HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/08/16 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
August 16, 1995
Civic Center
Council Chmnbers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucmnonga, CA 91730
City Councilmembers
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tent
Paul Biane, Councihnember
James V. Curatalo, Councilmember
Diane Williams, Councihnember
Jack Lam, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 989-1851
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
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 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 Willlares__
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation to Dean Smothers for his many years of service
to the 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.
1. Approval of Minutes: July 19, 1995
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/2/95 FY 94/95, and 8/2/95 FY 95/96;
and Payroll ending 7/27/95 for the total amount of $981,043.05.
3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of July 31,1995.
4. Approval to adopt Annual Statement of Investment Policy.
o
Approval of continuing appropriations from various funding sources for Fiscal
Year 1994/95 Capital Improvement Projects which are continuing in Fiscal
Year 1995/96.
Approval to execute an Memorandum of Understanding (CO95-049) with the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority for reimbursement of funds for
construction of the Metrolink Station.
5
10
13
16
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
Approval to execute contract (CO 95-050) with Lyon & Lyon to oversee City
Seal Registration and other related issues.
Approval to Release Bonds for Tract 13359, located on the east side of
Sapphire Street, between Orchard and Jennet Streets.
Release: Labor and Material Bond
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
$83,100.00
16,620.00
Approval to Release Bonds for Tract 13566-3 received from CentT.ury
American Corporation, October 5, 1989, and accept Reduced Bonds ,form
the new owner, Gentra Financial.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond
Labor and Material Bond
$ 502,000.00
251,000.00
Accept: Faithful Performance Bond $166,146.00
Labor and Matedal Bond 166,146.00
21
22
23
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 SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 95-01 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a revision to the Sign
Ordinance to allow additional wall signs for industrial uses.
ORDINANCE NO. 544 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING-
TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19.12 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECTION
TO COMPLY WITH THE LATEST FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY (FEMA) REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
24
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
3
ORDINANCE NO. 545 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 19.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVIDING FOR FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS
ORDINANCE NO. 434-A (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 15.12.168 OF CHAPTER 15.12 OF TITLE 15 OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
REPEALING GROUP R, DIVISION 3 RESIDENTIAL FIRE
SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER RELATED MODIFICATIONS THERETO
CERTAIN
25
46
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.
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of adding Chapter 9.28 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code establishing definitions and regulations
pertaining to convenience stores; and related amendments to the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, establishing a 1-
foot candle minimum lighting standard for commercial/industrial
development.
ORDINANCE NO. 546 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95-01,
AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER
17.12 PARKING REGULATIONS
48
E0
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
o
ORDINANCE NO. 547 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
95-03, AMENDING PART III, SUBSECTION IV
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ORDINANCE NO. 548 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A
NEW CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE FOOD
STORES
CONSIDERATION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Sign Ordinance to allow
signs for service club organizations.
ORDINANCE NO. 549 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02, AMENDING
TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE
63
67
69
80
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 THE NORTHEAST PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN
2. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATING A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE AND
AN ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEETING
82
86
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
o
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE BOOKING FEE AGREEMENT ('CO95-
051) WITH COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE SHERIFF CONTRACT SCHEDULE A
(CO94-017) AND CONTRACT ADDENDUM
89
104
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.
UPDATE BY MARKS CABLE VISION ON STATUS OF CABLE T.V. (Oral
Report)
CONSIDERATION OF ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR
ACCEPTANCE OF AN AT GRADE/DEPRESSED PROFILE FOR THE
PROPOSED ROUTE 30 FREEWAY
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE 1996
MOBILE HOME INITIATIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 95-121
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING
THE 1996 MOBILE HOME INITIATIVE
111
113
114
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.
City Council Agenda
August 16, 1995
PAGE
L. ADJOURNMENT
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 10, 1995, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
July 19, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Re.qular Meetin.q
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 19, 1995, 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; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City
Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Bill
Makshanoff, Building Official; Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Jim Frost, City Treasurer;
Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management
Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra
J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. A proclamation was presented to the Rancho Cucamonga Rotary Club for coordinating the D.A.R.E.
Baseball Clinic at the Epicenter, which was accepted by their president, Sal Briguglio.
Sal Bdguglio presented the City with a check in the amount of $3,065.00 for the City's portion of the proceeds
collected from the clinic.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1.
Jeff Peters, 6449 Panorama, brought pictures to the Council to see regarding a code violation of a
motor home on his street. He stated he can't get the City to do anything about this.
Mayor Alexander asked that they leave the pictures with the City and that the City will look into this
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there is someone else that he had talked to about the same situation. He
mentioned that a letter had been sent to the code violator who said he will not comply; therefore, the Code
Enforcement Department will take this matter to court.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 2
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1.
Approval of Minutes:
April 12, 1995
May 30, 1995
June 21, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
June 21,1995
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/28/95 and 7/6/95 (FY 94/95), and 6/28/95 and 7/6/95 (FY 95/96);
and Payroll ending 6/29/95 for the total amount of $1,713,851.83.
D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of June 30, 1995.
D4. Approval of the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II for the proposed Ninth Street Improvements
between Grove Avenue and Edwin Street and issuance of a categorical exemption therefore.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED
STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR NINTH STREET BETWEEN GROVE AVENUE
AND EDWIN STREET
D5. Approval to execute an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for DR 89-09, located on
Pullman Court, south of Arrow Route, east of Utica Avenue, submitted by Allen K. Smith.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DR 89-09 (APN 209-491-52 TO 59)
D6. Approval to appropriate funds from the Fund Balance of the AQMD Grant Fund in the amount of
$32,000.00 to be placed in Account No. 14-4158-9415 and award the contract (CO95-023) for construction of
a bus bey on the north side of Arrow Route west of Haven Avenue to Eastland Construction in the amount of
$29,114.80 (bid amount of $26,468.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from AQMD Grant, Account No.
14-4158-9415.
D7. Approval to execute Drug Abuse Resistance Educatjon (D.A.R.E.) Memorandum of Understanding (CO
95-041) for Fiscal Year 1995/96. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY GUTIERREZ.
D8. Approval to adopt Memoranda of Understanding (CO 95-042, 95-043 and 95-045) and Compensation
Resolution for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA RESCINDING RESOLUTION 94-144 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY
AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
D9. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 14644, located at the east end of
Camellia Court, east of Beryl Street, submitted by Jorge Garcia.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 95-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 14644
D10.
on the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Banyan Street.
Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for CUP 93-17, located
Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street)
RESOLUTION NO. 95-115
$12,933.00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
CUP 93-17 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR
THE WORK
Dll.
on the north side of Arrow Route at Oakwood Place.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $ 20,750.00
RESOLUTION NO. 95-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for CUP 94-11, located
OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
CUP 94-11 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR
THE WORK
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports
contained in the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item D7. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
DISCUSSION OF ITEM D7. Approval to execute Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
Memorandum of Understanding (CO 95-041) for Fiscal Year 1995/96.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked which account does the money come out of for this.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated it is paid out of General Fund money.
Councilmember Gutierrez thanked Jerry Fulwood who has worked with the school districts on this project to
make it possible for it to be in place.
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to approve Item D7. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 4
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
El. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the
land use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City
will also consider "L" (Low Residenljal, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling
units per acre) - APN: 209-062-01.
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-01 - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to change the
land use category from Industrial Park (Subarea 17) to "LM" (Low Medium Residential, 4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 1.38 acres of land at 9775 Main Street (south side of Main Street, east of Archibald Avenue). The City
will also consider "L" (Low Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre) and "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling
units per acre) - APN: 209-062-01.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 541 and 542.
ORDINANCE NO. 541 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT NO. 95-01, CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP
FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 1.38 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288
FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 209-062-01
ORDINANCE NO. 542 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 95-01 REMOVING FROM THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN LAND USE MAP 1.38 ACRES DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL PARK (SUBAREA
17) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 288
FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 209-062-01
MOTION: Moved by Gutjerrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and approve Ordinance Nos. 541 and
542. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items were submitted.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 5
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAXICAB SERVICE AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS
Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager.
Councilmember Williams asked where does it state that the permit shall be easily read and easy to see. She
felt the taxi cab owners need to cooperate with this requirement.
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated it is already in the Ordinance, but agreed with this concern.
Councilmember Williams wanted to know how the City knows if a driver is licensed or not.
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated there is no absolute way of knowing this. He stated Yellow
Cab is willing to provide the City with a list of its cab drivers. He suggested an article go in The Grapevine
informing the residents to look for the pictured license of the cab driver in each taxi cab.
Councilmember Gutierrez felt there must be some random way of checking to see if the drivers are complying
with this.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was:
Brian Hunt, Yellow Cab Co., stated his company will blow up their license and put the driver's picture
on it so it is visible to people who ride their cabs.
Councilmember Williams felt this was good to give a little extra assurance to the people who ride the taxi cabs.
Mr. Hunt stated he is working on any overcharging that might be going on also so that the Council does
not get complaints on his company.
Councilmember Williams asked if he had any kind of safety report that the Council could read.
Mr. Hunt stated he would be happy to provide this.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he would like to see a certificate that shows that the taxi meter is certified.
Mr. Hunt stated he would work on something for this.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 543.
ORDINANCE NO. 543 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAXICAB SERVICE AND
DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance
No. 543 for August 2, 1995. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 6
No items were submitted.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. UPDATE BY MARKS CABLEVISION ON STATUS OF CABLE TV
Report presented by Sean Hogue, Assistant General Manager of Marks Cablevision. He addressed the
concerns that came up at the last meeting stating they have improved their phone service to the public,
improved their contract labor for better service, and stated they have a daily log of complaints, a copy of which
he distributed to the Council. He stated Mr. Tim Kelly is also present to answer any questions.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. Addressing the City Council was:
John Morgan, 9207 Hidden Farm Road, stated he is having a problem with the cable service and also
is having billing problems. He wondered if he was on the log that was distributed by Marks Cable.
Mayor Alexander stated he was not.
Mr. Morgan stated Marks' list is not complete if his name is not on it.
Mayor Alexander assured him the situation would be looked into.
Mr. Morgan stated he just wanted the Council to be aware that Marks does not supply all the
information they should be to the Council.
Councilmember Williams asked if a report would be given monthly.
Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I, stated yes.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
12. UPDATE ON RECENT CRIME ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTHTOWN AREA Staff report presented by
Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Police Department, who provided statistical information to the Council on this item. He
told about the crime prevention programs throughout the City.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked if the population was about the same in all of the different beats that were
talked about.
Capt. Bieberdorf, Police Dept., stated yes. He felt the crime activity is pretty consistent throughout the City.
Councilmember Biane inquired if deployment of officers is about the same throughout the six beats.
Capt. Bieberdorf, Police Dept., stated yes. He added that on the weekends, which includes reserve officers,
there may be approximately 18 - 20 units out in the City.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated the moral to the story is that North Town does not have more crime than other
areas.
City Council Minutes
July 19, 1995
Page 7
Capt. Bieberdorf, Police Dept., stated that was correct.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he is very satisfied with the Police Department.
Councilmember Williams asked Captain Bieberdorf if he feels the City is adequately covered with policemen.
Capt. Bieberdorf, Police Dept., stated he would like to have an officer on every corner, but knew that was not
possible. He continued to tell about some of the innovative things the Police Department is doing to keep
improving sen/ice to the residents.
Councilmember Biane stated the reason he asked for this report was to let the people know what is being done
in the City to fight crime. He stated he appreciated the information.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he is always willing to hear any innovative ideas regarding car thefts and
burglaries.
Councilmember Willlares felt the City should do a citizen education program against car thefts.
Capt. Bieberdorf, Police Dept., stated the City is already doing this.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1. Councilmember Curatalo asked for a report on lighting fees in parks for youth evening activities to
come back at the August 16, 1995 meeting.
J2. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would like to give a report at the August 16, 1995 meeting on
landlord responsibilities for landscaping of property. He added he is reviewing ordinances from other cities on
this matter.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made from the public.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Willlares to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting
adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved:
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
w w w~w~ w~w ~w ~ ~ u~w~mz~wwww www ww ~
w~ ~ ~o d ~ zw zx z. m o~.~
%
Z
~,)Z~J
(,)~'!
I--".,*
C~k4O.
,J
_,
_'*"
t-4 tk
%
I,-
·
Z
Z
0
08/08/1995 CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONC~ 1~ - 1
PO~PgLIOMAS~RS~I~RY CItY
JULY 31, 1995 CX51
AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURI?Y---
PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365
IIVESTNENTS BOOK VALUE ~RTFOLIO TERM !~TURITY E~IVALENT I~UIVALENT
Certificates of Deposit - Bank ............... $
Local Agency Investment Funds ................ $
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ............... $
Treasury Securities - Coupon ................. $
Mortgage Backed Securities ................... $
Small Bus. Adm/Niscellaneous Agency .......... $
TOTAL INVESTNENTS and AVERAGES ............
14,806,789.82 28.39 473 311 6.135 6.220
8,152,955.20 15.63 1 1 5.915 5.997
24,450,915.63 46.89 1,059 881 7.059 7.157
272,845.00 0.52 1,180 761 6.569 6.660
362,010.64 0.69 6,423 3,478 8.930 9.054
4,101,562.50 7.87 2,720 1,778 6.879 6.975
.$ 52,147,078.79 100.00% 896 670 6.614% 6.706%
Passbook/Checking Accounts ................... $ 1,465,892.26 1.973 2.000
(not included in yield calculations)
Accrued Interest at Purchase ................. $ 23,407.80
TOTAL CATCH ~d PURCHASE INTEREST ............. $ 1,489,300.06
TOTAL CASH emd INVESTMENTS ................. $ 53,636,378.85
MONTH ENDING FISCAL
TOTAL EARNINGS JULY 31 YEAR TO DATE
Current Year $ 296,253.56 $ 296,253.56
AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE $ 54,674,157.08 $ 54,674,157.08
EFFECTIVE RATE OF RETURN 6.38% 6.38%
DATE
I certify that this report accurately reflects all agency pooled investments and
is in comformity with investment policy adopted July 20, 1994. A copy of this
investment policy is available in the Finance Division of the Administrative
Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient
cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures.
08/08/1995 CITY OF RAIlClIO ~C,a~K)!~ Ml - 2
INVESTNEFf PORTFOLIO DETAILS- INVES~ CITY
JULY 311 1995 ~H
IIFv'ESTMRNT AVEPAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE ~ VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00937 F(XYlq{ILL INDEP BANK 04/06/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.950 6.950 7.047 04/09/97 617
00898 GREAT WESTERN 05/12/94 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4.600 4.600 4.664 08/14/95 13
00918 GREAT WESTERN 11/15/94 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.0(0 6.000 6.083 11/27/95 118
00927 GREAT WESTERN 01/25/95 500,000.00 54)0,0(0).00 500,000.00 6.900 6.9{)0 6.996 01/25/96 177
00930 GREAT WESTEPJ{ 02/15/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 08/16/96 381
00931 GREAT WESTERN 03/01/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 54)0,000.00 6.250 6.250 6.337 03/04/96 216
00932 GREAT WESTERN 02/23/95 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 6.750 6.750 6.844 08/21/95 20
00936 GREAT WESTERN 03/29/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.800 5.800 5.881 09/25/95 55
00951 GREAT WESTERN 06/07/95 1,791,789.82 1,791,789.82 1,791,789.82 5.500 5.500 5.576 11/30/95 121
00924 S]LNWA 12/28/94 1,000,000.00 1,O(M),00.00 1,00,000.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 514
00933 S~dfWA 02/23/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 573
00945 S~3{WA 05/02/95 2,0(0,0(0.00 2,000,00.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 640
00954 SANWA 07/31/95 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.480 5.480 5.556 07/30/96 364
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 14,806,789.82 14,806,789.82 14,806,789.82
14,806,789.82 6.135 6.220 311
LOCAL AGENCY INVES~ENT FUNDS
00005 ~ AGENCY INVST FUND
00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
S~T(3~ALS and AVEPAGES 9,324,994.96
7,039,955.20 7,039,955.20 7,039,955.20 5.997 5.915 5.997 1
1,113,000.00 1,113,000.00 1,113,000.00 5.997 5.915 5.997 1
8,152,955.20 8,152,955.20
8,152,955.20 5.915 5.997 1
FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON
00895 FEI)EP, AL FAIU~ ~IT BAIUL~ 04/29/94
00897 FEDERAL FARIN CREDIT BANKS 05/05/94
00922 FEDERAL ]{OME LOAN ~d3{K 12/19/94
00925 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/94
00939 FEDERAL H~E LOAN BANK 04/06/95
{)0940 FEDEP, AI~ HOME ~AN BANK 04/06/95
00943 FEI)EP, AL HOME LOAN ~ 04/26/95
(2)0952 FEDERA3~ HOME IX)AN BAN}[ 06/08/95
00938
00949
00921
00926
00935
{)0947
SUBTOTALS
FEDERAI~ H(ME LOAN MORT<]. CO 04/06/95
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CO 05/16/95
FEDERAl, NATL WI'G ASSN 12/21/94
FEI)EP, AL MATL MTG ASS}{ 12/29/94
FEI)ERAL NATL MTG ASSN 03/22/95
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/08/95
and AVEtL},GES 24,450,915.63
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.~ 2,000,000.00 5.850 5.770 5.850 04/29/96 272
1,996,250.00 2,000,000.00 1,996,250.00 5.850 5.869 5.951 04/29/96 272
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 871
1,065,134.38 1,090,000.00 1,065,134.38 6.360 7.789 7.898 09/19/96 415
965,156.25 1,000,000.00 965,156.25 4.570 6.638 6.730 12/30/96 517
942,968.75 1,000,000.00 942,968.75 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 1,217
2,000,000.00 2,000,00{).00 2,0{)0,0(0).00 8.045 8.045 8.157 04/26/00 1,730
5,000,000.00 5,000,0{)0.00 5,000,000.00 6.830 6.830 6.925 06/08/98 1,042
1,{)02,031.25 1,004),000.00 1,002,031.25 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 1,514
2,50<),000.00 2,500,00<).0<) 2,500,0{)0.00 7.050 7.050 7.148 05/15/98 1,018
1,981,250.00 2,000,000.00 1,981,250.00 7.050 7.564 7.669 10/10/96 436
1,998,125.00 2,000,000.00 1,998,125.00 7.700 7.752 7.859 12/10/96 497
54)0,00<).00 500,000.0(3 50<),000.00 7.010 7.010 7.107 03/21/97 598
1,54)0,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,0{)0.00 7.270 7.270 7.371 05/08/0{) 1,742
24,450,915.63 24,450,915.63
24,590,00).00 7.059 7.157 881
08/08/1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIDNGA 1N - 3
INVESTRENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS CITY
JULY 31, 1995 CASH
INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON
00903 TREASURY NOTE
AVERAGES
06/08/94 272,845.(M) 277,000.00 272,845.00 6.141 6.569 6.660 08/31/97 761
272,845.00
BGE BACKEl) SECURITIES
00071 FEDERA. L HOME LOAN BANK 02/23/87 66,798.70 68,578.69 442,907.10 8.000
00203 FEDERAL MATL MTG ASSN 09/21/87 141,327.98 152,993.75 612,753.80 8.500
00002 GOVERNMENT MATIONAL MORTG A 07/01/87 128,106.73 129,892.76 663,389.28 8.500
00069 GOVEPJMENT NATIONAL FBETG A 07/01/87 25,777.23 25,268.89 84,710.58 9.000
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 368,934.33 362,010.64
8.336 8.452 01/01/02 2,345
9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,510
8.631 8.751 05/15/01 2,114
8.515 8.634 03/15/01 2,053
1,803,760.76
376,734.09 8.930 9.054 3,478
SMALL BUS. ADM/MISCELLANEOUS AGENCY
00950 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 05/15/95
00004 SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN 07/25/86
SUBTOTALS and AVEPAGES 4,101,562.50
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 6.400 6.400 6.489 05/15/96 288
1,101,562.50 1,000,0(0).00 1,065,142.39 9.125 8.184 8.298 07/25/11 5,837
4,101,~2.50 4,065,142.39
4,000,000.00 6.879 6.975 1,778
TOTAL INVESTRENTS and AVG.
$ 52,147,078.79 53,552,408.80
53,326,042.24 52,203,479.11 6.614% 6.706% 670
7
08/08/1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA PM - 4
INVESTRENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - CASH CITY
JULY 31, 1995 CASH
INVESTRENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED ---FIN--- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
AVERAGES
1,348,114.84
1,465,892.26 2.000 1.973 2.000
Accrued Interest at Purchase
23,407.80
TOTAL CASH
$ 1,489,300.06
~C)TAL CASH and INVEST){EIF~S $ 54,674,157.08 53,636,378.85
08/08/1995 CITY OF MANGHO CUCANONGA PM - 5
PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BYTYPE CITY
JULY 1, 1995 - JULY 31, 1995 CASH
STATED TRANSACTION PORCMASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT # ISSUER MATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDMAMALS BALANCE
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK BEGINNING BALANCE:
00953 3ANWA 5,700 07/31/1995 1,515,000.00
00954 SANWA 5.480 07/31/1995 1,515,000.00
SUB~DTkLS and ENI)INGBAIANCE 1,515,000.00
14,806,789.82
1,515,000.00 14,806,789.82
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Summary)
(K)O05 LOCAL AGENCY I~ST FUND 5.997
00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.997
S~TOTALS and ENDING BAiJd~CE
1,905,135.96
BEGINNING BAIJ. NCE:
3,000,000.00
9,247,819.24
1,905,135.96 3,000,000.00 8,152,955.20
CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (Monthly Summary)
00180 BANK OF MICA
BEGINNING BALANCE:
4,564,000.00 3,898,100.00
799,992.26
1,465,892.26
FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON
BEGINNING B,~LANCE:
24,450,915.63
24,450,915.63
~BASURY SECURITIES - COUI~ON
BEGINNING BALANCE:
272,845.00
272,845.00
}4OR'IT, AGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BA/U< 8.000
00203 FEDERAL MATL MTG ASSN 8.500
(M]O02 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL ~RTGASSN 8.500
00069 GOV~ NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000
SUB~)TALS and ENDING BALAIN~E
BEGINNING BALANCE:
07/15/95 844.45
07/25/95 7,630.71
07/17/95 1,165.29
07/05/95 257.63
371,908.72
0.00 9,898.08 362,010.64
SMALL BUS. ADM/MISCELLANEOUS AGENCY
TOTALS BEGINNING BALANCE: $
BEGINNING BAIJ/{CE: 4,101,562.50
4,101,562.50
54,051,833.17 7,984,135.96 8,422,998.08 53,612,971.03
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 16, 1995
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
James C. Frost, City Treasurer
BY:
Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL TO ADOPT ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT
POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the annual Statement of Investment Policy for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted a Statement of Investment Policy in July 1987. Assembly Bill 1073,
(1987) set up the requirements for statements, and also mandated that the Statement of Investment
Policy be re-approved on an annual basis. Surprisingly, this law is no longer in effect; however, the
City of Rancho Cucamonga has continued to follow the intent of the law by reviewing and adopting
a Statement of Investment Policy each year.
Several bills are in the legislature mandating various levels of investment review and limitations.
Staff has always maintained an investment policy even more conservative than that allowed under
state law. As a result the City has not experienced investment difficulties such as those in Orange
County. The attached policy removes investment instruments that could be deemed "risky." The
policy has been thoroughly reviewed by the City Treasurer and staff.
Respectfully submitted,
st
JF/RCD/rc
attachment
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PURPOSE
This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporary idle cash,
and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The ultimate
goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash.
OBJECTIVE
The City of Rancho Cucamonga operates its temporary pooled idle cash investment under the Prudent Man
Rule (Civil Code Section 2261, et. seq.).* This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment opportunities
as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the State of
California (Government Code Section 53600, et. seq.) and other legal restrictions as the City may impose
from time to time.
INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS - Security purchases and holdings should be maintained within statutory
limits imposed by the Government Code. City policy has been to limit investments more stringently than
allowed under state law.
Criteria for selecting investments and the order of priority are:
Safety - The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of
principal, interest, or combination thereof. The City only operates in those investments that
are considered very safe.
,
Liquidity - This refers to the ability to "cash in" at any moment in time with minimal chance
of losing some portion of principal or interest. Liquidity is an important investment quality
especially when the need for unexpected funds occasionally occurs.
Yield - Yield is the potential dollar eamings an investment can provide, and is sometimes
described as the rate of retum. Yield should become a consideration only after the basic
requirements of safety and liquidity have been met.
Diversification - The purpose of diversifying is to reduce the overall portfolio risks while attaining an average
market rate of retum; therefore, it needs to be conceptualized in terms of maturity, instrument types and issuer.
The portfolio should consist of a mix of various types of securities, issuers, and maturities.
Safekeeping - Securities purchased from brokers/dealers shall be held in third party custodian/safekeeping
by the trust department of our local bank or other designated third party trust, in the City's control, whenever
possible°
//
Statement of Investment Policy
Page 2
The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as possible, through daily and
projected cash flow determinations. Idle cash management and investment transactions are the responsibility
of the City Treasurer and/or his appointed designee.
PERMITTED INVESTMENTS/DEPOSITS
PERCENTAGES
MAXIMUM
MATURITY
Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies
Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) placed with commercial
banks and/or savings and loan companies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposits 30%
Banker's Acceptances 40%
Commercial Paper 30%
Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits 20 MM* * *
Repurchase Agreements (Repos) -
Passbook Savings Account Demand Deposits -
Unlimited 5 years* *
Unlimited 5 years* *
5 years* *
270 days
180 days
n/a
1 year
n/a
The City Treasurer shall be responsible for reviewing and modifying investment guidelines as conditions
warrant and submit same for re-approval to the City Council on at least an annual basis. However, the City
Treasurer may, at any time, further restrict the items approved for purchase as deemed appropriate.
The basic premise underlying the City's investment philosophy is, and will continue to be, to ensure that
money is always safe and available when needed.
* The Prudent Man Rule states in essence, that "investing...property for the benefit of another, a trustee shall exercise the judgement
and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management
of their own affairs..."
* *Maximum term unless expressly authorized by Governing Body and within the prescribed timeJ?amefor sam approval
***Limit set by L.A.I.F. Governing Board, not Government Code.
j.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Date
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August-16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~eil, City Engineer
Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM VARIOUS FUNDING
SOURCES FOR FY 94/95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHICH ARE
CONTINUING IN FY 95/96
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the continuing appropriations from the various funding
sources attached, for projects, or portions of projects, originally projected to be expended in FY 94/95,
continued into the 95/96 FY.
BACKGROUND/ANAl ~YSIS
Each year, during the course of the design and construction of the City's Capital Improvement Projects,
it becomes necessary to extend that design or construction activity into a subsequent fiscal year. This
extension can be due to a number of reasons, the more common of which are delays due to required
dealings (for example permitting activities, plan review) with other agencies such as Caltrans or the County
Flood Control District. Other delays can be weather related or temperature fluctuations which can affect
paving or other construction activities. In some cases the contractor's work schedule may extend over more
than one fiscal year and thereby making it nearly impossible to determine during the budget process in
January how much of a project will be billed by the contractor in any one fiscal year.
This Council action will reappropfiate' funds in FY 95/96 that were originally projected to be expended in
FY 94/95.
Respectfully submitted,
4~William J. Oq~eil f
City Engineer
WJO:WS:dlw
~Attachment
0 0 0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
W. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer
Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst 1I
APPROVAL TO EXECUTIVE A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (CO95'**) WITH THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTItORITY FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE METROLINK STATION
RECOMMENDATION
City Council approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and authorize
Mayor to sign agreement.
Background
At the July 21, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a Cooperative Agreement
with SANBAG for the design and construction of the City' s Metrolink station. The
Cooperative Agreement provided for payment for the City' s Metrolink station from
SANBAG.
The attached MOU is required by the Southem California Regional Rail Authority
(SCRRA) to make payment in the amount of $1.75 million directly to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga rather than forwarding these monies through SANBAG and then onto the City.
As noted, the Executive Director for SCRRA has signed the MOU in order to expedite
payment.
W. Joe O'Neil
City Engineer
Attachment: MOU with SCRRA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made and entered
into by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority ("SCRRA")
and the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").
RECITALS:
A. Each month SCRRA invoices the State of California
("State") for certain bond and Transit Capital Improvement ("TCI")
funds earmarked for the design, construction management and
construction and property acquisition of commuter rail stations.
These bond funds and TCI funds are referred to collectively as
"Station Funds".
B. City is responsible for the construction of the Rancho
Cucamonga station ("Station"), which construction will be performed
in accordance with the scope of work ("Scope of Work") attached to
that certain Fund Transfer Agreement No. 75T207 (Amendment 2)
between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority ("MTA") and State, as such agreement may be amended from
time to time (the "Fund Transfer Agreement"). The Fund Transfer
Agreement is incorporated herein by reference.
C. City has decided to construct the station itself, e.g.
put the construction out to bid itself.
D. All Station Funds are ultimately transferred to SCRRA.
Since City will construct the Station, SCRRA has agreed to
reimburse City for those station expenditures that are reimbursable
with the Station Funds.
E. SCRRA desires to transfer the Station Funds to City and
City desires to be reimbursed with the Station Funds as provided
herein.
1
/7
NOW, THEREFORE, SCRRA and City agree to the following:
AGREEMENT:
1. Payments.
A. City shall submit a request for reimbursement to the
SCRRA no later than the 10th day of each month.
B. With each request for reimbursement, City will
furnish SCRRAwith proof that City has paid its contractors and the
work was performed in accordance with the Scope of Work and the
provisions of the Fund Transfer Agreement. Proof of payment
includes, without limitation, copies of progress payments,
invoices, and copies of the executed construction contracts.
C. SCRRAwill include the approved City expenditures in
its monthly invoice to the State for Station Funds.
D. SCRRA will forward the State Funds to the City for
its approved expenditures once the State Funds have been received
by the SCRRA.
2. Limitations on SCRRA's responsibilities.
A. SCRRA shall only be responsible for invoicing the
State for an aggregate amount up to the amount provided in the Fund
Transfer Agreement.
B. SCRRA shall examine each request for reimbursement
and the proof of payment to ensure conformance with the Fund
Transfer Agreement. Any costs not covered by the Fund Transfer
Agreement will be a disallowed amount and not included in SCRRA's
monthly invoice to State.
C. In the event City incurs expenses in excess of the
amount provided in the Funds Transfer Agreement, City shall be
solely responsible for such excess amounts. City shall also be
solely responsible for any disallowed costs.
3. Term.
A. The term of this MOU will commence as of the date
hereof and shall terminate upon completion of the work described in
the Scope of Work.
4. Use of Funds.
A. City shall be the responsible "Project Manager". As
the Project Manager, City shall be responsible for delivery of the
project as outlined in the Scope of Work.
B. City understands and agrees that it will use the
Station Funds in accordance with the terms and conditions contained
in the Fund Transfer Agreement, including, without limitation, the
requirements for reporting, notification and reviews. City will
treat all the MTA's obligations thereunder as if they were the
City's obligations.
C. City shall include the requirements of the Fund
.Transfer Agreements, as applicable, in every subcontract entered
into relating to work performed on the Station.
5. Indemnification.
A. In consideration for SCRRA acting as a "pass
through" between State and City for the Station Funds, City shall
fully indemnify, defend and hold SCRRA, its member agencies and
their respective officers, employees and agents harmless for any
damage, claim or liability occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by City under or in connection with the use of
the Station Funds or construction of the Station.
6. Audit.
A. City understands that State has the right to audit
the use of the Station Funds upon completion of construction of the
Station.
7. Miscellaneous.
A. City shall not assign this MOU without written
consent and prior approval of the SCRRA Executive Director or his
designee, and any attempt to do so shall be void and unenforceable.
B. The covenants and agreements of this MOU shall inure
to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each of the parties
and their respective successors and assigns.
C. City shall comply with applicable provisions of
Federal, State and local laws, statutes, ordinance, rules,
regulation and procedural requirements and applicable rules and
regulations of the SCRRA and the MTA.
D. This MOU shall not be amended, nor any provision or
breach hereof waived except in writing signedby the parties. This
3
MOU and the Fund Transfer Agreement constitute the entire
understanding between the parties with respect to the subject
matter herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Memorandum of Understanding to be duly executed as of the dates
indicated below.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Name:
Title:
Date:
Richard Stang~r
Executive Director
Date:
4
c CD
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ....
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., City Manager
Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Managerj~
City Seal Registration and Other Related Issues
STAFF REPORT . '
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of service agreement with LYON & LYON for City Seal registration and other related
issues.
The City is in need of the services of LYON & LYON to register the city seal and to obtain
advice on numerous other related issues. The service will be provided on a time and material
basis.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
RELEASE OF LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND AND MAINTENANCE
GUARANTEE BOND FOR TRACT 13359, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
SAPPHIRE STREET, BETWEEN ORCHARD AND JENNET STREETS.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to release Labor and Materials Bond No.
136938S and Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 977049S.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from
defects in materials and construction, the City has received no claims, therefore it is recommended
that the Labor and Materials Bond and Maintenance Guarantee Bond be released. The project
improvements were accepted by City Council at the regular meeting of August 4, 1993 at which time
substitute Labor and Materials and Maintenance Guarantee Bonds were accepted and the existing
Faithful Performance Bonds were released.
Developer:
SH & CH Development Company
3558 Palomino Drive
Covina, CA 91724
Release:
Labor and Materials Bond No. 1369385
Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 9770495
$83,000.00
$16,620.00
Respectfully submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:Iy
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~/eil, City Engineer
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
RELEASE BONDS FOR TRACT 1356_6-3 RECEIVED FROM CENTURY AMERICAN
CORPORATION, OCTOBER 5, 1989, AND ACCEPT REDUCED BONDS FROM THE
NEW OWNER, GENTRA FINANCIAL.
RECOMMENDATION:
The required improvements for Tract 13566-3, are 90% completed, and Gentra Financial has purchased the
Tract and will complete the development. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk
to release the original bonds and accept the reduced bonds submitted by the new owners, Gentra Financial
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Improvements for Tract 13566-3 are 90% complete and the Tract has been purchased by Genl~'a Capital
Corporation. They want to complete the remaining work and are requesting a reduction in the bonds.
Therefore, it is recommended that City Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bonds as follows.
Developer: Century American
23421 South Pointe Drive, No. 200
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Release: Faithful Performance
Labor and Material Bonds
And Accept the new bonds:
Developer: Gentra Capital Corporation
15111 Whittier Boulevard, Suite 360
Whittier, CA 90603
Accept: Faithful Performance Bonds
Labor and Material Bonds
Respectfully submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:Iy
No. 9852035 $502,000.00
No. 9852035 $251,000.00
$166,146.00
$166,146.00
ORDINANCE NO. _~/"7'//7//
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 95-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. Recitals
1. On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign Ordinance
Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 95-27, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Sign
Ordinance Amendment No. 95-01.
2. On August 2, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this
ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14.20.110, Subsection 1. Business identification (single parcel),
is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
SFCTION :2: The Council finds and determines that the project identified above in this
Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3: The mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of OntariO, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
EXHIBIT "A"
~ 0
0
ORDINANCE NO _ ~ 4--~
AN ORDNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITIY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 19.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE, PROVIDING FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
as follows:
SECTIONS:
19.12.010
19.12.020
19.12.030
19.12.040
19.12.050
19.12.060
Chapter 19.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is to be mended to read
CHAPTER 19.12
FLOODpLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Authorization, Findings, Purpose and Methods
Definitions
General Provisions
Administration
Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction
Variance Procedure
191.12.010 Authorization. Findinfs. Purpose and Methods
19.12.011 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. The Legislature of the State of California has
in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units
authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of
its citizenry. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby adopt the
following floodplain management regulations.
19.12.012 FINDINGS OF FACT.
A. The flood hazard areas of the City are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss
of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and govemmental services,
extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
B. These flood losses are caused by uses that are inadequately elevated, flood roofed, or
protected fi'om flood damage. The cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards
which increase flood heights and velocities also contribute to the flood loss.
19.12.013 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood
conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:
A. protect human life and health;
B. minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
C. minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
D. minimize prolonged business interruptions;
E. minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric,
telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;
F. help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas
of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage;
G. ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard;
and
H. ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for
their actions.
19.12.014 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES. In order to accomplish its purposes,
this ordinance includes methods and provisions to
A. restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water
or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or
velocities;
B. require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
C. control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters;
D. control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood
damage; and
2
E. prevent or regulate the consauction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood
waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
19.12.020 DEFINITIONS
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be
interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance
its most reasonable application.
"Accessory use" means a use which is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the parcel
of land on which it is located.
"Alluvial fan" means a geomorphologic feature characterized by a cone or fan-shaped deposit of
boulders, gravel, and fine sediments that have been eroded from mountain slopes, transported by
flood flows, and then deposited on the valley floors, and which is subject to flash flooding, high
velocity flows, debris flows, erosion, sediment movement and deposition, and channel migration.
"Apex" means the point of highest elevation on an alluvial fan, which on undisturbed fans is
generally the point where the major stream that formed the fan emerges from the mountain front.
"Appeal" means a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of any
provision of this ordinance.
"Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not
exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be evident.
Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
"Area of special flood-related erosion hazard" is the land within a community which is most likely
to be subject to severe flood-related erosion losses. The area may be designated as Zone E on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
"Area of special flood hazard" - See "Special flood hazard area."
"Area of special mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazard" is the area subject to severe mudslides (i.e.,
mud flows). The area is designated as Zone M on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
"Base flood" means a flood which has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any
given year (also called the "100-year flood"). Base flood is the term used throughout this ordinance.
"Basement" means any area of the building having its floor subgrade - i.e., below Found level - on
all sides.
3
"Breakaway walls" are any type of walls, whether solid or lattice, and whether constructed of
concrete, masonry, wood, metal, plastic or any other suitable building material which is not part of
the structural support of the building and which is designed to break away under abnormally high
tides or wave action without causing any damage to the structural integrity of the building on which
they are used or any buildings to which they might be carried by flood waters. A breakaway wall
shall have a safe design loading resistance of not less than ten and no more than twenty pounds per
square foot. Use of breakaway walls must be certified by a registered engineer or architect and shall
meet the following conditions:
1. breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load less than that which would occur
during the base flood, and
2. the elevated portion of the building shall not incur any structural damage due to the
effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously in the event of the base flood.
"Building" - see "Structure".
"Coastal high hazard area" means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the
inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity
wave action from storms or seismic sources. It is an area subject to high velocity waters, including
coastal and tidal inundation or tsunamis. The area is designated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) as Zone V1-V30, VE, or V.
"Development" means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but
not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation
or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.
"Encroachment" means the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation,
buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain which may impede or alter the flow
capacity of a floodplain.
"Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of
streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective
date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.
"Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation of
additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either
final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
"Flood, flooding, or flood water" means:
1. a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or
4
runoff of surface waters from any source; and/or mudslides (i.e., mudflows)--see
"Mudslides"; and
2. the condition resulting from flood-related erosion - see "Flood-related erosion".
"Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM)" means the official map on which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas
of special flood hazards and the floodway.
"Flood Hazard Boundary Map" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated the areas of flood hazards.
"Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special
flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
"Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance
Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood.
"Floodplain or flood-prone area" means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water
from any source - see "Flooding".
"Floodplain Administrator" is the individual appointed to administer and enforce the floodplain
management regulations.
"Floodplain management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive
measures for reducing flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible, natural resources
in the floodplain, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works,
floodplain management regulations, and open space plans.
"Floodplain management regulations" means this ordinance and other zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as
grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which control development in
flood-prone areas. This term describes federal, state or local regulations in any combination thereof
which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage.
"Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents.
"Flood-related erosion" means the collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other
body of water as a result of undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated
cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water,
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as a flash flood or an
abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in
flooding.
5
"Flood-related erosion area" or "Flood-related erosion prone area" means a land area adjoining
the shore of a lake or other body of water, which due to the composition of the shoreline or bank and
high water levels or wind-driven currents, is likely to suffer flood-related erosion damage.
"Flood-related erosion area management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective
and preventive measures for reducing flood-related erosion damage, including but not limited to
emergency preparedness plans, flood-related erosion control works, and floodplain management
regulations.
"Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must
be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory Floodway".
"Floodway encroachment lines" means the lines marking the limits of floodways on Federal, state
and local floodplain maps.
"Floodway fringe" is that area of the floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory Floodway" where
encroachment may be permitted.
"Fraud and victimization" as related to Section 6, Variances, of this ordinance, means that the
variance granted must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining this
requirement, the {community governing body} will consider the fact that every newly constructed
building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the community for fifty to
one-hundred years. Buildings that are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation
are subject during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of
the property and the corninfinity as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience, danger, and
suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the
property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage, and can be insured only at very high
flood insurance rates.
"Functionally dependent use" means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is
located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port
facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building
and ship repair facilities, and does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities.
"Governing body" is the local governing unit, i.e. county or municipality, that is empowered to
adopt and implement regulations to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare of its
citizenry.
"Hardship" as related to Section 6, Variances, of this ordinance means the exceptional hardship that
would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The {governing body} requires that the
variance be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Mere economic or financial
hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps,
personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an
exceptional hardship. All of these problem can be resolved through other means without granting
a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires the property owner to build
elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally intended.
6
"Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to
consreaction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
"Historic structure" means any structure that is
1. listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
2. certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined
by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
3. individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic
preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
4. individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in
states with approved programs.
"Levee" means a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed
in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert the flow of water so as
to provide protection from temporary flooding.
"Levee system" means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated
structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accord with
sound engineering practices.
"Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement. An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or
storage in an area other than a basement area (see "Basement") is not considered a building's lowest
floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. (Note: This definition allows
attached garages to be built at grade. Below grade garages are not allowed as they are considered
to be basements.)
"Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on
a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached
to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does n9~; include a "recreational vehicle".
"Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided
into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
"Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown
on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced.
7
"Mudslide" (i .e., mudflow) describes a condition where there is a river, flow or inundation of liquid
mud down a hillside, usually as a result of a dual condition of loss of brush cover and the subsequent
accumulation of water on the ground, preceded by a period of unusually heavy or sustained rain.
"Mudslide (i.e., mudflow) prone area" means an area with land surfaces and slopes of
unconsolidated material where the history, geology, and climate indicate a potential for mudflow.
"New construction", for floodplain management purposes, means structures for which the "start of
construction" commenced on 'or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations
adopted by this community, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
"New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision
for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are
to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
either final site grading or the pouting of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date
of floodplain management regulations adopted by this commtmity.
"Obstruction" includes, but is not limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile,
abutment, protection, excavation, channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock,
gravel, refuse, fill, structure, vegetation or other material in, along, across or projecting into any
watercourse which may alter, impede, retard or change the direction and/or velocity of the flow of
water, or due to its location, its propensity to snare or collect debris carried by the flow of water, or
its likelihood of being carried downstream.
"One-hundred-year flood" or "100-year flood" - see "Base flood."
"Primary frontal dune" means a continuous or nearly continuous mound or ridge of sand with
relatively steep seaward and landward slopes immediately landward and adjacent to the beach and
subject to erosion and overtopping from high tides and waves during major coastal storms. The
inland limit of the primary frontal dune occurs at the point where there is a distinct change from a
relatively mild slope.
"Principal structure" means a smacture used for the principal use of the property as distinguished
from an accessory use.
"Public safety and nuisance" as related to Section 6, Variances, of this ordinance means that the
granting of a variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety or health of an entire
community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or unlaw~xlly obstructs the free
passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin.
"Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is
1. built on a single chassis;
2. 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
3. designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck; and
8
4. designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters
for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land
areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot.
"Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook,
etc.
"Sand dunes" mean naturally occurring accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds landward of the
beach.
"Sheet flow area" - see "Area of shallow flooding".
"Special flood hazard area (SFHA)" means an area having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow),
or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO, A1-A30, AE,
A99, AH, E,or M.
"Start of construction" includes substantial improvement and other proposed new development and
means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from
the date of the permit. The actual start means either the fast placement of permanent construction
of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the
construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a
manufacture home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such
as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor
does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary
forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or
sheds not occupied as dwelling traits or not pan of the main structure. For a substantial
improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or
other structural pan of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of
the building.
"Structure" means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground; this includes a
gas or liquid storage tank or a manufactured home.
"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
"Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed
new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value
of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures
which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term
does not, however, include either
9
1. any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or state or local
health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code
enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions,
or
2. any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not preclude the
stmcmre's continued designation as a "historic structure".
"V zone" - see "Coastal high hazard area".
"Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this ordinance which permits
construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance.
"Water surface elevation" means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD) of 1929, (or other datum, where specified) of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies
in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.
"Watercourse" means a lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, channel or other topographic
feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically
designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur.
19.12,030 GENERAL PROVISIONS
19.12.031 LANDS TO WHICH THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES. This ordinance shall apply to
all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of
the City.
19.12.032 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD. The
areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) dated March 5, 1984
and accompanying Flood humrace Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps
(FBFMs), dated September 5, 1984, and all subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. This FIS and attendant mapping
is the minimum area of applicability of this ordinance and may be supplemented by studies for other
areas which allow implementation of this ordinance and which are recommended to the City Council
by the Floodplain Administrator. The study, FIRMs and FBFMs are on file in the office of the City
Engineer located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
19.12.033 COMPLIANCE. No sttucture or land shall hereal~er be constructed, located, extended,
converted, or altered without full compliance with the term of this ordinance and other applicable
regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards
established in connection with conditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall
10
prevent the City Council from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any
violation.
19.12.034 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS. This ordinance is not intended
to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However,
where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or
overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
19.12.035 INTERPRETATION. In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all
provisions shall be
A. considered as minimum requirements;
B. liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
C. deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
19.12.036 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. The degree of flood protection
required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific
and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights
may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside
the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or
flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of City Council, any officer or
employee thereof, the State of California, or the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance
or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
19.12.037 SEVERABILITY. This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to
be severable. Should any section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional
or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any portion
thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
19.12.040 ADMINISTRATION
19.12.04i ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. A development permit shall
be obtained before any construction or other development begins within any area of special flood
hazard established in Section 12.19.032. Application for a development permit shall be made on
forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator and may include, but not be limited to: plans in
duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in
11
question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the
location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required.
A. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement)
of all structures - in Zone AO, elevation of highest adjacent grade and proposed elevation of
lowest floor of all structures; or
B. proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure will be
floodproofed, if required in Section 19.12.051 C.3; and
C. all appropriate certifications listed in Section 19.12.043 D of this ordinance; and
D. description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result
of proposed development.
19.12.042 DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. The City Engineer
is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce this ordinance by granting or denying
develo
19.12.043 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN
ADMINISTRATOR. The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall
include, but not be limited to the following.
A. Permit Review. Review all development permits to determine that
1. permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied,
2. all other required state and federal permits have been obtained,
3. the site i.s reasonably safe from flooding, and
4. the proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of
areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not
been designated. For purposes of this ordinance, "adversely affects" means that
the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other
existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of
the base flood more than one foot at any point.
B. Review and Use of Anv Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has
not been provided in accordance with Section 19.12.032, the Floodplain Administrator
shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from a federal or state agency, or other source, in order to administer Section
19.12.050. Any such information shall be submitted to the City Council for adoption.
C. Notification of Other Agencies. In alteration or relocation of a watercourse:
12
1. notify adjacent communities and the Califomia Department of Water
Resources prior to alteration or relocation;
2. submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
3. assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of
said watercourse is maintained.
D. Documentation of Floodplain Development. Obtain and maintain for public
inspection and make available as needed the following:
1. certification required by Section 19.12.051 C. 1 (floor elevations),
2. certification required by Section 19.12.051 C.2 (elevation or floodproofing of
nonresidential structures),
3. certification required by Sections 19.12.051 C.3 (wet flOodproofing standard),
4. certification of elevation required by Section 19.12.053 B (subdivision
standards),
5. certification required by Section 19.12.056 A (floodway encroachments),
6. reports required by Section 19.12.057 D (mudflow standards).
E. Map Determinations. Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of
the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example, where there appears to
be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions. The person
contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable oppommity to appeal
the interpretation as provided in Section 19.12.060.
F. Remedial Action. Take action to remedy violations of this ordinance as specified in
Section 19.12.033.
19.12,044 APPEALS. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall hear and
decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination
made by the Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this ordinance.
19.12.050 PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION
19.12.051 STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION. In all areas of special flood hazards the
following standards are required:
13
A. Anchoring
1. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be adequately anchored
to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.
2. All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of Section 19.12.054.
B. Construction materials and methods. All new construction and substantial improvement
shall be constructed
1. with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
2. using methods and practices that minimize flood damage;
3. with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from
entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and
if
4. within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths arotmd
structures on slopes to guide flood waters arotmd and away from proposed structures.
C. Elevation and floodproofing. (See Section 19.12.020 definitions for "new construction,"
"substantial damage" and "substantial improvement".)
1. Residential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall have the lowest
floor, including basement,
a. in an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height
exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM by at least one
foot, or elevated at least three feet above the highest adjacent grade if no
depth number is specified.
b. in an A zone, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation, as
determined by the community.
c. in all other Zones, elevated at least one foot above the base flood
elevation.)
Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including
basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or
verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such
certification or verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
2. Nonresidential construction shall either be elevated to conform with Section
19.12.051 C. 1 or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities
14
a. be floodproofed below the elevation recommended under Section
19.12.051 C.1 so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water;
b. have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and
c. be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
standards of this section (19.12.051 C.2) are satisfied. Such certification
shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
3. All new construction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas
below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of
vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, shall be
designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by
allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement
must exceed the following minimum criteria:
a. be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect; or
b. be certified to comply with a local floodproofing standard approved by the
Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
or
c. have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding.
The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings
or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of
floodwater.
4. Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in Section 19.12.054.
19.12.052 STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES.
A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate:
1. infiltration of flood waters into the systems, and
2. discharge from the systems into flood waters.
B. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or
contamination from them during flooding.
15
19.12.053 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS.
A. All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and the
elevation of the base flood.
B. All subdivision plans will provide the elevation of proposed structure(s) and pad(s). If
the site is filled above the base flood elevation, the final first floor and pad elevations shall
be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the Floodplain
Administrator.
C. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.
D. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage.
E. All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
19.12.054 STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES.
A. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved, within Zones A1-30,
AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites located
1. outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
2. in a new manufactured home park or subdivision,
3. in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or
4. in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site upon which a
manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood,
shall be elevated on a pennanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured
home is elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored
to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation collapse and lateral
movement.
B. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE. on the
community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph
19.12.054 A will be elevated so that either the
1. lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the base flood
elevation, or
16
2. manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation
elements of at least equivalent slxength that are no less than 36 inches in height above
grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored fotmdation system to resist
flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.
19.12.055 STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
A. All recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the
community's Flood Insurance Rate Map will either:
1. be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days,
2. be fully licensed and ready for highway use -- a recreational vehicle is ready for
highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by
quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached
additions, or
3. meet the permit requirements of Section 19.12.040 of this ordinance and the
elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in Section 19.12.054
A.
19.12.056 FLOODWAYS. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section
19.12.032 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area
due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential,
the following provisions apply.
A. Prohibit encroachment.s, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and
other new development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect
is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in [the base]
flood elevation during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
B. If Section 19.12.056 A is satisfied, all new construction, substantial improvement, and
other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard
reduction provisions of Section 19.12.050.
19.12.057 MUDSLIDE (i.e., MUDFLOW) PRONE AREAS
A. The Floodplain Administrator shall review permits for proposed construction of other
development to determine if it is proposed within a mudslide area.
B. Permits shall be reviewed to determine that the proposed site and improvement will be
reasonably safe from mudslide hazards. Factors to be considered in making this
determination include but are not limited to the
17
1. type and quality of soils,
2. evidence of ground water or surface water problems,
3. depth and quality of any fill,
4. overall slope of the site, and
5. weight that any proposed development will impose on the slope.
C. Within areas which may have mudslide hazards, the Floodplain Administration shall
require that
1. a site investigation and further review be made by persons qualified in geology
and soils engineering;
2. the proposed grading, excavation, new construction, and substantial improvement
be adequately designed and protected against mudslide damages;
3. the proposed grading, excavations, new construction, and substantial
improvement not aggravate the existing hazard by creating either on-site or off-site
disturbances; and
4. drainage, planting, watering, and maintenance not endanger slope stability.
19.12.058 FLOOD-RELATED EROSION-PRONE AREAS.
A. The Floodplain Administrator shall require permits for proposed construction and other
development within all flood-related erosion-prone areas as known to the community.
B. Permit applications shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed site alterations
and improvements will be reasonably safe from flood-related erosion and will not cause
flood-related erosion baTards or otherwise aggravate the existing hazard.
C. If a proposed improvement is found to be in the path of flood-related erosion or would
increase the erosion hazard, such improvement shall be relocated or adequate protective
measures shall be taken to avoid aggravating the existing erosion hazard.
D. Within Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, a setback is required for all new
development from the ocean, lake, bay, riverfront or other body of water to create a safety
buffer consisting of a natural vegetative or contour strip. This buffer shall be designated
according to the flood-related erosion hazard and erosion rate, in relation to the anticipated
"useful life" of structures, and depending upon the geologic, hydrologic, topographic, and
climatic characteristics of the land. The buffer may be used for suitable open space purposes,
such as for agricultural, forestry, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat areas, and for other
activities using temporary and portable structures only.
18
19.12.060 VARIANCE PROCEDURE
19.12.061 NATURE OF VARIANCES. The variance criteria set forth in this section of the
ordinance are based on the general principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of
property and are not personal in nature. A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with
physical characteristics so unusual that complying with the requirements of this ordinance would
create an exceptional hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The
characteristics must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique
characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property
owners.
It is the duty of the City Council to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so
compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below flood level are so
serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood ordinance are
quite rare. The long term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage can only be met
if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this ordinance are
more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly
granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which altematives other than a
variance are more appropriate.
19.12.062 APPEAL BOARD.
A. In passing upon requests for variances, the City Council shall consider all technical
evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and
the
1. danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
2. danger of life and properly due to flooding or erosion damage;
3. susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the
property;
4. importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
5. necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
6. availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to
flooding or erosion damage;
19
7. compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
8. relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
9. safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
10. expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
flood waters expected at the site; and
11. costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water system, and streets and bridges.
B. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the
signature of a community official that
1. the issuance of a variance to conslxuct a structure below the base flood level will
result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25
for $100 of insurance coverage, and
2. such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property.
It is recommended that a copy of the notice shall be recorded by the Floodplain
Administrator in the Office of the County of San Bemardino Recorder and shall be
recorded in a manner so that it appears in the chain of title of the affected parcel of
land.
C. The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including
justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report
submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
19.12.063 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES.
A. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and
other proposed new development to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size
contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base
flood level, providing that the procedures of Sections 19.12.040 and 19.12.050 of this
ordinance have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the
technical justification required for issuing the variance increases.
B. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of "historic structures" (as defined
in Section 19.12.020 of this ordinance) upon a determination that the proposed repair or
rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure
2O
and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of
the structure.
C. Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any increase in
flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
D. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the "minimum
necessary" considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. "Minimum necessary" means to
afford relief with a minimum of deviation from the requirements of this ordinance. For
example, in the case of variances to an elevation requirement, this means the City Council
need not grant permission for the applicant to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation
the applicant proposes, but only to that elevation which the City Council believes will both
provide relief and preserve the integrity of the local ordinance.
E. Variances shall only be issued upon a
1. showing of good and sufficient cause;
2. determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
"hardship" (as defined in Section 19.12.020 of this ordinance) to the applicant; and
3. determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, create a
nuisance (as defined in Section 19.12.020 - see "Public safety or nuisance"), cause
fraud or victimization (as defined in Section 19.12.020 ) of the public, or conflict
with existing local laws or ordinances.
F. Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other
proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use
provided that the provisions of Sections 19.12.063 A through E are satisfied and that the
structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during
the base flood and does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create
a public nuisance.
G. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 19.12.061 C and the purposes of this
ordinance, the City Council may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it
deems necessary to further the purposes of this ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Bulletin, a newspaper
of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia.
21
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCANONGA AMENDING SECTION 15.12.168
OF CHAPTER 15.12 OF TITLE 15 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING GROUP R,
DIVISION 3 RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER
REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING OTHER FIRE SPRINKLER
RELATED MODIFICATIONS THERETO.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
ordains as follows:
Section ~. Section 15.12,168 of Chapter 15.12 of
Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, adding
subsections "i" "j" and "k" to 1991 U B.C. Section 3802, as
! ·
previously adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby is
repealed. A new Section 15.12,168 hereby is added to Chapter
15.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words
and figures, as follows:
"15.12,168 Subsections 3802(k) and ~1) added '-
Group M, Division ! occupancies and reconstructed
buildings. Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code
hereby is amended by adding new subsections (K) and (1)
to read as follows:
'(k) Group M, Division i occupancies. An
automatic fire sprinkling system shall be installed in
all new Group M, Division 1 Occupancies constructed
within 10 feet of a Group R, Division 1 occupancy, on
the same property, for which a fire sprinkling system is
required.
'Exception: Group M, Division i occupancies
exempt from permit requirements by Section 301(b) 1 of
the Uniform Administrative Code, as adopted.
~Such buildings attached to or accessory to
residential buildings may be supplied from the system
serving the primary use, however, piping and
installation within the accessory portions shall be in
accordance with UBC Standard 38-1.
'(1) Reconstructed buildings. Any existing
building of a Group R, Division 1 occupancy, or of an
occupancy requiring a fire sprinkling system pursuant to
subsections (h) or (k), above, that is hereafter damaged
as a result of fire, earthquake or other disaster, and
which requires substantially complete demolition and
reconstruction, shall be provided with an automatic fire
1
sprinkler system as specified in any applicable
subsection of this Chapter 38."'
Section
Penalty for Violation.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership,
or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of this Ordinance. 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 or
by both such fine and imprisonment not exceeding six months, or
by both such fine and imprisonment. Each 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
therefore as provided in this Ordinance.
Section
Civil Remedies Available.
A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance
shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City 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 ~. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision
of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares
that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently
be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section ~. The City Clerk shall certify to the
passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be
published in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED this day of , 1995.
Mayor
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- Consideratio_n of adding Chapter 9.28 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code establishing definitions and regulations pertaining to convenience
stores, and related amendments to the Development Code and the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, establishing a 1-foot candle minimum lighting standard
for commercial/industrial development.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendments through the adoption
of the attached Ordinances.
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1995, the City Council approved the recommendations of their ad hoc
committee and staff to prevent convenience store robberies. The Council directed that the
Planning Commission review the proposed Ordinance. In addition, Council directed staff
to review our current Development Code standards regarding parking lot lighting to see if
they could be adjusted to help enhance public safety. On July 26, 1995, the Planning
Commission voted 3-0-2 to recommend approval of the attached Ordinances. The
Planning Commission did discuss the limitation of the Ordinance to Convenience Stores
and not applying to all night operating commercial uses. However, the City Council has
discussed this issue and staff was directed to make the Security Guidelines for
Convenience Stores available for all interested businesses.
ANALYSIS
The addition of Chapter 9.28 to the City Municipal Code will establish definitions of a
"Convenience Food Store," "Owner," and "Employee." The other provision of the proposed
chapter is the requirement for the installation of a security camera. Other provisions that
,J
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DCA 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 16, 1995
Page 2
were discussed by the City Council will be included in a City published recommended
guidelines book.
The Development Code requires parking lot lighting, but sets no minimum standards for
the lighting level required. Section 17.10.060 states that "enough lighting should be
provided to ensure a safe environment while at the same not cause areas of intense light
or glare." The Police Department and surveyed cities typically recommend a minimum of
1-foot candle lighting for commercial parking lots because of the nighttime use. The
Development Code and Industrial Area Specific Plan have been amended to reflect a
minimum 1-foot candle.
Further details concerning the analysis and facts for finding are contained in the attached
Planning Commission Staff Report (see Exhibit "A").
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed Amendments are categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class I (a) and
(f) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
CORRESPONDENCE
This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper with an 1/8 page ad.
In addition, notification was mailed to convenience store owners, the Chamber of
Commerce, and convenience store industry representatives.
Respectfully submi~ed,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:LH:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report of July 26, .1995
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 1995
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-32
Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 95-01
Ordinance approving Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-03
Ordinance approving the addition of Chapter 9.28 to the Municipal Code
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
Consideration of adding Chapter 9.28 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishing definitions and regulations pertaining to convenience stores; and related
amendments to the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
establishing a 1-foot candle minimum lighting standard for commercial/industrial
development.
BACKGROUND: On May 17, 1995, the City Council approved the recommendations of their ad
hoc committee and staff to prevent convenience store robberies. The Council directed the proposed
ordinance to the Planning Commission for their action (see Exhibit "A"). In addition, Council
directed staff to review our current Development Code standards regarding parking lot lighting to
see if they could be adjusted to help enhance public safety.
ANAI.YSIS: The addition of Chapter 9.28 to the City Municipal Code will establish definitions
of a "Convenience Food Store," "Owner," and "Employee." The other provision of the proposed
chapter is the requirement for the installation of a security camera (see Exhibit "B"). Other
provisions that were discussed by the City Council will be included in a City published
recommended guidelines book (see Exhibit "C").
The Development Code requires parking lot lighting but sets no minimum standards for the lighting
level required. Section 17.10.060 states that "enough lighting should be provided to ensure a safe
environment while at the same not cause areas of intense light or glare." The PoliCe Department
typically recommends a minimum of l-foot candle lighting for commercial parking lots because of
the nighttime use.
k,
EXHI,81T ~f~ "
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 95-01 & IASPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 2
Staff surveyed lighting standards in our neighboring cities and several other communities in the
region (see Table 1 ). Of the eight cities surveyed, four have adopted minimum lighting standards,
including Montclair, Ontario, Upland, and San Bernardino. All four of these cities use a 1-foot
candle minimum for retail parking lots. None of these cities have adopted more intense lighting for
convenience food stores.
TABLE 1
Retail Lighting Survey
CITY FOOT CANDLES
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Irvine
Yorba Linda
La Verne
No minimum
No minimum
No minimum
No minimum
DIFFERENT LIGHTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR
!lIll~t,f~,'ltff~hfri 7'1,:, 3 i'el :I
No
No
No
No
Upland No
From dusk to close of business 1 -foot candle
Montelair minimum; .25-foot candle minimum after close No
of business
Ontario 1-foot candle minimum No
Anaheim No minimum No
Exterior doors shall provide a minimum of
1 -foot candle of light at floor level. Open
parking lots shall provide a minimum of 1-foot
candle on the parking surface from dusk until
termination of business every operating day.
San Bemardino I-foot candle minimum No
Environmental Assessment: The proposed Amendments arc categorically exempt under Section
15301, Class I (a) and (f) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 95-01 & IASPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 3
FACTS FOR FINDING:
These Amendments do not conflict with the Land Use policies of the General Plan and will
provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related uses; and
2. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and
,
The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the
Development Code.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin with an
1/8 page ad. In addition, notification was mailed to convenience store owners, the Chamber of
Commerce, and convenience store industry representatives.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the amendments to the City Council through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:LH:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - City Council Minutes - May 17, 1995
Exhibit "B" - Proposed Ordinance Establishing Chapter 9.28
Exhibit "C" - City Council Staff Report - May 17, 1995
Resolution of Approval
Draft Ordinance - Development Code Amendment 95-01
Draft Ordinance - Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-03
City Council Minutes
May 17, 1995
Page 8
MOTION: Moved by Gulferrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading of'Ordinance No. 540 antf inch~liethe
changes as stated above and set second reading for June 7 I~.^.-. ;.., , ;~,~ u,anlmously, 5-0.
H. CITY ~VlANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
H1. CONSIDERATION OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES TO HELP PREVENT CONVENIENCE
STORE ROBBERIES Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the City Council was:
Gan/Chrislian, Chamber of Commerce, slated he enjoyed participating in this project and commended
the City for the recommendation. He thanked the City for allowing the Chamber to give input on this
project.
Councilmember Biane asked Duaf~e Baker to comment on what he has heard from store owners about this
ordinance.
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated they are concerned about how this will be enforced. He
stated they have been cooperative in helping the City accomplish something.
Councilmember Williams asked what it would cost to retrofit for this.
Duane Baker, Assislam to the City Manager, stated about $500 for the camera, which would go up in cost if they
wanted to enhance the equipment.
Coundlmember Willjams asked if insurance companies will give a cost break if a business does have a
camera.
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated he would follow up and find out about that.
Councilmember Williams stated there are a lot of other types of stores that are open late at night and asked
if the City was going to do the same type of program for them. She felt the Chamber might be able to pass
out information to the small businesses.
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to approve staffs recommendalion. Motion carded
unanimously, 50.
Mayor Alexander asked that Califomia Grocers also be contacted.
I. COUNCIL BUSINE-~fe
I1. UPDATI= FROM ROUTE 30 AO HOC TASK-ePI~E Staff report presented by Joe O'Neii, City
Engineer. '-
Mayor Alexander stated he has beA,',,-,,~tacted by the City of Upland regarding Highland to try to work
cooperaljvely on ~is project. He .', :~,~d'if there was any input from the public. There being no response, public
input was closed. _y~"'
ACTION: Report -,,Ceived and filed.
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
May 17. 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain. AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
PROPOSED GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBE~n:-~
TO PREVENT
The City Council aid hoc committee has met on this subject and considered the
proposed ordinance in_ view of the comments received from the business
community and the goals of enhancing public safety. After discussing this
matter at length, the act hoc committee decided to recommend the attached
ordinance.
The ordinance as presented would require that nil convenience stores have
security cameras. Security carncras would have to meet minimum criteria
established by the police department to insure their effectiveness. All n c w
stores would bc required to have them before they opened and all existing
stores would have one year to install them. Of 26 stores surveyed in the City. I0
did not have security cameras.
In addition to requiring security cameras, the City would establish
recommended guidelines that stores could follow to enhance their safety.
These guidelines include the following:
Locate any signs posted in the windows so as to provide a clear
ancL unobstructed view of the cash register and sales arcs.
Locate the sales area so that the clerk. and customer are fully
visible from the street at the time of the sales tran-~action.
C
Post a conspicuous sign. not exceeding 2 square feet in area, i n
the window which states that the cash register contains $50.00 o r
less and that there is a safe in the store and that it is not
accessible to the. employees.
Have no more than $50.00 ca~ available and readily accessible to
employees.
E.
Maintain a drop-safe or time release safe which is bolted to the
floor or weighs at least 500 pounds.
To help publicize these guidelines and other crime prevention information,
the City will develop a resource book that will be distributed to all convenience
stores.
.J
PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE ORE).
City Council Meeting
May 17, 1995
Page 2
Along with the resource book and the suggested guid~ines, the City would also
use the existing Sign Ordinance as a tool to seek compliance with the visibility
guidelines listed above. The resource book would show stores the right and
wrong use of signs and how they can be in compliance with our sign
ordinance.
Finally, the ad hoc committee felt that the Planning Division should examine
our current Development Code standards regarding parking lot lighting to see
if they could be adjusted to help enhance pub tic safety.
Because this ordinance would place a requirement on new development,
namely convenience stores, the City Attorney's Office has stated that this
ordinance must first bc reviewed and recommended by the P 1 a n n i n g
Commission before it can be adopted by the City Council. With this in mind, it
is recommended that the City Council send this proposed ordinance to the
Planning Commission for their action. It is also recommended that the City
Council direct staff to prepare a robbery prevention resource book and that
the Planning staff be directed to look at possible adjustments to our lighting
standards.
With the above actions, the City Council will be working cooperatively with
the business community to help achieve our common goal of enhancing
public safety.
jctfully Submitted,
Duanc A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
DEV~3.OPM~.NT CODE AMRNDM~NT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAT0 AREA SPECIFIC PT.AN AMRNDMRNT
95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of adding Chapter 9.28 to
the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code establishing definitions and regulations
pertaining to convenience stores, and related amendments to the Development
Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, establishing a 1-foot candle
minimum lighting standard for commercial/industrial development.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, gave the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested clarification of the definition of a Convenience
Food Store.
Mr. Henderson stated that the definition was directly from the Florida Ordinance.
Chairman Barker asked if motor fuels are excluded, what the other 50 percent of
sales would be. -
Mr. Henderson stated' it could be for vehicle repairs.
Mr. Tolstoy asked whether the ordinance would apply to the Chervon station or the
Arco station (on Foothill). He realized there is a difference between the two
in the area of convenience retail sales.
Mr. Henderson stated that most likely the Arco would be included. He said the
ordinance is not intended for the very small convenience where gas is the main
reason for the visit, but small sundry items may be available versus stores where
the main service is goods with occasional sales of gas.
Commissioner Lumpp also raised concern that the definition include Arco and other
similar uses. He noted that the murder at the Arco station refocused the issue.
He thought anytime a facility provides convenience goods, it is susceptible to
potential hazards related to dangerous weapons. He thought those kind of users
should be included.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that the definition came directly from an
ordinance that was presented on behalf of a consultant hired by the City. He
stated those convenience stores that fit this category were evaluated and the
others were not brought into the discussion. He said the percentage of sales
could be changed from 50, but other percentages had not been evaluated. He
thought further evaluation could be done to be sure that the ordinance is
capturing the stores and types of convenience outlets which may be a problem.
Chairman Barker did not want to delay action on the ordinance any more. He felt
the Con~nission could forward its concerns that gas stations and stores which do
not fully meet the definition as presented tonight should also be considered.
He was pleased that the matter is moving forward.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the minimum 1-foot candle lighting requirement will
apply to existing locations or only new businesses.
Planning Commission Minutes
EXHIBIT "B"
-5- July 2'6, 1995
locations be in full compliance with the lighting standards within a certain
number of days.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be unreasonable to entertain such an
action.
Mr. Henderson felt it would be beyond the City's scope in terms of staff, because
it would require measuring night lighting at all commercial and industrial sites
in the City, not just convenience stores. He noted that lighting could be
reviewed at the time any discretionary permit, such as a conditional use permit
or expansion, is requested. He said the City Council had indicated they want to
be sure that all new development is at the minimum.
Commissioner Tolstoy was sorry that existing parking lots will not be addressed.
Commissioner Lumpp noted that the issue was raised because of existing facilities
and the ordinance is locked into dealing with the future and not being able to
police the existing.
Mr. Henderson stated that many of the shopping centers and businesses are adding
additional lighting becadse the Police Department is visiting them and discussing
ways to prevent crime.
Commissioner Lumpp felt businesses are also increasing their lighting for
insurance purposes.
Mr. Henderson thought that patrons are more likely to visita store where they
feel safe.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed
the hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that code Enforcement will enforce the front window
sign situation. He thought that it is very dangerous not to be able to see into
stores because of the proliferation of signs.
Chairman Barker agreed that it looks tacky and is dangerous to have too many
signs.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 95-01 and Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment 95-03. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MCNIEL, MELCHER
BARKER, LUMPP, TOLSTOY
- carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
July 26, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 95,01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-03, ADDING CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE STORES; AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN,
ESTABLISHING A 1-FOOT CANDLE MINIMUM LIGHTING STANDARD FOR
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development
Code Amendment No. 95-01 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-03, and
the adding of Chapter 9.28 to the Municipal Code as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code
Amendment and the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the
application." -
2. On the 26th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
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 public hearing on July 26, 1995, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and'concludes as
follows:
a. That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a
manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
b. That this amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Development Code; and
EXHIBIT "C"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-32
DCA 95-01 & IASPA95-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 2
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, 0r welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity; and
d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the
Development Code; and
Plan.
e. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and
reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically
finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (a) and (f).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development code
Amendment No. 95-01 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-03 and adding
Chapter 9.28 to the Municipal Code by the adoption of the attached City Council
Ordinances.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ~'
E. rker, Chairman
ATTEST: ,~ ~
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER
ORDINANCE NO. ~ ,Z-/(,~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANGHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95-01, AMENDING
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 17.12 PARKING
REGULATIONS
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to increase public safety through adoption
of a minimum lighting standard for parking lots.
2. On the 26th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the above-referenced
Development Code Amendmbnt, and following conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No.
95-32, recommending that the City Council adopt these amendments.
3. On August 16, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and
concluded a duly noticed public headng concerning the subject amendments to the Development
Code.
4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the.adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that this
amendment is established and adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience, and welfare; and more particularly:
1. To implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and
To protect the physical, social, and economic stability of commercial, office, and
other land uses within the City to assure its ordedy and beneficial development;
and
To reduce hazards to the public resulting from the inappropriate location, use,
or design of buildings and other improvements; and
4. To attain the physical, social, and economic advantages resulting from
comprehensive and ordedy land use and resource planning.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the
project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 16, 1995
Page 2
Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically
finds that, based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is not a
possibility that the proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and
therefore, the proposed Ordinance is exempt; pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301,
Class 1 (a) and (f).
SECTION 4: Section 17.12.030A.8 is hereby amended to read as shown in bold text in
Exhibit 1 attached hereto for reference.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would
have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: Publication: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
EXHIBIT 1 Section 17.12.030
Lighting: Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate
illumination for security and safety. The minimum requirement is 1 foot candle,
maintained across the surface of the parking area. Lights provided to illuminate any
parking facility or paved area shall be designed to reflect away from residential use and
motoristS~. It is the intent to maintain light standards in a low profile design and to be
compatible to the architectural design. Light standards shall not exceed 15 feet in overall
height from finished grade of the parking facility. No lighting shall create illumination on
adjacent properties which exceeds five (5) foot candles.
Noise: Areas used for primary circulation for frequent icLling of vehicle
engines, or for loading activities shall be designed and located to minimize
impacts on adjoining properties, including provisions for screening or sound
baffling.
Screening: Unenclosed off-street parking areas shall be screened from view
from public streets and adjacent more restrictive land uses. Screening may
consist of one or any combination of the following methods:
(a)
Walls: -Low profile .wA11.% not exceeding 3 1/2 feet in height, shall
consist of concrete, stone, brick, or similar types of solid masonry
materials.
(b) Fences, solid: A solid fence not to exceed 3 1/2 feet shah be
constructed of wood, or wood and masonry or other materials to form
an opaque screen.
(e) Fences, open: An open weave, mesh-type or wrough{ iron fence not
to exceed 3 1/2 feet shall be combined with plant materials to form
an opaque screen.
(d)
Planting: Plant materials, when used as a screen, shall consist of
compact evergreen plants. They shall be of a kind, or used in such a
manner, so as to provide screening, have a minimum height of two (2)
feet, within eighteen (18) months after initial installation, or
screening as per a, b, or e above shall be installed.
(e) Berms: Berms, including grass or plant materials.
-120-
ORDINANCE NO. -~q 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03, AMENDING
PART III, SUBSECTION IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to increase public safety through adoption of
a minimum lighting standard for parking lots.
2. On the 26th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the above-referenced Industrial Area Specific
Plan Amendment, and following conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 95-32,
recommending that the City Council adopt these amendments.
3. On August 16, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted and
concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendments to the Development
Code.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that this
amendment is established and adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience, and welfare; and more particularly:
1. To implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and
To protect the physical, social, and economic stability of commercial, office, and
other land uses within the City to assure its orderly and beneficial development;
and
3. To reduce hazards to the public resulting from the inappropriate location, use, or
design of buildings and other improvements; and
4. To attain the physical, social, and economic advantages ~'esulting from
comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the project
has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that,
based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is not a possibility that the
proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed
CiTY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 16, 1995
Page 2
Ordinance is exempt; pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (a) and (f).
SECTION 4: Part III, Subsection IV, Development Standards, General Provisions A.4,
shown in bold text in Exhibit 1, and attached hereto for reference.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is ,for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: Publication: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
A. General Provisions
The purpose of standards within General Provisions is to
establish minimum standards regulating specific details
in the development of any project within the Industrial
Area. The standards set forth in this section shall
apply either within the entire Industrial area or where
stated by the Land Use category.
Condi ti on of Uses
A.1.
All business and manufacturing operations shall
be conducted within an enclosed building unless
specifically permitted and adequately screened
from public view pursuant to this Section.
Signs
A.2
Signs shal 1 be used for the purpose of
identification and direction. The design of
permitted signs shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design. Submittal
of preliminary design concepts during the
development review process i s encouraged. The
design of signs including location, materials,
colors, copy, size, and construction details are
all set forth in the City Sign Ordinance (Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code).
A.3.
A coordinated Uniform Sign Program may be
required for any development. including wall and
monument signs, to encourage design
compatibility.
L i g ht i ng
A.4.
Lighting shall be used for the purpose of
providing illumination for the security and
safety of on-site areas such as parking, loading,
shipping and receiving, pathways, and working
areas. The following standards shall apply in
all areas.
The minimum illumination requirement is one
(1) foot candle, maintained across the
entire surface of the parking area.
The design of light fixtures and its
structural support shall be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding buildings.
Free standing light standards shall not
exceed 25' or the height of the shortest
on-site building.
Security 1 i ghti ng fixtures a re not to
project above the fascia or roof line of
the bui 1 dingo
All lighting is to be shielded to confine
light spread within the site boundaries.
Particular concern shall be for lighting
adjacent to residential areas.
Equipment Screening
A.5.
The purpose of Equipment Screening standards
shall be to allow for the use of equipment while
preserving the architectural character and
integrity of the surrounding environment.
Equipment is deemed to include exterior
mechanical or electrical equipment. such as A/C
units, fans, duct work, cyclone blowers, cranes,
storage tanks, and satellite dish antennas. The
following standards shall apply according to Land
Use category:
All roof, wall and ground mounted equipment
shall be screened from all sides within all
land use categories except Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial and Heavy Industrial.
Wherever possible, all roof, wall and
ground mounted equipment shall be screened
on all sides within the Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial and heavy industrial
categories.
All screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and
where possible a roof parapet wall shall be
used to screen roof or wall mounted
equipment. Where roof-mounted mechanical
equipment and/or duct work projects
vertically more than one and one-half (i-
1/2) feet above the roof or roof parapet it
shall be screened by an architecturally
designed enclosure which exhibits a
permanent nature with the building design
and is detailed consistent with building.
Where roof-mounted mechanical equipment
and/or duct work projects one and one-half
(I-i/2) feet or less above the roof or roof
parapet it shall be painted consistent with
the color scheme of the building in all
cases.
ORDINANCE NO. ~ Z../{~'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to reduce the number of homicides and robberies at
Convenience Food Stores. This Council hereby declares its intent:
a. To establish an environment that will minimize or eliminate a significant number
of incidents of homicide and/or robbery; and
b. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the employees and customers
of Convenience Food Stores.
2. On August 23, 1994, a public workshop was conducted to obtain public input.
3. On July 26, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted and concluded a duly noticed
public hearing conceming the subject amendment to the Municipal Code.
4. On August 16, 1995, the City Council conducted and concluded a duly noticed public
headng concerning the subject amendment to the Municipal Code.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION :~: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new
Chapter 9.28, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
Chapter 9.28
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
Sections:
9.28.010 Definitions.
9.28.020 Regulations.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES
August 16, 1995
Page 2
9.28.010 Definitions. The following terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter,
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context cleady
indicates a different meaning:
A. "Convenience Food Store" is a business establishment that:
1. Dedves 50 percent or more of its gross income, excluding motor fuels,
from the sale of goods, merchandise, or other articles of value in their odginal containers;
and
items; and
Offers a limited quantity and variety of food, household, and sundry
Operates at any time between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.; and
Does not sell or have for sale prescription drug items.
B. "Owner' is the person, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or other group
enterprise having lawful possession of the premises upon which the Convenience Food
Store is operated.
C. "Employee" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or group
enterprise legally responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Convenience Store.
9.28.020 Regulations. All Convenience Food Stores shall comply with the following
regulations:
A. Install a secudty camera of a type and number approved by the City Manager
or his designee. Said camera must be capable of producing a retrievable image on film
or tape that can be made a permanent record and that can be enlarged through projection
or other means. Cameras meeting the requirements of this section shall be maintained
in proper working order at all times and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City
Manager or his designee. Convenience Food Stores open and operating, as of the date
of adoption of this Ordinance, have 12 months from the adoption of this Ordinance to
comply with this section.
SECTION 3: If any section. subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Brad Buller, City Planner
Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to
allow signs for service club organizations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed
amendment through adoption of the attached ordinance.
ANALYSIS: The Rotary Club is requesting they be allowed to permanently display the
Rotary sign on the front lawn of the Socorro!s restaurant. Staff, directed by the Planning
Commission, surveyed neighboring cities to find out if they have such regulations. Staff
determined that none of the cities have regulations that allow permanent service club
signs.
This amendment would allow community or service organizations to place their sign on a
wall of a property on a permanent basis. Staff studied a range of options that addressed
the request of the Rotary Club, which were presented to the Planning Commission. The
proposed change to the Sign Ordinance is described in detail in the attached Planning
Commission staff report (see Exhibit "1 ").
Attachments:
Exhibit "1"-July 12, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit "2"- July 12, 1995 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Ordinance
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to
allow signs for service club organizations.
ABSTRACT: The Rotary Club is requesting that they be allowed to permanently display
their Rotary Sign on the front lawn of Socorro's restaurant. In response to their request,
staff pursued direction from the Planning Commission on June 14, 1995. This report
presents an ordinance for your consideration based upon the discussion at that meeting.
ANALYSIS: The Sign Ordinance does not address signs for community or service
organizations, such as Kiwanis International and the Rotary Club. Staff surveyed
neighboring cities to find out if they have such regulations. As shown in Exhibit "E," a
summary of the survey, none of the cities have regulations that allow permanent service
club signs. Some cities, like Rancho Cucamonga, treat them as temporary signs subject
to their temporary sign regulations. For example, Chino considers these signs "banner
signs," allowing them to be displayed for a maximum of 56 days per year. Upland and
Yorba Linda allow them to be placed on the day of the meeting and must be removed
afterward. The cities contacted indicated that they are not presently enforcing their
regulations.
OPTIONS: The following are options which should be considered. If approved, the
ordinance will be sent to the City Council for final adoption.
Ae
Temporary Signs. Their meetings could be considered a temporary special event.
This would be consistent with their request for a sign "establishing our meeting
place and time..." This sign would be permitted for up to 45 days per year and
could be placed on a wall, in a window, or ground mounted. This would also include
banners. The maximum sign area would be 50 square feet. This could result in up
to two temporary signs per site. This could be allowed, without an amendment, if
the Planning Commission so determines by minute action.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SOA 95-02 - CITY OF R.C.
July 12, 1995
Page 2
Exempt Wall Sign. The sign would be placed on a wall on a permanent basis, with
a maximum area of 3 square feet. The service club sign would be exempt from
obtaining a Sign Permit because of its small size. The number of service club signs
will be limited to one sign per property.
Permanent Ground Sign. The sign may be placed in the ground or attached to an
existing monument sign, with a maximum area of 3 square feet. The service club
would require a Sign Permit because of the need to review sight lines and
modifications to existing signs erected under a permit. One service club sign per
property will be allowed for this option also. This option is consistent with the Rotary
Club's request.
Service Club Signs will be allowed for non-profit service clubs and organizations that
provide community service.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of
exempt wall signs and permanent ground signs for the service clubs to the City Council
through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Principal Planner
DC:DF/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Letter from the Rotary Club
Rotary Club of Rancho Cucamonga Sunrize pamphlet
Photo of Proposed Rotary Club Sign Location
Photos of existing Rotary Signs in Other Cities
Table I Service Club Regulation Survey
Resolution Recommending Approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-02
Draft Ordinance
ROTARY CLUB
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUNRIZE
9350 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE A, ALTA LOMA, CALIFORNIA 91701
DON SMITH, PRESIDENT
RECEIVED
A P R 2 7 1995
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
Mr. Brad Buller
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Mr. Buller,
Thank you for the time you have given me to discuss the
matter of the Rotary International sign I have requested be
allowed in front of Socorro's restaurant. The Rancho Cucamonga
Rotary Sunrize Club is strictly a volunteer service club that
has as its function to better the community both locally and
worldwide. It is important to note that the citizens of the
local community have a relatively strong recognition of who
we are, and a sign establishing our meeting place and a time
of that meeting is a sure step towards strengthening that
acknowledgment.
The owners of Socorro's have given their approval to place
the standard 18" metal rotary sign appropriately on their front
lawn. We ask that an amendment to the sign ordinance be made
to allow for this. Most other cities allow this minor sign
to establish "the place" to meet other Rotarians.
I have enclosed pictures of other restaurants in neighboring
cities displaying service club signs. I have also marked a
possible place for the sign to be displayed in front of
Socorro's. The exact placement of the sign is not crucial so
long as it can be easily seen by passing traffic.
Please advise me of your decision at your earliest convenience.
The easiest way I can be contacted is through my voice mail
#(909)-604-1283.
Sincerely,
Don Smith
President, R.C. Sunrize Rotary
eric .
Meedng: Tuesday's, 7:00-8:30 a.m. at Socorro's Restaurant, ] 0276 Foofi]][l Boulevard, Raqd~o Cucamonga
77
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of
an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow signs for service club
organizations.
Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker asked what would happen if different service clubs meet at the
same restaurant.
Ms. Frazier responded that Upland allows more than one sign in front of Stein's
Restaurant. She noted that they are supposed to be temporary signs, but Upland
has indicated they are not enforcing their regulations.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the proposed regulation would allow a
changeable type of sign.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the regulation was written to allow one sign per
organization per location.
Mr. Coleman stated the ordinance was drafted to only permit one service club sign
per property.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would create problems.
Chairman Barker agreed.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt one sign per club should be permitted.
Chairman Barker observed that could result in five to six signs per location.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how it would be decided which one could go up if more
than one service club meets at a location.
Mr. Coleman suggested the ordinance could be modified to allow one sign per
service club per property if the Commission so desired.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the City does not seem to have any control
over banners and window signs. He felt these signs were acceptable. He
supported one sign per club.
Commissioner Lumpp preferred a permanent ground sign with each service club being
permitted to have one per meeting location.
Chairman Barker thought ground signs are tacky.
Commissioner Lumpp felt a wall sign could be just as tacky if not placed
properly.
Commissioner Tolstoy did not want service club signs affixed to a monument sign.
He preferred a wall sign or an individual temporary sign.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed
the hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
July 12, 1995
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Commissioner Melcher and Chairman Barker preferred a wall sign.
Commissioner Lumpp supported wall signs or permanent ground signs.
Commissioner Tolstoy supported limiting it to wall signs.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-02 with modifications to
allow one wall sign per service club per location. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MCNIEL - carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-9-
July 12, 1995
ORDINANCE NO. -~ L_/~5~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANGHO GUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 81GN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF
THE RANGHO GUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. Recitals
1. On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign
Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 95-29, thereby recommending that the City Council
adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 95-02.
2. On August 16, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption
of this Ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. O~inance
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14.08.325 is hereby added to Chapter 14.08 to read as follows:
14.08.325 Service club sign. "Service club sign" means a sign to
identify a non-profit organization that provides community service.
SECTION 2: Section 14.16.010.R. is hereby added to Chapter 14.16 to read as
'follows:
Service club signs, not exceeding three square feet, may be
attached to a building wall: one sign per service club, per site,
identifying the name of the service club or logo, and the day and
time of the meeting. Signs shall be non- illuminated.
SECTION 3: The Council finds and determines that the project identified above in
this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
SOA 95-02
August 16, 1995
Page 2
SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~Neil, City Engineer
Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF TBE NORTHEAST PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN
RECOMMENDATION.
The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the City Council approve the Northeast
Park conceptual plan for 10 to 12 acres. A potential future plan for information purposes is provided
for the remainder of the park site consisting of 26 to 28 acres.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Northeast Park site is located on approximately 38 acres offand on the east side of East Avenue,
north of Summit Avenue. City Council approved the acquisition of the park site in October of 1988.
Per the City's General Plan, this facility will provide amenities similar in nature to those found at
Red Hill and Heritage Community Parks.
The City has received grant money from the State in the amount of $522,250.00 to formulate the
project improvements. The City is obligated to begin spending the grant money prior to the
expiration date of June 30, 1996. In addition, $442,000.00 is available from Landscape Maintenance
District No. 7 Capital Improvement funds and funding for bike and pedestrian trails is available
through the Air Quality Improvement Grant. Due to funding limitations, the construction of the
project area may have to occur in two or more phases. The current funding available which is
approximately $842,000.00 will facilitate the construction of the first phase of the project area.
RJM Design Group, Inc. was awarded the contract to develop construction plans for the project area
from a potential future concept plan. Two public workshops were conducted by the staff and the
design consultant to obtain input from the residents, sports groups, equestrian groups and the
Etiwanda School District. The first group of invites consisted of the property owners within
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7. The second group of invites consisted of all other residents
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Representatives of each of the sports groups, equestrian
groups and the Etiwanda School District were included in both workshops. There were an average
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
NORTHEAST PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN
August 16, 1995
Page 2
of 17 residents at each workshop. The workshop included discussions of the recreational needs of
the area, a walk of the park site, small group discussions, ending with a final consensus of what
amenities should be in the park. Those who attended found the workshop a positive experience.
On May 23, 1995, the Northeast Park Committee met (the committee is made up of the participants
of each workshop) to review and discuss the proposed plan of the park developed from the consensus
of the two Saturday workshops. The comments from the meeting were taken into consideration and
a final plan was developed. This is the plan that was presented to the Park and Recreation
Commission for approval on June 29, 1995 and to the Planning Commission on July 26, 1995.
Project improvements will encompass the westerly 8 to 12 acres of the site (depending on funding).
These improvements will consist of a tot lot, picnic areas, two soccer/football fields without lighting,
and open space passive area, multi-purpose trail and a parking lot.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O?qeil
City Engineer
WJO:CH:dlw
Attachments
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 16, 1995
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 24, 1995, in
San Francisco.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This year's League Annual Meeting is scheduled for October 22 through October 24, 1995. At the
Business Session, which is to take place on Tuesday, October 24, 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 flee to contact me.
Jack' Lam, AICP
City Manager
JL/~a
Attachment
League of California Cities
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
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 return 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 voting card desk in the 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 altemate 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 "Voting
Card" table in the League Registration Area. At the
Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting
Card" table 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 signature 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 :Xpolicy\acres\voteproc.doc
California Cities
Work Together
League of California Cities
1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · (916) 658-8200
RECEIVED
,-, FY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY CLERK
JUL 1 I995
17i~,:,;':il_C,~ ....tiii-:i~.i-~!4jSi6!
June 29, 1995
To:
From:
Re:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mary Andrews, Council Member, Chico and League President
Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference
This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for Sunday, October 22 through Tuesday,
October 24, 1995 in San Francisco. One very important aspect of the Annual Conference is the
General 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 govemment in California. It is important that all cities be
represented at the Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 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 aRemate 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 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 Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials
should be designated the voting delegate or alternate.
Please complete and remm the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of the
League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, September 29, 1995), so that proper
records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting
card at the designated Voting Card Table located in the League Registration Area.
The voting procedures to be followed at this 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.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
BOOKING l~Y SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Settlement Agreement with San
Bernardino County and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
Background:
In 1990 the State Legislature approved SB-2557 which authorized Counties to charge
fees for the booking of prisoners. These Booking Fees, which were nonexistent
before that time have been the source of contention between counties and cities ever
since. San Bernardino County initially established a $122.90 fee per booking. In 1991
the San Bernardino County cities initiated a lawsuit challenging the fee.
Furthermore, those cities which had Sheriff contracts further litigated the issue of
contract language. Lawsuits also arose in other counties, leading to the consolidation
of the lawsuits by the courts.
In 1994 the contract cities and San Bernardino County settled the contract cities'
lawsuit. The settlement resolved that contract cities would pay only one-half of the
initial booking fee up to January 1995. Thereafter, the contract cities would pay the
$122.90 fee. San Bernardino County was one of the last counties to settle. However, in
January of 1995, the Board of Supervisors raised the booking fee to $168.20, thereby
igniting another lawsuit by San Bernardino County cities challenging the manner in
which the new fee was calculated.
Herein is a new agreement which intends to settle this latest issue. The agreement
would be that cities would pay a booking fee of $152.00 and that the fee would be
adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index until the fifth year, at which time the
fee would reflect the "exact cost" of bookings by the County. A committee would be
appointed by the County to review annually the County's costs and that an exact cost
calculation would be made in the fifth year. During the term of this agreement, if
the courts decide the booking fees either to be invalid or less than represented in the
agreement, the fee would be eliminated or reduced accordingly. However, in no
event, shall the fee be adjusted upward beyond the consumer price index until the
year 2001.
The contract cities have met and determined that this agreement is perhaps the 'best
solution under the circumstances to resolve the current booking fee disagreement.
Consequently, this agreement is being recommended for the City Council's approval.
Res ectfully Stbmitted,
Jack Lam, AICP
City Manager
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "the
Agreement") is entered into as of the day of
199_, by and between the CfTY OF ADELANTO, TOWN
OF APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF BARSTOW, CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, CITY OF
CHINO, CITY OF CHINO HILLS, CITY OF COLTON, CITY OF FONTANA, CITY
OF GRAND TERRACE, CITY OF HESPERIA, CITY OF HIGHLAND, CITY OF
LOMA LINDA, CITY OF MONTCLAIR, CITY OF NEEDLES, CITY OF ONTARIO,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CITY OF REDLANDS, CITY OF RIALTO, CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, CITY OF UPLAND, CITY
OF VICTORVILLE, CITY OF YUCAIPA, and TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Cities") and the
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (hereinafter referred to as "the
County").
RECITALS
A. The Cities are cities duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California and are located within the
jurisdictional boundaries of San Bernardino County.
B. The County is a county duly organized and existing as a
political subdivision of the State of California.
C. The TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, CITY
OF CHINO HILLS, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CITY OF HESPERIA, CITY OF
HIGHLAND, CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CITY OF NEEDLES, CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CITY OF
YUCAIPA, and TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY (hereinafter referred to as
"the Contract Cities") and the County have entered into separate
agreements wherein the County provides law enforcement services
to the Contract Cities pursuant to the terms thereof.
D. The CITY OF ADELANTO, CITY OF BARSTOW, CITY OF CHINO,
CITY OF COLTON, CITY OF FONTANA, CITY OF MONTCLAIR, CITY OF
ONTARIO, CITY OF REDLANDS, CITY OF RIALTO, CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, and CITY OF UPLAND (hereinafter referred to as "the
Independent Cities") furnish their own law enforcement services.
E. On or about July 1, 1990, Senate Bill 2557 was signed
by the Governor of the State of California as a non-urgency
measure. Senate Bill 2557 was subsequently codified as
California Government Code Section 29550, and became effective
January 1, 1991. Pursuant to Government Code Section 29550,
counties were authorized to retroactively charge cities and other
entities for expenses incurred after July 1, 1990, in connection
with the booking or other processing of persons arrested by
employees of the cities and other entities. Government Code
Section 29550 requires that the amount of the fee not exceed the
actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
as permitted by federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred in
booking or otherwise processing those arrested persons.
F. Pursuant to Section 29550 of the Government Code, on or
about January 14, 1991, the County adopted Ordinance No. 3428
(San Bernardino County Code Section 16.027A) authorizing the
County to charge each of the Cities a criminal justice
administrative fee, retroactive to July 1, 1990, in the amount of
$122.90 for each designated booking performed by the County in
connection with arrests made within the jurisdictional boundaries
of the respective Cities.
G. On or about February 13, 1991, the County began
charging each of the Cities a criminal justice administrative fee
pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 3428. If said fees
were not paid, the County thereafter began withholding certain
funds from the cities for the payment thereof.
H. On or about March 15, 1991, the Cities filed suit
against the County in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Case Number 262309 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Initial Lawsuit"), challenging the validity of Ordinance
No. 3428.
I. On or about April 26, 1991, the County filed a
Cross-Complaint (hereinafter referred to as "the
Cross-Complaint") against the Cities to collect unpaid criminal
justice administrative fees.
J. On May 14, 1991, the San Bernardino County Superior
Court issued a temporary restraining order, and on May 28, 1991,
issued a preliminary injunction which was signed and filed on
July 5, 1991, prohibiting the County from unilaterally
withholding from that date any criminal justice administrative
fees which had been disputed by the Cities under Government Code
Section 907 from certain funds which were due and owing to the
Cities.
K. On or about October 17, 1991, the Initial Lawsuit was
added on to Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584
(hereinafter referred to as "the Coordinated Proceeding") wherein
several cities within the State of California challenged the
legality of Government Code Section 29550 and actions taken by
their respective counties in connection therewith.
L. On or about April 2, 1992, the court in the Coordinated
Proceeding upheld the validity and constitutionality of criminal
justice administrative fees. But several other matters in the
Coordinated Proceeding remain unadjudicated. As such, the
Coordinated Proceeding is still pending as of the effective date
of this Agreement.
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
2
M. On or about September 1, 1992, the court in the
Coordinated Proceeding entered an order providing that the
Contract Cities were exempt from payment of any criminal justice
administrative fee under the language of their contracts with the
County for law enforcement services.
N. The County thereafter threatened to terminate its law
enforcement contracts with the Contract Cities if the language of
the contracts were not changed to permit the County to collect
both the contract amount and the criminal justice administrative
fee from the Contract Cities.
O. As a result, beginning on or about February of 1994,
the County and the Contract Cities entered into a Settlement
Agreement for the purpose of resolving many of the issues
addressed in the Initial Lawsuit. Several other issues
concerning the proper amount of the criminal justice
administrative fee remained unresolved by the Settlement
Agreement.
P. Pursuant to the terms of said Settlement Agreement, the
Contract Cities executed Amended Law Enforcement Service
Contracts with the County which allow the County to charge the
Contract Cities a criminal justice administrative fee
notwithstanding the court's ruling in the Coordinated Proceeding
to the contrary.
Q. on or about August 18, 1994, the court in the
Coordinated Proceeding entered an Order (hereinafter referred to
as "the Order") setting forth the time frame during which the
booking process takes place, and identifying those activities
occurring within said parameters which may be included as costs
in the calculation of the criminal justice administrative fee,
and those activities which must be excluded as cost items in the
calculation of the amount of the criminal justice administrative
fee.
R. On or about December 15 and 16, 1994, a hearing was
held before the Referee appointed by the court in the Coordinated
Proceeding on issues related to the appropriate methodology for
the calculation of the criminal justice administrative fee. A
ruling from the Referee is still pending as of the date of this
Agreement.
S. On or about January 10, 1995, the County adopted
Ordinance No. 3594, to be effective on or about February 9, 1995.
Among other provisions, Ordinance No. 3594 increases the amount
of the criminal justice administrative fee from $122.90 to
$168.20.
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
T. On February 9, 1995, the Cities filed suit against the
County in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Case
Number SCV 18697 (hereinafter referred to as "the New Lawsuit"),
challenging the validity of Ordinance No. 3594.
U. The Cities and the County desire to enter into this
Agreement for the purpose of resolving many of the issues
addressed in the Initial Lawsuit, the cross-Complaint, and the
New Lawsuit without any further litigation, and are entering into
this Agreement for said purpose. This Agreement shall not be
treated or otherwise construed as an admission of liability by
any party for any purpose. This Agreement is a compromise of
disputed claims, and this Agreement shall not be construed in any
way as an indication of the merits of the Initial Lawsuit, the
Cross-Complaint, the New Lawsuit, or any claims or defenses
raised therein.
COVENANTS
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding Recitals
and the mutual Covenants contained herein, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Settlement of All Actions. This Agreement shall
resolve all issues addressed in the Initial Lawsuit, the
Cross-Complaint, and the New Lawsuit. The parties hereto agree
to seek a stipulated judgment in the Coordinated Proceeding that
is consistent with this Agreement and that will reference and/or
incorporate this Agreement. The Cities executing this Agreement
shall thereafter dismiss the New Lawsuit, with prejudice, as to
them, and the County shall dismiss its Cross-Complaint, with
prejudice, as to the signing Cities.
2. Invalidation or State-Mandated Modification of Criminal
Justice Administrative Fee. Notwithstanding Section 1 of this
Agreement, if a final decision of a California or federal court,
including any applicable appellate court decision, holds that the
underlying California Government Code Section 29550 is invalid,
or otherwise rules that the County may not impose a criminal
justice administrative fee, or if subsequent California or
federal legislation repeals, removes, or limits the authority of
the County to charge a criminal justice administrative fee, the
Cities shall not be obligated to pay any criminal justice
administrative fee, including those fees agreed to in this
Agreement, beyond that which is permitted by law, for any arrests
made after the effective date of said final decision or the
effective date of such legislation. Additionally, any California
or federal legislation or judicial decision which adjusts the
amount and/or scope of the criminal justice administrative fee
shall be utilized in consultation with the Cities for adjusting
the amount of the criminal justice administrative fee as set
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
4
forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, and any adjustment in
amount and/or scope of the criminal justice administrative fee
shall take effect as of the date that such legislation takes
effect or when such judicial decision becomes final. However,
under no circumstances shall there be an increase in the criminal
justice administrative fee beyond those amounts agreed to by the
parties as set forth herein, including actual costs after
February 10, 2001. The amount of the criminal justice
administrative fee imposed after February 10, 2001, for bookings
and other processing, as referred to in California Government
Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order", shall not
include any retroactive charges for costs which were not
recovered by the County for the period beginning July 1, 1990,
and ending February 10, 2001, even though said costs may have
been within the authorized scope of the criminal justice
administrative fee.
3. Payment of Criminal Justice Administrative Fees.
Subject to Section 2 of this Agreement, the Cities shall pay to
the County a criminal justice administrative fee as set forth
below:
9, 1995.
Bookinqs Occurrinq From July 1, 1990 Throuqh February
(1) IndeDendent Cities.
Each Independent City executing this Agreement shall
pay a criminal justice administrative fee in the amount of
$104.90, plus interest thereon calculated at the applicable Local
Agency Investment Fund rate from the date of initial billing for
the arrest to the effective date of this Agreement, for each
booking and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order",
performed by the County in connection with arrests made within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective Independent City
for which such a fee is imposed by the San Bernardino County Code
for the time period between July 1, 1990, through February 9,
1995.
Upon execution of this Agreement, the County shall
calculate the amount owed by each Independent City accordingly
and shall bill each Independent City separately with
documentation supporting the County's principal and interest
calculations. Except for specific challenges contending that a
particular booking or other processing charge is not properly
allocable to the challenging Independent City under the
provisions of the San Bernardino County Code or the County's
substantial non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement, said
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
5
bill shall be payable within sixty (60) days of receipt by the
Independent City. If all uncontested fees and interest are not
paid within sixty (60) days of receipt of the bill, the
Independent City shall pay additional interest to the County on
the delinquent amount due, from the date of receipt of the bill,
calculated at the applicable Local Agency Investment Fund rate
and supported by adequate documentation thereof. Any funds
withheld by the County for payment of the criminal justice
administrative fee prior to the court's issuance of the
restraining order in the Initial Lawsuit shall be credited to the
appropriate Independent City and reflected in the County's
invoice. The appropriate Independent City shall also be credited
for any criminal justice administrative fees which it has
voluntarily paid to the County.
(2) Contract Cities.
For the time period from July 1, 1990, through December
31, 1993, each Contract City executing this Agreement shall pay a
criminal justice administrative fee in the amount of $61.45 for
each booking and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order",
performed by the County in connection with arrests made within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective Contract City for
which such a fee is imposed by the San Bernardino County Code.
For the time period from January 1, 1994, through
February 9, 1995, each Contract City executing this Agreement
shall pay a criminal justice administrative fee in the amount of
$122.90 for each booking and other processing, as referred to in
California Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the
Order", performed by the County in connection with arrests made
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective Contract
City for which such a fee is imposed by the San Bernardino County
Code.
Upon execution of this Agreement, the County shall
calculate the amount owed by each Contract City accordingly and
shall bill each Contract City separately with documentation
supporting the County's principal and interest calculations.
Except for specific challenges contending that a
particular booking or other processing charge is not properly
allocable to the challenging Contract City under the provisions
of the San Bernardino County Code or the County's substantial
non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement, said bill shall
be payable within sixty (60) days of receipt by the Contract
City. If all uncontested fees are not paid within sixty (60)
days of receipt of the bill by a Contract City, the Contract City
shall pay interest to the County on the principal delinquent
amount due, from the date of receipt of the bill, calculated at
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
the applicable Local Agency Investment Fund rate and supported by
adequate documentation thereof. Any funds withheld by the County
for payment of the criminal justice administrative fee prior to
the court's issuance of the restraining order in the Initial
Lawsuit shall be credited to the appropriate Contract City and
reflected in the County's invoice. The appropriate Contract City
shall also be credited for any criminal justice administrative
fees which it has voluntarily paid to the County or which it paid
to the County under the prior Settlement Agreement.
Notwithstanding the above, if, as a result of the final
decision in the Coordinated Proceeding, the amount of the
County's criminal justice administrative fee is reduced, the
application of said reduction shall be retroactive to January 1,
1994, and the Contract Cities executing this Agreement shall be
credited accordingly. If, as a result of the Coordinated
Proceeding, the amount of the County's criminal justice
administrative fee is reduced to an amount below $61.45 per
booking, the application of said reduced fee shall be retroactive
to July 1, 1990, and the Contract Cities executing this Agreement
shall be credited accordingly.
b. Bookin~s Occurrinq From FebruarV 10, 1995, Through
February 10, 1996. Each City executing this Agreement shall pay
a criminal justice administrative fee in the amount of $152.00
for each booking and other processing, as referred to in
California Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the
Order", performed by the County in connection with arrests made
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective City
beginning February 10, 1995, and ending February 10, 1996, for
which such a fee is imposed by the San Bernardino County Code.
Except for specific challenges contending that a particular
booking or other processing charge is not properly allocable to
the challenging City under the provisions of the San Bernardino
County Code or the County's substantial non-compliance with the
terms of this Agreement, all such fees shall be paid to the
County within thirty (30) days of receipt of a bill for criminal
justice administrative fees by the City. If all uncontested fees
are not paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of the bill by ~
City, the City shall pay interest to the County on the principal
delinquent amount due, from the date of receipt of the bill,
calculated at the applicable Local Agency Investment Fund rate
and supported by adequate documentation thereof.
c. Bookinqs Occurrinq From February 11, 1996, Through
February 10, 2001. Each City executing this Agreement shall pay
a criminal justice administrative fee in the amount of $152.00,
plus inflation as calculated in the 1996 edition of the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Los
Angeles/Anaheim/Riverside area, for each booking and other
processing, as referred to in California Government Code section
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14195 7:01pm
29550 and as defined in "the Order", performed by the County in
connection with arrests made within the Jurisdictional boundaries
of the respective City beginning February 10, 1996, and ending
February 10, 1997, for which such a fee is imposed by the San
Bernardino County Code. The County shall provide the Cities with
adequate documentation supporting its calculation of the criminal
justice administrative fee for this period.
For each of the four succeeding 12-month periods
beginning February 11, 1997, each City executing this Agreement
shall pay a criminal justice administrative fee in the same
amount that was charged by the County for the previous 12-month
period, plus inflation as calculated in the current edition of
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Los
Angles/Anaheim/Riverside area, for each booking and other
processing, as referred to in California Government Code section
29550 and as defined in "the Order", performed by the County in
connection with arrests made within the jurisdictional boundaries
of the respective City for which such a fee is imposed by the San
Bernardino County Code. The County shall provide the Cities with
adequate documentation supporting its calculation of the criminal
justice administrative fee for each of these periods.
Except for specific challenges contending that a
particular booking or other processing charge is not properly
allocable to the challenging City under the provisions of the San
Bernardino County Code or the County's substantial non-compliance
with the terms of this Agreement, all such fees shall be paid to
the County within thirty (30) days of receipt of a bill for
criminal justice administrative fees by the City. If all
uncontested fees are not paid within thirty (30) days of receipt
of the bill by a City, the City shall pay interest to the County
on the principal delinquent amount due, from the date of receipt
of the bill, calculated at the applicable Local Agency Investment
Fund rate and supported by adequate documentation thereof.
d. Bookinqs Occurrinq After February, 10, 2001. Each
City executing this Agreement shall pay a criminal justice
administrative fee in the amount of the actual cost incurred by
the County for performing the activities properly includable in
booking and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order", for
each booking and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order",
performed by the County in connection with arrests made within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the respective City occurring
after February 10, 2001, for which such a fee is imposed by the
San Bernardino County Code. The County shall provide the Cities
with adequate documentation supporting its calculation of the
criminal justice administrative fee. Nothing herein shall be
treated as a waiver of the ability of the Cities to contest or
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
q?
challenge any such recalculation of the County's criminal justice
administrative fee as being either computationally in error or
unsupported by law. Unless otherwise challenged, all such fees
shall be paid to the County within thirty (30) days of receipt of
a bill for criminal justice administrative fees by a City. If
all uncontested fees are not paid within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the bill by a City, the City shall pay interest to the
County on the principal delinquent amount due, from the date of
receipt of the bill, calculated at the applicable Local Agency
Investment Fund rate and supported by adequate documentation
thereof.
4. Procedure For and Effect of Contesting the Proper
Allocation or Computation of Billed Criminal Justice
Administrative Fees and/or Interest for Bookings and Other
Processinq, as Referred to in California Government Code Section
29550 and as Defined in "the Order", Occurrinq Prior to February
11, 2001. Any challenge by a City executing this Agreement to
the proper allocation or computation of billed criminal justice
administrative fees and/or interest under Section 3 of this
Agreement concerning bookings and other processing, as referred
to in California Government Code section 29550 and as defined in
"the Order", occurring prior to February 11, 2001, shall be made
in writing and delivered to the County's Administrative Office
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the challenged bill by the
City. All reasons for challenging the billed fees and/or
interest must be stated in the written challenge.
After receipt of such a written challenge, the County shall have
thirty (30) days in which to decide that the challenge is well
founded or unfounded. If the County determines that any part of
the challenge is well founded, the fees and/or interest will be
adjusted accordingly and a new bill sent to the challenging City,
without penalty or additional interest for the delay in reviewing
and considering the written challenge.
If the County determines that the challenge is unfounded, the
parties executing this Agreement agree that in such an event the
written challenge shall be forwarded to binding arbitration,
where the sufficiency of the challenge will be administered and
decided by a J.A.M.S. arbitrator or another alternative dispute
resolution facilitator agreed to by the parties to the billing
dispute. The County and the City contesting the billed fees
and/or interest shall pay in equal shares any advanced costs
required by the assigned arbitrator, and if the arbitrator finds
that the challenge is entirely well founded or wholly unfounded,
the party whose position was not upheld shall reimburse the
prevailing party its share of costs following the arbitrator's
decision. The parties agree that the arbitrator's decision shall
be final and binding on the parties, without any recourse for
them to seek appellate or equitable review in a court of law.
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
If the City's written challenge is wholly rejected by the
arbitrator as unfounded, the challenging City shall owe
additional interest to the County for the delay in paying the
challenged fees and/or interest, calculated at the applicable
Local Agency Investment Fund rate and supported by adequate
documentation thereof, and all such fees and interest shall be
paid to the County by the challenging City within thirty (30)
days of the arbitrator's announced decision.
If the arbitrator upholds a portion but not all of the challenged
fees and/or interest, that portion of billed fees and/or interest
that is upheld by the arbitrator shall be paid to the County by
the challenging City within thirty (30) days of the arbitrator's
announced decision, but no additional interest will be due for
the delay in paying the challenged fees and/or interest.
That portion of challenged billed fees and/or interest determined
by the arbitrator to be improperly charged will not be owed to
the County by the challenging City.
The parties shall consider the recommendations of the joint
committee established in Section 6 herein, and prior to February
11, 2001, shall agree on a procedure to be instituted for a City
executing this Agreement to contest the proper allocation of
billed criminal justice administrative fees and/or interest for
bookings and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order,"
occurring after February 10, 2001.
After February 10, 2001, in the absence of a procedure that has
been agreed upon by the parties for a City executing this
Agreement to contest the proper allocation of billed criminal
justice administrative fees and/or interest for bookings and
other processing, as referred to in California Government Code
section 29550 and as defined in "the Order," occurring after
February 10, 2001, representatives of the challenging City and
the County shall meet within thirty (30) days of the submission
of a written challenge to the County, and employ their best
efforts to resolve the dispute. After February 10, 2001, if no
procedure has been agreed upon and the dispute is not resolved
after a meeting of representatives of the challenging City and
the County, the parties to the dispute may agree to submit the
matter to binding or non-binding arbitration, or either party may
initiate a court action to resolve the dispute.
In any event, after February 10, 2001, that portion of challenged
billed fees and/or interest that is upheld after the final step
of the procedure instituted for a City executing this Agreement
to contest the proper allocation of billed criminal justice
administrative fees and/or interest for bookings and other
processing, as referred to in California Government Code section
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
10
29550 and as defined in "the Order", occurring after February 10,
2001, shall be paid to the County by the challenging City within
thirty (30) days of the announced decision on the challenge, and
if the City's challenge is wholly rejected as unfounded, the
challenging City shall owe additional interest to the County for
the delay in paying the challenged fees and/or interest,
calculated at the applicable Local Agency Investment Fund rate
and supported by adequate documentation thereof, and all such
fees and interest shall be paid to the County by the challenging
City within thirty (30) days of the announced decision on the
challenge.
After February 10, 2001, that portion of challenged billed fees
and/or interest that is determined to be improperly charged after
the final step of the procedure instituted for a City executing
this Agreement to contest the proper allocation of billed
criminal justice administrative fees and/or interest for bookings
and other processing, as referred to in California Government
Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order", occurring after
February 10, 2001, will not be owed to the County by the
challenging City.
5. Effect of Closure of Central Detention Center. In the
event the County's Central Detention Center is closed and/or no
longer used by the County for booking and other processing, as
referred to in California Government Code section 29550 and as
defined in "the Order", in connection with arrests made within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the Cities, the amount of the
criminal justice administrative fee imposed upon the Cities
pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement shall be reduced by 10.7
percent, from the date of the closure.
6. Creation of Joint Committee. The parties hereto agree
to form a joint committee composed of one city manager from a
Contract City, one city manager from an Independent City, one
representative from the Sheriff's Department, and one
representative of the County's Administrative office (hereinafter
referred to as "the Committee"). The Committee shall, on at
least an annual basis, review the cost of booking and other
processing, as referred to in California Government Code section
29550 and as defined in "the Order", in connection with arrests
made within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Cities, and
explore and seek methods for reducing the cost thereof.
Prior to January 1, 2001, the Committee shall evaluate the
procedure established in Section 4 herein for a City executing
this Agreement to contest the proper allocation or computation of
billed criminal justice administrative fees and/or interest for
bookings and other processing, as referred to in California
Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the Order",
occurring prior to February 11, 2001, and shall make
46154.1DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pm
11
recommendations to the Cities executing this Agreement and the
County concerning the procedure to be employed for a City
executing this Agreement to contest the proper allocation or
computation of billed criminal justice administrative fees and/or
interest for bookings and other processing, as referred to in
California Government Code section 29550 and as defined in "the
Order", occurring after February 10, 2001.
7. Effect on Law Enforcement Service Contracts. The
Contract Cities shall comply with all terms of this Agreement
notwithstanding any inconsistent provision or provisions of the
law enforcement service contracts executed by the Contract Cities
with the County. This Agreement shall not affect the continued
validity of such law enforcement service contracts currently in
effect.
8. SuDersession. This Agreement shall supersede all prior
agreements oral and written between the parties concerning the
matters which are mutually resolved herein.
9. Amendments. This is an entire agreement and cannot be
amended unless in writing, with specific reference hereto by the
parties authorized to be charged. Failure by any party to
enforce any provisions shall not constitute a waiver of said
party's rights to enforce subsequent violation of the same or any
other provisions.
10. Inurement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the
parties.
11. CaDtions. The captions of Sections and Subsections of
this Agreement are for reference only and are not to be construed
in any way as part of this Agreement.
12. Validity. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13. Severability. If any section, clause, or phrase of
this Agreement is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or
unlawful, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Agreement.
14. Execution in CounterDarts. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be a
part of the original.
15. Fees and ExDenses. Unless otherwise provided herein,
each party to this Agreement shall bear their own attorneys' fees
and expenses with respect to the subject matter of this
Agreement.
46154.1 DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:01pro
12
/O/
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement
to be executed by their respective officers as of the date first
above written.
46154.1 DST:bbb
7/14/95 7:0lpm
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to
be executed by their respective officers as of this date first
above written.
Dated: , 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By:
Title:
Dated: , 1995
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
Chairman, Board ofSupervisors
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
SCHEDULE A AND ADDENDUM TO SHERIFF' S CONTRACT
Recommendation:
City Council approve the F.Y. 1995-96 Schedule A and attached contract addendum and
authorize the Mayor to execute contract addendum.
Background:
In late May, the County informed those cities with a Sheriff contract that it intended
to charge a 6% additional overhead charge on the law enforcement contracts. Upon
protesting both the ill timing (after Cities had prepared their budgets), and the
surcharge itself, the County has agreed not to institute this charge during fiscal year
1995-96. However, the County would appoint a committee to discuss this issue prior to
any action by the County. Should the County decide upon some additional overhead
charge, it would apply beginning in fiscal year 1996-97. In the meantime, the
Contract Cities have asked for an addendum to the annual law enforcement contract
Schedule A's to memorialize this agreement.
Attached is the F.Y. 1995-96 Schedule A, which is consistent with the City's law
enforcement budget and the addendum with memorializes the current agreement
regarding additional overhead charges. It is recommended that both the Schedule A
and the addendum be approved.
jackR~~f~S.~u;i~ed'
City Manager
attachments
JAMES J. HLAWEK
County Administrative Officer
COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
County Administrative Office
385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 5th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0120
(909) 387-5418
Fax (909) 387-5430
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Marsha Turoci, Chairman .......... First District
Jon D. MikeIs .................. Second District
Barbara Cram Riordan ............ Third District
Larry Walker ................... Fourth District
Jerry Eavcs ....................... Fifth District
RECEIVE[
ClT'/OF ~ANCHO CUCAMON[~'
:,B~,~ff',: c-~.n,~'r
JUL ': :i ;995
July 27, 1995
Mr. Jack Lam
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Mr. Lain:
Attached is the document we had discussed last week regarding booking fees and
overhead charges. Please attach to 'Schedule A' of your law enforcement contract with
the Sheriff before executing.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 387-5425.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Welsh
MSW:va
Attachment
/0,5
Juno 25, 1995
~6985 8.,~se Line
CIty Ce~unell
John Timroof
~yor
Jody 6~
~yOr Pm,Tm
Ray Rucker
Oennis ~nson
John R, St~rbu~
CIty Mm~Iger
Sam J, Racad~
Jim Hlawck
Coun,ty Administrntivo Officcr
385 North Arrowbend
San Bemardino C,&, 92415-0110
l~ar Jim:
follow up to our meeting on June ! 4, 1995, the tmd~rsigncd city managers ~11 sup~n ~c
$culemm~ A~ment for ~ ~g f~ lidget;on. O~ sup~ is pmdi~ on the
~]~g rendition:
The County of San Bernardino shall not impose m~y increased costs other dxmt the
incremental salary incrcase for the Fiscal Year 1995196.
The Co~ty rcprcsenlativos shall meet wi~ thc Contract City rcprcscntativcs to fully
discuss ~ojustifiosdon for and die County's proposed amount of m~, overhead fccs.
This agrccmcnt shall bocomo pan ofzhs "Sch~ule A" for dg Fiscal'Year 1995196 Shcriff
conLmcts. The Lmd~rsiSncd city managen 'Mll take the "Schedulo A" on tho sam~ agendn as tho
Scttlcmcnt Agreement for d~¢ booking foo litigation.
APPLE VALLEY
BIG BEAR LAKE
}-Lr O
GRAND TERRACE
HESPERIA '" HIO~ILAND
LOMA L~ND~, NEEDLES
R~NCHO CUCAMONGA ' '
TWEN'i:YNINE PALMS
V. ICTORVILLE " :YUCAIPA
YUCCA VALLEY
COUNTY ADMINISTRA~'IVE OFFICER
County of San Bernardino
FAS
STANDARD CONTRACT
E New Vendor Code
M X Change
X Cancel
County Department
SBERIFF
County Department Contract Representative
ROBERT W. TRENAINE (909)
FOR COUNTY USE ONLY
Dept.
SC A
Dept. Orgn.
SBR SEE
Ph. Ext.
387-3746
Fund
Dept. Organization
Commodity Code I
Project Name
CONlibekCT LA_W
ENFORC~
Contract Number
94-524 A3
Contractor's License No.
Amount of Contract
$16,566,145, O0
Appr. { Obj/Rev Source Activity GRC/PROJ/JOB Number
Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year
FY Amount I/D FY Amount I/D
95/96 $8,547,006
THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereinafter called
the County, and
Name
CIT~' OF RANCHO CUCANONCA hereinafter called CIT'X
Address
10510 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Phone Birth Date
(909) 989-1851
Federal ID No. or Social Security No.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(Use space below and reverse side of form if needed. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, time for performance or completion,
determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and attach plans, specifications, and addenda, if any.)
fHIRD jM~]lI)e6~fOCOlfrl~C~ 94-524
Contract number 94-524 providing law enforcement service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
is hereby amended effective July 1, 1995, by replacing Schedule "A," referred to in Paragraph
IV with a new Schedule "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Except for this amendment, all other provisions of said contract remain as stated therein.
Any provisions on the reverse side and referenced attachments hereof constitute a part of this contract and are incorporated
herein in full.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(State if corporation, company, etc.)
Dated By m~
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS Dated
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD. Title
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
BernardinD. Address
(Authorized Signature)
10510 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCBO CUCAMONGA, CA
91730
By
Deputy
Approved as to L al Fom Reviewed as to Affirmative Action ~ Reviewed for Processing
Agency Administrator/CAD
02-12295-000 Rev. 11/90 (short forml
Page 1 of I
SC}n~3ULE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT
CITY OF RANC~O CUCAMONGA
FY 95/96
SERVICE
6 - 168 Hour General Law Patrol Unit
4 - 80 Hour General Law Patrol Unit (2 unit w/radar)
5 - 56 Hour General Law Patrol Unit
5 - 40 Hour General Law Patrol Unit (2 unit w/radar)
5 - 40 Hour Traffic Patrol Motorcycle With Radar
1 - 40 Hour K-9 Unit
8 - 40 Hour Detective Unit
1 - Captain with unit
3 - Community Services Officer
2 - Forensic Specialist II
3 - Sheriff's Service Specialist
1 - Public Information Clerk
3 - Deputy III Differential
2 - Deputy II DARE Officer
1 - Research Analyst
1 - Secretary II Differential
1 - Secretary I Differential
1 - Supervising Station Clerk Differential
1 - Station Clerk
6 - Marked Unit
5 - Unmarked Unit
1 - Mid-Size Pickup Truck
2 - Marked Mini-Vans D.A.R.E. (Equipment & Insurance Only)
1 - Marked Mini-Van Bicycle Team (Radios & Insurance)
1 - Marked Mini-Van
1 - Marked 4X4
Services and Supplies Credit
CAD/CLETS/RMS
County Direct Cost
Telephone Reporting/Digital Dictation
POSITION C~RDITS
Lieutenant - .35 Credit
Sergeant - .07 Credit
Station Clerk - .10 Credit
Motor Pool Services Assistant - .60 Credit
FY 95/96
COST*
$3,058,273**
987,880**
860,625**
626,350**
604,270**
115,148'*
1,052,579'*
120,553'*
131,379
158 534
214 659
29 798
20 034
148 884
56 648
4 152
1 606
3 574
35 359
53 160'*
34,225**
7 993**
2 892**
1 446**
8 197'*
13 110'*
(67 446)
10 269
233 345
88 879
(36,433)
(6,392)
(3,536)
(23,008)
$8,547,006*
DIRECT COSTS ARE THOSE COSTS ASSESSED TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BY THE
COUNTY FOR:
Vehicle Insurance Fee - $122,813
Personnel Liability Insurance - $109,710
Personnel Bonding Fee - $ 822
MONTHLY PAYMENT SCHEDULE:
1st payment due the 15th of July - $712,256
2nd through 12th payments due the 5th of each month - $712,250
(07/01/95)
PAGE 1 of 3
SCHEDULE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT
CITY OF RANCEO CUCAMONGA
FY 95/96
City will be billed on a quarterly basis for:
Actual Overtime Cost: Overtime and court appearances estimated for
FY 95/96 is $329,740.
Professional Services From Private Vendors (i.e., towing, etc.)
Services and Supplies.
Fuel and Maintenance (if applicable).
K-9 Charges: Cost for food, medical expenses, etc.
Subject to change due to salary and benefit changes or Board of
Supervisors action.
**
Less Fuel and Maintenance. City is responsible for fuel and
maintenance of all contract vehicles. Maintenance is defined as
all routine maintenance, all necessary repairs (mechanical or body
repair), and replacement of any destroyed vehicle. If vehicle
damage is eligible for coverage under County insurance policies, a
claim will be filed with County Risk Management. Any money
reimbursed by Risk Management will be credited to the City's
account to offset City costs.
(07/01/95)
PAGE 2 of 3
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
FY 95/96
SAFETY
1 - Captain
2 - Lieutenant
10 - Sergeant
12 - Deputy III
5~ - Deputy II
81
GENERAL
1 - Sheriff's Research Analyst
2 - Forensic Specialist II
10.45 - Dispatcher II 1 - Secretary II
1 - Supervising Station Clerk
3 - Sheriff's Service Specialist
1 - Secretary I
1 - Motor Pool Services Assistant
3 - Community Services Officer
1 - Public Information Clerk
12 - Station Clerk
36.45
VEHICLES
27 - Marked Patrol Unit
(includes K-9)
14 - Unmarked Unit
2 - DARE Van
1 - 4X4
1 - Mid-Size Pickup Truck
5 - Motorcycle
1 - Mini Van
1 - Bicycle Van
52
EOUIPMENT
4 - Radar Gun
(07/01/95)
PAGE 3 of 3
IIo
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. Alexander, Chairman
Ad Hoc Route 30 Task Force
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
CONSIDERATION OF ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR
ACCEPTANCE OF AN AT GRADE/DEPRESSED PROFILE FOR THE
PROPOSED ROUTE 30 FREEWAY.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Ad Hoc Route 30 Task Force recommendation for an at grade/depressed
Profile for the Route 30 Freeway be approved and direct City staff to work with SANBAG on the
details of design based on that Profile.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Ad Hoc Route 30 Task Force was appointed by the City Council in 1994 in response to concerns
in the community about the design of the proposed Route 30 Freeway. The sixteen member
committee met monthly from November 1994 to June 1995 reviewing various design features of the
freeway, including the Profile, the interchange locations and coustmction phasing.
The original freeway design called for the freeway profile to be above grade at Sapphire Street and
between Hermosa Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The Task Force discussions with Caltrans and
SANBAG resulted in a recommended Profile entirely below grade or at grade except for a short
length between Rochester Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard.
At the June meeting, the Task Force finished its detailed and exhaustive review of the Profile.
Particular attention was given to the elevated portion in the Sapphire Street area which at first
appeared impossible to lower. Several alternatives were considered to achieve an at grade at this
location with the choice finally being made to carry Sapphire Street over the freeway on an elevated
bridge. The committee voted 11 to 3 to recommend this alternative to the City Council. The
committee felt this was the best alternative because it provided for a continuous Sapphire Street and
would provide a more esthetically pleasing scenario in spite of its additional $15 dollar cost. The
committee noted the freeway is a long term project and esthetics and quality of construction are
///
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ROUTE 30 PROFILE
August 16, 1995
Page 2
extremely important with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The committee's feeling was that the
residents in the area may be best served by this alternative.
The originally proposed elevated freeway would have been about 35 feet high from ground level to
top of sound wall. This would have presented a visual barrier from west of Sapphire Street to a
considerable distance east before the freeway dipped below Carnelian Street. An alternative to lower
the freeway and not require removal of homes would have required closing Sapphire Street either
side of the freeway. This would impose a greater length of daily travel on residents west of
Carnelian Street and greater traffic on many of the east-west streets in the area. Emergency response
times would also have been lengthened.
Two Task Force members felt that the original design was equally esthetically pleasing as the
majority choice and the most economical. One committee member felt Sapphire Street should be
severed with the freeway placed at grade across it..
At the end of the meeting, comments from the public were received. Several residents expressed
their feeling regarding the Sapphire alternatives. The consensus of the speakers was the
recommended alternative as approved by the committee seemed to be the best proposal under the
circumstances. This alternative will require the removal of approximately 16 houses and loss of
Sapphire Street access for the nearby church. The number of houses affected will depend on whether
a new access street to an isolated area will be provided and some houses there re-sold rather than be
removed. Retaining walls along Sapphire Street can also be used to minimize affects on houses.
The recommended Profile will result in a minimum of visible freeway. There will be sound walls
of about 12 foot height along the entire route where residential development exists. Street crossings
at Sapphire Street and East Avenue will rise above the freeway somewhat: From Carnelian Street
to Milliken Avenue cross streets over the freeway will be flat except at Hermosa Avenue, which will
rise slightly as it crosses. Rochester Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard will still go under an
elevated freeway in the area where no development now exists.
Further information on the proposed design will be presented at the City Council meeting by
Caltrans and SANBAG. The approval being recommended here is with regard to the Profile only.
The Task Force will review proposed interchange locations, phasing and other major issues at future
meeting beginning in September. Resolution of all issues is expected by January.
Resec sum' e ,
William J. Alexander
Mayor
WJA:WJO:dlw
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 16, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst 1I
CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
OPPOSING THE 1996 MOBILEHOME INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
City Council adopt the attached Resolution.
Background
The City Council passed Resolution No. 94-080 opposing the 1994 Mobilehome Initiative
at its April 21, 1994 meeting. At the time the Council passed this Resolution, the
proponents were attempting to qualify this Initiative for the March 26, 1996 ballot. The
Initiative, if passed by the voters, may nullify the City' s current Accord and prohibit local
municipalities from executing future Accord agreements.
The Initiative has qualified for the March 26, 1996 ballot and the attached Resolution has
again been prepared to oppose this same Initiative. If approved by the City Council, staff
will forward copies of this Resolution to appropriate legislators and the respective
Residents' Committees.
Management Analyst II
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 95-'*"~*
a RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA OPPOSING THE 1996
MOBILE HOME INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, it is commonly known that, after initial installation, virtually all mobile
homes are never thereafter moved and when a resident decides to move, the mobile home is
commonly sold in place and if rents are below free-market levels, the possibility exists that a portion
of the mobile home space value might be transferred upon such sale unless rents are allowed to
rise upon such sale to levels which are closer to or at free-market levels; and
WHEREAS, concerns among residents and owners of mobile home parks over rent
increases and other park-related situations can often best be resolved between the two parties,
provided there exists the incentive for both parties to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement;
and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Accord to protect
mobile home park residents from unreasonable space rent adjustments and mobile home park
owners from infringement upon property rights; and
WHEREAS, the 1996 Mobile Home Initiative may invalidate existing mobile home
rent control laws and limit existing local mobile home rent control laws.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
resolves that this body opposes the 1996 Mobile Home Initiative, and directs that such opposition
be communicated to the Legislature and the Governor and those advocacy organizations to which
we belong.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
sf i tritt ttsrnep
DENNIS L. STOUT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
August 14, 1995
Honorable William J. Alexander
Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807
Re: Sprinkler Ordinance
Dear Bill:
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am to see the giant leap
backwards the Council is taking on the Residential Sprinkler
Ordinance. I regard the public safety considerations involved, to far
out weigh the economic ones.
I once was proud to be part of a City that put people first and political
considerations last, and now apparently that is no longer the case.
Please reconsider this modification to the ordinance and defeat it at
second reading.
Sincerely,
DENNIS L. STOUT
District Attorney
DLS:dk
CC:
Jack Lam, City Manager
Frank Geary, Inland Valley Dailv Bulletin
316 North Mountain View Avenue, San Bernardino, California 92415-0004 (909) 387-6607 Fax (909) 387-6313
Los Angeles Times
Auk.!ust t 6, 1995
Fire Fatalitie Down
BOSTON--The number of peu-
I)t~- kille, d by fires in the t/tt~tett
States dropperl in lgfi,! to the
lowest level in at le,l:st 81 years, a
~ire-safety group reporteeL
.The National b'ire Protection
Assn. cr.~]ited t)et.t~r ~atety ~tand-
~rds a~d increasing u~e of
detec tots m recent years.
~'he association reported that.
4,~5 people died in fires it1 1994,
not counting firefighters. That was
a Z8% decrease from t,~K]5 the
prcwous
It i~ the towc~it total 6inee reli,
~hle record-keeping began m 19t3.
e/Z# c <= 9~9696B606 ~V95:6 ~6-9&-9 ISV ABIS~GNI 9NIOqI~B :AB IN3S
1-
0
0
(J
~>~.-
~ 8 8 ~ 8 8
E E E
CalLfornj~s for NIobilehome Fairness
DATE:
COMEPA~N'Y:
FAX TRANSMISSION
PHONE # (213) 891-2822
FAX # (213) 891-2828
(~I,1) $91
FROM:
PAGE COUNT (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
T!-]IS MF.3SAGE IS INTENDED O~LY FOR THE U~]~ OF THE LND1;qDUAL OR ENTITY TO WlqICH 1T I$
ADDRES.~:TD, AND MAY CONTAIN IFFOR~TION THAT IS PRIVILEGED. CONFIDENTIAL AND
EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSUR~ UNDER APPLICABt-~- LAW, IF ~ P, EADI~ OF TEIS MESSAGE IS NOT
TH~ INTaNDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYS:. OR ACV~NT R~.,%'~qNSIBLE FOR DEIXVERING TEe
MF, SSAGE TO ~ ENTENDt~ RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TE~T ANY
DIS~eEMINATXON, DLTIRIBI3TION OR COPYING OF TKIS CObXMUN~CATION [~ g'L'~JCTLY
PROI-]iBrI]!D. IF YOU EA~ RE~ TI-HS COba, raCA~ON I2q ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US
ibl;gEDLATF, LY BY T]SLEPHON~ AND REYURN ~ ORIGINAL M~SSAGE TO U~ AT ~ A.~OV~
ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SEEVlCL THANK YOU.
Client: RENT
08-16-1995 ll:42AM FRO~] i~'~qo~o4o ~.~=
Cahfomians for Mobilehome t"mmess
August 16, 1995
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The California Mobilehome Fairness Tn~ative, the statewide measure to appear on the
March 1996 ballot, will save California taxpayers and areall business owners millions
ofdollm's ~aclx yca~. Ti~ haltiative will phase out existin~ rent control laws, cut
government regulation and free local authorities from burdensome and expensive
How many times over the years have we heard that business in Califotrda simply can't
compete any more? The Govefnor's Council on Competitivehess recently identified
unnecessary regulations, taxes and fees as the primary factors driving businesses out
of California.
The momentum against rent control has quickly swung with the recent passage by the
state legislature of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing A~t - a vacancy decenttel
measure for rental units in California.
Elected officials throughout the state and the California Cheanber of Coimx~rc~ are
urging your support for the Mobilehome Fairness Initiative.
Rent control, wh{le well intended, has been a failure costing taxpayers more than
million a year. Park quality and availability havo deteriorated while mobilehomes have
b,~4.~me more e~pensive and cliffknit to obmhm. This is the opposite eifect of its
original goal to provide a stable source of dfordable housing.
More than 70% of all mobilehome park owners are small family businesses. Rent
control adds another level of bureaucracy and regulation that is strangling Califomia's
small business economy. Bet control is an intrusion into private property fights and
places cosfly administrative fees squarely on the shoulders of legal govermuent.
We can rive back to the riseally mmapped eitiem and conmelee milllore of dollars
that couki be better spent on law enforcement protection and other vital services that
benefit the whole corninfinity.
The official analysis ofthe Initiative by the State Legislative Analyst Office concludes
that pnss~c oFthc inhlativc ~vill save millions to tens of millions of dollars
annually."
3;3.3 6. Grand Ave
suite 2920
LoS Angeles
CA, 90071
lZ',3) 891-2822
Fax. 891-282,,~
Fax; 891-9226
Economists believe rent control creates an environment that is unfi'iendly toward
~'owth and w~onomic developmere. Kesearch shows that cities with pro-rein control
city councils are more likely to oppose development in their community,
l~lease join with the California Chamber of Commsr~, tl~ Alliaa~ of California
Taxpayers and Involved Voters (ACTIV), dozens of elected officials and hundreds of
mobilehome park residents in the support for the California Mobilehome Fairness
hitiative.
Sincerely,
David Plag
Field Director
Californians for Mobilehong Fairness
P.S. Enclosed you will find additional information about the Initiative. ffyou have
any questions, please $i~e me a c. all at (213) 891-2822.
08-16-i995 ll:45AM FROfl
CalLtbmians for M, obi]eLome Fajimess
The California Mobilehome Fa~ess Iniziatlve ~as qr_a!ified for the March,
1996 sTatewide ballot. The iuiti~uive would phase-ou~ existing mobi!ehome
re~t co~ltro! ordi=&uces ~rou~ va~anc~ deco~roi -- ~em currout tenants
move, rental rates for t~eir s~ac6s would 5e so: b~ market conditions -- and
would simuttaneo~siZ i~s~it~te a privat~lT-fu~uded and admLuistered ren~
s~Bsi~7 pro~rem ~n~ t~.nsnzs q~a!i~/in~ under ~be sta~e ~eai~ and SaEe~y code.
i~tia~i~e will ~a~e at worst a ~5=trat impact on mobile~ome
s~bsid~ provision, have t~e effect of ~cre~ ho~g aczessibi!it~ for
positive impacts, As you kno~, rent co=cro! has been a contentious political
issue in man7 comm,icl~ies. Pressure from tenant groups for re~
ordinance~ ~as resulted in significant taxpayer expense for elections,
lizi~s~ic=, and admini$trat!o~ o~ ordl_uaaces where :hey ~ave been
Some California ci=ies ~ave expanded in excess of $! million litiga=Lug suc~
ordinances, scmd administration ca~ts freque~tl~ run i,n~o the hundreds of
~honsends of dollars. The staro's Le~isiative AnaiTst, in prepariu~ the
official ballot s~mai~, has estimated =he initiative would save local
]uris~icZions teas of millions of dollars each year.
Mobilehome ren; control has also polarized and distorted the local political
process in man? ~t~. Adop=io~ of =he Mobi!'ehome Fairness Initiative
elfininates this contentio~s issue and replaces i= wi=h an equi;able and
a~d ~roperr7 owners.
At a =ime. ~he= ~he public is dem.a;ldin= a rechlctio= Lu the size and scope cf
~ov~rnme~u~; ~he ~obi!c~m~ l~ircesg' l~icia=ive QffGrS local j~rj~a~ctiorm a
chance to reduce admihistra%ion and'-ii=igation expenses while s~ill pro;ectin~
Please 3oi~ ~s I~ snppor~i~ c~= Hcbi!~om~ Fairness Initietivc. R8Curn the
e]3closed postaEe-paid endorsemen; card ~oda~ so ~e ca,~ add-~o~r name to
~row~n~ lls~ of local elected officials supporuiu~ ~Li~ badi7 cCeac~ reform-
Supervisor."
San Diego Co'ahOy
S lacere !y,
~Guy S. ' EousUon
Mayor '
City of Dublin
Supervisor
Orange Counu7
al
P;.id rof' by C if,,>mi:in.s tO; .~utiknum~ Fudrne",s .. :z CO:dzfiUn Of mobilehome ;,ark owmcr~..~,'ul~Str$ and tt,Jidcm r~gresrnta.~:',.'-"s in C4}fom~.. IP m'.~5~4.3,75'97
08-16-1995 ll:45AM FROM
Californians for MobLlehome Fairness
P. ~jD
9
CALIFORNIANS FOR MOBILEHOME FAIRNESS
Fact Sheet
MObile_home rent control doesn't wg_rk
.~mdle~ show that rent control ordinances do not benefit those for whom they were
Lotended. Kent control [cads to a decline in the availability, quality and affordability of
mobilchom~ and pro'ks. In the long :em~ the free market has provided more equitable
protection for both park owners and tenants.
Rent control wnstes valunbl, re..~n.,,re. es which ~hould be used for other vital services
The bureaucracy and litigation associated with rent control have ccst cities and counties
more than $443 million doll~zs. Fu~ ~xaini~le, berween !988 and I993, the City of
Escondido has, spent $I .258 million while the City of Oceanside has incurred cosls of
more than $I.208 million for expensive litigation and bureaucracy.
More affordable housin~z will. be available in Ca.l. ifornia
Because 0f the disincentives in rent control ordinances to undercake new construction,
there have been few mobilehome parks built in California in the last ten years.
Manufactured home sales are at an all' time low. This has lead to a shortage of one of
Califomiml's most viable a.4:i'ord,~ble housing sources -- especially for senior citizens and
young families.
Nobody withi. rent control protections curren$.!Z .w. itl lose rent control
Mobilehome reSideins currenfiy covered by a local rent control ordinance continue to be
~;uv~t ~d umil they discontinue their rcsidcncy. As pm'k residents move out, the initiative
takes over and rent control is phased out over time. This will take up to ten years to
implement, based on current mobilehome space turnover rates.
Park resident.Lare helned through a Orivatelv funded.rent reductign program
The Mobilehome Fairness Initiative offers a ! 0% ~¢rtt ~duction to qualifying residents in
non-rent controlled mobilehome parks in California, The 10% reduction is calculated on
the average of all rents in the park. Under :his initiative, the owner of the mobilehome
pa~-k pays for the reduction, rather than local uL×payer~.
The initiative helps the truly needV,..s_uch as Seniors on fixed incomes
The initiative is aimed at assisting those most in need of ass{stance who qualiB/under
established, accepted guidelines, rather than entire mobilehome popuiations, many of
whom do not hoed a$ai~tar, oe.
-nloFe-
08-16-1995 ll:44AM FEOVi
SU?I~ORT IS STRONG FOR THE I_N_ITIATI_VY.,
The initiative is supported by mobLlehome park residents, park owners, 'ousiness and
· ,axpayef associations, apartment associations and local elected o~cials. Public sen~imem,
as demonswa~ed by zhe November, i9% elec~,ons, shows a growinS public displeasure
~:h costly gove~em reoulations. Voters are expected to continue the drive t~r less
gove~¢nt intrusion and red tape ~n ~he March, t996 Presidential prim~ election.
The Mobilehome Rental !.pitiative is flair and balanced
~Tne initiative will:
- lincourage conrtrac:ion of desper..-,tel} nee.~ed afirotdnhle hnuqing
- Cut red rape and reduce gavcrnmcnt interference
- Save tax dollars ibr use on vital pubhc services like police and fire protection
- Help may needy individuals, such as senior citizens, at no cost :o m.xp...yers, through a
privately -frotied. rent reduction prc,g~ra rn
- 0j ~mdf'.~lcr existing rent control protc~ti0ns - no cxisting tenant loses rent Qontrol
- Pco~bit ~t'are rent control ordinances
How the Mobilehome Fairness Initiative will impact mobilehome park residents:
Rent controlled Dsrks: No one toses their rent ¢c, ntrol protections until they vacate their space.
k.~ni incrmses are tied to the armual CP[. Once more than 90% of the spaces are de-conu'olled, the
10% rent reduction program takes affect.
Non-rent controlled oarl,~: C~rr~ntly r~i~ents rent~ are already subject to market value. This
initiative will ~ve no imp~t on rent mercies, Qua!i~/ing tenets will i~media~ly be eligible far
a 10% ren~ ~duction. ~ese parks ~11 never be subject to l~tl[ COlt~lU{.
For further information or to see how you can help support the Mobilehome Fairness
Initiative. l~iease contact James Vaughn at 213-891-2822.
Paid for by Californians for Mobilehome Fairness- a ccalitkm of mebilehome park owners,
m.u,.'.,g~t~ and t¢~id~ut leWiescutati,es in California. ID # 932070
333 S. Grand Ave a2920, Los Angeles, CA 90071 2 t~-89i-2827- Fax 21>891-2828
~8-16-1998 ll:~SAM ~ROM 19~994~16q8 ~.0?
COSTS OF RENT CONTROL
IN CALIFORNIA
Rent control is an expensive subsidy program paid for by local taxpayers and businesses.
Numerous studies and independent analyses prove rent controls simply do not accomplish
their intended objective of assisting the truly needy.
Rent control ha.~ co.~t taxpayer.~ over .~43 millinn in ~,dminig)rative and legaI co~s.
Currently, mobilehome rent control in C~iforrda is costing the taxpayers $45 million a
year. For ~arnple:
:: .'::. ~ i:' ';':,:; · ~
:.!:::-:2. Carson z'. · .:: ::',::.~" :>'::!: :, .: Leg~i'~:-:: .....:..:': "I::::..'::..-: :.: '.: !~ :l:~}OO,O00:i..-~,~::.,::.::'..::,.,:.
!~::' :2: .: .,:: .:1 .; ' ;.:~ 'L: ':: .... '!" ' '; ,' ::!:.:...':: · 2:.. '. '; "':"' ........."' ......... ' '
' - "," :...: :'; ' ': ;: ~' · "' :' 7:~.:' ::.C ?'....': '}. , ' :,:
:.; .;: ......................
.. ..... ,.: .... .,.
"7.5 :> ~:. :%. :::. ::'.:.: :>.: :.'::..: ~' ~: .:~ :L ~:~ :.' :':..: ;' ...' '~ ~':'.':.: .: '.
~' :.: ~.'~.~ :>~:~:">>~>::~' :"~ ':.>::~ :,:.:':>:>>>.:. ~ >:: ;:-, ::' ~>.:,;::.~; ;:5::: :.:'~':'.>,% >:-~ :'>~">' >'-, '::." :..:>~ ~;'~:::.>~:::> >>::::
:' ': :'~:~: ~::' ~';::'- ::; !:.: .~: ~ :"' '': '!: :~" ~;'::' ~. %: ~::" ~' ::' ::":z ' 'L: >': '~ >.::: ~" ">~: ~ ~,,
.......... . ............................
~:,.~% ~l;=>.>::~==~,::'~=:::=~.:.>:'>:.:'~>: ".=~ ~L:==7;::..: ::":,: ,'~s~ ....: ..'..:"=.':.::==', ":"=".:>:": :::' =':: >'>.':='"~=~:::':>soo;
~l.:"..'>::'.".:..:'...::::.::?:~:~::t""':':';:'::~":.:'~:':.::::' ,' ...:..:~'..'..".':.;:::'-.'.' ... '; :..:.::': .: ......." ""':"v>:: .~:::'l':",'>':':..'.:";':":.~:.:.""'.::'
"': "* d~ag~: U~d'eE'~ppe~' ";":~j: :'> ;:';' .::; :. :.: ": % "." .: :'::'~ :"::'~:' "." '~>':...'L':' :>. >. .: ::' :~':. : :. ;.:."..... ':':':: ::: "':' ':': ;~:~::;::: :.::':>";':~:
. _
'these are the costs for just nine cities which have rent control. 95 other
jurisdictions have rent control with similar costs for bureaucracy and litigation.
for by Cnliforrd~ for Mobilehome Fairness,
tcs'dent tcpr~ntativ~s. I.D # 952070
R~v. 7i17/9~
C~dtfomians for Mobilehome F~ness
EN1)ORSE,~4ENT LIST
M of August 4, 1995
Alliance of California Taxpayers and hvolved Voters (ACTIV)
Califonfla Chamber of Commerce
California Log Cabin Club
California Travel Parks Association
Laguna Beach Taxpayer, A.~ocia~on
Manufactured Housing Educational Trust of
Orange, Riverside & San Bernanllao Couatlcs
Mobilehome Park Owners Alliance
Western Mob~ehome Park Owners Association
,Elected Officials
Ray ]Raynes, State Senator
Don Rogers, State Senator
Steve Baldwin, State Assemblyman
Ikrnie Richter, State Asscmblyman
Tom Woods, State Assemblyman
Pete Binre, Alpine County Super~risor
Bill Cole, Imperial County Supervisor
Ron Roberts, San Diego County $npervisnr
Dean Shores, Imperial County Supervisor
James Silva, Orange county Supervisor
Elaine Dauber, Mayor, City of Los Altos MilLs
John Gullix.~on, Mayor Pro Tern, City ofYorba Linda
Guy Houston, Mayor, City of Dublin
J. Russell Knowle~, Mayor City of Willows *
Wally Linn, Mayor, City of LaYalma
Teri Routerio, Mayor, City of Solana Beach
Peter Weber, Mayor Pro To.m, City of Roillng l~ills Estates
Peter Buffa, Mayor Pro Tent, City of Costa Mesa
Lee Risner, City Manager - Retired, City of Seal Beach
Kevin Cole, Councilmember, City of South Lake Tahoe
Bob Dinsen, Councilmember, City of Garden Grove
James H. Flora, Councilmember, City of l.~ ~ahrs
Frank Fry, Councilmember, City of Westminster
Howard Gustarson, Jr, Councilmember, CRy of Marina
Fred Harris, Councilmember, City of Rio Vista
Fax: 8~1.2328
P~: 551-9~Ze
0B-16-199~ Ii:4'VHM FRbI't ,~,oio~o
ENDORSEMZNT LIST
two)
John Hedges, Councilmember, City of Newport Beach
Roland Hensley, Councilmember, City of West Sacramento
Tony Iugegneri, Councilmember, City of Garden Grove
Barbara Kiley, Councilmember, City of Yorba Linda
Hank Kuiper, Councgmember, City of El tenfro
Barbara Messinn, Councilmember, City of Alhambra
Gary Monahart, Councilmember, City of Costa Mesa
Art Oilylet, Councilmember, City of Bcllflowcr
Barbara Ranch, Councilmember, City of Rolling Hills Estates
George Scott, Councilmember, City of Fountain ¥aile.v
Jeff Thomas. Councilmember. Ci~ of Tustiu
Robhie Waters, Councilmember, City of Sacramento
'New endorsed
(i~'tiaI listing)
Paid for by Califomiam for M~ilehom¢ Fairness - LD. #gT~O"/O
Title & Summary
MOBIlEtIOME RENT ASSISTANCE. MOBrf,F, ttOMF., RENT
CONTROL RES~CTIONS, INITIATIVE STATUTE, R. equ.h'es
mobilehome park managemat to administer and provide rent subsidy equal to
tea lzr_cen__t discount on monthly rent to tenants meeting r~iden9' and income
requiremeats, when ten percent or less of occupied spaces am coyered by rent
con:rol or runt subsidy. Establishes priorities for, and conditions for losing
rent subsidy. Invalidates existing, and prohibits new, ~tate mobilchime rent
conlxol laws. ProMbiB such laws from requiring reductions in rent and
limiting increases in rent to less than specified cost of living index. Summ=y.
of estimat~ by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on
state and local governments: No impact on state costs or reventms. In the near
tetra, citWs aad ~ountics may experience incrca.sccl costs which are unknown,
but are not likely to tots/more than rnillic~n.~ of dotlar~ annually. In the long
term, local agencies would experience savings of million to tens of millions of
dollar$ anmmlly.
Jartuary 27. 1994
TOTAL P.18