HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/06/03 - Agenda PacketSECTION 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be
coilected at t e same time an In t e same manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTIQi 6. Time and Place of Heerin Notice is hereby given that
on July 1, IDE~at the hour of pm in t e City Council Chanbers at 9161
Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having any
objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear and
show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of
Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the
property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify
the sane, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or obdections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized
assessment roil of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property
described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signer is the owner of tY~e property so described.
SECTIQN 7. Landsca in and Li htin Act of 1972: All the work
herein proposed-s Fall one an came roug n pursuance of an act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice
shall be ma~suant to ctlon t e vernment Code. The Mayor
chap ci nn thic n>cnLiH nn anA tVw rite flar4 chap alt ocf M thn <amn and
the City~Clerk shall cause the sane tom be published 10 days before the date
set for the hearing, at least once fn The Dail Re rt, a newspaper of general
sir cul ation published in the City of ntarlo, a 1 or ni a, and r;rr.ulatrA in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
~.~ ~~~
~/
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, Ctty Engineer
BY: Laura Ps omas, Landscape Designer
G~~MO
~; ~I
~n
A
F, ~+ i Z
U >
1971
SUBJECT: Approval to Annex Tract Nos. 11997, 12385, 10246 and OR 86-
12 (various locations within the City, see attached maps)
to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation
No. 23 and set the date of public hearing for July 2, 1987
RECOMENUATICfI
It is recommended t;~,ac City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving the Engineer's Report for Annexation No. 23 and setting the
date of public hearing regarding the City's inter lion to annex the above
described tracts to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1.
Analysis/Background
Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's
intent to annex Tract Nos. 11997, 12835, 10246, and DR 86-12 (various
local ions d!ih!r ±he City. see attached Maos) to Street liahtina
Maintenance District No. 1 for Annexation No. 23 and set the public
hearing date for July 1, 1987. Also attached for Council consideration
is a resolution giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for
the subject annexation.
Res pe ctfu submitted`
~i, --~
RH":i .
A tt ac linen is
qv
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 7 " a 7 Y
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAt43N Gq, CALIFORNIA, Of PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNE%ATICN N0. 23 TO STREET
LIGHTING M4INTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1
WHEREAS, on June 3, 1987 the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council far consideration; and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be
modified in any respect.
NON, THEREFORE DE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1; That the Engineer's Estimate of the itanized costs and
expenses o-f sal~ork and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in sai6 report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily
approved and confirmed.
SECT IQV 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred
to and descn in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said 45s essment District are hereby preliminarily appr ~•rd and
confirmed.
SECT IC41 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of
land in sar~essment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be
received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
S ECT [ON 4; That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the
proposed district.
9~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAh10NGq
Engineer's Report for
Street Lighting Maintenance District No.
Annexation No. "c3 for
Tracts 11997, 12635, 10246 and DR 86-12
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of
California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SE CTI IXi 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex the tracts enumerated in
Exhibit "A" into Street Lighting Maintenance Disc rict No. 1. The City
Council has determined that the street lights to be maintained will have
an effect upon all lots within said tracts as well as on the lots
directly abutting the street lights.
Nork to be provided for with the assessments established by the
district ara:
The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and
usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street light
improvements on arterial and certain collector streets.
imorn vement maintenan re is cnnsi dared of aanaral hanPf it to
all areas in the District and cost shall be divided on a per
lot basis. In the case of condominiums with airspace
ownership only, and apartments, a dwelling unit shall be
considered to benefit the same as a lot.
SECTICN 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared
by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the
conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City
En aineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map
or development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of
the street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street
lighting improvement on the individual Bevel oilmen[ is hereby made a part
^f this report to the saTC extent as if said plans and specifir> were
attached hereto.
Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district
include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of
any improvement, providing for the illumination of the ~ -bj act area.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for street lighting improvement
construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based
on available data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment
purposes will be as indicated below. These costs are estimated only,
actual assessments will be based on actual cost data.
The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation No.23 comprised of 280 units and 5 5800E lights, 7
9500E street lights, 0 22, OOOL and 0 21, SOOL lights) is shown below:
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy;
Lamp Si ze* L anps
YTD Lamps
Annexed
Rate
5800E 433 5 E8.93
9500E 427 11 E10,16
2z,DOO 1 o Ela.ea
27,500E 14 0 E15.31
*High Pressure Sodium Vapor
Lamps Rate Mo's Total
438 X E8.93 X 12 = 46,936.08
438 X E10,16 X 12 = 53,400.96
1 E13.84 K 12 = 166.08
14 X E15. 31 X 12 = 2 572.08
2. Costs per dwelling Unit: 1'03;~~67SCQ
T'C al Annual Maintenance Cost = 103 075,20=
-
' 7.78/year/unit
No. a Umts in istrict I3
,~5~
7.18 divided by 12 = E.65/mo./unit
Assessment shall apply to each lot as explained in Section 6.
SECTICN 5. Assessment Diagram
wpi e5 the pY Opiiieu' Aii eS idieOL "u idgr a0i are aLLaciled lU ibis
report and V labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1",
Annexation No. 23.These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text
of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to
all Awell ing units within the Uistri ct and that assessment shall be equal
far each unit. Nhere there is more than one dwelling unit per lot or
parcel of assessable land, the assessment for each lot or parcel shall be
proportional to the number of dwelling units per lot or parcel.
It is proposed that all future development shall be annexed to the
District.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
'_. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's Report.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and
sets public hearing date.
s. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and
determines to form a District or abandon the proceedings.
4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City
Council.
5. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a pu611c hearing and
approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
~r
EXHIBIT "q"
Properties and improvements to be included within Annexation No. 23 to
Street Lighting Maintenance District 1:
PROJECT D/U 5800L
Tract 11997 19 5
Tract 12835 132
Tract 10246 15
DR 86-12 114
Arterial
C
C~~
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
APJNEXATION NO. 2'S
ne wr ~'°""i Iu.a ua na.ra'
~' ~ r Ili ~b' ® O ui
® 1 ~ ~•
a• a ^~
i ~ ~ ~~ ~ 5
~ I .1 ;3
k' r - ~._ ;
S ~
I13. _ i -~
„~
~' r a r
.i ~ i ~ v., ®v ~ I ..
i. ~ ®\``~ ~~l
8i.~'V F~~L.fi.'13'
~Li i /
/~ I -..~.. ~ _ _ --mre~
!~~ .rouor o5a.r ~ R„z r
_ ~~~ ~
`~ `~"''~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~~ ,, r title:
' _ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ ~ 119gr1
/ `=%' STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~w ~T
i9^ ,
~~__.. ~ a, ~ Page
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
At'JNEXATION NO. 23
_ FooTHlt.t~ P~I_vR -
,. ' ..
fi~;y^ -v- ---
':,
,~•
?~
fi ~+_~ .~
h.~ ^ I ~
', v. .i{.KYi
~~~.~ ~ ' ;
~=
,4R1¢OW RTE --~-
9~
y~ f~, ,~,^ CITY OF RANCHO CI;CA~IONGA ~ _
}-~~`' ~ ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ -
wn ' VICINITY MAP -
page
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
ANNEXATION NO. 23
,i
Y'
Gatnw Oak ~
~~~ypF be
ji 4I I \+' b 4
k
0
i
9w 1
L~
ti~~
V
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.
ACJNEXATION NO. 2'.S
///~ts/D,E qVE.
:,
~~ .
;t ..,
,x
-•_ --~,~
O
---~---
f'~r ~ "~
v~_-
(! i
..,.w .:., [j I ,.
~ _.
.. . '"
...: ~ k
~
I l
i
a
_ ..yam,
-- -
~
< .. .. 'I
~`•"~-~~'[~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
` ~~~~ ,>
_;.,.,,:^,,- COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
`«' ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~- >
isn
~, ;
~ !.
~..
'i
i~
I
1 j{
i ~I~
[ it
. ~:
~'I
~ ~ I i
~L. .. ti.........~
A title:
,~ 7\ ~J
1 , DaBe
RESOLUTION N0. O / ~ ~~
A RESOLUTIOi OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMON G4, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTIQI TO ORDER THE
ANNE%ATI ON TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID RNNE%ATICN AS
ANNE%ATION N0. 23 TO STREET LIGHTING MIINTENANCE DISTRICT
N0. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACi Of
1972 AND OFFERING A T[ME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO
NON, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California, as follows:
SECTICN 1. Descri tion of Mork: That the public interest and
convenience require an s e Intent on of this City Council to form a
maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the mairKenance and
operation of those street lights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance
district described in Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation
includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in
connection with said distri tt.
S ECT ICN 2. Location of Nork: The foregoing described work is to be
located w tTTiln roadway rim-way en caner ated in the report of the City
Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the
office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 23 to Street Lighting
M dint en once U15trlct Ne. i".
SECTION 3. Oescri tion of Assessment District: That the
coot empl ate~~orTc-in the opinion sa ty Coun cl , is o more than local
or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense
of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed
to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as
follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon
that certain "Map of Annexation No. 23 to Street Lighting
Maintenance District No. 1" maps is on file in the office
of the City Clerk of said City.
SECiiCN 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said ^ity by
Resolution No, * }-ias approve a report of the eng;neer of work which report
indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1" is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City.
Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars foi the amount and
extent of the assessments and for the extent of the war k.
/J (~
SECTID!1 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be
collected~a '~f~same me an n e sane manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will almually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in dune, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearing: Motive is hereby given that
on July I; 1z18T-a~ the our pm ~n Effie City Council Chambers at 9161
Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having any
objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear and
show cause why said work should not be done ar carried out or why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of
Intention. Protests must he in writing and must contain a description of the
property in which each signer thereof is ilrterested, sufficient to identify
the sane, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is rot shown upon the last equalimd
assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property
described Sn the protests, then such protest must corh:ain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.
SECTI01 7. Landscaping and Lfghting Act of 1972: All the cork
herein propose -sFall iw oug n pursuance of an act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being DTvision 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California.
SECTIQI 8. Ccblication of Resolution of lntentton: Published notice
shall be ma pursuant a c on a vernnent Code. The Mayor
e hall .inn this 9scnLdinn anA 4hn rib rlaa4 ehall aMneT fn f/w coon anA
the City Clerk shall cause the sane to be published 10 days before the~date
set for the hearing, at least once in The Dail Re o~rt, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of r~tar0 ia, ~aTil•ornia, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
~/
STAFF ftEPOKT
DOTE: June 3, 1987
TD: City Council and City Manager
FRDM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Linda Beek, Engineering Technician
~ ~.
~il~ 6 ,~
~9i~
SUBJECT: Approval to Annex DR 86-33, located on Civic Center Drive,
east of Utica, (Tract 12176 let 8) to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 3 as Annexation No. 2 and set the date of
public hearing for July L, 1987
RECDMMENDATIDII
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions
approving the Engineer's Report for Annexation No. 2 and set the date of
public hearing regarding the City's intention to annex the above
described tracts to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3.
Analysis/Background
Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's
intent to annex OR 86-33 to Landscape Maintenance District ho. 3 for
- - __d .~w ..blic . _
n - ...., - .._ -' V~ ,cu iug u'u'c fJ~ Juij i, iiu,, nlav
attachedufor Council consideration is~a resolution giving preliminary
approval of the Engineer's Report for the subject annexation.
Respe submitted,
r
f,''r--~
RHM:LB,
Attachments
/~
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 7 ~ ~~ $
A RESOLUTI CN OF THE CITY COLN CIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY gPPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION N0. 2 TO (ANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3
WHEREAS, on June 3, 1987, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Enyineer to make and file with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engin=_er has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said pct, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WNEREAS, sai6 City Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be
modif+ed in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTIQi 1; That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and
expenses o~said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report 6e, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily
annrnvuA anA rnnfirmoA.
SECTIOY 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred
to and described-in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said Assessment District are hereby pr?liminarily approved and
confirmed.
SECTIOV 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of
land in sai3 Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to he
received 6y said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidenta} expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4: chat said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report fob purposes of all subsequent proceedf ngs, and pursuant to the
propcs ed district,
-.+,
i~3
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG4
Engineer's Report for
Landscape Maintenance District No. 3
ANNE%ATI6N N0. 2 for
DR 86-33
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter
1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new developments into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 3. The City Council has determined the areas to be
maintained will have an effect upon all the developments as mentioned above.
All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed developments are shown on
the recorded Map as roadway right-of-way or easements to be granted to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and landscaping are as stipulated in the conditions of approval
for the development and as approved by the City E~~gineering Division.
Reference is hereby made to the subject development plan and the assessment
•L` •A` -d.~i r.4 vd ~~~ 1~ d
.. 1y-,W ., ~ y y
specifications for landscaped yimprovement on the individual development pis
hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and
specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred by the District far parkway and median
improvanent construction. A71 improvements will be constructed by developers
and or/by the City. Based on historical data, contract analysis and developed
work standards, it is estimated that maintenance costs for ass e~sment purposes
will equal thirty (5.30) cents per square foot per year. Tnese costs are
estimated only, actual assessment will he based on actual cost dot a.L ands cape
Maintenance District No. 3 has been demarcated into two zones. Zone 1 is
comprised of Parcel Map 7349, comprised of 8 parcels, totaling 6,057 square
feet fne d!strict was formed in October 5, 1483, for the ma!ntenance of
landscaping, a detention basin and storm drain within Lhe project. This zone
will be assessed on per lot basis for the maintenance costs within the project
boundary only as stipulated in the Engineer's Report far the formation of the
District.
ivy
Zone 2 is comprised of all other projects that are being annexed or will be
annexed to this District. All lots or parcels within Zone 2 will he assessed
on net acre basis for the maintenance of landscaped median islands on Haven
Avenue from 4th Street to Deer Creek Channel, Foothill Boulevard and 4th
Street fran west to east City limit, Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue,
fran 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard, 6th Street from uaee.^. ,,^.vcn ~e Lu
Rochester Avenue and median islands on other major divided highways and same
parkways within the Industrial Specific Plan Area and Foothill Boulevard
overlay area.
The estimated cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 including
Annexation No. 2 is as follows.
Zone 1
Total estimated
maintenance cost
Assessment units
Total cost - assessment
unit for year and month
Zone 2
Total estimated annual
mq. of on an rn arna _ Cn Fi
Assessment units, acres
Existing
District
f2, mo
8
E2~70 ~ E258.75/year or f21.56/mo.
Existing Annexation New
District No. 2 Total
n n n/a
380,369 .66 380,369.66
Total cost * assessment
unit for year and month 0 x E.30 m E 0 /year 0 /mo.
'3'9~3b~1.3,t~
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and the
attached assessment diagram.
SECT [ON 5. Asse~smert Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and
labeled "Exhibit A", by this reference the diagram is hereby incorporated
within the 'ext df this report.
~~~
SECTIOA 6. Assessment
L^Tr_"tic~ts for ~~ District are found iu be of general benefit to all
lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each parcel
for Zone 1 and shall be equal to the next acreage for each lot or parcel in
Zone 2.
Tlie City Council will hold a public hearing in June, to determine the
actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the
previous fiscal year which are to be recovered through assessments as required
by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTI01 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's
Report.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District and sets
public hearing date.
3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testingny and
determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council.
5. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and
approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
/~4
Properties and impravements to be included within Annexation No. 2 (Zone 2) tc
I andcrano M_iMw.~n~e Ai~tl.i tf Na ~~
PROPERTIES:
PROJECT ACREAGE
DR N6-33 .664
IMPROVEMENT AREAS TO BE ANNEXED IN ANNEXATION N0. 2
Brea
Sq~t.
Haven Avenue
Foothill Boulevard
Milliken Avenue
4th Street
Rochester Avenue
6th Street
/U
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.3
ANNEXATION NO.
TRACT MAP N0. 12176
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA MON GA
FOR~INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIALPURPOSES
~'
~``C1~-'0to CITY OF AANCFIO CUCAMONGA ^ c11e~
x c' ~ `~ = COUNTY Or SAN BERNARDINO
y/_....' . _ ~~.
_ Jq u.
`~~;" STATE OF CALIFORNIA -
19'1
`w Z _ N -
_ page
RESOLUTION N0. ~~ " a
A RESOLUTIDI OF THE CITY CODICIL OF THk CITY OF RANCHO
CUfliMDN6A, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEIWTI011 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3,
AN ASSESSMENT OISTR[CT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNESATI011 AS
ANNEXATION N0. 2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3;
PIAtSLgNT TO TFE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT Cf 1972 Ado
OFFERING A TIDE AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTi ONS THERETO
HOW, THEREFDtE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cu~amanga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and lighting
Act of 1372, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the Mate
of California, as follows:
SECTION 1. Description of Work: That the public interest and
conveniencece regTe and-ftTt e~in~enfi-on of this City Council to forni a
maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and
operation of those parkways and faciliites thereon dedicated for caimon
greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the
boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in Section 2
hereof. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of
any sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings, landscaping, ornamental
lighting, structures, and walls in connection with said parkways.
SECTION 2. Location of Mork: The foregoing described work is to be
located within roadway rT t- -way and landscaping easements of Landscape
M ai of on anro Mef ni rf xn 7 en nw al nA in •An .. n..1 ..i •M N~.. rn..:.. n.... ...A
. _. .. _.. i. .~..-.-~- .~ . .J ups
morn. particularly described on maps which are "on file in-the office of the
City Clerk, entitled °Annexation No. 2 to Landscape Maintenance District No.
3".
SECTION 3. Descri Lion of Assessment District: That the
cord: empi ate~o~in the opim on sai ity ounc s o~more than local
or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense
of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed
to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as
follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary
tines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No.
2 LO i,dndsCape Maintenance Oistrirt No. 3°
heretofore approved by the City Council of said City
by Resolution No. *, indicating by said boundary
lines the extent of the territory included within
the proposed assessment district and which map fs on
file in the office of the City Clerk of said City.
/>~
SECTIQI 4. Re rt aF En sneer: The City Council of said City by
Resolution Na. • az approve a repo of the engineer of work which report
indicates the anount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 2, Landscape
Maintenance District No. 3" is on file in the office of the Cfty Clerk of said
City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the
anount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work.
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be
collected ate e~sane time an n t same manner az County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearin Notice is hereby given that
on July LZ98T, at the our o p. m. n t e City Council Chambers at 9161
Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having any
objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear mid
show cause why said work should not be done or carried out ar why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution oP
Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the
property fn which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify
the sane, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last eguallzed
assessment roll of San Bernardino County az the owner of the property
described 1n the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such sfgner is the owner Of the property so described.
SECTIQI 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work
herein propo- s~Fa11 be done an Carr a roug n pursuance of mi act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the Skate of California.
SECTIQI 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice
shall be ma~suant to ct on L e verrment Code. The Mayor
shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the sane, and
the City Clerk shall cause the sane to 6e published 10 days before the date
set for the hearing, at least once in The Dally Report, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontaric,~ali~rnia, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
~.~ ~~
//
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 28, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Mark Lorfmrr
Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMBULANCE RENEWAL
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommend that City Council set Public Hearing for June 17, 1987 to
consider renewal of an ambulance services permit for Mercy Ambulance.
BACKGROUND:
Mercy Ambulance Service has submitted a renewal apptication to the City for
consideration of renewing its annual ambulance service permit. Mercy Ambulance
has been operating within Rancho Cucamonga since 1976 and has operated under
the requirements of a permit for 18 months. City Ordinance No. 269 requires
any an;bu lance operator to obtain a City Business License and Permit n~;,.~ r,.
-~. •~..+ uc'~uy vi ie red. '~ --
This agenda item only pertains to the setting of a Pu611c Hearing necessary to
review any application for an ambulance permit. Should the City Council
approve the Public Hearing being set for June 17, staff will provide you with a
full copy of the application and any background staff reports necessary to
appropriately review this issue.
Should you have any questions or comments, of ea se do not hesitate to contact
me.
Nl ilr
/~~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: •JUne 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: B1 one W. Frandsen, Senior Civil Engineer
,p ~~
-~(` Y
Shy l
E~'~„ U~ ~I~iA
D ?
19 I
SUBJECT: Approval of Envirorxaental Assessment Initial Study and issuance
of Iegative Declaration to permit the construction of storm
drat r. and street improvements far Hillside Road between
Malachite and Archibald Avenues pursuant to the Envirormrental
Quality Act. Continued from May 20, 1987 City Council meetfng.
RSCONEIMTIOM:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution
approving the Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a
Negative Declaration for the proposed Hillside Road Storm Drain and
Reconstruction between Malachite and Archibald Avenue project. It is
also recommended that staff be directed to pursue an Emi rer•t Domai~~
action to ar,uire the missing right-of-way followed by a chapter 27
implementation of the 1911 Act.
In compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and State Guidelines, the Environmental Assessment Initial
Study has been prepared to permit construction of the above project.
These improvements generally entail the widening of the street,
installation of storm drain, removal and replacement of the existing
street pavement, construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks and
driveway approaches, as well as installation of street lights.
Right-of-way for these proposed improvements exist at the north side of
the street being voluntarily dedicated in exchange for frontage
improvements, of the southerly right-of-way, 840 linear feet of the
street frontage has been dedicated. One property remains to dedicate
along the south side of about 330 feet in length- An easement for the
storm drain installation does exist.
Negotiations with the property owners have been unsuccessful to date.
The City has proposed an exchange of improvements for the desired right-
of-way, and has added to the normal exchange the installation of a new
steel water tank and regrading and relandscaping for the frontage of the
property.
~~
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPCw:
RE: HILLSIDE ROAD ENV. ASJc>;.
June 3, 1987
Page 2
Two maior alternatives exist with regards to the pro,~rr".; lj leave ou.
the 330' portion, leaving a half street pavement front~r,g the north hal;
of the street only, and 2) proceed with an Eminent Domain action. The
Later would merit a follow up 1911 action to make equitable the
distribution of right-of-way costs to all properties along this section
of Hillside Road.
A third action to wait or do rathing would not seem appropriate due to
the recent execution of agreement witA north side properties exchanging
right-of-way improvements.
It is the Engineering's staff finding that although the proposed protect
could have a significant effect on the environment, it is concurrent
with the General Plan that Hillside Road be developed to the proposed
widths and that, except as noted, a maJority of the fronting residents
have extended right-of-way dedications, same in exchange for
improvements, and that ml tigating measures to off-set the environmental
impacts have been considered.
Staff therefore requests that a Negative Declaration be granted to the
pro,)ect. Staff also requests authorization to pursue right-of-wady
acquisition in the fora of an Eminant Domain action to obtain the
missing right-of-way required by the protect.
Respec~lFjy~submitted, .~
RrLN(
Attachments
//3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
APPLICATION
INITIAL STUDY ° PART I
seiuau.
For ail projects requiring environmental review, this form must be coir~leted
and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where
the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the
Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study and make
recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one
of three determinations: (1j The project will have no siggnificant
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, (Z) The
project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared, or (3) An additional information report
should 6e supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the
proposed project.
Date Filed: Mdi~ /3 ~ /y~7
Project Title: Ril is ide Road Storm Drzin and Reconstruction Pro iect
Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: (.'i tv of R ncho Cucamonca. Enainee rino
93ZU ii~sa Line Hoad. Rancho Cucamunaa. Cii 91730
Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted
r^^ce^^i^.^, Lhi_ proj ctt: - Fruuu n Sr. ivi cn rn r a' ve
(7_4l 9u"~-ldo2, ext. sZU
Location of Project: Nil lside Roalt~turm Drai~ and Street Reconstruct bn.
between idalachite and Archi 6a ld Avenues.
assessor's Parcel No.: Pu61ic Street
List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies
and the agency 15suf ng such permits: remo -~v s r ~~^ rl ~ F ~n~r , inp,_
Per~r.it fron the City of Rancho Cuo•monQy,
/ ~_~
PRO,IEGT DESCRIPTION
Proposed use or proposed project: to i ti~•nation of sto drain 'nc: ltinate
urd Wino of the exi sti •~^*' n •ina the construction of malt
ncrete avement curbs and pytSr, ^ r ^t linhis -
Acreage of project area and square footage of existing and proposed buildings,
if any: PLtA Recons•ruction aL exi sS_ina treet. - - -
Describe the environmental satin of the protect site including information
on topography, so s a tty, pants (trees), land aninwls, any cultural,
historical o. scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the
description of any existing structures and their use (attach necessary
sheets): Tht Nills ide Rod Pro iect which fronts on Brnnn=eA Leu-lAediwm Resident
zone is narrow heretofore orivata r^^Awav s rvina prima rile 'uric .lt ,r t
land at present The northern side of tR~ Stress '= Dian ed riUi aranevi Wes
wM le the southsi a of the treet wi dhre k aw of F al t = tre c,
• Art la '+5 LLCj_,p-ilnn 'o' i wa yinr n is itvyeA fnr anricul2ural
r Div within fLp prnpo„QA ri ht-of-wav. _ -
Ts the project part of a urger project, one of a series of cumulative
actions, which although individually small, may as a whore have significant
environmental impact ,j, -r - ,r t i^^rr ve,wnr-P,.^;4 r=.~ rry..
.~L1y.~ yy t'`h M' Pi- St It .+nA the Vrewf_---
~j' "1 m i f th f~ 't Dl --
//~
I-7
YILL THIS PROJECT• YES NO
1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? ~
2. Create a substantial change in existing noise tlY produce
vibration or glare? _ ~
3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal
services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? _ %
4. Create changes Tn the existing Zoning or General
Plan designations?
_ ~
5. Remove any existing trees? How manyi_gg_ ~
6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials such as toxic substances,
f iammab les or explosives? _ ~
Explanation of any YES answers above (attach addi tfonal sheets if necessary):
T' 'c-i g r "1 "y ill h d A Y gaAU:`y will h.+ raiepA
ai a rouauav nmhank ' fr 1' (' - h C 1 t1Y
r.s'r over th ctr r u f F ly t t f-11 ithi ih 'Dht of Gay
facilities.
7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project
will generate daily:~,~~;
8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trios generated daily by rhi<
pro,7ecb _ aJa - '
9. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this
project, in cubic yards: con , .. r r~ ~ '[n ~ t:n
10. If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete
the form on the next page.
CERTIFICATION: i hereby certify that the statements 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 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
helief. I further understand that additional information may 6e required to
be submitted before an adequate evaluation can 6e made by the Planning
D iYii~vn.
i
Date: I•Iav 20. 1937 Signatu %
i3lane W. Franusan
Title Sr. i:i vil Fnai m~^,~
//~
1-3
RESIDENTIAL CQNSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid the school district in assessing their
ability to accommodate the proposed residential development. Developers are
required to secure letters from the school district for accomaodating the
fncreased number of students prior to issuance of building permits.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multipie
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Modell
and i of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Range
/~ 7
I-4
CITY OF RANCNO CUCA.MONCA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
EWIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST
-A~: has 13'-`' I YR ~
APPLIC2\^f: City Of Rancho CuCamOnae
FILZYG -A.3: LOG NUMBEx:
PROJECT: Hillside Roan ,t0 rm Drnln and Rer nn crr ,r r; cr p. gy~
PROJECT LOCATION: BBttYeea hid lachite and errhihald 4vn n„ems
I. ENI7IAO:~NT U, IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answezs are required on attached
sheets).
YES MAYBE NO
1. So its and GeoloRV. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geole gic relationships? %
o. uis ruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the sail? %
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals? %
d. The destruction, covering or modifita[ion
of any unSque geologic or physical features? ~ %
e. Any pocen ti al inczease in wind or water
erosion of soils, of iec ting either on or off
site Ca ndi CO nS? ~_
.. Ct:an ges in erosion sil[aCion, or deposi[SOn? ~
o ~°~ f eCCY:2 pi eLi 62J'3r'i
e
ha za rds
such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground Failure, ar similar hazards? ~
h. An increase in the race of extra c[Son and/or
use of .soy mineral resource? _ _ ~
_, N~~~.iro logy. W111 the proposal have significant
r~cSU1CS in:
/i8
cage c
YES MAYflE NO
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels? ~
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
oz [he rate and amount of surface va[er
runoff? ~ -~-
c. Alcerat ions to the course or flow of flood
waters? ~
d, Change in the amcur.t of surface water in any
body of wacer? ~
e. Discharge in eo surface waters, or any
alteration of surface wacer quality? A
f. ALterac ion of groundwater charactezis tics? l
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct addi [loos or vi[h-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity? ~ X
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available For public wacer supplies? ~ X
i. Exposure of people or properly to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? _ If*
3. Air Ouali ty_. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
oz indirect sources? -__ ~
Sfa[ionarv sources? ~
b. Deceriora[ian of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the aCtainmene of applicable
air quality standards? _„ x
c, Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or cer..peracure? _, ~
4. a10 Ca
Flora. Ir'ill the proposal have significant results
ia:
a. Change in the chaiac[eris[ics of species.
including diversity, dis [r ibucion, or number
of any species of planes? ~ __ _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of pl ~~~ ~_ K
.,
y=s days= vo
c. Introducclon of new or disruptive species of
planes into an area^. x-
d. Reduction in Che potential for agricultural
production? x-
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
of any species of animals? X-
b. Reduction of the numbers of anv unique, rare
ox endangered species of animals? ._ y
~. Intraduct ion of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a ~atrier
to the migration or movement of animals? _J(_
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish ar X
wildlife habitat? -
j. Population. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. W111 the proposal alter [he location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an aria? X
b. Will the proposal affect exis cing housing, or K
.. domand fnr addi r.ional housing? -
6. Socio-Economic Factors. W111 the proposal have
s i.gnit icane results in:
a. Change in local or regional sot io-economic
characteristics, including econem'_c or
cormercial diversity, tax rate, and property Y
values^. -- -
b. ..... project cosy he equi[ab 1;; discriSuted
among projecC beneficiaries, i.e., buyers,
tax payer or project users^. -- .Y~
;. :.a~•. ~~ '::ae aid .^lanninr, Censiderae ion s. '.<i 11 the
~. r. su'.a :ant ial cite ra tion of the present or
pi.snned land use of an area? ._ -7l
'o. A eonEl ice with any designations, objectives.
policies, or adopeed Mans of any gnvernmen wl
eneities? -'- '~
~. An impact upon the qulaicy or quantity o:
existing consumptive or non-consumpc ive
recreational opportunities ~~ ~- 'M-'
page 4
YES 9AYBE 9G
8. Transportac ion. Will the proposal have significant
resul to in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Ef£eccs an existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? X
c. Effec cs on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transnorca-
ClOR Sy9 C6ID6? ~_~~
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion oz movement of people and/or goods? ~
£. Alterations cp or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit pr
air traffic? b
g. Increases in traffic hazards to mo cor vehicles,
b icyc lis is or pedestrians?
9. Cul tural Resources. Will [he proposal have
significant results in:
a. A disturbance to cha integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and/or historical resources? ~
_,.. ja i iii, aaie[y, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? %
h. Exposure pf people to potential health hazards? % _
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances Sa the event of an accident? _,_ %
d. :1n increase Sn cF.e number of individuals
or species of vetW r or pathenogenic
organisr„s or the exposure of people to such
u rganisns". _
e. Increase in exis cing ne 196 levels? R
f. Exposure pf peppie to potentially dangerous
nc ise levels.' _y, ).
g. the creation of obj etc ionable odors?
h. do increase in light or glare" __ ~._ ~
/~
YES MAYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
res ults in:
a. The obstruc [ion or degradation of any scenic
vista or view? ~,
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site? ~
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? x
12. Ltil ides and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alt erations to the following:
a. Electric power? ~ _
b. Natural oc packaged gas? ~
c. Communications systems? ~ _
d. Wate:c supply? g _
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood concrol structures? X
g. Solid waste facilities? Y
h. Fire pro tecc ion? X _
i. Police protection? A _
j. Schools?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities? >~
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control fac it lies? X
m. Other governmental services? _, „~~„
13. Ener c;• and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
ha~ :e sign is icon[ resui is in:
a. L'se of substantial or excessive fuel or enerey? ~ _-- ~
b. Subs [an[ial inc cease in demand upon existing
sources of enerey? _ y
c. An increase in [he demand far development of
new sources of enerey? __ ~
d. do increase ar perpetuation of [he consumption
of non-renewable fo rns of energy, when feasible
renewab ie sources of energy are available? __ .~
~~
Page 6
YES lfAYHE No
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource? ,_ __ `~
14, MandaCOrv FindSn~s of Si¢nificance.
a. Does Che ptoj ect have the potential to degrade
thfl qualitq of [he environment, sub stancially
reduce Che habitat of fish or wildlife species.
cause a fish or wlldlifa population to drop
below self austair iag levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
imporcan~. examples of the major periods of
California history or prehls COZY? X---
b. Does the proj act have Che potential to achieve
short-tem, to tha disadvantage of long-ter,
environmental goa18? (A shore-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a ralatixely
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future). ___ ~
c. Does the project ?..ve impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerahle? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerahle when viewed
Sn connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future proj secs). z
u, - •!;.. ~rniert have environmental effec cs
which will cause Substantial aaverse ei: ~. a
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ X
II. DISCllSSIDN OF EWIRDNPffNTAL EVALUA?ION (i.e., of affirmative answers co
the above questions plus a discuss ien of proposed nitigacion measures).
(See Attached Sheets)
/\_~
/ O -
Page 7
III. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this ini Cial evaluation:
^ I find Che proposed project CODLD NOT have a significant effect
on Che environmmt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_ I find Chat although the proposed project could have a significant
ggl effect on [he environment, there will not be a significant effect
in Chis case because the mitigacian measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPAAc'D.
I find the proposed ornj ect NAY have a sig.;if ican[ effect on the
I _i envirnmen[, and an ENVIR06':1E,YT FACT REPORT is required.
Date p~~ ;qp7
S' ure~~
Russell H. Maguire
Pity Engineer
Title
/~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
l.b.c. The reconstruction of the street requires the matching of grades for
the adjoining improvements at east and west end of the project. An
embankment varying from 0' to 6' is needed to fill the existing dip
to the street. The street regarding and street embankment
construction wilt require driveway ramps into the southerly
properties.
S.e. Much of an existing Eucalyptus tree windbreak falls within the
roadway and right-of-way will have to be removed. The groves which
the wind break protects still exists and therefore, a replanting of a
Eucalyptus windrow along the new roadway embankment is proposed.
2. b. c. Properties immediately north of Hillside Road are relatively
unimproved, either being vacant or used as a large agricultural
estate with dirt driveways, ditching and street drainage to Hillside
Road. Such runoff drains over the street and onto the south side
properties. Same of the flows are intercepted 1n a ditch or Swale at
the easterly end of the project area and carried easterly to Alta
Lana Creek.
A new storm drain will be instailed in the street to pick up
concentrated flows from the westerly end of the project and wt ii
transmit such through the new storm drain connecting to an existing
drain in Hillside. The existing drain empties into the Alta Lama
Channel. Mater which has heretofore crossed Hillside will be
intercepted by the new stores drain and street improvements end
transmitted directly to the Alta Loma Channel.
~! ! TL-
~.~• ~ ul uirl AIM Y~/ w,ll III LE PLtlpL ew~i ace runort wm cn nas
trad7ttonally crossed over Hillside Road with minor street flooding
running through the south side properties in dirt ditch eventually
reaching Improved streets north of Nilson where such was intercepted
and taken to the Alta Loma Channel. The new stone drain should
relieve the localized street Hooding and flowage through the
properties south of Hillside.
6. b. The project to open and widen the street has required the acquisition
of a public right-of-way. there are three fronting parcels involved
in the right-of-way workings. One owner was required to dedicate as
a condition of an earlier parcel map, yet such land division predated
the City's current requirements to improve the street. The second
parcel covering the entire north half of the street has been acquired
in a right-of-way for improvement exchange which was accepted by
Counr;.t earlier this year.
/ ~~
The third or remaining parcel an the south side of the street has
reiected an offer to E~chan3e improvements for a right-of-way
dedication. An eminent domain action to acquire the missing right-
of-way is anticipated to complete the improvements as originally
considered for the project. The equity of an eminent domain action
with regards to the two other parcels would seem in question where
such have received as compensation for dedication the value of the
proposed improvements. It is therefore proposed either to leave off
finished improvements at this last property or to impose a Chapter 27
action of the 1911 Act to assess for the final improvements.
An additional complication with regards to this property is the
disposition of an old, but active Irrigation reservoir or concrete
tank. The reservoir collects water from springs in caves north of
the Ctty limits.
A steel water tank has been proposed similar in shape to the existing
water tanks used throughout the City. A closed tank is recommended
for safety purposes to eliminate mosquito control and unauthorized
aM unhealthful swimming, both which are noted with regards to the
existing reservoir. A replacement facility or the abandoraaent of the
existing reservoir will have to be provided to allow the full street _.
widening to proceed. The extsttng reservoir encroaches not quite
half-way into the ultimate street right-of-way.
B.a. The opening of the street as a public street will legalize much of
the extsttng usage of this section of the street.
The current width of the street is insufficient for two-way traffic
without one car pulling off the pavements to aTTow the other to
pass. The ravelled and alligatored pavements are also in an advanced
stage or ~rcLericratios, n<nnina replacement.
Ni dent ng of the street and opening such to formal public usage and
improving the riding surface and reaoval of flood nuisance will
invariably make the street more attractive for usage. This being the
only collector street connection north of Nilson, it is anticipated
that traffic will be considerably higher than a local street traffic
volume on the order of a residential collector street.
B.b. The northerly 1/3 of Hillside Road between Malachite and Amethyst
will remain unimproved at the end of this protect. It is estimated
that such can remain a while longer until the property develops or
until traffic demand increases to warrant further widening. Other
portions of Hillside Road have dust been widened at the Alta Loma
Creek. A stretch of Hillside between Hermosa and Mayberry also
remains narrow. Each individual widening of portions of Hillside
pushes this street towards being a through street from west of
Carnelian to east of Haven.
/~b
8.e. The opening and widening of this reach of Hillside is anticipated to
attract north side traffic presently detouring around Hillside using
Nilson Avenue.
8.g. A traffic fatality has been recorded within the project reach just
west of the Archibald intersection. The opening and widening of the
street to current street width standards will better provide for the
public safety. The additional use of the street by traffic attracted
to the improved street will increase the potential for traffic
accidents. Offsetting benefits and hazards are seen. The improving
of the street and widening of the street and removal of current flood
and pothole hazard is viewed as a net benefit.
10.b. An old irrigation reservoir exists along the project route which
encroaches into the street right-of-way. Negotiations to acquire the
right-of-way Lo widen the street would provide for the removal of
this open tank or reservoir.
Mosnuito abatement is evident with small fish having been planted in
the reservoir. Also, unsanitary human usage of the tank for swimming
is also in evidence. Aright-of-way exchange offered a new steel
tank to replace the old reservoir. Should an eminent domain action
be considered to acquire the street right-of-wAy, the tank will have
to be purchased for reaaval and/or replaced with a new tank. A
closed tank to avoid the current hazard and nuisance should be
considered.
12.a.c. Electric power and telecommunication poles and overhead lines occupy
a location about dead center in the street right-of-way.
It is currently proposed to relocate such facilities to the north
..4. .~.
p~~.ew i2v':'. iiy tiie i,Itea in an overnea0 condl ti on.
12.d.h. The water meters and hydrants along the street will have to be
relocated by virtue of the reconstruction. Util7ty notices have
already been circulated.
12.f. The installation of drainage facilities for the Master Plan Storm
Urafn shall be coordinated with the street construction. Catch
basins and the proposed 36" diameter RCP shall be installed prior to
paving. The flood control structure shall serve to re-direct storm
water flow underground from its surface flow.
12. h.i.j. The usage of this reach of Hillside Road by police, fire, and
school buses are all in evidence. The formal opening and improving
of the street will add to the convenience of all three agengies.
12.1. The existing, although private, roadway has been maintained by the
City in the past with City crews filling potholes and paving portions
of the south side Swale and dike.
The pavements will oe completely replaced, relievin, the need for
pavement repairs for several years. New curbs and gutters and
additional street pavement are added to the street system for
additional maintenance in the future.
~~- 7
CITY OF MNCHO CUCAMDNGA
NEGATIVE DEC4ARATION
1. Brief Description of Protect:
Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration for the proposed
Hillside Road Stores Drain and Reconstruction Protect, City of Rancho
Cucamonga, located between Malachite and Archibald Avenues.
2. Name and Address of Applicant:
City of Ranchc Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has deterwined that the above pro,iect
will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An Environmental
Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the initial Study prepared by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga are on fTte in the Engineering Division of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
5. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received by tha
Enoi nenr~g0 ^iv!c!en - later Liiun o:u0 pm ten (lU) calendar days from the
date of the City Council decision.
6. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigating
measures (if any) as listed on the attachments.
r
Dated May 20, 1987 i-""~'~~
gu re
City F.ngTneer
Ti-LTe `-
/~ O
cimy or RANCHO wcANONw
NOTCE OF DETER.NUtATTON
'iOr _ Stcrctary [or Resources FRC1Mt Clty of Rancho Cucamonga
1416 Ninth Street, Radm 1311 Engineering Division
Sacramento, California 95814 p, 0. Box 807
or
~ Cpunty Clerk Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Cotnty of San Bernardino
Sl)B]ECT: FDing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 2110E or 21132
of the PubGC Resources lode.
Hillside Road Storm Drain and Reconstruction
JKL Itle
tilane N. Frandsen (714) 989-:862
submitted -m Clearinghouse)
Hillside Read between iwl~chite and Archibald Avenues
Project Location _ _ - - - - - - - --
Installation of storm urain, widening of the existing narrow street to an
iect Omeription
ultimate wideth and provide the construction of asphalt concrete pavement, curbs
This is to advise that the CITY OF RAN H CUCAHONGA
Agency or aponss a gency
has approved the above detdri6ed project and has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project _ will, %will not, Mve a signi}icant effect on the envirenm.r..,
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for tAb project pursuant
- to the provisiorn at CEQA.
% A Negative Declaration was prepued for this project tatrsusnt to the
provisioro of CEQA.
The EBt or Negative Declaration and record o! Project approval may be
examined at:
CITY HALL - 9140 RASE ROAD. RANLNO cuCANONGA. CA 91701
3. Mitigation measures were, %were not, made a condition of the approval
01 the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations s, X was not, adopted for
this Prgta. - i
Date: -~~ ~n r„ZQ'77
e usse e
CITY ENGINEER
T,t e
/~ ~ Appendix F
RESOLUTION N0. Ff 7 - ~ S
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAIpNGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED HILLSII~ ROAD STORM DRAIN
AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NHEREAS, the Hillside Road Store Drain and Reconstruction as a Public
Agency Protect shall be sub3ect to compiy with Lhe California Environmental
Quality Act necessary to protect, rehabilitate and enhance the environmental
quality of the State; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its
consideration all available Inputs and has reviewed same concerning the
proposed Hillside Road Protect.
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolved as follows:
Section I.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approved the
Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Negative Declaration
for the proposed Hillside Road Storni Drain and Reconstruction Project.
Secsion t.
The City Clerk Ts directed Lo file a Notice of DeternHnation pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act.
3a
CITY OF RANCHO CTfCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
GATE: June 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Judy Acosta, Junior Engineering Aide
~ ~~~~~
x
o; I'^
F I'' ~. IZ
~ -
19; " ~
SUBJECT: ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATIONI N0. 22 FiMt
TRACT N0. 13052 (VICTORIA) TO STREET LIGHTING FN [NTENAN Cf
DISTRICT N0. 1 AND ANNEXATION N0. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE OISRICT N0. 3
RECaNio~aArloN:
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolutions
ordering the work fn connection with Annexation No. 22 and Annexation
No 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District ~o. 1 and Street Lighting
Maintenance District No. 3, respectively, and approving the Engineer's
Reports.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Attached for City Council approval are a resolutions ordering the work
in connection with Rnnexation No. 22 ono Annexation No. 4 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and 3 for Tract Nn. lin5~ rno
`lil;tac~ LyJn Cunyany doveioper or the subJect tract has been notified of
the public hearing by mail. The attached resolutions also approve the
tentatively approved Engineer's Report by Resolution No. 87-231 and
87-233.
Respec fitted,
w
RHM:
Attachments
~3 l
RESOLUTION N0. ~' 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA C'RDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION
N0. 22 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1 AND
ACCEPTING THE FINA i, ENGRi EER'S REPORT FOR TRACT N0. 13052
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
6th day of May, 1987, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 8i-232 to order
the therein described work in connection with Annexation No. 22 to Street
lighting Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 87-232
was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by
law, shown by the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on
file '.n the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the oassage of said
Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement", was duly and legally
posted in the time, form, manner, lo:.ation, and number as required by law, as
appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of
the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the
Resoluticn of Intention were 4uly mailed to all persons owning real property
proposed to be assessed far the improvements described in said Resolution of
Intention No. 87-232, according to the names and addresses of such owners as
the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk cf the Cfty
of Rancho Cucaeonga, which said copses were Suly mailed in the time, farm, and
manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in
rhu nff t~ ~f t~C ci n, auU
v tJ e~
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence,
oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and
concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to
order the proposed work.
SECTION I; It fs hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the
annexation to the District and the ordering of the work, and said City Council
hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of
Intention No. 87-232, be done and made; and
SECTION 2; The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally
dooroded: nm
SECTION 3: The assessments and method of assessment in the
Engineer's Report are hereby approved,
SECTION 4: The assessments shall not begin until after 60 percent
of said tracts ~a`ve been occupied.
d3~-
CITY OF WlNCHO CUCAMONG.4
Engineer's Report for
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1
Anne xati0n N0. 22 fOr
Tract 13052
SECTION 1, Authorityfor Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter
1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
tLandscaping and lighting Act of 2912).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex the tracts enumerated Sn Exhibit
"A" into Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has
determined Lhat the Street lights to be maintained will have an effect upon
all lots within safd tracts as well as on the lots directly abutting the
street lights.
Mork to be provided for with the assessments established by the district
are:
The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operating and servicing of street light improvements an
arterial and certain collector stre¢ts. Improvement maintenance i5
considered of general Denef it to all areas in the District and cast
shall be divided on a per lot basis. In the case Of Condominiums
with airspace ownership only, and apartments, a dwelling ~.:^.,t >hau
be considered to benefit the sane as a lct.
SFrrr nl ;, plans and Specifications
The pt ens and specfficati ons far street lighting have been prepared by the
developers, The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions
of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering
Division, Reference is hereby made to the subJect tract map or development
pi an and the assessment diagran for the enact location of the street lighting
areas. The plans and specifications For street lighting improvement on the
individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent
as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto.
Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district
include: the repair, removal or replacement of alt yr any part of
any improvement, pr ovidinq for the it lum+nativn of the subl ect area.
X33
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs wilt be incurred for street lighting improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Ba;ed on available data,
it is estimated that maintenance costs far assessment purposes will he as
indicated below. These costs are estimated only, actual assessments will be
based on actual cost data.
The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation Na. 22 comprised of 12,97b units and 433 (5BOOL lights},
429 (9500L street lights), 1 (22,000L) and 14 (27,500L lights) is shorn below:
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy:
Lamps lamps
Lamb Size* YTD Annexed Rate
5800E 433 0 S 8.93
95001 427 2 f10.ib
22,000E 0 1 513.84
2JSOOL 14 0 515.31
*High Pressure Sodium Vapor
Lamps Rate No_s Total
433 X f 8.93 X 12 - 546,400.28
429 X 510.16 X 12 - 52,303.68
1 X f13.84 X 12 166.08
14 515.31 % 12 • 2,572.08
I1ZJ~3ZET2
2. Costs per dwelling Unit:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost 5101 422.12• 57.82/year/unit
o. o n is n stnct --TtF,97~
57.82 divided by 12 S .65 /nq./u: it
Assessment shall apply to each lot as explained in Section 6.
SECTION 5. Assessment Ota9ram
copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this report and
iaoeiea "Street Lighting Maintenance 0lstrict No. 1", Annexation No. 22. These
diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
13~
SECTION 6. Assessnent
Icprovecents for the District are found to be of general benefit to all
dwelling units within the District and that assessaent shall be equal for each
unit. Nhere there is acre than one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of
assessable land, the assessaent for each lot or parcel shall be proportional
to the nwber of dwelling units per lot or parcel.
It is proposed that all future developiaent shall be' annexed to the
District.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts Resolution of Prelicinary Approval of Ctty Engineer's
Report.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and sets
public hearing date.
3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testicony and
detercines to fora a District or abandon the proceedings,
4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the Ctty Council.
5. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and
approves, or codifies and approves the Individual assesscents.
/3S
EKFIIBIT •a~~
Properties and improvements to be included within Anne xatfon No. 22 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District 1:
PROJECT p/p
Tract 13052 221 lots
5800E
LrteL
f 3;~
2 1
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. Z Z
,
~ ` ~
, f ~ _
, rtw~wida ~rr~eer
:~
QO
~ i
i i a'
j _
'
•
i
}
r
{ a.\ ~~ a
~
QM/V.~ ~~
i .
{ ~
{ i
:Q 1 ~ ~ '. ~
~a1,
i • i~ :
~~
~.+[
.+ r
L \
~"9
•
\' 4
i r
z
~ m
a • 1
I i i ii its ii iI
i' I ~
o ~
~
F ~~ \ it •~ i r {i r
~ • i ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~
(
~ 1•
• A'S i~ _
~ ~~~
• i • ~!~~• i ~ ~MQaoM. GT%
~ uT
I
m
1
~n
Is
• ~7 ~ ,
~~ ~ • ! ~
•.J
. ~ ~~ J
a ~s
_ -
~C
~I
i ' Cyoo{Gr
• I l
'm
iI
ltl
s
,
j
'
3'
'
`P1iONPKC~ BTRQT
_
. . _... ._- I
BASE -.,UNE .- _ RpA -.
"c~~~
,~, ciz~r o>~ aAxcao cvcNSOxae
~,-~; ~~' > covx{rsr of serr sl~sxA~ovo
= a<= ~ ~ srAr~ OF CALII~ORMA ~ T
~ ~m ~ lv
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 7 ~ ~ ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RRNCHO
CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNE%AT[pi
N0. 4 TO STREET LIGHT'NG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3 AND
ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT N0. 13052
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
6th day of MAy, 1987, adopt its Resolution of Intention Ho. 87-234 to order
the therein described work in connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, which Resolution of Intention No. 87-234
was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner es required by
law, shown by the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on
file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said
Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement", was duly and legally
posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by law, as
appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of
the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the
Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property
proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of
Intention No. 87-234, according Lo the names and addresses of such owners as
the same appears on the last mailing ar as known to the City Clerk of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and
manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file to
•ti~ ..ff icc of .uc vi ~~ Cl et ni aliu
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence,
oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and
concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to
order the proposed work.
SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the
annexation to the District and the ordering of the work, and said City Council
hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of
Intention No. 87-234, be done and made; and
SECTION 2: The Report filed by the Engineer ;s hereby finally
ap pr _ycri~ nn
SECTION 3: The assessments and method of assessment in the
Engineer's ell port are hereby approved.
SECTION 4: The assessments shall not begin untr~ after 60 percent
of said tracts Fave been occupied.
/3 ~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA
Engineer's Report for
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3
Annexation No. 4
for Tract No. 13052
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with
1, Division 15 of the Streets and
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
the requirements of Article 4, Chapter
Highways Code, State of California
This City Council has elected to
"A" into Street Lighting Maintenance
determined that the street lights to
all lots within said tracts as well
street lights.
annex the tracts enumerated in Exhibit
District No. 3. The City Council has
be maintained will have an effect upon
as on the tats directly abutting the
Mork to be provided for with the assessments estaDllshed by the district
are:
The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operating and servicing of street light improvements on
local residential streets. ]mprovement maintenance 1s considered of
general benefit to all areas in the 015tri:t and cost shall be
divided on a per lot basis. In the case of condominiums with
airspace ownership only, and apartments, a dwelling unit shall be
rn nc idnnnA •n A..n..il• ~A~ _
__. __ ._ _~...... ...~ aa«c da d iu~.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for street lighting have bean prepared by the
developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions
of approval for the development and as apprroved 6y the City Engineering
Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development
plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the street lighting
areas. The plans and specifications far street Lighting improvement on the
individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent
as if said plans and specfflcs were attached hereto.
Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district
include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of
any improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area.
/39
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No casts will be incurred for street lighting improvement construction.
A11 improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on available data,
it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will be as
indicated below. These costs are estimated only, actual assessments will be
based on actual cost data.
The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 3
(including Annexation No. 4 comprised of 2256 units and 758 (5800L lights),
and 6 (9500L street lights) is shown below:
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy:
Lamps Lamps
Lamp Size* YTD Annexed Rate
5800E 703 55 f 8.93
9500E 6 0 f10.16
*Migh Pressure Sodium Vapor
Lamps Rate Mo's Totdi
758 X f 8.93 X 12 = (54,576.00
6 X (10.16 X 12 = 731.52
355; fOT. Sf
2. Costs per dwelling Unit:
iotai Annual Maintenance Cost (55,307.52= f24.51/year/unit
o. o ni s n str ct -'2P56~-
f24.51 divided by 12 ~_ (2.04/mo./unit
Assessment shall apply to each tot as explained in Section 6.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this report and
labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3", Annexation No. 4.
These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to all
dwelling units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each
unit. where there is more than one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of
assessable land, the assessment for each lot or parcel shall be proportional
to the number of awaiting units oar lot or parcel.
It i5 proposed that all future development shall be annexed to the
District.
!~v
SECTION 7. Order of Events
Lity Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's
Report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and sets
public hearing date.
4. Cfty Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and
detervines to forty a District or abandon the proceedings.
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council.
6. Every year in June, the Cfty Council conducts a pu011c hearing and
approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
///
EXHIBIT "A"
Properties and tnprove~ents to De included within Annexation No. 4 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District 3:
Arterial
rNncr D/D SDOa ~5~713~[
Tract 13052 221 lots 55 0 D
~~
ASSESSMENT dIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3
ANNEXATION NO. $
1~~~b
_ ...;.,..,. ..i... , .
' ~ • _ • :~~5 • ~ ~. F/11_TINTdJ _ i tTPtCf^~
Y7 i1'~i'i i, •~IVi is it i_3 t/I .2 i r~~ O
:1 .. ~uc~ ca+~~ R
.. v - Ikf
v ~ '~~~ ~~
,~° T•)
i 1. .L
b
,~
F i /~. F <
z ~ Il 4 ` TCT. ~ l~l
m I I; rlil\ 9 3~ i
~ i f / i { ~.
1
4 ' .=
.~~
i= _ ,I
t. _ ~
SASE LINE ROA°
/ C~~
°~`%uO~:, CITY OF AANCIHO CUCAMONGA ~ 7B 1 05'
9~
. r~ `~ _ _ COUN'1R OF 9AN BEBNARDINO i
i %~." '
~. ~~ ~ BTATE OF CALIFOItNU A T
D~ lv
19'1 ~~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
~~
o ~
i'- ~ z
U. >
1977
DATE: June 3, 1987
TO: City Council and City Manager
PROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Assistant City Manager
BY: Jerry B. Fulwood, Assessment Revenue Coordinator
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution ContirminQ Amended
Assessments for Tract Map 9649 Within The
Alta Loma Channel (84-2).
Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution
confirming the amended assessments at the close of the
public hearing.
EVALUATION:
The Street and Highway Code Part 10, Section 8730 thru
Section a~aa under Division of [,and and Bond provides
procedures for the apportionment oP assessments necessitated
by the division of land. The attached resolution confirms
the amended assessments following the close of the public
hearing,
The Public Hearing Notice has been published twice Sn a
local newspaper ae epeciEied in The Streets and Highway Code
Part 10, Section 6730 thrv Section 8934.
Respectful Submitted,
RAR:JBP, m
IL/(,///~/GSA/~ y/~//
~Y T
RESOLUTION N0. ~ H 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENTS IN A
SPBCIAL ASSESSMENT ^ISTRICT
WHERHAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously conPSrmed assessments Sn a
special aaseaement district pursuant to the terms and
provisions oP the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1933", being
Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of She State of
California, and bonds were Ssaved to represent the costa for
unpaid assessments pursuant to the terms and provisions of
the "Improvement Bond Act of 1916", being Division 30 of
said Code, said special asaeaement district known and
designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 84-2 (hereSnaf ter
referred to as the "Assessment District") and,
WHEREAS, subsequent thereto, certain lots and/or parcels of
land upon wRich there are unpaid assessments have been
apportioned or dividad, and this legislative body did
receive a Reapportionment Report and proposed amended
assessment and did set a public hearing on the amended
assessment. all as authorized pursuant to the provisions of
Part 10 oP the "improvement Bond Act of 1915"; and,
WHEREAS, at this time all notices Rave been given as
required by law; all persons intarested in the original
assessment, or in the lands affected thereby, or in the
bonds secured thereby, did, at the time of the public
hearing, hear and determine all ob,~ections to the division
of the assessments, and, this legislative body is now
desirous to proceed to confirm the amended assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT ZS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION ]. That the above recitals are all true and
cor recs.
SECTION 2. That the amended assessment contained Sn the
"Reapportionment Report" Ss hereby approved and
confirmed by this legislative body.
~ ~~5
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall, immediately upon adoption
of this Resolution, cause the following:
A. File a copy oP the amended assessment, as
conPirned, with the County Auditor, who
shall annually thereafter enter upon the
assessment roll the Snstallmente coming
due on each component part of the original
parcel opposite a description of the
respective parcels so assessed.
B. The amount charged for fees and coats as
shown on the amended aaeeeement as to each
parcel shall be entered upon the aeeessnent
roll and shall be collected along with the
lSrst installment of the amended assessment.
C. All amounts collected for Pees and costs of
the reapportionment shall be deposited Sn
the General Fund of the City.
O. The amended assessment roll and diagram
shall immediately be recorded in the Office
of the Superlntendert of Streets.
E. A copy of the amended assessment diagram
shall immediately be filed in the Office
oP the County Recorder, and said amended
diagram shall cross reference the original
assessment diagram for the Assessment
District. Said amended diagram shall
contain the information as set forth in
Section 8734 of the Streets and NSghways
code.
~ ~~~
/ 7 1~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
2 y
U
~ r
o s
F $ Z
1977
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Assistant City Manager
BY: Jerry H. Pulwood, Assessment Revenue Coordinator
SDBJECT: Approval of Resolution Confirming Amended
Assessments Por Parcel Mao 9318 Within The
Sixth Street Industrial Park Refunding
District (82-SR1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that council approve the resolution
confirming the amended assessments at the close of the
pubic head ng.
„nm.nv.
The Street and Highway Code Part 10, Section 8730 thru
Section 8734 under Division of Gand and Bond provides
procedures for the apportionment of assessments necessitated
by the division of land. The attached resolution confirms
the amended assessments following the close of the public
nearing.
The Public Hearing Notice has been published twice in a
local newspaper as specified in The Streets and Highway Code
Part 10, Section 8730 thru Section 8934.
Re~~ pllyi Submitted,
III Y /// /!/~~/
ftAR:JBF:kmm
Y
RESOLUTION NO. O / `o
RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
CONFIRMING AMENDED ASSESSMENTS IN A
SPECIAL ASSBSSMBNT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously confirmed asscsamente in a
special assessment distrSci pursuant to the terms and
provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1914"; being
Division 12 of the Streata end Righways Coda of the State of
California, and bonds acre issued to represent the coats for
unpaid assessments pursuant to the terms and provisions of
the "Improvement Bond Act of 1916", being Division 10 of
said Code, said special assessment district known and
designated ae ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82-1R (hereinafter
referred to ae the "Assessment District") and,
WHEREAS, subsequent thereto, certain Iota and/or parcels of
land upon which there are unpaid assessments have been
apportioned or divided, and this legislative body did
receive a Reapportionment Report and proposed amended
assessment and did set a public hearing on the amended
assessment, all as authorized pursuant to the provisions of
Part 10 of the "Improvement Hond Act of 1915"; and,
WHEREAS, at this time all notices h>re 6een given as
required by law; all peso le Snterea'~d Sn the original
assessment, or in the lands aftected r'~ereby, or Sn the
bonds secured thereby, did, at the ti,re of the public
hearing, hear and determine all o6~ections to the division
of the assessments, and, this legislative body is now
desirous to proceed to confirm the amended asseeementa.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SP.CTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and
correct.
sECTtoN 2. 't'hat the amended assessment contained in the
"Reapportionment Report" is hereby approved and
confirmed by this legislative body,
Y
SHCTION 3. The City Clerk shall, immediately upon adoption
of this Resolution, caves the following:
A. File a copy of the amended aseeeemenc, as
confirmed, with the County Auditor, who
shall annually thereafter enter upon the
eaeeaeaent roll the installments cosing
due on each component part of the original
parcel oppoelte a deacrlption of the
respective parcels so assessed.
S. The amount charged for fees and costa as
shown on the amended aeeeasment ae to each
parcel shall be entered upon the aseeeement
roll and shall be collected along wlth the
first installment of the amended aeeesement.
C. All amounts collected for fees and coats oP
the reapportionment shall be deposited in
the General Nund of the City.
D. The amended aueeeement roll and diagram
shall immediately be recorded in the otf ice
of the Superintendent of Streets.
6. A copy of the amended assessment diagram
shall Smmedlately be tiled in the 0lfice
of the County Recorder, and said amended
diagram shall cross reterence the original
asaeasment diagram for the Assessment
District. Said amended dlagram shall
contain the information ae set forth in
Section e734 of the Streets and Highways
Code.
1 ~ ~L--~
I
`1"
nrmv nc n w unvn nr rn ~ unwrn .
STAFF REPORT ~~'~ ~.
o
> ~
F
U. ~;
i9n
DATE: June 3, 1987
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Assistant City Manager
HY: Jerry B. Fulwood, Assessment Revenue Coordinator
SUBJECT: Approval of Annual Assessment and the Engineer's
Report for the Park and Recreation Improvement
District E5 P.D. (Heritage and Red Hil_
Community Parksl.
Recommendation:
it is recommended that City Council hold the public hearing,
and if appropriate, approve the attached resolution
establishing the assessments for 1987-88 for the Park and
Recreation Improvement DietrSct 85 P.D, (Heritage and Red
Background/Analysis:
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 172, each year
the City Council must approve xn Annual Engineer's Report
which reviews the status of each district and pro]ects
expenditures and revenues to establish the rate of assessment
for the next fiscal year. The following Ss a summary oP
1986/97 and 1987/88 assessments for the Park and Recreation
Improyement Distract 65 P.D.
1986/87 1987(88
Single Family Residential g 33.50 g 33.50
Residential with more than one dwelling unit were and will be
assessed for an amount equal to $33.50 times the number of
dwelling unite.
~~
Page 2 of 2 continued
The following is a summary of 1986/67 and 1987/88 assessments
for vacant land in the Park and Recreation District.
1986 87 19a7!88
Parcels less than 1.5 acres S 16.75 9 18.75
1.5 acres to 3.5 acres S 50.25 $ 50.25
3.51 acres to 1.0 acres $117,25 $111.25
7.01 acres to 14.0 acres $234.50 $234.50
14.01 acres to 25.0 acres $469.00 $469.00
25.01 acres and larger 8837.50 $837.50
The assessments for the Park a.id Recreation Improvement
District will not increase for fiscal year 1987/88.
Respectfully Submitted,
~P:
/ 5/
RESOLUTION NO. o ~ "~
A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP RANCHO
CGCi.PiONGA, CALIFORNIA, T_0 LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMHNT DISTRICT 85 P.D.
(HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARK)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City oP Rancho
Cucamonga did on the sixth day of May, 1987, adopt its
Resolution of Intention No. 87-227 to order the therein
described work in connection with the Park and Recreation
Improvement District which Resolution of Intention No. 87-
22T was duly and legally published in the time, form and
manner as required by law, shown by the aPfldavit of
Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file Sn the
office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received
considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the
,juris3lction facts in this proceeding and concerning the
necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired
lurSedlction to order the proposed work.
SECTION 1: It Se hereby resolved by the City Counci3
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and
convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments
within the Park and Recreation Improvement District for the
fiscal year 1987-88, and said City Council hereby orders
that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution
of intention No. 87-227, be done and made; and
SECTION 2: Be St further resolved that the report
filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and
SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments
for fiscal year 1987-88 and method of assessment in the
Engineer's Report are hereby approved.
l ~~
ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
City of Rancho Cucamonga
PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
(85 P.D.)
Fiscal Year 1987-88
Assessment Revenue Administration
~$3
TA8L6 OF CONTENTS
PAGE
96CTION 1 AUTHC?rte;. NOR RHPORT 1
SHCTION 2 ?ZRDINOS 2
96CTION 3 DISTRICT ANALYSIS 3
SECTION 4 BSiIMATE 08 COST
SECTION 6 MHTNOD O8 9PRBAD 5
EHNIBIT A A39HSSMBNT DIAQRAM MAPS
~~~
SRCTIOH 1 - AOTHORITY BOR RBPORT
This repcrt !or tha 1987-3988 Fiscal Yaar update ie prepared
pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucaaonga end in coapliance with the requireaenta o! Article •,
Chapter 1, Landscaping and LSphtinq Act o! 1972, being Division
15, Section 22500 0! the Strelta and Highpay Code. Provisions
for this annual asseesoent are included in Chapter 3 0! tha
Landscaping and Lighting Aet o! 1972.
The purpose o! this report Se to eat forth findings end the
asaesaaerc analysis for the annual levy of asaeeamenta for Park
and RlCreailon LnprOVCAGRt U3air1CC an. eD-Ca, Lhereatter
referred to ae "the Dia[riet". This District, utilizing direct
benefit assessments, has been created to provide tunda to finance
the coat o! construction, maintenance, and operation of Heritage
Community Park and Red HS11 Comunity Park in the City o! Rsncho
Cucamonga.
-1-
/ ~~
SECTION 2 - FINDINO~
Section 22573, Landacapinq and Lighting Act oP 1972, requires
asseaements to be levied according to benefit rather than
according to nssessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to 6e assessed upon lands within an
aeaeeament district may be apportioned by any torsula
or method which fairly distributes the net amount among
all asaeasa63e lots or parcels in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received 6y each such lot or
parcel from the improvements."
The means oP determining whether or note parcel will benefit
frog the improvements is contained in the Improvement Act of 1911
(Division 7, commencing with Section 6000 of the Streets and
Highways Code, Siate of Calilornia).
The 1972 Act also provides for the clemeSf Scation of various
areas within an assessment district into benefit areas where, by
r-aeon of variations Sn the nature, location, and extent of the
improvements, the vsrioue areas will receive dilterinq degrees of
i,m,eiii iwm ii,a iryruvawauio. vaueliiiaay avoaa wuaiai vi air
territory receiving subetantSally the same degree of benefit Pros
the improvements and may consist of contiguous or noncontiguous
areas.
As the easeeamente are levied on the basis of benefit, they are
considered a user's Pee, not a tax; and, therefore, are not
governed by Article XIIIA.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, ccunty ,
state, or the Federal government, are not assessable without the
approval of the particular agency and, norms lly, are not
assessed. Certain other parcels used for railroad mainline
right-of-way, public utility transmission right-oP-way, common
areas, and nonprof It organizations (S.e., churches, clubs) are
'1° ~ frcA °eaEAe.^.
.... _.._Ap_ _.. ..
The assessment for mobile home parka will be based upon the
underlying lot acreage.
_g_
/S6
9RCTION 3 - DISTRICT ANALYSIS
Improvement Diet_rict Bounder
The improvement district includes all of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of the
Stlwanda area in the northeasterly section of the City.
The Etiwanda area ie not included in the improvement
dlatrict because community park design and construction
in that area is, in general, 6etng tinanced by
development tees pursuant to the Quimby Act. The
assessment dlatrict 6ounflary Se shown on the assessment
diagram map (6xhl bit A).
All parcels of real property attested are more
particularly deecri bed Sn maps prepared in accordance
with Section 32T of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
which are on ills in the ottice oP the Ban Bernardino
Gounty Assessor in the ipll 01 Rerords, 172 West Third
Street, San Bernardino, California and which are hereby
made a part hereof by reference.
District Name
City of Ranchc Cucamonga Park Improvement District No.
85-PD
rac133ties
The existing works of improvement are generally
described ae follows:
1. The construction of Heritage Community Park
including, but not limited to, grading, planting,
irrigation, onalte roads, sidewalks, parking lots,
lighting, restroom, equestrian tacilitiea,
playground equipment, picnic tacilitiea, athJ etic
fac11t11es, and walking, ,J ogging and equestrian
trails.
The construction oP Red NS11 Commu.^.i t'r Park
inr l,~d 1.^.g, bu is net limited io, grading, planting,
irrigation, oneite roads, sidewalks, perking Iota,
lighting, waterscape, restrooma, senior citizens
facilities, playground equipment, picnic
tac111tiea, malor lighted athletic tac.ilitie ~,
,Jogging trail, undergro~ind storm drain system, and
ad)acent public afros t. improvements.
-3-
/~~
SECTION 4 - ESTIMATE OP COST
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 peraits eerrying forward
surpluses or recovering deficits in subsequent tiacal years.
Coat.1 for the district will be reviewed snowily. Any surplus
credited agalmt aseeasaenta or any deficits shall be included 3n
the aaaeeaaent for the !allowing tiacal year.
3987-39H8 Piacal Year Batiaated Coate and Hudget Susaary
Deficit frog 1966-198? Budget (36,447)
Contributions (interest earned)
Redeaption Pund (Liaited to
Pay Bond Debt Service) 12,IBb
Special Reserve Fund (Lialte'
to Pay Hood Debt Service) 30.773
Sotal Estiaated Available Punda 96,611
County 9peciel Charges -0-
Adainistration Charges 4^,^
n^nnrt~~,tJ' iav~ -Oy
Piacal Agent Charges -0-
Debt Service Inetallaent (1/2/88) 318,378
Debt Service Installment (7/2/68) {88,376
Operation and Maintenance 14 823
Balance to Assessment $906,060
_4_
~~
96CTION 6 - METHOD OF SPREAD
The Landscaping and Lighting Aet oP 1972 indicates that
aeaessmente may be apportioned by any formula or method which
fairly distributes coats among all lots or parcels within the
District in proportion to the estimated benefits received.
A. DePinitione
The DSatrict Se divided into three cafegoriea for the
purpose of determinSng the asaesamenta ae follows:
Category A - includes parcels beaed on the number oP
exSating residential unite within certain ranges of
parcel size.
Category B - Includes all parcels not defined in
Category A or Category C.
Category C - includes exeapt parcels. Exempt parcels
were discovered by searching the County Assessor's
computer tepee !or those parcels that are lSated as
exeapt by the Assessor or which have an assessed value
oP lees than g500. In conducting thSa search, several
parcels were included ae exempt that show parcel sizes
in excess of 1.6 acres and type codes of, for example,
.~• uyaieuiLuae. Tiacac yea wia ware auucu
backuinto the rolls and assessed.
B. Formula
The asaesaaent formula Se bnaed on actual land use
informs tlon contaSned Sn the current San Bernarflino
Assessor's computer files and Assessor's parcel maps.
Category A:
All percale centainSng axiating residential dwellSng
units and meeting the following conditions:
Assessor's Number of 6xSating Res.
____ Banrto Panrnl S1v Pane llWell,ny nnitu~P$rc@1
0-4 [,esa than 1.6 acre and 1 or more dwellSng unite
5 1.51 to 3.5 acres and 2 or more dwelling unite
6 3.51 to 7.0 scree and 4 or more dwelling unite
7 7.01 to 16.0 scree and a or sore dwelling units
8 14.01 to 25.0 ac ree and 15 or. more dwellSng unite
9 25.01 acres 6 larger and 28 or more dwellSng unite
-5j-"9
/J /
Category A ie based on the number of axleting
reaSdential units. The atlas] aeaesement for Bond Debt
Service per existing residential dwelling unit may
decrease each year as more reaidential unite are built
within the improvement district. Maintenance Doers,
however, are expected to increase annually and will
somewhat offset !'..e anticipated decrease in aeeeeeaenie
due to new de;ciopment.
Category a:
All parcels not defined Sn Category A or Category C.
Category C:
All exempt parcels ae defined below:
1. all properties currently tax exempt;
2. all public ovmerahipe;
3. railroad mainline rights-of-way;
•. major utility tranamiaeion rights-of-way;
3. mineral rights;
6. parcels so small they currently cannot 6e built
upon;
7. all normally assessable parcels with an assessed
valuation of less then $500 and 1.5 acres ar
less; and
8. nonprofit organizations (i.e., churches).
C. Summary of PrslSminary Asaeaement Amounts
Category A:
The prelSminary eatSmated assessment which will be
evied a:.uually .a 333,30 par reaidential dwelling unit
for those parcels in Category A. Category A parcels
containing more than one reaidential dwelling unit will
be assessed Por an amount equal to Q3350 times the
number of dwelling unite.
-6-
)/ O
Category B:
The aeeeseaent which may be levied annually for parcels
within Category H shall be according to the following
schedule:
Assessor's Aeeeseaent
Size Ranee Detin_tlon per Parcels
0 - 4 lees than 1.5 acres 9 16.75
5 .t.5 acres to 3.5 scree 50.25
6 3.61 acres to 7.0 acres 117.25
T 7.01 :crew to 14.0 scree 234.5^
6 14.01 acres [0 25.0 scree 469.00
9 25.01 aCroa and larger 697.50
Category C:
The eseesasent shell be 90.00 for Category C parcels.
• bore aeseeaaenta say vary frog the values given above
by 9.01 or 90.2 either way. The computer spreads the
actual Balance to Aasesesent, carries the extra pennies
lalt over Eros an even spread, and adds then one at a
time to the aseeeasent roll troa the first parcel
uuwnward co asice ci~e cocci anaeaesenc spread exacciy
equal the balance to Asseeaeant.
The Sndlvidual 1997-1988 assesemerta ~y Assessor's parcel nuaber
(Bxhibit B) have been tabulate.i am are on file at CSty Hall with
the City Clerk of the City of Ran^ho Cucaaonga and are hereby
aade a part hereof by this reference.
Hated
_7_
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON6A
City Engineer
~ r'
Preliminary approval for annual levy of assessment of the
district and preliminary approval of the engineer's report ware
made on the day O! , 1997.
CITY CLACK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA
STATE OP CALIFORNIA
Final approval, confirmation and levy of the annual aeeeesment
and all matters Sn the engineer's report were made on the
day of 1987, by adoption of Resolution No. by
the City Council.
CITY CLERK
CITY 08 RAKCHO CUCAMONOA
9TAT6 OF CALIFORNIA
A copy o! said assessment roll and engineer's report was filed in
the offlee o! the City Bngineer and the City Clerk an the _
day of 1987.
CITY CLHRH
CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONOA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY BNOIN66R
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONOA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.e_~~ ~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT ~,~ , .~
o
p' Z
V ~` ~ ~>
1977 (
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Robert A, Rizzo, Assistant City Manager
BY: Jerry 8. Fulwood, Assessment Revenue Coordinator
SUBJECT: Approval of Annual Assessment and the Engineer's
Report for Landscape Maintenance Districts
Noe. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Recommendation:
it is recommended chat City Council hold the public hearing,
and if appropriate, approve the attached resolution
establishing the assessments for 1987-88 for Landscape
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, d, 5, and 6,
Background/AnalVeis:
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 197?, each year
the City Council must approve an Annual Engineer's Report
which reviews the status of each district and projects
expenditures and revenues to establish the rate of assessment
for the next fiscal year. The following Ss a summary of
1986/87 and 1987/88 assessments far the landscape districts.
1986/87 1987
L. M. Dist. Nc. (General City) S 28.00 S 25.50/unit
L. M. Dist. Na. 2 (Victoria) $223.77 $195,00(unlt
L. M. Dist. No. 3 (Hyssop) $258.75 $258.75/unit
L. M. Dist. No. 4 (Terra Vistaj $12G.34 $ 98.70/unit
L. M. Oise. No. 5 (Tot Lot) $113,41 $111,00/unit
i. 6i. ...,s ~. ..c. ~ ,Car'rn) _~_ $195.00/,l.iir
Resp fully Sub tted,
r
~RAR:JBF:
~~
RESOLUTION NO, p 7 '~ 6 S
A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 3, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4, LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5, AND LANDSCAF~ MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT N0. 6 POR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-6B PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGNTING ACT OF 1972 IN CONNECTION WITH
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6.
WNEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga did on the sixth day of May, 1987, adopt its
Resolution of Intention No. 67-226 to order the therein
described work in connection with Landscape Maintenance
Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 which Resolution of
intention No. 87-226 was duly and legally published in the
time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the
affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on
file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, Bald City Council having duly received
considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the
innicAi,-41nn fonfc 1n •A/e nAin_,. n_A_ _ n~.... •w..
necessity for the contemplatednwork and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired
jurisdiction to order the proposed work.
S,,cCTioN 1: it is hereby resolved by the City Council
cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and
convenience requires the levy and collet t.ion of assessments
within Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6 for the fiscal year 1987-66, and said City Council
herebv orders that the work, as set forth and described in
said Resolution cf Intention No, 87-226, be done and made;
and
SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report
Filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and
SECTION 3: Be St finally resolved that the aesesementa
for fiscal year 1987-88 and method of assessment in the
Engineer's Report are hereby approved.
~-f t~~6~
ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
pTY OF RANCIiO CUCd1MON0A
Landsosps MaiNsrancs DNtricts
Nos. 1, 2. S. 4, 6 snd 6
FNor lAr ~ss~-es
A~Mnt Rsrsn~ AdnN~NhWon
// S
Annual Engineer's Report
Landscape Maintenance Districts 1, 2, 3, a, S and 6
Hlscil Year 3987/88
The annual report for Landscape Maintenance
Districts Sa prepared Sn compliance with the
requirement of Article t, Chapter 1, Division 5 of
the Streets and Righwaya Code, 9fate of Calitornia
(Landscaping and Lighting Aet of 3972)
Thies report deals with the actual costa for fiscal
year 1986-87 and the projected costs for flacal
year 1987-BB to determine aeaeasmenta. The
aasesements will be used to furnish aarvices and
materials !or the ordinary and usual aaintenanee,
operation, servicing and restoration of parkways
and park improvements. Maintenance of the
landscape diairicts is considered of general
benelft to all crass Sn the district and cost shall
be divided as indicated in the body of this report.
Detailed maintenance activities include the repair,
removal or replacement of all or any part o! any
improvement, providing for the life, growth, health
and beauty o! the landscaping, including
cultivation, irrigation, trimming, epreyinq,
P~at111>Inn 1..~~N n~ inw Aiw~~~~ ,.. M... ~~ •h~
- .~
,-
~
~
removal of
trimainga, rubbish, debris and other
solid waste, the maintenance, repair and grattiti
lrom walls immediately adiacent to the cultivated
areas.
Parkway and park improvements were constructed by
the developers !or the individual subdiviaione.
The plane and parkways are es stipulated in the
condition of approval for each development and as
approved by the Engineering Division.
SUBMITTED BY: Assessment Revenue Administration
I
APPROVED:
Russell Maguire, City Engineer
/~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance Districts
Page 2
LANDSCAPE MAIRTERANCE DISTRICT NO~1
(GENERAL CITY PAREWAYS)
Fiscal Year 1986-87 Actual Coats
86/87 Projected
EudOet 6/30/87
Payroll 9 2,750.00 S -0-
Fringe Benefits 962.00 -0-
Maint. 8 Oper. 500.00 1,350.00
Vehicle Maint. 1,527.00 75.00
Contrast Sarv. 19,200.00 20,000.00
Capital Bxpmnd. 163,898.00 -0-
Water 13,800.00 18,504.00
Electric 3,500.00 2,800.00
brig. Rector. -0- 900.00
Aeamt. Admin. 8,453.00 9,917.00
TOTAL $244,390.00 $ 53,348.00
During tiacal year 1986/87 the following tracts
•.•^- .»..... e,3 .G ,.d.'....i'Ay2 .8o i•.Ceum.~a uin irlec
No. 1~
Annexation No. 26 Tract 12922 308 Condos.
Tract 12801-2 33 S.F.
Tract 11853 72 Condos.
Tract 10210 33 S.F.
Annexation No. 27 Tract 12650-1 54 S.F.
Annaxation No. 28 D.R, 85-33 72 Apta.
D.R. 85-01 168 Apts.
Annexation No. 29 Tract 30627
Tract 10627-1-3 321 S.F.
Annexation No. 30 Tract 96{9 39 S.F.
Tract 11606-2-4 277 S.F.
Tract 11626 82 S.F•
Traci 11793 47 S.P.
Tract 11932 10 S.F.
Tract 12726 33 S.P.
Tract 12721 21 S.F.
/~
Engineer's Report - 1987-BB
Lardseape Malntenance Districts
Page 3
Annexations (continued)
Tract 12801 32 5.8.
Tract 13066 27 S.F.
Annexation No. 31 P.M, 0902 2 D.U.
D.R. B5-b6 n24 Apts.
Tract 12952 I'72 S.B.
Annexation No. 32 Tract 12650-2 42 S.F.
T*act 12772 47 S.F.
Projectioar !or Fieeal Year 1987/88
Projected nuaber of square feet to be salntained in
lSscsl year 1991-BB ~ 235,:130 S.H.
PROJECTED EILPBNDITURES
Aaeeaeaent Adginletratlon $27,180.00
Maintenance & Operations 2,039.00
Contract Services 31,014.00
Capital Expenditures 183,898.00
Water 26,000.00
Electric 3,300,00
brig. nestorauon 6,028.00
General Maint. 17.200.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $296,659.00
1987-88 Projected Revenue
6795 units at $25.50/unit = $173,223
1986/87 Carryover = 170.000
$343,225
e
4NrYe
Y
I
^
ee M~ HtN 11A~ eeA
~~
Hng ineer'e Report - 1987-BB
Landscape Maintenance Dlsirlcts
Page 4
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 2
(VICTORIA PLANNED COMMDNITY)
Fiscal Year 3986-87 Actual Costa
86/87 Projected
Budget 6/30/87
Regular Payroll $33,729.00 $22,853.00
Fringe Benefits 13,805.00 8,000,00
Mainz./Operailana 5,000.00 3,000,00
Vehicle Ma1nt. 26,000.00 1,500.00
Contract Serv. 341,941.00 100,000.00
Capital Expend. 307,459.00 5,000.00
Water 15,000.00 36,975.00
Eleetrle 3,000.00 1,180.00
Aaamt. Admin. 19,798,00 32,566.00
TOTAL $ 368,732.00 $213,054.00
During flaeal ye
developed into trac
y••,~ y" ar 1986/67 vacant land was
ts. The tracts and number of
Tract Noo 12832-1 135 D.V.
Tract No. 12832-2
Tract No. 12832-3
Tract No. 13027-1 157 D.U.
Tract No. 13027-2
Tract Nc. 13027-3
Traci No. 13052-1
Tract No. 13052-2
Tract No. 13052-3
Tract No. 13022 180 D.U.
Tract No. 13057 147 D.U.
Tract No. 13058 203 D.V.
Traci No. 13059 137 D.U.
Tract No. 13050 86 D.U.
/~9
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance DSstricta
Page 5
Projected 1987-68 Satimated Costs
Projected number o! square feet to be maintained in
fSSCal year 1997-BB 825,353 S.F. Tur! and 211,903
S.F. Groundeover.
PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
Assessment Administration S 8,108.00
Maintenance & Operation 6,777.00
Contract Services 308,850.00
Capital Expenditures 357,459.00
Water 75,000.00
Eleeiric 7,000.00
Irrigation Restoratlon 15,854.00
General Maintenance 21,950.00
Park Maintenance 50,500.00
TOTAL $651,498.00
1987-68 Projected Revenue
2007 units at $195/unit = 3391.368
9D9 acres Vacant land at $48.75/acre = $46,751
1986/87 Carrycver = ,350.000
9769,116
a Asaaa4m4ent BLtoq
m
t -~W
a
u
ne
ro
ss
ass
i
114
~ I/M/al ~~M/M 1~/q /10/A
/ ~U
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance Districts
Paqe 6
LANDSCAPE MA INTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3
HYSSOP
Fiscal Year 1956-87 Actual Casts
86/87 Projected
Budget 6-30-87
Payroll $200.00 -0-
Pringe Benefits 70.00 -0-
Maint./Oper. 100.00 1,136.33
Vehicle Maint. 71.00 14.00
Contract Services 83{.00 768.00
Wafer 500.00 964.00
Electric 130.00 65.00
Irriq. Restoration -0- -0-
Asamt. Admin. 345.00 3.257.00
TOTAL $2,070.00 96,224.33
Pending City Council action, annexations say occur
but parcels will not be assessed in 1987/88.
Annexed parcel will be assessed separately and will
not be considered a part of the existing district.
1987-88 Estimated Coete
Pro,j ected number of square feet to be maintained in
fiscal year 1987-88 = 6050 S.F.
P: ojected Expenditures, 1987/88
Assessment Adminlstration $ 32
Maintenance & Operation 112
Contract Services 830
Water 955
Electric 69
$2033
P: ojected Revenue
8 units at $258.75 $2070
ASSESSMENTS HAVE REMAINED CONSTANT AT 9258.75 SINCE
FORMATION
/ !/
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance Distric ts
Page 7
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 4
(THRRA VISTA PLANNHD COMMUNITYI
Projected Actual Costs Piseal Year 1986/87
86/87 Projected
Budget 6/30/87
Regular Payroll 9 26,501 9 1,200
Fringe Benefits 9,275 420
Maint. 8 Operations 5,000 4,000
Vehicle Maiat. 13,140 375
Contract Services 62,997 6,000
Water IT,000 4,320
Electric 4,000 135
Avast. Admin. 10.407 10.407
$148,320 $26,857
During Fiscal Yenr 1966/87 to following tracts were
annexed to Landscape Malntenance District No. 4:
Tract 12673 392 Aota.
Tract 12803 57 S.F.
Tract 12802-1 34 S.F.
Tract 12602-2 10 S.F.
Tract 12802-3 21 S.F.
Tract 12802-4 29 S.F.
Tract 12802-5 27 S.F.
Tract 12802-6 46 S,F.
Tract 13191 74 S.F.
Tract 13192 62 S.F.
Tract 12642 40 S.F.
Tract 12935 29 S.F.
Trac4 12937 60 S.P.
Tract 12940 36 S.F.
Tract 12941 28 S.F.
Tract 12942
~ 40 S.F. '
~
Tract 12936 48 S.F.
'
Tract 12938 56 S.F.
Tract 12939 35 S.H.
f/ ~~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance Districts
Pegs 8
Annexations (continued)
Tract 12943 41 S.F.
Tract 32944 24 S.F.
Projections !or Fieeal Year 1987/88
Square Pootage of Landscape to be Maintained =
149,578 S.F. Turf
100,767 S.P. GroundcoVer
Projected Expenditures
Aeaeaesent Adninietration g 6,880
Maintenance 8 Operations 2,008
Contract Servlcee 33,986
Water 22,300
ElectrSc 700
Irr3q. ReetoratSOn 13,100
General Maintenance 8,623
Park Maintenance 18.L00
$]08,197
Projected Revenue
1720 units at $98.00/unit 5168,360
1966/87 Carryover = 80,000
$248,360
4 ~~ ~
M
~
~ 1~ 11~
i iw
I ~M • ~
~e
le
1e\4f Iar~/ NaA
/ ~~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape Maintenance Districts
Page 9
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 5
(TOT LOT)
Projected 1986/87 Actual Coeta
86/87 Projected
Budget 6/30/81
Regular Payroll $ 200 -0-
Pringe Benefits 70 -0-
Nairt. & Oper. 100 -0-
Vi~hicle Ma1nt. 150 -0-
Cont.act Services 2,721 93,436
Water 1,100 -0-
Sl~ctric 300 -0-
Asemt. Administration 349 3{9
$4,990 93,805
THERE WERE NO ANNEXATIONS TO THIS DISTRICT DURING
1966/87.
Projections tar Piscal Year 1997/88
Square Pootaqe to be maintained ~ 24,000 S.P.
Projected E:cpendituree
Asaeeeme:nt Administration $ 176
Maint. 9 Operations 118
Contract SerVicee 1,364
Water 73
Electric
Irrig. Restoration 1,375
General Maintenance 1.36 M,
$4,739
/Y
6ngineer'a Report - 1981-88
Landscape Maintenance Districts
Page 10
~ Projer,Ted Revenue
44 unite at 9111.00/unit 84,884
1986/87 Carryover 2,500
$7,384
t ~~ B~eq
~r
f Alha
ltt
per
te1
lat
t~
110
f0gM41, i~yo it1fM
/ ~J
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Landscape MaSntenance DSstricts
Page 11
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 6
(CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITYI
Projected 1966/67 Actual Costa
THERE WERE NO COSTS INCORRED DURING FISCAL YEAR 86-
87. THE DISTRICT WAS FORMED .TUNE 4, 1966 WITH THE
FOLLOWING TRATS:
Tract 12642 40 S.F.
Tract 12935 29 S.P.
Tract 12937 60 S.B.
Tract 12940 36 S.P.
Traet 12941 26 S.F.
Tract 12942 40 S.F.
1986/6T AnnexetSona
Tract 12936 48 S.F.
Tract 12936 56 S.F.
Tract 12939 35 S.P.
Tract 12943 47 5.8.
Tract 12944 24 S.P.
Prcjeetlons for Piscsl Year 19871as
Square Pootage to be maintained =
70,000 S.P. Turf
300,000 5.8. Groundcover
Projected Expenditures
Aasesament Adainistratian 9 1,696
Maintenance & Operations 1,480
Contract Services 50,000
Water 20,000
Electric 1,500
Irr1g. Restoration -0-
General MaSntenance 1,000
Park MaSntenance -0-
$ 75,876
Projected Revenge
i 474 units et 9195/unit ~ 990,060
/ ~b
nrmv nm n
Vui vP a\tiav VllV VVVt11aV1VVH
STAFF REPORT ~~` ~~
'-
V )
1977
DATE: June 3, 1987
TO: City Council and City Manager
PROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Assistant City Manager
HY: Jerry 8. Fulwood, Assessment Revenue Caord.t nator
SUBJECT: Approval of Annual Assessment and the Engineer's
Report for Street LSahtina Maintenance Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council hold the public hearing,
and if appropriate, approve the attached resolution
establishing the assessments for 1987-H8 for Street Lighting
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 5.
Background Analysis:
i
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, each year
the City Council must approve an Annual Engineer's Report
which reviews the statue oP each district and projects
expenditures and revenues to establish the rate of assessment
for the next fiscal year. The following is a summary of
1986/87 and 1987/88 assessments for the street lighting
districts.
1986/87 1987/88
St. L.D, Dist. No, 1 (Arterial Sts.) $ 7.52 $ 7.52/unit
St. L,D. Dist. No. 2 (Local Sts.) $32.23 $25.00/unit
St. L.D. pis t. No, 3 (Victoria) $48,03 935,00/unit
St. L, D. Dist. No. 6 (Terra Vista) $32.21 $25,00/unit
i St. i,. [i ii_tr. Nn. 5 ,_arY.^.) -~- $38.SOi unit ~
Re sp c/tf/gully ubmitted,
v "'
RAR:JBF:k
/~7
RESOLUTION NO. ~ / -d 6y
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1, STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2, STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT N0. d, AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
5, FOR THE PZSCAL YEAR 1987-88 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 IN CONNECTION WITH STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga did on the sixth day of May, 1987, adopt its
Resolution of Intention No. 87-224 to order the therein
described work in connection with Street Lighting
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which
Resolution of InT,entlon No. 8T-224 was duly and legally
published in the time, form and manner as required by law,
shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of
Intention on file in the oPPice of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received
considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the
inriadintinn farts in this nA/n .._,i _ .. ~..~ wh_
necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired
,jurisdiction to order the proposed work.
SECTION 3: It is hereby resolved by the Clty Council
o£ the City oP Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and
convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments
within Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 for the fiscal year 1967-88, and said City Council
hereb}• orders that the work, as set forth and described in
said Resolution of Intention No. 87-2?.4, be done and made;
and
SECTION Z: Be it further resolved that the report
f. tied by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and
SEL'TION 3: Be St finally resolved that the -aseasments
for fiscal year 1987-88 and method of assessment in the
Engineer's Report are hereby approved.
ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
qTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA
Street l.i~tNq Makrtsnance Dishiota
Nos. 1. 2, S, 4 ar~d 6
~ 1ti.r taa~-sa
Aw.am.nt Rrw~N AdininNertlon
~y
Amwl Bngineer's Report
Street Lighting DSstriete 1, 2, 3, • and 6
1967/6B 81aca1 Year
The annual report !or Street Lighting Maintenance
Districts is prepared in compliance with the
requiresent of Article •, Chapter 1, Division 5 of
the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972(.
This report deals with the projected aetwl coats
for fiscal year 1986/67 and the projected coats for
fiscal year 1987/66 to determine asaeaements. The
asaeaaaenta will be used to furnish sarvicea and
materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance,
operation, servicing and restoration of street
light Smprovesenis. Maintenance is ,:ansidered of
general benefit io all arses in the District and
cost shall be divided as indicated in the body o1
this report.
Detailed Waintenance activities include the repair,
~, _ ..~,
~
y
~
improvement providSng
for
illwlnation of
the
subject area.
Street lights were constructed and installed by the
developers for the individual subdivisions. The
plans and street lights are as stipulated in the
conditions of approval for each development and as
approved by the Engineering Division.
SUBMITTED BY: Assessment Revenue Administration
APPROVED:
i RusAel Maguire, Ci?y Engineer
~~~
Engineer's Report - 1987-BB
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Page 2
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
' (ARTERIAL STREETS)
Projected Actual Costs Fiscal Year 1966/87
B6/8T Projected
Bvdcet 6/30/87
Maint. & Operations S 6,668 S50
Vehicle Maintenance 554 -0-
Electriciiy 45,191 30,000
Assmt. Administraiion 3,630 4 903
$56,0{3 $34,953
Number and type of Lamps in Oiatrict
9500E 256
SBOOL 208
Number of units assessed in 1986/87 ~ 7402
During fiscal year 1986/87 the following tracts and
.n. apn~... .. ____. __~__, _..
.._-.._-.._..--
~
^Sstrlct No. 1:
Un=ts 9500E 5800E 27500E
Tract 32633 117 S.F, 6 22 6
Tract 12590 31 S.F. 6
Tract 12935 29 S.F.
Tract 12937 60 S.P.
Tract 12940 36 S,F. I
Trac`_ 12941 2B S,F.
Tract 12942 40 S.F.
Tract 12673 392 Apts. 6
Tract 12802 57 S.F.
Tract 12802-1 34 S.F,
Trac 2802- 30 S.F. , ,
Tract 12802-3 2i S.F.
Tract 12802-4 29 S.F.
Tract 12802-5 27 S.F.
Tract 12802-6 46 S.F.
l~/
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Page 3
Annexations (continued)
Vnita 9500E 5800E 27500E
Tract 12642 42 S.P.
Tract 12832 135 S.F. 6
~~, Tract 13022 280 S.P. 33 2
Tract 9649 39 S.P. 6 5
Tract 31793 67 S.F. 12
Tract 11932 30 S.F.
Tract 12603 32 S.F. 4
Tract 12726 33 S.F.
Tract 12727 t3 S.P.
Tract 11606-2 58 S.F.
Tract 11606-3 47 S.F.
Tract 31606-4 43 S.P.
Tract 10627 49 S.P.
Tract 10621-1 60 S.P.
Tract 10827-2 99 S.F.
Tract 10827-3 81 S.P.
Tract 11626 83 S.n,
Tract 11915-2 150 Condos. ~
mn?rt ~onag nv c.v
Traci 13117 83 S.F.
Tract 13203 224 Condos.
Tract 12936 4B S.F.
Tract 12938 56 S.P.
Tract 12939 35 S.P.
Tract 12943 47 S.F.
Tract 12944 24 S,F,
Tract 13027 157 S.F. 4 2
D.R, 85-33 72 Apts.
D.R. 85-01 168 Apts.
Tract 10076 19 S.F.
Tract 33057 147 S,F.
Tract 13058 203 S.F.
Tract 13059 137 S.F.
Tract i3v'ov 86 s. F. '
Tract 13191 14 S.F.
P.H. 8902 2 Unlts
D.R. 85-06 624 Apts.
Tract 329:+2 172 S.F.
/G
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
I Page 4
Annexations (continued)
Units 9500E 5800E 27500E
Tract 13062 120 S.F.
Traci 12650-2 42 S.F.
Tract 12772 47 S.F.
Tract 13192 62 S.F.
Proiectioae !or BSecal Year 3987-88
A. Number and Type o! Gampe in Diatrlet to be
Maintained
9500E 219
5800E 249
22000E 2
27500E 7
B. Number o! Units to be Assessed in 1987/88 =
12,235
C. Projected Expenditures
Assessment Administration $ 48,940
Maintenance & Operations 580
Capital Expenditures 20,000
Energy Charges 35,000
$104,520
D. Projected Revenue
12,235 Assessment Units at S7.S2/unit = $92,007
1986/87 Carryover = 13.700
$105,707
~ art mw~
M
• 1~
U
Ir
e~
Y
H
~hWM M;Y aYU~ 'Alm
/~
~ Hngineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Page 5
STREET LZGNTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 2
(LOCAL STREETSI
Projected Actual Costs 1986-87
86/87 Projected
Budget 6/30/87
Maint. & Operations $ 2,058 -p-
Vehiele Maintenance 706 -0-
Hlectrieity 63,976 922,000
Assmt. Administration 4,622 5,636
$71,360 $27,636
Number and Type of Lights
5800E 773
Number of units assessed in 1986/ 87 = 764
Dnrinn tt o,-al vnar toaFin7 ih~ an tt,..ya ., ~ .r_c._ __
lights wer annexed to Street Lighting Maintenance
District No, 2:
AnneX X13 Traci 9649 39 S.F. 19/5800
Tract 11793 47 S.F. 15/5600
Tract 11932 10 S.P. 2/5800
Tract 12726 33 S.F. 6/5600
Tract 12727 23 S.F. 3/5800
Tract 12801 32 S.F. 11/5800
Traci 11606 88 S.F.
Tract 11606-2 56 S.F.
Tract 11606-3 47 S.F. 72/5800
Tract 11606-4 43 S.F.
Tract 13117 83 S.F.
Tract :0076 i9 S.F.
Tract 10827 59 S.F.
Tract 30827-1 50 S.F.
Tract 10627-2 99 S.F.
Tract 10627-3 B1 S.F.
/D I
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
~ Page 6
Tract 11626 B3 S.F. 37/6800
Tract 13066 27 3.F. 2/5800
Annex X14 Tract 12952 172 S.F. 46/5800
Annex X15 Tract 12650-2 42 S.F. 27/5800
Tract 12772 47 S.F. 11/5800
Projections for Fiacei Year 1987/BB
A. Number and Type of Lamps to be ma intained.
773 (5800)
B. Number o! Unites to be Assessed 2881
2500 (S.P.)
763 (Ht lf)
C. Projected Expenditures
Assessment Administrati on 811,524
MaSntenance & Operations 870
Energy Charges 43.500
$56,894
D. Projected Revenue
2881 Assessment Units at $25 .00/unit = $72,025
1986(87 Carryover = 20.000
$92,025
~ ~M slwl
s
t+~r
^
Y
^
I ~
•
m
g5
Engineer's Report - 3957-88
Street Ltghtinq Maintenance Districts
Page 7
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT V0. 3
(VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITYI
Projected Ac tua'_ Costs 1986-87
86;67 Projected
Budget ,_6/30/8T
Maint. a Operations $ 805 -0-
Vehicle Maintena:.ee 390 -0-
Electricity 35,684 929,000
Assmt. AdminSstration 2.554 3 4.053
$39,433 $33,053
Number oP units assessed in 1996/87 = 145
PRIOR ANNE%ATION NOT ASSESSED IN 86/87
Tract 12833 1T S.F. 22/5900 6/9::00
DurSng fisoai year 1986(87 tY.e Pc Lowing tracts and
i lights were annexed to Street Lightin7 Maintenance
District No. 3:
Annex M2 Traci 12832 135 S,P. 32/5800
Tra~;t 13022 280 S.F. 117/5600
Annex X3 Tract 13027 357 S.F. 50/5800
Tract 13057 147 S.F. 35/5600
Tract 13050 203 S.P 43/5800
Tract 13059 137 S.F. 46i 53Cn
Tract 13060 8u 3.F. 25%580:
Pending Annexation
Tract 13052
~ ~~~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
~ Page 8
Projections !or 81aca1 Yesr 1987/88
A. Number and type of Lights
338 (5800)
H. Number of unite to be Assessed 2007 and
Tr. 13052
C. Projected Expendlturee
Assessment Administration g 8,028
Maintenance 6 Operation 760
Energy Charges 38,000
$ 46,188
D. Projected Revenue
2007 Assessment Units at 935.tl0/unit ~ $70,245
1986/87 Carryover In nnn
$80,245
4 ~~ ~
w
t ti ue
N
N
I
M
I m
I
>
1~N/~ Ir/~ 1~1~/~! I~p~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighiinq Maintenance Districts
Page 9
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 4
(TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMONITY)
Actual Costs 1986-81
86/87 Projected
Bu et 6/30/87
Malnt. & Operations 9 945 9 3S
Vehicle Maintenance 379 -0-
Electricify 34,485 13,322
Asamt. Adainiatration 2.480 3.191
S 38,289 $16,548
Number of units assessed Sn 1986/87 735
Durlnq fiscal year 1986/87 the following tracia and
lights were annexed to Street Lighting Maintenance
niar.t~r x., a.
Tract 12673 392 Apts.
Tract 12602 57 S.F.
Tract 12802-1 34 S.F.
Tract 12802-2 10 S.F.
Tract 12802-3 21 S.F. 50/5800
Tract 12802-4 29 S.F. 5/9500
Tract 12802-5 27 S.F.
Tract 12802-6 66 S.F.
Tract 13191 74 S.F. 14/5800
Tract 13192 62 S.F. 13/5800
2/9500
A. Number and Type of Lights to be Mainialned.
i52 i5800i
30 (9500)
B. Number of Units to be Assessed = 1471
1243 (S.F.)
942 (Halt)
/ ~~
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Page 10
i Projections for Pieeal Year 1987-86
C. Projected Expenditures
Assessment Administration S 5,88{
Maint. & Operations a0D
Energy Charges 20,000
$26,284
D. Projected Revenue
1741 Asseasaent Units at 925.00 $43,525
1986/87 Carryover = 10,000
$53,325
1/Eewmeml Hfato77
f
s
i-M~
x
ax
s
r
2iwM +w/a +MA
1~ 9
Engineer's Report - 1987-88
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Page 11
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 5
(CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY)
Actual Costs 3986-87
THERE WERE NO COSTS INCURRED IN THIS DISTRICT
DURING 1986^B7.
Tracts in Original Pormation
Tract 12642 4C S.P. 8/5800
Traci 12935 29 S.P. 6/5800
Tract 32937 60 S.P. 10/5800
Tract 32940 36 S.F. 8/5800
Traci 32941 28 S.P. 6!5500
Tract 12942 40 5.8. ?/5800
During fiscal year 1986/87 the following tracts and
lights were annexsd to Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 5:
Tract 12936 48 S.F. 9/5800
Tract 12938 56 S.P. 13/5800
T~a~C i2yxtl 35 S.F. 7/5600
Tract 12943 4? S.P. 30/5800
Tract 12944 26 S.P. 13/5800
Projections for Piaeal Year 1987/88
A. Number and Type of Lights
129 (SBOG)
B. Number of Units to be Assessed 4x3
C. Projected Expenditures
Assessment Administration S 290
Maintenance 8 Operations 710
~ _.._ ;y Charges 14,500
$ 15,500
I
D. Projected Revenue
00 $35
00
,x
443 Assessment Units at $35.
/~X
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Greg Gage, Assistant Planner
70,
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 (AMENDED -
L- A request to waive t o maximum eig t
requirement of 35 feet for an extendable radio antenna to
allow an existing antenna to be extended to 72 feet on a
.47 acre parcel in the Very Law Residential District (less
than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at 5327 Carol
Avenue - APN 1061-111-19
I. RE COMAENU4 T10V: Staff recommends that the Council uphold the
ectsion o the Planning Commission and deny Variance 86-08
(Amended).
II. BACKGROUND: As a result of Code Enforcement, the applicant had
origlna y sought approval of a Variance to allow the continued use
of an exi sting fixed radio antenna tower. and to hermit avi nnc inn
of the support structure from 50 to 10 feet in height. At its
meeting on January 28, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the
proposal on the grounds that there was insufficient justification
for the request. The applicant subsequently appealed. [n filing
the appeal, the applicant proposed to amend the initial request
by: (1) providing a reti act able design for the antenna support
structure; (2) increasing the maximum overall height (extended) Lo
72 feet; and (3) keeping the antenna and support structure
retracted to less than 35 feet when not in use.
Since the Planning Commission had not reviewed the amended request,
the City Council lacked jurisdiction prerequisites to act on the
request as amended. Actor dt ngly, the amended request was referred
to the Planning Commission for review and consideration.
Ac its meeting on March 25, 1987, Lhe Planning fommission continued
the item to its April 8, 1987 meeting at the request of the City
Attorney. The continuance was requested to allow the City Attorney
to review a new case law related to the application. At its
meeting on April 8, 1987, the Planning Commissf on denied the
amended request on the basis that: (1) the facts relating to the
subject property had not changed since the Commission's initial
/9~
LL ,>
F Z
GUGMO
j ~"r.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Variance 86-08 (Revised)
June 3, 1987
Page 2
review in January; and (2) there was no hardship applicable to the
subdect property which was not equally applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district (see attached staff report,
Part III). The minutes of the Commission meeting are also
attached.
Res full Sited,
Brad B Ter
City Tanner
BB:GG:ns
Attachments: Letter of Appeal from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Petition submitted by surrounding property owners.
Excerpt from "Zoning News" (Page 2, March 1987).
Planning Commission Minutes, January 28, 1987
Planning Commission Staff Report & Minutes, April 8, 1987
Planning Commission Resolution of Denial
for Variance 86-08 (Amended)
/~~
April 16, 1987
Peverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0, Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Variance 86-OB
Dear Ms. Authelet;
The Planning Commission in denying the above described project failed
to give adequate consideration to the folloving:
The Rancho Cucamonga Development Code excludes emergency service
radio transmitting equipment from height limitations. Title 47
CFR Chapter 1 Part 97.1 (e) recognizes Amateur Radio es en emergency
communication service.
The General Plan of the City of Ra ncha Cucamonga states that ci rit
groups should be used to desseminate information in [he event of
emergency situations brought about by natural catastrophe or other
conditions. Amateur Radio has demonstrated countless times that it.
is a viable backup [o normal disaster communications In events such
es earthquakes, fires and floods and can assist in meeting easentia-
communications needs. See Title 47 CFR Chapter 1 Resolution No. fi4~
The Federal Preemption Order PRB-1 requires local authorities to
legislate "to represent the minimum practicable regulation to
accemDlish the local authority's legitimate purpose". And asks
local governments to "legislate in a manner that affords aDpropriati
recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and
thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts". The Planning Commission
discussed neither of these issues, even though I offered en alter-
native proposal, i.e. a retra[able tower, to avoid conflict.
I[ was demonstrated at [he Janurary 28, 1987 meeting that the
requested height is required for an effective and eff ecient
antenna system.
The Planning f.c mmi ssien gave no ce^.sideration to my nlternative
proposal nor have they offered one of their own as I requested.
Therefore I appeal the decision [o the Ci[y Council.
Variance 86-08
April 16, 1987
Page 2
To afford me edaquate time to prepare my presentation, please
schedule this item on the eggenda of May 27, 187. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/'-~" `_T
Charles F. Spe negel
5327 Carol Are.
Alta Loma, CA 91701
i
I
~\
\<)ftTF
ci-rY or
R.-1\CHO CL;Cr1~10\C~
PL.\N~II\C Dl\'tSION
-~~
f~J
CARnL AIU2
97.96 ~
En,s-r,.J G
~o JSG
PIAT PLAN for proposed Amateur Radio
Anteima Tourer
OiiNER: Spetnagel, Chulee 6 Sandra
ADDR?SS; 5327 Cuol Ave.
Alta Loma, CA 91701
PNONE: 714-945-9905
]~~~
68' -_~
1 RoPoSEU /fApiEUQ
Rgoio To WER.
fi~
~_
Ex,s-r„v G
BLOCK cJAu
~-~
E x ~sri~ 6
_ _ GA~eAGC_ _ _ _ _ _
2of:~r /
~~ g d~
FCC UDholds Zoning
of Broadas[ Antennas
Vu January the Federal Communiwtiom Commission
IFCC1 rcjacted a Natioval Aawduion of BrtNdwtas
INABI request to tsrremtx 1oa1 mrdag romrol of
broadcut anttmnss. The broadcasters were hoping that
the FCC would broaden its limited preemption of
zoning control of bukyard dish antrnnss Isee Zoning
.Vewr, February 1986) ro pmem local governments from
regulating the location, height, size, and visibility of TV
and radio broadcut towers and dish installations.
The FCC concluded that its preemption of local
comrols should remain limited to those that discriminate
against dish antennas in tarot of othtt types of
antennas. The NAB argued that local zoning codes
mtrictina hroadesst Towers violate the constitutional
right of fro speech. However, the FCC rtjmed the
NAB's arguments and concluded that "in certain
situations, local aesthn:c ~mlues will outweigh First
amendment coruide2tions."
The NAB's petition :o the FCC was joined by
Equatorial Communication Services, the Satellite
Television Industry Association, Ina, the Telaater
Network of Amttica, the United Satdlirc Broadcasting
Company, and the GTE Corporation. These
communications companies aryued in favor of Poe
pennon in hopes of pressuring the FC.C hno preempting
all local controls. The FCC, however. concluded that ns
e<ininq ndr r "e L, n., r,"Ly-. r ncua ai
interests and does not need to be broadened u
.ni; di L,.i¢ .,a pubiisheo in '.LOm rag News" (p. ?. March, 1987)
-(
Commissioner Chi ties added that sites which include historical trees or
+aaethi ng on the Site Lhat wouli iie of interest to the Commi55i on should also
be Dosted.
Commissioner Tolstoy advised that later in the meeting he intentled W propose
that the Commission go back and look at the Tree Ordinance in light of the
beetle which has come W our area and is destroying Eucalyptus trees.
• * + x r
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 - SPETNABEL - A request to
wa ve a max mum g rcqu remen a ee or a xed radio antenna
W al tow an existing antenna 50 feet in height W be extended to 70 feet
on a .47 acre parcel in the Yery Low Residential District (less than 2
Dwelling units per acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue - APN 1061-111-19.
Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Fnerick asked if the regulations are 35 why the applicant has an
existing 50 feat antenna.
Mr. Gage advised that the antenna waz installed without the City's review or
aDDroral.
Chainean Barker opened the public hearing.
Charles Spetnagel, 5327 Carol Avenue, stated that on May 29, 1986 he attempted
W secure a buiiding penit fora 35 foot antenna tower. His Intent was to
erect the tower and then seek perwtssion W construct the Waver to the height
he desired. The Planning Division and Engineering Divisions Doth approved his
aDDlicat/on and signed off on the buiiding permit fart. Building ann as...,
f,.~.K~ ',ir l.iai iris drawings ror the footings were unacceptable and the
Waver would have W De installed as if it were a flag pole. He wes told that
the depth of the footing would have W be 1 foot for every 2 feet in height.
He informed Building and Safety that this was rfdlculous and that the drawings
were done by a reputable erector of comtaercial and ataateaur towers. He became
frustrated and cancelled the appilcation and oDtatned a refund of permit
fees. He advised that the tower is of proven design and has been on the
market for over 20 years and the footings are capable of supporting towers up
W 300 feet in height. Me acknowledged Lhat the City has legitimate health,
safety and welfare concerns but the footings were installed per manufacturers
registeredncivil engineernlicensed in the state of C~fornia. aMerstatedbthat
his station operates under automatic control as a relay station available 24
hours a day for amateurs in four counties. He felt that an extraordinary
condition does exist, that a nonconforni ty does not exist, consequently
nothing was self-imposed and the only special privilege was his privflege W
operate an amateur radio station. He indicated that staff fai15 W address
the exclusion of public service, public welfare, and emergency radio from
Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 28, 1987
/~
height restrictions. He felt his supporting documents proved that part of the
fustificatton of the amateur radio service is to provide emergency
communication and an amateur radio is continuously involved in public service
activities. He stated that his request for 70 feet is the minimum height
requt red to accaawodate reasonable cmmnunicatt on on the frequencies on which
he operates.
Chairman Barker questioned uK height of the tower,
Mr. Spetnagel advised that the tower is 50 feet in height.
Chairman Barker asked 1f a vertical antenna was places on top of that height.
Mr. Spetnagel replied that this was correct and that he used a high frequency
Yogi antenna.
Commissioner Emerick asked Mr. Spetnagel if he had any feedback from his
neighbors as far as the current antemms.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that he contacted the three properties directly abutting
his and those property owners indicated no obJectlons to the tower. He
indicated that he had poled Dan and M1ed1 Burns, Thomas and Martha Stmton and
Betty and Don Mderson.
Camei ssloner Emerick asked 1f the height of the antenna would impinge upon
anyone's view of the mountains.
Mr. Spetnagei stated that he didn't feel the tower would impinge any more than
the current transmission lines.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Spetnagel was prtpared to show the
Commfsslon what 1s alarmed for t1w, r~~ s ~ti..,.....
Mr. Spetnagel replied he was not and indicated- that this information had not
been requested before tonight.
Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Spetnagel considered crank up antenna, when this
equtgi~ent was purchased.
Mr. Spetnagel advised that he had owned this tower fur a number of years.
caommmnicattons~k~ Caltfornta miStat ~lUniversity~n Fullertone~ supportedr the
applicant's request. He presente4 slides which he felt tilustrated why a
radio amateur would want a high antenna. He stated that what mmateaur radio
is all about is emergency communication, which is why the FCC has recently
issued an order pro-emttng lots', regulations Chet unreasonably restrict and
deny reiiaole amateaur communications.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 28, 1987
l ~~
Chairman Barker asked since this particular piece of property is located at
the northern part of Alta lanes on a slope what kind of impact would that
location have on the signal's angle of ratty.
Mr. Overveck advised toot a location on a slope working in the uphill
direction raises the angle and sakes comsunication more di~Fficult. [n the
downhill direction, it cakes long distance caanunication easier because the
angle Ts lowered by the terral n.
Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Overve[k was an expert on antennas.
Mr. Overveck advised that he had written a book and a number of journal
articles on antennas.
Chairman Darker asked if there were any advantages of self supporting towers
over the crank up antennas.
Mr. Overveck advises Lt.zt ,ac is a questtor of econaslcs. A self supporting
tower is sore expensive. A ~ye'ral yodel crank up guyed tower is a such less
expensive tower. A crank up tower that is self supporting and could Beet the
City's code of staying below 35 feet and going up to 50 feet would De quite a
bii ogre expensive than one :hat doesn't telescope without guy wires.
Coaaissioner Tolstoy questioned the BO meter frequency and asked if it was
correct that there are other frequencies for emergency cammunicatlons.
Mr. Overveck stated that there are other frequencies for emergency
communication. He advised that the applicant proposes t0 communicat! on a
variety of different frequencies. Each of the various frequency Dandy have
different propagation characteristics. 80 meters cases up sometimes because
historically during the Mexico City earthquake it was used extensively for
tong distance night time comwnicatlon.
Coawissiuner Tolstoy asked the communfcatiort distance of 80 meters at night.
Mr. Overveck advised that the operator would De capaDl-: of world wide
ccrmunication assuring conditions are reasonable.
Tony Petrone, 125 Morgan May, Upland, supported the request. He gave an
overview of the emergency cammunfcations aspect of amateaur radios.
Ronald Verdon, 60ti8 Ada -:curt, Chino, supported Che applicant's request and
gave an overview of emergency cammuntcations.
Dan Burns, 5321 Carol, adjacent property owner stated that he had n'. problems
with Mr. SPetnager's antenna as presently constr+~:ted. He did not feel the
presence of the antenna would affect property value:,
Planning Commission Minutes -:7- January 28, 1v87
l
Sandy Spetnagel, wife of the applicant, supported the request. Sne advised
that the Spetnagels work with the Boy Scouts and urged the Commission's
support of the request.
Ed Combs, 7027 Yalinda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated Chat he felt the tower could
be seen at Lhe 35 foot height, therefore could not understand the height
concerns. He stated that Mr. Spetnagel has one of the Dest sites in the area
for the private radio tower.
The following individuals addressed the Comwission in opposition to the
Variance request based on aesthetic concerns, interferrence with television
reception and loss of property values:
John Naymefer, 8149 Lucinda
Dick Miles, 5262 Sapphire
Barbara Frye, 5327 Della
Penny Senzero, 8181 Lucinda
Jeff Frye, 5327 Della
Sonny Senzario, 8181 Lucinda
Tam Armejo, 5249 Carol
Cheryl Nard, 8153 Lucinda
Elliott Cousins, 8214 Lucinda
Ethel Naymeler, 8119 Lucinda
Comwissioner Chittea asked the applicant if he was only person with a tower in
the Nest End area.
Mr. Spetnagel advised Chat he was not.
Comwissioner Chittea asked if there are other people camwuntcating on these
frequencies.
rir•. Spetnage~ assumed there are. Me rebutted the comwents made during the
public hearing by stating that the existing tower was erected ten months ago,
and cl :; ify that it was installed the last week end in August 1986. As he
previously stated, he atte;r-0ted to obtain a building perm'L but felt he was
getting no where therefore deci d~..i to pursue another course of action. Me
advised that since these proceedings, he had spoken Lo the City's Building and
Safety Department again and asked them what the requirements were for
footings. Me indicated he met those requirements. Ne had a Calffornia
License Civil Engineer's calculations and data sheets signed off by nim and
was not concerneA that this tower is unsafe in its present condition or at the
proposed height. Re advised that ne vfsited Scott Cable, who furnishes cable
for this area, and was informed that entire system outages as well as section
outages during the past few months were due to the merger of Scott Cable with
Acton Caole, Further, that Scott Cable agreed to conduct ~xst if complaints
of interference continues to ver(fy Lhat Mr. SDetnagel's station is not
interferrin9 with the cable system. he also verified Lhat he had no cable
channels operating on frequencies assigned to the amateaur radios. Ne felt
that objections to his station regarding aesthetics are suojective. If
Dlanning Commission Minutes -18- January 28, 1987
~~/
aesthetics alone are allowed to dictate what structures are or are not allowed
in the neighborhood, then everyone should have the right to raise obj ecti ,ns
on. the color a neighbor paints his house, the type of snrubs planted and so
Commissioner Enerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel mentioned he had contacted the
Li ty prior t0 erecting the tower.
Mr. Spetnagel replied that he did.
Caaoaissioner 6aerick questioned how many times the City had been contacted.
Mr. Spetnagel advised that he had contacte4 Lhe City once.
Cos~issioner Emerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel was informed of the height
regulations.
Mr. Spetnagel advised that he was provided with a copy of Section 17.080.60 of
the Development Code.
Caw•issioner Emerlck pointed out that Ts the Code section that provides for 35
feet height standard for a stationery tower and 15 feet additional for an
apparatus that goes up or dawn.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that the conflict was is tn! term when in use. He
contended that his station is available 24 hours a day.
Coimaissioner Faerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel was home 24 hours a day.
Mr. Spetnagel stated he was not. However, his station is operating and could
De operated numerous times during the day.
CdawtssTonnr Fwwrir4 agt.n is rr, r__._._..
else in the family has the ability to operate the radio~11e radio, or it anyone
Mr. Spetnagel replied that neither his wife nor the rest of the fanny has the
ability to operate the radio.
Caamfssioner Ewerick asked if Mr. Spetnagel had a 40 hour a week job.
Mr. Spetnagel replied that it was much ogre than 40 hours a week.
Cnairwan Barker asked if the term was operable or operating. He asked if the
station transmits all the time.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that Lhe station is not operating all the time, but it is
capable of repeating digital transmissfons.
Chairman Barker asked ff Mr, Spetnaye was recording the messages.
Planning Commission Mf nutes -19- January 28, 1987
~~a
Mr. SDetnagel replied that the messages ere not recorded; however, they are
stared in a buffer if he cares to access it.
Comoissianer Tolstoy asked if this 1s a repeater station.
Mr. Spetnagel replied that it is.
Chairman Barker asked if other units depend on the existence of that packet
digit peter to continue to function during tiw: day.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that on its present frequency he has reception to palm
Springs and Nemet that repeats both ways in the Los Anyeles basin, Orange
County, and along the coast line up to LAX.
Comaissianer Chltiea recalled that Mr, Spetnagel said he contacted the City
once and because of the information he received he decided t0 go ahead and
build his tower. She questioned why he didn't approach someone else or try to
go throuyh proper channels.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Barker stated he would like to Lry and eliminate same of the side
issues so the Comaission could identify the roal issue on which to make a
decision. As far as the television or any other interference with high
fidelity equipment, he indltated that if the applicant's equipment is
equipment and the neighbors equipment is good equipment there should not bye ad
problem. He pointed out that traditionally amateaun have gone out of their
way to notify their neighbors that thgy arc available to help them work out
problems so that their reputation as ham operators remains very high. He did
not think interference was a major issue end suggested that the Commission not
address that Issue. He stated the reason for Lhe discussion of the various
types and designs of antennas was because of a concern with safety factors.
Ti:c ••i ads era ~yl~oLiu mw sometimes certain types of antennas can De
danyerous. Aesthetics is important but he fait there was a Lechnicai point to
be addressed which is chat there can be an antenna 35 feet in hetyht which can
crank up to 50 feet. This particular antenna does not meet those standards.
He advised that he had looked through recent antenna sates and there are a
number of antennas which wn reach 50 feet which go down as low as 2T feet in
a depressed state. He felt the two issues t0 be addressed are: fs this an
unusual enough situation to warrant a variance, was there no other equipment
available which could have been purchased and placed Into operation, and is
Che regulation Itself in need of being evaluated.
Commissioner Fmerick stated that obstruction of view should oe addressed not
from an aesthetic point but from a property right point, A property owner is
entitled to a certain view right of the mountains and the valley. An
obstruction of that view impinges upon someone else's property rights,
Gommissicner McNiel dlsayreed.
issue of the illegal antenna.
He suggested that the Comaisstan act on the
Pl arniny Gomm ssi on Minutes -20- January 28, 1987
~(~3
Cainsissioners Enerick and Toistoy stated their opinion that the issue was the
Variance and if the necessary findings could be stet to approve a Variance.
Chairawn Barker suggested Uat the Conwissioners go through each of the
findings to see if they could De net.
Commissioner Enerick addressed finding one and stated that everyone in a
zoning district should be treated equally unless they wn show a hardship
situation, ik! saw no hardship to this situation in that the applicant could
cove his antenna to another location or tylenent sane ad tigatton akasures
such as a tower 35 feet stationary with a 15 foot crank up extension. If
that's not high enough to neet tha required specifications as far as length of
radio Dean, so be it.
The Caawissioners concurred.
Chairun Barker suggested there arc a nuaDer of alternative types of antennas
that could De used which would conply with the City's code regilrseMS. He
asked that finding 2 be addressed.
Canaissioner Emerick sUUd there has been no shaving that there are
exceptional or extraordinary circunsU~rces associated with this request. The
applicant lives in the foothills of the City and there he is hcee with both
an advanUge and a disadvanUge. The dlsadvanUge 1s going down Dill where
the radio angle 1t incroased; the dlsadranUge is that the angle 1s decreased
on the uphill nountatn side. Ne SUted that this is not a unique property in
that there are literally hundreds of other houses in that Sane stratification
of the foothills. Nith respent to finding 3, he did not concur that there was
a deprivation of privileges en,1oyed Dy others. The 35 foot standard for fixed
towers applies to everyone in the Ctty. Regarding finding {, he sUted if
this variance 1s granted Lo allow a higher tower up to 70 feet. that mould n.
;r_atiry : ;pxi•1 yri•iiege that can't D! demonstrated by any of Lhe facts
presented 1n this heariny.
Motion: Moved by Eaw:rick, seconded by Chttiea, to deny Variance 86-07.
Motion carried Dy the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS EMERICK, CNITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman Barker directed staff to conduct a survey of the swtertals on the
market and the names of the asnufactures to assure that there are appropriate
types of towers that fit within the framework of the City's current
reyu~atiors.
Planning Coaaission Minutes -21- January 28, 1987
c~ 7'
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would be the disposition of the illegal tower.
Mr. Buller advised that staff will proceed with Code Enforcdsent action and
the applicant will be given a reasonable tine to abate the antenna.
Caoissioner Chltlea coaaw!nted that one trip to the City that ends with
sanething a person is not happy with should not be cause to ge out and do what
ever that person wants to do because they are not happy with inforwation that
has been given to then. She advised that there are other approaches and other
avenues to take.
•~~++
10:55 p.n. - P1anM ng Cewaission Recessed
11:05 p.o. -Planning Co~eisston Reconvened
: ~ R • w
NEN BUSINESS
L. NOME OfCUPATION PERMIT 86-210 - TAYLOR - Appeal of staff's decision
ny ng a cupa on erw lachlte Avenue (Continued frog
January 14, 1987)
Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairwen Barker invited public coawent. The applicant for this lien was not
in attendance; therefore, it was the consensus of the Coa~isslon to continue
the ttes for two weeks.
Motion: Moved by Chltlea, seconded by Tolstoy, unaniaausly carried, to
continue Hane Occupation Penait 86-210 to the Planning Coawission aw:eting of
February 11, 1987.
•~*.~
M. DEYELODMENT REYIEN 86-41 - ARICAL PROPERTIES - The develupnent of a 47,392
Avenue Overlays 0i trictc(Subarean6)oof theat dustrlalnSpecific Plan
located at the northeast corner of Haven and 6th Street - APN 209-411-15.
Chris NesUwn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker invited public caanent.
Ralph Hastings, pro,{ect architect, concurred with the findings of the
Resolution and conditions of approval.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution
approving Developarent Review 86-41. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Comaission Minutes -22- January 28, 1987
~S
CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA
STAFF RFPO,i2T
GATE: April 8, 19x1
T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Greg Gage, Rssistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-08 (AMENDED) -
3 - request to waive L~maximum Tieig~
req~nt of 50 feet for an extendable radio antenna to
allow an existing antenna to be extended to 72 feet on a
.47 acre parcel in the Very Low Residential District (less
than 2 dwelling units/acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue -
APN 1061-111-19.
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 2 1987, the Planning
omm~n continued the above referenced it~n to tonight's meeting
at the request of the City Attorney. The continuance was requested
to allow the City Attorney to review a new case law related to the
application. The City Attorney has determf ned that the case in
question does not make any definitive statement regarding, or does
it alter, the FCU ruling. The City Attorney has previously
indicated that the FCC ruling does not oreemot the ,,^.it v'; antenna
regulation.
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting of March 25, three letters
were submitted to the Planning Division by residents in opposition
to the request. These letters F~ave been attached for the
Commission's review.
II. RECOMFffN0ATI0N: Staff recommends Lhat the Planning Commis ston deny
t e amende request. If the Commission concurs, a Resolution of
Genial is included within the staff report.
~R~ tfu 11 iyted,
--
~--: v
': 8rT3d-Bu ~~
City ~anner
BB:GG ae
Attachments: Letter From Resident at 5338 Peridot
Letter From Resident at 5350 Peridot
Letter From Resident at 5325 Peridot
Planning Commission Staff Report of March 25, 1981
y)/_ ITEh D
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 86-OB AMENDED - SPETNAGEL - A
request to waive t e maximum heag t requirement o 50 eet or an
extendable radio :.ntenna to allow an existing antenna to be extended to 72
feet on a .47 acre parcel in the Very low Residential District (less than
2 dwelling units acre) located at 5327 Carol Avenue - APN 1061-111-19.
(Continued fror~i'larch 25, 1987)
Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNi el opened the public hearing.
Charles Spetnagel, 5327 Carol, Rancho Cucamonga, gave an overview of hfs
request. He felt that the City's code was in violation of PRB-1 and urged the
Commission's support of his request in its original form, or that they direct
staff to present an alternative which would be acceptable to him and the City.
Commissioner Emerick asked clarification of PRB-1.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that these letters stood for Public Radio Branch and was
put out by the Federal Communications System. Mr. Spetnagel advised that this
was part of the Commission's packet.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that this was a federal directive
which could be binding on the City's ordinance. Ne advised that what Mr.
Spetnagel recited was essentiaily the definitive statement on the pre-emption
of local ordinances. He advised that Rancho Cucamonga's ordinance contains
the balance of providing what appears to be a reasonable height for amateaur
~ommunicatfons and balances against it the recognized rights of other citizens
in the surrounding area. Further, the ordinance appears to meet the basics of
PR8-1 in that it allows reasonable communication.
~':ommissi oner Tolstoy asked of the frequencies Mr, Spetnagel wished to operate
on, which one would require a tower over 50 feet.
Mr. Spetnagel stated that 40, 20, and 80 meter bands would require a tower
over 50 feet. He stated that the Commission had discussed this issue at their
January 28th meeting and suggested that the Commissioners review the minutes
ct that meeting which were included in the report.
John Weymeyer, 8149 Lucinda, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed t(ie Variance request.
Mr, Weymeyer presented a petition containing 36 names in opposition to the
antenna heiyht.
Sonny Senzario, 8181 Lucinda, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the antenna height.
He advised that he contacted the FCC and discovered that they have no rules
oovernina haiyht pf antennas and that this ;imitation was left up Lo ipral
jurisdictions. He was concerned that this issue has been heard by the
Planning Commission and City Council a number of times, which he felt was a
waste of his taz dol tars and his time.
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987
~~ 7
Chairman McNiel advised that the Planning Commission was following the process
which was designed to allow all parties an opportunity to present their
arguments.
Penny Senzario, 6181 Lucinda, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the antenna height
ha sed on aesthetic concerns.
Mr. Spetnagel stated he was paying for this process, not the taxpayers. He
advised that hfs tower height had been reduced to 30 feet since the January
28th meeting, Further, he had submitted documentation and engineered drawings
to City departments. He stated that he had attempted twf ce to gain permits
for the tower and was denied both times.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Buller advised that the tower in existence is a free standing non-
retractable tower which is in violation of the City's current standards.
Ralph Hanson, Ceputy City gttorney, advised that the issue the Commission must
deal with is the Planning issue of making the findings to grant the variance
request.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she saw no new information presented tonight
regarding speciai circumstances that would warrant granting the variance.
Commissioner Emerick agreed and further stated that the applicant has made a
Lack of showing why the four findings could be met. He could not support the
variance request.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City's ordinance is reasonable in that a 50
foot height for most bands is a roacnna hln ho;~ha. ue rec^„^~^g.^.d.=d "__ni11 ;f
the request.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resoiution
denyf ng Environmental Assessment and Variance 86-08. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: GOMMI SSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Brad Buller, City Planner, advf sed that the applicant would have a ten day
timeframe in which to appeal this decision of the Planning Commission. If an
appear was nor f{1 na staff would begfn taking the steps neces ea ry to prnreed
with code enforcement of the antenna.
. « .. .
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1987
~~
RESOLUTION N0. 87-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCE N0. 86-OB (AMENDED) TO
WAIVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REOUIREAENT FOR AN
EXTENDABLE ANTENNA LOCATED AT 5327 CAROL AVENUE IN
THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
A. RECITALS
(i} On December 7, 1983, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopted Ordinance 211 providing for the regulation of antennas.
(ii) On Novett~er 14, 1986, an application was filed and accepted on
the above-described pro,l ect.
(iii) On April 8, 1987, the Planning Camniss ion held a duly
advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California
Government Code.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Pi anning Comm ssion resolved as
follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all the
facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution
are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence nroconreA +,. tti:.
Commission during the ahove referenced April 8, 1987
hearing, including the written Staff Report, and the
written, signed and verified application of the applicant,
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at
5327 Larol Avenue an a lot presently improved
with a house, garage and a 30 foot radio
antenna;
b. The property and surrounding properties are in
the Very Law Residential District;
c. The existing radio antenna was erected without
prnoer parmits for the footings prior to
construction.
d. The proposed antenna and support structure would
exceed the maximum permitted height (extended)
within the Very low Residential District by ~2
feet.
~~
/ YlNwnlnu uurimi~siun wewLUiiun nu.
VARIANCE 86-08 - SPETNAGEL
April 8, 1987
Page 2
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this
Commission during the above-referenced April 8, 1987
hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth
in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds
and concludes as Follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would
not result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of the Development Code.
b. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary
cfrwmstances ar conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
_. That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the same
di,str i ct.
d. That the granting of the Variance will
constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Variance will be
detrfinental to the Dublin hoalin gafory
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies
the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: C r
LarF Mct a airman
ATTEST:
ra u er, epu y ecret any
~~~
NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.
' NCE 86-OB - SPETNAGEL
' • 1 8, 1987
p3
I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the Bth day of April, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: iv'GNE
,r.
~~~
- CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
GATE: June 3, 1987
T0: Lity Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer
`~~-~N~:?h~
,~,
Y' / A ~.`
~ '~.
m OI/_J rt
_ ~~ z
SUBJECT; Amendment to Section 10 of the Municipal Code establishing a
speed limit of 35 mph on Banyan Street from Beryl Street to
London Avenue
RECOMNEMDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance
amending Section 10.20.020 of the Municipal Code to establish speed
limits as follows:
On Banyan Street, from Beryi Street to London Avenue, 35 mph
BAp(6AOUID/ANALYSIS:
This street has been the su6,ject of an engineering and traffic survey as
prescribed fn the Vehicle Code. The survey included such items as
residential frontage review, street grades, accident history and radar
surveillanre of nrPVailsnn CnPPA<
The strut section presented here is currently posted as 40 mph. The
proposed speed limit recognizes increased development and newly
developed streets, and will enable effective enforccvnent without
creating an unreasonably high number of violators.
Res y submitted,
e
v
''.HM: : ka
4ttac hmen is
~/
ORDINANCE N0. ~I7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMDNGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS
A. Recitals
(T) California Vehicle Code Section 22357 provides that this City
Council may, by ordinance, set prima facie Speed limits upon any portion of
any street not a state highway.
Iii) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering and
traffic survey, of certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which
streets are specified in Part B of this Ordinance.
(iii) The determinations concerning prima facie speed limits set
forth in Part B, below, are based upon the engineering and traffic survey
identified in Section A (ii ), above.
B. Ordinance
NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLONS:
Section 1
C Pftinn in 7n n7n I,A nM.. i. .. A..d aA` yYira l~VliyO ,.I {.y YUUC
to read, in words and figures, as follows:
10.20.020 6ecrease of state law maximum speed. It is de termf ned by
City Counci reso u on an upon t as s~ an engineering and traffic
investigation that the speed permitted by state law if greater than is
reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exi 5t upon such streets, and
it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this
section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when
signs are erected giving notice thereof:
Declared Prima Facie
Name of Street or Portion Affected Speed Limit (MPH)
1. Archibald Avenue--Fourth Street to 45
3anyan Street
2. Arrow Route--Baker to Haven 45
3. Haven Avenue--Highland to Nilson 50
c~~3
ORDINANCE N0.
,lone 3, 1987
Page 2
4, Hellman Avenue--Foothill Lo Alta Lama Dr. 35
5. Hellman Avenue--6th to Foothill 45
6. Hellman Avenue--500' north of Manzanita 40
Lo Palley View
7. Beryl Street--800' north of Lemon
to Banyan 40
B. Beryl Street--Banyan to end 45
9. Base Line Road--Nest city limit 45
to Carnet ion
10. Base Line Road--Carnelian to Haven 40
11. Carnelian Street--Foothill to end 45
12. Eighth Street--Grove to Haven 45
13. Etiwanda Avenue--FOOthili to Highland 45
14 Highland Avenue--Amethyst to Archibald 35
15. Grove Avenue--Eighth to Foothill 40
16. Turner Avenue--Eighth to Foothill 45
17. Sapphire Street--19th to Lemon 40
18, Sapphire Street--Banyan to end 45
19. Vineyard Avenue--Church to Base Line 40
20. Nhittram Avenue--Etiwanda to east
city limits AO
21. Victoria Park Lane 35
22. Banyan Street--from west city 1lmi is to 40
Beryl Street
23. Hillside Road--from Ranch Gate to 35
Amethyst Street
24. Church Street--from Archibald Aveniia an
to Haven Avenue
25. San Bernardino Road--from Vineyard Avenue 35
to Archibald Avenue
26. Victoria Avenue--from Eti wands Avenue 40
to Route 15
21. Highland Avenue--from Archibald Avenue 35
to Hermosa Avenue
28. Highland Avenue--from Hermosa Rvenue to 45
800' west of Haven
29. Vineyard Avenue--from 8th St, to 45
Foothill Boulevard
30. Center Rvenue--Foothill Blvd. to 40
Church St.
31. Lemon Avenue--Archibald Avenue to 40
Haven 4venue
3e. spruce Avenue--Elm Avenue to 40
base Line Road
33. Turner Avenue--Foothill Boulevard to 45
Base Line Road
34. Yictoria Nindrows Loop (north 8 south) 35
~.~~~
ORDINANCE N0.
June 3, 1987
Page 3
35. Banyan Street from 8ery1 Street to
London Avenue 35
(Ord. 169 Section 1 (part), 1982: Ord. 39 Section 5.1, 1978).
Rancho Cucamonga 5/82 I2a
(i) Both sixty-five (65) miles per hour and fifty-five (55) miles
per hour are speeds which are more than are reasonable or safe;
(11) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie speeds which
are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are
speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said streets or portions
thereof;
(iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima
facie speed limits on sa{A streets; and
(iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to
install appropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie
speed limit declared herein.
Section 2
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shad cause
the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least
once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the
City of ~i;arnia, and circulated fn the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
~S
CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner
CCyylp ~`~`An'°^~
Y(~~9
~,
III IA
E.. ~ Z
_ >
19]7 JI
SUBJECT: DENSITY BONUS NITHIN THE ROUTE 30 FREENAY SPECIAL STUOY
e ounc w cons+ er a ease i y
o a ens y bonus requested in the Etiwanda Area. (The
Etiwanda Specific Plan provides the authority to grant
density bonuses in exchange for the protection of Route 30
Freeway right-of-way.)
I. RECOMMENDATION: A preliminary determination is requested to
prov e s a and applicant with appropriate direction.
II. BACKGROUND: The applicant owns approximately 4U acres of land on
e nor side of Highland Avenue, west of Etiwanda, located ?n the
City (E.:hi bit A, Parcels A1, A2 and A3 ). In addition, the
applicant also controls about 25 contiguous acres located to the
west, outside of the City limits (Parcel B).
Parcels A1, A2 and A3 are designated VL (Very Low Density
Residential, less than 2 dwellings per ac re 1. Parcel B, outside
the City, but in our Sphere of Influence is designated L (Low
density, 2-4 dwellings per acre) on our General Plan.
Parcel A3 is located entirely within the future right-of-way of the
Route 30 Freeway. The property owner is requesting a density
increase obove the currently permitted 2 dwellings per acre on
Parcel A2. This would enable him to develop a single family
subdf vi si on shown in concept on Exhibit "B".
The density increase is requested under the provisions of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, whicf, provide that within o60' of the
freeway right-of-way, density increases or other incentives may be
<:nn si de red, if in the opinion of the Cf ty Council such incenL~ves
are necessary to accomplish the followiny;
a, Protect Lhe Route 30 corridor right-of-way.
b. Provide for adequate buffering of freeway rel at J impacts,
including noise, circulation, and visual impacts.
~~
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Density Bonus Nithin Route 30
June 3, 1987
Page 2
These provisions were adopted during the Etiwanda Specific Plan
process, in order to assure that the freeway right-of-way will be
protected for eventual development of Lhe Foothill freeway. The
concept was intended to work as follows:
The City and property owners would enter into a development
agreement, which would allow the property owner to transfer
dwelling units out of the freeway right-of-way and thus
increase the net density on his property adjacent to the
freeway. In addition to the transfer, the City may consfder
additional units to offset the increased costs of development
and the potentially decreased per unit profits. in exchange,
the City would obtain ownership of the freeway right-of-way for
future transter to CaiTrans as a portion of the City's share of
the freeway development.
III. ANALYSIS: This proposal is generally consistent with the intent of
t~'Spe~'al Freeway Zone provisions. However, it should 6e noted
that adequate funds are maw available at CalTrans to purchase land
within the right-of-way threatened by impending development. That
means that should the property owner pursue the approval of a
subdivision within the right-of-way, CalTrans would likely purchase
the property to protect the right-of-way. In other words, the
density bonus does not appear necessary simply to protect the
right-of-way at this time.
However, without the density increase and resultant transfer of the
property to City ownership, the City's participation in the Route
3D Freeway will need to come from other sources.
IV. ALTERNATIVES: At thSs time statf is looking for preliminary
rec ion re ative to this concept. A formal application and a
full public hearing would be required should the property owner
choose to pursue the request further.
The two available alternatives ar_ noted below:
Alternative 1:
ezceeding~two~dwellingsttper acre, conssistentirith theicur nt
General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Pi an, and with no density
bonus.
This would result in a portion of the project being locateA in
the freeway rtyht-of-way, with CalTrans purchasing that portion
of the property located within the right-of-way. :~iis approach
would protect the right-of-way, keep the densities at less than
air
C[TY COUNCIL STUFF REPORT
Density Bonus Within Route 30
June 3, 1987
Page 3
two dwelling units per acre, but yive the City no credits
toward the developnent of the Route 30 Freeway. Under this
alternative, the only way to increase the density would be a
full amendment to the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
Alternative 2:
i fi s vision op aid negotiate a develop~ent agreenent
rhich could prow de far a transfer of the freeway right-of-~gy
to the City, to enchange for Mgher densities rlthin 660 feet
of the right-of-ryr.
Thts would protect the right-of-way without Cal Trans'
involvenent, and enable the City to participate in the
development of the freeway. This would also result in
densities higher than two dwelU ngs per acre, up to a knit to
be negotiated, immediately adjacent to the north side of the
Route 30 right-of-way.
As an added benefit, this development agrcemenL could serve as
a tool to annex the portion of the project currently located
outside of the City knits west of Hanley Avenue.
EitAer alternative will result in significant effort on the part of
the property owner and City staff. Appropriate di recd on is
therefore requested.
suomitted,
Brad ulle
Cit Planner
vc
Attachnwnts
~~b
•CI1l~O[
~ l • 36 .!.
AZ •10.0.
AO i3 .c.
s szs .c. -
north
EXHIBIT A
~/9
i __.__ eummi. Ae.__,
_ -~.n i
-- si - ddd n ~ Y
~_ t 1/I
r z ' ~~--- 1.~.__-"{-```l mom,..
n n Jw ~ ~- -~ ~ (' » o ~ t 1
..
~~---~
~_ ,
.•~ .
...,_
~~ ~ ,~,_ m
,a
..
_.
@--
.. .....
{, P t --
~ .~ tt •. ~ ~ CLAN CPfVANEp b~
.M,~,»o
,, .~
;~°~
r r,,,,
----~~._ ~b, ,
_ _ _ _ -~4. `._ .9.. .
.~..__ .-~._ ._ 'al-
~ ~KO t a P ~ f
o~ p I o• • o ~ f • n e f 1 r
L ~ ~ L_ _-._._ ___
wmwune wf.
~._._.._ ---~ , -- -~~ 1 _
~~~~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 1987
TG: City Council and City Manager
FRDM: Russzll H. Maguire, City En veer
BY: Laura Ps arras, Landscape Designer
SUBJECT: Review and Approval of Entry Monument Wall Locations
~~u.slo~
~~~~.^
~..
~,
~i '-
~.
~!' ~
.. >
iv;-
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Haven and Milliken
locations for Gateway entry monunention.
Analysis/Background
Staff is proposing an expanded entry identity monumentation pragr am (see
attached memo) with several locatons slated for construction in the upcoming
fiscal year. The additional proposed locations are as follows:
Standard Monumention
wesceriy city nmrc, iych Street
Southerly City limit, Vineyard P.venve
Gateway Monanentation
Southerly City limit, Haven Avenue
Southerly City limit, Milliken Avenue
Two locations, the Standard entry on Baseline at the westerly City limit and
the Gateway entry on Rrchi6al d, at the southerly City limit have prior
approvals thus will set a design theme when constructed this summer. It
follows that the remai ni r.g entry walls should project a consistent City image.
While the additional proposed locations will follow the normal Capital
Improvement ~~~o.ject aDProval sequence, there are two locatons in particular
which require an up-f runt cunwrr en ce at this point. The Gateway locations at
the northeast corners of both Haven and Milliken have received design
approvals for development-oriented walls, As the City is planning to provide
a consist ant entry identity monumentation program, developers should be
cautioned not to expend further tim?, money or energy on projects that overlap
with those of the City. Such direction can be given upon ,pproval of these
locations by the City Council. This would only 6e a location approval and
final designs would be processed separately.
~~
STAFF REPORT
PAGE 2
JUNE 3, 1981
On May 13, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Haven and
Milliken Gateway locations. Such approval was for the locations only, with
the understanding that final designs would go Through Design Review Committee,
Planning Commission, and City Council.
The Planning Commission also noted concerns of the two affected developers,
A.H. Reiter and the Bixby Ranch Company, that the welts would be cohesive with
their developments, and that their identification be represented somewhere on
the monuments. It was determined that these concerns would be considered
during the Qesign approval Drocess.
Respe u submitted,
City Eng neer
LP:~h
Attachments: Memorandun
~~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c~c",No
MEMORANDUM ~'~
<'`, e
OA TE: April 6, 1987 `'
z
T0: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager .J/}Jj~Qf//j/,+, iy-- ~
FROM: Russell H.~Maguire, City Engineer/!~~~%/ /
BY: Laura Ps omas, Landscape Designer L
SUBJECT: City Identity Monumentatfon: current status and suggested
program for future imDl ement ation.
Concerns over City entry monunent ation has pranpt ed a review of approved
levels of monumentation, followed with a recommended City-wide
implenentation program.
Two (2) prgjetts featuring entry monunent walls are scheduled to begin
construction in early summer. The projects and the types of
monunentatton are as follows:
Ma,ar Bateray 14oda~tatton will be constructed at 4th Street
and Archibald Avenue. The rack wall design (see exhibit A)
draws on local history and was approved try the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Standard Entry Nonu~tation will be constructed on Baseline
"-ad at G~ weaLeriy ciey oounaary. tots wntept (see exhibit
B) was approved by the Planning Commission and City Councft as
atypical perimeter entry statenent.
Given that these two types of walls will soon be in place and setting a
"theme", it follows that subsequent entry walls (other major gateways in
Only throu~sthe useaiof auniformapdpes gn aelenents ~ v ist~tors ntosRancho
Cucamonga be greeted with a consistent "image" of our City.
A local progran for entry identity monunentatton is attached far
consideration (see exhibit C1. This program is be based on a consist ant
design concept to reinforce the City~s image, and should aDPly to both
public and private projects. Those monumentation walls not hunt in
conjunction with ay scent private development can be~ tonstruct ed with
2eaut:ficattoa funds, and we will be proposing locations for eor,•~eruetion
in the 87/88 Capital Budget. It should be noted that entry man;i,entation
on Foothill Boulevard will be implemented in accordance with tt Foothill
Boulevard Specific Pian.
RHM:LP:d}w
~~
E%HIBIT A
.ccenr ~?
waMo
COK~ H
iuN iJ
KW
.n••e 1' p
vowMX
cwwu~ naa~
vn a tw
ww nwna w~ul..i•
.. ~ ~~'+pwlwV wLLl
MAJOR GATEWAY
E%HIBIT B
arv ium
P~CI~
YY~~
STANDAgO ENTRY ~
~~~ ~
J
E%X1817 C
PROPOSED ENTRY MONUMENT WALL LOCATIONS
SYMBOL OESCRIP710N
(, MAJOR GATEWAY ENTRY MONUMENTATION
/+ s;-ong ~•~sual statement, located on both
sides of se iected arterials into the City.
STANDARD ENTRY MONUMlNTATION
a 5mai ler scale entry wall, to 6e located
on ^,~e side cf [he s; reef a[ Ci[y boundaries.
~J FOOTHILL BLVD. ENTRY MONUMENTATION
I~ol emenced Ch rough [he Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONC
~~
r\ c~~
~~
~ ~ L._
~ I__ tINlllt OR IN1LDlMGt I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 28, 1987 -
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Peter J. Pitassi, Chairman
Park Development Commission
Subject: Review of Red Hill Community Park Lake Program
The Park Development Commission during it's regular meeting
of May 21, 1987, reviewed at the direction of City Council,
the lake program at Red Hill Community Park. The review
focused on the following question:
"IS the lake felt to be 'safe' for users
of the park, or, does it rather, present
a 'hazard' to users as an attractive
nuisance?"
It was the unanimous opinion of the Commission that the lake
as designed is n valuable asset to the park and does not
constitute an attractive nuisance.
The 1 n_Yn .inn_3..... n_.i ..344 _ _
maintenance~•in mind and the ~Commission recommends utherefore
that the lake be maintained in it's current state of design
and construction.
PP:bs
cc: Park Development Commission
a a~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCABIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 1987
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
8Y: Mike Bra tt. Assistant Planner
~,~cn.ivo'tic
~i~,
z~
x
z
~n;-
A~BJ ECT: MI t.1KEN 'dA$TE T E1:C~OY FAC iLITi iN OnTARiD - The Lity
ounce wi review e s a us o e proposed waste to
energy plant to be located at the Milliken dump site in
Ontario.
RECOMMENDATION: Request staff to forward comments on the Draft
nvi ronmen a mpact Report on the Milliken Naste to Energy Facility to
the County of San Bernardino. In addition the Council may wish to adopt
the attached resolution, expressing serious concerns with the proposed
project.
BACKGROUND: The County of San Bernardino proposes to construct a plant
otTn municipal waste and convert the heat to electricity on a County
owned site adjacent to the solid waste landfill on Milliken Avenue and
Misty nn RnulPVa rd within the Onta rin city ii~nf T.s. A maximum of 1 fi00
tons of unsorted municipal trash would be burned daily, producing 43
megawatts of electricity.
Following studies begun in 1974 on municipal waste disposal, the County
began pursuit of a waste to energy project in 1982, In April 198?, the
Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to approve an agreement wi to Ogden Martin
Systems, Inc. to underwrite pre-construction costs up to six million
dollars for the project.
If Lne plant is not on line by April 1990, the price Southern California
Edison nos contracted to pay for Lhe energy decreases and the project
would probably nc longer be economically feasi Sl e. To make that
deadline, construction must Degin by November 1987. prior to Lhis date,
in addition to full environmental review, the project must revive
.,.:,,;serous oth cr permits and approvals.
The project is currently undergoing environmental review. A Draft
Environmental Impact Report funded by Ogden Martin has been prepared 6y
Radian Corporation, Sacrmnento. A Health Risk Assessment nos also peen
prepared. The draft EIR was issued April 27 and the p~~olic comment
period ends Jane 12, 1987. The County Board or Supervisors will
prooa bly vote in July on whether to certify the EIR.
aa~
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Milliken Haste to Energy Facility in Ontario
June 3, 1987
Page 2
Thn draft EIR and draft Heal to Risk Assessment have been received and
reviewed by City staff. In the attached letter to the County of San
Bernardino concerns about the reyional environmental impacts of the
project are discussed. The main concerns identified by staff are
summarized as follows
HEALTH RISKS: An increased risk of cancer resulting from the project
asF~enLified and may be significant enough to warrant denial of
this project;
HATER QUALITY: There is a historic potential for liquids which leak
rom an i s to contaminate ground water supplies and the Milliken
site overlays the Chino Groundwater Basin.
MATER SUPPLY: The larye volumes of water needed for coaling wilt be
supp ie y he City of Ontario water system, competing with other
potential water demands and may increase the cost and availability of
adequate water supply in the region.
HASTE MATER DISCHARGES: Large volumes of waste water will compete with
o er po en a n us r al sewer users.
JOBS: Resources needed for industrial and manufacturing yrowth in the
region may be impacted by the demands of this project for air quality
offsets, water supply and waste water df scharoe.
A more detailed description of these concerns is contained 1n the
attached response to the County, prepared by City staff. IL is our
intention to forward these comments to the County. The Council may also
wish to consider adoption of the attached draft resoluti ~n expressing
concerns about the project and requesting that the project not be
approved unies~ and until these concerns are successfully resolved and
mi ti aakede //
tted,
Brad Bu er
L'i ty P annpr
BB:MB:ns
Attachment: Letter to Ina A. Pe tokas
Resolution
~~ O
Q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Po„ aeu m, eon, p,e,;n c~..,,,o,.,, cwr ~. vi~w,;i;.i vev.;es;
June 4, 1987
Ina A. Petokas, Senfor Planner
Environmental Analysis Section
land Management Department
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92415-0180
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NILLlKEN NASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY
Dear Ms. Petokas:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and ca;~ent on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report. The report raises many environmental
concerns, such as magnification of toxic substances 1n the food chain,
and also concerns about whether the project wn obtain the many required
permits and begin producing energy in time to take advantage of the
exiting favorable contract with Southern California Edison. Several
issues need more adequate discussion. The C1ty of Rancho Cucasonga is
especially concerned about the regional impacts of the Milliken Naste to
uw, yy p, uja.L.
Of the many environmental issues which have been raised, the following
are of special concern as discussed below and additional information is
requested:
health risks
air quality
hazardous waste disposal
water quality
water suDD1Y
waste water discharges
jobs
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS (Section 5.21:
According to the Draft EIR health risk assessment, the number of
increased cancer cases resulting from the project ranges from .9 in one
million to 3 in one million with a probability of 2.2 in one million.
One in one million is considered significant 6y the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and mGay be cause to deny a oruj ec t.
J~/
N.m. .wn'~nr,nbn
Deborah N. Brown lelhey Kin{ [,ry umy.,
Den^ul Saar Chnl<, 1. Buqun !1 Pwnel.l. WnN! l..urcn M.Wuu,m.n
Ina A. Petokas
County of San Bernardino
Page 2
Al though the potentially affected population resides within a seven mile
radius of the project, only the area to the east was included in the
study. A map Dosed on identified wind patterns and resulting dispersion
rates of particulate matter for a full 3ti0 degree radius from the
Milliken NTE project is requested. Also needed is a complete analysis
of the effects of the particulate dispersion on the full area. A second
map is needed identifying the dispersion rates of particulate matter
from the Milliken project and the nine additional proposed NTE plants in
the South Coast air basin which are identified in the draft EIR.
AIR UHALITY (Section 5.1 ):
Impacts of the project on air quality in the region are a serious
concern. Issues range from the effect of smoke stack emissions from the
Milliken WTE plant on the region, the cumulative impact of the Milliken
proposal added to other mass burn proposals such as the Garb 011 TTre
Burning project proposed in Rialto, and socio-economic impac is resulting
from increased air pollution and the use of air quality offsets for mass
burn projects.
Stack emissions: In general, air pollution impacts of the project are
nr e'`d~n~y ave~agi ng techniques. Nhen discussing quantity of emissions,
the draft EIR uses small numbers such as grams per second and grams per
minute. These quantities are difficult to visualfze and should be
.as Lu Leu iu ume ioixiiiar• terms such as pounas per aay ana pounas or
tons per year.
Ambient air quality; Quanti =i es of emf ssi ohs are also minimized oy
averaging, a rat EIR discusses the impact of the project on the
ambient air quality. This is misleading. For example, the closure of
the Kaiser Steel Mill had no effect on the ambi ant air quality of the
oasin. However, tote plant was not in compliance with the air quality
standards of the area and there has been a perceptible difference in air
quality since the plant closed. This difference is noticeable in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga which is upwind of the prevailing wind pattern.
Health Risk Assessment for Rancho Cucamonga: Most of the CT ty of Rancho
ucamonya is w in a seven mi a ra us considered significant for
particulate dispersal from the stack but was not includod in the risk
analysis, The rea;on yf ren was thai the pollution impaci
from~tne ~stacti depends on wind direction, therefore the greatest impact
is east of the project. Please clearly state and analyze the effects
from Lhe normal daily shift to the west during the night and effects
during Santa Ana wind conditions.
~) ~~
Ina A. Petokas
County of San Bernardino
Page 3
Air quality offsets: Air quality reyulations require that the project
o gin air qua.i y offsets for the entire quantity of emissions from the
project. The app'icarit, Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., states the intent
to acquire offsets in the area east of Lhe project, but the process for
acquisition of the offsets for this project is not discussed in the
draft EIR, nor are the implications of committing offsets on existing or
future manufacturing and industrial projects in the region. In the EIR,
please discuss the air quality offset acquisition process, the specific
amount of offsets required for this project, and analyze the
implications for future manufacture and industry in the Inland Empire.
Cumulative Impact of WTE Projects: Nine other mass burn, waste to
energy proaec s, nc u ing a ar it ti re burnt ni facility in Rialto,
the Lancer project in south-central Los Angeles, and the Spadra project
'in Pomona, are under consideration for the South Ooast air basin. The
Irwindale WTE project was withdrawn in March. According to the draft
EIR the cumulative impacts of these projects would increase pollution in
the region between 10 and 13i and is termed "insignificant". These
percents should be quantified in terms of pounds per day and tons per
year. The emissions from individual WTE projects should be coapared
with emissions from specific stationary and non-stationary sources.
Comparison should include oil or gas fired power plants and oil
refineries for stationary sources and automobile and airplane emissions
for non-stationary sources. Current and projected airplane emissions
for Ontario International Airport are particularly important in light of
expectations of the region for economic growth.
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL iSec Lion 3.5)
According to the draft EIR, two kinds or ash are produced by the mass
burn process -- bottom ash and f'ly ash. Bottom ash is predicted to be
relatively clean and fly ash to be relatively toxic. In a mass burn
plant, toxic byproducts result from burning plastics and metals and
cencentrato in the fly ash, most of which is captured by air pollution
control technology and some of which is released as particulates. It is
proposed to dispose of mixed bottom ash and fly ash at the Milliken
site. This will require an upgrade of the portion of the site specified
for ash disposal to a Class II landfill, which means that an impervious
lining must be installed, as well as a method for capturing liquids
which leach from the ash in the landfill.
=" :n r0'J,n •°a!n^y the aC foal as+ ii CidiSifieu di a tUX1[ wd5te, 1L
must be disposed in a Class I site. A Class I site must provide
containment of toxic material with no possibility of water supply
contamination. The nearest Class I site is in the Bakersfield area.
However, a new law (AB 2948, Tanner) may require disposal in the area of
or~yin, Historically, Class I sites, such as Stringfellow i Riverside
County and eKK in Los Angeles County, have leaked and are now superfund
~~ ~/
Ina A. Petokas
County of San Bernardino
Page 4
clean-up sites. The draft EIR suggests that the Milliken site might be
upgraded to a Class I site. If Class I disposal of the ash becomes
necessary, what is the probability of approval of the Milliken site as a
Class I disposal site? Mhat are tht ramifications, including project
cast, of the need for Class [ disposal at the Milliken site or at
another si te7
HATER QUALITY (Section 5.9)
Potential degradation of ground water supply by liquid leaching from ash
disposed at the landfill or from ash fall frao the stack is discussed
and minimized in the draft EIR, but remains a concern, because the site
overlays the Chino groundwater basin and surface flows drain into the
Santa Ana River. The EIR should review the history of contaimaent of
water soluble wastes including toxic wastes along with a consideration
of the potential regfonal costs of the cleanup of the Milliken landfill
ash disposal site, if cleanup should become necessary.
HATER SUPPLY (Section 5.9)
The project demands large volumes of water for cooling purposes,
specifically 1,871 acre feet per year. Potable water supply would be
from the City of Ontario water system. In the future the project might
use reclaimed wastewater from a protect proposed by the Chino Basin
Municipal Mater District. Hater used for the protect represents both
the cost of lost opportunity for other uses and decreases the time when
Ml. t~nn w1nA N.. ..A
ten- ~ ...y :. +++::+.+• +~ 'u t"' ~"=u 4xciH [aV lil bl e] will IICCU LU Ue
built+ in the region. The draft EIP, minimizes these costs. The full
costs of using import water and construction of water treatment
facilities should be discussed in the EIR.
'BASTE ~rIATER DISCHARGES (Section 5.9)
Tne project disposes of large volumes of waste water, same through the
domestic sewer and some through the industrial sewer. According to the
draft EIR the project flow would represent only five percent of the
remaining capacity of the industrial waste sewer and is considered
insignificant. This is stated in physical and contractual terms. The
EIR should state the impact in terms of the ability of facilities to
handle the physical waste and the impact of the waste at the release
point into the ocean. The EIR should then assess Lhe cost of the lost
nppnrtpni ty rer nr.^.er 1ndUStr'al and manufac LJr iilg uSeS Jf file
industrial sewer line.
.~ 3~
Ina A. Petokas
County of San Bernardino
Page 5
SOBS (Section 5.6)
Industrial an.: manufacturing growth in the region may be 1 acted b
this project, as well as by other waste to energy projects in the region
through demands on air quality offsets, water supply capacity and waste
water discharge capacity. These socio-economic impacts are not really
discussed in the draft EIR. However, the growth of job producing
industrial and manufacturing growth Tn the [n1anA Empire is fundamental
to the economic health of the area and given a high priority by the Cify
of Rancho Cucamonga.
The project would provide 44 permanent jobs on completion and an
estimated 300 jobs during construction. Mhat job opportunities will be
lost because this plant is constructed9
The EIR should expand the discussion of the tagact on the present aM
future industrial and manufacturing growth capacity of the Inland Empiro
as a result of the Milliken project. The EIR should also d!scuss the
cumulative impact of the Milliken project and the nine other proposed
wTE projects on the overall economic growth of the South Coast basin.
In summary, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has serious concerns about the
environmental impact of the proposed project on the region and requests
additional information, resolution of these concerns or their
mitigation.
If you have any quesifons, please feel free to contact me or Mtki
Bratt at 989-1861.
Si ncerel v_.uours ~~
ITY pEVF,IpPMENT-DEPARTMENT
NG Vl ql
otto x
Senior
OK:MB
Attachments
,3.3
RESOLUTION N0. S ~ ~ $ 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED MILL IKEN HASTE
TO ENERGY FACILITY IN ONTARIO
WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino proposes to build a waste to
energy facility which will burn a maximum of 1,600 tons of unsorted municipal
trash a day at a site adjacent to the Milliken landfill in the City of
Ontario;
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the seven mile radius
of significant impact from particulate dispersion from the project's 122 foot
smokestack;
WHEREAS, the risk of increased cases of cancer caused by the project
may be significant;
WHEREAS, ash from the project may be classed as a toxic waste and
require disposal in a Class I landfill;
WHEREAS, liquid leaking from the ash disposal site can potentially
degrade the China groundwater basin;
NHEREAS, the project requires large volumes of water for cooling and
will compete with existing and future projects for water supply;
WHEREAS, there will be large volumes of waste wato. Ai~rhanne_A .n .h.,
inaustria) sewer system which will compete with existing and future projects
for waste water discharge capacity;
WHEREAS, resources needed for industrial and manufacturing growth in
the Inland Empire may be adversely affected by this project including air
quality offsets, water supply and waste water discharge; and
NHEREAS, this project may not be economically feasible because of the
complex permitting process and the tight tf me line required to meet the
deadline of the contract for the sale of energy to Southern California Edison
Company;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cu camonya does hereby express serious concerns about the environmental
and other impacts assot;ated ri th *.he proposed prc,{ect and regaects Rdat the
proj eci not oe approved unless and until all these serious concerns and issues
are successfully resolved and mitiyated.
~~3Y
RESOLUTION NO. ~ 7 - ~ S
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING INFORMATION GAINED
THROUGH CONFERENCE AND SEMINAR ATTENDANCE
WHEREAS, it is necessary for elected officials aril appointed
officials of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to gain salient information
regarding municipal managment issues through confererx:e and seminar
attendance; and
WHEREAS; it is also necessary for staff members of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga to continue training and improve professional skills
through conference and seminar aTtendance; and
WHEREAS, from time to time it ber:omes necessary for elected
officials, appointed officials, and staff members to attend conferences and
seminars for the purposes of gaining additional knowledge; and
WHEREAS, ii is very important to insure public funds are
expended in most Lost efficient manner when conferences and seminars are
attended; and
WHLREA5, the Cify will receive maximum benefit from elected
officials, appointed officials, and staff members attending catferences and
seminars if sessions and activities are attended to the fullest extent
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
I. All elec Ted officials, appointed offiria is and executive scoff
members shall submit to the City Council, in writing, o
report no later Than ten working days after attendiny a
conference or seminar outli Wing the information obtained at
the activiTy.
2. All staff members attending o conference or seminar shall
submit fa !heir Executive Management supervisor, in
writing, n report no later than Ten working days after
attending The program outlining the information obtained a!
thr Deli vitY.
3. `Nhen uvailabe, information or handouts ob"Dined shall he
attached to the above mentioned report.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of ", 1987.
AYES:
N01-S:
~~
~-
ORDINANCE NO. - ~~
AN ORDINANCE OF THB CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CIICAMONGA ADDIHG CHAPTER 2.5~ TO
TITLE 2 OF TH8 RANCHO CDCAMONGA MIINICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE CREATION OF A PIIHLIC SAFETY
COMMISSION.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 2.56 hereby is added to the
kancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
"Chanter 2.56
"Public Safety Commission
'sections:
2.56.010 Public Safety Commission Created.
2.56.020 Melnbershlp -- Number.
2.56.D30 Membership -- Positions to be Non-salaried.
2.56.040 Aiembersh ip -- Length of Terms.
2.56.050 Membership -- Removal.
2.56.060 Powers and Duties.
7..56.070 Poerrotarv
2.56.080 Chairperson and Vice-chairperson -- Selection
and Terms.
2.56.090 Meetings.
"2.56.010 Public Safety Commission Created. There i.s
created and established in the City a Public Safety Commission.
"2.56.020 Membership -- Number. The Pu61ic Safety
Commission shall consist of seven members who shall be appointed
by the City Council. The Mayor shall submit to the City Council
the name of any person proposed for appointment to the Public
Safety Commission, and upon such appointment by the City Council,
the name of the appointee shall be recorded in the minutes of the
City Council meeting.
"2_55.030 Membershio -- Positions to be ~Ign-salaried.
Members of the Public Safety Commission shall receive no salary;
provided, however, that nothing in this Chapter shall preclude
reimbursement to any member of the Public Safety Commission for
actual and necessary expenses incurred in the perf^rmance of
cPf icial duties by such commission. on behalf of the City.
1
ORDINANCE NO. Page 2
"2.56.040 Membership -- Length of Terms. Of the seven
persons appointed initially to serve on the Public Safety
Commission, three shall be designated to serve for a term
concluding on December 31, 1988 and four shall be appointed to
terms terminating on December 31, 1990 unless sooner removed as
provided for in this Chapter. Thereafter, those persons
succeeding to the offices of the initial appointees to the Public
Safety Commission shall be appointed for terms of four years
commencing on the first day of January next succeeding each
regular municipal election scheduled to occur in November of even
numbered years. If a vacancy shall occur, other than by
expiration of the term of office, it shall be filled by
appointment by the Mayor with the approval of the City council
for the unexpired term thereof. The City Council may extend the
expiring term of any public safety commissioner once for a
maximum of six months.
"2.56.050 Membership -- Removal. Any member of the
Public Safety Commission may be removed at any time by a majority
vote of the entire City Council.
"2.56.060 owe s a~ ut' s. The Public Safety
Commissicn shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Council
with respect to public safety matters and issues, including, but
not limited to, police and fire protection, traffic safety,
public health and wo7faro A:cachn~ .. ,.,, a....-_
L 1..C 111C 11 L
service levels, crime trends and law enforcement problemsVwithin
the community and such other public safety matters as may be
referred to it by the City Council, or brought to its attention
by citizens of the community. The Commission shall provide such
advice and consultation to other City commissions and staff as
may he requested of the Commission. Notwithstanding the powers
and uties of the Public Safety Commission, the Public Safety
Commission shall not constitute a citizen review board or
complaint board and shall not be authorized to review complaints
with respect to personnel actions regarding public safely
personnel.
"2.56.070 Secretary. The City Manager, or his
designee, shall act as secretary to the Public Safety Commission
and shall ho the .-~ t a;
5 o....an of ita reCJrdd, cnn dllrt nffinial
correspondence, and coordinate the clerical and technical work of
the Public Safety Commission in administering this Chapter.
ORDINANCE NO. Page 3
"2.56.080 Chai er on and Vice-chairoerso:~ --
Selection and Terms. The Mayor, with the approval of the City
Council, shall appoint the first Chairperson and Vice-chairperson
from among the Ccmmission Members. The terms of office of the
Chairperson and Vice-chairperson shall be for the calendar year,
or that portion remaining after said chairperson or Vice-
chairperson is appointed or elected. Thereafter, when there is a
vacancy in the office of Chairperson and/or Vice-chairperson, the
Commission shall elect a Chairperson and/or Vice-chairperson from
among its members. The Chairperson shall preside at each meeting
of the Public Safety Commission and the Vice-chairperson shall
preside over such meetings in the absence of the Chairperson.
"2.56.090 Meetings. Regular meetings of the Public
Safety Commission shall be held at such time and place as is
determined by resolution of the City Council.'
SECTION ~ The City Clerk shall certify to the passage
of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within
fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The ail
Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City
of Ontario, California, and circa'-*_-~= ___ th- r; ~~_- ,.p Ranrnn
Cucamonga, California. -
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, City Clerk of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular neeting of the
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: Junr 3, 1987
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer
BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Windrows School Access to Victoria Park Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
~ v
~;r
a~ ~„_
Y'
F ~~ `z
It is recommended that the driveway to the south parking lot of Windrows
School from Victoria Park Lane be gated and restricted to limited use or
eliminated from the school plans and not constructed.
BACK9IDUN0:
Early last year, final plans for Windrows School were submitted to the
City for grading plan check. At that time, City staff discovered that a
driveway on Victoria Park Lane was a part of the plans. The district
superintendent was contacted and requested to delete the driveway due to
the nature of Victoria Park Lane, whose dense landscaping was in
conflict with the visibility needed at such a driveway, the grade
difference which would cause an awkward dri vewav deli an and tha
disruption to the planned equestrian trail along the school property.
It was explained that an ordinary project submitted for site plan review
and approval would not have been allowed driveway access to Victoria
Park Lane.
The schocl district's reply was that the plans were so far along and had
been State approval that it was Loo late to make such a change. It was
also stated Lhat the driveway design was a result of State requirements
that school bus and automobile traffic not share common accesses. The
delays of changing driveway designs and resubmitting through State
approvals wuu;d have been Intolerable to the district's scheduling, The
City's repl ;~ was that there was still an nbj ecti on to the driveway and
that it would have to be further considered between then and the time of
construction perniit issuanca.
Subsequently, it has been learned that there is na plan for bus service
for this school and that a day care use which had also been presented as
a reason for the driveway's need is not Lo be undertaken.
7
~.:~,_~~
CITY COUNCiI STAFF REPORT
RE: NINDRONS SCHOOL ACCESS
June 3, 1987
Page 2
AluLrsts:
As stated above, initial objections to the driveway had to do with
traffic safety, grading and trait continuity. Since that time, concerns
have been raised about students jaywalking across Victoria Park Lane,
with the resultant hazards being increased by the curvature and
landscaping.
investigation into those concerns and options available to increase the
safety of Victoria Park Lane in that vicinity have resulted in plans for
extensive revisions to the north and south sides of Victoria Park Lane,
as well as the median.
The work on the south side involves the installation of shrubbery and
fencing for a sufficient distance in front of the adjacent cut-de-sacs
to make the proper pedestrian route through the intersection of Victoria
Park Lane and Victoria Loop the shortest route to the school. On the
north side, the equestrian trail and sidewalk will be interchanged from
considerably south of the school to Victoria Windrows Loop. this will
place the equestrian trait with its two fences between the sidewalk and
the school to further discourage jaywalking. Finally, the median will
be regraded and landscaped so that any pedestrian using it will be
vi si6le to approaching drivers, -
tven wili~ X11 !h+< work, there wilt be a gapping hole in the plan and
that is the driveway into the ~c`cc'.. the driveway creates an
attractive nuisance encouraging efforts to overcome ail cite obatac?^<
placed at great effort and expense. This is particularly true of
pedestrians on the school grounds who are headed for the residential
areas and who otherwise would go to the corner to cross.
Respe u ly submitted,
i
i
% ~ ~~C~~
r RHM:PAR' ~ .