The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995/08/02 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st a~d 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. August 2, 1995 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Jack Lain, City Manager [ames L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 989-1851 January 28, 1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Saturday, January 28, 1995, at the Best Western Heritage Inn located at 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present was: Jack Lam, City Manager B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL TEAM BUILDING The City Council and Jack Lam, City Manager, were led by Neil Kupchin, Kupchin Management Consultants, as they discussed team building ideas. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. No communication was made from the public. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ADJOURNMENT Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * February 14, 1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, at the Best Westem Heritage Inn located at 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present was: Jack Lam, City Manager ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL GOALS The City Council and Jack Lam, City Manager, were led by Neil Kupchin, Kupchin Management Consultants, as they discussed and developed goals for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ,~ C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. No communication was made from the public. ,~ D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * June 27,1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:13 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager; Olen Jones, St. Redevelopment Analyst; Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Susan Stark, Finance Manager; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager; Dale Catron, Facilities Supervisor; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Captain Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Marti Higgins, Disaster Preparedness Manager; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. Absent was Councilmember: Paul Biane B. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25.000.000 TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR CERTAIN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS Staff requested continuance of this item. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 95-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS, APPROVING A FORM OF LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE PLEDGE BY THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT MONEYS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to continue the public hearing to July 5, 1995. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane). City Council Minutes June 27, 1995 Page 2 B. 1TEM(S) OF DISCUSSION Item B2 was considered at this time. Minutes will remain in agenda order. 1. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL GOALS Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that in February the City Council developed goals and turned them over to the staff to work on. He stated the staff has done this and it is now before the Council to decide what is worthy of further developing and exploring. He stated that the Council would realize that some of these goals are in the budget already. He thought the Council may want to further explore some of the other areas. He pointed out that the Council does not have the revenue to go forward with Central Park at this time, but asked did they want to keep the current plan or have a new one developed. Councilmember Willjams stated she was concerned about what kind of message would be sent, referring to page 13 item IV-B, and felt this might need a separate workshop. Mayor Alexander stated he does not intend for this whole document to be approved tonight. Councilmember Gutierrez suggested that Jack look at this document for anything the Council might need to take action on immediately and possibly put those particular items on a regular agenda, a few things at a time. He stated he agreed with Councilmember Williams' comments on revenue exploration. He felt sales tax was definitely something to be looked at, but did not think fees should be increased and felt they should be reviewed. He felt under "Public Safety" item II-D that this needed to be defined. He stated he did not understand why there wasn't anything on the paramedic program. He thought this might need to be defined as an item.. He stated he was wondering how the Police Citizen Advisory Committee was going. He was interested if they have their membership now, are accepting new members or what. Captain Ron Bieberdorf, Police Department, stated they have had their first meeting, but that only about 9 out of 18 people showed up. Councilmember Gutierrez felt they should have a program for an educational process to show consumers safety tips as it relates to Page 12, item IV-H. He pointed out that the marketing campaign is also very important and should continue to be updated. He stated on page 18, item X that this was important to him and that this should be reviewed periodically every two years. Councilmember Curatalo stated he felt the Council had agreed that public safety was the City's No. 1 priority and felt it should stay No. 1. Mayor Alexander inquired about the paramedic program. Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, stated the agreement with Mercy is being worked on and stated they should reach a conclusion in a couple weeks and then bring it back to the Council at the end of July or August. Councilmember Williams stated she was concerned about page 13, Item IV-A and wanted to make sure this is continuing. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated the City. currently has an agreement with Hinderliter and Associates. City Council Minutes June 27, 1995 Page 3 Councilmember Curatalo inquired about page 15, Item IV-N. Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, stated if the Board wants this to occur it would be started immediately Councilmember Curatalo stated he would like for the Council to give staff direction to proceed with this. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he wants the staff to remember the Senior Center and the buildings at Lions Park. He also felt there should be at least one class set up for adults/children with special needs. He stated he is concemed about resources to maintain Central Park. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there is no M & O for Central Park and that the capital money is no longer there. He stated the vision is there for Central Park, but when the time comes to build it, does the Council want to go with the current master plan or a new one. Mayor Alexander stated he felt some of the goals need to be acted upon very quickly and that some of them could wait. He felt this should be discussed at another meeting when Councilmember Biane can be heard on this matter also. Councilmember WiIliams suggested that staff go through and put together a package on items needing immediate attention and bring those matters to the Council for further consideration. Jim Frost, City Treasurer, felt nothing should be done on Central Park for at least another year. He felt the Council should be looking at the total concept very carefully. Councilmember Williams stated she felt possible this issue should just lay there for awhile. She stated she did not want the Council to make the wrong choice so that it might have to be changed later on. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he agreed that since there is not any money to do anything, to wait on any changes to the plans. Councilmember Curatalo felt aesthetics was very important at the Central Park site and that it should be cleaned up right now until it is developed. Councilmember Williams agreed that getting rid of the weeds would be helpful. Councilmember Curatalo asked what it would cost to put in grass and sprinklers. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated he would develop this cost. Councilmember Williams stated she felt a working vineyard would do the trick also. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the goals subject would be tagged onto another Council meeting and the Council could discuss at that time what needs to be addressed as soon as possible and what can wait. 2. CONSIDERATION TO CO-SPONSOR VARIOUS ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMS WITH ACTS CONCERTS (CO 95-024) AT THE EPICENTER Staff report was presented by Jack Lam, City Manager, and Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager. City CouncilMinutes June 27, 1995 Page 4 Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. Addressing the Council was: Ron Burke, ACTS Concerts, stated they have started to do concerts/shows in minor league stadiums and that it was a nice venue to do this in. He continued to talk about the people that run his company and the experience they have in this field of work. He stated they are anxious to do concerts in Rancho Cucamonga. Councilmember Gutierrez asked why he thought people would come to the Epicenter as opposed to the Block Buster Pavilion. Mr. Burke felt with the number of people that have attended Lake Elsinore's concerts to see Wynonna Judd, that with the proper advertising and such they could get a lot of people to come to Rancho Cucamonga. He said this is an experiment, but felt they could get a minimum of 7,500 people. Councilmember Gutierrez asked how long it takes to book a concert. Mr. Burke stated you need to start in 1995 for 1996 and that it depends on the artist's travel schedules where they are touring, etc. Jack Lam, City Manager, felt it was time to start working on the entertainment side now that baseball is so successful. MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Willjams to work with ACTS Concerts to develop a contract to bring back to the Council. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane). The Council asked that the contract come back at the next meeting for approval. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C 1. Jim Frost stated funeral services were held today for Jeff Young who died of cancer. He felt it would be a good idea for Mr. Young's daughters to receive a Proclamation for all the work their Dad had done in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Councilmember Williams stated she agreed, and that the Library would also be doing something for him. D. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn in the memory of Jeff Young. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Biane). The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submi~ed, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: * July 5, 1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, July 5, 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 7:52 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Jim Martin, Plan Check Coordinator; Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Susan Stark, Finance Officer; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of $500.00 from Target Stores to the Rancho Cucamonga Crime Prevention Unit for Shoplifting Prevention Education. Steve Satuloff from Target Stores presented a check to Capt. Bieberdorf and Spring Gaunthier of the Crime Prevention Unit. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. D1. Approval of Minutes: D. CONSENT CALENDAR June 7,1995 June 8,1995 June 14,1995 City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 2 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/14/95 and 6/21/95; and Payroll ending 6/15/95 for the total amount of $1,442,976.60. D3. Approval to appropriate funds from Fund Balance and authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the construction of Base Line road Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation, from Day Creek Channel to Victoria Park Lane, to be funded from Transportation Systems Development Fund Account No. 22-4637- 9306 and S.B. 140 Fund, Account No. 35-4637-9306. RESOLUTION NO. 95-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BASE LINE ROAD TEMPORARY WIDENING AND REHABILITATION, FROM DAY CREEK CHANNEL TO VICTORIA PARK LANE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D4. Approval of Extension of Comcast Cable T.V. Franchise. RESOLUTION NO. 91-012U A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FRANCHISE LICENSE WITH COMCAST CABLE T.V. FOR 90 DAYS UPON EXPIRATION OF CURRENT LICENSE WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D5. Approval of summary vacations of portions of various excess City rights-of-way located on 24th Street, 25th Street and Center Avenue and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for DR 95-03, located within the Northtown Area along 24th Street, 25th Street and Humboldt Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue, submitted by Northtown Housing Development Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 95-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR DR 95-03 RESOLUTION NO. 95-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATIONS OF PORTIONS OF VARIOUS EXCESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY, LOCATED ON 24TH STREET, 25TH STREET AND CENTER AVENUE D6. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 95- 09, located on the northeast corner of Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue, submitted by Frito-Lay, Inc. City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 95-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 95-09 RESOLUTION NO. 95-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 95-09 D7. Approval of a resolution authorizing agreements with the California Highway Patrol for participation in training programs. RESOLUTION 95-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN TRAINING PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL D8. Approval to execute an agreement to co-sponsor concerts with Acts Concerts (CO 95-024) at Rancho Cucamonga's Epicenter. {Continued from June 27, 1995) D9. Approval to execute a Cooperative Agreement (CO 95-025) with the County of San Bernardino for participation in the County's Home Consortium. D10. Approval to award and authorization for execution of contract (CO 95-026) for Calaveras Street Improvements, from Arrow Route to Ninth Street, for the amount of $160,938.80 ($146,328.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from CDBG Account No. 28-4637-9115 to Gentry Brothers. D11. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13759, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, south of Victoria Street, submitted by Fu Mai Limited. RESOLUTION NO. 95-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13754 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve the staff recommendations contained in the staff reports of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes July 5, 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 Residential, 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. Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 541 and 542. ORDINANCE NO. 541 (first 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 LOWMEDIUM 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 (first 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 Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading for the July 19, 1995 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E2. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON CHURCH STREET FROM PEPPER STREET TO ARCHIBALD AVENUE; AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MPH ON MORNING PLACE AND VINTAGE DRIVE FROM BANYAN STREET TO MILLIKEN AVENUE Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 540. City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 540 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 540. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25 MILLION TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINANCING OF CERTAIN MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS (Continued from June 27, 1998) Staff report presented by Linda Daniels, RDA Manager, who stated the public hearing was opened and closed previously, and that she was available if there were any questions. RESOLUTION NO. 95-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZNG THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR CERTAIN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS, APPROVING A FORM OF LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE PLEDGE BY THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT MONEYS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 95-110. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No items were submitted. No items were submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 6 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TAXICABS Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager. Councilmember Williams asked if it stated in the ordinance that the driver's permit must be hung in a place that was visible to the passenger. She stated she has not seen one in any cab that she has taken recently in the local area. She sees this done in other cities, and wanted to know how to solve this problem. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated it is in the odinance that the driver shall have their identification clearly visible. Brian Hunt, Yellow Cab, stated the drivers do have picture identification on their shirts, so he will need to make special arrangements to have something in the cab. Councilmember Williams stated she has not seen a driver yet in Rancho Cucamonga with a badge on. Brian Hunt, Yellow Cab, stated he will see that is taken care of. All the drivers have to have their badges in order to get into the office so he knows that they all have one. Councilmember Williams stated another problem she has noticed is that some cab drivers will take longer routes to the same destination. Brian Hunt, Yellow Cab, stated if they receive a complaint about a driver, they are called into the office to discuss it. If they receive two or three complaints on the same driver, then they will be let go. Councilmember Williams stated she did not know of a way to let the citizens know that they should be making complaints. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, suggested they look at putting an article in The Grapevine to educate the residents to their rights as taxicab users. Councilmember Gutierrez stated the revision is not to necessarily add more bureaucracy, it is meant to protect the public, He stated in one of the cities he visited, he was given a card when he used a cab that listed his rights as a passenger, and thought maybe they could do that here. Councilmember Curatalo asked how often are the meters checked, because he has taken cabs that travel the same route to the same destination yet the fare can be $3.00 to $4.00 difference in the fare. Brian Hunt, Yellow Cab, stated the County comes out once a year to check the tolerances, and that they are very seldom off. He stated the wait time can make a difference in the rate. Mayor Alexander asked if the Subcommittee had any problems when coming up with these amendments with giving an exclusive franchise to one company. City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 7 Councilmember Gutierrez stated right now, and probably for the next few years, they do hot have a situation that is going to be competitive, and they felt by having this clause it would give the City the right to approve or disapprove any company that comes in. He stated they are not opposed to competition, and would be happy to have more than one company, but when another company comes along and wants to do business in the City, they need the right to check out their qualifications and background to see if they can provide proper service to the citizens. Couniclmember Williams asked how the Municipal Code relating to taxicabs applies to things she has seen around town like Mom's Cab or Kid's Shuttle. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated they are classified differently because they are not picking up someone who might be waving them down. They are more like a limosuine driver and the Public Utilities Commission regulates them differently. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to direct staff to install the amendments, and to bring back an ordinance for first reading 12. CONSIDERATION OF LIBRARYAD HOC COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO FILL LIBRARY BOARD VACANCIES (Oral Report) Mayor Alexander stated the Ad Hoc committee recently interviewed many people who were interested in serving on the Library Board. Councilmember Williams felt it showed the stature of the library in the community already that they had 18 applicants. She stated their recommendation is to re-appoint Edward Swistock on the Board and to select Rebecca Davies to fill the unexpired term left by Jacqueline Bolda's resignation. She hoped that the other applicants will stay involved because the library needs many support people. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Alexander to approve the recommended appointments. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Councilmember Biane asked for an update on the recent crime activity in the Northtown area. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. City Council Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 8 L. ADJOURNMENT James Markman, City Attorney, asked to add an Executive Session item to discuss possible settlement of litigation, Gentry Brothers, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardnio County Superior Court No. RCV 059489, which has come up since the agenda was prepared. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Labor Negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the Meet and Confer process; and Property Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8, located at 9591 San Bernardino Road, Cucamonga County Water District and Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, negotiating parties, regarding terms of payment; and to add the above Executive Session regarding possible settlement of litigation with Gentry Brothers Inc. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jan Sutton Deputy City Clerk Approved: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT STAFF REPORT DATE: August2,1995 TO: President and Members of the Fire Board Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: REQUEST BY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO WAIVE DISTRICT FEES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL GRAPE HARVEST FESTIVAL Backffround The City has received a request from Judy Clayton, Executive Director, Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, to waive District fees in connection with the Grape Harvest Festival to be held on October 6, 7, and 8, 1995 (see attached letter), at the General Dynamics location between Fourth Street and Sixth Street in Rancho Cucamonga. The Chamber is providing the City with two booths and an outside display area in reciprocation of this waiver. The specific fee to be waived is as follows: Fire Department $390.00 (not to exceed) Recommendation Staff recommends waiving District fees in conjunction with the annual Chamber of Commerce Grape Harvest Festival. Respectfully submitted, ~Doml "z /Adminii%icesDirector RCD/dah attachment ! ancho Cucamonga CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 27, 1995 Mr. Jack Lam, City Manager City of Bancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Ja, ck, mu kn the Grape Harvest Festival is once again approaching. As you st ow, This year, the event is scheduled for October 6, 7 & 8 and will be held at the General Dynamics location between 4th street and 6th in Rancho Cucamonga. The ChRmber is requesting that all city fees be waived for the Festival this year. This community event truly is a joint venture between the City and the Chamber of Commerce, one that promotes not only the area's business climate, but the City of P~__ncho Cucamonga, as well The Chamber is offering 2 booths plus outside display area for large equipment to the City this year at no cost. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If this proposal is agreeable with the city officials, please contact me at the Chamber as soon as possible. Sincerely, i · ~'~yCl~~n Executive Director Jc c ,":iTv OF RANCHO C.t~L;~i'~[)l'~,:" jUL 1995 8280 UTICA AVENUE SUITE 160 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA91730 · 909/987-1 01 2~'z~ City Council Agenda August 2, 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. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierr;z , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation to Betty McNay for Celebrating 80 years of Life and Commitment to the Community. Presentation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Minutes: January 28, 1995 February 14, 1995 June 27, 1995 (Biane absent) July 5, 1995 Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/12/95, 7/19/95 and 7/26/95 (FY 1994/95), 7/12/95, 7/19/95 and 7/26/95 (FY 1995/96); and Payroll ending 7/13/95 for the total amount of $4,420,963.47. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off-Sale General for Ralph's, Ralph's Grocery Company, 7369 Milliken. Approval of a request by the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce to waive City fees in conjunction with the annual Grape Harvest Festival. 18 20 City Council Agenda August 2, 1995 PAGE o Approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, adopting the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan as required for expenditures of Measure I Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 95-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TVVENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE "1" FUNDS Approval of the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation Project from Summit Avenue to north side of the Northeast Community Park Site and Issuance of a Categorical Exemption Therefore. RESOLUTION NO. 95-118 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 EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT FROM SUMMIT AVENUE TO NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK SITE Approval to amend an Operating Agreement to extend Lender Services between Bank of America and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Home Improvement Program. Approval and authorization for execution of an Escrow Agreement regarding Subdivision Bonds for Tract 13750 and Conditionally Release the Original Existing Subdivision Bonds and accept new Subdivision Bonds and Agreement. Approval to accept the Improvements, Release of Bonds and File a Notice of Completion for Wardman Bullock Road Landscape and Ridgeline Place Street Improvements for Tract 13565-1 thru -4 located on 24th Street, west of Cherry Avenue. 22 23 29 30 43 44 45 10. City Council Agenda August 2, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU -4 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK Approval to Release Bonds and Notice of Completion for Tract 13566-1, located north of 24th Street, between Wardman Bullock Road and San Sevaine Wash. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 252,000.00 25,200.00 RESOLUTION NO. 95-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13566-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK PAGE 3 46 47 48 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAXICAB SERVICE AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 543 (second 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 49 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. City Council Agenda August 2, 1995 PAGE 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 (first 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 VVITH THE LATEST FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDINANCE NO. 545 (first 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 CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 434-A (first 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 56 EE 67 69 90' 91 City Council Agenda August 2, 1995 PAGE G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 35 - CAPRI PROPERTIES -Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to amend the Uniform Sign Program to allow a fourth sign color for minor tenants within an existing shopping center (Country Village), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street - APN: 202-381-24 through 26, 28, through 33, 35, and 36. 93 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. CONSIDERATION OF WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial uses, in conjunction with Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, for parcels located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7. 117 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. No Items Submitted. 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. City Council Agenda August 2, 1995 PAGE 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. REQUEST BY VICTOR MUNIZ TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON "CABLE COMMUNICATION SERVICES" 128 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 July 27, 1995, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. ~,,.,w I-. · It · · · I N V V J J ~ · J (J ............. . ............ .... ......... .... ~ .......... ' J "' 1=4 eL · ( rk=) · g ~,,J g I-- Z hrr~ ~-4ZZ J o z.., ,:, -,, ~.~ z ,, ,,,z,-.-',,.,-" : J, ..,.-o w w zc} w O I-.I ,D ac * ~ a~zz C34Q~4 (a~ E4v) I-EC}Q. WW(Z4.~UJ4f'~.d I C:3'rOwac 4=) 8Z V v · ~ ~ ~ .(I--I (JZ~a U~rI )- ,j ~zzoow ~ oZz z ~w O~ow ~ ~ wOOOO~ N~D~ON % Z · i-3 )= hr I-- Z · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I · · · I · · · · · · · · |~| ~ooo~oo lel · · · · · · · · · · · I · · · l · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · I · I I · I I Ill sue I~1 · · I I · · · · · · I I · I I I · · I · · I · · · · · · · · I I II Ill · · _m I=- I-- · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · I-- I Z: · ~ · I · · ,v · ,v I · · I · · · I · · · · C) · Z · · ,v 1 I,ll · · · · · · I I I · · · · · I · · · I · · · I · · · · · I · · · · · · I · I I I I IZI IC~I II,-I !~1 I~,)1 ;~: · I i,-41 · I · · · · · · · · · · I I · · I · · · I · · · · I · · · I · I: I · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · I luJI · · · · i,vl I~1 · · r-, Z :::) *ru (j,r (Z,J)- C)(X:,J Nl&.gO~.,3 QOtu QCUJ~.,ZG,.D,,I''~ ,~IUC) C~,~~' I--4,~UJC) C2I,-ZZZZZ J II V V U~Z~ZZ~Z ZZ r-~C) I I · Z I I I t tt II · II,-I I I IC31 I I I I I I Io, I e~ue I~1 I I I I I I I luJI I""1 I)1 % Z Z::3 ~,J at ;,.,4 i,,~, ,J I,-e o.. ..,-.,:,- ..o -~ ,;~, ~j j vJ · e[ Z ~0 I-- O, w ed G~a,. 3 dl 3 U J I,,,. 'f' tJ, teE( ff = w 4~ *o ,., z wz ,-,4w u4v~w .~J ,J,e ~ Z~ZZ~Z~gZZ~~U~UZZXZZZZZ~JZZ~ZU c~- % C2 m .~ -.m Z B- ~' LI.'-SuJ ,J )., ~.~ · I · l · · · l · · · · I · · I · · ,I I · I · · I · · .o! w I · ~1 · · I I I I · e · I1,,'1 % · · e,,il~'l · · ,,o I · u,j I · ~ I l · I · C) I · · I ic:31 ".'I I I I · · I · I I I · · I · · I I I · · · · I I · · · I · · I · · I I I · · I IZI IC31 I1--I Ik~l ·LUI Ir",,,i · I IllJI |~". · · I · · I l · · I I I · · I I I · · I I I · · I I I · · I I I l I I · I I I I I I I · I · · · I · · · · · · · · · · I · · I lull it,.i Ic~I Iu. II · · · u,J W ...I I,- I-,. 41, 41. QZ I--"' .J · · · I · · l · · · · I · I · · · · · e.,l · %lQl: · I I I · · · · · · · · C) · Z · · 4x · ~X I · · · · · · I l · · I I · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · I · · I~1 I1-,I iti,al i,~-~1 · · luJI It-el · · · · · · I · · · · · · I · · · · I · I · · · · I · · I · · · I · · · · · · I · I I I · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I Itul 11[:1 IZI · · · · I · Z Z~ Z :Z:: ) ~ H ~-~ LL · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Z D w ,J (J °I'1 liuI II-'1 IINII ') '! ZOONZO¢O0~O Z ~ zooooozooowooo ooooo ~ o V V V ',r.'r OM,; Z ~ ~ ~ Z I I W Z ~r~)O~ ~eh· (,) i,,~, ,J t-. 9999~99~9999~ ~ ~ ~ · 0 ~ Z ®OZ~ZZZZ~[Z~Z Z .( I- I- · · · · · · it e · · · m m m m m m /7 C:ALIIORNI,4 IqPPLIEFITION FOR flLCOHOL BEIJERRGE To: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number ~e1~4~ 309770 3950 paramount B!vd., Suite 250 ........... Lakewood, CA 90712 ' Receipt Number ......... 1039775 (310) 982-1337 Geographical Code ........ ~ =36]/5 Copies Mailed Date 6-2~-95 Issued Date DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: .r LB/LAKEWOOD Name of Business: Location of Business: Number and Street 73:69 t'[illiken City, State Zip Code County Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Is premise inside cEty limits? San Bernardino Yes If premise licensed: Type of license 21 ' Transferor'shames/license: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY 223677 License TYpe ' Trans'ac12ion TYpe Fee Twoe Master DUD Date Fee 1. 21 OFF-SALE GENERAL STOCK OWNERSHIP NA YES 0 JUN 15,1995 $12876.00 : 2. 30 TEMPORARy RETAIL P TEMPORARy PERNIT NA YES 0 JUN 15,1995 $17400.00 : 3.21 OFF-SALE GENERAL RENEWAL FEE NA YES 0 JUN 15,1995 $79388.00: TOTAL $109664.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoho]ic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO t~ Control Act, or regulations of the department pertaining to the Act? YES ~ Explain any "Yes" answer [o the above questions on an attachment which shah be deemed pro1 of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sate licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensec, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALLFORNLA - County or LOS ANGELES Date .IUN 15,1995 ~" Under penahy of perjury, each person whose signature appear~ bdow, certifies and says: (]) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants. or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, natned in the foregoing application, duly authorized [o make this application on it~ behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents the~of and that each of the above slatemeats therein made ate truel (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicanl's business to be conducted under the license(s} for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer apphcafion or proposed transfer is not made [o sadsfy the payment of a loan or to fu|~ll an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the the I)epatlmen[ or 1o gain or eshlblish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or [o defraud or injure any credj{or of transferor; (5) transfer appiication is filled with be withdrawn by either [be applicant or the licenice with no resulting liabHi|y to the Deparlmen[. that the transfer application may Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s)~~~~ [RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY /~ ~ [ GRAY, Alan G., Vice President RECEIVED J U L 0 3 1995 L I CEN:gL I: Bancho Cucamonga g~anning Division ' RECEIVED ,,ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG~ CITYCL~:Rk~ JUN 2 8 1995 RECEIVED JUN | 6 Alcoholic Beverage Control Riverside o /~ ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 2, 1995 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: REQUEST BY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO WAIVE CITY FEES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL GRAPE HARVEST FESTIVAL Background The City has received a request from Judy Clayton, Executive Director, Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, to waive City fees in connection with the Grape Harvest Festival to be held on October 6, 7, and 8, 1995 (see attached letter), at the General Dynamics location between Fourth Street and Sixth Street in Rancho Cucamonga. The Chamber is providing the City with two booths and an outside display area in reciprocation of this waiver. The specific fees to be waived is as follows: Business License $2,461.00 Community Services 250.00 Maintenance 92.00 Building and Safety 30.00 Planning 119.00 TOTAL $2,952.00 Recommendation Staff recommends waiving City fees in conjunction with the annual Chamber of Commerce Grape Harvest Festival. Respectfully submitted, Director RCD/dah attachment R,ancho Cucamonga CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 27, 1995 Mr. Jack Lnm, City Manager City of Rnncho Cucnmonga P.O. Box 807 Ra_ncho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Jack, t As you must know, the Grape Harvest Festival is once again approaching. This year, the event is scheduled for October 6, 7 & 8 and will be held at the General Dynnmics location between 4th street and 6th in Rancho Cucamonga. The Chamber is requesting that all city fees be waived for the Festival this year. This COmmUnlty event truly is a joint venture between the City and the Chamber of Commerce, one that promotes not only the area's business climate, but the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as well The Chamber is offering 2 booths plus outside display area for large equipment to the City this year at no cost. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If this proposal is agreeable with the city officials, please contact me at the Chamber as soon as possible. Sincerely, i · "~yCl~~ton Executive Director aC c jut ". ' 995 8280 UTICA AVENUE SUITE 160 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 · 909 / 987-1012~ ( CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _~ STAFF REPORT DATE: August 2, 1995 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Mike O!ivier, Sr. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS REQUIRED FOR EXPENDITURES OF MEASURE I FUNDS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution approving the prepared Local Measure 'T' Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan as requested by SanBAG to provide a public record of the intended use of Local Measure 'T' Funds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Measure 'T', the county-wide transportation sales tax program, requires that each local jurisdiction receiving program revenues annually adopt a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and a Twenty-Year Transportation Plan which outlines the specific projects upon which those funds shall be expended. Staff has prepared the attached Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan schedule to be adopted by City Council and kept on file with the San Bernardino Associated Govemments for informational purposes. The Five- Year list has been overprogrammed to allow for spillage and to insure that the adopted plan contains ample projects for Measure "r' expenditures. If changes are necessary (additions or deletions), the plan may be altered at each annual adoption or intermittently with City Council approval. SANBAG has advised us the Twenty-Year Transportation Plan for Local Measure 'T' Funds can be a list of projects for Twenty-Year period or narrative policy statement estimating the types of projects Local Measure 'T' Funds are to be used for, and the percentage of funds allocated for each type of project. Since it is very difficult to list actual projects Twenty-Years in advance, staff recommends Council approve the policy statement. Respectfully Submitted, . . William J. City Engineer WJO:air Attachment RESOLUTION NO. q-5'- II 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITUTE OF MEASURE 'T' FUNDS WHEREAS, San Bemardino County voters approved passage of measure 'T' in November, 1989 authorizing San Bemardino Associated Governments, acting as the San Bemardino County Transportation Authority, to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and, WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plan set forth in Ordinance No. 89-1 of Authority; and, WHEREAS, Expenditure plans of the Ordinance requires each local jurisdiction receiving revenue from the tax to expend those funds pursuant to a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, hereby adopts the Measure "I" Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan, a copy of which is attached to this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1995. < n- O rr Z 0 ._1 LL 0 0 o o o o o ~ o 0 o o o r-- ~ r.- o o o o o o o o o eg. o o o ~ o o o o o ~ o ~ o ~ LQ ,-- I.f:i (',,I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 Z~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~<~ < ~Z -Z ~ZZZZZ ZZ ~ Z ~o~o~o~ozoz~o 0 0 I-- ,~v LLI LLI il-- Z LLI n-iv Z n'n'~ < ODLLI 'r <nn~ ,, Z 0 ,<C) D W I--~1-- :D <.~: 0 .!, W MJ UJ wz~o zo o,Qo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~17 cD o o o o o o o o Z w < O0 ~0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ d o d ~ o ~ oO ~ Z0 ~ o ~Zo~ o~ ~ ~W>~w <,~ ~ < .~ 0 =,~=1~0 ~ LU LU n, sn'n' ~cOiZ Z i ,r.~ '< < __:m m !m:ca W .> < Z ,., i< ,w ~ zi< W < ~!~ ~ 0 w O!~ ~ w = o o > > > wt 'a a 9 Oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 6e)· ~ 0 6g- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p.... I'- 0 0 0 I"'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 0 ~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ e~. ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 < rr >- > Z [- z z z z o o o o 0 0 0 z a a a a ~ ~ 0 < < < < < < <~ ~z z z z z z ~ ~ --z--z--z--z_z_zz~ 0 OzO 0 0 O0 ~~ooa~a a a a a I-- ILl ~la n, o i o - U. 0 0 r.,0 < Z o o _ c~ ~ o I::!< ~- o ,,o ~ = o ~ -- U, 0 0 0 13 Z zzz ~- _ _ LUn~rn > 0 0 z ~_ LU . ~- {P z z w w z LU -- > ~z ~ o5 ~0~ ~0 O0 ~o~ z~ ~o ~°z i w u.i > > < z z LU LU > . Z I-- ,,i ILl n' I-- o o o o o o 0 0 0 i~ 0 Q ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;Z Z Z Z O Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZ Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZ ~o~o~oai >~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 w~w~w~ ~ ~ ~ a a~ a ~ a 0a a a a a < 0:: n Z lU o _,1 (J >~ ~ z o~ ~ oo 0~0~ 0 ~ ~ ~ I Oz w < W W ~Z u_ I-- u,0 -.J LLI W O< ',W~>Ow> ~ ~0,.0>~<,.~>< WO < a i,-; := 0 <C z uj ~ ~ ,~t-Wl- U.~c~ 0 r~a a0 w r~ -~ )- n'l--I-~O! 001-- n~ 20 YEAR LOCAL MEASURE I TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 20 Year Local Measure I Transportation Plan for the expenditure of Measure I funds will use the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a base. It is anticipated that the funds will be allocated in the following manner: TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT PERCENT Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Repair of Existing Roadways Traffic Signal Improvements Street Widening Intersection Improvements Railroad Crossing Improvements Slurry and Chip Seal of Existing Streets 30 10 20 10 I0 20 (See City's General Plan Circulation Element) MO:ly Z 0 U 0 Z 0 t rr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Membe,s of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neii, City Engineer Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF TI-]i ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY, PARTS I AND II FOR THE PROPOSED EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT FROM SUMMIT AVENUE TO NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PA?,K SITE AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THEREFORE RECOMMENDATION It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting and approving the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation Project from Summit Avenue to north side of the Northeast Community Park site, and issuance of a Categorical Exempt' on therefore and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation Project from Summit Avenue to north side of the Northeast Community park site. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, the attached document has been prepared to permit construction of the above mentioned improvements. The project involves installation of new A.C. Pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, under sidewalk drain and street rehabilitation. It is the Engineering Staff's finding :hat the proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommend that these improvements be classified as Categorically Exempt. City Engineer WJO:MO:Iy Attachment 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 EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT AbD REHABILITATION PROJECT FROM SUMMIT AVENUE TO NOR_~H SIDE OF THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK SITE. WHEREAS, the City Cot-ncil oftheCity of Rancho Cucamonga has reviewed all available input concerning the proposed E;..st Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation Project from Summit Avenue to north side of ~ae Northeast Community Park Site; and WHEREAS, an Environrr ental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality, Act, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council ofRancho Cucamonga hereby approves the Environmental Assessment Initial Study and isscance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation Project from Summit Avenue to north side of the Northeast Community Park site. SECTION 2: The City .'_.lerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the Califomia Environmetatal Quality. Act. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM PART I - INITIAL STUDY General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City ofRancho Cucamonga - 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91 730 2. Address of project: East A~,enue from Summit Avenue north to the Future 23rd Street 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10500 C.;iic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91 730 - Contact: Mike Olivier (909) 989-1862 extension 2330 4. Indicate number of the permit ~-pplication for the project to which this form pertains: N/A 5. List and describe any other rekted permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by C~ ~, Regional, State and Federal Agencies: Street Closure Permit. City Council Approval 6. Existing zoning district: N/A 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Rehabilitation and Extension of East Avenue north of Summit Avenue Site Size: Approximately 1 Acre Square Footage: 45, 125 square feet (street improvemenO Number of floors of construction: N/A Project Description and Effects: 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Amount of off-street parking l~'ovided: N/A Attach plans: N/A Proposed scheduling: Associated project: N/A Anticipated incremental development: N/A If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices of rents and type of household size expected: N/A -1- 17. If commercial, indicate the ty-:e, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loa&ng facilities: N/A 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift 'and loading facilities: N/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimate occupancy, loading facilities and commur_:'.ty benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessm3O. 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or substantial alteration of grounc contours'. 22. Chance in scenic views or vislas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads.. 23. Change in pattem, scale or cha:acter of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, ~_xtes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, st:'eam or ground water quality or quantity or alteration of existir g drainage pattems. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. 29. Use of disposal or potentially '-.azardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand ~or municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil ~el consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger projec: or series of projects. Yes No X X X X X X X X X X X X Environmental Setting: See Attached 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, tnd any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site, snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. -2- 34. Describe the surrounding proF erties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. In~-icate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity, snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statemeats furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are tree and ;orrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning Division. Title: %~- -3- ATTACHMENT - PART 1 Project Description and Effects: 8, 9, 13, 25, 27, 33 and 34 The proposed project "East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation" Project consists of removal and replacement of tl-_e existing pavement, cold plane and A.C. overlay. Installation of new pavement, sidewalk, curb, g~tter, drive approach and striping. The length of the project is approximately 1,210 feet. Construction is tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 1995/1996. Noise, vibration, dust and odor will increase at the project site during construction. After project completion, all noise, vibrations, dust and odor caused as a result of this project will cease to exist and will remm to their normal levels. The project is located on East Avenue from Summit Avenue north to the future 23rd Street. East Avenue is designated a secor dary street and is located in a residential area. Summit Intermediate School is situated to the east while to the west are rows of eucalyptus trees and fruit tree farm. The area north of the Summit Inter:nediate School is undeveloped. The general topography of the project site consists of a slight northwe~st to southeast incline, there are sudden grade changes in some areas just north of the school. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on plants and animals or land resources. TEere are no obvious historical, cultural or scenic aspects. CTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. BACKGROUND Name of Proponent CiO' of Rancho Cucamonga Address and Phone Number of Proponent 10.500 Civic Center Drive - Rancho Cucamonga Cahfornia 91 730 - (909) 989-1862 Date of Checklist Submitte:t August 2. 1995 Agency Requiting Checklist City of Rancho Cucamonga Name of Proposal, if applicable East Avenue Street Improvement and Rehabilitation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all 'yes' and 'ma,ebe' answers are required on attached sheets). 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YE$ MAYBE NO a4 Unstable earth condit:ons or in changes in geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacenents, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d, The destruction, cove..':ing or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in depositio:_ or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, c-~position or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X X X X X YES MAYBE Page 2 NO Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal res At in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objec :ionable odors: Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in clir~ate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal : 'esult in: ao Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in eithex marine or fresh waters? b, Changes in absorptic:a rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount ofs-xface water runoff?. c. Alterations to the corrse or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amoun: of surface water in any body of water? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quanti.-y of ground waters, either through direct additions or w'Aadrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ho Substantial reductior in the amount of water otherwise available for public w'ater supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or t'dal waves? X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 3 YES MAYBE NO , , Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (inc ~uding trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the nur:.bers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plant into an area, or in a barrier to the norma replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? · Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the divers'.:y of species, or numbers of any species of animals (l:Srds, land animals including reptiles, fish and she' ~-fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the nurr_bers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new s~ecies of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to exisTng fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing r_oise levels? b. Exposure of people t.~ severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X X X X X X X X X X X X 10. 11. 12. 13. b. A conflict with any c esignations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of a_ay governmental entities? c. An impact upon the c.uality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? Natural Resources. Will t:.e proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate o_-'use of any natural resources? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not l!~ited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of-2ae human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional hot-sing? Transportation/Circulatior, Will the proposal result in: Generation of substazttial additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing p-:.rking facilities, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact u~on existing transportation systems? Alterations to preser' patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alterations to water- ~ome, rail, or air traffic? Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? a, c, MAYBE Page 4 NO X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 5 YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services in any of the following areas? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recrea:~onal facilities? e. Maintenance of pubkc facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial a3atounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase !n demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ 16. Utilities. Will the proposa result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations tc the following utilities? a. EleCtric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Communications sys:~ms? d. Water supply? e. Waste water facilities? f. Flood control stmctm, es? g. Solid waste facilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a.Creation of any healt:. hazard or potential health hazard (excluding me ~tal health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 6 YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of ar_ aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a, Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the destruction of a prek '-storic or historic archaeological site? X bo Will the proposal res ~lt in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistor'c or historic building, structure, or object? X Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which woul~ affect unique ethnic cultural values? X Will the proposal res a'ict existing religious or sacred uses within the pote 'tial impact area? X 2 1. Mandatory Findings of Si.~-ni~cance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envirdnment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainin~ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered ~lant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impac: on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). X qO Page 7 YES MAYBE NO III. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two of more separate resources where the impact on each impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMYENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of enviror_mental impacts.) Earth b. There will be a sub grade soil and aggregate base preparation and compaction for the placement of new asphalt concrete pavement. e$ A slight increase in w~ ad or water erosion of soils will occur during construction; measuring to mitigate the erosior. will be employed. Air a.&b. Construction eq, ipment along with A.C. pavement and A.C. overlay will temporarily increase air emission and/or objectionable odors. Noise a. Existing noise leve5 will increase temporarily due to equipment operations during construction hours. ~."he public living or working near the project may be disturbed only during construction hours. At any rate, temporary equipment noises will be mitigated by the installation of noise attenuators and restfiction of hours of operation. 4/ Page 8 IV .DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although tt .e proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet t ave been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed ?roject MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find the proposed project CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Class 1 C, Section 15301 of the Califon'ia Environmental Quality Act. Date "'(-- i~ O--~' Signature Title CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City }lanner Cathy Morris, Pla'~ning Technician APPROVAL TO AMEND AN OPERATING AGREEMENT TO EXTEND LENDER SERVICES BETWEEN BANK OF AMERICA AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I-OME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City 9ouncil, by minute action, amend the Operating Agreement and corresponding Disbursement Agreement to extend lender services and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on be ~alf of the City. BACKGROUND On August 15, 1990, the City Cojncil approved an Operating Agreement between Secudty Pacific Bank and the City of Rancho CL camonga to provide Low-Interest Loans and Deferred Payment Loans to participants in the City's Home Improvement Program. Since that time, Security Pacific Bank has been incorporated into Bank of America. Bank of America has continued to provide exceptional service with the prc, cessing of the loans to facilitate the successful operation of the Home Improvement Program. S ~ff has determined that the services provided by Bank of America in connection with the processin.:l of the loans will facilitate the continued successful operation of the Home Improvement Progra n. The term of the Agreement shall be for three years from the date of execution by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Bank of America. ~n~~ sub~Respec y sub ' , BB:CM:sp CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT R~GARDING SUBDIVISION BONDS FOR TRACT 13750 AND CONDITIONALLY RELEASE THE ORIGINAL EXISTING SUBDIVISION BONDS AND ACCEPT NEW SUBDIVISIONS BONDS AND AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Cauncil approve and authorize for execution, the Escrow Agreement regarding Subdivision Bonds for Tract 13750, conditionally release the original existing subdivision bonds and accept the new subdivision Agreement and bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The developer, Alper Development cfTract 13750, (Hunters Ridge) has existing subdivision bonds in place and has requested to replace the ex sting bonds with bonds in the same amounts. This is not an unusual request and staff knows of no reaso~. to deny the request. Most of the time when a bond replacement, substitution or bond reduction is made, the existing bonds are released simultaneously with acceptance of the new bonds. In this case the developer has posted a letter of credit as collateral for the bonds. T~e transfer of the letter of credit and release of the existing bonds and acceptance of the new bond has to occur at the same time. Therefore, the developer and affected parties have agreed to use an escrow agent to accomplish the transfer. Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the execution of the Escrow Agreerfent on the City's behalf. The City Attorney has reviewed the Escrow Agreement and finds it to be accepV,_ble. The existing subdivision bonds, ifc~nditionally released by City Council, will remain in effect until close of escrow and the new bonds go inta effect. Respectfully Sub ' ed, William J. O'Nei~ City Engineer WJO:LRB:Iy CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Ci2q Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineerv~-p ACCEPTANCE OF MPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FO1 WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD LANDSCAPE AND RIDGELINE PLACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU -4 LOCATED ON 24TH STREET, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: The required improvements for Tr2ct 13565, Wardman Bullock Road Landscaping and Ridgeline Place Street Improvements have been co-npleted in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, ,.-ccept the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds in the amount of $21,600.00 and $80,600.00, authorize the City E ~gineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds No. 111 4142 1997 and 111 4142 1963. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 13565, located on the northeast comer of 241h Street and Wardman Bullock Road, the develo :er was required to complete Wardman Bullock Road Landscaping and Ridgeline Place Street Improvements. The applicant has submitted Maintenance Guarantee Bonds. Therefore, it is recommended that Ci ~ Council release the existing Faithful Performance Bonds as follows. Developer: Standard Pacific Corp., A Delaware Corporation 1565 West MacArt[ '~r Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Accept: Maintenance Guara ~tee Bonds No. 111 4142 1997 in the amount of: No. 111 4142 1963 in the amount of: $80,600.00 $21,600.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bonds No. ! 11 4142 1997 in the amount of: No. ! 11 4142 1963 in the amount of: $806,000.00 $216,000.00 Respectfully sub ' ed, WJO:LRB:Iy j RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION .3F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13565-1 THRU -4 AND AUTHORIZING TI(E FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the 'cot stmction of public improvements for Tract 13565-1 thru -4 have been completed to the satisfactio~ of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFOE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County. 4Ce CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: To: FROM: By: Subject: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Ci'y Manager William J. O'Neil, C ~ :y Engineer Linda Beek, Jr. Engi RELEASE OF BOix'2)S AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 13566-1, LOCATED ON 24T-I STREET, BETWEEN WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND SAN SEVAINE WASH RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for Tract 13566-1 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that C:~:y Council accept said improvements, accept the Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of $25,200.00, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the Ci.-y Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $252,000.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 13566-1 located on 241h Street, Between Wardman Bullock Road and San Sevaine Wash, Developer is Rockfield Caryn Venture 1100 Olympic Drive, #103, Corona, CA 91719. Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street Improvements) No. 9851495 $25,200.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street Improvements) No. 9851495 $252,000.00 City Engineer WJO:LRB:ly RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION .3F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13566-1 AND AUTHORIZING TI-ZE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 13566-1 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. ORDINANCE NO. 543 AN ORDINANC =_ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAVIONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 8.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCA~IONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAXICAB SERV CE AND DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Section 8.30.030 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new subsection "K" to read, in words and figures, as follows: IlK, Ur ess otherwise provided by law, ev:.:ience that the applicant has prccured workers compensation ins Jrance covering any and all drivers to be utilized by the applicant should a taxicab service permit be issued." SECTION 2. Section 8.30.040 ef Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words ard figures, as follows: "8.30.040 Issuance of a taxicab service permit. "Upon :he furnishing of all the information required by Section 8.30.030 and payrr 9nt of the required fee under this Chapter, the Administrative Services Director shall set a date and time of not less than ten (10) nor more than forty-five (45) days thereafter for a public hearing concerning the application to be conducted before the City Council, and shall give notice of the time so set, at least five (5) business days before the date of said hearing, t:~ the applicant, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at the address set out in the application, and by publication of the application in a daily news 3aper of general circulation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on two differe'~t days. "At the time set for the hearing of the application, the Council may examine I ~e applicant and all persons interested in the matter set forth in said appl cation, and shall determine whether or not the applicant' has satisfied r-II requirements of this Chapter and, further, whether or not the public inte'est, convenience and necessity justify the issuance of the permit. Ordinance No. 543 Page 2 If it be fou'~d by the Council that all requirements of this Chapter have been satisfied and that the public interest, convenience and necessity justify issuance of the permit, it shall, by motion or resolution, order the Administr:tive Services Director to issue a taxicab service permit. Any applicant c enied a taxicab service permit shall be notified in writing of such denial anc the grounds upon which such denial is based. "The ~ollowing factors shall be weighed with the burden upon the applicant :o show public need and necessity: "A. Tl'e inadequacy of existing taxi se'vices. lIB. TI-e population density and socio- economic characteristics in the prc posed area of operation. IIc . Ty-ae and frequency of transportation seNice needed in the proposed area of operation. lID, Existing public transportation pa :.erns, schedules and service levels and the impact of the application upon sush service. "E. Traffic and parking conditions. The probable permanence and quality of the services offered by the apolicant. IIG , TI* e character of taxi service prc posed by the applicant as de'nonstrated by: the proposed use, if any, of a radio communications system, the proposed use of terminals and private and public taxi stands, the tirr ~= of day and night when service is to be offered, and the proposed number and character of vehicles. TI'.; financial status, character, and responsibility of the applicant as demonstrated by: the applicant's abi ity to provide, maintain and operate the number of vehicles Ordinance No. 543 Page 3 proposed to be operated in accordance with the character of service proposed in the application, the applicant's criminal and driving record, if any, as well as credit record ard evidence of liability and worker's compensation insurance. Tt'e experience of the applicant in taxicab service operations as an ow'~er, manager, or taxi driver, as described in Section 8.30.030H. "Upor receipt of an application and prior to making a determination of public interest, convenience and necessity, each holder of a City-issued taxicab service permit shall be notified in writing that an application has been filec and of the date and time of the public hearing to consider said applicatio' ." SECTION 3. Chapter 8.30 of tl-e Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new Section 8.30.(:65 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "8.30.065 Taximeters - Required. Except as otherwise provided by law, each taxicab shall be equipped with a tax'meter that has been inspected and certified by the County Division of Weights and Measures. Each taxmeter shall have affixed to it wri:ten or other evidence that such tax meter has been so inspected and is currently certified. lIB, Except as otherwise provided by law, it is unlawful for any person operating a 'axicab to operate such vehicle unless it has approved rates co'~spicuously posted for passenger observation, and unless it is equipped wi:q a taximeter of such type and design as approved by a County Division of Weights and Measures. It shall be the duty of every permittee hereunder using any taximeter to, at Ordinance No. 543 Page 4 all times, keep such meter accurate. SLsh meters shall be subject to inspection from time to time by any pc ice officer of the City or any aLlhorized inspector delegated to this pL 'pose. Upon the discovery of any inaccuracy of a taximeter, the permittee shall remove or cause to be re moved any vehicle equipped with such taximeter from the streets of the City, until such taximeter has been co'rectly adjusted and certified by the CoJnty Division of Weights and Measures." SECTION 4. Section 8.30.070 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words ard figures, as follows: "8.30.070 Taxicab driver's permit required. It is unlawful for any person to accept any person as a passenger in a taxi wi:qin the City, or otherwise provide transportation services by taxi beginning in the City, without having a cu 'rent taxicab driver's permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. Nc,.-withstanding subsection A, above, the Administrative Services Director m~y accept current taxicab driver permits issued by another city or coJnty where such city's or county's permitting requirements meet the minimum standards of this Chapter and, in the Director's discretion, provide for the safety of the residents of :he City. In such case, a taxicab driver may operate with that permit in lie. of a permit issued by the City of R~ ncho Cucamonga." SECTION 5. Section 8.30.090 of Chapter 8.30 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended to read, in words ard figures, as follows: Ordinance No. 543 Page 5 "8.30.090 Grounds for denial or revocation of a taxicab driver's permit. A taxicab dr ver's permit may be denied or revoked on the following grounds: TI' e driver does not possess a valid CI~ ss 3 driverls license issued by the State of California, or any other permit or icense required by law; Tl'e driver has been convicted of a criqne within the last five (5) years wl' ch involved: II1 , Fraud or dishonesty with respect to any member of the public; "2. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 113, Injuries to any member of the public as a result of such driver's operation of a taxi; II4 , Any assault or battery, or other violent behavior against any person; "5. The sale of illegal drugs. IIc . Tl'e driver has been convicted of driving a taxicab recklessly within the preceding two years; lID. The driver has repeatedly and pe-sistently violated the traffic law of the city, county or state; "E. W" hin the last five (5) years: II1 , The driver has driven any passenger in a taxicab which the driver knew or should have known was not in good order and repair; "2. The driver has violated any of the provisions of this Chapter; Ordinance No. 543 Page 6 fl3 The driver has charged any person more than the established rate for taxicab service; "4. The driver has had any permit to operate a taxicab revoked; Tl'e driver has made false statements on an application submitted under this CI' 9pter; IfG , T!-e driver is required to register under Section 290 of the Penal Code of the State of California; Tl'e driver has been convicted of a vio ent felony at any time and the Di'gctor has reasonable cause to bel'eve that such driver continues to co' stitute a threat to the public health, sa :ety or welfare; III , TI' e driver is not at least eighteen (18) ye; rs of age." SECTION 6. Chapter 8.30 of tl' e Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new Section 8.30.105 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "8.30.105 Requirements applicable to taxicab drivers. "Each tax cab driver: sh; II keep an accurate, legible record of all passengers carried, the pick up and drop off points, and the date and time carried. This record shall be av; ilable for up to one year for review by ~he Director or designee thereof. lIB, shall not, when otherwise available for hire, refuse to transport anyone recuesting a ride except when the sa:ety of the driver or passenger may be jeopardized by such tra ~sportation. Ordinance No. 543 Page 7 sl"all wear a distinctive uniform with ar emblem, badge or insignia, and similar color scheme identifying the dr'ver's association with a permitted taxicab service. I'D, shall keep the taxicab in good mechanical condition. lIE. shall charge only those rates as submitted on the application or such ra' es as have been approved by the Di 'gctor in writing. shall keep the taxicab in a clean and saqitary condition." SECTION 7. Application of Ordinance to existing permittees. Each taxicab serv'ce and taxicab driver holding a current taxicab service or driver permit, issued by the City, as of the effective date of this Ordinance, may continue operating pursuant to such permits until the expiration thereof, whereupon compliance with the additional conditions and restrictions imposed by this Ordinance shall be required. Further, nothing herein shall excuse any violations of Chapter 8.30, nor affect any prosecution thereunder, occurring prior to this Ordinance becoming effective. SECTION 8. Penalty for Violation. It shall be unlawfjI for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply wi:l any of the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person, firm, padnership, or corporation viola:'ng any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deem=~d guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed gL ilty Of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violatior of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, fir'n, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Orc nance. SECTION 9. Civil Remedies Available. A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City throJgh 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. Ordinance No. 543 Page 8 SECTION I 0. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrased, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or he d 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 t' e 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 o qe or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequgntly be declared invalid of unconstitutional. SECTION The Mayor shall s'gn 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 circulatio'~ published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 'fornia. PASSED, APPRGVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Gutierrez, Williams No'~e Noqe ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Cle 'k I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance w~s introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 19th day of July, 1995, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ra ncho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of August, 1995. Executed this 3rd day of August 1995, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City P anner Scott Murphy, AIC~, Associate Planner SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Consideration of a -evision to the Sign Ordinance to allow additional wall signs for industrial uses. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recomnends that the City Council approve Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-01 through adoption of the attached Ordinance. ANALYSIS At the direction of the Planning Commission, an amendment to the Sign Ordinance was initiated that would provide the opportuni:y for three wall signs for those industrial businesses where the size of the site and/or the size of lhe building was significant. In considering various alternatives to the Sign Ordinance, staff has c eveloped criteda that would give the City Planner discretion to approve a third sign for single ten~_nt industrial users. The following criteria would be used as the basis for any approval of a third si;In where the size of the building, the site, and-the street frontage is sufficient to support such a rec Jest: 1. The site shall have a minimum street frontage of 600 feet; and 2. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres; and 3. The minimum building sq,. are footage shall be 200,000 square feet. These criteria were based on several factors. The Sign Ordinance allows larger signs for future tenant identification signs where t'e site is 10 acres or more. These signs would be allowed every 600 lineal feet of street frontage. 'he shopping center cdteda allows a larger monument sign if the centers have at least 500 lineal 'eet of street frontage. These sites were considered to be of sufficient size to warrant larger signs than if the building size was not based on any existing regulations of the Sign Ordinance. Staff feels the 200,000 square foot minimum is appropriate to allow those larger users the oppo-tunity for a third sign. CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPOR' SIGN ORDINANCE 95-01- CITv OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA August2,1995 Page 2 This criteria was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1995, and recommended for approval to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner DC:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report of July 12, 1995 Ordinance Approv'ng Sign Ordinance Amendment DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/,,,IONGA STAFF REPORT July 12, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, FROM: Dan Coleman, Pri ~cipal Planner BY: Scott Murphy, A;'~CP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SIC~N ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Consideration of a revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow additional wall signs for industrial uses. Background: On March 22, 1995, the P!anni :g Commission reviewed a Variance request submitted by B.H.P. Steel, U.S.A., requesting approv',d of three wall signs for their facility on Arrow Route. Under the Sign Ordinance, single tenant indt stfial users are permitted one wall sign per building elevation with a maximum of two wall signs. The applicant proposed three wall signs on the new building addition housing the zincalume production ' ine (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant suggested that the facility was actually a multi-tenant site with 3.H.P. Steel Coating, Inc., and B.H.P. Steel, U.S.A., operating as independent corporations within the same building; therefore, four wall signs for the two businesses should be allowed. The Commission did not support this interpretation During the public heating the Planning Commission felt that there may be situations that arise where a third sign is appropriate giver the size of the building and/or the size of the site. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant and return to the Commission with an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. Analysis: In considering various altematives :o the Sign Ordinance, staff has developed criteria that would give the City Planner discretion to ap?rove a third sign for single tenant industrial users. The following criteria would be used as the basis for any approval of a third sign where the size of the building, the site, and the street frontage is su ~ticient to support such a request: 1. The site shall have a miff-num street frontage of 600 feet, and 2. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres, and 3. The minimum building sc aare footage shall be 200,000 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION S';AFF REPORT SOA 95-01 - CITY OF RANCICO CUCAMONGA July 12, 1995 Page 2 These criteria were based on several factors. The Sign Ordinance allows larger signs for future tenant identification signs where the site is 10 acres or more. These signs would be allowed every 600 lineal feet of street frontage. The shopp ng center criteria allows a larger monument sign if the centers have at least 500 lineal feet of street frontage. These sites were considered to be of sufficient size to warrant larger signs than if the building size was not based on any existi.ng regulations of the Sign Ordinance. Staff feels the 200,0,30 square foot minimum is appropriate to allow those larger users the opportunity for a third sign. Recommendation: If the criteria suggested is consistent with the Planning Commission direction, a recommendation of approval of the Sign Ordinance amendment should be forwarded to the City Council through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Principal Planner DC:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - B.E.P. Building Elevations Exhibit "B" - Pla' ning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1995 Resolution Reco-nmending Approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment ~/~) PUB~',ZC HF**ARINGS VARIANCR 95-02 - BHP S'~J~.~T. U,S,A,, INC. - A request to exceed the maxLmum number of wall signs ~llowed for a manufacturing building in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8} of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 11200 Arrow ~oute - APN= 208-961-26. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitasli Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, #105, Rancho Cuc~nga, stated he was representing BHP Corporation. He requested the Planning Cc~e~ission review the Sign Crdinance to see if it could interpret the Ordinance in a way which would a11o~ ~s client to have the requested signs or direct staff to work with them on a comp.-omise. He conceded that there are no grounds for a variance from a technical standpoint, but he thought the ordinance could be more widely interpreted. He showed slides of the original drawings which the Commission had seen in April 1994 and some of the facility as it currently exists. He noted the facll:ty is under construction and should be completed in June. He stated that e~aff had classified the use as a single-parcel, single-tenant facility as d~scribed in the Sign Ordinance under industrial uses. He said =we separate companies operate out of the facility, one operating a paint line and the other operatin~. a zincalums line. He observed they are independent corporations with different management and e~ployees, but having the same parent company. He said they had remarked to staff that if the property line between the two former buildings ~sd not been removed, they would be entitled to four wall signs. He thought th~ signs should be considered business identification multi-tenant sites. He said BHP has chosen not to identify the two companies individually, but rather to identify the parent corporation. He thought the Sign Ordinance does not dictate =hat the signs must identify the individual corporations ra~her =hen t-.e parent company. He felt the signs are consistent Planning Commission Minutem -10- March 22, 1995 with the design of the building. He said they would be willing to agree to a continuanee if the Commissiol felt the matter could be worked out or to withdraw their variance application i[ the Commission agreed with their interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner McNiel asked i[ the two entities process the same materials i.e., did the zincalums coated co~ls go to the other entity to be painted. Gar~ Scharnagle, BHP Steel, .1200 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, replied that the zincalume coated coils are sometimes sold to the other entity in order to be painted. Commissioner Lumpp observed ~hat Mr. PitemmA had requested an interpretation of the Sign Ordinance and a wi.lingness to withdraw the variance application. asked if the applicant would file for an amendment to the Sig~ Ordinance in order to process the request. Mr. Pitas·i dad not feel an amendment would be necessary, but rather the Cobwhim·ion could interpret t Lair facility is a multi-tenant industrial building which would permit two signs per business. He said that such an interpretation would void the need for ava 'iance. He thought the Sign Ordinance should leave room for staff to make value Judgement. He felt the industrial category in the Sign Ordinance was set up fo:' distribution buildings and multi-tenant industrial parks, not manufacturing bu.ldings. Commissioner Melcher asked ~he maximum number of signs that could be seen fro~ any one vantage point in t~e City if all three signs were permitted on the building. Mr. Pitassi replied a maximum of two would be visible from any one location. e Commissioner McNiel asked haw significant the logo is to BHP Steel. Mr. Pitsemi replied that it . · vez7 significant because it is the symbol that is consistent among all the pr~ uc=s and services they provide and recognized in the industry. Mr. Murphy state~ that staff had no problens with the size of the proposed sign. Hearing no further testAmenT', Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNAel stated ,~hAs was a problem the City has been grappling with for quite a whale. He thought the City need· to revisit the Sign Ordinance because he felt similar re(Zumets will be forthcoming from locations with two to three tenants per building each requesting their own signs. He noted the Commission would be conmid, ring an amendment to a sign program later in the agenda for a similar sAtuatiDn within a commercial project. He agreed with Mr. Pitsemi that the sign would not be detrimental to the project in term· of cluttering up the building, but he felt it would set a dangerous precedent if there is no position in plaPe in the Ordinance. He noted that markets such as Smiths have several sub-tenants and such requests will soon be multiplying. He thought the Commission neec~ to deal with the issue by laying ground rule· of when such signage would be a;propriate. He did not support the variance request even though he felt the sign would complement the building. Cc~issioner Tolstoy felt this is a problem that will continue to grow within the commercial area whenever there is one large user who subleases space to other Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 22, 1995 commercial entities as each sub-tenant will ask for their own identification. He stated that in the indust3 ial area, there will be large corporations who will sell various products from d:fferent companies under one roof. He observed that a monument sign identifies t?e property from the south and he felt a sign on the east elevation and another el the west would be sufficient when'combined with the monument sign. Me did not :upport the request. Chairman Barker noted that il this case, the applicant was stating there is more than one company in the building, but they want to use only one corporate logo. He noted that if the applica~,t had wanted to name each company separately, they would have been entitled to :our signs. He observed the applicant is requesting fewer signs than the two separate companies would be entitled to. Commissioner McNiel asked what there would be to preclude someone from manufacturing three separate elements and creating three separate corporations. He said he knows individuals who are incorporated under three separate names. He stated that Barton Development Company would have been entitled to numerous signs if that criteria were used. Commissioner Melcher noted t' at BHP Steel brought a major new investment to the City, constructed an extremely handsome industrial building, and brought the entire complex undeE a single color scheme. Me thought that when the Sign Ordinance was written, it was not anticipated that buildings would be of this scale or there would be a ~wer tha~ is half again as tall as any of its plan dimensions. Me also felt there had been no anticipation of companies wishing to use a corporate identity. He thought the sign is handsome and an important design element on the towel. Me suggested that staff and the applicant work together to develop provisions to enable the sign. C~m~issioner Lumpp felt staf: had considered all of the issues and had tried to make it work, but had bee~ faced with no recourse other than to suggest a variance. Me noted that the applicant had affirmed that the findings can not be made to support the variancP request. He suggested the Commission take action and then work with staff tD modify the Sign Ordinance. He said that if the Commission wants to permit !uch signage, it will be necessary to redefine the definitions or create a special provision for this type of situation. He remarked that if the Sign Crdinance is subsequently modified to permit such a sign, the applicant could t .an install the sign. Chairman Barker felt the Cammission has previously been placed in situations where it believes itself forced to approve things that are not attractive but that this was just the oppos.te. He concurred with staff's conclusion that the findings cannot be found t~ support the variance. He agreed the Commission should revisit the ordinance to determine if such situations had been considered at the time the ordinance was written. He noted that the applicant was proposing fewer signs than what may ~e requested in other situations. He suggested the applicant withdraw the app)~cation and the Commission form a subcommittee to revisit the ordinance. Commissioner McNiel noted t ~st if the request for the variance is continued to the point when the Sign Ordl~,ance is revisited, there may no longer be a need for a variance. Mr. Murphy stated that if the variance request was continued and the Sign Ordinance is revised so that a third sign would be permitted, then the variance would not be needed and the applicant could then withdraw the variance without returning to the Commission Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 22, 1995 Brad Bullet, City Planner, s~ated staff had attempted to find a way to permit the third sign without setting a precedent. He noted there are many companies who identify themselves under different corporate name. He said staff could try to develop a measure within =he Sign Ordinance that would allow more than the standard number of signs when certain conditions exist. He noted that the Commiseion's policy has been that signs are to identify, not to advertise. Chairman Barker agreed tha= the Commission was not saying that it would like seven or eight companies identified on a building. Mr. Buller said that although the Commission finds the BHP logo to be attractive, the company could change iz in the future to a different color or a different logo. He suggested the matter be continued for a long enough time to consider the ramifications. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pltassi stated it seems unfortunate that ordinances are created that tie staff's hands. He felt there should be room for value Judgements to be made. He thought it is impossible to legislate good design and he did not think everything can be reduced ~o a rule. He felt an interpretation could be made that this is a muir-i-tenant site because that term is not defined in the ordinance. Chairman Barker felt the rules should be modified to avoid problems in the future. Mr. Pitassi said they woul~ be willing to continue the matter with the hope of ultimately withdrawing the variance application. He thought the revision of the ordinance would take some time, as it would ultimately need to be approved by the City Council. Cam~issioner McNiel recalle~ that past considerations of the Sign Ordinance had involved input from many sources and he hoped those other sign issues would not need to be revisited at this time. Mr. Buller observed the Commission had previously made camnAtments to the Chamber of Cmrce to address ethel pending issues. He thought the question will come up as to why this issue should be addressed without addressing those previous concerns. ~mm~lssioner Lumpp asked wh~= the benefit would be to the applicant to agree to a continuance. Mr. Pitassi said they want to cooperate with the City in looking for a solution. He said he heard the Commi~sion's comments that the applicant's situation is Justification for taking another look at the ordinance. Commissioner McNiel stated the object of revisiting the Sign' Ordinance is to correct the problem of this request as well as to address requests the C~eission is receiving from s~me of t~e retail establishments with multiple subleases. He thought that to g£ve the ad~Ltional sign to BHP Steel as a discretionary action would open the door for the ~mission to fight the same battle in the cam~ercial area. He agreed that the ~lgn would be an asset to the building and felt the Co~mission wanted to do wh~ is best for the building. Planning Co.mnission Minute~ -13- March 22, 1995 Mr. Pltasei stated he realized the design review process does not address signs and that is made clear to applicants as they go through the process. However, he felt it would be helpful to have staff make comments regarding signs that are submitted on preliminary designs, so that architects would know concerns up front. Mr. Buller suggested the matter not be continued to a specific date but rather have staff readvertise the matter. Motion: Moved by McNlel~ seconded by Melther, to continue Variance 95-02, Motion carried by the foilswing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: NONE &ARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY - carried Ccm~nissioner Lumpp stated he voted no because he felt action should be taken on the variance request and the Commission should direct staff to work on an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr, Murphy observed that ,iqn permits have already been issued for the east and west building faces.' Mr. Bullet asked if the applicant was willing to waive statutory time limits on taking action on the varialce. He said State law dictates that action must be taken withAn six months of the time the application is deemed complete, unless the applicant waives those time limits. Chairman Barker and Commissioner McNiel felt the matter could be addressed before the six months had passed. Mr. Pitassi replied they would not waive that time limit. Planning Commission Xinutel -14- March 22, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA_IFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-C', AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUN CIPAL CODE. A. Recitals 1. On July 12, 1995, :qe 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, :he 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 :~e 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." SECTION 9: The Counc'l 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 CEOA Guidelines. SECTION 3: The mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within "fteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspE 3er of general circulation in the City of Ontario,, California, and circulated in the City of Rancl' 3 Cucamonga, California. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August2,1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lava, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer CONSIDERATIOB' 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 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed revised Ordinance. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Attached for City Council consi~.eration is a revision to Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Flood Damage Projection. The revision reflects the latest changes to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations for floodplain management, flood loss and flood damage reduction and prevention. The Ordinance implements the Frovisions of the National Flood Insurance Program. It allows FEMA to offer flood insurance to t .omeowners within flood hazard zones and also protects the City's eligibility for disaster assistance on streets in flood zone areas. It requires the City to issue special permits for structures within flood :~zard zones and requires that new structures be elevated above or protected from a 100-year storn. This revision contains some optional higher standards recommended by FEMA. Essentially the higher standards amount to constr acting building finish floors one foot higher than the surface of adjacent flood waters as opposed to the FEMA minimum standard of merely above the surface of adjacent flood waters. The one foot higher standard is used almost universally in California Civil Engineering practice, because it is considered a reasonable minimum factor of safety. The sections effected by this standard are 19.12.051.c.l.a, b and c and 19.12.054. Building and Safety has reviewed these higher standards and determined that they do not affect the City's current building code. By adopting these higher s-andards, the City may receive credit, or additional credit, under CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE?ORT AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.12 August 2, 1993 Page 2 the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS) which could reduce flood insurance premiums in the City. :n addition to CRS credit, adoption of these higher standards will reduce the risk of flood damage, flood loss and flood-related disasters, and consequently, reduce expenditures of federal and state disaster assistance funds. Respectfuller//). ~ William J. O~leil City Engineer WJO:BRH:dlw Attachment ORDINANCE NO _ ~ 45 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITIY OF RANCHO CUC AMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVID_'NG 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 oftt.e Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is to be amended to read CHAPTER 19.12 FLOODPLaIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Authorizat[on, Findings, Purpose and Methods Definitions General Pr.:visions Administrv ion Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction Variance P'~cedure 191.12.010 Authorization. FiTsdines. Purpose and Methods 19.12.011 STATUTORY AUT]ORIZATION. The Legislature of the State of California has in Govermnent Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations desiLmed 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 managemen 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 governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the pub !c 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 genera welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: A. protect human life an~ health; B. minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; C. minimize the need fo7 rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; D. minimize prolonged l:'asiness interruptions; E. minimize damage to p'_blic 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 'ax 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 bt_yers 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 REI~UCING FLOOD LOSSES. In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods ~nd 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 vulr,:rable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood d& nage 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, gradir.g, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and 2 E. prevent or regulate the construction 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 geomorl:'~ologic 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 ~n the valley floors, and which is subject to flash flooding, high velocity flows, debris flows, eros'on, 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 ma' or 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" mear_s a designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths -ange from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unp 'edictable 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 ~ood-rela~ed erosion losses. The area may be designated as Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRI%_'). "Area of special flood hazard" - See "Special flood hazard area." "Area of special mudslide (i.e., -nud~ow) hazard" is the area subject to severe mudslides (i.e., mudflows). The area is designate:l as Zone M on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). "Base flood" means a flood whiC~ 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 ground level - on all sides. 3 7/ "Breakaway walls" are any type of walls, whether solid or lattice, and whether constructed of concrete, masonry, wood, metal, p ~astic or any other suitable building material which is not part of the structural support of the builCng 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 wals 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, anc 2. the elevated portion c_-' the building shall not incur any structural damage due to the effects of wind and water ~oads acting simultaneously in the event of the base flood. "Building" - see "Structure". "Coastal high hazard area" me~t:s an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dr.he along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seism!c sources. It is an area subject to high velocity waters, including coastal and tidal inundation or tsmamis. The area is designated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as Zone V1-V30, VE, or V. "Development" means any man-Fade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other s~'ucmres, mining, dredging, filling, Fading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage 05 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 construe:ion 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 managemet.: regulations adopted by a community. "Expansion to an existing mant: .'actured 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 '~te installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouting ot' concrete pads). "Flood, flooding, or flood water" means: 1. a general and temporal3' condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow c f inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or 4 runoff of surface wate:'s 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 Floodws-y 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 f oodway. "Flood Hazard Boundary Maf' means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Ir_surance Administration has delineated the areas of flood hazards. "Flood Insurance Rate Map (F :RM)" 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 premitzm zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes fiooC profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood Botmdary and Floodway Map, and the water su~ace 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" mear_s 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 no: limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, floodplain management regulatio :s, and open space plans. "Floodplain management regtZ ations" 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 desc:ibes federal, state or local regulations in any combination thereof which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage. "Floodproofing" means any conbination 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 facil:Ses, structures, and their contents. "Flood-related erosion" means tl'_e collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of underrrjning 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, o: by an unanticipated force of nature, such as a flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by son.e similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding. 73 "Flood-related erosion area" or 'Flood-related erosion prone area" means a land area adjoining the shore of a lake or other body o_-' 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 mat agement" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for red : cing 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 o5 a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge abe base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory Floodway". "Floodway encroachment !ines":xteans the lines marking the limits of floodways on Federal, state and local floodplain maps. "Floodway fringe" is that area of-he floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory Floodway" where encroachment may be permitted. "Fraud and victimization" as re .ated 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 ~fby to one-hundred years. Buildings thaz are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation are subject during all those years :o increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of the property and the community 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 subjec: 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 'oading 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 g~veming unit, i.e. county or municipality, that is empowered to adopt and implement regulations ;o 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 gran: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 exceptiona Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapF,oval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without granting a variance, even if the altemative is more expensive, or requires the property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a di; Terent use than originally intended. 6 "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the propose~_ walls of a structure. "Historic structure" means.any structure that is 1. listed individually in f: e 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 preliminari5y 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 quali: ~ as a registered historic district; 3. individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs W'_ich 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 C:at have been certified either by an approved state program as determined by the Secre-ary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs. "Levee" means a man-made strt~cture, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound enginee:ing 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 dra'nage 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 encSosure, 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 :equirements 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 design.-d for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle". "Manufactured home park or s bdivision" 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 pu:poses 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. "Mudslide" (i.e., mudflow) descr'. ~es 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 gro rod, 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 tie 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 hcludes any subsequent improvements to such structures. "New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of faciL '.ties for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a mini; hum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either f'mal site grading or the pot-ring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regul~ions adopted by this community. "Obstruction" includes, but is no: limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation, ,'.hannelization, 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 ": 30-year flood" - see "Base flood." "Primary frontal dune" means; 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 fronta. dune occurs at the point where there is a distinct change from a relatively mild slope. "Principal structure" means a structure used for the principal use of the property as distinguished from an accessory use. "Public safety and nuisance" as _"elated to Section 6, Variances, of this ordinance means that the granting of a variance must not res'alt in anything which is injurious to safety or health of an entire community or neighborhood, or ar_y considerable number of persons, or unlawfully 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-pro:~elled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck; and 8 4. designed primarily not .-'or use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational. camping, travel. or seasonal use. "Regulatory floodway" means t xe channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in ord, r to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more thaz one foot. "Rivefine" means relating to. fom,ed by. or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook. etc. "Sand dunes" mean naturally ocoarring accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds landward of the beach. "Sheet flow area" - see "Area o~' shallow flooding". "Special flood hazard area (SFI-2A)" 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, AI-A30, AE, A99, AH, E,or M. "Start of construction" includes s'abstantial improvement and other proposed new development and means the date the building perr:it was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, add-:ion, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouting of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or an.~t work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufacture home on a foundatio:_. 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 insh llation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part 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 part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. "Structure" means a walled and 'oofed building that is principally above ground; this includes a gas or liquid storage tank or a manufactured home. "Substantial damage" means drnage 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 befo:e the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" mea ~s any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed new development of a structure, tte cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start o: 'construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial carnage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either 9 1. any project for improve nent 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 W_aich are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2. any alteration of a "his:oric structure", provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued desig aation 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 wot_ d otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance. "Water surface elevation" meant 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 rb, erine 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 substar :ial flood damage may occur. 19.12.030 GENERAL PROVIS(:ONS 19.12.031 LANDS TO WHICH '~.HIS ORDINANCE APPLIES. This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City. 19.12.032 BASIS FOR ESTABL. SHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD. The areas of special flood hazard identi ~ed by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ~?EMA) in the Flood Insurance Study ItlS) dated March 5, 1984 and accompanying Flood Insurance 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 declarec to be a part of this ordinance. This FIS and attendant mapping is the minimum area of applicabili~ 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. '!tie 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 structure or land shall hereafter 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 coa~ditions) shall constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall 10 prevent the City Council from tacing such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 19.12.034 ABROGATION AN2~ 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 restfictions shall prevail. 19.12.035 INTERPRETATIC N. 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 lim!t nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 19.12.036 WARNING AND D;:SCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is cons!tiered 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 flee from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance s;:all 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. T:is 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 no: 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 19.12.041 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. A development permit shall be obtained before any construct'on or other development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 12. : 9.032. Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the Floodplait_ 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 7q question; existing or proposed s' ructures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specif ',ally, the following information is required. A. Proposed elevation in r. ,lation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures - in Zone .~.O, elevation of highest adjacent grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures; or B. proposed elevation ?~ relation to mean sea level to which any structure will be floodproofed, if required i ~ 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 exter: to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. 19.12.042 DESIGNATION OFr 'HIE 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 RESP }NSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. The dutie: and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be limited to the: 311owing. A. Permit Review. Revie,v all development permits to determine that 1. permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied, 2. all other requir6d state and federal permits have been obtained, 3. the site is reaso~ tably safe from flooding, and 4. the proposed de~relopment does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base f. )od elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. ~ or purposes of this ordinance, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and antici' ated development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood mor: than one foot at any point. B. Review and Use of Art .r Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in acco~ lance with Section 19.12.032, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and r, asonably 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 info_.nation shall be submitted to the City Council for adoption. C. Notification of Other A~,encies. In alteration or relocation of a watercourse: 12 1. notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water Resources prior tc alteration or relocation; 2. submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency; and 3. assure that the tlood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained. D. Documentation of Flo.~dplain Development. Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make avai2able as needed the following: 1. certification rec uired by Section 19.12.051 C. 1 (floor elevations), 2. certification recuired by Section 19.12.051 C.2 (elevation or floodproofing of nonresidential str~ctures), 3. certification recuired 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 rec uired by Section 19.12.056 A (floodway encroachments), 6. reports requirec by Section 19.12.057 D (mudflow standards). E. Map Determinations. lvlake interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the botmdaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a m.~pped botmdary and actual field conditions. The person contesting the location of he boundary shall be given a reasonable oppommity to appeal the interpretation as provi:-ed 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 Adminis~ator in the enforcement or administration of this ordinance. 19.12.050 PROVISIONS FOR ~'LOOD 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 ~ nd utility equipment resistant to flood damage; 2. using methods -:.nd practices that minimize flood damage; 3. with electrical, )-eating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facil!:ies that are designed and/or located so as'to prevent water from entering or accumt.~ating within the components during conditions of flooding; and if 4. within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. C. Elevation and floodproofing. (See Section 19.12.020 definitions for "new construction," "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement".) I. Residential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall have the lowest floor, including basement, a. in an A 3 zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height exceeding :he 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 num'>er is specified. b. in an A zone, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation, as detennine~ by the community. c. in all other Zones, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation.) Upon the complet'.on 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 21 so that the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermea ~le to the passage of water; b. have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodyn~:nic loads and effects of buoyancy; and c. be cerl;~ed by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this section (19.12.051 C.2) are satisfied. Such certification shall be pDvided to the Floodplain Administrator. 3. All new cons _--uction 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 autor_atically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the er:xy 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 certit:_ed to comply with a local floodproofing standard approved by the Federal Ins arance 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 bottorr. of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings nay be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they pennit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. 4. Manufactured ~'0mes shall also meet the standards in Section 19.12.054. 19.12.052 STANDARDS FOR '.]TILITIES. A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate: 1. infiltration of f_ood waters into the systems, and 2. discharge from ~'le systems into flood waters. B. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impalnnent to them, or contamination from them during flooding. 15 19.12.053 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS. A. All preliminary subc ivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and the elevation of the base ~ooc. B. All subdivision plans will provide the elevation of proposed structure(s) and pad(s). If the site is filled above the '~ase flood elevation, the final first floor and pad elevations shall be certified by a registerec 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 syste.n_s located and constructed to minimize flood damage. E. All subdivisions shall '~rovide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 19.12.054 STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES. A. All manufactured hon:es that are placed or substantially improved, within Zones Al-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites located 1. outside of a m~.nufactured home park or subdivision, 2. in a new manuSactured home park or subdivision, 3. in an expansior_ 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 hot-e has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood, shall be elevated on a pert .anent 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 hor_..es to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home par~ or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE. on the community's Flood Insur~._~ce Rate Map that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph 19.12.054 A will be eleva:ed 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 [ ome chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse., and lateral movement. 19.12,055 STANDARDS FOR _"xECREATIONAL VEHICLES. A. All recreational vek'cles 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 f~r fewer than 180 consecutive days, 2. be fully licensed and ready for highway use -- a recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it's on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect ~ utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions, or 3. meet the perrt :_t requirements of Section 19.12.040 of this ordinance and the elevation and anclx~ring 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 watets which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply. A. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other new development ur_' ess 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 dev,:lopment 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 Admiristrator 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 ofthe site, and 5. weight that any proposed development will impose on the slope. C. Within areas which rr_ay have mudslide hazards, the Floodplain Administration shall require that 1. a site investiga:ion 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, plant~ ag, watering, and maintenance not endanger slope stability. 19.12.058 FLOOD-RELATED EROSION-PRONE AREAS. A. The Floodplain Admir-strator shall require permits for proposed construction and other development within all flood-related erosion-prone areas as known to the community. B. Permit applications sha_l 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 hazL"ds 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 hazazd, such improvement shall be relocated or adequate protective measures shall be taken to avoid aggravating the existing erosion hazard. D. Within Zone E on tie 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 nat_ral vegetative or contour strip. This buffer shall be designated according to the ~ood-rele' ed erosion hazard and erosion rate, in relation to the anticipated "userid life" of structures, and depending upon the geologic, hydrologic, topographic, and climatic characteristics of'he land. The buffer may be used for suitable open space purposes, such as for agricultural, fo~stry, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat areas, and for other activities using temporary and portable structures only. 18 19.12.060 VARIANCE PROC.~DURE 19.12,061 NATURE OF VAR ANCES. 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 :'_ature. 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 insthing 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 ?reventing 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 designeC 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 a: d property 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 oft_re services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. availability of a_:ernative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 19 7. compatibility c ~ the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. relationship o3 the proposed use. to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management prog :am 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 provding 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 c~fficial that 1. the issuance of ! variance to construct 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 insurar_ce 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 tte Office of the County of San Bemardino Recorder and shall be recorded in a man '_er so that it appears in the chain of title of the affected parcel of land. C. The Floodplain Admiristrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their iss'_ance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federa Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 19.12.063 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES. A. Generally, variances rt ay 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 surrotu~ed 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 fulb' considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification req~: [red 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 t'is ordinance) upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the stmcture'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 :' ssued 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 minir...um of deviation from the requirements of this ordinance. For example, in the case of vaziances 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 ':hat failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional "hardship" (as defir.ed in Section 19.12.020 of this ordinance) to the applicant; and 3. determination ~hat 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 victimiza::'.on (as defined in Section 19.12.020 ) of the public, or conflict with existing local ~aws or ordinances. F. Variances may be issnied for new construction, substantial improvement, and other proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that the provisio:.s of Sections 19.12.063 A through E are satisfied and that the structure or other developr'_ent 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 s'-gn this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days -,_fter its passage at least once in The Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published :_n the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. 21 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Membe:s of the City Council, William N MakshLnoff, Building Official L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief ORDINANCE RE?EALING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER REQ LIIREMENTS BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS At the request of the Building Ind.tstry Association, Baldy View Chapter, the City Council conducted a workshop on June 8, 2995 to discuss the city's Residential Fire Sprinkler Ordinance as it applies to one and two family dwelling units. The primary concern of the BIA was the increased construction costs and tZe impact on the selling price of the final product. SUMMARY: At the conclusion of the workshop and after considerable discussion by the City Council, staff was directed to prepare an amended ordinance repealing requirements for fire sprinklers in one and two family dwelling units. T: e city attorney prepared the attached ordinance with assistance from staff. The ordinance being presented leaves intact the requirements for fire sprinklers in multi-tenant residential dwelling units. 2ettfu~~, ial L. Dennis Michael, Fire Chief BM:DM:ll Attachment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 MO3IFICATIONS 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 Rancko Cucamonga Municipal Code, adding subsections "i" ""' "k" , 3 and to 1991 U.B.C. Section 3802, as previously adopted b~] 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 -- GrOUD M, Divisicn! occupancies and reconstructed buildinqs. Section 3802 of the Uniform Building Code hereby is amended by adding new subsections (K) and (1) to read as follcws: '(k) Group M, Division 1 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. ~ExceDtion: Group M, Division 1 occupancies exempt from pernit requirements by Section 301(b)l 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 sprinkler systen as specified in any applicable subsection of t~is 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 cf any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corpcration, 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 injunctionj 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 a~opted 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 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Oity Manager Brad Buller, City ~lanner Scott Murphy, AI .~P, Associate Planner CONSIDERATIC ~1 OF AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 35 - CAPRI PROPER'IES - Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to amend the Un"orm Sign Program to allow a fourth sign color for minor tenants within an existing shopping center (Country Village), located at the northeast comer of Base Line Roac and Carnelian Street - APN: 202-381-24 through 26, 28 through 33, 35, and 36. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recom'nends that the City Council deny the request to amend Uniform Sign Program No. 35 through m' ~ute action. BACKGROUND On March 8, 1995, the applicant requested an amendment to the Uniform Sign Program to permit a fourth color, yellow, for in-line tenants. This request was generated as a result of leasing space to "Subway" as a minor tenant w :hin this neighborhood shopping center. The Subway trademark features "SUB" in white letters a'd '~A/ay" in yellow letters against a dark brown background with a yellow border. In fact, the original sign request submitted by Subway included the white and yellow sign. This request, however, was approved by staff with the modification that the sign be entirely white, consistent with the Uniform Sign Program. Subway elected to install the white and yellow sign consistent with their corporate identification, contrary to the approved plans and the Uniform Sign Program. ANALYSIS On June 14, 1995, the Plannine. Commission reviewed the request to amend the Uniform Sign Program for the Country Village Shopping Center. VVhile the Planning Commission appreciated the applicanrs desire to mainta"~ the corporate image of Subway, the Commission expressed concem about the precedent apl: 'oval of the corporate signage would have on other centers in the City. The Commission believed 1hat maintaining some level of control over the number of colors allowed within a shopping center was necessary. If the Commission allowed any tenant to utilize their corporate colors, there wo. Id be no need for a Uniform Sign Program. The centers would become a mix of colors given the number of nationally recognized tenants that have located in Rancho Cucamonga. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPOR' UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NC.35 - CAPRI PROPERTIES August 2, 1995 Page 2 Subway has demonstrated their ~villingness to comply with the Planning Commission's direction in other centers where both white and yellow are not permitted. In Haven Village and Terra Vista Town Center, the Subway signs ~ re white in compliance with the Uniform Sign Programs for those centers. The Subway sign at Vic:oria Village is red consistent with the Sign Program. As a result, the Planning Commission felt tl"at the Uniform Sign Program for Country Village should not be altered to add a fourth color. The applicant may combine a graphic logo symbol next to the text copy, with no restriction on color, to retain their corporate or trademark identity. The Uniform Sign Program already allows the incorporation of graphic Iogos; hence, no amendment would be necessary. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal Exhibit "B" - Lette from Subway Franchisee Exhibit "C" - Letter from Subway Corporation Exhibit "D" - Plan 'ing Commission Staff Report of June 14, 1995 Exhibit "E" - Planr ing Commission Minutes of June 14, 1995 PROPERTIES 16000 ";E!iTURA BLVD, SUITE ENC{NO, CA 91436 818-995-6747 FAX 818-995-2944 HAND DELIVERED RECEIVED June 22, 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 JUN 2 2 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Attn: City Clerk Re: Subway/Sign Appeal Amendment To Uniform Sign Program No. 35 Country Village Shopping Center Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear City Clerk: On behalf of our tenants, Chuck and Nancy Benedickt, franchisees of a Subway store located in Country Village Shopping Center, we respectfully request to appeal the decision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division not to permit Subway to utilize the color yellow in Subway's familiar identifying signage. This decision was reached on June 14, 1995. Enclosed, please find letters from our tenant and from Subway Development Corporation stating their reasons for this appeal. The Landlord, MBWJ Properties, supports Subway's belief that it is very important that Subway franchisees be allowed to utilize the franchisor's signage and colors which are familiar to all from coast to coast. The one hundred twenty-six dollar ($126.00) appeal fee which should accompany this request i~ currently being held by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Scott M~rphy,.Associate Planner, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning De[artment, has informed me that we are due a refund of $580. Mr. Murphy said that the $126 appeal fee will be deducted from that refund. Kindly advise where and when the City Council will be meeting to consider appeals. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to call me at (818)995-6747. Sincerely, CAPRI PROPERTIES e USWA : SUBWAY DEVELOPMENT OF SAN BERNARDIN.:) RIVERSIDE AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK 9541 BUSINESS CENTER DR. BLDG. 10, SUITE A r~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 944-3429 FAX (909) 944-3810 RECEIVED CAROL A. BAKER DEVELOPMENT AGENT July 13, 1995 JUL 17 1995 City o! Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Mr. Scott Murphy City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O, Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 9172.c. Re: Appeal of Uniform Sign Criteria/Subway Dear sir: At the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1995, Subway was denied its use of the color and logo which is iden: fiable with it's ranking as the second largest franchise in the nation, McDonald's being number one. While I respect the fact that criteria and regulation is an obvious concern to the committee, it is also a responsibility to prorr ote a positive and productive atmosphere that allows individuals to be successful in t!' 9jr business venture. Franchising eliminates some of the "risk" but it is necessary to follow the system as close as possible. Signage is an important part of that equation. Additionally, identity is key to the success of all major chains and Subway is a nationally recognized franchise with over 10,000 stores. We ask that you allow Subway i,~s proper place of recognition determined by its franchise ranking and number of stores an:t not by the square footage, in-line or end-cap placement within a center. At the hearing, it was asked Why this store was making such an issue of the color and logo and several Subway's were cite~ as stores who were willing to follow the criteria as designated by the Landlord's of the various centers. The answer is simple "stupidity" and I am the one to"blame. Eight ye~ rs ago, ! ventured into this business with no previous experience in the world of francl" ising. My intent was to open stores and "nor' cause waves. At the time, it seemed reasonab e enough to accept the landlord's representation that the city was mandating the sign~ge criteria and it was not subject to change. This lesson caused a burden to myself and fellow franchisees because we were now left with the task of educating the public. We assured our customers that we were the genuine Page 2 Subway even though our identity had been somewhat altered. To say the least, this translated to a sluggish start and more money spent in marketing. Mr. & Mrs. Benedickt, franchisees at Alta Loma Count"y Village, implore your assistance. They ask that you allow them every opportunity to be vie 31e owners and assets to the community. I hope that a decision will be made based on what is good business sense. Up to this point, I ' had assumed that part of the PIr--nning Commission's job was to take the good with the bad, and to accept the responsibility for voting on these issues based on content. Vote "no" because you truly believe that it is not in the best interest of the City, not because it will cause a precedent that could leave the Commission with the task of having to address similar requests, thereby bogging down the meeting and opening Pandora's Box. At the June 14th hearing, that is the impression t '~at I came away with and I beseech you to not deny our request because it will cause yc J more work. In closing, I thank you for the opaortunity of allowing me to present this letter in behalf of Subway and the franchisee. Respectfully, Carol A. Baker cc: Benedickt, franchisee Susan Lemarque, Capri Pro}erties CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 14, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Brad Buller, City 5~lanner Scott Murphy, AI2P, Associate Planner AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 35 - CAPRI PROPERTIES - A request to am:nd the Uniform Sign Program to allow a fourth sign color for minor tenants witzdn an existing shopping center (Country Village), located at the northeast comer of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street - APN: 202-381-24 through 26, 28 through 33, 35, and 36. Background: In approximately 986, the City approved the original Uniform Sign Program for "Country Village," a neighborhood commercial center. The original criteria allowed the use of can signs as reflected by the signs on :he west side of the center. In 1992, the property owner processed expansion plans for the center, including a new facade treatment for the center. As a condition of approval for the expansion, a revised Uniform Sign Program was required to bring the sign criteria into conformity with current Planning Commission direction. The new criteria was reviewed and approved, allowing for individual channel letters of red or white text for in-line tene~ts. Major tenants, as identified by the site plan, were alloxved flexibility to use their corporate o7' nationally recognized identifications. A modification to the sign criteria was subsequently approved in 1994 to allow the addition of blue letters for in-line tenants, bringing the number of signs colers allowed for in-line tenants to three. On March 8, 1995, the applicant 'equested an amendment to the Uniform Sign Program to permit a fourth color, yellow, for in-line :enants. This request was generated as a result of leasing space to "Subway" as a minor tenant wit?in this neighborhood shopping center. The Subway trademark features "SUB" in white letters axd "Way" in yellow letters against a dark brown background with a yellow border. In fact, the original sign request submitted by Subway included the white and yellow sign. This request, however, was approved by staff with the modification that the sign be entirely white, consistent with the Uniform Sign Program. Subway elected to install the white and yellow sign consistent with theix corporate identification, contrary to the approved plans and the Uniform Sign Program. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USP NO. 35 - CAPRI PROPERTIES June 14, 1995 Page 2 Analysis: Over the past several years, the Planning Commission has reviewed many Uniform Sign Program requests. Early in the Uity's history Uniform Sign Programs typically allowed a single color and, in some cases, a single letter style for in-line tenants. In response to concerns from the business community, the Planning Commission has established general criteria allowing the major tenants to utilize their corporate i~-enti~cations. Minor/in-line tenants have been allowed up to three colors from which to choose. Even in regional shopping centers (i.e., Terra Vista Town Center and Foothill Marketplace), which have the greatest latitude on signs, the in-line tenants are limited to a choice of three sign colors. The issue of how many colors also came up during the last Planning Commission Workshop with the Chamber and Business Community. The Commission did agree at that time they would revisit this and other issues at a later date but also reaffirmed that the current policy of three colors should ren.ain. While staff can appreciate the ap~licant's desire to accommodate Subway's corporate sign colors, approval of a fourth color for in-~Sne tenants will establish a precedent. Subway has demonstrated their willingness to comply wiff_ the Planning Commission direction in other centers where both white and yellow are not permiV..ed. In Haven Village and Terra Vista Town Center, the Subway signs are white in compliance wit ~ the Uniform Sign Programs for those centers. The Subway sign at Victoria Village is red consiste~tt with the Sign Program. As a result, staff feels that the Uniform Sign Program for Country Viilags should not be altered to add a fourth color. The applicant may combine a gra_~hic logo symbol next to the text copy, with no restriction on color, to retain their corporate or trademark identity. The Uniform Sign Program already allows the incorporation of graphic logos; kence, no amendment would be necessary. Recommendation: Slaff recort:nends that the Planning Commission deny the Uniform Sign Program amendment for Country. Village through minute action. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Existing Uniform Sign Program Exhibit "B" - Rec'aest from Applicant Exhibit "C' - City Planner Denial Letter Exhibit "D" - Leter of Appeal Exhibit "E" - Letter from Subway F/ e t z Fi nni***;,3 Dive:ion A ; u3t'eJ t? a c E V E D -- RANCHQ CUCAM ONGA Ci[*y Gf R---r:.cho C~c~rnonc ~LANNING EX m Tffn" S APR n 5 ,", ~s ~x~bil is ~tend~ to sere ~ ~ ~ide for d~i~ing ~d ins~llation of ten~ signage within the Proj~t. ~e sp~i~cations ~dicat~ within ~his ~ibit are inl~nd~ to help ~ch mn~t achieve visual identification. Tenant agrees to design, construct ant.. install Tenant's signage at Tenant's sole cost and expenses in accordance with these Sign Criteria, as set forth below, prior to Tenant opening for business in the Shopping Center. Conformance to detailed sign drawings and specifications which have o :,tained the prior approval of the Landlord will be strictly enforced and any non- conforming sign must be brought into conformance at the sole expense of the Tenant erecting the same. The Landlord shall administer and interpret these Sign Criteria, which shall apply equally to all tenants of the Shopping Center. A. GENERAL REOUTREMENTS I. Prior to applying to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") for approval or permits, Tenant shall submit or cause to be submitted to Landlord for approval before fabrication, at least four (4) copies of detailed drawings indicating the location, size, layout, design, color and materials of proposed signs, including all lettering, graphics and Iogos. 2. All City approvals and permits for signs and their installation shall'be obtained by the Tenant or his or its representative prior to installation. 3. Tenant shall b~ responsible for -:ul~llment of all requirements and specifications. 4. All signs shall be reviewed by Landlord and Landlord's designated project architect for conformance with this Sign Criteria and overall design quality. Th6 Landlord and the City Planning and Building Department shall have the fight to approve or disapprove sign submissions b~sed on esthetics of design. B. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS 1. No projections beyond the sign area will be permitted. 2. Sign area is to be within the limits indicated on Schedule "1" to this Exhibit "D". 3. Letter height shall be a minimur of twelve inches (12') and a maximum of eighteen inches (18"). The Landlord may in its sole discretion approve letter heig.~t up to a maximum of twenty-four inches (24') for 8736, 8770 and 87'76 A, Baseline Road. Thes~ may be allowed a logo cabinet, subject to the Landlord and City acceptance. 4. Tenant shall have a maximum of seventy percent (70 %) of Tenant's store frontage width centered vertically and horizontally on a sign band, as indicated on Schedule "1" to this Exhibit "D" . 5. Lettering shall be a Helvetic Medium, in single line copy (.P_ff~e.. -fT'Y(.t!! ~/~7" 6, Plastic Pace shall be #202-0 Red, Blue and White or Blue or White. t-t'd~F~C,4 o · p C., ' cing the Center and one side facing the street of Baseline or Carn~qhn Tenant may, at Ten~nt's option and sole cost ~d expense, install a second sign facing the strut, provided that all requireme:~ and specifications as stated in this Extfibit "D" and elsewhere in this Le~e are met, including obtaining City of Rancho Cucamonga approvals and/or permits. X,/-t /,6 / f %4 4" / ® 'e @ '~ -e PROPERTIES J1600C' VENTURA BLVD, SUITE 1203 ENCINO, CA 91436 818-995-6747 FAX 818-995-2944 Ref. 110.918 VIA EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAiL March 8, 1995 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Mr. Scott Murphy Dear Scott, As we discussed on the t~lephone today, enclosed is the application for the Landlord to amend th~ sign criteria at Country Village Shopping Center. Also enclosed, per your request, is our check in the amount of five hundred eighty dollars ($580.00) for the required fee. We are requesting to add the color yellow, under General Specifications, number 6 of Exhibit "D" - Sign Criteria. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of Exhibit "D" for your reference. We are very anxious to effect this amendment as soon as possible. Our newest tenant, Subway is eager to proceed. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to call me at 818/995-6747. Thank you for all your patience and assistance today,. it was very appreciated. Sincerely, CAPRI PROPERTIES Susan J. Lemarque Property Manager SJL/sl Enclosures CC: Sally Forster Jones Tim Cox - Tri-Pacifi2 Commercial Brokerage Carol Baker - Subway Development Corporation RECEIVED MAR "" "" City of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Division /07 Apni 24, 1995 Ms. Susan J. Lemarque, Property Manager MBWJ Properties c/o Capri Properties 16000 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1203 Encino, CA 91436 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM ~35 - COUNTRY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STT'.x.EET Dear Ms. Lemarque: Staff has reviewed your request t~ modify the Uniform Sign Program for Country Village to add yellow as an approved sign color for in-line tenants. The existing Sign Program allows the use of red, white, and/or blue sign colors for in-line tenants. The addition of yellow will bring the total number of sign colors to four. The Ranthe Cucamonga sign guidelines and past Planning Commission direction limits the n'irnber of sign colors within a shopping center to three for in-line tenants. During a site inspection, staff observed all three existing colors are being used within the center. Therefore, the request to aLd the yellow sign color to the Uniform Sign Program is denied. This decision shall be final follow'rig a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a ~62 appeal fee. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Scott Murphy, the project planner, at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C)N " City, Planner BB:SM:mlg Mayor W;lliam J. Alexanaer Mayor PrO-rein ~ex Gul';errez jack Lain, AIC~ C.f'/Manager PO Box 807 - r~ancno Cucamonga. CA 91729 Councfimeml~er Paul Biane ·- - Councllmemoer James V. Curatalo '1 Councilmeml~er Diane Willlares · (g0q) 989-1851 * PAX (9C"9) 987-6499 / c> Z PROPERTIES I1600O VENTIJRA BLVD., SUITE 1203 ENCINO CA 91436 818-995-6747 FAX 818-995-2~ April 26, 1995 Ref. 110.054 110.904 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Community Developmsnt Department Planning Division Re: Amendment To Uniform Sign Program #35' Country Village Shop.ping Center NEC Base Line Road & Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, Celifornia Dear Planning CommiSsior: Pursuant to the April 24, 1995, letter we received from Mr. Buller, the City Planner, advising us that our request to amend the Uniform Sign Program to add the color yellow had been denied, enclosed is our check, in the amount of sixty-two dollars ($62.00) to appeal that decision. Our newest tenant, Subway, applied for a sign permit and was turned down because yellow was not one of the city approved colors in the Uniform Sign Program. In order to assist a very valuable tenant, we promptly called the City and asked what we could do. We followed all procedures directed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In early March we remitted our check to tke City in the amount of five hundred eighty dollars ($580.00) and filled out an application to amend the sign criteria and, as stated above, our request was denied. At this time, we respectfully request that the City Planning Commission reconsider their decision. Subway is an excellent tenant, who we feel is an asset to any area zhey open a store in. Subway's potential for creating jobs is most certainly a plus for the community as well as their continued e~forts ~o provide a quality product. A business like Subway also enhances the community by increasing consumer traffic which will inevitably increase area sales. As a property manager for several shopping centers located throughout Southern California, I travel to various centers each week.and have direct contact with our many tenants. I am the person who hears over and over again how the szate of Southern California's economy, and the general economy of the [nited States, has affected everyone over the past several years. I asked myself often, what can be done? How can we all survive these difficult times? After much thought, I personally feel that everyone must make a concerted effort to help each other. In other words, an old phrase says it best, "One hand washes the other". April 26, 1995 The City of Rancho Cuca~.Dnga Planning Department Page 2 Not only have tenants and Landlords been affected but city governments have been touched as well. Cut backs in local revenue from taxes, revenues from business licenses, unemployment, businesses leaving areas, cut backs in funding, etc., etc., have all definitely impacted .local municipalities. Io summarize, all of us have suffered due to the recession. We, at Capri Properties had to amend many of the standards which governed our managing procedures in past years to accommodate today's standards. We realized zhat rules could not always be considered "cast in stone" but sometimes needed to be allowed to bend or sometimes be completely overlooked. [ am proud to say that our company has made great strides.in assisting our tenants through these difficult periods. Although our leases govern Landlord/Tenant relationships and have many rules and regulations, we have found it necessary to bend them and/or make adjustments. After several years of ~any businesses failing, declaring bankruptcies, abandoning properties, e~c., retail sales appear to be climbing upwards. This trend car only benefit everyone in the community. We hope that you will take all of the above into consideration when considering our appeal and we thank you for your time. Sincerely, CAPRI PROPERTIES SJL/sl Enc: (2) CC: Sally Forster Jones Donald H. Jones, Esc. Subway Development Corporation UBLUAV,.Ii SUBWAY DEVELOPMENT OF'SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK 9541 BUSINESS CENTER DR. BLDG. 10, SUITE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 944-3429 FAX (909) 944-3810 CAROL A. BAKER ' DEVELOPMENT AGENT Apr i 1 27, 1995 C i t y o f R a n c h o C u: a m o n g a Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Dr ive F'. 0. Box 80'7 Ranchc, Cu.:amonga, CA 91729 At ten t i c,n: Mr. Szott Murphy, Pro.]ect Planner F'l ann :ng Divisic, n Re: Amendment to Uniform Sign F'rc, gram ~35 Country Vil 1 age Shopping Center Basel ine at ]:arnel ian RECEIVED MAY 1995 City ot Rancho Cucamonga Plannir~g Division Dear sir, It has ,:ome to my a~tention that tne amenoment to the sign criteria, as requested by the c, wner c,f the above mentioned ,:enter, has been denied. To put it simply, we dc, r~c,~ understand. Subway is a nat ional 1 y recc, gn ized franchise with over 10,000 stores in existence. While we vary in square foc, tage size from 200 square feet to 25)0 plus square feet, we are none-the-less a major fc. rce in the sandwicn segment c,f the fast foc, d i ndust r y. F:'ran,:hising by its very defir'lition is dependent on a franchisee/franchisc, r relationship of building a business on a proven concept. This is obvic, usly enhanced by the ability to use fc, rmulas, as well as, logoed ~rademarks and color schemes. The fra~chisee pays a fee for the use of these key features and expezts to reap the benefit c,f ~is/her purchase. The entrepeneuria] spirit is paralleled with franchising. It has been expressed by many that franchising has been an important buildin=q block for ecc, nomic grc, wth. Sometimes, it appears that there is more emphasis in enforcing rc, ad olocks and red tape rather than encourage business aevelc, pment ano prc, sper ity. The c, wner of [::ountry Village Shc, pping Center has been pro- active in trying to facilitate the use c,f c, ur lc, gc,. bhe has ~t~-/"recc'gn ized the nezessity of capital iz ing c,n our na't ional II/ Pg. ~ identity as an additional draw to her ,:enter. Ms. Sal 1 y Forster Jc, nes, c, wner , and Ms. Susan Lemarque ,:,f Capri Property Management have strivecj to imOlement the highest of standa'rds at this center, while cc, mpiying wi~n all clt'y ordinances, etc. Every effort is made to keep the ,:enter free of graffitti and to facilitate an eye-appealing ,:enter . The .:or. tot has not beer, made less attractive with the cc, mpl ement c,f our nat ic, nal ly registered trademark and cc, lors. In fact, it stands out in the recognition of our rank ,:,f being the second :. argest franchise, second c, nly tc, Mc Donalds. It is certainly nc, less demonstrative than that of Carl's Jr. signage which is located on the same property. In light of this, I woulo ask yc, u to accept this request for appeal and allow us to take advantage c,f ~he franchisees financial investment in Subway. It is our intention to assist the franch:.see in being a successful, cc, mmunity-dr ~ven asset to R~cho CJc~cl~gs~ as wel 1 as, resident. Res ectfu!ly subm:tted, Car c, 1 A. Baker Nancy Benedi :kt: franchisee Susan J. Lemarque, Capr i Prc, pert ies lq~.W 8USII~-SS A~qD~.NT TO UNIFORM SI~J~ PROGRAM NO. 35 - CAPRI PROP~RTIRS - A request to amend =he Uniform Sign Program to allow a fourth sign color for minor tenants within an exis=ing shopping center (Country Village), located at the northeast corner ot B, seline Road and Carnelian Street - APN= 202-381-24 through 26, 28 through 33, 35, and 36. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff repo~c. Camnissioner Lum~p recalled that in the past, the Commission had made allowances for logoe and registered s. gns. He asked if Subway is a registered sign. Mr. Murphy thought: Subway i~ a registered trademark. He said that the C~ission had made a differentiatio~ for logos, not trademarks. He noted that some applicants have argued the: their name is their logo, but the C~mmission had always held f~rmthat names conform =o the sign criteria and a separate graphic logo could be placed adjacent to the name of the business with vir~ually no restrictions on the colors c~ the logo. He stated that the standard logo of the brown backqround with white and yellow lettering could potentially be placed next to the word "Subway' in white. PlanningConm~ission Minutes -2- June 14, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked if the existing white and yellow sign was installed without proper approvals. Mr. Murphy replied that a sign company representing Subway came into City Hall with plans for a white and yellow sign and the plans were approved with a modification indicating tha~ all the letters would be white. However, following the approval, the sign was installed in white and yellow contrary. to the sign program and the approved p~an~. Chairman Barker invited pu 31ic'comment. Charles Banedick=, 8586 Laurel, Fontana, stated he ie the Subway franchises. He said he had the sign installed in white and yellow because he thought they could go ahead and use the yellow so long as the property owner filed an application for an amendment to the Uniform Sign Program. He conx~ented he would not have put up the white and yellow sign if he had realized the application required a public hearing before the Planning Commission. He thought that Subway could not be called a minor tenant because it is a major business with over 10,000 stores. He stated that Subway uses ~he corporate colors of white and yellow in national advertising'campaigns and zhe franchisees are charged for the advertising. He thought he would not get the full benefit of that adver%ising if he did not use the white and yellow corporate colors. He felt business has been hur~ at the other Subway stores which do not have the white and yellow signs because customers do not think they are part of the chain. He requested that he be allowed to use the white a~d yellow sign and stated he feared his franchise may be pulled if he is not allowed to use the corporate colors because he would be in violation of his franchise agreement. C~mlaissioner Eumpp asked Mr. Banedick= if he was saying that if the sign is not white and yellow, his franchise might be pulled and he would lose his business. Mr. Banedick= replied that he would technically be in default because he would no= be using that which iN supplied by the franchisor. Commissioner Lumpp noted =here are three other Subways in the City who do not have white and yellow signs. He asked if Mr. Benedick~ had specifically asked the franchisor if he would lose his franchise if he did not have a white and yellow sign. Mr. Banedick= acknowledgeC he had not discussed that particular point. Co6~aissioner Lumpp asked if anyone had told Mr. Benedickwc that he could use the white and yellow sign becamse an application to amend the uniform sign program had been submitted. Mr. Benedickwc stated he took full responsibility for installing the sign. He said he thought su~ai~ting zhe application and paying the fee would get him the colors he wanted. He thought the'other stores who do not have the white and yellow sign have lo~c business. He acknowledged that Subway is swell known name but he thought the white and yellow colors are similar to McDommld's golden arches. Commissioner Eumpp stated =hat there is a sign program and if the Commission decides the request is va~id, it would leave it open for someone else to come along and ask for pink and someone else =o request another color, etc. and Rancho Cucamonga would no longer appear that it had any positive design philosophies. Planning Commission Minute~ -3- June 14, 1995 Mr. Benedick~ responded ~hey are not a mom and pop store, but a national franchises. He said he paid good money for everTching he bought from Subway, including the colors. He said he had also been told there are other signs in Ran=he Cucamonga which include four colors. Chairman Barker stated he owns a franchise and understands the advantages of corporate identity. He said he heard the applicant to state that he thought he had done averT=hang right and.he felt there is a correlation between the color and the amount of money he is making because of corporate identity and he feels he is in danger of losing his franchise if he does not use the colors. He said the Commission has to focus on the issues which relate specifically to this request and the City as a whole. Carol Baker, Development Agent, Subway, 14059 Pierson Court, Ran=he Cucamonga, stated that Mr. Baker would not lose his franchise if he did not use the white and yellow sign. However, she stated she was the original owner of two of the Subway stores in town that do not have the white and yellow signs, and she felt her sales had been impac=e~ because she did not have the corporate colors. She said that people would ask if the store was "the Subway' or a "clone.' She asked if the issue was that the C;_ty does not want to allow a fourth color. She noted she had visited other cen~ers and found four colors in existence and asked if those stores were not complying with the wishes of Ran=he Cucamonga or if they were grandfathered in. S~e said 'she particularly noticed that Domino's and Baskin Robbins use four colors. Susan Lemarque, Property ~anager, Capri Properties, stated she understood the City's concern over too many colors and appearing as a hodgepodge, but she felt that Subway is a national tenant and she thought national tenants should be allowed to have their loges. She said that for about two years she saw & decline in businesses in Ran=he Cucamonga and a surge in leasing has.only begun within the last six months. She felt rules should be bent to help ensure success of the business. Hearing no further testim~tF, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that colors which are not included in a sign program are allowed if the colors are par= of a logo. He noted that Baskin Robbins is the name of the ~siness, but their logo is '31." He said additional colors would be ~rmitted for the '31.' He said the same would hold true for Danino's where the name would be in an approved color, but the logo, which looks like a domino, could be additional colors. Dan Coleman, Principal Planset, added that some of the locations referenced are in shopph~g centers which ware in existence prior to City incorporation, so sign program approvals were gr&~ted under County standards. CamnissionerMelcher queenhoned if the item should have been listed on the agenda as an appeal rather than ~a amendment to the sign program. Mr. Bullet responded an -, ~,,~ ant to the uniform sign program is necessary to add the fourth color. Commissioner Melcher felt the colors are Subway's corporate trade style and allwing =he ccmb~nation o~ colors is appropriate. He thought the City has more serious sign problems to worry about such as the many paper and painted signs on windows and banner signs w~ ich hang on buildings for months at a time. He felt Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 1995 the city's enforcement efforts should be directed at those types of signs rather than a two-tone Subway sign. He supported the request for two colors. Commissioner McNiel stated the Sign Ordinance was originally generated because there were centers where the multiplicity of colors created a hodgepodge and the center was lost within the color scape. He reasoned that if someone were to clone Subway and use the name "Subway," legal steps would immediately be taken by Subway management to pro:ect. their name, regardless of the color of sign. He thought the Sign Ordinance has been weakened every time the ordinance is considered. He did not support the application. C~nissioner Lumpp asked how many colors are approved for Haven Village and Tetra Vista Town Center. Mr. Murphy responded that two colors are approved for Haven Village while Terra Vista Town Center has three. Commissioner Eumpp felt apTroving' the white and yellow sign would establish a precedence for the center for someone else to come in with a chartrouse sign and say it is their nationally recognized color. He thought approving this application could potentially cause appeals and amendments to sign programs throughout the City. He femred that approving the colors for this Subway would prompt the other Subways to request the white and yellow signs. He acknowledged that this request seems miauscule in terms of the overall process, but he felt the objective is to maintaiR the precedence of the sign program for the center. He did not support the appl.ication. Chairman Barker asked if t~ere is another color around the existing sign other than the white and yellow. Mr. Murphy replied that it is white and yellow with black returns on the individual channel letters. Chairman Barker did not bell.eve allowing the white and yellow sign would have a major negative effect on the center in its present condition. He felt the franchises had probably relied on the sign company to handle the matter and was empathetic about the cost te the franchises but also expressed concerns about the growing mishmash'of colors and wanted to be consistent. He said he felt the application should not be a.~proved even though he was not happy about denying it. He thought the request is ~inor. _Co-~-~____issioner McNiel agreed the request is virtually inconsequential except that granting it could lead to a parade of property managers requesting changes to sign programs leading to a kaleidoscope of colors that he did not want to be a part of. Chairman Barkmr affirmed that the vote was 3-1-1 (Melcher no and Tolstoy absent) to deny the request. Hi advised the applicant of the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Bullet interjected that the Planning Commission has had a workshop with the Chamber of Commerce and other merchants regarding signs including number of colors. He said the City has agreed to address the issue in the future as to how many colors are appropriate and what the criteria are for adding colors. He said staff w~uld contact the ce~c. er so that it could be a part of future discussions. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 14, 1995 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Mayor and Membe's of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add Commercial L ses and standards for Commercial uses, in conjunction with Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, for parcels located on the south side of Foothill BOL levard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Cojncil initiate consideration of text changes in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) which would be needed to support the applicant's requested land use change from Industrial Park to Commercial Use. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Text changes to the ISP are part of the subject application for Land Use Change from Industrial Park to Community Commercia. The text changes to the ISP would specify the types of commercial uses allowed, as well as set standards for commercial development. The action will generate part of the information necessary to consider the request for a land use change and must be initiated by the Planning Comr-' ission or the City Council. On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission considered the subject text change and deferred action to the City Council. (See att.-' ched Staff report to the Planning Commission, July 12, 1995.) Staff has also prepared a table c~mparing Commercial Land Uses in the Development Code, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Terra Vista Specific Plan, Subarea 7, and generally in the Industrial Specific Plan. Commercial uses now permitted in Subarea 7 include Theaters, Restaurants, Fast Food, Recreat on, and Home Improvement. Commercial uses presently not allowed by the ISP include Apl:arel, Appliances, Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Home Electronics. (See attached.) A majority of the Commission felt :'~at the timing of the subject application was such that it would not unreasonably delay the applicant to wait for the Citywide commercial land use market study. Applications for General Plan and '~dustrial Specific Plan Amendments were received on May 24, 1995. However, these applicatior s are incomplete at this time, but expected to be ready for the General Plan Amendment Cycle scheduled for Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 24, 1995. To fulfill completeness items for these items, a market study and an air quality analysis have been requested. The requested air quality analysis has not yet been received. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPOR' WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS August 2, 1995 Page 2 The applicant submitted a Market Study for the proposed land use change on July 12, 1995. The study was not complete as sub"~itted. Additional market information has been requested to account for commercial development which was not addressed by the applicant's market consultant, including new and pe-ding construction. The City's Market Study is sched~. ed for completion October 19, 1995. Following staff review the City's market study will be forwar,: ed to the Planning Commission in November. Planner BB:MB:sp Attachments: Planning Commiss'on Staff Report of July 12, 1995 Comparison of Uses Table CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: July 12, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan Coleman, P "ncipal Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner WOHL/RANCHC PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add 3ommercial uses and standards for Commercial uses in conjunction with I'~dustrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 for parcels located on the scuth side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 'he applicant, Wohl/Rancho Partners, is requesting a Community Commercial use c~;signation within the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP). (See attached justification anc map of surrounding uses.) A Community Commercial designation requires a General :~lan Land Use Amendment, as well as an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. T ~e ISP amendment would require text changes to add commercial uses and developrr 9nt standards for commercial development. Specific Plan text changes can only be initia:ed by the City Council or the Planning Commission. The General Plan and ISP amencment applications will be considered by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. ANALYSIS: At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will research and recommend commercial uses aqd appropriate development standards for the site as part of the request for land use charge from Industrial Park to Community Commercial within Subarea 7 of the ISP. To determine the most approp'iate uses and development standards, staff will review existing commercial designations, including the "General Commercial" designation in the Development Code, the "Comrr Jnity Commercial" designation in the Terra Vista Planned Community, and the "Community Commercial" designation in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. A comparative analysis of these designations will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS July 12, 1995 Page 2 Limited commercial uses are currently allowed within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. For example, b Jsiness supply retail, hotel/motel, and restaurants serving beer and wine are permitted uses. Conditionally permitted uses include automotive sales and leasing, automotive service court, automotive service station, convenience sales, entertainment/theaters, fast foo:l sales, food and beverage sales, specialty building supply and home improvement, and -estaurants with bar and entertainment. The applicant desires the broader range of goods and services allowed under the Community Commercial category, consiste' t with Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. Also, a Master Plan for the Rar,cho Cucamonga Business Park has been approved for the subject site and adjoining ares s within Subarea 7, which incorporates commercial uses. General Commercial uses are addressed by the following text under the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 (p. IV-52): On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to K-mart and the adjoining nort~ erly building. Development and use of satellite buildings in the K-mart Center are subject to provision of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. At the direction of the Planning Commission the aforementioned text would also be reviewed for adequacy and coqsidered for change in light of the impending closure of K-mart. ACTION: Staff requests that Planning Commission comment and direction be given on commercial uses and development standards for a Community Commercial designation within the Industrial Area Spec'fic Plan. Any change in land use will be cansidered under applications for General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Pla ~ Amendment which will come before the Commission at a future date. Principal Planner DC:MB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Justification and Map of Surrounding Uses Description c5 Proposed Project and Supporting Information. FOOTHILL COURTYARD (south side of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce & Elm) An Amendment to the Gener~.~ Plan is requested by Wohl/Rancho Parmers changing the land use designation for the stbject parcels from Industrial to Community Commercial. Simultaneously, an amendme:~t to the Industrial Specific Plan is requested allowing uses permitted under the Commudty Commercial designation as defined in the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan to be located on the subject parcels. These amendments are reques:ed in order to allow the development of a community shopping center which will include ~ diverse group of retail tenants. The project consists of approximately 133,500 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space of which approximately 16,500 sq. ft. is designated for food service uses. As shown in the attached site plan and elevations, the center has been designed to ~rovide convenient shopping and restaurant services with easy access to and visibility frorr Foothill Blvd. The project elevations will compliment the existing design elements on tl:.e south side of Foothill Blvd. while not being at odds with the Terra Vista cente~ to the nor 2~. More than the required parking has been provided in a well landscaped common area. The project will be built in two phases. The first phase will consist of a 20,250 sq. ft. "The Good Guys!" electronics store which is shown as building A on the attached site plan. This store will be built as soon as the GPA, ISPA and buil'd~g permits can be obtained. Phase two will include the development of the remainder of the shopping center which will take place under a separate building, permit. The second phase construction will commence either at the same time or shortly fo]: owing the first phase construction. There are three primary factors which support this change from Industrial to Community Commercial. First, the physical location and configuration of this site indicate the highest and best use as being retail development. Foothill Blvd. east of Haven is becoming a regional draw with the retaile.'s locating in the existing and proposed projects on both the north and south sides of the boulevard. The subject property, with over 1450 feet of frontage and an average dep~. of less that 400 feet, is best suited for a retail use which can benefit from this configuration. With convenient ingress and egress from two signalized intersections and tremendous visibility, this site is ideal for the development of a community oriented shopping center which can add both aesthetically and financially to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Second, the need for retail zc-xing is evidenced by the tremendous demand on our site from large national chain tenants. In many cases their decision has been to locate on Foothill Blvd, between Haven and the 1-15 or open in one of the several new planned developments in the City of Ontario. Their preference for Rancho Cucamonga in general and the subject property in particular is based on the following factors: (1)"critical mass" of retailers that have recently been locating in and between the Term Vista development and the new development at the intersectior_ of Foothill and the 1-15; (2) excellent demographics in Rancho Cucamonga and surrounding communities; (3) high traffic counts on Foothill BIrd. and excellent ingress/egress and traffic circulation from Foothill to the subject property; (4) a site configuration (i.e. shallow dely, h between Foothill Blvd. and Eucalyptus) that promotes visibility directly from Foothill BIrd. attracting more impulse shoppers and convenience oriented businesses; and (5) the lack o:' any other sites which provide all of the above features. Other commercially zoned sites witt'2n Rancho Cucamonga have been passed over by these retailers because they are not located a ong this corridor east of Haven or because they do not provide good visibility from the boule~'ard. We have been overwhelmed with the interest level shown by the real estate experts at tl, ese large national chains whose internal market studies strongly support the development we a 'e proposing. The third factor which was touched on above is the need to satisfy consumer demand for an aesthetically appealing comml.,nity center with tenant signage visible from Foothill BIrd. and easy ingress and egress. Our :lan will cater to convenience and impulse buy oriented retailers and food users. This will incl':de both a fast food and sitdon restaurant as well as a common "food plaza" with outdoor seating around a fountain element. As shown in the attached conceptual elevation, this food ~laza will draw the attention of passing motorists with its visual warmth and human scale amer .'.ties. Tables with umbrellas w~l be scattered among attractive deciduous trees, park benches t:td trellis landscape features. A fountain will highlight the center of this seating area and will be lit at night. A "European Style" coffee house will make a convenient stopping point for r.oming commuters. The retail tenants will benefit from signage visible from Foothill attractin8 the commuter who is passing through Rancho Cucamonga and who doesn't have time to stop 'n the more destination/regional oriented centers in the area. The approval of our applicatior. to Amend the General Plan for this location will also benefit the city through increased property. and sales tax revenues, and increased jobs, both during the construction process and upon completion of the project. In support of the application, previous market sur~eys from other developers have suggested the need for additional retail development. The Realty Development Research, Inc. (RDR) market survey prepared for the Western Land Company (Nov., 1993) indicates that although "there is sufficient acreage zoned commercial in Rancho Cucamonga to meet demand until approximately the year 2000, several factors reduce the aforementioned time frame and strengthen the need for additional zoned commercial property at this time". In particular retail zoning. RDR contends that net exports of retail to other cities and the relatively limited number of parcels available which are sizec appropriately for the development of major retail facilities most substantiate their argument. T:ey indicate a minimum of approximately 10-16 acres is needed for community scale development. The RDR survey concludes that considerable retail demand will also remain available to oher key commercial developments in this immediate vicinity. Assuming the planning comr::ission and the city councils support of the Western Land Companies development indicates that the survey was interpreted as relevant and valid, our project, similar in nature, mee-.s the same eligibility requirements. Review of the RDR market ar.alysis was conducted per the city's planning department request by Urban Research Associates (URA) (Apr, 1994). URA studies further support approval of our application, which is sim:lar in nature to the application reviewed. Although the URA review presents a rebuttal to some of the RDR findings, their research indicates that "Rancho does indeed suffer economica_ y from sales leakage of net exports, which can be reduced in selected merchandise lines." L-~ particular, URA indicates sales leakages in "home furnishings and appliance lines, electronic equipment, quality restaurants, and such specialty groups as toys, books, sporting goods, and re.sic." As our application indicates, we are requesting a general plan amendment for a shopping center which will meet the needs of the community and conform to the indicated lines which sa .es leakages in the city are experienced. In addition prior research findir gs, we further contend that the major consideration in examining our application should not be a question of whether there is already enough existing retail zoning in the city to support the comrrmity, but whether the current retail zoning is located in the most strategic retail locations for bo-.h tenants and consumers. Through contact with major tenants we have found that Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is the location where they want to be. Sales figures of existing tenan :s in close proximity to our location indicate that the consumer demand exists to support addit'~nal retail usage. The primary objective of planrZng is to ultimately benefit the citizens of the community. This proposal fulfills this requirement and in addition provides economic development for the city. The development will enhance :he community through greater convenience shopping for goods and services, more choices for consumers, as well as competitive prices from large retail economies of scale. !:)NVNml 1100 18~!O3 3~N*JAV N3AVM ~ r 15 )lvO · wr AVM33U:I 0 t-I /C~ ~r COMPARISON OF USES - GENE ~AL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL USES* SUBAREA 7- COMMERCIAL USES NOT PERMITTED GENERAL CO ~IMUNITY COMMUNITY ISP ISP COMMERCIAL CO~IMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SUBAREA USE FOOTHILL TERRA VISTA 7 CATEGORY Offices and Related 1. Admin/exec P P p p 2.Art/Photo Studio P P P C 3. Cledcal/Professional P P p p TV. Employment Agency P p 4. Financial service/inst with or w/out drive-thru P P p p F. Intedor Decorating P p p 5. Medical, Dental, etc. P P P p F. Optician/Optical Sale P P P p 6. Pharmacies P p p 7. Public building P C 8. Public utility office P C 9. Public safety facility C C F. Real Estate/Escrow P P P p B. General Commercial 1: Antique shops P 2. Adult Business 3. Animal Care a. Interior only P b, Exterior kennels C 4, Apparel stores ! P 5; Art;Music, Photo supply P F. Art Gallery 6. Appliance sale/repair P 7. Arcades C 8. Athletic clubs, etc. P P C A ~P P : p P P P P C P P 9. Automotive services (inc. trailers/motorcycles/b3ats/campers'^ C C c (Major) C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P (1~ nor) C C P a. sales b. rentals c. repairs d. coin-op wash e. automatic wash f. gasoline/minor repair g. parts/supplies h. tires/service 10. Bakeries (retail) 11. Barber/beauty 12. Bicycle 13. Blueprint/photocopy 15. Book/gift ' 16. Candy/confectionary 17. Catering 18. Cleaners 19. Carpenter/cabinet 20. Cocktail lounge a. no restaurant b. accessory to restaur. 21. Com. recreation a. indoor b. outdoor P C C C P C (ancillary use) (ancillary use) C C P P (ancillary use) P P P C P P C C C C C C C C ProfessionahAdmin/Office Comm:Personal Services Comm:Business Support Comm:Business Support Comm:Financial Services Comm:Prefessional/Design Comm:Medical Services Comm: Medical Services Comm:Convenience Sales/Serv Civic:Administration Civic:Public Utility Civic:Public Safety Comm:Financial/Real Estate Adult (not/Foothill Boulevard) Comm:Animal Care Comm:Animal Care Civic:Cultural - Art Galleries Comm:Entertainment Comm:Recreational Facilities Comm:Automotive Sales/Lease Comm:Automotive Rental Comm:Automotive Repair Comm:Automotive Repair Comm:Automotive Serv Station Comm:Food/Beverage Sales Comm:Convenience Sales/Serv Comm:Business Support Comm:Convenience Sales Comm:Food/Beverage Sales Comm:Convenience Services Mfg:Custom Manufacturing Comm:Restaurant Comm:Recreation Comm:Extensive Impact Comm. COMPARISON Of USES - GENERAL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL USES ISUBAREA 7 ~ COMMERCIAL USES NOT PERMITTED GENERAL CO ~,MUNITY COMMUNITY ISP COMMERCIAL CO ~:MERCIAL COMMERCIAL SUBAREA FOCTHILL TERRA VISTA 7 F. Convalescent Hosp P F. Curtain/Drapery P 23 Dairy store P F. Day Care F. Delicatessen P 24. Department store P 25. Drive-in business C 26. Drug store P 27. Equipment rental C F:ElectronicSale/Service P 28. Fast-Food a. with ddve-through C b. without drive-through P 29, Feed/Tack P 30. Flodst P 31, Food/supermarkets P F. Floor Covering P 32, Fumiture/inc repair P i33. General retail P '34. Hardware .P TV. Home Furnishing P 35. Home improvement a. Indoor P b, w/outdoor storage C F. Hobby :Shops P 36. Hotel/motel P F. Ice Cream/Soda Ftn P 37. Ice Machine/outdoor P TV, Import 38. Janitor serv/supply P 39, Jewelry P TV. Lighting P 40. Laundry coin-op P F, Leather/Luggage P 41. Liquor C 42, Kiosk/in parking lot P 43. Locksmith P F. Messenger/Wire Serv 44. Mini-storage/indoor C 45. Morturay/cemetary C 46. Music/Dance/MartialAr P 47. Newspaper/Mag P 48, Nusery/garden supply P 49. OfficeSupp/bus mach P TV, Outlet/Off price P F. Paint/Glass/VVallpapr P 50. Parking for fee P 51. Pet P 52~ Political/Philanthropic P 53. Plumbing/supplies P 54. Photocopy P 55. Print shop P F, Recordrl'ape/CD P 56. RV storage yard6 C 57. Restaruant a. w/entertainment/liquor P I b. w/beer & wine P P P P P C C C C P P P P P P C P P C P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P P C C C C P P P P C P P P P C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C ISP USE CATEGORY Comm:Medical/Health Services Comm:Bldg.Supply/Home Imp Comm:Food/Beverage Sales Comm:Personal Servervice Comm:Restaurant Comm:Convenience Sales Comm:Bldg/Light Equip Supp/Sale Comm:Fast Food Sales Comm:Fast Food Sales Cornre:Convenience Sales Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp Comm:Repair Services Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp Comm:Hotel/Motel Comm:Fast Food Sales Cornre:Bldg. Maint. Service Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp P P C P P Comm:Food/Beverage Sales Comm:Convenience Sale/Service Comm:Communications Service Storage:Public Storage Comm: Convenience Sale/Service Comm:Nursury:Supply/Service Comm:Bus. Supply Retail Comm:lndoor Wholesale/Retail Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp C C C P P P Professional: Admin Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp Comm:Bus. Support Service Comm:Bus. Support Service Wholesale:Public Storage Comm:Restaurant Comm:Restaurant COMPARISON OF USES - GENE ',AL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL USES SUBAREA 7 - COMMERCIAL USES NOT PERMITTED GENERAL COMMUNITY COMMUNITY ISP ISP COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SUBAREA USE FOOTHILL TERRA VISTA 7 CATEGORY ,58. Shoe, sales/repair P 59. Second-hand/pawn P 60. Shopping center C TV. Showroom/Cat'log F. Spedalty: retail P 61. Spiritualist, etc P 62. :Sportinggoods P 63. :Stamp/coin P 64. Swim pool supplies P 65. Tailor P 66. Taxidermist P F. Theater Dinner Theater Movie inc. multiplex 69. Toy P 70. Travel agency P 71. Transit depots C 72. Truck trailer/rent,etc C F, Yardage P 73, Variety P F; Vetinary a. non-boarding b. boarding F, Watch/Clock sale/repair P TV. Wholesale Bus. Note: P P C P P P P P P P P P C P P P (Subarea 7: K-mart exception) Comm:lndoor Wholesale/Retail Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp Comm:Convenience Service P C P C P P P P P P P P: p Comm: Entertainment Comm: Entertainment Comm:Personal Service Civic: Extensive Impact Comm:Heavy Equip Sale/Rent P P :p : : P P Comm:l ndoor Wholesale/Retail "Uses" - Numerical I sting = Development ~.ode; TV = Tetra Vista SP; F = Foothill Blvd SP; and ISP Uses are organized by categories Additional Notes: Commercial Uses Not Permitted, include: Cepm ment Store, F~od store/superma t~et, General :~etail, ;Outlet Retail, Specialty Retail, Shcpping Center, ShowTo ,m/Catalog :Retail Retail categories Not perm fled, include: Apparel Appliance, Books, Electronics, Furniture, Home Furnishings, Spoding Goods, Toys Commercial uses permittee include: Athletic/Hea;.h Club, Automotive sales/services, Convenience sales/services, Commercial recreation, Fast food, Drug st~re, Home improvement, restaura qt, dinner theater, movie theaters, Victor A. Mutiiz 11511 Ragusa Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 RECEIVED ,,Y OF RANCHO CUCAMON~^ CITY Clr~K JUL 6 1995 Ju~26, 1995 The City of Rancho Cucamorga City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 Re: City Council Agenda Dear City Clerk, This is my formal req .rest to be listed as a speaker on the August 2, 1995 City Council Agenda. The subject of my presentation is "Cable Communication Services". I shall require between 10 - 15 minutes for my presentation. Sincerely yours, CC: file BIF! Baldy View Region August2,1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Rancho Cuca: aonga City Council Frank Williar. ts Report to IA :C .Operation: Life Safety Ralph Crane furnished me wi h a copy of the above captioned report this moming. I have made a cursory review of the report and would make the following observa- tion: 1. The state building :ode, which mirrors the Uniform Building Code, spe- cifically exempts residences: :om the provisions for automatic sprinklers. (page 1) 2. Municipalities face m legal consequences for failing to adopt or by repeal- ing residential sprinklers. (pvge 22) 3. There is no clear ev dence that fire sprinklers save lives. 4. Builders are willing to go to court on a case by case basis because the argu- ment of builder liability is qu ,~stionable and debatable at the most. 9227 Haven Avenue, Suite 280 · Rancho :ucamonga, Califomia 91730 · (909) 945-1884 · FAX (909) 948-9631 RANCHO CUCAI~{ONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT M MORANDUM DATE: August 2, 1995 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, ( ity Manager L. Dennis Michael Fire Chief · , ' S ~ ~ / ,' On the aftemoon of August 1, 19! 5, I received the attached legal opinion entitled "Municipal and Builder Liability for Failure to .~,equire or Install Residential Sprinklers." This report to the International Association of Fire 2hiefs, Operation Life Safety, was prepared by the law firm of Fetterly & Gordon, P.A. This report is being forwarded tc the Council for the purpose of additional information as you consider the existing residential s' rinklet ordinance. LDM/REC:Im Attachment C: B. Makshanoff, Building Off '~ial J. Markman, Legal Counsel F. Williams, Building Industr: Association j MUNICIP~,L AND BUILDER LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO REQL3RE OR INSTALL RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS 1995 Report to: lntern~ tional Association of Fire Chiefs Operal',on: LifeSafety By: FETEERLY & GORDON, P.A. James 2. Fetterly, Esq. Diane 3. Bratvoid, Esq. 808 Nico!let Mall, Suite 800 Minne~_polis, MN 55402 (612) 333-2003 July 26, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ STATEMENT OF ISSUES: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY ......... STATEMENT OF ISSUES: BUILDER LIABILITY .......... I. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY .................. Sovereign i~munity protects municipalities from most liability, including repeal of a statute ..................... A municipallty may be liable for dangerous conditions on public property, which may include failing to require residential sprinklers in public housing ........... II. BUILDER LIABILITY ................... Builders are generally liable to homeowners under both ~egligence and strict liability principles .................... Builders are liable to homeowners for negligent construction ........... Some blilders may be liable to homeowr. ers for defective construction under strict liability principles ...... In some circumstances, builders may be held liable for failing to go beyond existing code requirements for fire safety, including a builder's failure to install residential sprinklers ........ Builder's lobbying activities may become evidence of the builder's notice and knowledge of the dangers posed by homes without sprinklers ................ CONCLUSION ......................... Paqe 1 2 2 3 3 7 12 13 13 15 18 21 22 INTRODUCTION There is substantial evidence that residential sprinklers save lives. Residential fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States.~ In 1986, the California Fire Marshal concluded that the most effective way to minimize loss of life, as well as smoke and fire damage, is to use a combination of residential sprinklers and smoke detectors.2 A number of California municipalities have adopted or considered ordinances requiring automatic sprinklers in new residences. The stat~ building code, which mirrors the Uniform Building Code, specifically exempts residences from the provisions for automatic sprinklers.3 The builder's lobby consistently has opposed residential sprinklers. The lobby has rallied against adoption of the ordinances, argued fo~ repeal after adoption, and recently sued municipalities that have adopted the ordinance, arguing that the state building code preempts local sprinkler requirements for residences. In one decision, the builder's lobby successfully m California State Fire Marshal,."AnAnalysis of the Feasibility of Requiring the Installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems in all Buildings Constructed for Human Occupancy: A Report to the Legisla%ure in Response to House Resolution No. 7," at 4-5 (Mar. 31, 1986] [hereinafter "Fire Marshal Report"]. Fire Marshal Report, supra note 1, at 6. 3 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 24, S3802(b) (1992) (excepting Group R, Division 3 and Group M occupancies from an automatic sprinkler system requirement). Group M occupancies are private garage, carports, sheds, and agricultural buildings. Id. Sll01. The definition of Group R, Division 3 occupancies includes "dwellings." Id. ~1291. overturned a local ordinance requiring residential sprinklers when the court applie~ the preemption doctrine.4 Residential fires will continue to occur in California; some injuries and deaths will be prevented if automatic sprinklers are in place. What are tke possible legal consequences faced by municipalities and builders for not requiring or installing residential sprinklers? STATEMENT OF ISSUES: MUNICIPAL LIABILITY 1. Is a municipality liable for damages when fire fatalities or injuries occur in residences not protected by automatic sprinklers? 2. Is a municipality immune from liability for exercising its discretion in adopting, rejecting, or repealing safety standards? STATEMEN=, OF ISSUES: BUILDER LIABILITY 1. Is a builder liable for damages when fire fatalities or injuries occur in residences not protected by automatic sprinklers? 2. Is a builder liable for lobbying against residential sprinklers? 4 Mission Development, Ltd. v. City of Vallejo, No. 111679 (Sup. Ct. Solano Coun%, Sept. 3, 1993) (granting order prohibiting enforcemer%t of city's residential sprinkler ordinance). Contrast Holden & Taxpayers against Sprinklers v. City of Encinitas, No. N46326 (Sup. Ct. S.D. County, 1991 (upholding city's residential sprinkler ordinance). -2- I. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY. Municipalities face only very limited liability for fire fatalities, injuries or other damages that occur in residences not protected by automatic sprinklers. By statute, a municipality and its employees are not liable for injuries caused by adopting or failinc to adopt any law. However, a municipality is liable for dangerous conditions on its own property. Therefore, public housing residents may successfully hold a municipality responsible for deaths or injuries that occur due to the lack of residential sprinklers. A. Sovereign i~unitv protects municipalities from most liability, including repeal of a statute. Government immunity is set out in the California Tort Claims Act.s Government liability is restricted to exceptions specifically set out in the Act.6 One court explained, as follows: [P]ublic entities may be liable only if a statute declares them to be liable. Moreover, [under the Act] the immunity provisions of California Tort Claims Act will generally prevail over any liability established by statute.7 s Cal. Gov. Code S815, et seq. (West 1980). Section 815(a) plainly states, as follows: "A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises.out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person." e Cochran v. Herzo~ Engraving Co., 155 Cal.App.3d 405, 409, 205 Cal.Rptr. 1, 3 (lst Dist. 1984). 7 155 Cal.App.3d at 409, 205 Cal.Rptr. at 3 (emphasis original). The court of appeals made specific reference to SS15(b) which provides, as follows: "The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with §814) is subject -3- Under some circumstances, a municipality may be liable for injuries caused when ~t fails to perform a mandatory duty.8 Additionally, a municipality may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on public property.9 to any immunity of the public entity provided by this statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person." (West 1980). 8 Section 815.6 of the California Tort Claims Act provides, as follows: Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that is exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. (West 1980). Although creative tort lawyers may like to characterize residential sprinklers as a "mandatory duty," current case law suggests that any complaint making this allegation would be thrown out. Courts have strictly interpreted what is a mandatory duty and find such a duty exists only when a law requires a municipality to do sonething. Morris v. Marin CountV, 559 P.2d 606, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908. 136 Cal.Rptr. 251, 255 (1977). A mandatory duty does not include "a permissive power which a governmental entity may exercise or not as it chooses." Id. Even a law stating that a municipality "shall" do something does not necessarily create a mandatory duty. Johnson v. Mead, 191 Cal.App.3d 156, 159 236 Cal.Rptr. 277, 279 (lst Dist. 1987). Under these interpretations of what a mandatory duty is, adoption of residential sprinkler ordinance cannot be characterized as anything more than a permissive power. 9 Section 835 of the California Tort Claims Act provides, as follows: Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the. time of -4- Under the California Tort Claims Act, a municipality is immune from liability for adopting, rejecting, or failing to enforce a statute. Section 818.2 provides, as follows: A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law.m Although the statute does not specifically mention repealing a law, one court has apElied Section 818.2 to that situation. In Dana Corporation v. State of California, the California Court of Appeals for the Second District, relying on Section 818.2, affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the state following its repeal of a statute.u The plaintiffs were a group of manufacturers of automobile pollution control devices. In 1971, the state legislature required the installation of devices in existing automobiles to regulate the emission of nitrogen oxides, referred to as "NOx devices." Over the next three years, the plaintiffs the injury, that ~he injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the [ublic entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The puklic entity had actual or constructive notice of the dargerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time [rior to the injury to have taken measures to protect agains~ the dangerous condition. Cal. Gov. Code, 8818.2 (West 1980). 103 Cal.App.3d 424, 162 Cal. Rptr. 875 (2d Dist. 1980). -5- worked with state regulators to develop such a device at a reasonable price. In 1974, the legislature repealed the NOx requirement, except as to a minor number of motor vehicles. The plaintiffs sued to recover the "substantial sums" they had spent in developing the NOx devices.m2 Although the plaintiffs proceeded on several theories, the appellate court dismissed the entire complaint on a single ground. The court found that "[a]ll of the claims run afoul of the basic rule that the state is not liable for the effect of legislation enacted urder the police power for what the Legislature believes is a public purpose.-m The government is not liable for changing its mind, the court stated, as follows: All that plaintiffs have alleged, or could allege, is that the Legisla%ure, in 1971, thought that requiring NOx devices on old cars was desirable and that, by 1974, the then Legislature thought that such a requirement was rot desirable. A Legislature is not liable, nor is the state liable, for a change in its perception of public interest. Many things once thought desirable or even to be encouraged, are later thought to be uncesirable or to be discouraged.x4 For authority, the appellate court relied on Section 818.2 of the California Tort Claims Act.ms Municipalities that consider, reject, adopt, or repeal a residential sprinkler requirement, therefore, do not face 103 Cal.App.3d at 425, 162 Cal.Rptr. at 876. Id. 103 Cal.App.3d at 427, 162 Cal.Rptr. at 877. Id. -6- liability for that decision. The California State Tort Claims Act explicitly provides immunity for adopting or rejecting a law. One court has also held that the same act protects the state when it repeals a statute. Therefore, no legal consequences flow to a municipality when it changes its laws regarding residential sprinklers. A municiDal=tv may be liable for danuerous conditions on public p=oDertV, which may include failing to require residential sprinklers in public housing. In some circumstances, a municipality is liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on public property.16 Section 835 of the California Tor~ Claims Act provides, as follows: Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for in~urV caused by a dangerous condition of its property if ~he plaintiff establishes that the property was in e dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous cordition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negllgent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.17 Section 835 provides for municipal liability for dangerous conditions, but also it carefully limits that liability with certain proof requirenents. Most of the proof requirements are m6 The California Government Code defines public property as "real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity." S830(c) (West 1980). ~7 Cal. Gov. Code, S835 (West 1980) (emphasis added). -7- routine in tort cases, for example, that the dangerous condition existed at the time of injury and proximately caused the injury. The statute erects an additional and potentially difficult requirement, however, in its sub-clauses. A plaintiff must establish either that a public employee created the dangerous condition while acting in the scope of his employment, or that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition "~ sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures t3 protect against the dangerous condition.-mS In most cases of potential liability for failing to require residential sprinklers in public housing, the statutory proof requirements will probably be met. The alleged wrongful conduct certainly takes place within the scope of public employment, if an individual is at the focus of the suit. Alternatively, and probably more likely, the public entity will have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition because of the public debates over tke residential sprinkler requirement. The California Tort Claims act poses a more fundamental problem for those injured because residential sprinklers are not required for public hcusing. Section 835 requires that the injury arise from a "~angerous condition"; is the absence of ,8 Id. -8- something a condition?me The answer, although not clear, is probably yes. One court, for instance, found a county liable for failure to take certain fire safety precautions at a county airport.~ An analog~ may be drawn to a municipality's failure to require residential sprinklers in public housing. Other case law, however, provides fuel for the argument that a municipality's failure to do something is not a dangerous condition. For example, a plaintiff's case against a county for its failure to adopt safety regulations on a public lake was dismissed. In Seybert v. County of Imperial21, the plaintiff was struck and injured by a motor boat. The lake was not dangerous, however, the plaintiff contended that the county had not adopted appropriate safety re[~lations. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a dangerous condition and that decision was upheld on appeal.~ The key to prevailing on a dangerous conditions theory may be the level of knowledge held by the city. When previous ~9 The California Tort Claims Act defines "dangerous condition," as follows: "[A] condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when . . . used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used." S830(a) (West 1980). This definition is sufficiently broad to include both active and passive dangerous conditions. ~ Vedder v. county of Imperial, 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 657-660, 111 Cal.Rptr. 728, 73C-32 (4th Dist. 1974). 162 Cal.App.2d 209, 327 P.2d 560 (1958). 162 Cal.App.2d at 209, 327 P.2d at 562-63. -9- injuries from buildirgs without sprinklers have occurred, a court may be more likely tc find liability. Under different facts, one court upheld a plaintiff's case against a city for a dangerous condition that had caused previous injuries. In Ouelvo~ v. City of Long Beach, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss plaintiff's claim, arising from injuries caused when the city allowed use of motorized vehicles, or "autoettes," on public sidewalks, contrary to state law.~ Although many distinctions may be noted between the residential sprinkler requirement and the Ouelvog situation,~ the court's emphasis on past injuries is important. Indeed, the court rejected the city's argument that it could not be blamed for the negligence of the autoette driver that had struck and killed the plaintiff's husband. The court pointed to the plaintiff's allegation that past accidents made it reasonably u 6 Cal.App.3d 584, 86 Cal.Rptr. 127 (2d Dist. 1970). ~ Several differences may be noted. First, in Ouelvog, the city failed to enforce a state statute. 6 Cal.App.3d at 588, 86 Cal.Rptr. at 130. There is no state statute requiring residential sprinklers; indeed, the state building code explicitly exempts residences from sprinkler requirements. See supra note 3. Second, in Ouelvog, tke city did more than fail to enforce a statute, it also enco'Iraged the use of the autoettes in a number of ways, including providing a pamphlet to the public that stated that it was permissible to operate autoettes on public sidewalks. 6 Cal.App.3d at 587, ~6 Cal. Rptr. at 130. The court, therefore, was able to find that the plaintiffs alleged the city had "flouted the state law and encourage individuals to disobey it." 6 Cal.App.3d at 591, 86 Cal.Rptr. at 132. It is difficult to contemplate similar evidence in the case of residential sprinkler requirements. -10- foreseeable there would be more similar accidents.~ Similarly, where injuries have occurred in unsprinklered public housing in the past, a city may not escape liability for failure to adopt sprinkler requirements by pointing to the negligence of those who caused the fire. At least one other jurisdiction has found a municipality liable for failure to take fire safety precautions in public housing. In Allen v. City of Kansas City, the federal district court rejected the cizy's argument that it was immune from liability for a fire death that occurred in its public housing.26 The court found that qovernment immunity did not apply when the housing authority failed to "maintain safe housing with adequate means of fire protection, such as fire alarms and sprinkler systems."~ The court, however, was reviewing Kansas law, not California law.2s ~ 6 Cal. App.3d at 591, 86 Cal.Rptr. at 132. 660 F.Supp. 489 (D. Kan. 1987). ~ Id. at 491 (erphasis added). 28 The court discussed Kansas Statute S75.6104, which provides, as follows: A government entity . . . shall not be liable for damages resulting from: (N) failure to provide, or the method of providing, police or fire protection. Kan. Stat. Ann. S75-6L04 (1989) (cited in Allen, 660 F.Supp. at 490). The Kansas plaintiffs, therefore, did not pursue anything like the dangerous conditions theory discussed in this section. -11- A municipality ~.ay be liable for dangerous conditions on public property. A claimant can probably argue that the absence of sprinklers in public housing is a dangerous condition. Municipalities that have previously experienced deaths or injuries by fire in public housing are particularly vulnerable to this claim. II. BUILDER LIABILI=y. Builders may face claims for fire fatalities, injuries or other damages that are caused by the absence of residential sprinklers. Califorria courts have long recognized that builders generally are liable ~o homeowners for negligent construction. More recently, builders of mass-produced homes or large residential developments have been held liable for defective construction under strict liability principles. In some circumstances, builders may be held liable for failing to go beyond existing code requirements for fire safety, including a builder's failure to include residential sprinklers. Although a builder faces the most danger of lawsuit from the condition of the residences they sell, they also may face some narrow legal consequences for lobbying against residential sprinkler ordinances. Of course, the First Amendment protects lobbying activities. Builders active in lobbying against residential sprinklers, however, later may find their past activities are admitted as evidence against them in a case for negligent constructior.. -12- Builders at- generally liable to homeowners under both negliaence ~nd strict liability principles. Builde=s are liable to homeowners for negligent oonstruction. At one time, builders were not liable for injuries caused by their work after the 3wners had inspected and accepted the property.~ As early as 1943, however, California courts began abandoning this gener&l rule of non-liability in favor of applying negligence principles to builders and other contractors. In Johnston v. Lonu ~ the California Supreme Court held that a contractor may be held liable for negligent construction, as follows: [T]he contractor is liable if the work done and turned over to him is so ne~ligentlv defective as to be imminently dangerous to third'persons, provided the contractor knows, or should know, of the dangerous situation created by him, and the owner does not know . . . and would ~ot discover it by reasonable in pection.3~ S This statement of builder liability reflects general negligence principles applicable to most defendants. For liability to attach, a builder eitker must have known or should have known of 29 Witkin, B.E., Summary of California Law S961 at 347-46 (Bancroft-Whitney 9th Ed. 1988). ~ 56 Cal.App.2d 834, 837, 133 P.2d 409 (1943). In Johnston, someone other than the owners was injured by an unsafe overhead door at a delivery entrance. The contractor was held liable. 3a 56 Cal.App.2d at 837, 133 P.2d at 410-411 (emphasis added). -13 - the dangerous situation.32 Also, the owner or person injured must not have known of the dangerous situation nor would have discovered it through reasonable inspection.33 Following Johnston, builder liability was liberally applied and not limited to negligent constructions that were "imminently dangerous."' In Hale v. Depaoli,~ the California Supreme Court held that a lawsuit a~ainst a contractor for negligent construction of a bac~ porch railing could not be dismissed because the rail collapsed eighteen years after it was built.38 Liability was further expanded when the courts began holding ~2 California, llke most states, applies the standard of what the ordinarily prudent or reasonable person would do under the circumstances. Fouch v. Werner, 99 Cal.App. 557, 565, 279 P. 183,'186 (1929). See uenerally Witkin, supra note 29 at 8750, p. 87-88. ~3 California, lake most states, applies comparative fault principles to an injured person's conduct. Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1975). If a defendant is found liable, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to the percentage of fault which the jury assigns to the plaintiff. 13 Cal.3d at 829, 532 P.2d at 1243, 119 Cal.Rptr. at 875. ~ 33 Cal.2d 228.. 201 P.2d 1 (1948). Defendant built a house in 1925 and sold it. Defendant later reacquired the house and in 1937 leased it to plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured when a back porch railing collapsed. See Witkin, supra note 29 at 8962, p. 349. ~s Contractors have subsequently been protected by statutory limitations on liability for improvements to real property. Cal. Civ. P. Code ~337.1 (West 1980). Claims must be made within four years against any person furnishing the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision or observations of construction or construction for ar improvement to real property. Id. -14 - subcontractors~ and architects~ liable for negligent construction against claims made by those not in contract with them. 2. Some blailders may be liable to homeowners for defective construction under strict liability principles. Builders and sellers of mass-produced homes, or tract housing also are liable to homeowners for defective construction, but on strict liability principles.3s In Krieqler v. Eichler Homes, the defendant builder used steel tubing in 4,000 homes, because of copper shortages during the Korean War.39 Later, the heating system in one home failed and the homeowner, second owner of the home, successf'_lly sued the large-scale builder.~ The California Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's verdict and applied strict liability to the builder.4~ For a builder to be ~ See, e.g., Stewart v. Cox, 55 Cal.2d 857, 363 P.2d 345, 13 Cal.Rptr. 521, 524 (1961) (holding a concrete subcontractor liable to a homeowner for negligent work on a pool, which subsequently cracked, leaking water to damage the owner's home). ~ Montiio v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351, 352-53, 33 Cal.Rptr. 133, 134-35 (4th Dist. 1963) (holding an architect liable for injuries to the patron of a bus depot when the patron fell on a stairway renovated according to the architect's plans). 38 Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 74 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1969). 269 Cal.App.2d at 226, 74 Cal.Rptr. at 751. 4~ The court reasoned, as follows: "We think, in terms of today's society, there are no meaningful distinctions between Eichler's mass production and sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles and that the pertinent -15- liable for injuries, strict liability requires that the injuries must be caused by a defective condition in the home.~ What constitutes a defective condition has been liberally drawn. In HVman v. Gordon, for example, the California Court of Appeals held that the jury should decide whether a builder was strictly liable for injuries due to the placement of a water heater.~ The plaintiff, a minor, suffered burn injuries, when he inadvertently knocked over a gasoline can in a garage, spilling gas, which flowed across the floor toward the gas-fired water heater, igniting the fumes.~ In sending the case back to the trial court to hear the strict liability claim, the appellate court emphasized that the defect involved not tke water heater, but the design of the home, including the location of the water heater. The court wrote, as follows: overriding policy considerations are the same." 269 Cal.App.2d at 227, 74 Cal.Rptr. e~ 752. See also Del Mar Beach Club Owners Ass'n v. Imperial Contracting Co., Inc., 123 Cal.App.3d 898, 912- 13, 176 Cal.Rptr 886, 893-94 (4th Dist. 1981) (applying strict liability against developer of large residential community); Swett v. Gribaldo Jones & Assoc., 40 Cal.App.3d 573, 575, 115 Cal. Rptr 99, 101 (Ct. App. 1974) ("[T]he producer-seller of tract housing. "'i would be liable. . . under a theory of strict liability. . ~ Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control. Dist., 8 Cal.3d 689, 703, 106 Cal.Rptr 1, 10-11 (1973). 43 35 Cal.App.3d 769, 775, 111 Cal.Rptr 262, 265 (2d Dist. 1973). ~ 35 Cal.App.3d at 771, 111 Cal.Rptr at 263. -16- [Strict] liability may be applied where, as the proximate result of a defect in the design of a residential building, and installation of an article pursuant theretc, injury results to a human being . . .. The gist of ~he plaintiff's allegation in the present case is simply that the [defendant's] building plan was defective in causing the water heater to be installed on the floor of the garage.4s Under a strict liability theory, therefore, someone injured by the defective design of the home may pursue the builder for damages. Some of those in the construction industry have been excluded, however, from strict liability for defective construction. Construction professionals, like architects and engineers~ are not strictly liable, nor are sub-contractors~ or builders of few homes.4g Builders may be Drought into court for either negligent or defective construction. In order to succeed on negligent construction, a claimant must prove that the builder knew or should have known of %he dangerous condition. In order to succeed on strict liability, a claimant must prove that the 45 35 Cal.App.3d at 773, 111 Cal.Rptr. at 264. ~ Del Mar Beach Club Owners Ass'n v. Imperial Contracting Co.. Inc., 123 Cal.App.3d 898, 914, 176 Cal.Rptr 886, 894 (4th Dist. 1981); Stuart v. Crestview Mutual Water Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 802, 811, 110 Cal.Rptr 543, 549 (2d Dist. 1973) (engineers). ~ LaJolla Villace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Ouality RoofinG, Inc., 212 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1144-45, 261 Cal.Rptr. 146, 153-54 (4th Dist. 1989). ~ Oliver v. Superior Ct., 211 Cal.App.3d 86, 89, 259 Cal.Rptr. 160, 162 (4~h Dist. 1989). -17- residence was in a defective condition. Under either a negligence or strict Liability theory, a claimant must prove that the death or injuries were caused by the absence of residential sprinklers. B. In some circumstances, builders may be held liable for failing to ~o beyond existin~ code requirements for fire safety, including a builder's failure to install residential sprinklers. In proving a dangerous or defective condition, most claimants rely on the building code. In the case of residential sprinklers, a claimant faces a harder task because many building codes do not require residential sprinklers. Building codes establish a minimum standard of construction to which builders must adhere. However, a builder also may be held liable for dangerous or defective construction that is not part of existing building codes. In other words, "mere compliance" with the law does not "absolve" anyone of negligence.~ Going back more than thirty years, California courts have recognized that compliance with the law does not defeat someone's claim in negligence.~ The leading authority on tort law ~ Beeks v. Joseph Magnin Co., 194 Cal.App.2d 73, 79, 14 Cal.Rptr. 877, 880 (1st Dist. 1961) (approving the trial court's jury instruction to trat effect). m Beeks, 194 CaL.App.2d at 79, 14 Cal.Rptr. at 880; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Indermill, 182 Cal.App.2d 339, 343, 6 Cal.Rptr. 469, 472 (2r~ Dist. 1960). See also Holt v. Dept. of Food and Agriculture, 171 Cal.App.3d 427, 435, 218 Cal.Rptr. 1, 6 (3rd Dist. 1985) ("[E2vidence of the custom or general practice in the same trade or occupation is relevant but not conclusive on the question whether the actor utilized due care.") -18- explained why, as follows: While compliance with a statutory standard is evidence of due care, it is not conclusive on the issue. Such a standard is no Eore than a minimum, and it does not necessarily preclude a finding that the actor was' negligent in failing to take additional precautions.s~ An every day example of this rule of law may be seen in the use of automobiles. Following an automobile accident, a defendant may offer proof that he was driving within the speed limit. A plaintiff may still succeed in her claim, however, if additional precautions were required, say, due to the weather or traffic conditions. In claims broughz on strict liability, however, compliance with the law is irrelevant evidence.82 Irrelevant evidence is not allowed before the jury at all. Unfortunately, the existing court decisions on how compliance with the law affects a strict liability claim come entirely from manufacturing cases, and not the construction industry. Logically, however, the rule of law sl Prosser and Keeton on Torts 836 at 233 (5th Ed. 1984). 82 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 803, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348, 378 (4~h Dist 1981) (holding that trial court properly rejected defendant's contention that one factor in the test for defectivehess was whether the product "deviated from the norm"); Heap v. General Motors Corp., 66 Cal.App.3d 824, 832, 136 Cal.Rptr. 304, 308 (2nd Dist. 1977) (overturning a lower court's decision in favor of zhe defendant and rejecting the lower court's conclusion that the product must be safe if it is common); Foalio v. Wester Auto SUDDly, 56 Cal.App.3d 470, 477, 128 Cal.Rptr. 545, 549 (4th Dist 1976) ("In a strict liability case based on a defecz in design, the issue is not whether defendant exercised reasonable care in designing the product."). -19- should not vat7 for large-scale builders or those who build tract housing. Although a builder may not escape a residential sprinkler claim simply by pointing to the building code, a builder may find some legal refuge in simply offering residential sprinklers as an option to home buyers, but not a standard feature. In most situations, a defendart is not negligent if he warns of the dangers posed and offers a safe solution. Again, the case law arises in the manufacturing industry. But significantly, one court held that simpl? offering a safety device is not enough, if the product is defective without it.s3 Compliance with building codes, therefore, is evidence that a builder met the minimum standard of care required by law. Compliance with building codes, however, does not absolve a builder of negligence. Additionally, in a strict liability claim, compliance with building codes is not even admissible evidence. A successful claim against a builder for failing to install residential sprinklers thus depends on a claimant's ability to prove that the home is dangerous or defective without the sprinklers. s3 Titus v. Bethlehem Steel CORD., 91 Cal.App.3d 365, 378, 154 Cal.Rptr. 122, 126 (2nd Dist. 1979) (holding that defendant's evidence that all manufacturer's offered the safety device as optional equipment created no defense to plaintiff's theory that the product was defective without the safety device). -20- C. Builder's ~obbyina activities mat become evidence of the buildez's notice and knowledae of the dangers Dosed bY homes wt=hout sprinklers. The First Amendnent protects builders from any liability for lobbying against residential sprinkler ordinances. Free speech protects those involved in the 9overning process, whatever the merits of the positions taken. At least one hypothetical situation, however, poses difficulties for builders who have actively lobbied against residential sprinklers. It is already clear that Builder A may be sued by one of its buyers where that buyer has died or been injured in a fire that could have been prevented by residential sprinklers. If Builder A, however, actively Lobbied against residential sprinklers, then the buyer, or her survivors, may offer as evidence any testimony heard by Builder A that exposes the dangers posed by homes without sprinklers. Testimony heard by Builder A establishes that the builder has 3oth notice and knowledge of the need for residential sprinklers.~ ~ The admissibiLity of evidence of a defendant's notice and knowledge of a dangerous condition is widely accepted. The California Supreme Court in Alvarado v. Anderson explained why, as follows: When the negliger.ce of a person upon a particular decision is in issue, it is usually, if not always, permissible to p:rove every fact, known to such person at the time, which would have a reasonable tendency to increase or decrease the risk and danger of a particular course of action. 175 Cal.App.2d 166, 179, 346 P.2d 73, 81 (4th Dist. 1959). In Alvarado, the trial court admitted extensive evidence of the defendant's knowledge that a diving board platform was dangerous. -21- Builders lobbying against residential sprinklers thus may be held accountable for ~he knowledge they gain during their lobbying efforts. During city council meetings, builders face the extensive data gazhered in support of residential sprinklers. Builders cannot turn a deaf ear to this information, but must recognize that it puts them on notice respecting the dangers presented by homes wizhout sprinkler protection. CONCLUSION Municipal liability for failure to require residential sprinklers is very limited. Municipalities face no legal consequences for failing to adopt or by repealing residential sprinkler ordinances. Municipalities may face lawsuits by public housing residents, however, for deaths or injuries that occur due to the absence of residential sprinklers. Builder liability for failure to install residential sprinklers is much broader. Builders generally may be liable to homeowners injured or killed because of the absence of residential sprinklers on either a negligence or strict liability theory. In either theory, a claimant must prove two things. First, the evidence must show that the lack of residential sprinklers creates a ~angerous or defective condition. Second, the evidence must show that the injuries or deaths were caused by the lack of residential sprinklers. 175 Cal.App. 2d at 171-72, 346 P.2d at 76-77. -22- Those making clalms against builders in residential sprinkler cases are assisted by previous decisions of the California courts. S~ecifically, courts have already decided that mere compliance with building codes is not enough where there is a dangerous condition. Also, a builder's awareness of the fire hazard that Romeowners face without sprinklers may be proven by telling the jury what information builders received during their lobbying efforts. Dated this ~ ~ ~ay of July, 1995.~ -23- HRC FIRE DEFENSE STUDY FOOT4ILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MAY 1987 FINAL REPORT l'lunt Research i nrpnratinp P.O. Box 291 Solvang, California 93463 (805) 688-4625 FIRE DEFENSE STUDY FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT April, 1987 Prepared by: HU~T RESEARCH CORPORATION P. O. Box 291 Solvang, CA 93463 805-688-4625 c 1987 Hunt Research Corp. FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE DEFENSE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION II. ALARM DATA ANALYSIS A~D FUTURE PREDICTIONS III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMS Ae B. C. D. E. F. Structural Fires Wildland Fires Emergency Medical Services Hazardous Materials Fire District Management and Operation Disaster Control 20 22 32 36 38 40 46 IV. LEVELS OF SERVICE 50 Ve FIRE STATION LOCATIONS, APPARATUS AND MANNING 55 VI. LADDER TRUCK COMPANY R~COMMENDATIONS 64 VII. RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION EXPANSION 66 VIII. RECOMMENDED ORDINANCES 69 IX. TRAINING PROGRAM RECOMFENDATIONS 81 REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS 84 XI. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 86 I. INTRODUCTION The art of effective firefighting becomes a race against the clock from ignition to suppression, te save lives and property if the ignition cannot be prevented. Certain segmenzs of this time are controllable and some are not. A phenomenon called flashover can occur in structure fires at around 1000 degrees as quickly as five minutes after ignition. Flashover simply means that the com- bustibles in the room have been heated to their ignition temperature and instan- taneous full fire involvement of the fire area occurs. At this point the structure is usually destroyed by fire. (Refer to the time temperature curve on page 4.) The fire must be detected and then reported for the fire department to react to it. Smoke detectors, alarm systems and fire sprinkler systems aide greatly in minimizing the tune between ignition and alarm receipt by the fire department. The fire department can then dispatch firefighters and strive to arrive within five minutes of notification· If the detection and notification phase can be controlled, the fire department may be able to arrive prior to flashover and save the struzture. (Refer to the reaction time model on page 5.) Thus, fire protection delivery systems and fire station be designed on the basis of: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. locations should Requiring fire alarms in structures Requiring sprinkler systems in structures Teaching people how and when to call the fire department Providing the means to call the fire department Receiving and dispatching alarms in one minute or less. Arriving at ihe scene within four minutes in most cases (2½ miles at 35 m.p.h. ). Attacking the fire quickly with a highly trained and well equipped force. The private secto]~ as well as the public sector has an important role and responsibility in providing adequate conmmnity fire defenses. It is with these basic assumptions in mind, along with the need to provide fast and adequate response to emergency medical incidents, hazardous materials incidents and wildland fires that this report is prepared. The analysis, recommendations and predictions done by the consultant are made to the best judgement cf the consultant. Future growth trends and community composition may differ fro~ present predictions. This could necessitate modifications in the recommendations and predictions, by the District. The Foothill Fire Protection District protects the rapidly growing city of Rancho Cucamonga and certain surrounding unincorporated areas of San Bernar- dino. The district covers 52 square miles with a current population of approximately 81,000. It lies within an area vulnerable to fire conflagration due to the urban/wildland interface, high winds, vegetation, and wood roofs. The district is also vulnerable to flooding especially after a wildland fire. A significant hazardous materials threat exists due to industrial growth and transportation routes. In the future the con~nunity will tend to be a young, affluent, white collar, middle to upper class p6pulation. There will be significant amounts of comercial, high rise, and industrial developments, but no significant amount of low income housing. A large share of the population commutes to Los Angeles. Currently the fire department protects this growing area with three fire stations and 14 on-duty personnel per shift. The current total manpower is 42 suppression personnel plus a staff of 12 for a total o[ 54. The department is well run and does not appear to heve any significant difficulties other than the tremendous growth and its impac%. DEFINITIONS Certain 'terms are used in this report which require definitions. For purposes of this study, they are: AMBULANCE: A paramedic ambulance, (advanced life support unit, EMT-P) meeting all state, county and local requirements. MINI-PUMPER: Small, fast attack pumper (10,500 GVWR) with small pump and tank. See Page 58 for details. FLYING SQUAD: An emergency vehicle which responds to fires, heavy rescues, major EMS and Hazmet incidents and other incidents as needed anywhere in the district. The current squad is an enclosed van type vehicle. The study recon=nends that a squad be a "Squirt" type engine company, so that on-scene pumper and aerial stream capability is enhanced. ENGINE/PUMPER: (Also called a triple combination pumper) = a piece of fire apparatus with a permanently mounted fire pump, fire hose, water tank, and a compliment of fire fighting and rescue equipment. An engine is typically manred by 3 firefighters. LADDER TRUCK: A piece of fire apparatus carrying a standard complement of "ground ladders" and an "aerial ladder". The FFPD aerial ladder truck has a 95' aerial ladder. It also has a fire pump, hose, and an extensive array of forcible entry, ventilation, and rescue equipment. It is manned by 3 firefighters. SQUIRT: Triple combination pumper with an elevated stream capability. See Page 57 for details. · · · II 0 0 0 0 0 0 :lo NI 3~dFI/V~d~dPl~l Z o o 0 -/ / w I') "rl The current inventory of the Fire Suppression Division is as follows: Station Apparatus Manning Station I 1. 627 Amethyst Engine 1 L974 American La France, 1500 GPM diesel pumper with 4" supply hose and 13/4" attack lines Squad 1983 Chevrolet 1-ton Squad with rescue lighting, salvage and overhaul equipment 3. ]959 American La France, 1250 GPM Not manned pumper 4. ]975 GMC 500 GPM with 1500 Not manned Callon tank, (water tender) Station 2 9612 San Bernar dino Road Engine 2 1982 Century La France, 1500 GPM diesel pumper with 4" supply hose and 13/4" attack lines Ladder truck. 1986 95' Grtumnan "Aerialcat" 1750 GPM pump, 5" supply hose, 13/4."attack lines 3. 1:978 GMC quick attack brush truck .Not manned 4. 1973 Ward La France 1250 GPM Not manned pumper, Station 3 1. E~gine 3 3 12858 Baseline 1969 American La France 1500 GPM pumper. 4" s~pply hose and 13/4" attack lines 1978 Ford LTS 9000 water tender 4800 gallon with 500 GPM pump Not manned The district has an ISO rating of Class 4 with a Class 1 water system. The annual number of alarms is 3,688. The largest category is rescue with 1,922 alarms in 1986. The ladder truck was placed in service in the community in early 1987. The district shares a joint dispatching facility with Ontario, Chino, Upland and Montclair. An automatic aid agreement for structure fires is in effect within the five cities. The automatic aid agreement does not include ladder trucks. 6 The rapid growth apparently will not be impaired by water shortages or sewer system capacity, as occurs in many communities. Growth, however, will continue to impact the fire department. More fire stations, equipment and manpower will be needed soon and are defined in the study. Department manning by 1995 may approach 100. The number of stations will be 7. The fire district should strive to maintain or improve its ISO rating insofar as it is cost effective to do so. The district may see an increase of annual alarms to around 6,588 in 1995. The most common alarm will be for emergency medical service. The "EMS" demand will be 70 to 83% of the total calls. Incidents involving hazardous materials will increase to about one every other day due to the industrial and commercial growth and the increased awareness of hazardous materials. The fire department is able to respond adequately to the current incident demand but will not be a~le to keep up with co,~.unity growth without commensurate department growth. Future increases in traffic will impact fire department response times. The risk of fire apparatus involvement in traffic accidents will also increase. The current response configuration is: Type of Call Response Vehicle fire Rescue call Traffic accident Grass/brush Residential structure fire (single femi].y) Residential (multi-family) Industrial/commercial Miscellaneous calls i engine 1 engine 1 engine + 1 squad 2 engines & 1 water tender 2 engines, 1 truck, 1 squad, duty chief 3 engines, i truck, 1 squad, duty chief 3 engines, 1 truck, 1 squad, duty chief 1 engine The fire department ~d the community have a tremendous opportunity to begin now to design a model f~re delivery system which involves the public and private sector as partners in solving the fire/EMS/hazmat problem. No longer can government afford to pay for all of the services required by community growth. Those causing the growth and impacting the community must participate in sharing the costs as well as the citizen who is the user of the service. This community as a whole should strive to minimize the future threat to themselves from fire, EMS, hazardous material and disaster incidents. This can be accomplished by: Increased fire department staffing, apparatus and stations. Intensive new development ordinances and standards. Requirements for Class A roofs in new construction. Implementation of the Foothill con~unities~ "greenbelt" program. Revenue enhancement for the district. Intensive fire p~vention program. State-of-the-art fire apparatus and equipment. Intensified training for staff. Improved computer aided dispatching system. Computerized dat~ base system for management of programs. Improved disaster readiness. Public education and information. Intensive fire investigation. Mitigation of the wildland and vegetation fire threat. Research and development into fire protection new methods and techni- ques. Proper expansion of the water and road systems. Recruitment of highly qualified new personnel, for all positions. Increased interagency cooperation. It is with these thoughts and optimism for the future of the community that this study is presented. II. ALARM DATA ANALYSIS AND FUTURE PREDICTIONS TO 1995 The following data is the result of the consultant's analysis of response data obtained from the Foothill Fire Protection District. The data reflects the following: A. 1986 Alarms: In 1986, an increase of alarms occurred over 1985 in all categories; fire, rescue, other emergencies and mutual aid calls. Alarm data for each caIegory from 1983 to 1986 is as follows: Fire Rescues Other Emergencies Mutual Aid Out of District Total 1986 - 374 1986 - 1922 1986 - 958 1986 - 434 1986 - 3688 1985 - 357 1985 - 1663 1985 - 846 1985 - 386 1985 - 3252 1984 - 379 1984 - 1321 1984 - 738 1984 - 372 1984 - 2810 1983 - 287 1983 - 1183 1983 - 627 1983 - 290 .1983 - 2387 Increase 1986 87 calls 739 calls 331 calls 144 calls 1301 calls over 1983 (30%) (62%) (52%). (49%) (54%) Fires Rescues Other Emergencies Mutual Aids Total Alarms represented represented represented 25% represented increased 10% of all 52% of all of all alarms in 11% of all 13% over alarms in alarms in 1986 (26% in 1985) alarms in 1985. They 1986 & 1985 1986 (51% 1986 & 1985 have in- in 1985) creased 54% since 1983 (These percentages are approximations.) Percent of increase over the previous year in each category from 1983 through 1986 are as follows: Fire Rescue Other Emergencies Mutual Aid Total 86/85 + 4.8% +15.6% +13.2% +12.4% +13.4% 85/84 - 6.0% +26.0% +14.0% + 4.0% +15.0% 84/83 +32.0% +12.0% +18.0% +28.0% +18.0% Increase 1986 Over +30.0% +62.'0% +52.0% +49.0% +54.0% 1983 Recap: Percent of increase of total alarms for i986 was 13% over 1985. The greatest increase in ].986 was in rescue calls. Rescue calls were the most 9 con~non alarm every year. Rescue represents 56% of tke total alarms for 1986. It represented 51% of the calls in 1985. Fires represented 10% of all alarms in 1986 and 1985. This trend will probably continue through 1995. Rescue calls will continue to represent the largest emergency demand upon the district. Rescue amounts to 75% to 80% or more of the total call demand for many fire departments. B. Annual Response Data Annual response data 1980 through 12/86 indicates the following total alarms by category. Mutual aid includes automatic aid. 1980: Fire 475 Total alarms 2531 Rescue 1123 Other Emergencies 714 Mutual Aid 219 1981: Fire 370 Total alarms 2408 Rescue 1115 Other Emergencies 628 Mutual Aid 295 1982: Fire 323 Total alarms 2416 Rescue 1168 Other Emergencies 593 Mutual Aid 332 1983: Fire 287 Total alarms 2387 Rescue 1183 Other Emergencies 627 Mutual Aid 290 1984: Fire 379 Total alarms 2810 Rescue 1321 Other Emergencies 738 Mutual Aid 372 10 1985: Fire 357 Total alarms 3252 Rescue 1663 Other 'Emergencies 846 Mutual Aid 386 1986 Fire 374 Total alarms 3688 Rescue 1922 Other Emergencies 958 Mutual Aid 434 Based upon annual statistics from Ontario Central Dispatch, the following percentage increases in ala_-ms for 1986 over 1985 were: Fire + 4.8% Rescue +15.6% Other Emergencies +13.2% Mutual Aid +12.4% Total +13.4% 11 C. City population data (Chamber of Commerce) as a basis for future projections. 1. City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1980 - 55,900 1982 - 57,100 1983 - 59,700 1984 - 63,000 1985 - 65,600 1986 - 81,C00 1995 - ll0,G00 (Projected by the City Planning Department) (This amounts to 36% increase over the 81,000 population.) District: Unincorporated Area 1986 = maximum 335 (estimate by Chief Michael) Total 1986 District population 81,335 (approximate). 1995 = maximum 9,500 (estimated population in unincorporated area) Total 1995 District population 119,500 (as estimated by planning department) 2. Population data, unincorporated area Obviously, the economy, future density and zoning could affect the population in the unincorporated area. The Fire Chief's projections use the 9500 population figure. It is the opinion of the consultant that the 1995 district population will be 25% higher than that projected, due to the available land, water, etc., coupled with the increasing demand for housing and commercial/industrial space in the Riverside/San Bernardino County areas. At this time, there appears to be no reason for that growth to cease. Thus we predict a population closer to 150,000 persons by 1995. D. Projected Number of Calls for 1995. Projected'number of calls for the District in 1995 based upon current calls generated per person are shown on the next page. These are approximations and are presented only to give an estimate of future activities. Numbers are rounded. 12 Recap of Database 81,335 District population currently generates: 374 fire calls (.004 per person) 1922 EMS calls (.023 per person) 958 other emergency calls (.011 per person) 434 mutual aid calls (.005 per person) 3688 total alarms (.045 per person) 1995 projections use the same per person generation figure. We use a population of 150,000 in our projections. Projected Alarms Annually'1995 Current Annual Alarms 1986 Total Ales: 6750 100% Total 3688 100% Fire: 600 9% Fire 374 10% EMS: 3450 51% EMS 1922 52% Other: 1650 24% Other 958 25% Mutual Aid: 750 11% Mutl.Aid 434 11% Total calls per day = 18.5 divided by 7 stations = 2.6/day (average) Total calls per day = 10.10 divided by 3 stations = 3.36/station (average) 13 1986 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3688 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 o Total Alarms Population 81,335 1922 958 374 ,34 6750 6750 6580 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5OO0 4750 4500 4250 4O00 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 2995 PoPulation 150,000 3450 1650 600 750 Fire Rescue Other Mu:ALd Total Alarms Fire Rescue Other MutAid COMPARISON OF ALARM VOLUME 1986/1995 FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (Based on current call generation per person) 14 It is interesting to note zhat the percent of rescue/EMS calls currently occurring is 52% of the total ales- In most communities it is 70% or more and especially where public paramedics are used. The 70% figure is attributable to several factors, some of which are as follows. (1) Renters are accustomed to demanding more services than owners. Rental prope]~y in the District should increase dramatically in future years. (2) A certain amount of persons on welfare, low income, etc., tend to call paramedLcs for "free" treatment rather then going to a doctor or hospital. (3) Increased awareness of the "free" medical service. (4) The perception is that the fire department is the local agency to call when an emergency occurs (except for law enforcement emergencies) (5) As the percent of fire incidents compared to total alarms decreases due to new construction, better public education and fire inspections by the fire department, etc., the percent of total alarms representing v_MS calls will increase. (6) Aging of the co~,unity end an influx of retirees. (7) Increased traffic accidents. (8) Increased law enforcement incidents, with injury, overdose, assault, etc. In many modern and newer.colmmanities such as Rancho Cucamonga, the fire departments are becoming primarily EMS first responders. The City of Huntington Beach mentioned, had 8583 alarms in 1984 (181,000 population = .047 alarms per person). Note: We are using .045 fcr call projections. Huntington Beach EMS calls amounted to 70% of the total calls; fires represented 10% of the total. This is very typical. If the population and alarm. percentages in Foothill for 1995 were computed in the same manner, the result would be: (150,000 x .047) Total Ales: EMS: Fire: Other: 7050 4935 - 70% - 13 per day 705 - 10% - 2 per day 1410 - 20% - 4 per day 19 calls per day (approximate) 15 Two other factors which will affect future incident load will be the daily heavy traffic flow in commercial and industrial areas, and construction of the future cross-town freeway. Traffic accidents will increase. Also, the daily influx of workers from out of town may zend to increase EMS calls during working hours. Current Fire Alarm and Fire Loss Data Most common fire: 1981 vegetation 1982 vegetation 1983 vehicle L984 vegetation L985 vegetation 3986 vehicle Most common structural fire response: 1982 residential 1983 residential 1984 residential 1985 residential 1986 residential $ 7,500,000 7,000,000 AN~FiAL FIRE LOSS DATA 7,312,175 6,500,000 6,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,670,740 1,864,060 1,000,000 500,000 250,000 814,499 1981 499,006 450,905 1982 1983 16 1984 437,090 1985 1986 Average Note: The 1984 fire loss included a major industrial fire and a fire involving 3 houses and 1 mobile home. The 1986 fire loss reflects a $5 million apartment complex under construction and two $300,000 house fires. Fire Deaths: 1981 zero 1982 zero 1983 two 1984 one lg85 three 1986 none E. Sum~ar~ of Alarm Data 1. The total number of alarms are increasing. 2. EMS calls represenzs the greatest increase since 1983 and will continue to represent the greazest call generator. 3. Fire deaths are low. Fire deaths averaged one person per year for six years which is low. 4. Fire loss averaged $1,864,060 annually for the period 1981/86. The 1986/87 assessed evaluation of the district is $3,077,470,698. The average dollar loss equates to approximately .6% of the assessed evaluation. The per capita dollar loss in 1986 (using the six-year average) was $22.91. A 1986 survey of seven cities in Los Ang. eles County, and of the Los Angeles County Fire District indicated an average per capita loss of $16.74. 5. Future Alarm Trends a. With the increase in population, alarms will increase as has been shown. EMS (rescue) calls may eventually climb to 70 to 80% of all alarms due to ~ublic awareness of the EMS service available and due to aging of the population, and fires will remain around 10%. The remaining 20% of alarms will be public service and mutual aid out of the District. "Mutual aid" should become "automatic aid" response on predetermined run cards with surrounding agencies. Automatic aid currently exiszs for structure fires. These calls are logged as mutual aid calls. Apparatus from other agencies will come into Foothill District automatically on certain types of calls and foothill units will.respond into other cities on certain types of call. The district can expect one second alarm response per month at total build out. 17 6. Firefighting Operation Data - 1984 a. The following information was gathered from review of all fire reports for 1984. Total fire alarms = 379. Type hose used Booster line 1½" or i 3/4" 2½ Out on arrival Extinguishers Elevated or heavy streams Total gallons of water used Average gallons per flre # of times used 201 28 11 89 times 19 4 251,530 gal. (approximately) 664 7. Analysis of Firefighting Data Most fires are extin.cuished by booster lines. Elevated streams or other heavy streams are rarely used. The average water usage per fire could be compared to 22 minutes of a booster line flow at 30 GPM or 6 minutes from an 1½" hose line. The data indicates that most fires in the past five years have been vegetation or residential fires. One can predict that with the implamentation of a ~:rinkler ordinance, the firefighting operation data will increase .due zo increase in the number of alarms relative to population increase but the types of hose lines used will remain the same. The data validates -~e concept of engines, mini-pumpers and squirts supported by one major ladder truck. Hazardous Material Incidents Predictions: It is somewhat difficult to predict the number of hazardous material (hazmat) incidents whizh will occur. Many factors enter into this type of prediction: a. Type of industry & hazmat generators. 18 f. g. h. i. j. Local, federal and state laws and regulations in effect and enforced. Training of private brigades and response teams. Safety prograns in effect in industry. Reporting of incidents to the fire department. Amount of semiconductor facilities in the District. Rail and highway transportation. Contents of general warehousing. Definition of what constitutes a hazmat incident. A greater ~wareness of hazardous materials on the part of indus- try, citizenry, law enforcement and fire service. Current data system for tracking incidents, and trends. One must realize that "Hazardous Materials" includes gasoline, crude oil, oxidizers, acids, reactive materials, explosives, toxic materials flammables, etc. It includes an extremely wide range of materials which can be detrimental to man and/or his environment. It could logically be said that the current number of incidents could double by 1995. The City of Santa Clara which is a high tech center in the Silicon Valley has 99 haLmat calls per year (population 100,000). (Calls requiring specialized knowledge or action). This is an average of 8 calls per month. This is consistent year after year. It would therefore be prudent to predict a call demand of one call per one thousand persons per year for Foothill Fire Protection District in 1995. This would total 150 calls per year, or 12.5 per month (.41 per day) for some type of hazmat incident--spill, leak, fire, unknown substance, illegal dumping, etc. About 50% of these may re, fire response of a specialist in hazardous materials. The number of calls will vary, in part, due to the type of industry which will eventually settle in the District. The Planning Department states the type of industry can vary widely and one can only guess as to what types will settle in the com~m/nity. No definitive data was available to the consultant from the Planning Department. Most of the industry of the future, however, will be high-tech computer or electronics type industry similar to Santa Clara. Industry of the future will increase generation of hazardous materials due to processes and materials used. The city of Irvine (80,000 ~opulation and 40 square miles) currently has two calls per month with their hazmat squad. One call per month requires response of a 19 chemist· This is 24 calls per year. This would equate to 45 calls per year for 150,000 people, or one call per 3333 persons per year. Hazardous materials incidents occur in many locations other than industry. These locations include: 1. Residential occupancies 2. Transportation (air, rail, highway) Retail sales occupancies such as grocery stores, hardware stores, swimming pool supply stores 4. Office buildings Vacant land (illegal dumping or old dump sites) Due to the fact that hazardous materials usage is an integral part of today's society, it is logical to state that as population increases so do Hazmat incidents, as people use hazardous materials and people cause most incidents. The district will be able to better analyze the part of the problem which occurs in "industry" once the industrial land is built upon. The district is beginning to track hazardous materials incidents so that a data base can be accessed. III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMS Based upon the current fife problem and future incident demands projected in section 2, goals and objectives for the future fire protection delivery system in the district must be developed. After the goals and objectives are identified, 20 programs to implament the goals and objectives are then identified. Programs are simply a laundry list of reco~nended programs with suggested, but flexible, implementation dates. The fire district staff must then convert the laundry list into viable programs to be implemented on a priority basis. Some of these programs are already in effect. The descending hierarchy is as follows: 8 c HRC The categories listed herein for goals, objectives and programs are as follows: Ae B. C. D. E. F. Structural Fires Wildland Fires Emergency Medical Services Hazardous Materials. Fire District Management and Operation Disaster Control 21 A. Structural Fires Goal I: Minimize life loss and injuz7 caused by structural fires. Objective 1: Install smoke detectors An residences through ordinance, education and persuasion. Program: 1-A Assure that the UBC requirements are being correctly enforced in new dwelling units. 1-B Enforce Uniform Fire Code provisions for fire alarms and detectors in multi-unit dwellings. 1-C Assure that all new dwelling units in hotels, motels and apartments have smoke detectors, per UBC. 1-D Implement public education program to persuade citizens to install smoke detectors in existing residences. 1-E In cooperation -with local citizen groups and Firefighters Associa- tion, purchase a:.d install detectors for low income, fixed income and handicapped citizens. 1-F Educate Citizens to test and maintain smoke detectors, and replace detector batteries. Objective 2: ordinance.). Implament by January, 1988 Sprinkler new buildings over 5000 sq. ft. (see proposed / 2-A Adopt 5,9~0 square foot sprinkler ordinance, as included in this study. 2-B Investigate use of plastic pipe as a cost savings feature in appro- priate occupancies. Implement Immediately 22 Objective 3: buildings. Re.cuire proper fire protection systems in high rise Proqram: 3-A Adopt high rise ordinance proposed in this report. 3-B Assure that applicable UBC code sections are imposed upon new high rise structures. 3-C Assure that applicable state high rise requirements are imposed. Implement Immediately Objective 4: Eduzate citizenry in fire prevention and fire escape. Program: 4-A Teach school children fire safety and home fire escape planning. 4-B Teach commlni%y groups, senior citizens, etc. fire safety and home escape planning. 4-C Issue NFPA home fire safety and fire escape brochures to all citizens via water or electric bills, etc. 4-D Publish articles in local newspapers regarding home fire safety and escape. 4-E Encourage voluntary home fire inspections performed upon request by engine companies. i~plement by January, 1989 Objective 5: children. Conduct intensive public education programs for adults and Program: 5-A Conduct programs about fire safety at home and work. 5-B Educate citizenry about methods and need for promptly call the fire department. 23 5-C Educate public on need for smoke detectors, extinguishers, maintenance thereof. 5-D Provide programs which can be presented evenings by local engine companies focused problems in the ~articular district. 5-E Produce fire safety programs for viewing on local T.V. 5-F Produce and deliver "radio spot announcements" on fire safety topics. 5-G Conduct fire safety programs for industry. etc., and in neighborhoods during on eliminating the fire Implement by Janua/7, 1989 Objective 6: Review plans and condition all new development. Program: 6-A Plancheck' all new occupancies dwellings (currently done). 6-B 6-C Other than single family detached Review and condition all plans for new projects in the district (currently done). Provide and issue a "New Development Guide" for all developers. Guide should listall district fire protection standards. 6-D Conduct occupancy clearances to check for required fire safety items and for addresse~. 6-E Take active role in the local governmental project approval process. 6-F Implement stringeat standards for development in the urban wildland interface (adopt Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program as ordinance). 6-G Plancheck all fire protection system plans (currently done). 6-H Have sprinkler system calculations checked by a qualified fire system designer on a conzract basis (currently done). 6-I Implement change of occupancy inspection program with fee schedule. ~lement Immediately 24 Objective 7: Arrive at 90% of all structural fires within 5 minutes of notification. Program: 7-A Implement "levels of service" identified in this study. 7-B Build and operate fire stations at approximate locations defined in this plan, at recommended construction priority. 7-C Activate mini-pumpers as recommended in this study. 7-D Provide active fire district input into road circulation and con- struction plans and priorities within the district. Implement I3m~ediatelv Objective 8: Sprinkler all new dwellings. Program: 8-A Pursue progra~ to sprinkler all new dwellings after 1990. 8-B Pursue use of plastic pipe in residences and other appropriate occupancies as cost savings feature. Implement in 1992 Goal II: Minimize incidence of structural fires. Objective 1: Reduce yearly rate of fires through fire inspection of all occupancies by public or private sector and through public education and code enforcement. Program: 1-A Continue to expand the current inspection program. 1-B Encourage voluntary home inspections perfgrmed upon request by engine companies. 1-C Expand fire prevention staff per recommendation in study. 25 1-D Expand fire suppression staff and number of stations so that engine companies can perform more inspections. 1-E Enact programs Listed under Goal I, objectives 4 and 5. 1-F Increase audits of the self-inspection program to assure compliance. 1-G Provide adequate training for all fire protection and suppression personnel in code enforcement. 1-H Engine companiee shall identify the local fire problem in their fire management areas and enact programs to mitigate the problems. Code requirements for Fees should be imposed 1-I Enact a fire permit program per Uniform Fire all applicable processes and occupancies. (engine company program). Implement by January, 1988 Objective 2: Identify cause and origin of all fires. Program: 2-A Train engine com?any personnel in cause and origin detection. 2-B Require company conm~nders to perform initial cause and origin investigations and' to request fire investigator only if unable to determine cause and origin. 2mplement Immediately Objective 3: Reduce number of intentionally set fires. 3-A Implement progr~ 4-A under Goal I. 3-B Actively prosecute fire setters and obtain publicity regarding prosecution. 3-C Implement programs 2-A and 2-B of Goal II. 3-D Work with local insurance companies and law enforcement to detect intentionally sez fires. 26 3-E Expand fire prevention staff incrementally per reco~nendations. 3-F Maintain liszs of known local fire setters. Implement In~nediately Objective 4: Use punitive deterrents for negligent fires. Program: 4-A Pursue reimbursement of suppression costs for negligent fires. 4-B Pursue arrests for negligence where provided for under law. Intolament Immediately Objective 5: Strive to ultimately eliminate fireworks in the district. Program: 5-A Continue to pursue local legislation to eliminate sale and/or discharge of fireworks within the district. 5-B Educate the citizenry as to the dangers of all fireworks. sales and/or discharge of implement by January, 1991 Goal III: Minimize total fire costs. Objective 1: Minimize insurance costs. Program: 1-A Implement levels of service recommended in this plan. 1-B Activate and properly man the new ladder truck. 1-C Review and imTlement, insofar as is cost effective, mendations for fire departments in an attempt department ISO rating. 1-D all ISO recom- to lower fire Pursue lowest ISO rating reasonably attainable for city and fire department. Fire district currently is "class 4" as of 1980. Strive for a "class 2" fire district rating by 1990. 27 1-E Adopt fire sprinkler and high rise ordinances. 1-F Construct and ~an additional fire stations recon~nended. 1-G Require Class A roofs. 1-H Adopt Foothill Con~nunities Greenbelt Program. and apparatus as Implement Immediately Objective 2: Add new fire stations, apparatus and manning to minimize effect of fire. Program: 2-A Implement recon~ended levels of service, fire apparatus and manning per priorities recommended. 2-B Implement Mello Roos Tax Program. station locations, Implement per Levels of Service Priorities Objective 3: Minimize response times of firefighters. Arrive at 90% of all structural fires within 5 minutes of notification. Program: 3-A Implement levels of service including additional stations. 3-B Cooperate in program to activate new joint dispatch facility. 3-C Implement progra~ 7-D, Goal I. 3-D Implement progrin 5-B, Goal I. 3-E Implement "mini-pumper" concept as recommended. 3-F Perform manageme"t audits of reflex times of fire companies. 3-G Perform manageme]it audits of dispatch system to assure fast receipt and dispatch times. implement In~nediately 28 Objective 4: Sprinkler all buildings over 5000 sq. ft. Program: 4-A Adopt recon~nended sprinkler ordinance. Implement In~nediatelv Objective 5: Enforce fire and building codes. Program: 5-A Expand fire prevention and suppression staff as per recommendations. 5-B Work closely with building department regarding code compliance of new and existing occupancies. 5-C Provide adequate code enforcement training for fire department members. Implement Immediately Goal IV: Reduce severizy of structural fires. Objective 1: Sprinkler new buildings over 5000 sq. ft. Program: 1-A Adopt sprinkler ordinance. 1-B Provide intensive plancheck and test of new systems. 1-C Inspect existing systems annually (engine companies). Implement Immediately Objective 2: 'Review and condition all new development. Program: 2-A Implement programs 6-A through 6-I, Goal Implement Immediately 29 Objective 3: Control flammable construction material. Program: 3-A Pursue elimination of easily ignitable wood siding in new con- struction. 3-B Require NFPA Class A, (severe fire exposure), roofs on any new or remodeled occupancy in the district. 3-C Pursue elimination or minimization of use of flammable decoration, wall and floor coverings and furnishings in new co~nercial and industrial occupancies (through plancheck, public education and occupancy clearance inspections). 3-D Control combustibles and storage thereof on construction sites (article 11, UFC) and adopt a local ordinance) implament Iam~ediately Objective 4: Require proper fire protection in high rise buildings. Program: 4-A Adopt high rise ordinance. 4-B Assure through inspection that buildings comply with applicable requirements. InClement I~nediately Objective 5: Minimize response times of firefighters. Arrive at 90% of all structural fires within 5 minutes of notification. Program: 5-A Refer to programs 3-A through 3-G, Goal III. Objective 6: Provide sufficient aerial ladder and elevated stream capability within 10 minutes at 80% of all structure fires. 30 Program: 6-A Implement recommended levels of apparatus per study. service, fire station locations and Objective 7: force. Provide a highly trained and adequate fast attack, on- duty Program: 7-A Implement currently used performance standards and times for all companies. 7'B Assure througA regular management audits by training officer that all companies meez performance standard times. 7-C Continue to rzilize latest state-of-the-art fire equipment, nozzles, hose, transverse beds, large diemeter hose, etc. 7-D Activate truc~ company as soon as possible. 7-E Provide manning, stations and apparatus per recommendations in the study. 7-F Continue mandatory physical fitness program, with mandatory annual physical exams. Implament Immediately Objective 8: Maintain 24-hour fire watch in the con~nunity. Program: 8-A Cooperate with police and sheriff to assure that units are alert for signs of fire while on patrol. Police and sheriff should accept the basic responsibility for fire watch. 8-B Encourage and train cab companies, ambulances, buses, city and district employees, etc. to be alert for fires and report them. 8-C Activate fire department patrols during high fire hazard alerts. 8-D Recommend or require automatic detection and reporting devices in all commercial and industrial occupancies when possible. 8-E Require all sprinkler systems and associated valves to be supervised to an alarm company. 31 8-F Require smoke dezectors per Goal I, programs 1-A through 1-F. 8-G Pursue implemenzation of 911 throughout district, with free call access at pay phones, and hi-lingual instruction in phone booths. 8-H Pursue telephone company installation of ample lighted, visible and accessible phone booths in industrial and con~ercial districts. 8-I Install phones in front of urgent care facilities and fire stations. ImpLement by January, 1988 Objective 9: Insure fast receipt and dispatch of all ales. Proqram: 9-A Conduct quarterly management audits of joint operation. 9-B Cooperate in design, expansion and funding of new operation. dispatch center dispatch center Implament Immediately Objective 10: Encourage installation of occupancies. Program: 10-A Refer to programs discussed earlier. B. Wildland Fires fire detection systems in all Goal I: Minimize life loss, injury and loss of property caused by vegetation and wildland fires. Objective 1: Educate wildland residents in fire safety. Program: 1-A Educate citizenry through same means recommended for structural fire safety. 1-B Provide fire safety brochures and issue to all occupancies in high fire hazard areas via water bill, electric bill, etc. 32 1-C Produce newsgaper, television and radio spots on wildland fire safety. implement by January, 1989 Objective 2: Educate children in fire safety. Program: 2-A Conduct fire ~afety programs in schools. InClement by January, 1989 Objective 3: Strive to ultimately eliminate sales and/or discharge of fireworks in the District. Program: 3 -A Continue to pursue local legislation to eliminate sale and/or discharge of fireworks within the district. iLm~lement by January,. 1991 Objective 4: Properly equip firefighters to maximize safety. Proqram: 4-A Continue to properly equip firefighters. Objective 5: fire threat. Adopt legislation to mitigate the urban/wildland interface Program: 5-A Adopt and irplement recommendations of the Foothill Protective Greenbelt Program by ordinance. Enforce through public education, engine company inspection and plancheck. 5-B Pursue requir:mg of Class A roofs and outlawing flammable wood siding. 33 5-C Require landscape plans for new development. 5-D Require adequate clearances around utility power poles. 5-E Require adequate brush clearances around structures. implement Immediately Goal II: Minimize incident rate of wildland and veqetation fire. Objective 1: Conduct weed abatement program in coordination with county. Program: 1-A Continue to con~.~ct weed abatement program. 1-B Engine companies perform management audit of the program in their districts. 1-C Cite hazards p~r Uniform Fire Code. Ongoing Implementation Objective 2: Conducz public education program. Program: 2-A Refer to programs under Wildland, Goal I. Objective 3: Strive to ultimately eliminate fireworks in the District. Program: 3-A Refer to program~ under Goal I. sales and/or discharge of Objective 4: Invest]gate all wildland and vegetation fires. Program: 4-A Cooperate with CD? in investigation of all wildland fires. 4-B Require engine companies to perform thorough cause investigations. and origin 34 Objective 5: Prosecute fire setters and recover suppression costs. Program: 5-A Pursue prosecution to the maximum extent of the law. 5-B Offer rewards for information leading to arrests. 5-C Recover suppression costs. 5-D Obtain publicity regarding arrests, fines, penalties imposed, etc. 5-E Maintain lists of known fire setters. Implement Immediately Goal III: Minimize severity of wildland fires. Objective 1: Conduct fuel management'program in critical areas. Program: 1-A Implement recon~endations Greenbelt Program. of Foothill Communities protective Implement Immediately Objective 2: Artlye at 90% of vegetation fires within 10 minutes. Program: 2-A Implement levels of service, recommendations. station locations and mini-pumper per Objective 3: Increase fire suppression capability during severe "fire weather" conditions. Program: 3-A Implament call back of off-duty manpower engines and to man tankers (currently done). to increase manning on 35 Objective 4: Provide for fast attack on wildland fires. Program: 4-A Develop performance standards for engine company operations on wildland fires. 4-B Train engine companies on performance standards for wildland fires. 4-C Continue to investigate state-of-the-art wildland hose packs and equipment as used by CDF and/or USFS and adopt as necessary to speed up wildland hose operations. 4-D Provide wildland firefighting training for all firefighters. 4-E Expand automatic aid response from neighboring cities to include wildland. Implement Immediately C. Emergency Medical Services Goal I: Minimize life loss and injury. Objective 1: Train citizenry in self-help CPR and first aid (emergency medical public educazion). Program: 1-A Publicize availability of CPR and first aid classes taught by fire department engine companies. 1-B Upon request, engine companies should deliver self-help CPR and first aid training to conmmnity clubs, and neighborhood groups within their first in districts. 1-C Teach CPR at local junior high and high schools (engine companies). 1-D Train all city ~nd district employees in CPR and first aid. 1-E Encourage industry to teach employees CPR and first aid. 36 1-F Teach citizens how to determine what is and what is not an EMS emergency. 1-G Train law enforcement officers in CPR and first aid. Implement June, 1988 Objective 2: Train all firefighters to EMT-1 level. Program: 2-A Continue to certify all firefighters to EMT-1 level. Currently Implemented Objective 3: tion. Arrive at 90% of EMS calls within 5 minutes of notifica- Program: 3-A Implement levels of service, recon~nendations. 3-B Train dispatchers to properly station locations and mini-pumpers per screen calls in order to minimize response for fire department and/or ambulances in order to increase availability of units for response to serious EMS calls. Objective 4: Pursue and maintain adequate levels of response and transportation using fire companies and other available resources. Program: 4-A Fire department Division Chief shall work closely with ambulance company to assure adequate levels are met. 4-B Assure that adequate number of ambulances are available in district at all times. 4-C Fire companies shall conduct joint training programs with private ambulance personnel. 4-D Provide proper EMS equipment on fire apparatus. 37 Objective 5: Pursue automatic aid EMS program. Proqram: 5-A Work with other zities and districts to expand current automatic aid program to include all types of emergency calls including EMS. 5-B Pursue countywi~,e ambulance and EMS mutual aid system. D. Hazardous Materials Proteczion Goal I: Minimize risks associated with hazardous materials. Objective 1: Inventory and identify conmnznity. hazardous materials risk in Program: 1-A Require all users of hazardous materials to submit lists and keep lists of materia].s used on site in a Knox Box type keyed box for fire department use. 1-B Engine companies to pre-plan all significant occupancies and maintain information regarding materials on-site. Input hazmat data into computer system for access during fire inspections and emergencies. 1-C Expand fire prevention staff to provide for hazardous materials and industrial inspector. 1-D Implement use of the NFPA hazardous materials identification system and/or DOT identification system within industry in the district. ImpLement by January, 1989 Objective 2: .Train a!~l firefighters in hazmat mitigation. 38 Progr~l~: 2-A Provide in-town training seminars in hazardous materials for all firefighters. Operators of new hazmat occupancies to pay for training. 2-8 Continue to send officers to State and National Fire Academy hazmat courses. Implement by July, 1988 Objective 3: Provide appropriate safety equipment. Program: 3-A Purchase OSHA approved hazmat safety clothing and place on squad. Review equipment carried on L. A. County Fire Department hazmat squads. implement by January, 1988 Objective 4: Increase hazardous materials response capability. Program: 4-A Pursue joint funding of a "hazenat" squad for the five city response area. 4-B Equip the "squad" unit with the necessary hamat equipment. 4-C Equip each engine company with binoculars and chemical guides. Implement by July, 1988 Objective 5: legislation. Adoet local haamat ordinance and enforce other hazmat Program: 5-A Pursue adoption of a local comprehensive hazmat ordinance to govern storage, use, transportation and disposal within the district. 39 5-B Fire Prevention Bureau to assure that all applicable state and federal hazmat legislation is being enforced. ~m~lement by July, 1988 Objective 6: Intensify fire inspections in hazmat occupancies. Program: 6-A Expand Fire Prevention Bureau to provide for full time hazmat/ industrial inspector. 6-B Engine companies shall inspect occupancies with significant hazardous materials quarterly. 6-C Engine companies shall enforce fire permit program. Refer to UFC article 80. ]inClement July, 1988 E. Fire District Manaqement and O~eration Goal I: Maximize cost effectiveness and efficiency of the Fire District. Objective 1: Apply management by objectives and performance standards to all activities. Program: 1-A Obtain MBO tra~.ning for all supervisorial personnel at State and National Fire Academy, private seminars, etc. 1-B Develop performance standards for every fire department position. 1-C Require each management person to develop goals and objectives for his/her position annually and obtain agreement of fire chief. Pay increases.to be gTanted only if goals and objectives are met. 1-C Each fire department.division shall generate annual goals, objectives and programs for approval of the fire chief. I~lement by July, 1988 40 Objective 2: Implement planned program budgeting techniques. Program: 2-A Use planned program budgeting techniques during budget process as the basis for co_m~osing the line item budget for the county. Objective 3: Perform management audits of all personnel and operations. Program: 3-A Fire Chief shall perform management audits (executive curiosity) on every division head monthly including training, operations, fire prevention, administrative and financial divisions. 3-B Fire Chief, Operations Chief, and Training Officer shall inspect one station each Thursday (including apparatus, records and personnel) and observe t?'e company perform the hose and ladder performance standards. Implement Immediately Objective 4: programs. Develop and maintain computerized data base for all Program: 4-A Develop a c~uputer system to receive and store data from all divisions including fire stations. 4-B Place all emergency alarm, fire prevention, hazmat, training, investigation. budgeting, purchasing and employee data, etc. on computer. 4-C Pursue joint purchase (with five cities) of a computerized data base system. 4-D Place terminals in each fire station for input of routine and emergency data. 41 4-E Pursue handheld portable terminals for use by fire prevention inspectors to input violations, data, etc. 4-F Provide for installation of terminals in apparatus and chiefs' vehicles.for receipt of emergency response information and preplan information when responding. LmpLement by January, 1989 Objective 5: MaintaLn staffing at minimum cost. Program: 5-A Maintain manning ?er recommended levels of service (three person companies ). 5-B Move up qualified subordinates to act in vacant positions and hire overtime at loweEz level. 5-C Expand joint powers response program to include all emergencies. 5-D Use floater (suitcase firefighter) on each shift to fill in for vacancies prior to hiring overtime. This may be the fourth person on a four person tr~ck company. 5-E Implement firefighter reserve program. Use reserves for fourth person on a company and for increasing on-duty manning during major fires, high fire hazard weather, disasters, etc. Reserves may be used for overhau' on major fires. Reserve program can serve as the prerequisite for becoming a FFPD firefighter. Implement by July, 1988 Objective 6: Expand interagency cooperation and agreements. Program1: 6-A Expand joint powers program to include joint training center, training division, purchasing, hazmat ~quad, fire prevention bureau, fire investigation, mechanic shops, data base, etc. 42 6-B Continue cooperation with CDF in joint prevention suppression and investigation activities. Implement January, 1989 Objective 7: equipment. continue to implement state-of-the-art techniques and Program: 7-A Continue to investigate and implement state-of-the-art techniques and equipment for fire suppression. Objective 8: fees. Enhance revenue capability through user and inspection Program: 8-A Implament fee program for field fire system inspection and tests. 8-B Implement fire permit program enforcing permit requirements of UFC. Fees should be charged for annual permit inspection and issuance. 8-C Implement cha-ge of occupancy fire inspection program with fees. 8-D Pursue expansion of plan review fee program. Implement by January, 1988 Goal II: Maintain highly trained and motivated work force. Objective 1: Imp2.ement participative management program. Program: 1-A Continue tO involve all personnel in decision making processes for apparatus, stations and equipment. 1-B Encourage input from all members into any department programs. 1-C Implement employee suggestion system. 43 1-D Install (or utilize) station to station phone system (with speakers) and conduct a morning status check at 0830. All members including all chiefs shall be involved. Status of all stations are given, plans for the day are discussed, and division heads and fire chief can update all personnel on current events and policies. Implement by July, 1988 Objective 2: Implement job performance standards for all. Program: 2-A Refer to program 1-B District Management, Goal I. Objective 3: 'Implement and test employees on performance standards. Program: 3-A Refer to programs l-B, 3-A and 3-B, District Management, Goal I. Objective 4: Provide career upward mobility and staff rotation. Program: 4-A Institute rotatic~ program so that chief officers (except fire chief) rotate through all chief positions. 4-B Institute rotation program if a creation of captain position is created in fire prevention, so that captains rotate through this position. 4-C Rotate selected captains through shift trainer captain position on "flying squad" at Station 5 (Highland and Milliken). 4-D Establish new promotion list annually 'for each promotional position. Implement as Orqanization Expands 44 Objective 5: Provide training facility. Program: 5-A Pursue a joint powers training facility with the five cities or at least with Ontario. 5-B If 5-A is not viable, build training facility at fire station 4 (Sixth and Milliken). Implement Immediately Objective 6: provide seminar attendance opportunities to all. Program: 6-A Budget funds _~or attendance at State and National fire Academies and other selected seminars. Allow all ranks to apply for seminars. 6-B Conduct in-tcwn seminars by bringing in "experts" on high rise, ICS, hazmat, tactics and strategy, wildland, etc. Developers and operators of new or proposed unique occupancies to pay for firefighter training (haLmat, high rise, etc. ). Implement In~nediatelV Objective 7: Assure modern management techniques are used. Program: 7-A Recruit statewide for chief officer positions. 7-B Provide management training for all managers and supervisors. 7-C Fire chief shall perform management audits of division head and supervisors. 7-D Conduct regular review to ascertain if goals and objectives are being met. Implement Immediately 45 F. Disaster Control Goal I: Minimize life less and injury due to a disaster. Objective 1: disaster. Info~'~ citizenry as to their role and responsibilities in a Program: 1-A Cooperate with local telephone company in publishing disaster instructions in phone book including earthquake, flood, wildland fire, haLmat, etc. 1-B Issue Self-help instructions to citizenry via water and electric bills, phone bills, citizen groups, etc. 1-C Produce press releases, T.V. and radio spots on disaster pre- paredness. I~olement by July, 1988 Objective 2: disaster. Teach and encourage citizenry in self-help during a Program: 2-A Conduct disaster day open houses at fire stations and teach selfhelp to citizens. 2-B Put on self-help training at citizens groups, clubs, etc. Iz'~lement by July, 1988 Objective 3: Provide sufficient early warning system for public. Proqram: 3-A Pursue need and viability of maintaining an early warning siren system at fire stations. 3-B Install emergency broadcast system (EBS) access phone at head- quarters. 46 3-C Pursue availability of helicopters with loudspeakers evacuation announcements. 3-D Provide loudspeakers on all fire and law enforcement units. to make ImPlement January, 1989 Objective 4: Pursue relocation and feeding system for displaced persons. Program: 4-A Cooperate with Red Cross, Salvation Army, and church groups in establishing a relocation and feeding program for disasters. 4-B Encourage promulgation of city and county disaster plans with shelter and relocaticn annex plans. 4-C Work out agreements with National -Guard for fast activation and assistance for evacuation. Implement by July, 1988 Goal II: Improve fire :~epartment response to a disaster. Objective 1: Pronulgate viable operational plans for disaster. fire department organization and Program: 1-A Design, issue and test viable checklist disaster plans for use by the fire department at various t~15es of incidents. ImPlament by July, 1989 Objective 2: Train all personnel in the ICS system. 47 Program: 2-A Conduct in-town con~nand system. seminars for all personnel on use of the incident Include actual exercise in the training. Implament In~nediately Objective 3: Use ICS on all major incidents. Program: 3-A Use the incident con~and system on all significant first alarm and greater incidents. 3-B Purchase and use ICS identification vests such as used in Orange County and many other co~unities including Ontario. Implement Immediately Objective 4: Activ~-.e an emergency command post vehicle. Program: 4-A Purchase and equip a van type vehicle for use as an emergency command post. This vehi--le could then serve as the battalion chief's vehicle when battalion c:.iefs ere placed on duty. ~a~olement Immediately Objective 5: Provide a room for Use as an emergency operations center. Program: 5-A Equip headquarters conference room with hardwere necessary for an "EOC" operation. 5-B Provide emergenc~ power for headquarters building. and displays Objective 6: alarms. Maintain redundant method of local receipt and dispatch of 48 Program: 6-A Provide capability and equipment ("plug-in" 911 phones and base radios, and station ring down lines) for dispatch of Foothill units in the even~ the joint dispatch center is out of service or des- troyed. Locate equipment at district headquarters. 6-B Provide emergency power for headquarters. Implement Immediately Objective 7: Pursue automatic aid disaster response agreements and training exercises. Program: 7-A As part of the joint powers agreements, provide for disaster response which would include law enforcement, Public Works,.ambulances, etc. 7-B Conduct multi-agency disaster exercises twice per year. Implement by July, 1988 Objective 8: Encourage regular training exercises with city staff, sheriff, etc. Prograx~: Involve sheriff, city police and other city and district personnel in regular disaster exercises. Implement by July, 1988 49 IV. LEVELS OF SERVICE To facilitate implementation of the goals a~d objectives, the Foothill Fire Protection District Fire Protection/EMS Delivery System shall be designed and deployed to the following levels of service for fire suppression and rescue ser- vices by 1995. These levels have been tentatively approved by the fire district board. A. 1. Structure Fire Calls A three-person engine company shall arrive within 5 minutes response time to 90% of all fire =alls within the district. Response time shall be defined as 1 minute to receive and dispatch the call and begin to drive apparatus plus 4 minuzes driving time at 35 m.p.h. (approximately 2½ miles). The 5 minute response time was arrived at after in-depth analysis of available data in :his district and other departments, and an analysis of the demands created by a structural fire or EMS call. The 5 minute time frame is divided up as follows: 1 minute: Dispatcher receives call. Dispat:her dispatches call. Fire c3mpany acknowledges call and apparatus begin to move. 4 minutes: Appara%us drives to scene at 35 m.p.h. 35 m.p.h. is a standard response time recommended by the insurance industry for many years. It also represents what can probably be considered as an average of response times. The 4 rinutes equates to 2½ road miles which is close to the ISO requirement of 1½ road miles for an engine company. ISO will allow a 50% increase to 2¼ miles before recommending an additional station. In many structural fires, "flashover" or total fire involvement of the fire area can occur at 800 to 1000 degrees in 5 minutes. It is a standard goal in progressive departments to attempt to put water on the fire prior to flashover occurring. After flashover occurs, rescue may be impossible and the entire str~ctu~e may be lost to fire unless the building is properly sprinklered. 50 In a life threatening medical emergency, brain damage and death may occur in 4 to 6 minutes from cessation of breathing or heart action. A person can bleed to deatk in 2 minutes. Thus, it is fmportant to arrive on scene within 5 minutes cr less of the call. The 90% figure is stated as a goal to achieve. Regular management audits by the fire department will reveal if this goal is met. In many communities it is difficult to exceed the 90% figure in a cost- effective manner due to the following: a. Access obstructions b. Traffic c. Weather. d. Delayed response e. Winding access roads in tracts f. Grades A three-person tru:k company shall arrive within 10 minutes response time to within 80% of a].l structural fire calls within the district (other than detached single family dwellings). A second three-person engine company shall arrive within 10 minutes response time to 9e% of all fire calls within the district. A three-person squad company shall arrive within 10 minutes response time to 80% of all structural fire calls within the district. A squad company shall be a 55' qrint "squirt" type of apparatus and shall carry certain service company equipment including salvage equipment. EMS Calls A three-person fire company shall arrive within 5 minutes response time to 90% of all EMS emergencies, and provide at a minimum EMT-1 level of service until arrival of automatically dispatched private paramedic service. If ambulance is not needed it will be cancelled enroute. 51 C. Vegetation Fires A three-person eng.[ne or water tender company shall arrive within 10 minutes response time to 90% of all calls. D. Response Standard A first alarm assignment to a reported structural fire in a single family residential dwelling shall be: a. Two engine companies (three-person) of at least 1500 GPM capacity. b. One squad company (2 persons)· c. Ladder. truck company (3 persons) with full ladder compliment and heavy stream ca[ability. d. One chief officer. Multi-family residential, con~ercial, industrial: a. Three 3-person, 1500 GPM engine companies. b. One truck company (3-person) with full ladder compliment and elevated stream capabilities. c. One squad companT (2-person). d. One chief officer. Each subsequent alarm for a structure fire shall be two engine companies, one truck, and a .:hief officer. The truck companies responding to subsequent alarms will be mutual aid companies. E. GPM Application Ability of First Alarm Forces The first arriving engine company shall be able to apply a minimum of 100 GPM 'through an interior hose line within 2½ minutes of arrival at 90% of all calls· The first alarm forces, in combination, shall be capable of applying 500 GPM through interior hoselines within 3 minutes after arrival of both companies. These standards have been validated by actual field tests and experience nationally and are nationally accepted good practice· 52 F. Built-in Protection First alarm forces can effectively suppress a fire in a one-story building of up to 5,000 squ~e feet (500 GPM). Structures exceeding this size shall be fully equipped with an approved and supervised fire sprinkler system. The 5,000 square foot figure has been validated through hydraulic calculations and mctual fireground experience (refer to drawing on the next page). First alarm forces can effectively suppress a fire in a sprinklered building which doe~ not exceed the reach of the fire department's ground ladders. Structure] exceeding this protection may be required to have additional built-in features including, but not limited to, air handling, sprinklers, communication and detection systems. 53 V. FIRE STATIONS, APPARATUS AND MANNING Recommended approximate fire station locations, apparatus and manning up to 1995 Foothill Fire Protection District Station Approximate Number Location Apparatus Manning Station Size Priority of Construction 1 Current Engine Co. 3 2 bays Mini Pumper 0 2 deep (current) Squad 2 Current 2 Archibald & Engine Co. 3 2 bay Foothill 2 deep (or current) (current) 3 Rochester & Squirt 3 3 bay Foothill (plus possible (plus 2 deep future truck) possible 10 persons future truck) 4 Sixth & Engine 3 Milliken Aeriml Ladder 4 Truck 5 Highland & Engine 3 Milliken Mini Pumper 2 Water Tender 0 Current 3 (Relocate cur- rent Sta. 3) 3 bay 2 deep Task Force Station for 12 persons. Include train- ing center, fire prevention office & B.C. office & dorm. 2 bay 2 deep 10 persons 6 Etiwanda & Engine Co. 3 Wilson Mini Pumper 0 Tanker 0 6 persons 2 bay 2 deep (Residential type station) Wilson & Engine 3 2 bay Carnelian Mini Pumper 0 2 deep Area Tanker 0 6 4 persons The maps on the following pages show present station locations and pro- posed locations. '3/',~. 'I'(Xk~VAI.L3 3^V N3~ITIII,.J roBtomB n c~ 3AV .LSAH.L3~V '~.~..~ I 3AV NVI'13N'e!V:3 57 In addition, there ~ay be two or more future stations at phantom locations, in Foothill areas based upon potential built environment in the urban wildland interface. Locations-would be difficult to determine now. Justification for Station Locations: 1. Response time of ~ minutes (refer to level of service). 2. Response area of 2½ miles (4 minutes driving time from station at 35 m/p.h.). ISO re~Lires (for insurance rating purposes) an engine com- pany within 1½ rcad miles of any structure in a built upon area. This amounts to a 9 square mile first-in district if the fire station is in the center. Using this formula, 52 square miles would require six fire stations when no consideration is given to topography or response Obstructions. They will allow an increase of 50% before assessing a deficiency. This would be 2~ miles. They simply count fire hydrants on a map to determine this (after knowing the hydrant distances). The response area selected in this study should allow the FFPD to meet ISO standards a vast majority of the time considering statiol location and overlap. It is suggested that the district interface with ISO and re-evaluate station locations when station locations are finalized by the district, prior to purchasing station sites. 3. Current and potential areas of growth (Tetra Vista, Victoria, indus- trial areas, commercial areas, regional shopping center). 4. ISO requirements as follows: a. Truck company to be 2½ road miles from areas with five buildings over three stories, or 35' high, or having a needed fire flow exceeding 3500 GPM. b. Engine company to be 1½ road miles response distance. c. The "built upon area" of the city should have a first due engine company with 1½ miles and a ladder service company within 2½ miles per ISO. Where only four or less buildings exceed two stories, 34', or 3,500 GPM NFF, ~ service ladder. company may be utilized. ISO states that a properly equipped 55' squirt could be granted full service company credit in this scenario. Response patterns which consider access and major arterial highways. 58 Proximity to indus%rial, con~ercial and high rise. Topography and barriers. ae grade railroads freeways Flood control channels, riverbeds, etc. 9. 10. NOTE: Concentration of co~apanies for response within a given area. Potential incident demand and subsequent alarms. Increased Traffic Locations are approximate and subject to land acquisition, or use of land already owned 9y city, district or other government agencies and final ISO input. B. Land Acquisition Land should be acquired as soon as possible via procurement of purchase options. Exact sites should not be published because land owners could raise land prices accordingly. C. Apparatus Definitions Engine company - a 1500 GPM triple combination pumper with the following features: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Equipped per NFPA s%andards. Pre-plumbed monitor. Transverse beds. 13/4" hose with automatic nozzles (task force tips, etc.). Large and small diameter supply lines. Diesel engine. 400 gallon water tank (minimum). Approximate cost (1987) $150,000 59 D. Squirt Engine company (as per above) plus 55' telescoping elevated stream with ladder. Operable by one person from ground. E. Truck Company Approximate cost (1987) $200,000 A ladder truck or "snorkel" type of quint apparatus equipped as follows: 1. Meet NFPA standards for a truck company. 2. 85' or higher aerial device· Quint apparatus with 1500 GPM or larger pump, transverse hose beds, supply line, etc. Diesel. Approximate cost (1987) $400,000 F. Mini Pumper A small fast attack pumper ~ith the following: 1. 250 GPM pump. 2. 250 gallon tank. 3. 24' ladder. 4. Pre-plumbedmonitor. 5. Transverse hose beds. 6. Supply line. 7. Compartments. 8. Gas/automatic trans. 9. EMT-1 equipment. 10. GVW rating (GVWR) 10,500 or greater. Approximate cost (1987) $50,000 60 G. Fire Stations Fire stations should be sized for future growth. There should be a mini- mum of 2 bays and they s~.ould be "2 deep" so that 4 pieces of apparatus can be housed. Stations should be able to house tall apparatus such as aerials, snorkels and squirts. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Fire stations should also have the following features: Drive through capability. Energy efficient and low maintenance. Emergency power. Fuel supply (with emergency power backup). Ample dormitory space for future growth. Ample parking. Library. Recreation (T.Vo) room. Kitchen. Dining room. Office. Physical fitness facilities. Shop. Hose drying and storage. Fire preventicm, training division and battalion chief offices as may be appropriate. Ample land. One-story station if possible with good foot traffic patterns. Blend into desLgn of structures in the area. Located so as to prevent obstructions to response such as heavy traffic, one-way streets, etc. Located within proximity to major arteries and freeway on ramps. Ample paved ra~p in front. Ample training area in rear of station. Fire sprinklers and detectors. No wood roofs. Earthquake 'and flood resistent. Security from vandalism or terrorism. Room on lot for future expansion. 61 Refer to the ICMA publication "Managing Fire Services" mation. H. Manning for further infor- Minimum safe company nanning should be 3 persons on all first line engine companies. Years of firefighting experience has documented the fact that two persons are an unsafe and ineffective firefighting company. Proposed Response Conflquration The philosophy of r~sponse as proposed herein includes strategically located fire stations throughouz the conmTanity. The stations shall provide fast, on scene arrival and mitigation for the vast majority 90% of all calls. Secondary units shall be responding and may be "cancelled" en route. Each engine shall be a 1500 GPM diesel pumper meetinF NFPA standards and well equipped for fast initial attack and for attack on a majO.* fire. The 1,500 GPM pump size of each unit provides at least 3,000 GPM capability on all ales. Squirt/squad provides an additional 1,500 GPM for a total of 4,500 plus the ladder truck. This amount of pump capacity should exceed most needed fire flows in the conmmanity, after imple- mentation of the sprinkler ordinance. Squirt type of apparat':s are strategically located at three stations to provide an elevated stream capability at all alarms if needed, as well as potential ladder truck credit in residential and low rise districts. Confirmation of truck credit should be obtained from ISO in writing. The ladder truck is responded on structural fires at large or high value (life or property) properties only. It may be special called to any alarm. This minimizes wear and tear, and accident potential, and keeps the truck available for immediate response to a major incident. The truck will also respond to any structure over three stories, 35', or where the needed fire flow is 3,500 GPM. A "flying squad squirt" unit will respond on all alarms including hazaraous materials incidents. Its crew shall be trained as specialists in: 62 2. 3. 4. Rngine company work. Truck company work. Hazardous materials· Heavy rescue. A squirt can perform most of the required truck work at a fire and should receive a certain amount of zruck credit from ISO. Automatic or mutual aid companies near the district borders will provide support for major alarms or simultaneous incidents. Paramedic service and transportation will be provided by private vendors. The fire department will provide EMT-1 level service backed up by paramedics. Mini pumpers will be strategically located to allow fast initial response to various locations on a "selective manning" basis. 'The manning selection will be made by the engine captain. Most routine fires and EMS calls can be handled by the mini pumper. Mini pumpers will assist in meeting response times as identified in the levels of service. 63 VI. LADDER TRUCK COMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS An evaluation of the need for ladder truck service within the district was computed as a part of this study. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) recon=nends a "ladder service company" withit. 2½ miles of the built upon area of the city. ISO states that resporse areas with five buildings that are three stories or 35' or more in height or with five buildings that have a needed fire flow of 3500 or greater, or any combination of these criteria, should have a ladder company. According to ISO, when no first in response district is required to have a ladder company in its distric-., at least one ladder company is needed in the city if buildings anywhere in the city meet the above criteria. A "service company" may be utilized in areas not needin~ a "ladder company" (refer to ISO sections 540 and 541 included herein for equipme.~t requirements). Analysis of fire protection needs in Foothill Fire Protection District and review of the ISO standards results in the following recommendations. Purchase and place in service one ladder truck meeting NFPA and ISO truck company standards. Deploy the company with three firefighters (captain, engineer, fire- fighter). 3. Locate at new station at 6th and Milliken. Arrange for pre-progr~ned response of truck companies from neighboring jurisdictions on an auzomatic aid basis in order to gain additional ISO credit, and to provide truck companies for greater alarms, simultaneous alarms and as truck service when the FFPD truck is out of service. Respond the truck per agreed upon levels of service: One 3-person ladder truck company within 1C minutes response time to within 80% of all fire calls in the district (other than detached single family dwellings). 64 Purchase and deploy squirts as per levels of service adopted by the board. Equip the squirts to meet ISO standards for service company (see ISO tables herein]. The squirts would "serve" as engine/service ladder companies in districts not requiring a ladder company. They should receive ½ service company credit for this. The ladder company will respond on all multi-family, commercial and industrial calls but some responses will exceed ISO recommended distances. The Flying Squad should receive full service ladder credit. It will respond on all structural ales. Squirts will be located at Highland and Milliken (station 5), Rochester and Foothill (station 3) and perhaps 6th and Milliken (station 4). The squirts will provide a versatile piece of apparatus costing half the price of a ladder company. The squirts will provide aerial stream capability and some elevated ladder and rescue capability on all alarms. On multi-family, co.~ercial and industrial fires, the squirts provide "truck" capabilities in addition to the ladder truck. The squirts will thus save money for the district while providing ample truck service. Most "truck" work can be accomplished by the squirt. However, the district needs one 5ull ladder truck in service as soon as possible. Apply for service company credit for squirts. Meet with ISO prior to purchase and deplo'anent to gain their input at that time. Engine company squirts properly equipped will receive half service ladder credit. The squirt squad should receive full credit. Three squirts would equal credit for two service companies. Deploy Flying Squir-. Squad per levels of service: 3-person squad company shall arrive within 15 minutes response time to 80% of all structural fire calls in the district. Perform periodicmanagement audits of alarm data to ascertain if the truck deployment is meeting ISO standards and/or levels of service for FFPD. 65 VII. RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION EXPANSION A. Discussion In order to manage the increased demand upon the fire district for services in the future and to carry out the obligations of the fire district relating to provision of adequ_ate fire and EMS service, the current organization must be expanded. The reco~ner.ded organization chart maintains an adequate span of control. It maximizes the use of civilians in staff positions. The resultant benefit is a savings of safety benefits, but more importantly, recruitment and development of employees who will tend to stay in the position and gain expertise rather t~an rotating through safety positions. various exceptions to the civilian positions are as follows: Fire Chief Fire Marshal = Division Chief (rotated) Operations/Training = Division Chief (rdtated) New Development = Captain (rotated position) Shift trainers = Captain and crew on Flying Squad (rotated) The remainder of the 40-hour staff would be civilian. Pay should be sufficient to attract and reta.[n qualified candidates. The one safety inspector position in the bureau should remain "safety" until it becomes vacant and then could revert to civilian by "aztrition." All Fire Prevention Bureau inspectors will be trained as fire investigators and have necessary safety gear. Law enforce- ment agencies should handle arrests and prosecution of arson. The engine company captains and shift battalion chiefs should be the principal cause and origin investigators. Inspectors sho~d only respond on a "special request" basis and need not put themselves in an unsafe situation. The duties of each inspector position are shown on the chart. The division chiefs (Fife Marshal and Operations/Training) should be a temporary promotion and pay increase and be filled by battalion chiefs on a mandatory rotation cycle, at Chief's discretion, after shift battalion chiefs are created~ Shift battalion chiefs would be implemented when the fifth station opens. As an option, the Fire Marshal position and Operations Chief position could become civilian by attrition upon vacancy in the position. 66 The training program would be supervised and coordinated by the Opera- tions/ Training Chief. The shift trainers would be a specifically selected captain and crew assigned to the Flying Squad on each shift. The New Development Supervisor could be a civilian position if filled with an individual with significarlt expertise and experience as a firefighter. If this is filled by a captain, it s~ould be on a rotational basis. Duties of the civilian financial officer and the civilian administrative services officer are listed Dn the chart. 67 Z Z 0 ..J ul 0 I-. Z m. I- lu 0 o. 0 0 0 m ,.d U U lee c~ _oc VIII· RECOMMENDED ORDINANCES Included within this section are recon~nendations for various ordinances dealing with mitigatio~ of the fire problem within the district. A fire sprinkler ordinance and ligh rise ordinance are included with justification for each. In addition to these ordinances, it is recommended that the district adopt the following ordinances. 1. Require NFPA Class-A, (severe fire exposure), roofs 6n new or remodeled structures. 2. Outlaw fireworks. 3. Adopt recommendations in the "Foothill Cormsunities Protective Greenbelt Program" as l~w. 4. Adopt a comprehensive hazardous materials information and control ordinance. *At this time pressure treated wood roofs are allowed in the city and county. Numerous fire agencies are attempting to outlaw wood roofs based upon wildland fire statistics including the recent Baldwin Hills conflagration. 5000 Square Foot SBrinkler Ordinance Justification for the 5000 Square Foot Sprinkler Ordinance One gallcl of water when converted to steam inerts a 200 cubic foot enclosed space. This occurs in 30 seconds. Thus, to determine gallons per minute required to extinguish a fire, the formula cf cubic feet of fire area divided by 100 can be used. C.F.F.A 100 = GPM 69 This formula is based upon scientific tests and field validations. It has been a fire service standard for many years. As an ex~u~ple, a 100'x50'xl0' high structure fully involved with fire would require at least 500 GPM to extinguish (50,000 cubic feet divided by 100), and may require more based upon tightness of construction. BTU heat release by contents, etc. b. It has been determined by actual fireground experience and by test that a t~pical three-person engine company cannot apply more than 250 GPM through handheld hose lines being advanced within a struc- ture. The actual figure is probably 125 to 180 GPM dependent upon whether 1½ or 13/4 hose is used. The national average gallons per person delivered on a fire is 50 gallons per person. To be conservative, if 250 GPM per company is used, then two companies can apply 500 GPM on a fire. The remainder of the companies on a fire are neec~d for truck 'work, ventilation, rescue, etc. A typical recommended response to a structural fire is two engine companies and a truck company. Even if more engine companies respond, they will be needed to relieve personnel on active hose lines, protect exposures, etc. Therefore, 500 gallons per minute has been determined to be the amount of water which can be applied tactically a,. a fire by the first alarm. response. 500 GPM will extinguish ~ fire in a 5000 square foot one-story building. Beyond that ~ize, built-in protection must be provided because structures above the 5000 square foot size are "unprotected risks." c. Multiple alarm companies which may be delayed or unavailable due to simultaneous alarms should not be depended upon to apply the needed fire flow tactically. d. Unprotected risks should not be allowed within a community, as they place an unreasonable burden of protection upon the com- munity. e. The levels of service adopted by the Foothill Fire Protection District identify 500 GPM as the application ability of the first alarm forces and state that occupancies exceeding this size must be protected by fire sprinklers. 70 Unprotected risks must be mitigated by built-in fire protection or manual fire protection provided by the fire department in the form of increased on-duty manpower and apparatus. Firefighters' lives and limbs should not be unnecessarily risked in fires, due to the extensive liability incurred by the con=nunity and taxpayer for medical costs, retirement, etc. Placing firefighters in large unsprinklered building fires creates a potential liability to the conmmnity for firefighter injury or death. Many large life loss fires have occurred in large unsprinklered buildings. Life loss in sprinklered buildings is almost nil. Building codes allow many exceptions to fire sprinkler require- ments based upon square footage. It is possible to use "fire separations" of sheetrock or plaster to keep square footage below that reqlired to have sprinklers. Subsequently, these walls can fail during a fire situation. They can collapse due to a loss of integrity of other structural members within a building during a fire. ~hese walls are often pierced, modified or removed by construction personnel or occupants. Type of construction has no bearing upon the amount of area that a given a~ount of water will inert or absorb heat from. This is purely a function of BTU's released from contents fires which may or may not be made worse by the type of construction. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) fire flow table requires 500 GPM for a fire resistlye building of 3300 sq. ft. and a combusti- ble building of 500 sq. ft. These tables have been in use for many years and are used as the basis for computing community fire flows and individual occupancy fire flows. 71 me The Insurance Services Office (ISO) recommends solid non- pierced four-hour rated fire walls for area fire separations. ne The national Fire Protection Association prefers free standing four-hour ncn-pierced fire walls for area "fire walls" walls. Oe The amount cf water required to extinguish a fire in a given cubic foot area does not normally vary based upon type of occupancy, except for zhe extremely high heat release or explosion artended to flammable liquids, plastics, chemicals, etc. Fire sprinklsr systems confine fire to the building of origin and thus prevent conflagrations which can destroy the tax base of the conmmnity. ~ire sprinklers also prevent fire from entering the building fro~ an adjoining fire involved building. Fire sprinklers conserve water (the average fire requires about 50 GPM from sprinklers). re Fire sprinklers allow fire companies in a busy community to get back into service quickly for response to another medical or fire emergency.' Fire sprinklers allow manning levels to remain at three per company. Large unsprinklered risks will require a larger number of on-duty firefighters at greatly increased ongoing cost to the taxpayer. Insurance Services Office (ISO) considers a sprinklered building to be no risk to other buildings or the community. It allows greatly lessened fire flow requirements than that for non-sprink- lered risks. This can result in significant cost savings relating to development and maintenance of public water supplies. Over 40 concerned communities in California have adopted a 5000 square loot ordinance. This reflects the collective wisdom of the fire service regarding local fire defense capabilities. The pro- liferation of 5000 square foot ordinances results in standard requirements throughout many communities. This aids the developer in the planning of project costs. These communities include San Bernardlno, Redlands and Riverside County. 142 corerunities in California have sprinkler ordinances which are more restrictive than the building code. This reflects the common opinion of fire service professionals that the building code sprinkler requirements are inadequate. Present and future fire forces in Foothill Fire Protection District are unable to effectively control fires within large unsprinklered buildings. Xe Geograpkic conditions in the district result in extended response times for firefighting resources which contribute to greater life and property loss in large unsprinklered buildings. Weather conditions and flan~nable vegetation in the district result in numerous vegetation and wildland fires which draw existing forces from their structure protection areas for extended periods of time. This results in extended response times which contribute to greazer life and property loss in large unsprinklered buildinqs. Fire in large unsprinklered buildings constructed in the future will dec]Tease the availability of firefighting resources and ser- vices to other structures. aa. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are generally recognized as the single greatest mitigation measure available for building and contents protection. 73 bb. "Flashover" and total fire involvement of a structure can occur in as little as five minutes after ignition. Fire sprinklers can prevent flashover from occurring. District levels of service include the goal of putting water on fires prior to flashover. cc. Built-in protection is a universally recognized method of shifting the cost from the public to the private sector. dd. In the near future, the introduction of approved plastic pipe for sprinkler s~stems should greatly reduce system costs. B. An Ordinance Providin~ the Installation of Automatic Fire Sprinklers in Certain Buildings Latter than 5,000 Square Feet Total Floor Area Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Uniform Fire Code or in any other applicable code, automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be installed and maintained in: New ~uildings which have a total floor area of 5,000 square feet or more; and existin~ buildings which are modified to increase the floor area to 5,000 square feet or more, after the effective date of this ordinance. The total floor area of such buildings shall be computed without regard to separation walls and floors of less than four hours unpierced fire resistlye construction. The term "automatic ~prinkler system" as used herein means an integrated system of underground and overhead piping, including a water supply such as a gravity tank, fire pump, reservoir, pressure tank, or connection by underground piping to a public main, which system complies in all respects with the requirements for such systems contained in appropriate standards issued by the National Fire Protection Association. No automatic sprinkler system required by this ordinance shall be installed without the prior approval of the Fire Chief of the plans for the installation, testing and maintenance of the system. Sprinklers may be omitted from buildings subject to the approval of the Fire 74 Chief where sprinklers are considered undesirable because of the nature of the contents or in rooms or areas which are of non-combustible construction with non-combustible contents and which are not exposed by other areas. Exemptions from this ordinance may be granted after hearing by the Foothill Fire District Board of Directors on application of the owner of any building wherein installation of the automatic sprinkler system would be inappropriate. The application of this section shall not prohibit the exercise of the substitution option gr~ted in section 508 of the Uniform Building Code. If any provision cf this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent 3urisdiction, the Foothill Fire Protection District hereby declares that it would have passed each and every remaining provision irrespec- tive of such holding in order to accomplish the intent of this ordinance. C. High Rise Ordinanoe 1. Justification for a High Rise Ordinance A high rise ~uilding for purposes of this ordinance is any structure exceeding 55' in height from accessible grade approved by the fire department. ae be Fire dep~rtment ground ladders 45'. The ladder truck has 95' ~telescopic ladder capability. ladders at several locations on on the ladder truck do not exceed ladder and the squirts have 55' It is often necessary to place a building in order to rescue persons or to gain access. Trucks are limited as to where they can be positioned so that their aerial ladders may be used. The largest common fire department ground ladder is the 35' ladder. Beyond tke reach of the 45' ladder, the building should have built-in fire protection systems. A 45' ladder will reach a 4th story window, but will not reach the roof. People can be trapped on upper floors of a high rise building and 75 firefighters may not be able to reach them or may be delayed due to long climbs using stairs or ladders. Firefighters are delayed and hampered in getting equipment to upper floors where a fire is located. Elevators may be unusable for safety reasons and stairs must be used. ee It may be ir~ossible to evacuate, aged, people. infirm or handicapped It is nearly impossible and extremely time consuming to carry hose lines and equipment to upper floors in a tall structure. Occupancy load may amount to thousands of persons, thus creating a severe life hazard. Smoke and heat can build up throughout the building trapping people. It Inay be impossible to remove the smoke or heat by traditional fire service methods. he Fire .may spread long distances vertically and horizontally via various char~lels within the building, pipe chases, stairs, ducts, framed out areas, stairways, dumb waiters, openings between floors and walls, ezc. A given number of firefighters can only apply 10% of the water that they can apply at a ground floor fire. If a firefighter can apply 50 GPM on a ground floor, then the firefighter can only apply 5 GPM on an upper floor. If an engine company can apply 250 GPM on a ground floor, it can only apply 25 GPM on an upper floor. It ~ould take ten three-person engine companies to apply 250 GPM on an upper floor high rise fire. This amounts to 50 people and exceeds the entire on-duty compliment of.personnel and apparatus. ]~he time required to assemble this size fire force would be too excessive for proper and timely rescue and fire 76 attack. 250 GPM will only extinguish a 2500 square foot area on one floor. j. Con~nunications between firefighters is extremely difficult in a high rise building, due to the number of floors, restricted access, large floor layouts and structural incumbrances upon radio transmissions. k. Con~nand and control is extremely difficult in a high rise building due to the same reasons listed in Item J, plus lack of visibility of the ~ire scene from command posts on ground floor or outside. 1. Evacuation of occupants on upper floors may be impossible due to fire, heat and smoke rising vertically in buildings. Handicapped, elderly or non-ambulatory persons may also be impossible to evacuate in a timely manner. In extremely tall buildings, it may require long periods of time to move people down stairs. Eleva- tors maV be unsafe to use. m. Fire ca~ leap from floor to floor through windows thus spreading fire from floor to floor. n. Air handling systems can spread smoke and fire through numerous floors, some of which are remote from the floor of origin. o. Power may go out rendering the entire building dark and creating a serious panic, search, rescue, evacuation and firefighter situation. p. Fire and smoke can spread through elevator shafts. Persons may be trapped and suffocated in elevators. q. It can take long periods of time to locate the seat of the fire due to ~%rtical distances and size of the building. r. Extremef.y high water pressures are needed to supply water to upper floors for firefighters. The amount needed is ½ psi per foot of elevation plus 25 or more psi in standpipe systems, plus up to 150 psi or more in hose on the fire floor, for a total of 250 psi or more. The pressures needed can easily exceed fire department hose test'pressures and/or fire pumper capabilities, both of which are typically 250 pounds pressure. Thus, properly designed fire sprinkler and'standpipe systems are needed. 77 Windows cannot be safely broken for ventilation without sending chards of glass sailing through the air for long distances with potential serious injuries. Communication of safety instructions to occupants without a communicatbons systems is impossible in a high rise building, due to a large number of rooms or other occupied areas on many floors. The needed fire flow for a non-sprinklered high rise building easily exceeds the capabilities of on-duty forces. The building code does not adequately address high rise fire safety th~s it is necessary to adopt regulations providing built-in protection which will assist in mitigating the serious fire and life safety problem presented by high rise structures. Fire department ladders are slow and dangerous methods of rescuing persons from upper floors. Some occupants, due to panic, handicap, illness, age, etc., cannot climb ladders. Priorities .~ust be established for ladder usage at the building (ventilate, fight fire or rescue). y$ Many fire agencies including the Ontario Fire Department have adopted comprehensive high rise ordinances· In the interest of standardizauion, a height requirement of 55' is recommended for definition cf a high rise building·. Most fire agencies have adopted .the 55' figure. Ontario uses a 45' height as a definition. Standardization helps the developer in planning the construction and costs, and assists the training and pre-fire planning of fir.fighters from various agencies who respond together to structure fires. 78 An Ordinance Providing for the Installation and Maintenance of Fire Protec tion and Safety Systems in High Rise Buildings Within the Foothill Fire Pro- tection District Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, or any other applicable code, any building having floors used for human occupancy located more than fifty-five (55) feet above the lowest level of fire departmett approved vehicle access, constructed after the effective date of this ordinance, shall be required to have installed and maintained the following special fire protection systems and features: 1. Automatic sprinkler systems. a. Electrically supervised and annunciated sprinkler throughout. coverage b. Electrically supervised and annunciated class 3 combination standpipe systems. Electrically supervised and annunciated smoke detection systems. Alarm and communication systems. a. Voice alarm system. b. Public address system. c. Fire department communication. 4. Central building control station.' 5. Smoke control systems. 6. Elevator protection and control systems. 7. Exit protection and control systems. Standby power, light and emergency systems. a. Standby power generation system. b. Standby Lighting. c. Emergency systems. 79 9. Approved heliport on roof. Standards to be employed to secure the intent of this ordinance shall be found in the Uniform Fire Code and companion standards, the Uniform Building Code and cor~panion standards, the National Fire Codes, and/or other nationally recognized standards as are approved by the Fire Chief and Building Official. No systems required by this ordinance shall be installed without the prior approval of the Fire Chief of the plans for the installation, testing, and maintenance of s~ch systems. Any system(s) required by this ordinance may be modified or omitted from buildings subjecz to the approval of the Fire Chief and the Building Official on application of the owner of any building wherein installation of the system(.s) would be inappropriate. Exemptions from this ordinance may be granted after hearing by the Foothill Fire District Board of Directors on application of the owner of any building wherein installation of the system(s) would be inappropriate. The application ~f this ordinance shall not prohibit the exercise of the substitution option granted in section 508 of the Uniform Building Code. If any provision of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Foothill Fire District hereby declares that it would have passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the intent of this ordinance. 80 IX. TRAINING PROGRAM ]~COMMENDATIONS Training of the ever expanding fire department will be of paramount impor- tance as new staff members are hired and new fire or hazmat problems are faced. In this section a laundry list of recon~nended programs is included. The training prog. ram is a component of the fire suppression and management programs of the Department. Training is crucial to implementation of goals, objectives, levels of service and performance standards. The training pregram should have the following elements (some of these elements are in place presently). Implement shift trainer concept and assign to Flying Squad. Performance szandards for all manipulative evolutions (hose, ladders, breathing apparatus, salvage). Regular testing of all companies on performance. Training should meet or exceed NFPA recommended levels for each rank (NFPA 1001, 1002, 1021, 1031, 1041, etc.). Establish training division goals and objectives and priorities and design schedule to implement these. 6. Train all personnel to EMT-1. Train all personnel in hazmat incident operations and safety. Send personnel to State and National Fire Academies· 10. Implement'ICS system and train all personnel. Implement higA rise firefighting training (developers this). 81 should pay for 11. Encourage officers to enter fire officer certification program and chief officer certification. 12. Design and buil~ a training center on a joint powers basis. 13. Build simulator room and fire building (joint powers). 14. Begin tactics and strategy training for all personnel; conducted by chiefs. 15. On a monthly basls, conduct multi-company wet drills at night. 16. Conduct 'greater alarm automatic aid drills once per month. 17. Conduct disaster response training. 18. Insure that training program meets ISO standards for maximum credit. 19. Implement computerized training record and data base system. 20. Support or create intensified "rookie" training program. 21. Implement intensive pre-fire planning program. 22. Implement intensive firefighter safety program. 23. Assure that all personnel receive basic fire prevention inspection training. 24. Expand video tape and slide library using IFSTA and NFPA material, etc. 25. Conduct vehicle extrication and heavy rescue training. 26. Provide wildland firefighting training. 82 Fire Prevention Personnel Training Send bureau personnel to State and National Fire Academies. Budget for short courses and seminars which become available. Encourage inspectors to attend monthly fire prevention officer organi- zation meetirgs. Have experts from outside the department conduct courses in-house as needed. 5. Maintain up tD date and complete library for fire prevention personnel· Management Traininq Provide supervisor and management training for current and future officers. Send management personnel to State and National Fire Academies· Bring experts in for in-house short courses. Encourage attendance to fire service management groups (Cal Chiefs, Cal Districts, training offices and fire prevention groups). 83 X. REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS The Board may wish to consider imposition of certain user fees for various non-emergency services rendered by the Fire Department. The tax limitation impacted fire district must be able to generate sufficient revenue in o~der to implement the fire protection delivery system necessary to properly protect the community in the future. The Mello Roos program will aide this effort substantially. In addition, other revenue enhancement programs should be implemented in the spirit of the user paying for the services rendered. The district-should pursue revenue enhancement through the different avenues listed below, insofar as would be permissable under the law. It is possible that the entire operation of the Fire Prevention Bureau could be supported by fee collection as is common in building departments. Fees should be charged for the following services. A. Fire System Tests Field observations of new fire protection system tests: Typically, fire departments have to make several trips to a new installation to observe a hydrostatic test, flow test, alarm test, etc. The' repeat trips are usually caused by the contractor not being ready or cancelling the test. A fee should be charged for each trip to compensate for the time and travel expended and to encou]~age the contractor to be ready. The fee would be in addition to the current plancheck fees charged. This may require some modification of the cost breakdowns. Change of Occupancy Change of busiress occupancies ("C of 0") inspections should be required to have a fire safety inspection prior to occupancy. A fee should be charged for each inspection by engine company or bureau. Burn Permits Burn permits should require a fee for issuance and the fee, as all fees, should be adjusted with inflation. Burn permits can be issued by engine companies. 84 D. Fire Code Permits All permits required by the Uniform Fire Code should be updated annually with an inspection and a fee. These inspections can be done by engine compan- ies. The added value to having the engines perform the inspections is that they become familiar with t~e special hazards in their district. E. Unique Occupancies High rise developers or developers of unique hazardous occupancies should be required to pay for s~ecialized training of firefighters on a one time basis prior to occupancy. As an example, the owner/developer of a high rise building should pay for a high rise firefighting seminar for the department. The instructor would conduct the seminar in town to keep the cost down. Unique occupancies creating a need for unusual fire equipment or safety equipment (radioactive materials, hazardous material) should be required to purchase that equipment prior to opering the business. F. Underqround Tanks of Hazardous Materials If the district it going to be involved in inspections as part of the new state underground tank legislation, the fire department should charge fees for any plancheck or field inspection work. G. New Development Fee Vacant lots in district areas which are not part of the Mello Roos area should be assessed a new development fee per lot at the time of development, for capital improvements of the fire district. Fees for more intense development should be assessed accordingly on some equitable basis. This fee has been successful in the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District. H. Land, Station and Apparatus Acquisition Developers should De required to donate land for fire stations if the project is at a site w~ere the district needs a station. The developer may also be required to build, or fund construction of, the station. In unique projects presenting an undue burden upon the fire delivery system in the district, the developer may be required to fund the purchase of specialized equipment or apparatus. The program would have to be in concert with the Mello Roos program. 85 I. Annexation Annex newly Mello Reos). developing areas into an improvement district. (Similar to XI. INFORMATION MANAGEMEb~ To facilitate informazion management for the district, a computer system should be utilized· Tfe system should provide the following capabilities in addition to emergency alarm dispatch and communications. 1. Alarm data input and retrieval for local use and "CFIRS" reporting. Input and retrieval of pre-fire plan information on various occupancies including: a. Fire histor~ b. Unique hazards c. Hazmat inve~.tory d. EMS problema with occupants e. Criminal history of occupancy f. Fire inspeczion and hazard history g. Fire flow and systems available 3. Fire investigatien data. 4. Training records 5. Hazmat inventory. 6. Financial information. 7. Personnel records. 8. Apparatus and equipment. 9. Purchasing information. 86 10. Fire prevent:.on data and records. 11. Weed abatement. 12. Management data, charts, graphs. Terminals should 3e located in each office and fire stationl Each engine company and truck compeLmy should have a terminal and printer. Fire inspectors and engine companies should have portable terminals to use while conducting fire inspections. Inspectio~ history can be "called up" and inspection data and violations can be entered in the field. This technology has not been developed yet but the Fullerton Fire Department may soon have a test program. Various cities use handheld com?uters now for "meter readers." There may be a pcssibility of expanding the joint dispatch systems computer system to handle the information methods in this section. If this is not feasible, the district should purchase its own system after in-depth study is conducted. Certain fire district personnel should attend the computer classes at the National and State Fire Academies. 87 G U I D E L I N E S CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA P L A N N IN G D IV I S I O N RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDEL "' N T R O D U C T I I N E S These guidelines were prepared in response to the needs of many users: developers, property owners, architects, planners, landscape archit_~cts and civil engineers. Each of these interests plays a vital role in the successful design of a residential project. The City of Ranc~o Cucamonga's goal is to foster the quality design that enhances the community. The more familiar you are with the City's expectations for design, the more prepared you will be and the better able we will be to help guide your project through to its successful completion. The guidelines Fresented here are intended to inspire residen- tial developmen-e of lasting quality. This manual will also serve as a guide for st~-ff in reviewing your application. A summary, The Development Review Process, is also available from the Plan- ning Division. These guidelines are intended to be used only in combination with the City's Development Code and General Plan design policies and star dards. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES SIT E P LAN N I N G · Multi-Family Well thought out site planning is crudal in the devel- opment of successful projects. In a~.fition to the standards outlined in the Development Code, the following should be considered. · Relate the location of site uses with adjoining proper- ties to avoid possible conflicts and t~e advantage of mutual potentials. Consider sharing curb cuts with adjo'ning properties. Buildings which are skewed in rela6onship to each other can create variety of view orientation and streetscape interest Adequate common open space shou:d be provided, including recreation facilities, tot lots, and large open Pedestrian connections between open spaces and dwelling units, and to perimeter streets, should be provided in a logical fashion. Avoic design that forces pedestrians through parking o ~ circulation areas or which results in shortcutting through planters. Two means of ingress and egress should be pro- vided, not including emergency only access. Buildings should be oriented to fochs on good views. Visitor parking beyond minimum code requirements should be considered. Parking should be evenly distributed throughout Avoid dead-end drive aisles over 150 feet in length. · Single-Fam~y Placement of houses in single-family subdivisions is an important element in creating a functional, quality living environment. · Provide larger sideyard setback (i.e., 10-12 feet minimum) on garage side of lot to allow vehicular access to the rearyard. Greater variation in frontyard setbeck should be provided on larger lots (i.e., 1/2 acre or larger). Locate driveways as far as possible from intersec- tion~ Circulation system should be logical and readily understandable to the user. Drive aisles should be treated like the streetscape: curvilinear lanes and parkway tree~ Screen parking areas from the street ;vith mounding, Provide substantial variation in frontyard setbacks. Provide two means of ingress and egress, not includ- ing enegency only access. Buildings should be oriented to focus on good views. Consider the use of a variety of garage treatments, landscaping, low proffie walls, and lowering grade of ) such as side entry, detached and semi-detached, rear parking areas below street. entry, etc. Screen exterior trash areas, storage a:eas, utilities, etc. from view using elements compatible with architec- ture and landscaping. Textured paving should be providec at project entrances to provide a strong entry utement. Consider stnet setbacks on adjacent >roperties. While variety is generally desired, tie street should function as a whole and the setbacks should relate. Preserve existing healthy trees in place and design as major feature. On flag lots, that potion of driveway providing access to the garage should be only 10 feet to mini- rnize concrete and maximize landscaping potential. Consider pairing garages to create larger front yards, greater seperation between driveways and create variety along the streetscape. Taper three or four car garage driveways down to a standard two-car width at street. · · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES SU B D I V I S I O N The proper layout of a subdivision's :irculation, drainage, and lot pettem is irnpoaan' to the success of the project. · Provide two means of ingress and egress. Use side-on cul-de-sacs, as opposed :o standard cul- de-sacs, when adjacent to streets or x=destrian trails. Local streets should he minimum 150 feet apart. Align intersections with existing streets or provide adequate spacing between intersections. Private streets should only be used where through traffic is not necessary and where the private street is gated. Curvilinear streets should be used whenever pos- sible. Avoid grid pattern. Maximum 800 foot straight section o avoid long straight streets. Private gated entrances should provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a seperate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. · · Right-of-way widths, street section, sweet radius, and intersection spacing should conform to the Street Design Policy available from the Engineering Divi- sion. Comer lots should be wider than in-erior lots. Lots and streets should relate to one another to create neighborhoods. The development should relate to a~ jacent develop- ment relative to street design and lo t pattern. Aviod long flag lots, key lots, and 1o s which side on to the rear of other lots. If the tract is bordered or surroundec by undevel- oped land, a conceptual subdivision ~lan for those properties should be pnpared to italicate that logical circulation and drainage can occur. Avoid double-frontage lots on interior street~ Four-way intersections are generally preferred over offset 'T' type on collector or larger streets. Avoid four-way local to local intersections. Intersections, including knuckles, slN}uld be perpen- dicular (radial on curves). The maximum length for cul-de-sacs should be 600 feet in length for single-family and 300 feet for multi- family developments. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES G R A D I N G Proper grading techniques that are sensitive to natural conditions must be utilized for reasons of public safety, maintenance, aesthetics, and environ- mental protection. The foliowing guidelines are suggested. · Minimize the amount of site grading needed for development and utility conslnlcticn through proper site planning. Land should be graded and landscaped in workable increments to avoid exposing vast expanses of bared earth at any given time to minimize soft erosion. Roadway alignments and gradients should be designed and located to avoid excessive grading and to reflect the existing landforms. All graded slopes should be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain, and present a more natural appearance. Establish proper soil management techniques to reduce the adverse effects (i.e., erosion) of grading. Provide driveways with maximum slope of 15 percent. slope in order to preserve the integf .y of the hillside and minimize disruption of natural ground form. All structures in such areas should adapt to natural ground form through the use of spF 'pads, built-up foundations, stepped footings, stem walls, etc. In hillside areas, development shou d be designed to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and offer views to residents. Minimize slopes between lots to preserve privacy. Where slopes cannot be minimized, mitigate con- cerns through other means - landscaping, fencing, etc. Minimize disruption of existing natural features, such as trees and other significant vegetation, natural ground forms, rock outcroppings, water, and views. Provide undulating berms to screen parking areas. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES A R C H I T E C T U R E The City of Rancho Cucamonga see ¢s well thought out design solutions which reflect the best of a particular style, respect the commun.~y's heritage, and relate well to their surroundings. · Architectural treatment to all elevations should be considered (i.e., 360 degree architecttre). If the front of a house is sided, then t~e other sides should also be wrapped in siding. Compatibility with surrounding arcEtectural character should be considered, including harmoni- ous building style, form, height, size, color, material, and roof line. Individual expression in single build' 'tgs should be developed in harmony with neighbo.hood. Refrain from architectural gimmicks that sac'rice the intergrity of the streetscape to a sing%: structure. Roof lines are critical to the visual irr ~act of a home and should respond to the general design of other roofs along the street. Carport structures should receive upgraded design treatments that reflect the architecturJ design of the dwelling units. Colors should be consistent with the chosen design theme. Avoid "trendy" colors which become quickly outdated. Low-key and earthy colors work best for primary colors; use of more vibrant colors should be limited to accents. Provide lockable storage space for multiple family units. ~rages should not dominate the streetscape. Consider using 2-car with bonus room on some floorplans or offsetting the third car space. For multi- family projects, garages should be architecturally designed to compliment the residences; consider varying the door treatment on multiple garage structures. LOne story rnassing is preferred on comer side yards. Shadow patterns mated by architectural elements such as overhangs, trellises, reveals and recesses, and awnings, contribute to a building's character while alding in dimate control. Architectural elements exposed to pti'~lic view should receive enhanced design treal ment. Screens for all roof-mountecl equipment should be integrated into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls) rather than a "tacked-on" appearance. Rear devations of units backing up t~ perimeter streets should have varied roof desig:,s to provide a pleasant and varied streetscape. Coordinate exterior bu~ding design on all elevations from building to buildIng to achieve 2%e same level of design quality. On small lot subdivisions, avoid dive-se architectural styles. Keep the design statement, ma m'ials, and details consistent. The use of mixed L-tcompaflble architectural styles is strongly discou ~lged. For example, a Cape Cod style is incompatible with a Spanish style. Roofline should be designed in conjunction with building mass for consistent composition. On hillsides, the form, mass and proffie of buildings and architectural features shall be designed so as to compliment the natural topography. Fieldstone shall be native rock. Other forms of stone may be manufactured products. 'Chimney stacks should be designed with accent materials used on house, such as brick or stone, except interior chimneys. · · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES "' A N D S C A The appropriate use of landscape rr. aterials is an important element of successful development. Plant materials should be used extensiva y to reinfome community identity, to create a pleasant and livable environment, to control erosion, to provide protection from wind and hot summer sun, and to tie new development into the surrounding context. · Existing mature trees worthy of preservation should be included in the landscape concep-.. Plant materials should be selected for their suitability to the environment and compatibili y with Xeriscape principles (i.e., water conservation). Select plants that are tolerant of local conditions (i.e., hot summers and seasonal winter k'gh winds) and relL!atively free of pests and disease. General criteria ,"for selection includes low maintena ~ee, drought tolerance, heat tolerance, wind tolerance, and fast owing. Select plants of appropriate size at raturity for their intended use to minimize maintenance or replace- ment when the plant outgrows avaLable space. Avoid plants that have messy fruit/ s..."cd/flower drop or brittle bran~ near paving as they are a potential safety hazard and a long te-'m maintenance liability. The location of plant materials should respond to architectural design and site plannirg. Plants can be used to keynote entries, contrast wit_~ or reinforce building lines and volumes, and sob. en the hard lines or blank wall expanses of architectw~.. Use plants to define outdoor spaces such as street edge, or outdoor eating areas, or movement paths between parking and dwelling unit~. · Simple plant palettes are preferred c ver complex Use deciduous trees on southern am western Ifexposures to screen summer sun yet :~'rnit winter light. P I N G Use evergreen trees to block winter winds and decrease heat loss. Provide landscape adjacent to and within parking areas in order to shade parking and pavement areas, and to minimize the expansive appearance of park- ing areas. Maintain adequate sight lines for motorists at inter- sections and driveways. Provide dense landscaping to screen unattractive views and features, such as parking lots, storage areas, trash enclosures, f'veeway structures, utility equipment (i.e., transformers, meters, backflow valves), air conditioning units. Trees should be planted to achieve a continuity of form. General guidelines for the use of landscaping to achieve this continuity include: o Using the same tree form (i.e., columnar or round headed) along streets of the same type to reinforce the hiearchy of street types. o Planting trees in s'h-nilar patterns on streets of the same type. o Using the same spedes for the entire length of a street or throughout an entire area. Front yard landscaping should be provided on lots averaging 4500 square feet or less. In addition, decorative bardscape treatment is also required for driveways. Use low maintenance plant materials on comer side yards that will be privately maintained. · · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE --' E N C Fencing should reflect quality and be complimentary to the architectural style. Fencing materials should be selected for permanency. The folio ,ing guidelines are suggested. · Provide decorative perimeter fendrig (i.e., masonry) at tract edges and along streets. Walls adjacent to major thoroughfa~es should have varied setbacks to increase visual in erest. Retainm'g walls exposed to public v_ew to be decora- tive masonry. Wood fencing exposed to public vicar to be treated with stain, paint, or water seal. L I NES I N G Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic-coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enha.nce views. Fencing on comer side yards shall be decorative and setback a minimum 5 feet behind any sidewalk. Decorative masonry return walls should be provided between houses compatible with the architectural style. ff more than one style of house design exists, then a simple wall design is preferred. · · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES R A I L S The City of Rancho Cucamonga is )lacing s~Inificant emphasis on the development of regional, commu- nity, and local feeder trails. The Getrural Plan estab- lishes a trail system to provide an interconnected network of trails linking parks, schoels, shopping and employment canters with residential areas. To this end, the following guidelines shoul¢' be considered. · All new development should be des'gned in accor- dance with the Master Ran of Trail,,~ and adopted Trails should be maintained on natL :al surfaces (i .e., no grading) and located along natu-al features wherever possible. Any new development should cons .der existing bicycling, pedestrian and equestrian access and traditional travel routes through the property, particularly routes to schools, All development within the Equestr'an/Rural Area should provide trail connections through easements in order to connect disconnected trails and for needed access to recreation activities.. Whenever possible, all residential lots within the Equestrian/Rural Area should provide local feeder trails on the rear of the lot for equestrian access and related equestrian service access. Subdivisions adjacent to regional trails should provide a means of public access. Within subdivisions, an internal loop trail system of local feeder trails should be provided. Houses should be plotted such that there is reason- able rear yard opportunity for the keeping of horses and other animals within the Equestrian/Rural Area. Provide a 24 foot x 24 foot corral area in the rear yard of all residential lots within the Equestrian/Rural Area. Access from the corral area to trail should be graded with a maximum dope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. · · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SUMMARY FIRST WEEK Applicant Submits a. Application to Planning - counter check fDr completeness b- Pay fees to Finance c. Counter Acceptanc~ d. Log in and create project file 2o Assign Project Planners Distribute plans to Planning/ Engineering/BuiLding & Safety 3. Project status log on zomputer 4. Check for adequacy - all department staff Engineering/Planning/Building & Safety meeting a. Frame ma~or issue~ and identify major problems b. Determine adequacy of submittal c. Project complete - notify applicant to make full submittal - schedule profect review dates - send follow-up letter of completeness d. Project~omplete - notify applicant to revise and resubmit - send follow-up letter of incompleteness 6. Post notice of filing on site if project is complete Write comments for DRC a- Draft comments gi';en to agenda coordinator for compilation, then b- Draft comments given to Planning Secty. for typing (Wednesday) (Thursday) (by Tuesday) (Wednesday) (Thursday) ( Thursday ) (Thursday) Revised 7/92 Development Review Pro~ess Page 2 DRC Comments ao Typed draft DRC cDmments b. Return draft DRC somments to Project Planner for finml modifications 9. Applicant submits full packages 10. Project Planner revise~ draft DRC comments based on full submintal 11. Revised Draft DRC commants to agenda coordinator for compilation 12. DRC packets compiled 13. Finaled DRC agenda and comments 14. Principa~ Planner review DRC comments 15. Distribution to Commitzees FIFTH W~EK 16. Committee review, Week 17. Write staff reports for previous Planning agenda cycle SIXTH WEEK 18. Committee review, Week 2 19. Grading Committee Meeting - Planning/ Engineering/Building & Safety (applicant not present) 20. Design Review Committe~ meeting with applicant 21. Technical Review Commiztee meeting with applicant a. All departments/a~encies review and comment to applicant on major technical issue~ including grading b. Written preliminacy conditions provided to applicant (Monday) (Tuesday) (Wednesday) (Thursday, noon) (Thursday, 6 p-m. ) (Wednesday) (Thursday) (Thursday) (Thursday) (Tuesday) (Tuesday evening) (Wednesday) Development Review Process Page 3 22. DRC Follow-up a. Distribute/send ERC action agenda b. Send formal letter_ of all committee comments to applicant SEVENTH WEEK (Docketing) 23. Set Planning Commissio~ Agenda 24. Engineering Division Desponds to Tentative Agenda 25. Final Planning Commission Agenda 26. Applicant submits final packages 27. Write Staff Reports a. Includes Resolutions & Conditions b- Prepare Exhibits 28. Legal Ads (public notices) to newspaper EIGHTH W~R~ (Agenda Prepanation) 29. Draft reports given to Secretary 30. Draft Staff Reports typed and returned to planner for proofLng 31. Public notices posted on-site 32. Planner proofs staff reports and prepares all attachments NINTH WEEK 33. Draft reports that include resolutions, conditions, exhibits given to Principal Planner for review 34. Principal Planner reviews draft reports 35. Revised draft Staff Reports given to Planning Secretary fDr typing 36. Final Staff Reports typed 37. Final reports given to City Planner (Thursday) (Monday afternoon) (Tuesday, noon) (Tuesday, noon) (Wednesday) (Tuesday, 6 p-m. ) (Monday, 6 p.m-) (6 p.m. Wednesday) (Wednesday) (Thursday, 6 p.m.) ( Monday, 6 p.m. ) (Wednesday) (Wednesday) (Wednesday) (Wednesday, 6 p.m.) Development Review Process Page 4 38. Final reports proofread by Planning Secretary and signed by City Planner 39. Copy Agenda 40. Distribute Agenda Packets ~.R~YENTHWEEK-AGENDAWEE~ 41. Planning Commission me~ting 42. Distribute Action Agen~ 43. Distribute Resolutions ( Tue s day ) (Wednesday) (Thursday) (Wednesday) (Thursday) (Thursday) DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM September 23, 1988 Current Planring Staff Scott Murphy, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIE~ COMMENTS FORMAT 1977 Beginning with the October 6, 1988 Design Review Committee meeting, a new approach will be taken in the preparation of Design Review Comments. We will no longer be preparing detailed comments as in the past. The comments wi'l consist of the description of the project and short statements as to areas of concern that need to be addressed by the Design Review Committee. The attached sheet is an example that should be used in writing Design Review Comments. Comments should be listed in in order of their impo~ance/priority. This new approach is designed to decrease the amount of staff time spent on writing the comments. This does not mean that plan review or Design Review Comment preparat'on should be reduced. In fact, the same amount of preparation will be ~equired in order to explain the comments to the Design Review Committee members. If you have any questio's, please let me know. SM:mlg Y DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Time Planner's Name Description (same as before) Date of Meeting Staff Comments The following is a list of concerns and/or comments that should be addressed by the Design Review Committee: Site P1 an 1. 2. 3. 4. Landscape 1. 2. 3. 4. Grading 1. 2. 3. Placement of ~nits along the site boundaries Orientation o~ parking areas Transition of densities Varying setbacks Buffering arol nd the perimeter Arrow Highway streetscape Design of plazas Greenbel t conr ecti ons Interface wit~ existing developments Preserve natural terrain Minimize gradjig DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Architecture 1. Window detailing 2. Facade treatment 3. Colors 4. Materials Design Review Committee Action Members present: Staff planner: Victor A. Mufiiz 11511 Ragusa Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 March 6, 1995 Mr. Scan M. Hogue Director of Development Marks Cable Vision 4240 N~ Hallmark Pkwy San Bernardino, Ca. 924(7 Damage to Driveway Dear Mr. Hogue, I am in receipt of ~our letter of February 16, 1995 and quite disappointed. Prior to addressing the issue of )'our letter lets recap what has occurred. Your firm removed a section of my driveway wit aout permission. The repairs that they initially performed were substandard. Subsequent :'ollow up repairs were substandard and resulted in my having to call your firm on numerDus occasions to get them corrected. To date, the work is still substandard. Your firm placed siicon in my stucco wall instead of stucco patch nor did it repaint the patched area as requ:sted. Second, the double felt inserts placed in my driveway swelled during the recen: rains and created a tripping hazard. My son fell. These conditions are unacceptabe and must be abated and corrected by a qualified contractor. I do not want Vintage tc return. They had their chances, so please arrange to have another firm perform the work. Your Mr. Johnson stated on December 19, 1994 that this could be done. Prior to performing the repair work please submit a set of plans, drawings and specifications for my appr.~val and also one set to the City Building Department. Please provide for replacing the criveway from the South sidewalk edge to the first contraction (Cold) joint, (Approximately 9' 8" x 23'). Quality control will be maintained this time so that the work can be performed to everyone's satisfaction. Upon approval, please call 72 hours in advance to arrange an appointment for demolition and construction. To address your 1 ~.rter, I called your ~rm's representatives Mssr's Kato and Johnson on a least six occasions b at could not get my calls returned. This was after my conversation with Mr. Johnson, wherein we discussed the problem and told him that I would inspect and call bira back. Thus, )ou were sent a letter. Second, I do not want a credit. I want Maxks to fix my driveway and residence wall to its condition prior to the damage. Third, I welcome the City of R,._ncho Cucamonga's inspection of the installation. However, any involvement in making a determination on weather the repairs to my property are acceptable to me are or-side of their jurisdiction and shall be met with complYtint to the City ~nd legal action against all parties. Your axe requested to communicate this matter to the City Building Department prior to any action on their part. l-~t, please provide me with the Contractor State License Number, name, address, phone numbers and bonding companies of all entities (including Maxks) involved with this problem. This is requi~ed by State Law. I did not create ~his problem. It was created by your firms failure to have an adequate Quality Assuralce Program to deal with replacement work. That work resulted in substandard repairs b7 your employees. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, VAM/acm STATE OF CAUFORNIA--STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY A~i~ Contractors State License Board CONSUMER COMPLAINT FORN PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH SIDES OF THIS FORM. FY NUMBER , LICENSE NUMBER SECTIONS VIOLATED: STATUS CHANGE PETE WILSON, Goveno~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY TP ~ o DATE RECEIVED SPEC DT STAT EXP N R PRY CNT v G MO DA YR PROJ MO DA YR CSR DATE ASSIGNED DEP DATE ASSIGNED INIT MO DA YR INIT MO DA YR DATE CLOSED DISP MO DA YR clll clll clll clll clll clll DATE I wish to register a complaint against the contractor n !med below. I understand that the Contractors State License Board is unable to represent privat citizens in court or to collect money or to levy fine. If the contractor is liconsed, he/she will be informed of this complaint in order to facilitate the resolution of this matter. If you wish your name teb kept confidential (i.e., employer/employee, unlioansed contractor. personal safety) please check this box and submit an explaoatio,. [] PLEASE KEEP MY NAME CONFIDENTIAL. TO HELP THE CSLB RESOLVE TF S COMPLAINT. PLEASE ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS AS POSSIBLE I. YOUR NAME IIm 4first) (middle) MUNIZ, Victor Anthony ADDRESS (numbs) (stnat) 11511 Ragusa Dr. (city) (state) {ZIP code) Rancho Cucamonq, Ca. 91701 PHONE WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED 8 m.m.-5 p.m. (ires code) (909) 948-5456 HOME PHONE: (arm code) If io. pielie attach documentation with this form. PROJECT INFORMATION... 4. OWNER OF CONSTRUCTION SITE: Same as Item No. 1 Above ADDRESS: ZII~. PHONE 6. Describe briefly the wott for which you macted: Did nnt con~r~c~ for authorization. 7. CONTRACT DATE: ~ 8. AMOUNT: N/A 12. WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THIS CONTRACTOR? ] REGULAR CUSTOMER O REFERRED BY SOMEONE 13. BRIEFLY STATE YOUR COMPLAINT 2. CONTRACTOR NAME (as shown on Marks Cable Vision 4240 N Hallmark Pkwy. l~OZ;%N°'usso: ADDRESS (n,,m~l ~San Bernadino, Calif. 92407 (eatel (ZIP (909) 880-0231 PHONE NUMBER ( ) PERSON DEALT WITH 5. CONSTRUCRON SITE ADOMESS: st~s~ aM num~e~ Same as Item No 1 Above PHONE Contractor remove portion of driveway without Repairs have been substandard. 9. ~OU~ PND ON CONTRACT: ] DOOR-TO-DOOR SOUCITATION DOTHER; EXPLAIN: Work performed January 1995 I10. DATE WORK STARTED: F 11. DATEWORKCEASED: COntT=~tO~ ~ S F~nch~sea by ~he C~ty of R~n~o C-~morvga to p,-ov~ C~hl~ TV service and repairs to city -~esidential customers. In ~anuarV Marks replaced ~eh]o tn r~s~B~nce ~nH contrary to the~ p~oced-~es to p]PC~ ~ tllhe unaer my driveway removed a section o~ the driveway and performed substandar repairs. Attempts to obtain their CSL3 license number have been unsuccessful nor have the No CSLB Number listed on Business Cards of Corr~-~pona~nc PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH SI DES OF THIS FOR M (, more room is needed pielie attach a Sheet of pipe,-) 14. IS th'iS. project .: Residence [~ Commercia Building [] Other [] 15. Is this project a: Addition [] Repair/Replace [] New Construction [] New Purchase [] 16. Was contract: Written [] Oral [] New Home Purchase Agreement [] None 17. Were there any change orders? Yes [] No _~ If yes, were they Written [] Oral [] Both [] 18. Is your compiaint: Abandonment [] Workmanship [] Other [] Operating without 19. Building permit obtained by: Contractor [] ~ou [] Do not know Sereits. None obtained Name of building department 20. Who presented contract? (name): Salesperson Marks Cable Vision Field Contractor ,., Do not knove []- 21. Did the contractor have employs? Yes [] I~o [] If so, how many? __ 22. Were employs, subcontractors, or materialmen paid? Yes [] No .[] Do not know [] 23. Were any liens filed on this job? Yes [] No [] By whom? 24. What attempts have you made to contact the c ~ntractor? Unable to locate [] Personal contact [] Telephone [] Letter [] (attach copies) 25. Have you obtained an estimate from another centractor to complete or correct job? Yes ~ No [] If yes, provide name, address, phone number o, the contractor, and if possible, a copy of the estimate. Currently obtaining estimates. Ranqe fromS1500-3000.00 proper licenses an~ Representative PLEASE SEND COP -'S OF ALL PAPERS RELATED TO YOUR COMPLAINT Please atlach copies of both sides of contracts, cancelled checks, and other pertinent materials. DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS. If copies are not available, please explain why: A. The Contractors State License Board cannot direct a nonlicensed contractor to complete or correct ~ project. B. In addition to this complaint you may also file an action in civil court. Please get advice from an attorney or the small claims counselor at your local municipal court ee~ filing such a complaint. The Contractors State License Board cannot represent private citizens in court nor collect money for you. Please contact an attorney or the small claims counselor at your local municipal court for advice on filing such an action. The information contained in this form is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. STATE 3F CALIFORNIA--STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY 4~~o~,,,~e ~ R D ~~l~~0ualily ~ Contractors State License Board CONSUMER COMPLAINT FORf/! PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH SIDES OF THIS FORM. NUMBER LICENSE NUMBER SECTIONS VIOLATEl:I: STATUS c.ANGE c lll c ll DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY TP m o N R PRY CNT v G I CSR INIT PETE WILSON, Got~rn clll DATE RECEIVED SPEC DT STAT EXP MO DA YR PROJ MO DA YR DATE ASSIGNED PEP DATE ASSIGNE[ MO DA YR INIT MO DA YR DISP DATE CLOSED MO DA YP I wish to register a complaint against the contractor qamed below. I understand that the Contractors State Ucense Board is unable to represent priva Udzens in court or to collect money or to levy fines. If the contractor is lioansed::'he/she will be informe~ of this complaint in order to facilitate the resolution of this matter, If you wish your name to t kept confidential (i.e., employer/employee, unlioansed contractor, personal safety) please check this box and submit an explanation. [] PLEASE KEEP MY NAME CONFIDENTIAL. TO HELP THE CSLB RESOLVE T 41S COMPLAINT, PLEASE ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS AS POSSIBLE (mi6kllel 2. CONTRACTOR NAME (as showIt on contract/invite) 1. YOUR NAME (last) (first) MUNIZ, Victor Anthony ADDRESS ...... (number) 11511 Ragnsa Dr. , (city) {state) Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. PHONE WMERE YOU CAN BE REACHED 8 s.m.-5 p.m. (909) 948-5456 HOME PHONE: (are code) 91701 3. Have you filed in courl to reomat damages on this complaint7 If so, pieale attac~ documentatmn with this form. PROJECT INFORMATION .., 4 OWNER OF CONSTRUCTION SITE: Same as Item No. i sbove ADDRESS: ZIP: Vintage Communications, Inc. IUCENSE NO USED · : 1084 Woodlawn Ave., ADDRESS (number) (mireell Devore, Ca. 92407 (city) (slatel (ZiP cede) (909) 8877421 PHONE NUMBER ( ) PERSON DEALT WITH 5_ CONSTRUCTION SITE ADDRESS: meet and number Same as Item No. i above.. IPHONE CITY: ZII~. ~ PHONE ( ) ( ) 6. Des4~la briefly the work for Which you coNrioted: Contractor m~srepresented themse]ves as Marks Cable Vision when they replaced the TV cable to residence. 7. CONTRACT DATE: I 8. AMOUNT: lZ WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THIS CONTRACTOR7 F"] REGULAR CUSTOMER ']REFERRED BY SOMEONE 13. BRIEFLY STATE YOUR COMPt. AINT Removed section of driveway without authorization 9. AMOUNT PAID ON CONTRACT: ~ 10. DATE WORK STARTED: J 11. DATE WORK CEASED: ~ OTHER; EXPL,/UN: Directed by Marks Cable Vision ~=mn~re~ ~ect~on oF req~dent~al dr~vevny w~tbut autho~-at~Qn. guh~gq,,gnt repairs were substandard ard refused to allow contractor to do any more work after completion of second attempt. Contractor had no plans or drawinqs or approved plans or drawings/permits for this work. No evidence of a proper CSLB licence. PLF~SE COMPLETE BOTH SIDES OF THIS FORM (If m~e room is needed pieale attach a sheet of pillar) 14. Is this a project a: Residence ~ Commercia Building [] Other [] 15. Is this project a: Addition [] Repair/Replace [] New Construction [] 16. Was contract: Written [] Oral [] New Home Purchase Agreement [] 17. Were There any change orders? Yes [] No ~ If yes, were they Written [] Oral [] Both [] 18. Is your complaint: Abandonment [] Workm;mship [] Other [] 19. Building permit obtained by: Contractor [] Name of building department C i ty o f New Purchase [] None proper licenses and 20. Who presented contract? (name): Salesperson Contractor Do not knov~ Operating without emits. ~ou [] DonotknowEFNone obtained 2ancho Cucamonqa Unknown Unknown 21. Did the contractor have employees? Yes [] ~o [] Ifso, howmany? 2-3 22. Were employees, subcontractors, or materlain' en paid? Yes [] No [] Do not know EZ] 23. Were any liens filed on this job? Yes [] No [] By whom? 24. What attempts have you made to contact the contractor? Unable to locate [] Personal contact [] Telephone ~ Letter [] (attach copies) 25. Have you obtained an estimate from another centractor to complete or correct job? Yes G No [] If yes, provide name, address, phone number o' the contractor, and if possible, a copy of the estimate. Currently in the process of obtaininq quotes for removinq a section of the driveway. PLEASE SEND COP =,S OF ALL PAPERS RELATED TO YOUR COMPLAINT Please attach copies of both sides of contracts, camelled checks, and other pertinent materials. DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS. If copies are not available, please explain why: A. The Contractors State License Board cannot direct a C. nonlicensed contractor to complete or correct a project. In addition to this complaint you may also file an action in civil court. Please get advice from an attorney or the small claims counselor at your local municipal court c ~ filing such a complaint. The Contractors State License Board cannot represent private citizens in court nor collect money for you. Please contact an attorney or the small claims counselor at your local municipal court for advice on filing such an action. The information contained in this form is true, corr,-ct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. ~ 27. DA1~~V . ' THA ' ASSIS'ING US IN OUR EFFORT E 31-15 (P, ev. 6/94) CableVision DAN $EALEY Construcuon Supennsor · ~-240 N. Hallmark Pkwy. · San Bernardino, CA 92407 . 0 0 ,. '-~ (909) 880-0231' · Fax: 880- 23 · Construction Office: (909) 880-4002 - 9,. · ..: '. :.: .~* ·.... ~ .... .*.. "'" "' ': · :'--"". 'VINTAGE COMMUNICATIONS -. J.;. I N C. - .., -..' ROD MILLARD, Supervisor :- Pager 873-6849 ·-.,' ~:. '-:'i j,..': ."~-if:,:. ," 1 )84 Woodlawn Avenue. Oevore, 'CA 92407-1034 Tel: (909) 887-7421 Fax (909) 887-7423 .:~: · ..,. · .; .'. '.~. ""' ~" ~ ~ '~*i" : ' · 'L..:.,..,..'. .. ...." Jern/B. FuhNocd " DeOu~ City Mor~Ger ~ (~X)9) ~9-~ 85~ T H E C I T Y O F RANCHO CUCA.MONG.\ FAX: (909) 981-5499 .. ,: -" .-';,; ;' "?X'I ... ' :',,. ~..- .. ,, .o.., .,~-; ..,~ · .', 'i,~.;.+.-.~..-;, : ' · ,-, -' ~.:"".'k.L :"~.,';'~T,~!i'..,'::' · -. '. : .,'.".: '.. , ,. · .o.- . · _ . .~ .. o;..' ,., . ' ,- · 'r;-,--,: -.- ~- ~=.--...,: ............ .., . · . .. . -.: - , .' -. -. .... ~'.-..-;- . ,.v:,,~...:.:-..:-~-~.=-.-,.-<..!,~.....!~? -.-. ,~, ..:~ .._~-..-.. LS'..-".".~?!:":',~ -~'j::-":< ''.+':'~ ': :-' " '-.. · .~.."':: '; .-.~, ,-;: ..... -.' .":: C,-_,.; -"7 "" TM "' - '' · .'-,.': 7;:...9:'. -:..'....--,...~=..-,':.-, '. ,7-,'.. ,...: ;: ,'.:_, .:.: ~:, .;.'-_ '..,-..,..-:' . 5/95 VJc ableVision February. 16, 1995 Victor Muniz 115 1 Ragusa Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9'701-8573 Dear Mr. Muniz: I have received your letter dated February 5, 1995. After speaking with our tecl.~ical manager, Tom Johnson, it is apparent there is a misunderstanding. Accordir g to Mr. Johnson, he spoke to you regarding your displeasure with the cut that was made ~ross your driveway some time ago. Mr. Johnson sent the manager of Vintage Commt nications (the contracting company who performed the original work) to meet with you. Mr. Johnson asked you to call him back if your weren't satisfied with your meeting with Vintage. To date, Mr. Johnson hasn't heard from you. If you believe that the work 3erformed by Vintage is substandard, then we will gladly arrange a meeting between you, the city building inspector, Marks CableVision and Vintage Communications to determine what further efforts need to be made to resolve this matter. Please call Mr. Johr.son after receiving this letter to coordinate such a meeting. If the city building inspector determines that the work performed by Vintage Communications was ofpoo- quality, they will complete the work according to the inspector's specifications. We want to respond to your problem promptly, but we will need your cooperation to do so. We will not issue credit on your account as requested, however, we will work with you to try and resolve your ~.issatisfaction with the work that has been performed to date. Sincerely, ,,/ Scan M. Hogue Director of Development cc: Tom Johnson 4240 N. Hallmark Pkwy. · San Bernardino, CA 92407 · (909) 880-0231 · Fax: 880-0230 June 22, 1995 Victor Muniz 11511 Ragusa Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9' 701 CableVmion /~ ~/ 05" :/aft ,- c.~ ( ,.,/' qa4 /o~7 Dear Mr. Muniz: Marks CableVision construction manager, Dan Sealy has informed me that you are requesting the repairs to yot_v driveway to be substantially more than what you and I discussed back in Much. As you recall. Tom Johnson and I visited your home in March to inspect the driveway cut and repairs. We agreed witJr you that the repairs to the driveway were substandard and that the job would be redon,:. We specifically described w ~-at type of repairs would be done this second time around. To recap of conversation: 1 ) We agreed not to have Vintage Communications return to do the work. 2) We agreed to 7emove the existing cement that had been placed in the cut. 3) We agreed that the felt irserts were to be removed and replaced with a higher quality replacement. 4) We agreed :hat the cut would be widened to remove any chips from the side. 5) We agreed to use nore cement than that which was previously used. At no time, did Tom Johnsen, myself, or you, speak of removing and replacing the entire 9' 8" x 23 section. We want to work with you on replacing and improving the work previously done on your driveway to your satisfactio :, but we will not repair the entire section. That is contrary to our earlier discussion. Please contact me at your c~ :nvenience so that we can expedite the repair work and lay this issue to rest. Sincerely, Scan M. Hogue Assistant General Manager CC~ Tim Kelley, General Manager Dan Sealy, Construction Manager CITY OF R, LNCHO CUCAMONGA CAB; TV INQUIRY INQUIRY #: 95-116 DATE: 7-24-95 RESIDENT: Victor Mun~z ADDRESS: 11511 Ragusa ZIP: 91701 PHONE: 948-5456 NAME OF PERSON COMPL ~TING INQUIRY: S. Mickey CABLE COMPANY: Marks C bleVision NATURE OF INQUIRY: Resident asked to file a complaix unauthorized work. Resident caZ reception. On the third visit to tl bad cable drop that needed to be under the driveway and replace t work, he found that the drive wa against Marks CableVision for failure to perform and doing .ed cable company last January to complain about poor e home, the service tech said that the problem was caused by a :eplaced. Marks representative said that they would tunnel ~e bad cable through a "sleeve." When resident got home fr6m had been cut. He called to complain that he had not authorized the driveway to be cut and that tl e repair was shoddy. Vintage Communications, the subcontractor doing the work, cane back out and tried to fix the driveway, but it was not to the owner's satisfaction. Resident ccntacted Sean Hogue and stated that he was not satisfied with the repair job and that he wanted the whole section of the driveway replaced. Scan said that he would be willing to fix the cut, hat would not replace the entire section of the driveway. Resident is also going to file a c~ mplaint with the State Board of Contractors because he said neither Vintage Communicatiom nor Marks CableVision had contractors licenses. Resident feels that City should require per-nits and inspections when cable construction is done on private property and that City should ha"e specs for construction work done on private property. Resident says he intends to file 1..wsults against Marks CableVision, Vintage Communications and the City of Rancho Cucamo~tga. ACTION TAKEN: Spoke with Sean Hogue at Mark ~ CableVision who said that Marks did have the resident's permission to cut the driveway a ~d that Marks offered to repair the cut to the drive, but would not replace the whole section - f~lt that this was cost prohibitive. Resident was also told that the City could not require permits th~ were not required by the Uniform Building Code. Resident was also told that other cities did not require permitting for cable construction of this nature on private property. The franchise a~reement deals with cable construction on public rights of way. This cable TV inquiry has been fcrwarded to the appropriate cable company. If you have further concerns regarding cable TV, ple ~e feel free to contact either your cable company or the City Managers Office at 909-989-185 ~. COMCAST CABLEVISION 1205 Dupont Ontario, CA 9176 ! 909-988-6161 MARKS CABLEVISION 4240 N. Hallmark Pkwy. San Bemardino, CA 92407 909-987-6275