of a levy could increase danger of flooding, increased City liability in the event of a flood, changed water absorption rates and drainage patterns caused by grading, lack of sufficient public notice, reduction in property values, lots being too small, large equipment traffic for removal of dirt, construction traffic, lack of diversity in architecture and variation in roof lines, lack of review by the existing homeowners association architectural review board, wear !anni,n,,g Commission Minutes -2- June 11, 1997 "F-Z and tear on streets, number of construction workers in the area and possible increase in crime because of the presence of such workers, and possible non-compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding habitat conservation signed by the City. One residEnf complained that too many garages will be visible from the street even when they are pulled back and indicated the 33 percent maximum for front facing garages was really an intent to hide garages to give more of an estate feeling. Objections were raised that tract homes should not be allowed in a community that is comprised mostly_of custom homes. It was acknowledged that another developer had built tract homes in the community, but those homes were over 5,200 square feet. It was felt the proposed homes will be too small and it was pointed out that houses will expand square footage by increasing interior space, not by expanding walls. It was stated that the average house size built since 1990 has been over 5,400 square feet. Pictures of all of the homes in the gated community were presented. A board member of one of the existing homeowners associations stated that Lauren should join one of the existing associations and pay full fees. One resident requested an opportunity to meet with Planning staff and the developer regarding the designs. One resident stated that Lauren had incorporated in 1988 and he felt that indicated a lack of experience by the developer. The financial stability of the developer was questioned and allegations were made that a prior company owned by the developer had been sued. A request w&s made that the City determine if there were any problems or lawsuits in connection with prior projects developed by the applicant. One individual indicated a juice bar and private home is located at the business address of the developer. The residents requested further traffic, noise, and air pollution studies because of the funding and approval of the Route 30 freeway and additional biological studies regarding the California Gnatcatcher and coastal sage. It was contended that the Planning Commission's review of the design reopened the matter with respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One resident requesteda full Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Allday stated there is a business sign on the front door of their business and said he had been a private planner for over 21 years, a government planner for 6 years, and is a Planning Commissioner in another City. He stated there had been many untrue things said and asked that the Commissioners remember that the subject is the design review of the houses. He noted that several statements had been made that they had not contacted the homeowners or board members of the homeowners association. He asserted they had dealt with Euclid Management Company which handles the day-to-day operations of the homeowners associations and indicated they have written correspondence from the management company. He stated that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and all City codes. Jeffrey Borum, Gipson, Hoffman, & Panclone, 1901 Avenue of the' Stars, Los Angeles, stated his firm represents Lauren Development and the company is owned by two people, Bill and Cathy Ford, who have been in the development field for 15 years. He said they are a small firm that does quality world. He noted that the City code does not require 7,500 square foot homes even'though residents may want larger homes to increase their own property values. He said this was {he first time they had heard there is serious opposition to the project. He stated there are court settlements which grant Lauren access easements over Ringstem, Tackstem, and Clover. He said those access rights were litigated by Cristiano, the former owner, in the late 1980s and the agreement was signed by representatives for both existing homeowners associations. He stated the developer has not been sued for fraud. He noted that Western Residential was a prior company in the 1980s which broke up because there was another partner involved, not because of a lawsuit. Mr. Borum stated that the court documents regarding access rights also allow Lauren to form its own homeowners association and a final decision regarding that matter has not been made but Lauren is leaning toward doing so. Andrew Hartzel, Hewitt & McGuire, Irvine, 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050, Irvine, said he is the natural resources counsel to Lauren. He stated Lauren is fully aware of the requirements and obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act. He said they intend to comply fully with the Endangered Species Act, both federal and state, and do not intend to take any listed species ~nin,,g Commission Minutes -3- June 11, 1997 "F-5 associated with this project development. He stated his client is fully aware that the act carries civil and criminal sanctions. He repoded Lauren Development requested that the Army Corps of · Engineers visit the site and the Corps confirmed they do not have jurisdiction on the'site. He said they also had the Department of Fish and Game visit the site to be sure there are no riparian areas under its jurisdiction and it was determined that is not an issue. He reported that Lauren hired a team of Gnatcatcher biologists to survey the site and no birds were found on the site or in the immediate area bordering the site. He stated California Department of Fish and Game staff sent a letter in April indicating that the four surveys conducted were not sufficient. He said he called the service in April to ask what its concerns were and still had not heard back from them but he would continue to follow up. He commented that Lauren Development is under no obligations to do any further surveys for the Gnatcatcher. He stated the Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to compel Lauren to do any surveys and said they would continue to dialogue with the service. He indicated he was very familiar with the MOU referred to by Ms. Klippstein and said this project would not violate the MOU. He stated the action before the Planning Commission is a design review issue and not defined as a project for the purposes of CEQA. He said the CEQA issues which had been raised were not relevant to the discretionary action of by the Planning Commission with respect to the design review. He commented that the issues raised by CURE and Spirit of the Sage would apply to all undeveloped lots in the community, not just this parcel. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, to continue Development Review 97-11 to July 9, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BETHEL, MCNIEL, NOES: NONE ABSENT: BARKER, MACIAS TOLSTOY - carried Mr. Bullet indicated that a copy of the tape for tonight's meeting would be provided to the two Commissioners who were not present so they would be brought up to date. He encouraged residents to visit the Planning Division and noted the applicant had also extended an invitation to meet with residents. He hoped the residents would take the time to understand the project before it retumed to the Commission on July 9. He stated the City has met and exceeded the requirements of the state with respect to noticing and public review of the project. He asked the residents to talk to their neighbors regarding the next meeting. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at which time Chairman Barker joined the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-27 - TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING. INC. - A request to develop a service station, drive-thru fast food restaurant, and canopy totaling 7,672 square feet on 1.1 acres of land, and a master plan of the surrounding 1.9 acres of land, in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Parcel Map 14001. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14001 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A subdivision of 3.5 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Office Park Distdct of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road- APN: 1077-672-37. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of "~'~ environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 96-27. Planning Commission Minutes ~4- June 11, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT NO. 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14771, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 11, and continued to July 9, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held meetings to consider the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meetings on June 11, and July 9, 1997, including written and oral staff repods, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the obiectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. e. Based on substantial evidence provided to the Planning Commission it is hereby found that none of the criteria found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 1997 Page 2 97-36 Planning Division 1) A maximum of 13 lots shall have front-on garages. The remaining lots shall have either a side-on garage condition or with the front .facing garage placed towards the rear of the structure. 2) Door and window stucco surrounds shall be provided on all elevations. 3) Provide additional multi-pane window treatments to accent the side and rear elevations. 4) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer with written notice of the cross lot drainage condition, in standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any properly. 5) The slope along the south side of Lot 5, adjacent to Tackstem Street, and along the south side of Lot 26, adjacent to Ringstem Drive, shall be terraced in conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations. Terraced walls shall not exceed 3 feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. 6) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. Engineerinq Division 1) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 2) All applicable conditions from Resolution No. 90-137 and 90-138 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 1997. :J~ ~ B-~ k re~, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 (TRACT 14771) - LAUREN July 9, 1997 Page 3 97-36 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July 1997 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CON DITIONS PROJECT#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Design Review for Tract 14771 Development Review 97-11 Lauren Development East of Haven Avenue, north of Ringstem Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Completion Date / / B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. / / Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. SC- 5197 / / Proiect No. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, betming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner.' For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or I, sc. 5~7 .Zo ~ 2 DR 97-11 Completion Date / / I / / I / / I / I I I I I / I I I I Proiect No. larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. E. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for the Cucamonga Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: F. Site Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. DR 97-11 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 5197 Project No. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. G. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. DR 97-11 Completion Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-5~7 LOEB LOEBLLF A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAw 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 Los ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 T E LEPHOTq E': 213-688-3400 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~loeb.com July 23, 1997 Ms. Debra Adams City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 % Re; Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Challen2e to Lauren Development Project Dear Ms. Adams: Please include the enclosed July 23, 1997 letter and attachments from me to Darren L. Hereford, Esq. in the Administrative Record in anticipation of the Hearing before the City Council in Development Review No. 97-11. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK"~ . .... MHM:pb Enclosure CM24336. L 02 /7D LOEB LOEBLLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 TELEPH~-NE: 213-688-3400 FACS~4~LE: 213-688-3460 CENTURY CITY 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEV~RO Store 2200 . Los ANGELES, CA 90067-4164 TEL: 310-282-2000 F~.X: 310-282-2192 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~loeb.com July 23, 1997 NEW YOR~ 3~.5 P~RK Argue NEw YO~K. NY 10154-0037 TEL: 212-407-4000 F~x: 212-407-4990 NASHVILLE 45 MUSIC ~OU,~E WEST N~S~WLLE. TN 37203,3205 T.%: 615-749-8300 FxX: 615-749-8308 WASHINGTON, D.C. 210(I M Sr~EE"r.N.W. SUITE 601 W~.~G~O~, D.C. 20037-1207 TEL: 202-223,5700 F~x: 202-223-5704 00197-Ro~£ TEL: 011-396-808-845& F~x: 011-396-674-8223 ;M24334.L02 Darren L. Hereford, Esq. Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh 4 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92623 Re; Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE'") Challenze to Lauren Development Project Dear Darren: This letter is in response to Mr. Cristiano's correspondence to the City of Rancho Cucamonga dated June 26, 1997. I am specifically writing to clarify CURE's position with regard to the potential purchase of the Cristiano Parcel in the event that CURE's challenge to the Lauren Development Project is successful. Because of the significant environmental and safety issues involved with any development on the Cristiano Parcel, CURE concluded early on that acquir/ng the property for habitat preservation was the only viable use of the property. My office therefore contacted Mr. Cristiano on June 16, 1997 requesting that he provide the name of his legal counsel. My secretary's phone call was followed by a letter from me explaining why I wished to speak with Mr. Cristiano's counsel and why I was reluctant to speak with him directly given the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Mr. Cristiano proceeded to leave a voice mail message stating that, as we were not in litigation, he would prefer to speak with me directly. Unfortunately, the conversation with Mr. Cristiano took place while he was in the midst of a celebration of his son's championship baseball victory party. At the time, I thought it was best to proceed with the call and assure Mr. Cristiano that it was CURE's intention (as it remains so) that he be paid full fair market value for the Parcel and that I was exploring what other tax credits or incentives were available to him if the property were being purchased for habitat preservation. /7/ Darren L. Hereford, Esq. July 23, 1997 Page 2 I did explain to Mr. Cristiano that the "fair market value" of the property was a moving target and that, if CURE were successful in challenging Lauren Development or if the tentative map were stricken, my ability to raise funds satisfactory to Mr. Cristiano might be limited. In light of the difficulty that any developer will face in devetoping north of the levee, a developer's projected price of $100,000 for the lot(s) south of the levee would seem more than fair. As was quickly apparent from his comments, Mr. Cristiano has some very strong emotions about his previous dealings with both representatives of Haven View Estates and with the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council. Those dealings pre-date any of my involvement on this matter. Had I known the depth of his animosity in advance, [ would have insisted that counsel be present during any discussions to avoid the misunderstandings that apparently occurred. The attachment to this letter further responds to some of the specific issues raised by Mr. Cristiano. As I am certain you can appreciate, I had no option but to clarify the record on these issues. CURE welcomes the opportunity to speak with you further to discuss the possibility o~' purchasing the property when appropriate. Please contact me if you have questions. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK'~ MHM:pb Enclosure cc: City of Rancho Cucamonga W tCM24334. L02 /7Z Response to June 26, 1997 Letter from Cristiano to Bullet Failure of the City to provide notice of Desiqn Review Hearing. The City, Cristiano and Lauren Development have admitted that no party provided any notice of the June 11, 1997 Development Review hearing. Euclid Management only provided notice of a "neighborhood meeting" with Lauren Development the weekend before that informal meeting was scheduled. The vast majority of the Haven View residents were unaware of the Project until the Memorial Day weekend. The courts will determine the issue of whether such notice was adequate under state and federal law. Failure of the City to conduct environmental review for over seven years. The City and Cristiano admit that. no environmental review has been conducted since 1990. Although Lauren Development has conducted limited California gnatcatcher surveys, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on three separate occasions (April 16, June 10 and July 9, 1997) has informed the City, in writing, that Lauren's California gnatcatcher surveys are inadequate. The California gnatcatcher is only one of several environmental infirmities facing the Project. Most of the homeowners moved into the area after 1990 and had no idea about the Proiect. A review of the public record reflecting when current homeowners purchased their homes will confirm the accuracy of this statement. Aerial photographs from 1990 further will confirm the number of homes that were constructed. CURE agrees with Mr. Cristiano that Euclid Management was contacted and that Euclid failed to disclose information to individual homeowners which prevented homeowners from commenting on the Project earlier than June 11, 1997. Neither Euclid Management nor the Haven View Board of Directors has any authority to act as an agent of the property owners in connection with the Lauren Development Project. The fact that Lauren Development or Cristiano contacted Euclid Management does not eliminate their legal obligation (or that of the City) to provide meaningful notice to individual property owners affected by the Project. CM24333.X02 7/23/97 /73 The City has not adequately evaluated safety issues concerninc the removal of a DeriDheral containment levee. Senior Engineer Dan James admitted on the record at the July 9, 1997 hearing that he (and hence the City) had not evaluated the safety impacts of removing the levee or the relative effectiveness of the levee and swale system versus the concrete channel proposed by Lauren Development. The Army Corps of Engineers also has informed the City that it did not evaluate or comment upon the safety issues involved with the Project. The San Bernardino Flood Control District similarly has confirmed that it has performed no analysis of the relative safety of the levee and swale system versus the Lauren Development concrete channel. New information not available to the Flood Control District when it quitclaimed the easement mandates further consideration by the City Safety Engineers and certified hydrogeologists. The Project is situated as habitat that is Catecory S!.! and G.1 and actuallv constitutes about 1.5 Dercent of the total remaininc habitat for Gnatcatchers on earth. The California Department of Fish & Game has designated the ecosystem supporting alluvial fan sage scrub as Si.1 and G.1, including the subject property. Contrary to Mr. Cristiano's statement, the San Bernardino National Forest contains a very small amount of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, and therefore the reference to over 400,000 acres of remaining habitat is not accurate. The reference in the June 11, 1997 brief of there being less than 2,000 acres of gnatcatcher habitat in the world rather than less than 2,000 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub was an obvious error that was simply not caught in the final edit of the briefs. Given that all other references are very specific as to the California gnatcatcher rather than to the general category of gnatcatcher, flycatcher, etc., reinforces that the statement was an editing oversight. A reading of Michael Brennan's declaration supporting the statement in the brief and the fact that this error has not been made in a single other document submitted to the City or any other third party makes clear that the June 11 statement was an unintentional computer error. Lauren Development has never provided direct notice to any homeowner in the area. Lauren Development had the means to notify individual homeowners and failed to do so. Lauren elected instead to rely on Euclid Management. Unfortunately, Euclid Management failed to inform residents of the Project. 2 J/23/97 7. Mrs. Hahn has a conflict of interest. CURE acknowledges that it has approached Mr. Cristiano concerning the acquisition of the property when the Lauren Development Project is defeated. CURE believed it was important that Mr. Cristiano understand that'CURE was not interested in depriving him of the fair market value of his property particularly in light of Mr. Cristiano's prior dealings with the Board of Directors of Haven View. When the Lauren Development Project is defeated and/or the Tentative Map is stricken, the fair market value of the property may be perceived as substantially less than that which CURE is willing to pay presently. 8. The extension of the tentative mao in 1993 was proceduraliv defective. The extension issues are a legal issue that the federal court will address. 9. ADDroyal of the DesiGn Review ADplication violates CEOA. CURE and the Department of Fish & Game have requested that the City recirculate the negative declaration based upon new information and changed circumstances seriously calling into question the safety and environmental impacts of the Project. Such a request is entirely consistent with the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's own ordinances. The failure of the Planning Commission to evaluate such new information and changed circumstances in approving Development Review 97-11 violates CEQA. ~M24333.X02 723/97 LOEB LOEBLLP A LIMITED LIAalLITy ~ARTNERSHll~ INCLUDING PRO(tE$SIDNAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2475 TEL'EPHONE: 213-688-3400 FACSiMiLE: 213-688-3460 CENTURY CITY 10100 SA~?~ MON~C~ BOUL EVAI=ID Su~T~ 2200 ' LOS ANGEL~S. CA 90067-4164 TEL: 310-282-2000 F~x: 310-282-2192 Direct Dial No. 213.688.3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~Ioeb.com June 17, 1997 New Yo~K 345 P~ AvEe~u~ NE~ YO~K. NY 10154-0037 TEL: 212-407-40~0 F~x: 212-407-4990 00197-RC~,~ ITALY F~x: 011-396-674-~223 ~24206.L02 Via Facsimile Mr. Robert J. Cristiano Zephyr Capital 4400 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 780 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Cucamon~ans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Dear Mr. Cristiano: My secretary contacted your office yesterday to learn the name of your attorney. As you know, I represent CURE in connection with the pending challenge to the Lauren Development Project. I do not represent Haven View Estates or RC-5 homeowners associations. Although some residents oppose the Lauren Project because of the tract housing, CURE's concerns deal with the safety of removing the levee in light of recent hydrolog/cal and earthquake studies and with eliminating what is extremely rare habitat. Because of these safety and em, ironmental concerns, CURE does not believe that the property should ever be developed. Nevertheless, we believe that you, as the property owner, are entitled to a fair return on your investment. On the defeat of the Lauren Development Project, CURE would be interested in purchasing the property.as CURE's ultimate goal is to have the property held in trust as a wildlife preserve. As CURE is in the midst of a legal dispute with the prospective purchaser of your property, I am ethically required to speak with your lawyer rather than you directly. Doug Kreinheder, one of my neighbors, could speak with you about the purchase of the property as he is not an attorney. Doug and I are both relatively new residents to Haven View. Mr. Robert J. Cristiano June 17, 1997 Page 2 I personally am very offended by the emphasis of some on the square footage of the tract homes and the notion that this should be an "exclusive" neighborhood when the real issue involved is our safey in this geologic zone of special concern. You should know that none of the residents received notice of the Lauren Development Project until May 23, 1997, and a lot of residents feel that it was very irresponsible that Bruce Ann Hahn, Bill Angel and Euclid Management kept information about the Lauren Project from the residents. Had we known earlier, we would have raised these concerns with Lauren and you before any resources were expended. I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet. Thank you. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK'~ ' . MI--hM:pb cc: Doug Kreinheder (by tetecopier) /77 TRANSCRIPT OF VOICEMAIL MESSAGE FROM BOB CRISTIANO TO MALISSA HATHAWAY McKEITH Received: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 3pm Malissa, this is Bob Cristiano: I received your kind letter today and I am responding to you. Unless you are in the process of suing me, I don't see any reason why I cannot talk with you because I am certainly not suing you. My number is 714-476-0101. I will be happy to chat with you at your convenience and carry on the conversation. Thank you. tCM24211.X02 )00000000 )6/17/97 MHM:p~al I · I ,_ Project: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074-541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for Development Review 97-11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject development review request is referred to as the "application." 2. On June 9, 1997, and July 11, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application and, following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution No. 97-36 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On August 20, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced August 20, 1997, hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above- referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-36, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a Los Angelbs Department of Power and Light easement, the property to the south and west consists of vacant and developed single family residential land, and the property to the east is vacant flood control land; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLU'~ N NO. DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT August20,1997 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the construction of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land which is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (d) The proposal is in compliance with the objectives and requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations; and (e) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (e) Based upon substantial evidence provided to the City Council it is hereby found that none of the criteria found in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exists or are present. 4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the application. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, at the address identified in City records. /$/ 10100 S~,~'~ MONICA SU~T", 2200 90067-4164 TeL: 310.282-2000 =~X:310-2S2.2192 37203-3205 TEL: S % LOEB( v.J-.OEB LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAw · 1~00' V~rlLSHIRE'BOULEVARD ~- S~r'i:E 1800 -' Los ANGELES. CA g0017-2475 RECEIVED AU8 2 6 7997 City':o! Rancho Cucamonga Direct Dial No. Planning Division 213.688.3622 '. e-mail: NgvlCKEITH~loeb.com TELEP~QN~; 213-688-3400 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 ADMINISTRATION /lUg 2 6 1997 August 21, 1997 William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember City Council Offices City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Cucamon~ans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE"'~ Dear Councilmembers: .~100 M S'm~.N.W. .~0037- ~ 207 r='L: 202,Z23-57C<1 =~.~: 202,223-5704 X~lg7-Ro~ TEL: 011,35~5-808-,S4S,6 ~a,x: 011,3g~-674-'32:23 On behalf of CUT.E, we ,.,,,ant to thank you for the many hours you have put into understanding the Lauren Development project and particularly your willingness to conduct the hearing into the early morning hours of this morning. We urge that you carefully review the record that was submitted prior to and at the hearing last night. Now that it is closed, you need not fear more paper! What you ~vill see is that the factual assertions raised by CURE are, in fact, substantiated by the declarations that were submitted. You should feel free to contact any of the experts that have worked on this case and get it from the "horse's mouth" rather than the lawyer's. Very truly yours, Malissa Hathaway McK"~ Ml-hM:pb cc: Ms. Leeona Klippstein (CURE Boardmember) Mr. Mark C. Estupinian " Thomas Bradford, Esq. " ,, August 21, 1997 RE: Lauren Development, Haven View Estates Honorable Bill Alexander, Mayor, I would like to thank you for your vote denying the design review approval on the above referenced. project. As a long time custom home builder and resident of the City (15yrs) I believe you made the right decision. Compatibility and adherence to the development code are the reasons we have a design review process. Your support of high standards is a great reflection on the quality of new developments in Rancho Cucamonga. I understand the difficulty in reaching your decision to overturn the Planning Commission's resolution. However, I believe if you review the minutes of the June and July meetings of the Planning Commission, you will see that you were mis-informed by the City Attorney. As you will recall, last night, the City attorney stated to the city council that the Planning Commission did not feel that further CEQA investio. qation, includin~ an EIR should be recluired. This is not true. The Planning Commission did not make a CEQA determination. Unlike the council meeting, the deputy city attorney instructed and advised the commission that they could ONLY take action regarding design review. He further stated that the Planning "..Commission had no authority regarding the map" or to consider "changed circumstances" at that time. In addition, he stated that their decision was limited to design review only. Last night as you may recall, the city attorney informed you that you could and should listen to changed circumstances and take all information and evidence under advisement. This is completely the opposite information given to the Planning Commission. I understand that it would be nice to have consistency in decisions between the two bodies, but when you are advised differently and mis-informed, it becomes difficult. As evident in the minutes, the commission based their votes solely on design issues only (I respectfully disagree with their decision). I believe the outcome of the decision would have been different if the same advice given to you was given to them. In addition, the Planning Commission was not made aware of the fact that this project is inconsistent with the city's general plan open space. This was new information discovered last week. I believe if the Planning Commission had this information along with the fact that the "Hillside Ordinance" design review process requires that this project be consistent with the Open Space plan, they would not have approved the project and would have required a General Plan Amendment (by law) as they have in the past. Again thank you for your listening and supporting tl~e residents. I would be happy to meet with you, or speak with you on the phone if you have tim~ in your busy schedule. Sincerely, Bill Angel 12966 Arapaho Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 899-4566 Home 989-7026 Rancho Pacific Development Corp. 980-7867 Hermosa Storage Center cc: Hon. Dave Barker, Chairman, Planning Commission encl: minutes of July 11, Planning Commission meeting obtained from staff. TIMOTHy M, YOUNC~:K August 20, 1997 Rancho Cuceanonga City Council Reecho Cucamonga City Hall P,O, Box 807 Rancho Cuc~anonga, CA 9] 729 WILLIAM R.. RAWLINGS It~ANCHO C'.JCA~OI~4.o CA~I~f~I/A COI~,ON'A. C~J. II'OKN~ 5,~LT LAJ~ Crr¥, L,~'AH 64~07 Re: ttavenvlew Estates Development Dem-City Council Members: As a former resident of Havenview Estates, I read with interest the articles written by David Allen and Bob Page in the Daily Bulletin, dated July 9, !997 mud July 1 I, 1997 respectively. Allhough I now reside in the s'tatc of Utah, I still do business in Rancho Cucamonga and continue to follow the city's development. [n reviewing the news articles, I felt that you should know that there is no truth in the statement that it was not known that the property where the old flood control berm is located was going to be developed. Not only was I awa~-e that there were plans to remove the berm and add 40 additional houses, the CC&R documems also $hov,'~ Lhc proposed map of the site. Finally, the city had two or three neighborhood meetings when all ofthis infom:ation was discussed, I pc:'sonally attended one of the mettings in October or November of ! 990, Following that meeting, it is my recollection that the Ilomeowncrs Association wrote a letter to the planning commission endorsing the project, I find it interesting how the Homeowners Association can now state that they were not aware of this project. When we were building our home in t.Iavenvicw Estates, I was yew impressed and frankly, somewhat perturbed at the stringent requirements and the thorough review my plans .-,',received, There was no question in my mind however, that at all times the city. was acting vdth everyone's best interest in mind, From the beautiful state of Utah, I support your efforts, Best of Luck. Very truly yours, ./--,,, Bill Rawlin~ ,~-~ RESOLUTION NO. ~' ~""/5 / '- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771, A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074- 541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for Development/Design Review 97-11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject development review request is referred to as the "application." 2. On June 9, 1997, and July 11, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application and, following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution No. 97-36 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On August 20, and August 21, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced August 20, and August 21, 1997, hearing, including, but not limited to, written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-36, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a Los Angeles Department of Power and Light easement, the property to the south and west consists of vacant and developed single family residential land, and the property to the east is vacant flood control land; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT September 3, 1997 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the construction of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land which is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (d) The proposal is not in compliance with the objectives and requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations and does not comply with all development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in that the proposed design of the homes will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding custom homes; and (e) The proposed design is not in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, and will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed design of the homes will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding custom homes. 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Paragraph 2 above, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the application. 4. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Allday from Lauren Development, Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion, and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, at the address identified in City records. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 97-11 FOR TRACT 14771,. A REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-351-10 AND 1074- 541-21. A. Recitals. 1. Lauren Development has filed an application for Development/Design Review 97-11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject development review request is referred to as the "application." 2. On June 9, 1997, and July 11, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed the application and, following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution No. 97-36 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On August 20, and August 21, 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced August 20, and August 21, 1997 hearing, including, but not limited to, written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-36, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a Los Angeles Department of Power and Light easement, the property to the south and west consists of vacant and developed single family residential land, and the property to the east is vacant flood control !and; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-11 - LAUREN DEVELOPMENT September 3, 1997 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the construction of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land which is consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (d) On November 14, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14771 and issued a Negative Declaration. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That no new environmental information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known on November 14, 1990, has been presented since the Negative Declaration for Tract 14771 was issued on November 14, 1990; and (d) None of the criteria stated in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exist or are present with respect to the project. 4. In accordance with the findings set forth in Paragraph 3 above, this Council finds, concludes and determines that no further environmental review is required in conjunction with Development/Design Review 97-11. 5. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Allday from Lauren Development, Malissa McKeith, from the law office of Loeb and Loeb, representing Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion, and Mindy Sheps from the law office of Wolf, Rifkin and Shapiro, representing the Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven View Estates Homeowners Association, at the address identified in City records. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Rex Gutierrez and Paul Biane City Council Planning/HPC Commission Subcommittee Consideration to Approve Process for Filling Current Terms Expiring on Planning/IlPC Commission The purpose of this memo is to recommend a process for filling the current terms that will be expiring on the Planning/HPC Commission. The 3 Commissioners whose terms will expire are Dave Barker, Larry McNiel and Peter Tolstoy. At the Council's January 15, 1997 meeting, Ordinance 567 was approved amending the Commission's length of terms to expire on the first day of January of an applicable even-numbered year. This means the terms for the 3 Commissioner's listed above would expire January, 1998. Our proposed process for filling these 3 terms would be to begin advertising this weekend and make October 17, 1997 the deadline to submit applications. We, as the Council's Subcommittee, would then review the applications and if a large number of applications were submitted, we would create a "short list" for the entire City Council to interview. The last time we did this process (June of 1996), the Council agreed if there were less than 20 applications, all applicants would be interviewed by the entire City Council. If there were more than 20 applications, the Subcommittee would create a "short list" of 12 applicants for the entire Council to interview. We are proposing the same guidelines be used. We will also have Staff provide copies of all applications for the Council's review and comment to us. We have also asked Staff to prepare a memo to the 3 Commissioners whose terms will be expiring and ask if they would be interested in re-applying. A copy of that draft memo is attached for your review. Once the applicants to be interviewed have been determined, the City Clerk's office will set a Special City Council meeting to conduct the interviews and selections will be made at that meeting. /~ Respec/ff~17 ~t~bmitted, Rex Gutierrez and Paul Baine City Council Planning/HPC Subcommittee Attachment: Draft Memo ..2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM DRAWl September 3, 1997 Dave Barker, Larry McNiel and Peter Tolstoy Planning/HPC Commissioners Rex Gutierrez and Paul Biane City Council Planning/HPC Commission Subcommittee Expiration of Terms for P!anning/ItPC Commission The City Council would like to thank you for your services as Commissioners on the City's Planning/HPC Commission. This Commission serves a vital role for the planning and development of the City. We have appreciated your dedicated services to the City and know that each of you has a commitment both to the Commission and the community. Since your terms will be expiring effective January, 1998, we would naturally welcome the opportunity to receive your applications and interview you for another term on the Planning Commission. If you have any questions of us, please feel free to contact us. IqZ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Council Members - R. Gutierrez/J. Curatalo Public Safety Subcommittee SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE REFERENCE NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS RECOMMENDATION: Review materials provided to the Public Safety Subcommittee for the purpose of adopting a Rancho Cucamonga City Ordinance dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". If applicable direct the City Attorney to draft such an ordinance. BACKGROUND: Approximately two (2) months ago, during the course of a Public Safety Subcommittee meeting, Councilman Gutien'ez provided the Police Department with a copy of a Los Angeles Municipal Code and L.A.P.D. directive dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". The Police Department subsequently researched the matter and also obtained written opinions from both the City Attorney and City Prosecutor offices regarding the L.A. Ordinance and its applicability to Rancho Cucamonga. The ordinance (legislation) helps to expedite eviction proceedings against gang or drug offenders committing offenses on or near their place of residence and provides an effective law enforcement tool in the war on drug offenders. Both law firms responded in a positive manner and indicated that the L.A. Ordinance was too "new" to speculate on the reaction of the courts, however, based upon other actions of a similar nature it would appear that the ordinance would have the potential to prevail if challenged. The aforementioned information (see attached) was presented to the Public Safety Subcommittee on Thursday, July 24, 1997. The members of the committee accepted, and approved, the report and asked that the information be forwarded to the Mayor and Members of the City Council for their review and approval as they deem appropriate. RH/JH/jh /q/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 21, 1997 Rex Gutierrez & James Curatalo Council Members - Public Safety Subcommittee Rodney Hoops, Chief of Police NARCOTIC OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRALS Subject to your request of approximately one (1) month ago, my staff has contacted the law offices of James Markman (City Attorney) and Martin Mayer (City Prosecutor), for the purpose of obtaining their opinion regarding the new Los Angeles Municipal Code (see attached) dealing with "narcotic offender eviction referrals". Both law firms have provided written documentation (see attached) as to their assessment of the ordinance. Both firms indicate that the ordinance would appear to provide a "tool" to be utilized when dealing with issues of nuisance and dangerous conditions and would be applicable for use with both single and multiple family dwellings. Both law firms also indicate that due to the "newness" of the Los Angeles Ordinance there has not been sufficient time to speculate as to the reaction of the courts, however, based upon other actions of a similar nature it would appear that the ordinance would have the potential to prevail. At the last subcommittee meeting, state legislation (AB738), was also discussed. This legislation was similar in nature to the Los Angeles Ordinance, however, the attorney's for the aforementioned law firms both indicated that the legislation had not passed. The information provided above, as well as, the reports from the city retained law firms should provide you with the information you requested for action as you deem appropriate. RH/JH/jh OFFICE OF OPERATIONS 1.2.1 April 7, 1997 TO: All Personnel, Office of Operations FROM: Direct'or, Office of Operations NARCOTIC OFFE,%])ER EVICTION BACKGROI/MD Recent legislation'intended to expedite evict/on proceedings again~ gang or drug offenders committing offenses on or near their place of residence provides an effective law enforcement tool in the war on drag offenders. An understanding of Los Angeles Municipal Code (L,~MC).Section 47.50 mandates that all officers include critical 'information in any drug-related arrest report. The New L~w: L~$_An~'eles Mu~nleipa! Code_Section 47,50. The new law, LAMC Section 47.50 provide5 in relevant part: A landlord shall not cause or permit: 1. The premise, to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance or gang- related crime, and; 2. A tenant to use or occupy the premises if the tenant commits, permit, maintains, or is involved in any illegal drag activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance or gang-related crime; A landlord may bring an action to recover possession of a rental unit upon one ofthe following grounds: The tenant 'is committing or permitting to exi.q any illegal drug activity., gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1,000 feot radius from the boundary line on the premises, 2. The tenant has been convicted of a crime wherein the underlying offense involves illegal drag activity, drag-related nuisance activity, or a gang-related crime on the premises. If the City Attorney's Office determine.~ that'the landlord has failed to comply with the provisions of this section after receiving notice, then the City. Attorney's Office may file an action for injunctive relief or t~ke any other appropriate action to require the landlord to c. omply with the provisions of this section. In sum, this legislation r~ttire3 landlords to evict drag or gang oftendem. Adequate notice of the offense must therefore be provided to such landlords as soon ai~er the offense as possible to permit these tandIords to begin timely eviction procedures. A notice will be provided by Deputy City A~.tomeys Page 2 1.2.1 : assigned to the Narcotics Abatement Unit's (NAU) Narcotics Enforcement Surveillance Team (NEST). In the event that the landlord fails to take steps to remove a problem tenant, the City A~tomey's Office is authorized to pursue civil and/or criminal actions against the landlord. PROCE~r~URE In order to ensure effective notice to landlords in ',heir eviction of drug offenders, the following procedures shall be implemented: In all narcotics-related arrests, officers shall determine whether a drug-related offense occurred within the 1,000 foot radius of the arrestee's residence. If so, the arrest report shall include that information, and a copy of the arrest report shall be sent immediately to the Los Angeles City Attorney located at NAU NEST, 1645 Corinth Avenue, Room 213, Mail Stop 149. A. Every narcotics-related arrest report shall include the precise location ofthe offense with ' referenc~ to the closest legal address. Because the precise distance may become a critical issue in subsequent eviction pr~a~edings against the arrestee, iri all but the most obvious of cases (such as where the defendant is arreszed ihside his home or outside the front door), the officer shall measure or reliably estimate the distance bee~veen the offense location and the arrestee's residence. (The average City block is 800 feet.) Copies ofal! arrest reports which arise out of search warrants where narcotics are recovered shall be sent immedimely to the NAU NEST City Attorney for review. A Copy of the search warrants involved shall be included. If additional information is required, Lieutenant Stan Embry, Officer-in-Charge, Narcotics Group NAU, can be contacted at (310) 575-8910. Director Office of Operatk3ns Distribution "A" ~vl¢~ion 4~.S0 ~he~e~o to read as {oilowe: ~C. 47,SO, ~CC~r~C~ A. DS~Z.h'3~X.ONS, For the pu~poee~ of this Section, the de£1nitionl in Section 12.03 o{ this Cc~e &n~ ~he following de~lnitions shall apply: COl~qtOLL~D ~U1)BTA~CB~ A drug, eubata~lce, o~ controlled tubetenet :ha~ etaasea en unce~eOn~blm lmce~e:ence with the cem~or~able enJo~nt o~ it:e, p~eperty and na~ecy o~ other residents o~ &he premises er viihis · 1000 ~t ~ad~ue fc~ the ~vndi~ ll~ ot the pgemiaee, such activity includes. but it not limited to, any activity co--sly aeeocia~ed with Health and ;a~ety C~e ~ection 11532, or o:he~ d~g- reX&ted circumaCancea, pet'petritcr lm a know~ ~.~bsr og a gang, or any crime intended victim o~ the Crime ll · know~ me~= gon~. pcovisione o{ Chapte~ ~ {con~enc~n~ with Section 1:350} or ~napCet &,S {co~mencin~ ~lth Section ~400) oE the RealCh and Safety c~e. or other enttty~ who receives or ig entlCled to receive teptelentatLve ot aucceleot o~ a~y o: the PW~[ The Ce~ta~ unit and ~he la~ on elevators. --R~4~Ab ~NIT: All dwelling unite. ef:icien~Y 'dwellings Unite, ~uesc r~ems, and suites, as defined in Section 1;.03 of this Co~e, includin9 ~ingle ~amily ~l ~gelel. Thil te~ whall also ~nclude ~blle h~e, ~h~ther rent ie pied [or th~ ~blle h~ ~d the ie paid fo~ the l~n~ alone. Further It shall include l~a~ed. o~ rc~C i~ ~aL~ foc the l~nd alone. B. ~TT~I OY ~ Z.~l~P~O~J~. A 13ndiGr~ ·hall no~ i~volvod in any illegal dru~ ~elated c~l~a, o~ d~u~-~·l&ted nul·an~e on th4. p~em/.e· or ~lthin I 1000 ~C ~diu~ g~ the ~unde~ lin~ o~ ~he pCemide~. his' or her deei~ee, S~all pco~lg~t~ [qch a~lnietraZiv~ DEC 1 6 1996 (i) the t~.n~ I. c~lt~n~ oc ~e~i~lng ~e vhe~ein ~he unde~yl~ O~e~/e ~n~vei 3, I.~ar~lma~, [~ Ch~ City Attorney dece~ine. that the land~ozd ha. failed tO ¢~y wl~h the p~ovltionl {e~ie~ OC ~ake any oth4~ approp~iace action to ~e~ire the landlord to coyly with the previmiofia og thio ;lotion. ~dec~len ~y, in addition to any oChe~ O~der pr;vided ~ 14v, i~l~ a'penslCy not to exceed Eive ~houeand doll·r. {$5,000} piylb~e to ~he City of ~. ~ale., ~i~[~l the extel, they mhl[l be ~ointly and ·everally lLible ~or any I hezeby certify that the ~OregOin~ ordinance wee ~EC 1 1 ~. J, MI~L ~Y, City clerk ~puty CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: September 3, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager Karen McGuire-Emery, Associate Park Planner PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE BACKGROUND In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation facilities issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering. A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE Lions East: Completion of the Lions East Project has been delayed due to the recent sewer line blockage on Base line Road, which caused flooding and considerable water damage in the facility. Service Master Water Drainage Specialists were called out to provide sanitary clean up services which was followed by testing of the affected areas by a company specializing in Health/Safety monitoring. At this time, approximately two feet of drywall and insulation which absorbed water has been removed and is scheduled for replacement, and the carpet tiles will be replaced. In addition, portions of the cabinetry are being examined to determine the extent of damage and possible replacement. It is anticipated that approximately eight weeks will be required to complete this work. Lions West: The start date for construction of this project has been postponed until final completion of the Lions East Community Center. Once construction begins it is estimated that improvements will require approximately 5 months to complete. ADA modifications and related rehabilitation of the building will include: Lobby addition and entry corridor modification (creation of a new ADA accessible lobby on the south side of the building and expansion of the entry corridor to provide disabled access) Provisions for new office and storage space to replace the area lost through corridor expansion including reconfiguration of existing reception area CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 3, 1997 Page 2 Restroom modifications to provide ADA accessibility including plumbing upgrades and space allocation modifications Kitchen modifications to provide ADA accessibility including new cabinets and a service area to the gallery Provisions for a ramp in the Forum for ADA accessibility Renovation and/or replacement of interior finishes such as carpet, vinyl flooring, base, wall colors, cabinet laminates, ceramic tiles and ceilings as necessary due to ADA rehabilitation Minor irrigation and landscape design to accommodate changes in building footprint and disabled access Regrading, paving and striping of the main parking lot RC Family Sports Center: Construction is continuing on this facility. Insulation is in place, and plumbing, and electrical are installed. Framing and drywall are in the final stages. It is estimated that renovations will be completed in December 1997. Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center: Security Cameras have been installed to overview the parking lots and are monitored at the reception counter, as a part of the existing CCTV system. These cameras were added due to car vandalism experienced by the Seniors while they were at the Center. Spruce Avenue Skate Park: Purkiss-Rose-RSI is preparing the construction drawings for the project. Cornerpointe Development TT 15727/Future Neighborhood Park Site: At the July Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual plan for the future park site as provided by the Griffin Industries. Staff will be forwarding this plan to City Council in September. Annual Soccer Field Renovations: Renovation of the soccer fields occurred as follows: May 17 - the Red Hill fields; June 9 - the four Beryl fields; July 24 - transitioned the Heritage baseball fields to soccer, including seeding, and grading; July 30 - the two Sports Complex fields. East Beryl Park and Lions Park Tennis Courts: Resurfaced all six courts at both parks in July. Replaced the badly damaged mid vandalized court screening at Beryl as well. New screens are installed in small sections for ease of removal and replacement. West Greenway Park: Removed old and worn slide on July 30. A replacement has been ordered. Milliken Park: Replaced 1,000 square feet of sod in the volleyball court the week of August 8. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 3, 1997 Page 3 Civic Center: Starting on August 8th, the HVAC system at the Civic Center began receiving repairs on some of the components. To help keep things comfortable a temporary chiller has been set up in the North Parking Lot above the mechanical room. It is anticipated that the project will be completed by August 29. B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE Vietnam Memorial: Mr. John DeVitt, Chairman of the Memorial Fund has contacted staff from Sitka, Alaska where he currently is on location with the traveling Vietnam Memorial exhibit. Mr. DeVitt informed us that the schedule of locations/dates for the 1998 itinerary for the exhibit is being finalized. Mr. DeVitt mentioned that a letter was being sent to the local VFW Post confirming that Rancho Cucamonga will be scheduled for the traveling exhibit in the Fall of 1998. It is anticipated that our date would be scheduled either before or after the exhibit at the Buena Park location (Knotts Berry Farm's Independence Hall). Staff will keep the Council updated on the progress made on this effort. I Love RC: In order to obtain community input on the development of a City slogan, the following text is being proposed for City Council review and approval for inclusion in the Winter issue of The Grapevine. The Winter Grapevine is anticipated to be delivered to residents during the week of December 8, 1997. Staff proposes that the text below be formatted in a quarter page, advertisement style with an attention getting graphic (see attached sample). City Council is seeking community input in developing a City slogan. Webster's Dictionary defines slogan as "...a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand or a goal to be achieved,' a briefattention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion." A slogan which has been suggested is "I Love RC." Please submit your thoughts on this slogan or contribute a slogan of your own. Please return your ideas by February 1, 1998 to: The Grapevine, City of Rancho Cucamonga, P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 3, 1997 Page 4 Senior Transportation: On July 29, 1997 staff met with A1 Newman, President of the RC/Ontario Service Club, to discuss the possibility of this service club providing van transportation for senior citizens to-and-from the Senior Center. Staff indicated that the City was looking at the possibility of securing a surplus City van for this purpose. The van that the City is looking at would seat 7 passengers plus the driver. Discussions have also taken place between the City Engineer and the Finance Officer and Community Services staff conceming vehicle replacement time frames/amounts to cover this van replacement for FY 1997/1998. The senior transportation program staff discussed with Mr. Newman is as follows: Hours of service would be between 9:00 a.m and 3:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays. These hours would bring the seniors to the Center for Nutrition which occurs from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. These hours would allow enough time for two trips in to the Center in the mornings and two trips returning seniors to their homes in the afternoons. Mr. Newman stated that he would schedule between 7 to 10 volunteer drivers to cover this service. This program would require dispatch services for scheduling transportation services. Staff's recommendation would be to have this function out of the Senior Center requiring that reservations be made at least 24 hours in advance. Mr. Newman stated that he would schedule 2 to 3 volunteers to cover this service. The service club would be required to provide a $1 million public liability and automobile insurance coverage for the van and for their volunteer drivers. The service club would be responsible for maintaining and storage of the vehicle. An agreement would be needed between the City and the service club stipulating that the City is donating the van for the primary purpose of providing senior citizen transportation during the times outlined above. If the service club is unable to provide this service, the van would be returned to the City. Use of the van during non-senior transportation service hours would be scheduled as desired by the service club. Mr. Newman stated staffing this proposed senior transportation program would not pose a problem for the Club as the RC/Ontario Service Club has 149 members; 14 of which are retired. Mr. Newman is presenting this proposal to his Board on Wednesday (August 13, 1997) for their approval. Staff will advise the City Council of their decision. 1997 Founders Day Parade and Celebration: As City Council is aware, each year the City hosts a community parade and celebration on the second Saturday in November, known as the Annual CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES UPDATE September 3, 1997 Page 5 Founders Day Parade and Celebration. The date for this year's parade and celebration is Saturday, November 8, 1997. Traditionally, the parade is comprised of over 150 entries that include bands and drill squads, equestrian groups, floats, youth organizations and novelty acts. This year the City celebrates twenty years of incorporation. The theme of the parade provides a focus for the activity and allows groups entering floats to design their entries in accordance with the theme. In addition, the theme is prominently displayed on all parade materials. Each year an Honorary Grand Marshal is selected to ride in the parade, sometime to coincide with the theme. The proposed parade theme is "Celebrating Twenty Years of Progress and Heritage". In addition, it is being suggested that the City invite the former Mayors of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to participate in this year's parade. In addition to the Founders Day Parade and Celebration scheduled for the second Saturday in November, the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce has announced in their July, 1997 issue of The Business Connection that the Chamber is planning a Holiday Extravaganza for Founders Day Weekend. The Extravaganza is described as similar to the Business Expo that the Chamber normally holds in the late spring with the addition of having crafter booths, and expanded community entertainment. Staff is meeting with the Chamber to discuss ways in which the City and the Chamber can work together to ensure the success of both the Founders Day Parade and Celebration and the Holiday Extravaganza. Preliminary discussions have centered on a review of the elements of both events and time frmnes. The Chan~ber of Conm~erce has assured City staff that they will still participate in the City's parade by manning an announcement booth along the parade route and will continue to have their 'Grape Court' as an entry in the parade. In addition, it was agreed by both parties to jointly advertise both events. Rick Gom~~~. Con .munit y De~'V'eT6pm ent Director Suzanne Ot~y"// Community Services Manager RG:SO:KME Attachment SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENT FOR CITY SLOGAN 1998 Winter Grapevine ~-~ -~--_ The City Council is ~-~;---~_ - seeking community - o input in developing a City slogan! Webster's Dictionary defines slogan as "...a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand, or a goal to be achieved; a briefattention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion." A slogan that has been suggested is "I Love RC." Submit your thoughts on this slogan or contribute a slogan of your own! Please return your ideas by February 1, 1997 to: The Grapevine City of Rancho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Spirit of the Sage Council Protecting and Conserving Biological Diversity, Nc~:ive Plan~, Native Animals and Nati~ Lan~ September Vera ~a, Co-Found~ Mayor Alex~der ~d Ci~ Co~cil Members Shoshone-Gab~elino Na~on Ci~ of ~cho Cuc~onga Cui~ral Affai~ Dir~or 10500 Ci~c C~ter Drive R~cho Cuc~ong~ CA. 91729 ~eona [lipp~n, C~Fo~d~ 60-Day Notice of Intent to S~ Punuaat ~e E.daagered Spec~s Act Conse~aUon Progains ~re~or De~ Mayor Al~der ~d Co~cil Members, Douglas Ooe~ rreasur~ Spirit of the Sage Council (Sage Council) is writing to inform you that our Policy Programs Coordinator non-profit project and conservation organization intends to sue the City of Rancho Cucamonga under the citizen suit provision of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(1)(A). This provision sttv~ ~isher, Ecologist allows citizens to file suit to "enjoin any person...alleged to be inviolation Salerice Programs Coordinator Of any provision of the ESA or regulation issued under authority thereof." The City of Rancho Cucamonga has .tentatively approved the Lauren 14771 ) and other developments under your local jurisdiction resulting in an agency action causing a significant impact to the environment, a globally imperiled ecosystem and State "very threatened" natural Patrick Mitd~l, Naturalist community (Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (Fu~FSS)), essential Peninsular Ranges Coordinator habitat of state and federally listed endangered species, and that is expected to "take" such listed endangered species. Such local agency actions are in violation of the ESA and previously approved local planning agreements Kathy Knight, Public Affairs (Sazl Bernazdino Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Memorandim Coastal Wetlands Coordinator Of Understanding signed on 6-8-95 by MayOr Alexander). The City of Rancho Cucamonga has approved the Lauren Development Elizabeth Francis, PublicAf~irs ILBC. TT 14771 to build 40 homes on a 26 acre parcel that will result in the Arroyo 5eco Coordinator destruction RAFSS that is one of the r~rest vegetation types on Earth. The RAFSS is the habitat of over 100 raze, threatened and endangered species, for nesting burrowing, foraging and breeding life sustaining p~. Of A! Kelly, wildlife Biologist particular concern to the Sage Council and our effected members is the 5an Bernardino Valley Coordinator following listed species; threatened California gnatcatcher, endangered arroyo toad, endang.ered Slender horned spine flower, endangered Santa Ana River wooley star, and endangered red legged frog and the proposed Udo Wald, Public Education for listing San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR).In addition, the Interfaith Outreach Coordinator Lauren/Christiano Partners TT1477 and others will have a negative effect on raptors and other fully protected species, including the Golden Eagle and Mountain Lion. Because there are listed and fully protected species 77027-102 · PeledeRII · CA, · tll07 ·rete: e0~422-1~3 A .o~l~o~t FneJa=t of .6,~i.~ ,rid E,,~~~el ~nf. eq,r, neure Recycled Paper City, of Rancho Cucamonga REx Sage Council 60-Day Notice to Sue Page 2 that occur on, or are sustained by, the habitat on the Lauren/Christiano ParmersTT 14771 parcel and other areas within the City's jurisdiction, the City must comply with the ESA, 58 Fed. Reg. 16742 (1993) and local planning agreements entered into with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the purposes of conservation. In addition, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Mayor Alexander contracted the govemment jurisdiction and public agency to cooperative conservation planning throughout the entire City including the Lauren/Christiano Partners TT 14771 parcel and other privately held parcels that have received tentive tract approvals and/or with vesting maps. Through the City of Rancho Cucamonga voluntarily becoming a signatory to the San Bernardino Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Memorandim of Understanding (MOU), the City by default has also become a participant in the MOU by and between San Bemardino County and Califomia Department of Fish & Game regarding the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), signed by the County, and lead local agency for regional conservation- planning, on 2-4-97. The State NCCP has included Lauren/Christiano Partners TT 14771 for conservation purposes in maps (see NCCP Subregion 13.0). Therefore, the City and other government agencies have agreed that the Lauren/Christiano Partners TT 14771 parcel, and others, is suitable habitat for listed and unlisted species must comply with the ESA and its implementing regulations codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 17 et seq. . The Lauren/Christiano Parreefs TT 14771 parcel, and others, is adjacent to known occupied listed species habitat. The destruction of habitat that supports listed species will "harm" such species, 50. C.F.R. § 17.3, and therefore will result in unpermitted "take" of listed species, as defined by 16 U.S.C. § 3, and 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). See also Sweet Home Communities for aGrellter Oregon v.~ The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has requested that the Lauren Development Inc. comply with the ESA and to survey for listed species by survey protocol, however the City of Rancho Cucamonga has not required the land holder to comply. Therefore, encouraging non-compliance with the ESA and the conservation goals. "Taking" of listed species is prohibited, pursuant 16 U.S.C. ~ 1538(a); 50 C.F.R. 17.31(a) and ESA § 9. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Lauren/Christiano Partners and other land holders are required to apply for an "Incidental Take Permit" (ITP) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant ESA § 10(a)(l)(B). The USFWS may issue an ITP once the permit applicant has complied with § 10(aX1)(B) by completing an acceptable Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that will provide for the survival and recovery of the species in the wild, and will not reduce the liklihood of recovery, pursuant § 7. In addition, the HCP must explain why the "taking" is unavoidable and "incidental", and furthermore demonstrate how the "taking" of the species and its habitat will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Public trust agencies, including the City of Rancho Cucamonga, have the "duty to conserve" listed species and ecosystems, pursuant the ESA. The USFWS promulgated a § 4 (d) special rule for the California gnatcatcher, 50 C.F.R- § 17.41(b), thereby adopting the State NCCP, including the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. San Bernardino County has adopted the special rule and NCCP on 2-4-97 and accepted $100,000.00 for regional conservation planning. The USFWS has also stated that there is an additional $300,000.00 pending for such conservation planning efforts that include the City of Rancho Cucamonga. However, since the City of Rancho Cucarnonga is not in compliance with the ESA, San Bemardino MSHCP or NCCP agreements, the acceptance of such public funding is being utilized in a fraudulant manner and not in "good faith." City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: Sage Council 60-Day Notice to Sue Page 3 Participation in the NCCP program may be voluntary on the pan of private land holders, such as Lauren/Chnstianos Partners; however, compliance with the ESA is mandatory. Since San Bernardino County has entered into a NCCP agreement and accepted public funding for the San Bernardino MSHCP of which the City is a signatory, the City must require Lauren/Christianos Parmers, and other land holders, to comply. The only other altematives is for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to resign from the San Bernardtoo MSHCP and develop a seperate MSHCP; however, in doing so the City would have to seek independent funding and jeopardize losing the funding that has been approved to the County. Again, the San Bernardino County NCCP is required to plan as one whole region as is indicated by the delination of subregion 13.0. Therefore, the most appropriate means for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to comply with the ESA, specifically in regards to the Lauren/Christianos Partners TT 14771 parcel, is to with hold final approval of the project design and grading permits, require surveys for listed species by USFWS protocol, require ESA compliance through application of § 10(a)(1)(B) ITPs and development of an acceptable HCP that shall minimize and mitigate the impacts to the species habitat and "take" of the species. The USFWS notified Lauren/Chnstianos Partners on April 18, 1997, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga on June 10, 1997, of non-compliance with survey protocol for the California gnatcatcher. The USFWS recognized that the TT 14771 parcel is suitable habit and that "any disturbance prior to a determination of absence received and approved by the Service would be considered to be a violation of the Take prohibition of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act." (6/10/97 USFWS letter to T. Grahm). To date the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Lauren/Christianos Partners has not performed adequate surveys for listed species or received Take approval by the USFWS. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga proceeds without such compliance of the ESA, the City will be subject to a civil penality of up to $50,000.00, as well as n prison term of up to one year. The citizen suit provision of the ESA allows citizens to seek an injunction to prevent the destruction of habitat and public trust resources on public trust lands. See Marbled Murrulet v. Babbitt, 83 F 3d. 1060 (gth Cir. 1996). Should the City of Rancho Cucamonga or Lauren/Christianos Parmess proceed with the development project, the Sage Council will claim injury through a legal challenge by filing suit in federal district court to stop such unlawful agency actions that violate the ESA and the public trust. Sincerely, Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Program Director Spirit of the Sage Council cc: Malissa Hathaway McKeith, Esq., Loeb & Loeb Lawrence Sanders, Esq., Berliner Law Lawrence Silver, Esq., California Environmental Law Project Eric Glitzenstein, Esq., Meyer & Glitzenstein ...... ...,.. .-,... . ..... . . ..... ... .;.,, - ..... ' ....: :'~ ,o.~ Debris Flo~v - . ~. . -.-. , ~.?.. :: "" ,. ~,........-- '.::':..'z'-~".~" ~ .....:" Pathways ---u~L.;-:--~--:'~ .... . ' ' -', "-< -' '.. i~"":~ ..... :,"' - '.', ..... "' , "~'~_. "",:~:"_~i~--"" .i' - LEGEND ' ~ ~ __ L~oundar), of Dr~/nage ~rea "'~ ~' Bounda~ of Dro~age Sub~re ' Channel ..~ ~0~ CapacHy of Storm Dro/n .... and/or Concrete Channel, San Bernardtoo or R/verside ~ County Plan. · ' ' I Sub are ~ . ~ Concentration point -~ m N · 4,.1; ~N D E X ..t,~.! .~-. ' ~ ..... ~' SHEET SHEET SHEET IO00 0 2000 SCALE ~!, ~ ~ 1FEET SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES SUBAREA DELINEATION FOR PRESENT CONDITIONS, NO PROJECT ~.:~.,. SHEET I OF .~I-'~,',~, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER D STRICT .:_.. ,.;..-.~.~_//,: LOS ANGELES, CORPS OF ENGINEER TO ACCOMPANY REPORT DATED 1977 FILE NO. 224/164 APP. 6 PLATE LLD looo w.~s.~s 8C~'LFv..c Tit5 Lla. 811,1TM ~AIITNEIQ~;MIID SUITE ~ 800 T~ttWH~NE. 213'688'3400 tNGLUD~.a PMO;lgl~O~ CORIOMm~m~I LOS ANGELES CA 90017'2475 F,C3m~m~i; 213,688-3460 cm.v.., c.', Direct Dial No. ,o,na s ....no... 213.688.3622 ,,~ ,. ,.o. ~mail; M~!CEITH~!neh.com LOg ANOm~g~ CA ~e~-,.6, September 3, 1997 T!, 3~0212-~ Via Facsimile N,, vo,, William J. Alexander, Mayor ,,v,,...uv Diane Willlama, Mayor Pro Tem ,o,,,,.~, Paul Blase, Councilmember Tt,. 212-407-a300 F,,. 2,z4cr. 4me James V. Curatalo, Counciimember Rex Gutlerrez, Councilmember .....,.,. City Council Offices ,, ~.,.c a,,..-, w, City of Rancho Cucamonga N~l,utttf. TN ~,-,~=o, 10500 Civic Center Drive ~,~ ,,~,,,4.~ Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Cucamongans United for Reasanahle Expansion ("CURE") w,,,,,,,o,.c.c. Challenge to l,auren Development Project z~oo, e..,,.,.w Development Design Review 97-I 1 ~oa~.,zo: Dear Councilmembers: Tk. gut: :10~-/23-6704 This letter is written in support of Ihe City Council: postponing a final decision on Development Design Review 97-11 until the City oblains a ,,, second opinion from legal counsel other than the current City. Attorney; that ,~.=.o..-, Resolution ~No. 132 be denied based upon substantial evidence of changed 001i74~3~e ,,.. circumstances as summarized below; and that the Project be denied in its w.:o,,.~4m entirety because It is inconsistent with the Open Space and Recharl~e FA~' OI l -:t11474.,1221 designations in the General Plan. Until the General Plan is lawfully amended. the City Council cannot approve the Project. 1. The administrative record in this matter was clnsed on August 20~ 1997. CURE objects to an.~' hey,' evidence being introduced or relied upon by the City Council. · lhncho Cucamonf~a City Council S~tcmber 3, 1997 Page 2 2. The Developer has presented no evidence that members of CURE were aware of the project prior to May 23, 1997. He claims that "numerous" homeowners in Haven View received notice of the Negative Declaration in 1990. The attached September 5, 1990 Affidavit of Mailing contained in the administrative record shows that only seve. n homeowners residing in Haven View received notice. Crlstlano and Brock Homes received 50 of the 77 notices sent. 3. CURE requests that the City make specific findings as to each of the changed circumstances identified by CURE's experts and identify the specific substantial evidence in the record supporting the Clty's findings that no changed circumstances have occurred since 1990. Specifically: Traffic/Air OU~|itY On July. 9, 1997, Crain & Associates submitted correspondence outlining the changed circumltances since 1990 requiring further traffic review including (1) approval and funding of Ilighway 30; (2) increase-in sensitive receptors (Children) and the absence of any study concerning exposure to particulate matter during grading; and (3) failure to provide for widening of sul~standard private streets to allow ingress and egress of residents who are not members of Haven View Estates. The Developer has provided no contrary eviden_ee from experts. The City has relied upon a traffic study which was not produced to, CURE until August 29, 1997, and which the law firm of Rlchards, Watson & Gershon, counsel for the City, admits was not in the City's records before that date. The City Council, therefore, could not have reached a conclusion of "no changed circumstances*' based upon substantial evidence. Eartbouakes Dr. Thomas Henyey, Ph.D, Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, testified that the 1996 trenehinl~ confirmed that the CueamouRs earthquake fault runs beneath the Deer Creek Debris Basin and that Its magnitude isa 7.0 to 7.5 event. The 1987 report referenced by the Developer "suspected" magnitudes in the 6.5 to 7.0 range. It was not until the 1996 trenching, that the higher magnitudes were confirmed. Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 3 Deer Creek Debri~ Basin Dr. David Willlama, Ph.D, has testil'Kd that in 1991, the Arm}. Corps of Engineers changed its design criteria for Debris Basins. The Deer Creek Debris Basin is undersized bued upon this new criteria. The Developer has presented no contrary evidence. The August !1, 1997 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers speaks only to the Debris Basin withstanding a 6.4 magnitude quake (and not a 7.0 or I~reater) and doff not mention the new criteria, The Highway 30 environmental impact study developed in the mid-1990s identified two landslide areas in excess of 100 acres above the ehannel of the debris basin. These slides were not mapped on the 1987 USGS maps. Dr. Willlama and Thomas Sheahan of Dames & Moore have testified that the Iooseninl~ of debris from the slides (which could occur due to rains, fire, or even mild earthquakes) could elog the channel and permit debris flow onto the proposed Lauren Development homes and the downslope homes. The Developer has presented no contrary evldenee. City Engineer, Dan James, has admired on the record that the concrete ehannel proposed by the Developer is not Intended to capture debris or water that bypasses the debris basin or channel lns~ress and E~ress The Developer has depended upon access over the Department of Water and Power easement. On August I g, 1997 the Department of Water and Power terminated negotiations with the Developer which alters the Developer's ingress and egress and Increases the amount of soil and debris that must pass by families living in Haven View. Levee Removal .Safet~ The City Engineer has twice '"sidestepped" the issue of whether construction of the replacement channel is a ~ for the secondary protection provided by the levee and swain system. He claims he is unable to do so because the design specifications for the levee were not available. The best evidence of the levees Rancho Cuc~,2s'nonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 4 ability to withstand flood and debris flow are the 1969 riooct, thc largest flood event In 40 years. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the San Bernardinn Flood Control District have confirmed that they have made determination as to whether tb..e levee and swale S~,stem provides superior protection for downslope._prope.rty_ owners or that the Developer's replaeement ehannel is an adequate substitute. The entire decision (and the entire liability for a wrong decision) rests with the City Council and the City EnRineer. The City Engineer he not confirmed that the Developer's proposed replacement berm is designed to,~:ode. Recharze CURE has presented evidence that the elimination of recharge is a more serious problem than in 1990 due to the need for California to reduce its reliance on the Colorado River. Further, it ha produced evidence that the project will eliminate more recharge area than proposed in 1990 because the Flood Control District must cap off a second recharge pipe from the Deer Creek Channel to avoid flooding. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has requested that the City consider these recharge Issues and it ha not commented one way or the other. There is no coatrat1' substantial evidence in the record. 4. The City Attorney bus provided the City with inconsistent advice on several key bsues. A second opinion should be sought Notice of Planning Commission and City Council Hearings At the June 11 and July. 9, 1997 hearings, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commi.t~ion that notice to Haven View homeowners was not required by law. Prior to the City Council hearing, the City Attorney advi~d the City that notice should be provided. Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 5 The Lc, g_al Requirements Concerning Evaluation of Chan~ed Circumstances under the California Environmental QUality Act ("CEO_A") At the Planning Commission Hearing on July 9, 1997, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that no evidence of changed circumstances could be considered and that only "design" could be considered. Several Planning Commissioners stated, on the record, that they were concerned about the "safety" issues, but that counsel had informed them that they could not consider this information. This advice was reiterated at the beginning of the August 20, 199'Y hearing. The CIty Attorney then changed his position and informed the City Council that it should consider the changed circumstances. The Planning Department was legally required to consider this issue, on the merits, prior to the City Council doing so. 5. The City Attorney's conduct and handling of this matter subjects the City to liability. CURE incorporates the correspondence of Ms. Leeona Klippstein, Spirit of the Sage' Council, dated August 22, 1997 and of Tom Bradford, Esq. dated August 25, 1997. Mr. Markman has demonstrated a strong predisposition toward the project by his firm advising the Planning Commission that it could not consider safety issues at the Planning Commission and by other conduct. Mr. Markman has had numerous meetings with Lauren Development. He has not once contacted CURE's counsel by telephone or letter. Mr. Markman also represents several Orange County cities that directly benefit by the elimination of groundwater recharge areas here. When water Is not recharged, it is channelled into the Prado Dam. Excess waters are released and utilized by Orange County, including Mr, Markman's clients. Additionally, Mr. Markman and his new law firm have not submitted any disclosure statements concerning potential conflicts of interest on this project. 6. CURE incorporates by reference all materials and statements submitted by RC-5, Haven View Estates, and Spirit of the Sage Council. Rancho CucamonSa City Council September 37 1997 Page 6 For the foregoing reasons, CURE strongly urges tha/the City Council rezaln independent counsel to evaluate the legal and ethical concerns raised. if any decision is reachmi, CURE requests clarification, on the record, that the tentative vote taken on August 20, 1997, is not an "action" of the City Counell such that it will become final in 31} days if not acted upon. RespectfuUy submitted & Loeb ' - Attorneys for Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expnnsion ("CURE") Enclosure MIiM:pU AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PLN[II; D~VISIOM Cucamonga do hereby swear that on ~~ F,' 19 ~ at app~xi.tely S: O0 o,:lo:k z deposited in the United States Mail, a letter addressed to and regarding Signed: .~ .~/~' ~~~ t Date: ' .. '* --RECEIVED~(~~ R~. ~ SXG~~) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on September 26, 1990, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chamber, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, to consider the following described project. A complete environmental assessment has been prepared if the project is noted as an Environmental Assessment. Comments wil 1 be received and the environmental assessment may be reviewed any time prior to final action. The Planning Commission will be considering the assessment, staff's recommendations, and public input at their meeting of September 26, 1990, prior to making a final determination. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14771 - BROCK - A residential subdivision of 40 single family lots on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: ' Variance 90-08. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 90-08 - BROCK - A request to reduce the minimum net average lot size from 22,500 to 22,162 square feet and to reduce the mininmam lot depth of Lot 1 from 150 to 120 feet for a 40 lot subdivision on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Tentative Tract 14771. Anyone having concerns or questions or wishing to review or comment on the project and/or Environmental Assessment on the foregoing item is welcome to contact the City Planning Division at (714} 989-1861 or visit the offices located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at the above-described meeting or may submit their concerns in writing to the City prior to said meeting. Written comments should be addressed to the Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. Se. ptember 5, 1990 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Date PLICANT:/ ~ APPLICANT: ~ APPLICANT: J. Brock, Inc. M.J. Brock, Inc. M.J. Brock, I 5 S. Randolph Ave., Ste. 230 265 S. Randolph Ave., Ste. 230 265 S. Ran I~h Ave., Ste. 23C ea, CA 92621 Brea, CA 92621 Brea,~21 BJECT PROPERTY: SUBJECT PROPERTY: SUBJECT PROPERTY:p ~ S do ., Ste. 230 265 ~.Ci~ve., Ste. 230 265 S. RandOlph Ave., Ste. 23( ~a, CA 92~fl Brea Brea, CA 92421 D1-i2~/~5 0201-~71-35 0201-1Z1~3 5 ~thern California Edison Co. Southern California Edison Co. Southern California Edison Co. ',5-05 1-01 0225-051-01 0225-051-01 . Co. Flood Control Dist.~.~ S.B. Co. Flood Control Dist. S.B. Co. F1 ~d Control Dist. rnardino, CA 92402 San er ~ San~_B1. rdino, CA 92402 1-121-01,11 & 0201-281-15 0201-121-01 1 & 0201-281-15 02 21-01,11 & 0201-281-15 / y of Los Angeles ~/ City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles t. of Water and Power ' ~ Dept. of Water and Power Dept. of Wate~ and Power · Box 111, Room 402 / P- O. Box 111, Room 402 P.O. Box !ai, Room 402 Angeles, CA 90051 '--/ Los Angeles, CA 90051 Los Ang '/es, CA 90051 [-281-13 0201-281-13 0201-~1'-13 · net/Developer ~ J. Brock 80 Shelby St. Suite 100,~ ratio, CA 91764 tn: Steve Shepard ~,~ ~ 9259 Utica Avenue, Suite 100 ~ ~ancho Cuc~onga, CA 91730 ~ ,.Q~_~8~_~S ~ f'. ~ ~1 East Francis St ario, CA 917~ ' ]4-01 201-494-12 201'-494-22 )83 Bramble Ct- F 5061 Calypso .ta Lama, CA 91701 ~ Rancho Cucamonga, A 91701 8255 Vineyard Ave. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 )1-494-02 201-494-13 ~ .lis Tony and Victoria~~ jimenez Joseph and Yolanda 201-494-23 O. Box 1400 '*.~9 5041 Calypso Ct. / °' Riechers Larry and Frances .ta Lama, CA 91701 Alta Lcma, CA 91701 [~ ~ 27 Alice St- #A Arcadia, CA 91006 7 ~ ~1-494-03 201-494-14 ~tausch Jerry and Mary "F Sibul Barry and Josia. ., 201-494-24 O. Box 534 ~ ~ 6222 Sacramento ~"' Parish Jacquelyn :verna, CA 91750 Alta Loma, CA 91701 2114 Saticoy St. Porearia, Ca 91767 ~1-494-04 201-494-15 .' .ag Development Co. -v .-' .~; Lightnet George M and Catherine ,5 M. Lazard St ~ ~' 390 N. Euclid Ave., Ste 202 n Fernando, CA 91340 Upland, CA 91786 .1-494-05,06 ~ 201-494-16 n--~ Pacific Dev~ Corp. -' ~': Giles Lore and Mar~ usiness Center Dr. ~ 5088 Granada ncno Cucamonga, CA 91730 Alta Loma~ CA 91701 1-494-07 201-494-17 y Marc P and Rebecca ._ Laird Ralph and Debra 68 Calypso Ct ~ 9460 Lucas Rancho Rd. ta Loma, CA 91701 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 1-494-08 201-494-18 senthal Donald and Mary '~ ? Young Jon and Priscilla ! 0 Pebble Beach Dr. 17578 Hawthorne land, CA 91786 Fontana, CA 92335 1-494-09 201-494-19 tson Brent P and Pamela .j ~ahn Allen and Bruce 09 Burgundy 5087 Granda Ct. ta Lama, CA 91701 ~ Alta Loma, CA '91701 1-494-10 201-494-20 llanca Terry and Debra ~ Anderson Pamela -~ ~ 6~-~ennel Rd. ~' 5079 Granada Ct. " ~a, CA 91739 Rancho Cucamo~ga, CA 91701 1-494-11 '. 201-494-21 / / OUTHERN CA EDI N COMPANY SAN BERNARDINO CO FLOOD CRISTIANO PARTNERS ! DDRESS NOT~LE CONTROL DI C/O J M BROCK & SONS INC. ADDISON FILE 250 E RINCON STE 209 , /" CORONA CA 91719 / D1-281-14 1074-351-10 1074-511-08 [TY OF LOS ANGELES ~7~ .~ CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I /O DEPT OF WATER & POWER 4400 MACARTHUR BLVD. STE 780 C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC ,0. BOX 111 ROOM 402 NEW?ORT BEACH CA 92660 250 E RINCON STE 209 )S ANGELES CA 90051 CORONA CA 91719 )1-281-20' 1074-511-01 1074-511-09 iTY OF LOS ANGELES ~ CRISTIANO PARTNERS I L..", = CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~.:~ '0 DEPT OF WATER & POWER/ADMI C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC O. BOX 111 ROOM 402 250 E RINCON'STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 ,S ANGELES CA 90051 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 1-281-21 1074-511-02 1074-511-10 TY OF LOS ANGELES 7 ~' ' CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~"? CRISTIANO PARTNERS I O DEPT OF WATER & POWER/ADMI C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC O. BOX 111 ROOM 402 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 S ANGELES CA 90051 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 1-'281-22 ~ 1074-511-03 1074-511-11 N BERNARDIN O FLOOD ~, ~.~ ~TROL DI . CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I DRES C/O M J BORCK & SONS INC C/0 M J BROCK & SONS INC - 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 ~4-311-05 1074-511-04 1074-511-12 · RICK, JOHN S '5,<! CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ' CRISTIANO PARTNERS I t B S MOUNTAIN C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC 7ARIO CA 91762 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 f~ 4-311-06 1074-511-05 ~ 1074-511-13 AMOUN, E B & CLAIRE CRISTIANO PARTNERS I .- 5 KNIGHTINGALE CIR C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC. C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC EIM HILLS CA 92807 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 ~ 1074-511-06 311-07 ~ ,., , 1074-511-14 RENZA, ANTHONY J & CHERYL A CRISTIANO PARTNERS I · BOX 1302 C/O M J BROCK & SONS T~ ,~ - ~_~-,~ ~u,~-~2i-0i 1074-5~1-09 .ISTIANO PARTNERS I /0 CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIA~NO PARTNERS I O M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS /~ C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC [ ~ 0 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 '~'~ CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 1074-521-22 74-511-16 1074-541-10 CRISTIANO PARTNERS I z // c/o M J S SO S D M J BROCK & SONS INC 250 E RINCON STE 209 C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC Z ? 3 E RINCON STE 209 CORONA CA 91719 250 E RINCON STE 209 ~ONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 74- 511-17 1074-521-23 1074-541-11 iSTIANO PARTNERS I {'Z--' CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~ M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK'& SONS ~ ~J' C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC , E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 ' .ONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 4-511-18 1074-521-24 1074-541-12 STIANO PARTNERS I i~ . ~ CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~ t CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~ M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS" C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 DNA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 ~-511-19 1074-521-25 1074-541-13 /~' '~.~ ;TI~NO RARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~ M J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS 2 ~ C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 }NA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 -511-20 · /' 1074-521-26 1074-541-14 : k "~ TIANO PARTNERS I " ; M J BROCK & SONS INC CRISTIANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I E RINCON STE 209 C/O M J BROCK & SONS ~,,7> C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC NA CA 91719 250 E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON STE 209 -- CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 -511-21 1074-541-07 1074-541-15 l'J ~ CRISTIANO PARTNERS I /' rlANO PARTNERS I CRISTIANO PARTNERS I ~ .. { J BROCK & SONS INC C/O M J BROCK & SONS; C/O M J BROCK & SONS INC E RINCON STE 209 250 E RINCON & SONS 250 E RINCON STE 209 {A CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 CORONA CA 91719 ~11-22 1074-541-08 1074-541-16 'I~O P~TNERS I CRISTI~O P~TNERS I , u CRISTI~O PARTN[~ T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LAUREN DEVELOPMENT INC. September 2, 1997 Mayor Bill Alexander City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca-91729 RE: DR 97-11; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Dear Mayor Alexander: We remain totally committed to the house plans we have submitted to the city, and strongly believe that their construction will have a positive impact on Haven View Estates and on your entire community. Our obvious desire is for the appeal to be denied outright, however as that does not appear to be possible, we suggest the following conditions which could be added to a Council action denying the appeal: *' All features visible from the exterior of the homes and which are described on submitted design review exhibits as "optional" shall become standard features, with the exception of living room and master bedroom fireplaces, which shall remain optional. , An additional elevation, totally distinct from those included in the submitted design review exhibits, shall be prepared for the Plan Four Uphill and for the Plan Four Sideslope houses. Said additional elevation shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. , No combination of plan type, elevation and color/material scheme shall be repeated on the same street. It is our understanding the public hearing will not be re-opened. If you believe the above conditions would make this an even better community, we would appreciate your offering these measures as a means of moving this development forward. In the alternative, we would at least hope that Design Review 97-11 could be returned to the Planning Commission for further refinement, rather than killed totally, as would be done if the appeals were simply sustained. Thank you for your support on this application. Very truly yours, John L. Allday cc: Members of the City Council Brad Bullet, Planning Director P. O. Box 790 Agoura Hills, CA o91376 818 ~1-3680 FAX 818 ~J1-3,.q04 RANCHO CUCAMONGA OFFICE 11030 ARROW ROUTE, Suite 102, RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730-4825 909484-1863 FAX909484-1864 ATTORNEYI AT ~w I OOO WILS~IRE 8OULEVAND S~TE 1100 LOS ANOELEg. CA S~I 1-2475 F~CmM~LC: 213 .ell, 3460 III I i I III I ._ FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: September 3, 1997 Time: 5:10pro Please deliver the following 13 pages (which inclttdc this cover letter)... City of Rancho Cucamonga- Council Facsimile: (909) ) Voice: (909) . ..... . . ,-.~,.~!" From; Malissa Hathaway McKeith Personal ID: 90089 Direct Dial: (213) 688-3622 Client/Re: 163 11/2407 Facsimile: (213) 688-3460 Note: If transmission is not complete, please call our operator at (213) 688-3478 Message to Addressee: PLEASE DELIVER TO MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND EACH COUNCIL MEMBER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU! This Innmission i~ intended only for the use of the individual or ~;nti~y tu which it is addressed, and nuy ccmtlin int~n'natiun that is pdvik,$ed, confidential and exgnq>t from disclosurc undcr spplscahic law. If'the r'ctdcr of this rrguags is not t.hc sntcndcd recipient, or ~ cmployeg or alcnt r~spunanble fur delivering 0tc nrssaitc to the intended recipient, you arc hereby nnulied that any dismsmmsation, distnl)ution or copying of thss cornmumcanon ss slnctiy prohtbited. If you have received this comnlnntc=rinn in error, pigage noufy us imzndilt~ly by t~lephone and f~turn the original rncs,,alc to us at ~s above address vm the U S Postal LLP 1ooo w,Ls.=~ A I. IlditlO LiAllLITf pJetNilll~ldiP SUITE 1800 TELEPNONE: 2 13-688-3400 JNOi. t4{,trO glROFIIIION&L COIIIIIOIIIATIONli LOS ANGELC~J. CA 9Q0 17-2475 FACSIMILE: 213-688-3460 c.,~,, c,, Direct Dial No. ,0,oo s.~.. u~.,. 213.688.3622 eOuclrvamn s..., ,~ ~mal!: MMC~lTll(~loeb.com ~05 ANOtk$~. CA *~? "" September 3, i 997 rak. 310-282-~0 FAx. 310-212.2102 Via Facsimile saw vo.. WHHam J. Alexander, Mayor ~.Y..,.v Diana Willjams, Mayor Pro Tern ,0~, Paul Blanc, Councilmember T~' 21J~7~ ~,. z~z~-m James ~, Curatdo, Coaacilmember Rex Ga~erre~ CouBciimember · .....-- City Council Offices ,sa,,,s,~.,wm City of Rancho Cucamonga ~uom 10500 Civic Center Drive T.. ~,~?...o Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") w....m~,u.c. Challenge to !.auren Development Project a,0o ,, i--.,..w. Develooment Design Review 97-11 WameeSTON. O. C zoov.,a; Dear Councilmembers: TIt,. 20e-223-;700 This letter is written In support of the City Council: postponing a final decbane on Development Desiin Review 97-11 until the City obtains a a.. second opinion from legal counsel other than the current City Attoreey~ that ~...cx~.., ResoluOon No. 132 be denied based upon substantial evMence of changed · )1 $y. Rom ,,,, circumstances as summarized below; and that the Project be denied In its ,.,0,,.~..4~ entirety because it b inconsistent with the Open Space and Recharge FAX: 011-316,6144181 designations in the General Plan. Until the General Plan b lawfully amended, the CIty Council cannot approve the Project. 1. The administrative record in this matter was closed on August 20, 1997. CURE objects to any new evidence being introduced or relied upon by the City Council. Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 2 2. The Developer has pre.~ented no evidence that members of CURE were aware of the project prior to May 23, 1997. He claims that "numerous" homeswoe, in Haven View received notice of the Negative Declaration in 1990. The attached September 5, 1990 Affidavit of Mailing contained in the administrative record shows that only sevep homeowner~ residing in Haven View received notice. Cristlano and Brock Homes received 50 of the 77 notices sent. 3. CURE requests that the City make specific findings as to each of the changed circumstances identified by CURE's experts and identify the specific substantial evidence in the record supporting the City's findings that no changed circumstances have occurred since 1990. Specifically: T_rsmc/_AirOuamv On July 9, 1997, Crain & Associates submitted corrcspondcnce outlining the changed circumstances since 1990 requiring further traffic review including (1) approval and funding of Highway 305 (2) increase in sensitive receptors (children) and the absence of any study concerning exposure to particulatc matter during grading; and (3) fa~ure to provide for widening of substandard private streets to allow ingress and egress of residents who are not members of Haven View Estates. The Developer has provided no contrary_ evtdenee from experts. The City has relied upon a traffic study which was not produced to CURE until August 29, 1997, and which the law firm of Riehards, Watson & Ge,hon, counsel for the City, admits was not in the Clty's records before that date. The CRy Council, therefore, could not have reached a eoucludon of "no changed circumstances" based upon substantial evidence. Earthquakes Dr. Thomas Henyey, Ph.D, Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, testified that the 1996 trenehinR confirmed that the Cucamonga earthquake fault runs beneath the Deer Creek Debrb Basin and that its magnitude is a 7.0 to 7.5 event. The 1987 report referenced by the Developer "suspected" magnitudes in the 6.5 to 7.0 range. It was not until the 1996 trenching, that the higher magnitudes were confirmed. Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 3 _Deer Creek Debris Basin 5afe~ Dr. David WillJams, Ph.D, has testified that in 1991, the Army Corps of Engineers changed its design criteria for Debris Basins. The Deer Creek Debris Basin is undersized based upon this new criteria. The Developer has presented no contrary evidence. The August ll, 1997 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers speaks only to the Debris Basin withstanding a 0.4 magnitude quake (and not a 7.0 or greater) and does not mention the new criteria. The llighway 30 environmental impact study developed in the mid-1990s identified two landslide areas in excess of 100 acres above the channel of the debris basin. These slides were not mapped on the 1987 USGS maps. Dr. Willjams and Thomas Sheshah of Dames & Moore have testified that the loosening of debris from the slides (which could occur due to rains, fire, or even mild earthquakes) could clog the channel and permit debris flow onto the proposed Laureu Development homes and the downslope homes. The Developer has presented no contrary evidence. City Engineer, Dan James, has admitted on the.. record that the concrete charnel proposed by the Developer is not intended to capture debris or water that bypmes the debris basin or channel. laireta and E~reS_$ The Developer has depended upon aceeu over the Department of Water and Power easement. On August 18, 199'7 the l)epaFtmcnt of Water and Power terminated negotiations with the Developer which alters the Developer's ingress and egress and SacreaMs the amount of soft and debris that must pass by families layinn In Haven View. Levee Removal Safety The City Engineer has twice 'sidestepped" the issue of whether construction of the rephccment channel is a ~ for the secondary protection provided by the levee and swale system. He claims be is unabae to do so because the design specifications for the levee were not available. The best evidence of the levees _~3:7 _3£S & ~.OEB :.3qe 5 ~3 ,~er~ 863 8e.~-33 ,'leo ~7:4,8 :~97 Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 PaSe 4 ability to withstand flood and debris flow are the 1969 flood, the largest flood event in d0 years. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the San Bernardino Flood Control District have confirmed that they have made Iio determination_as to. whether the levee and swain'system _Drovides SUDerior protection for downsloDe DroDertv owners or that the D~veloper's replacement Channei is ~n ~de~uaee substitute. The entire decision (and the entire liability for a wrong decision) rests with the City Council and the City Engineer. The City Engineer has not confirmed that the Developer's proposed replacement berm is designed to code. CURE has presented evidence that the elimination of recharge b a more serious problem than in 1990 due to the need for California to reduce its reliance on the Colorado River. Further, it has produced evidence that the project will eliminate more recharge area than proposed in 1990 because the Flood Control District must cap off a second recharge pipe from the Deer Creek Channel to avoid flooding. The Regional Water Quality Control Board ha requested that the City consider these recharge issues and it he not commented one way or the other. There is no contrary substantial evidence in the record. 4. The City Attorney has provided the CIty with Inconsistent advice on several key issues. A second opinion should be sought. Notice of Planninn Commission and City Council Hearinns At the June 11 and July 9, 1997 hearings, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that notice to Haven VIew homeowners was not required by law. Prior to the City Council hearing, the City Attorney advised the City that notice should be provided. Rancho Cucamonga City Council September 3, 1997 Page 5 The Legal Requirements Conccrnin_2 Evaluati_on of Chan~ed Circumstances _ under the California Env|ronmental Oua!ltv Act .I "CF',OA "_) At the Planning Commission Hearing on July 9, 1997, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that no evidence of changed circumstances could be considered and that only "design" could be considered. Several Planning Commissioners stated, on the record, that they were concerned about the "safety" issues, but that counsel had informed them that they could not consider this Information. This advice was reiterated at the beginning' of the August 20, 1997 hearing. The City Attorney then changed his position and informed the City Council that it should eonslder the changed elreumstanees. The Planning Department was legally required to consider this issue, on the merits, prior to the City Council doing so. iS. The City Attorney's conduet and handling of this matter subjects the CRy to liability. CURE Incorporates the correspondence of Ms. Leeona K!ippstetn, Spirit of the Sage Council, dated August 22, 1997 and of Tom Bradford, F~sq. dated August 2S, 1.997. Mr. Markman has demonstrated a strong predisposition toward the project by his firm advising the Planning Commission that it could not consider safety issues at the Planning Commission and by other conduct. Mr. Markman has had numerous meetings with Lauren Development. He has not once contacted CURI:'s counsel bv telenhone_ or letlet: Mr. Marlunan also represents several Orange County cities that directly benefit by the elimination of groundwater recharge areas here. When water is not recharged, it is ehanneHed into the Prado Dam. Excess waters are released and utilized by Orange County, including Mr. Markman's cheats. Additionally, Mr. Markman and his new law firm have not submitted any disclosure statements concerning potential confilets of Interest on this project. 6. CURE Incorporates by reference all materials and statements submitted by RC-S, Haven view Estates, and Spirit of the Sage Council 93~7 _',2, E'~ ~ .,_,SE3 =age 7 '3 ,~,3o 863 Se:s-O3 Rancho Cucamonga City Council S~t~rnber 3, 1997 Page 6 For the foregoing reasons, CURE strongly urges that the City Council retain independent counsel to evaluate the legal and ethical concerns raised, If any decision is reached, CURE requests clarification, on the record, that the tentative vote taken on August 20, 1997, is not an "action" of the City Council such that it will become final in 30 days if not acted upon, Respectfully submitted Malissa Hathaway McKeith of !,oeb & Loeb - Attorneys for Cueamongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Enclosure MHM:pb 93;7 .,?__,EB & ,_C__.,E.-.: Page 8 13 ,....,.20 863 See-C, 3 :','e.:.-, *7:49 !997 t, AFFIDAVIT tF NAIl.Ill Iq. JIllll 0111111 l, ~ m~l clerk for' the C4t..y of Rencho .... 1,,~.: ~ . . . . ,t.e¢l' to ~e Unt Slat ~1 a r el Ne , 10110 addfused b and regard(rig SlIMe: ~,..' ,d4.,,..,/.._. late: 9347 _.,?_,EB ~. ,C, EB Page 9 ~3 ,~co 863 8e,o-,53 ,',ea ~T:SC :~;' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIIlN6 ANO ERVZROFRENTAL NOTICE RAIICHO CUCAtlONI~ PLANNING CCXq/SSlON The ~nChO Cucamonla Pllneing Co,misSion wIT1 be holding a public heirtrig it 7:H p.m. on Sipbeer H., Z990, et the Rancho Cutsignal Civic Center, Council Chaal;er, locited it 10S00 C1vac Center Ortve, eencho C~Gemngi, Clllfor, ta !17:)0, to consider the following described project. A complete environmetal elliSlint his been prepl~ed t f the ItroJect is noted is in Environmentat ASSessment. C4)lllfitl vtl 1 be received and the envirOnuntil assistNat my I}e rlvtlved In), tiEe prior ~0 final action. The PllnnleQ Celtslien ~tl 1 be considering the aSSlllmlnt, stiff' s reCOmmendations, Ind pet)tic Input it Shelf melting of Selfleer 26, ltlO, prior to mktntl i nell dateminutiae. S T V TIIMT 1477 - I - k residential tn tilt Very Leg located east Of I Mayor Areatit lad neetit of lingtUB Drive - Arias HOI-III-I4. leleted fi e: Weetame meat. MI) VAIl - - A reqmest to reduce the re feet aM to redec~ She Bintame lot deFtb of Lot I arm lie to xlO feets~rrr e 40 let; selldhllt~ on Ig.t acres of lind tn the Very l. ee lesldeettel Mstrtct (lets thee ! dmlllq edit per earl) located emit of bin Aveme aM earall of linestee Ottve- AFt: OIlflailS-tO. telsteel file: Tailolive Tract 14771. Anyone htvaq concerns or questions or washing 1~o revte, or Careens on 1;he projeCt led/or Envlromenttl AsseSleanS on the foregoing 1tee ~1 wlcome to tORtlet the Ctty Pllnnteg DIvistoo It (114) 98S-T861 Or vtSSt the offices locited at ~.OSC)Q Clvtc Center Drive. Also~ e~Jtone objecting to or in favor of the above. my appelr in person at ~e 4love-described rotleg or may submit their concerns tn artlate9 to the Call/rter to said maSOn. WPt~r, ea cants should be addressed to the Planrile DtvtIGa~, C~t~ of ~ bachca Cucimngl echo Cucamnga, P. O. lax 807. . CA Rancho Cucemnga Pl&nntng Camisaiah 93...;7 _CE5 & _C, EB ~.ace 'O, ~3 zsc 863 Sec-03 ..':ec "7:50 '~997 d ~ , I.J ~ l ., ~ ~ t ,t. 1~ ; ~, ~ .':, ~ '. '. ~' ~' .' / t~ t r H,ar,, ... ~ ~'*-[¢ANT: V/ (~ AFfL2CANT: ~ APPt, XC/UIT: ~ l, Rl, ndol. ph Ave,, SC.I, 2JO JlS S. Rll'ldO3. ph Ave,, lt.e. 230 265 S, ~Ren ph Ave,, St:e. ,_~lc~ veofc~?Y: SVa;t~r peerSwrY, ,s_u~zc? peop.~e~y:. S. Pendon AVI.~ i~e. 230 215 I. Ren Ave., Its. 230 a CA 9 I eros, CA 621 . ILrea, CA 3.- 020 - - o;O1,1~35 ~ -05 ~*0~ 032S -OS c,. rl~od Central nLst / S.I. Co. rlH4 Ce ~ O~et. S.$. Co. rl Control D~et. · -.. TA~rd Street 12S E. ?hLrd ' ,rnard~no, ~ 9lqOi Sin ~rnltd~ , ~ 92402 , Q 93403 -~21-03,11 & 0201-21~-I$ 0201-1~Z* ~ i C~O/-lll-t5 121-01,11 & 0~0Z-211-15 o~ Lo~ Angeles ~ Clgy o~ ~e An~lee C~ty oE ~1 Angeles · of ~ater lad ~r .- ~ Dept. O~ Wltlr kx 11~ e~ 402 ~ ~ O. ~ 111, ' , / · e,o sex {'f, .ere 402 ~ngeles, CA 90OSl ~os ~ge~es, ~ ~Sl ~e X m, ~ ~OSL -28~-13 0201-~11-I) 0201- .L-~) r. Brock ~ G~ It, l~te )1-261-13 ¢ ~j ~ ~i ~t ~MaLo St "'~/ ~io, ~ 9~7H ' g3~7 _c..;E3 ~, _JEg__. ~"ge '~' "3 ~DD 863 9eO 03 ..'."e~ "7'~ 1997 -~11-~S 1.07 ~--.~2 ~. -O~ ].07&- 5Q t-Oe J ltOCl & SO18 UtC C/O H J BROCK & SOItS C/O N J STOCK &some EtMC0N $fl ZO9 2SO I P. XMCON STE 2Oe 2SO I l. tlCOl ITE 209 "'~, CA 917t9 COI~IA CA 9X719 COIONA CA 91719 J, O74-5%].-2Z CBZSTLUIO PlaTIllS I J BLOCK tINS ZlC 250 Z IIMCms ST~ 209 ClO H J BIDCK i 10~S lIBCOl ITE 209 c~SOet~ cA 9L719 250 E iLIC,4~M I~E tONA CA 917].9 COROllA CA 91719 ~ 4- 5%1,-17 1074-521-23 · :S~IAM0 PASTMIll l: 1~ ~ISTX~O ~~ t ~Z$~~ t~~$ l ~ M J l~ i 'l~ ~C' C/O M J I~' & 5~S ~ 0 Cl0 M J l~ i 5~8 1NC , X XX~ S~ ~ aS0: X~m S~ 20e 250 X Ztmc~ STE ;0m : '~ .~ CA l&719 C~ ~ 91719 C0~ ~ 9~Y~t 4-)11-1e ~074-)21-2~ 1014-54L-12 s~x~um PsrrmmtS x { ' · CZlSf~O f~ZM X ~{ C~XS~O ~~ X J I~ & ~S lNC clO N J ~l & ~5 ClO H JIM &loll IllCON l~ 20g 2~0 I tl~S 8~1 209 250 I txsC~ s~ 209 ~ ~ 91719 co~a ~ 9Z719 CO~ ~ g~719 · -511-~9 %074-~21-25 1076-5A1-13 ;T%~ ~~ I /j ~Z~l~ P~~S Z ClXITZ~ P~~S I ~" J m~cl & ~g XMC el0 ~ J Sl~ s S~l ~ !. c/o ~ J I~ i I~s lNc a~COa S~ 109 250 i RXNC~ S~ 2~ 250 I IXMC~ tU 2~ )NA CA 91719 ~A ~ 91719 C~ ~ gX7%9 f 1074- :~ 21-26 10 Y 4-541-14 Tx~O P~~ I ~ '~' M J I~ & ~lS ZmC CIIITI~O P~IM % ~llf~ e~$lS l E IXXCOl lU 209 ClO a J StYX e ass ~,~ c/o X J mm& s~ zic NA ~ 91719 250 E IZ~ S~ Z09 Z~ a IXl~ S~ 2~ - ~A ~ 917Xg ~~ ~ 9L719 -)1 X- 2 1 107 &- 541-07 lO7&-S43,- X5 rL&MO P~ X ~'J CtXS~IASO tAftfilEtS Z ' ~ITI~ P~~ l 4 J m~ & s~S XNC C/O m J aM S s~l '~" C/O U J ~ S ~S XMC E IX~ l~ l~ 250 Z aiMCOB & 8~8 2~ I tl~ I~ 209 ~1-2Z %074-54X-08 ~074-541-16 ~,~ , g347 _3EB ~. ,_OEr--, :'age ~; "3 ,_,co 863 Sep-03 .'.~ec..: :,:s' '.9=,' )1-281-I3 10Y4-3,~1-01 iq l~-~ll-q / ~ CA EI COleD'~ S-~ lj~'~:) TLOoD currT/so fik/.1"llli Z )Dl~l C0MTIDL D C/O J M ~ & SesS ZNc. ~" kDD tttF, Z,W I Lticnm I1/ ,,,, ColON& C~ 91719 i-281-1& 1071-351-10 1076-511-01 tt OF LOS lll~ll '~f ~IST~ P~~ X ~tz~ F~~ I [ o. ~ 111 I ~02 ~~ I~ ~ 12160 250 I I~l l~ 109 t - 211-20' IQTA-~ 11-O1 1076- t~ OF ~ &)lll, II ~' ClIITI~O PAlTIllS I U'f ~~ F~~ I ~ :.r ) O~ 0t ~ 6 P~I2 Cl0 X. J ~ 6 ). ~ 111 ~ 602 ZSO I II~' t~~l ~ 9~51 ~ ~ 91719 ~ ~ 91719 e .. ~X 111 ~ 602 250 t ~ ~ll ~ ~51 ~A ~ llTtl ~Ia ~ 11719 e L-tLl-Og 1076-~11-0~ 1074-S11-12 ~IICX, JOII I %'/. CIIITIJdlO PIITIIII I S ~~ ' ClO a J l~ i l~l · Io ~ l~7t/ l]O I II~ I~Z 209 Z~ I ll~ l~ 109 ~ ~ 91711 ; DI~T~ ell c/o N J I~ I ~l IlC. el0 ~ ~ 91719 ~ 1~2 cIo M J ~ & l~l twP "'~4-O:L 201-494-12 201-494-22 13 lr/e ~. ~ ~el cal~eo ollve~ ~, ~, ~ I~?oL ~~ c~n~e, I t1~01 1255 vi~y~ Ave. L-4~2 ~Z-49~13 L-II~Ot 2~-414-14 ,er~, ~ ~?~ ~ ~, ~ 9Z7OZ 2114 Istl~ is, Ca 9l?l? .-494-04 p 'v 19 ~~~t Co. ~ ~, ~g~er ~ I ~ Ca~rlne , W. ~~ st ·" 3~ W. I~l~d k~., b ~2 -494-07 301-494-17 ' .Marc Y and Ilebeecs.. T, aLtd RaZph end ~a , h~le kHh Dr. 17S7B h~~ .s~, CA tZTM / ~t~a, CA 12335 son Szet F ~ PmXs ~' ~ AZXsn ~ ~s '494'11 : 201-494-2~ RANClIO CI'CA,MONGA August 28, 1997 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE William J. Alexander, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Plan of Cooperative Action for Economic Development RDA Agenda Item E.2; City Council Item D.12; September 4, 1997 Dear Mayor Alexander: We are very much looking forward to the implementation of the Cooperative Agreement that the City and Chamber have been developing over the last several months. Jack Lam and Linda Daniels and I have been working closely together structuring an Agreement that is straightforward and comprehensive in laying out what we jointly intend to accomplish. There is one item in the Agreement that you have before you, however, that needs to be addressed which involves the Annual Shop Rancho Cucamonga Brochure. We believe that it has always been the nature of our discussion and jointly agreed that all Rancho Cucamonga retail businesses and service providers would be listed in the brochure, whether a Chamber member or not, and regardless of whether they chose to become an advertising sponsor or not. This was in order to give the greatest exposure to all of our retail and service providers across the City and promote shopping in our City. This across the board promotion of all Rancho Cucamonga retail and service outlets, the numerical majority of whom are not yet Chamber members, provided the logic and rational for the City' s sponsorship towards this event. This was proposed by the Chamber in its original draft and included in the Agreement before you under Item II, Section 1, Number 7, on page 2. From the outset, it has also been in the nature of our discussions on the brochure, not only between the Chamber and the City, but between the Chamber and major retail development interests in Rancho, that shopping center developers could place ads for their centers, or "Center Directories", in the brochure, outlining who was in their center and providing support to their tenants. These Center Directories would be outlined on the centerfold map of the City for the convenience of the resident in finding what was close by to where they lived. And from the beginning, it was anticipated that the Center Directories were the key element in helping the Chamber offset the cost of the brochure, the majority cost of the brochure being carried by the Chamber. 8280 UTICA AVENUE, SUITE 160 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 · 909 / 987-1 012 FAX 987-5917 2 The Agreement before you, however, under Item II, Section 1, Number 8, again on page 2, as worded, says in effect that the Center Directories described in the previous paragraph will be provided to all shopping center developers flee of charge. Why then would any shopping center developer participate in supporting the brochure, when they would get it for free? How then would the Chamber finance its portion of the brochure without this primary and integral revenue source? I believe we all have the same intent... promote retail and service sales to all the providers in Rancho Cucamonga. We do that under Item 7. However, the inclusion office Center Directories for all the shopping center developers contained in Item 8, is something new that has not been discussed before. It basically puts the brochure project in a very precarious, if not impossible financial position. Item 8 needs to be stricken from the agreement to return the brochure project to its original concept and financial viability. Other than that, the Agreement is an excellent tool to begin this new partnership together on behalf of the citizens and business of Rancho Cucamonga. If I can provide any additional information, please feel free to give me a call at 987-1012 during the day or 985-4187 after hours or over the weekend. Thank you. Sincerely, William L. Holley, CEO cc: City Councilmembers City Manager Redevelopment Director Law Offices of RUBEN SALAZAR RUBEN SALAZAR 8462 SIERRA AVENUE RNERSIDE OFFIGi~ I=ONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335 CONNIE M. BENNETT: ADMINISTRATOR 3679 MARKET STREET NORMAN C. SHAW: HEARING REP. PHONE: (909)428-4500 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 LETICIA TAFOLLA: LEGAL ASSISTANT FAX: (909)428~186 909)786-9775 PITA VEGA: REHAB COORDINATOR ALL REPLIES: FONTANA OFFICE IRMA A. HERNANDEZ: LEGAL ASSISTANT · September 2, 1997 CITY COUNCIL OFFICES City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Attn: William J. Alexander, Mayor Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Re: Cucamongans Untied For Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") Opposition to Lauren Design Development Approval Dear Mayor and Councilme~nbers: I am a resident of Rancho ~2ucamonga. I am also a homeowner and on the Board of Directors of Haven View Estates, the so-called "Very Low Residential District" over which Lauren Developments seeks to develop a "tract-like" home subdivision consisting of 40 single homes on 25.35 acreas of land which would require ingress and egress through our front gates and easements. On June 11, 1997, I appeared before the City Planning Commission meeting and verbally registered my opposition to the dubious plan which the City is reportedly still considering approving, despite significant, well-grounded and unified opposition. he minutes of that hearing should reflect that my personal concerns for the proposed development centered around the fact that the: (1) the developers were carpet-bagger, "out-of-town" developers who cared less about our precious community (2) with allegedly shady or suspect histories in prior developments (3) who were ostensibly misleading the Planning Staff by misrepresenting that they were developing "semi- custom" homes when, in fact, they are improperly building non-compatible "tract homes" in an exclusive area of custom homes; (4) and who deceitfully attempting to submit their proposal as a "non-controversial" matter, when if fact, there was and is stiff opposition to the proF~osal; and (5) who were ram-ramorodding the controversial matter through without giving due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard to the numerous affected residents (your constituents). I also, as a lawyer, intimated to William J. Alexander, Mayor Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Re: Opposition to Lauren 15evelopment September 3, 1997 Page 2 the Planning Commissioners that (6) there may be liability and litigation concerns to the Commissioners and other City personnel personally, in the event of a foreseeable flood or fire which resulted in death or injury. Many of my neighbors spoke eloquently that night about other concerns, viz, health and safety issues, traffic and air quality concerns, political fall-out to the councilmembers, environmental concerns, and economic or "pocket-book" issues about devalued properties. Moreover, an attorney-neighbor of mine, Malissa Hathaway McKeith, submitted, as pan of the record, a detailed legal analysis and opinion focusing on environmental impact concerns, which also touched on other constitutional (due process) and health and safety (flood) repercussions. In July of 1997, I - along with many other united homeowners -wrote to the Mayor, expressing my continuing ~bjection to the plan. Mayor Alexander kindly wrote back to me, expressing his promise to seriously look carefully at the issue and address the expressed concerns of his constituents. Apparently, our numerous and legitimate concerns from prominent Rancho Cucamongans fell of deaf ears. Notwithstanding the many salient points that militate against the risky residential development, I understand that the plan is still up for vote by the Planning Commission. Moreover, I understand on August 20, 1997, another Planning Commission meeting took place, at which time another crucial concern was raised as to the bias, ethics and motives of the City Attorney handling the matter, Mr. James Markham. While I did not make that hearing, my neighbor and fellow lawyer, Thomas W. Bradford, voiced this shared additional concern by proxy, pointing out that Mr. Markman was apparently trying to mislead us with opinions which conflicted with his own legal advise from his own associates. At the August heating, I am told that Mr. Markhman's publicly stated his legal opinion and position that he could not legally consider evidence of "changed circumstances" in approving or disapproving the proposal. However, when confronted with Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, Mr. Markham then appeargd to have back-peddled, seriously raising into question his ability to fairly and objectively consider the matter. I also understand Mr. Markhman was instrumental in apporving the initial (and now out-dated) 1990 Negative Declaration. I further understand that the Planning Staff have apparently shown William J. Alexander, Mayor Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Re: Opposition to Lauren Development September 3, 1997 Pace 3 their bias by refusing to produce certain documents requested by Rancho Cucamonga constituents that are a matter of public record, yet they are curiously seeming to work more for and cooperate more with the Orange County developers. While our phone calls and letters remain unanswered, the developers appear to have carte blanceh with the Planning Commission, even though they are not constituents. And, as you know, a federal Civil Rights action has or will be filed in U.S. District Court by the Loeb & Loeb law firm, which now potentially exposes the City, the Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners to so-called "Section 1983" attorneys fees, which usually are significant, especially in municipality and environmental actions. I believe a State environmental lawsuit involving writ of mandamus proceedings has also been or will been filed under the provisions of the consumer-friendly California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), alleging that the Planning StafFs failure to conduct biological studies violates CEQA. This will also generate even more costly litigation expenses, expert fees, and attorneys fees which us tax-payers will have to pay. As a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, tax-payer, voter, and concerned citizen, I submit this letter to formally lodge my continuing opposition to the Lauren Development proposal. In addition to all the reasons stated above, please consider the following health and safe~y issues: I. The proposed removal of a levee, that presently serves to protect the many residents of Haven View Estates, Rancho Cucamonga V, and even Deer Creek, exposes all of these upscale homes and prominent families and communities to signficant flood risks and rock slides. This flood risk will be especially precarious this year given predictions by many weather analysts that we are expecting the worst rains this winter than we've ever experienced in many years due to "El Nino". 2. All of the existing flood control infrastructure is built on an earthquake fault where new studies reveal a,possible 7.5 quake ( 15 times stronger than the Northridge quake). The development will be built less than bz2 mile from this highly volatile and dangerous fault where water wells in the area hit water less than 100 feet. It is easily William J. Alexander, Mayor Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember R~: Opposition to Lauren Development September 3, 1997 Page 4 foreseeable that when the flood control debris basins are damaged by an inevitable earthquake, there will be deadly flooding submerging down unto these politically important neighborhoods. 3. There are also two designated landslide areas within a mile of our homes. Thus debris flow, landslides and avalanches of rocks and soil during anticipated floods or earthquake presents a very real and imminent danger for all "downstream" residents. 4. There are many small children in our communities and the "private" streets are not adequately designed to accommodate the inevitable increase in new traffic, thus presenting huge infra-structure problems ala Fontana, both short and long-term. The Planning Staff has not conducted traffic studies. 5. Similarly, no environmental studies have been conducted concerning the pollution and air quality impacts, especially during the many months during which thousands of tons of soil are to be removed along with the levee. As your constituents, we have a right to fair, responsible and reasonable consideration of these very real health and safety concerns. Lest'you paint us with a broad brush, we are not "enviormentalists" waving a "green flag" for a liberal cause. We are politically important constituents extremely concerned over the very heath and safety of our families, children and communities. These are hard-core, basic family value and safety issues. As a lawyer, I hasten to rem. ind you all again of the substantial legal and political fall- out that may be occasioned by actions of the Planning Commissioners. We have repeatedly placed you and them on notice about the potential legal and political consequences of their proposed actions. We are, generally speaking, well-to-do, politically sophisticated constituents who vote, and we are obviously wealthy and united enough to pose a very real political threat to each of your political careers. In fact, some us have bandied about the idea of running in some of your places in future political contests and pushing for recall campaigns if this goes forward. Again, these are not idle threats from elitists with a special interest agenda; but rather genuine heath and safety issues affecting our families and children. William J. Alexander, Mayor Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Re: Opposition to Lauren Development September 3, 1997 Page 5 It is painfully clear that some of you have not learned from the widely-known mistakes of Colton, Fontana, and Rialto, all of which almost went bankrupt after improvidently allowing unfettered and unreasonable residential development without proper planning and establishment of an adequate infra-structure. For example, many of your constituents know that the City failed miserably regarding its rejection of the commercial Ontario Mills and Ontario Auto Center Projects, which Would have greatly enriched Rancho Cucamongans tremendously in terms of tax revenues, and business and employment opportunities. Nor has the Orange County investment fiasco seemed to have phased City Planners, even though some of them are similarly supporting an equally risky tax-revenue producing gamble. It ostensibly appears that the City now wants to compensate for some of its prior mistakes by blindly supporting this dangerous and unsafe residential scheme, despite the plethora of legitimate concerns raised by your constituents to date. But, the minimal or nominal tax revenues the City may reap from this dangerous residential plan will pale in comparison to the legal and political battles each of you potentially face, especially when a Northridge-like catastrophe occurs and hundreds of children, families, and expensive residents are inudaetd with flash flooding, rock avalanches and mud and landslides. Remember: if Northridge repeats itself, costly wrongful death, personal injury and casualty lawsuits will not only eminate from your very own constituents, but you will invariably be brought into legal proceedings on cross-complaints for subroagation by the very developers the City is supporting, and also by the numerous homeowner insurance carriers that will inevitably seek indemni~action for ),our alleged tortious actions and misfeasance. And, after costly, protacated, and politically lethal litigation personally emboils and envelops the City politicians, the carpert-bagger developers will be invoking their "limited partnerhsip" defenses and raising their immunities from personal liability, pointing their bloody fingers at those of you who voted and approved the dangerous project, leaving some of you personally exposed to the legal and political wrath of your own betrayed consitutents. Govern yourselves accordingly gentlemen. In closing, I will be appearing at the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting again to demand and move that the City vote to: 1. Remove or recuse Mr. Markham from considering this critical issue pending a conflict of interest disclosure from him and his law firm, Ricahrds,Watson & Gershon; 2. Immediately appoint "independent counsel" in place of Mr. Markham pending his temporary ethical recusal; and 3. Approve, at a minimum, further and complete geological, environmental and biological impact studies to adequately address the real health, safety, traffic, air quality, and habitat issues that affect all our communities by this ill-conceived residential scheme. o I hope the City will back up its concerned citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, instead of selling them down the road to greedy speculators who place money over morality and corporate profits over heath and safety of families and innocent children. mitted, SALAZAR, ESQ. cc: E. David Barker, Planning Commission Bill Bethel, Planning Commission Rich Macias, Planning Commission Larry McNeil, Planning Commission Peter Tolstoy, Planning Commission Diand Willjams, City Council Hon. Jay C. Kim Hon. Barbara Boxer' Hon. James Brulte CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: Public Safety_ Subcommittee Proposed Narcotic Offender Eviction Referral Ordinance For your information, attached is supplemental information for the Wednesday, September 3, 1997 City Council meeting, regarding Item No. 3, under Council business, entitled, "Consideration of an Ordinance Referencing Narcotic Offender Eviction Referrals." ,,, -~ Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, Curley & Slough A Professional Corporation Attorneys At Law James L..Markman Andrew V. Arczvnski Number One Civic Center Circle 9113 Foothill Boulevard Ralph D. Hanson P.O. Box 1059 Suite 200 William P. Curley, III Brea, Califorma 92822-1059 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Marsha G. Slough (714)990-0901 * (562)691-3811 (909) 980-2742 * (909) 381-0218 D. Craig Fox Pamela P. King Fax: (714)990-6230 Fax: (909)948-9411 Daren E. Hengesbach Boyd L. Hill MEMORANDUM To: Lieutenant Henry, Assistant Chief of Police, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department From: D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney ~ Date: July 21, 1997 Re: Narcotics offender eviction ordinance Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed documents you have forwarded, which include a document apparently issued by Los Angeles Police Department Office of Operations, dated April 7, 1997, entitled "NOTICE NO. 13," and a draft 1995 Assembly Bill No. AB738. You also provided the names of two Los Angeles Deputy City Attorneys having knowledge of the City of Los Angeles narcotic offender eviction process. Our comments with respect to those documents and that program follow. First, we researched the status of 1995 Assembly Bill AB738 and determined that it was never enacted into law. That bill would have amended Section 1946 of the Civil Code, and would have reduced the normal thirty day eviction notice to a real property tenant, to three days, where the landlord has a good faith belief that such tenant is engaging in the unlawful sale or use of controlled substances. In any event, the City of Los Angeles proceeded to add Section 47.50 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code which, among other things, prohibits a landlord from causing or permitting a rented premises "to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance or drug-related crime" (as those terms are defined in the ordinance), or to cause or permit a tenant to use or occupy rented property "if the tenant commits, permits, maintains or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henry' - July 21, 1997 Page Two boundary line of the premises." Section 47.50 further provides a landlord with authority to evict and recover possession of rented property when either the tenant "is committing or permitting to exist any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the boundary line of the premise," or when the tenant "has been convicted of a crime wherein the underlying offense involves illegal drug activity; drug-related nuisance activity or a gang-related crime on the premises." A copy of Section 47.50 is attached hereto for your ease of reference. Section 47.50 applies to virtually every form of residential dwelling, including apartments, guest rooms in residences, single family residences, duplexes, condominiums and mobilehomes. Although not stated in the ordinance, a violation appears to be punishable as a misdemeanor. Also, civil remedies are set forth permitting the City Attorney to file an action for injunctive relief in order to compel a landlord to comply with provisions of the ordinance. We envision such an injunctive action as probably including an order of a court requiring the landlord to evict a tenant involved in drug or gang-related activities, as more fully set forth in the ordinance. We discussed this ordinance with a deputy city attomey for the City of Los Angeles who was involved in its preparation. She was unable to cite any particular statute as providing express authority for the adoption of Section 47.50. Nevertheless, it is the City Attorney' s Office' s opinion that it is supportable, at least in part, based upon authority granted to cities under Health and Safety Code Section 11570. That section states: "Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance, precursor, or analog specified in this position, in every building or place wherein or upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance." Section 11571 provides: "Whenever there is reason to believe that such a nuisance is kept, maintained, or exists in any county, the district attorney of the county, in the name of the people may, or the city attorney of any incorporated city or of any city and ' county, or any citizen of the state resident in the county, in his or her own name, may, maintain an action to abate and prevent the nuisance and perpetually to enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it, and the owner, lessee, or agent of Memorandum to: Lieutenant HerkD' - July 21, 1997 Page Three the building or place, in or upon which the nuisance exists, from directly or indirectly maintaining or permitting the nuisance." Provisions similar to those set forth in Section 11570 appear in the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, (Penal Code Section 186.20, et seq.) which is aimed at properties utilized in connection with gang-related crime. While we feel that the City of Los Angele. s is to be commended for taking a proactive stance with respect to the use of rental properties in connection with narcotics and gang-related activities, we do have some concern as to the validity of Section 47.50, ifjudicially challenged. Our first concem has to do with the ordinance purporting to give landlords legal authority to evict tenants under circumstances not specifically addressed in state landlord/tenant law. That was the apparent thrust of Assembly Bill 738 which, as noted, was not enacted. If challenged, a court could find that this portion of the Los Angeles ordinance is preempted by state law if the court were to also find that the State has so thoroughly acted with respect to circumstances under which tenants may be evicted so as to displace and preclude any local regulation of those matters. On the other hand, an argument can be made that Health and Safety Code Section 11570 provides cities with broad authority to enact laws which specifically address the use of property in connection with unlawful drug-related activities. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Section 11570, et seq., which suggests that a landlord may be held criminally liable for permitting the rented property to be used in such fashion. Our second concem also relates to preemption by state laws and constitutional due process requirements. As stated, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section ' 47.50 would impose a criminal penalty upon a landlord who permits rented property to be utilized in connection with any illegal drug or gang-related activity or crime. This prohibition is not limited to the property, but extends to a 1000 foot radius therefrom. First, due process requires that a landlord know of the existence of criminal activity by a tenant before being subject to prosecution. There is nothing in the Los Angeles ordinance providing or requiring that the landlord know of the drug or gang-related activity, before prosecution may occur. We think, under any circumstances, that it would be necessary to establish that a landlord either knows, or should know based upon objective facts, that such activities are occurring, before criminal liability may attach. Secondarily, state narcotic laws are comprehensive in their scope. Again, a court could find a local regulation imposing criminal liability on a landlord for not preventing drug and gang related criminal activities by tenants to either be beyond the scope of such local agency's police power or to be preempted by state narcotic statutes. On the other hand, we believe a cognizable argument could be made that due to the magnitude of the problem, including the resulting deterioration of multi-family residential Memorandum to: Lieutenant Henr?' , July 21, 1997 Page Four areas due to illegal drug and gang related activities, a city is within its police power to legislate in order to supplement areas of state law which do not directly regulate matters covered by the substance of the local ordinance. In summary, we believe that the Los Angeles approach to dealing with problems arising from the drug and gang related use of rental properties, is worthy of further consideration. At this time, however, we are unaware of any express state authority authorizing the approach taken by Los Angeles. We believe that such an ordinance would stand the greatest chance of validation if a city were to make findings clearly establishing the magnitude of the problem and the inability of existing state laws to address those problems, so as to support such city's use of its police power in the manner utilized by Los Angeles. In any circumstances, Health and Safety Code Section 11570, et seq., together with the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, provides cities with authority to civilly prosecute landlords who permit illegal drug and gang related activities to occur upon their rented properties. . This concludes our review of this matter. Should you care to discuss any aspect of this memorandum at greater length, do not hesitate to contact this office. DCF:ljl L\RC\MHENRYXRC 1.3.3 Transmitted via facsimile and mail Enclosure " 'a f! C I T v 0 F- D ANC C UC A NC ,A OFFICE OF THE CITY PROS;_CL, TOR .July 15, 1997 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Lt. Joe Henry Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 10510 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: L.A, Ordiqance Reo, uirina_ Landlords to Evict Criminals Dear Lt. Henry: We have had an opportunity to review not only the L.A. ordinance regarding eviction of narcotics offenders but other law dealing with ordinances and/or statutes which compel a landlord to take action as a result of criminal violations committed at the property. Basically, we have discovered very little and it does not appear that these matters have been addressed directly by the courts as oaf this time. - In 1993 in me case entitled City of Minneapolis v. Fistler, 504 NW 2nd 520, the City brought a nuisance action against lancltorcls and tenants in order to c!ose a sauna where activities resulted i~ numerous convictions on charges of prostitution. The court founct that procedural due process rights of the landlords and tenants were satisfied by fie notice of the convictions, making the premises a public nuisance and by the hearing to challenge whether those convictions occurred on the property. In the case of Zuni_aa v. Housino_ Authority (1995) 41 Cal. App. 4th 82, the Court of Appeal identified facts sufficient to support a claim that a "dangerous condition" existed which included inadequate security measures. The circumstances involved extensive local drug dealing at the housing authonty as well as the fact that the plaintiffs had become targets of hostility as a result of their having reported criminal activity to the appropriate authority. :~-.=,"j3Civic C~nter lDr. ve · P,O Box807 · Roncr'cCucomo~go C~,91729 · (OC'g) 477-271C · FA:x(c)Dg;477-28,:17 Lt. Joe Henry 2 Rancho Cucamonga Police Department _july 1.5. 1997 .- .... - Generally speaking, landlords owe a duty to tenants ane patrons to provide reasonable security measures to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures. This included a duty to exercise reasonable care to discover whether criminal acts are being, or likely to be, committed on the landlords property. Sharon P. ¥. Arman Ltd. (1997) 97 PAR 6953. Additionally, under negligence theories, part of the assessment would include the expense and social impact of what the imposition of a duty would require. With all that in mind it appears that a strong argument supporting the L,A, ordinance could be set forth articulating issues of nuisance as welt as dangerous conditions. The application of this law would appky to Ooth single as well as multiple family dwellings an0 would require putting the landlord on notice of the convictions before being able to impose any duty upon the landlord. Obviously since this is uricbattered waters it is somewhat difficult to speculate as to the reaction of the courts, but based upon the above cited cases I submit there is a fairty c:ptimistic potential of prevailing I boise this responds to your inquines if you need to discuss this matter in greater detail please don't hesitate to call. Very truly yours, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARTIN J,~ER / City Prosecutor MJM/pw:mar rc;ordina,~ce