HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/10/17 - Agenda Packet (partial)CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 17, 1984
TO: City Council
PROM: Lauren M. Wasserman
City Manager /10
SUBJECT: Added Consent Calendar Item
Recommend Transfer of Funds for Purchase of
Personal Tape Recorders
It is recommended that the City Council approve the transfer of funds in the
amount not to exceed $1500 from the Sheriff's Department Overtime Account in
order to purchase 15 personal tape recorders for use by Deputies in the field.
These unite will be replacements for other equipment which is now proving to be
very costly to maintain.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that $1500 be transferred from the Sheriff's
Overtime budgetary account to the Small Toole Account in the Sheriff's
Department contract for the purchase of personal tape recorders.
LMW:baa
Approximately two years ago, the City purchased fifteen small
dictaphone tape recorders for our field and investigative
personnel to carry while on duty. The primary purpose of
the recorders was to provide the officers with an accurate
record of negative citizen and criminal contacts.
This program proved highly effective in reducing the number
of citizen complaints of rudeness and poor demeanor by our
officers. It, also, helps to ensure that our officers'
conduct remains professional as he knows that he is expected
to record his citizen contacts.
During the last six months, the down time and the increased
cost of repairs on the recorders has all but rendered most
of the units unserviceable. We have, coincidentally, been
experiencing an increase in the number of complaints on
officer demeanor.
RECOMMENDATION-
I would recommend that the dictaphone recorders, presently
in use, be replaced with the Olympus Pearlcorder, Model
S 801 Tape Recorder. We can purchase these units for $91
each, and they are small enough to fit in the shirt pockets
and have the added feature of being voice actuated. Because
of the comparatively low initial cost, which includes a
1 -year warranty on parts and a 90 -day warranty on labor,
the units, after the first year, could be replaced rather
than experiencing the down time and expense of repairing
the worn units.
REQUEST:
Although the purchase of replacement recorders was not ad-
dressed in our FY 84/85 budget, there is a substantial con-
tingency factor built into our overtime budget to provide
for major investigations. We are well into this fiscal
year, and as yet, we have not experienced any substantial
:144 iq0a0 Rae. 1 /))
INTER- OFFICE
MEMO
DATE
October 10, 1984 PHONE
uR acaw.au�
FROM
John A. Futscher, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station
TO
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT
UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURE FOR SMALL
TOOLS - TAPE
RECORDERS
Approximately two years ago, the City purchased fifteen small
dictaphone tape recorders for our field and investigative
personnel to carry while on duty. The primary purpose of
the recorders was to provide the officers with an accurate
record of negative citizen and criminal contacts.
This program proved highly effective in reducing the number
of citizen complaints of rudeness and poor demeanor by our
officers. It, also, helps to ensure that our officers'
conduct remains professional as he knows that he is expected
to record his citizen contacts.
During the last six months, the down time and the increased
cost of repairs on the recorders has all but rendered most
of the units unserviceable. We have, coincidentally, been
experiencing an increase in the number of complaints on
officer demeanor.
RECOMMENDATION-
I would recommend that the dictaphone recorders, presently
in use, be replaced with the Olympus Pearlcorder, Model
S 801 Tape Recorder. We can purchase these units for $91
each, and they are small enough to fit in the shirt pockets
and have the added feature of being voice actuated. Because
of the comparatively low initial cost, which includes a
1 -year warranty on parts and a 90 -day warranty on labor,
the units, after the first year, could be replaced rather
than experiencing the down time and expense of repairing
the worn units.
REQUEST:
Although the purchase of replacement recorders was not ad-
dressed in our FY 84/85 budget, there is a substantial con-
tingency factor built into our overtime budget to provide
for major investigations. We are well into this fiscal
year, and as yet, we have not experienced any substantial
:144 iq0a0 Rae. 1 /))
Memo To Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Page Two
October 10, 1984
major investigations. Consequently, I would request that
monies be transferred, from that cost center to our equipment
budget for the purchase of fifteen recorders and thirty tapes.
COST,
Fifteen Olympus Pearlcorders,
Model S 801 at $91 each . . . . . . . . $ 1365.00
*Fifteen Cassettes at $2.45 . . . . . . 36.75
68 Sales Tax . . . . 84.11
TOTAL . . . . . . $ 1485.86
*Note - Total of 30 cassettes requested. Fifteen to be pur-
chased through the City. Fifteen inventoried at the Station.
4p w65i COUfrt 6i., SIE'Jm
sui eErrc+uaro, w m.o,
mo ms>TTo
October 15, 1984
WO 1rlEG M, STE m
VEMUM, G 6YW
aw means
Mayor and Council Members
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APP.. °,OVING
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CREDIT FOR TRACT 12414
Honorable Mayor and Council:
The appeal filed by Councilman Dahl relative to the 30%
credit approved by the Planning Commission for Tract 12414
suggests that your further consideration of City Ordinance
$ 105 -C is in order. As you recall, both Mr. John Sauer
and I spoke in favor of your adoption of this Ordinance,
requesting that you delete the section pertaining to
a three acre minimum park area. We felt at that time,
and still do, that this section of your ordinance has
the practical effect of precluding from your consideration
the desire on the part of some builders to upgrade their
projects by enhancing the on -site neighborhood recrea-
tional amenities provided to their buyers - your future
residents.
First, why should the City have an ordinance that provides
for private open space credit? Beyond the requirement of
State Law, we believe there are valid reasons why the City
should have this type of ordinance. The City of Rancho
Cucamonga is today faced with an enormous challenge of
providing needed urban services, park and recreational
amenities being one, during a period of unprecedented
community growth and local development. This ordinance
seeks to provide a supplement, not a substitute, to the
provision of needed open space and recreational amenities.
We see the City's park program as having three major
components, as stated by the City's General Plan. They
are: (1) regional park; (2) community park; and (3) neigh-
borhood park and recreational facilities. Within private
residential developments, it is doubtful that either of
the first two components of this program can effectively
be realized, (other than in master planned communities
like Victoria or Terra Vista). However, in medium and
small scale residential projects, the provision of
private open space for neighborhood recreational spaces
can be met by the private sector.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING
Mayor and Council Members
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
Primary advantages to the City of providing for private
open space credit by enhanced development of recreational
facilities within residential development are: lessening
the cost of open space. maintenance to the public agency;
spreading the burden of maintaining open space and recre-
ational facilities throughout the City to private
homeowners associations and similar organizations;
and developing more open space and recreational
facilities sooner than those which can be developed
solely by the public agency, thus providing more open
space and park facilities sooner and to a larger number
of residents.
In closing, we urge you to act upon the recommendation
of your Planning Commission to uphold their approval
of partial open space credit for the Hamilton Ranch
project, and to deny this appeal.
Thank you for your consideration. We will appear at your
meeting of October 17th to address this matter and to
provide visual aids for your information.
Truly yours,
Gary W. Mitchell
NAALAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: A -M Co.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 17, 1984
TO: Mayor and Members of the (;Lty QbunciI
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner:
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING`
.o GUCnM11pN
C C-r
G y
¢I I 4
a
1977
The deve gpment of in ustria buildings
totaling 76,120 squard feet on 5.68 acres of land in the
Industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located on the
northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street.
The above item was inadvertently omitted from the City Council's consent
calendar agenda this evening. Staff would like to request that
November 7, 1984 be set as the public hearing date for the above appeal.
RG /jr
INFORMATION•
On September 28, 1984, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department out four K -9 units into use at strategic loca-
tions throughout the County. The dogs, Shut_zhund German
Shepherds, were raised and received their training in
Germany. The dogs were purchased through Master K -9 in
Redlands, California. The purchase of the dogs from
Master's includes a three -week handler course, handling
and training equipment, and a two -year replacement
guarantee against health, temperament and training. In
the first two weeks of the program the dogs have parti-
cipated in six successful operations. These range from
locating suspects inside of buildings to locating persons
who have wandered away from nursing homes.
USES:
1. Residential, commercial, and industrial
building searches for victims, suspects,
and evidence.
2. Area searches for victims, suspects and
evidence.
3. Apprehension of fleeing suspects.
4. Crowd control.
5. Scent tracking.
6. Sign tracking.
7. Taking out barricaded suspects.
8. Location of narcotics.
HANDLER REQUIREMENTS:
1. A three -year commitment to the program on
the part of the handler.
2. Appropriate residential accommodations -
fenced rear yard, etc.
19.1367 WRw. 1177
INTER- OFFICE MEMO
�cc
DATE
October
16, 1984 PHONE
FROM
John A.
Futscher, Captain
Rancho
Cucamonga Sheriff's Station
TO
Lauren
Wasserman, City Manager
City of
Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT
CANINE
PROGRAM
INFORMATION•
On September 28, 1984, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department out four K -9 units into use at strategic loca-
tions throughout the County. The dogs, Shut_zhund German
Shepherds, were raised and received their training in
Germany. The dogs were purchased through Master K -9 in
Redlands, California. The purchase of the dogs from
Master's includes a three -week handler course, handling
and training equipment, and a two -year replacement
guarantee against health, temperament and training. In
the first two weeks of the program the dogs have parti-
cipated in six successful operations. These range from
locating suspects inside of buildings to locating persons
who have wandered away from nursing homes.
USES:
1. Residential, commercial, and industrial
building searches for victims, suspects,
and evidence.
2. Area searches for victims, suspects and
evidence.
3. Apprehension of fleeing suspects.
4. Crowd control.
5. Scent tracking.
6. Sign tracking.
7. Taking out barricaded suspects.
8. Location of narcotics.
HANDLER REQUIREMENTS:
1. A three -year commitment to the program on
the part of the handler.
2. Appropriate residential accommodations -
fenced rear yard, etc.
19.1367 WRw. 1177
Memo To Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
October 16, 1984
Page Two
3. Maximum of 30- minute response time to station.
4. Willingness on the part of the family and
neighbors.
5. Exemplary attendance records.
6. Recognition and acceptance of a 24- hour -per-
day duty status.
TIME FACTORS:
K -9 Units can be in the field within five weeks of purchase.
Dogs return for additional narcotics detection training after
two weeks of field duty.
COST:
There are essentially three methods for entering the K -9 Pro-
gram:
1. The purchase of the dog, a Deputy II handler, and
a unit.
K -9 (includes) one fully trained dog, training of
handler, unit modification, kennels, dog runs, and
all required training and handling equipment. . . $ 7,000.00
2. one 40 -hour Deputy II and marked parol unit
(includes all supplemental personnel and
equipment as outlined in contract costs for
cities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,008.00
TOTAL $81,008.00
The dog and a marked patrol unit:
1. K -9 (same as above) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000.00
2. One marked patrol unit including maintenance
and fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,885.00
TOTAL $18,885.00
*The purchase of a dog:
1. K-9 (same as above) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000.00
Memo To Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
October 16, 1984
Page Three
OVERTIME:
It is expected that a K -9 unit will generate more overtime than
a regular patrol deputy. However, we are well within our over-
time spending level for this year and the overtime generated
by a K -9 Unit could be absorbed without the need for an increase.
This option results in the loss of a patrol unit to other
shifts. The handler takes the dog and the modified unit
home with him when he is off duty and on his days off.
JAF:amh
I
a
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 17, 1984
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren N. Wasserman
City Manager
SUBJECT: Added Consent Calendar Item
Recommend Transfer of Funds for Purchase of
Personal Tape Recorders
It is recommended that the City Council approve the transfer of funds in the
amount not to exceed $1500 from the Sheriff's Department Overtime Account in
order to purchase 15 personal tape recorders for use by Deputies in the field.
These unite will be replacements for other equipment which is now proving to be
very costly to maintain.
REC0MMENDATION: It is recommended that $1500 be transferred from the Sheriff's
Overtime budgetary account to the Small Tools Account in the Sheriff's
Department contract for the purchase of personal tape recorders.
LMW:baa
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
DATE October 10, 1984 PHONE
FROM John A. Futscher, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station
TO Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURE FOR SMALL TOOLS - TAPE RECORDERS
Approximately two years ago, the City purchased fifteen small
dictaphone tape recorders for our field and investigative
personnel to carry while on duty. The primary purpose of
the recorders was to provide the officers with an accurate
record of negative citizen and criminal contacts.
This program proved highly effective in reducing the number
of citizen complaints of rudeness and poor demeanor by our
officers. It, also, helps to ensure that our officers'
conduct remains professional as he knows that he is expected
to record his citizen contacts.
During the last six months, the down time and the increased
cost of repairs on the recorders has all but rendered most
of the units unserviceable. We have, coincidentally, been
experiencing an increase in the number of complaints on
officer demeanor.
I would recommend that the dictaphone recorders, presently
in use, be replaced with the Olympus Pearlcorder, Model
S 801 Tape Recorder. We can purchase these units for $91
each, and they are small enough to fit in the shirt pockets
and have the added feature of being voice actuated. Because
of the comparatively low initial cost, which includes a
1 -year warranty on parts and a 90 -day warranty on labor,
the units, after the first year, could be replaced rather
than experiencing the down time and expense of repairing
the worn units.
REQUEST:
Although the purchase of replacement recorders was not ad-
dressed in our FY 84/85 budget, there is a substantial con-
tingency factor built into our overtime budget to provide
for major investigations. We are well into this fiscal
year, and as yet, we have not experienced any substantial
IAIT)AW Per, i /))
Memo To Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Page Two
October 10, 1984
major investigations. Consequently, i would request that
monies be transferred from that cost center to our equipment
budget for the purchase of fifteen recorders and thirty tapes.
COST:
Fifteen Olympus Pearlcorders,
Model S 801 at $91 each . . . . . . . . $ 1365.00
*Fifteen Cassettes at $2.45 . . . . . . 36.75
68 Sales Tax . . . . 84.11
TOTAL . • • . . . $ 1485.86
*Note - Total of 30 cassettes requested. Fifteen to be pur-
chased through the City. Fifteen inventoried at the Station.
au"
v11 a yr 1%a I1 11v va11.1ivavivtrt� GVi.nMp
MEMORANDUM Nc=
DATE: 10 -15 -84
TO: City Council and City Mariag" 1977
FROM: Harry Emoey- Finance Directcrt�—
SUBJECT: Federal Regulations Governing the Handicapped
A self evaluation of handicap barriers was conducted
the week of October 8th to determine if any City
programs were so presented as to extend barriers to the
hanaicapoed citizen.
A recipient Rgencv of federal funds need not alter it's
existing facilities or reolace existinq facilities
with new ones if other means are successful in achiev-
ing program accessibility. The key to this wnoie
procedure is "Program Accessibility%
Section 5014 noes not require an agency tc make its
facilities barrier free. Physical barriers pray exist
)ust so long as they do not mrevent a handicapped
oersor, fr•orn full garticioation in a City orogrim.
The dlstinCtl6n between new facilities and existing
facll :tees must be ernohasi :ed. Existing facilities
reed not be made arch iter_tural ly accessible unless
there is no other means t_, proved pr•oaram par•t-
icipatiori. But all new facilities -in other words,
those constructed or renovated after finalization cf
individual requlations by Agency's regarding naridi-
capped persons -must be made architecturally accessible.
Structural changes are only reauired where program
accessibility cannot be achieved anv other way.
no facility, however by virtue of its inaccessibility^
can compromise the overall accessability of an acencv's
programs and activities.
The regulations (504), state that when structural
changes are necessary to mare programs or, activities
in exisiting facilities accessible, such changes shall
be made as soon as practacable, but in no event, later,
than three years after, the effective date of the in-
dividual agency regulations regarding the handicapped.
When leased space is inaccessible, such as is the
situation, here at Rancho Cucamonga, all programs and
activities of a recipient must be accessible regardless
of the nature of the space- awned, leased or used
through some other arrangement. In cases where leased
space is inaccessible, and programs and activities are
inaccessible as a result, Agencies are not advised to
break leases to achieve more acceptable location on
account of Section 504, since Federal law may not
provide ,justifications for breaking such leases. where
leased space is deemed inaccessible a recipient agency
should either:
1. Negotiate with the landlord to make the space
accessible
2. Relocate the pr•ogram(s) to a location that is
accessible to the handicapped;
3. Sublease the space for the duration of the con-
tract and lease accessible space in its stead.
If a recipient sponsors special events such as Council
Meetings, theatre presentations, or lectures, some
accessible seating - offering a reasonalbe selection -
must be available for, the handicapped for all such
events. Special considerations include; in all cases
where there is little flexability for rer�ovation,
handicapped persons should, where it ever, possible, be
provided seating with a good view of the activity.
Recipients shoi.ild make every effort to accomodate
persons with hearing impairments by providing close -in
seating and / cr interpretors. Interoretors shoi.ild be
situated so as to provide hearing irn, aired individuals
with a view of both the event and th? interpretor.
With regards to the self evaluation conducted to de-
termine where the handicapped barriers existed at City
facilities, numerous barriers were rioted, mostly minor
but in need of addressing either, through ohvscial
change or by policy.
analyzing the programs offered by the City it was
found that each facility delivering a program was
capable of delivering said program by making changes
to the delivery thereby eliminating those physical or•
architectural barriers that prevented the handicapped
from participation. Only in one instance did a barrier
seem unaddressable through policy nor was there any
evidence of any structural change temporary or other-
wise that seemed to eliminate the barrier. That
barrier is the one that exists at Lions Center where
there is no access to the stage for the handicapped.
This brings to mind two programs that this barrier,
provides inaccessibility. (1) Should an individual who
is wheelchair bound be elected to the City Council,
there is no ramp for the individual to take his /her
rightful seat at table for the Governing Body. (2)
A wheelchair bound child is also denied access to the
stage for participation in those recreation events that
the stage is necessary for the programs completion.
In summary, upon the effective date of Council's
adoption of its policy regarding the handicapped
(10- 17 -84), all new construction and facility
alterations should. be carried in conformance with the
technical standards for accessibility adopted for, use
by the individual Agency (in most cases, these will be
the ANSI standards).
within some specific period of time set forth in the
Agency's policy, recipients shall develop a transition
Plan for all renovation and construction work need to
achieve accessibility.
Structural changes needed to achieve accessibility
shall be made as soon as possible but in no event later
than three years frorn adootion of the transition Plan.
Recommendation: It is recomrneded that the City
Co -.ncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt a
transition olan that calls for mirror alterations to
City facilities as necessary and that where feasible,
program deliverance will adjusted to accomodate the
handicapped, and any mayor structural changes tnat may
be deemed ner_essarv, be deferred to �.e incoroor•ated as
part of the new Public Safety & Civic Center Facility.
All three major areas of the Transition plan will be at
the direction of the City Manager or person the Manager
may choose to art in his stead.
Attached is a matrix showing the Pr•jgram delivery areas
of the City and the categories of concern as outlined
by the Federal Government. Please note that most of
oarr•iers noted are actually minor in nature and should
pose no problem in addressing.
MATRIX - CITY PPMRAM /F"..l Government Areas of conrlm
Community
Co unity
Loon•.
Rancho Cucaaonga
police
Garr ier.
Adel n at rat ion
pevllopment
Serve
Ru 11 mg
Neighborhood Facility
F¢illty
Elevator.
N/A
N/A
No vlevat ors
N/A
N/A
N/A
to proved
____________
¢.
Rae..
_______________
No barrier
_______________
No barrier
_______________
No barv.r
__
Ra.p in plac.
__________________
Reap in PI ac.
_______________
Rasp in sae
noted, ...P
notadi ramp
notfdi ramp
on N.Y. Sid!
p n at fide
on .oat aid.
---- -- ----
on north side
on ...th aid.
n north aid.
of building
of building
of building
Door./
- ------
No barrier
----- ------
No barrier
---- --- -- ---
Nn barrier
--- ---- -- - ----
No barrier
-- -------------
No barrier
---- -- ------
No barrier
poor.'.
____________
noted
noted
noted
net.d
toted
noted
Rest.
_______________
No Public
_____
No Public
_
R..tr.. down-
__
No barrier
_________________
No barrier
_______________
No barrier
rest, .
retroo.
stairs. Haruj,
noted
noted
noted
capped stalls in
pl.c.
Hate
No public
No public
No Public
Nn barrier
No barrier
No Public
fountain,
____________
fountain
______ __ ______
fountain
fountain
noted
noted
fountain
He ... rd
No ba ier
________
No barrier
____________
No barrier
________________
------------------- _
_______________
ld.ntific.t..
noted
Noted
noted
Nn barrier
No barrier
No barrier
_______y ___
Noted
noted
noted
Yslkwa ./
_______________
No barrier
_____________
No barrier
______
No barrier
---------------- _
N•. barrier
__________________
No bar. ism
_______________
No barrier
strNt aing•a
---- --- ----
noted
-------------
Mled
noted
noted
noted
noted
switehimal
Those authorized
----- - --"'
Those authorized
--------- --------- -----'
Th.,.. authorized Thos. authorized
- - - --
Thos...thorized
---------------
Thoso authorized
controls
____________
in compl is.
___________
in compllano!
n cowplianc.
in eomClian..
in compli.nee
in cawpliance
Hazzard.
- -- ------ --
Non, noted
---- -----------
_____________
None noted
-- - -- - --
_____ __
None noted
_______
None noted
______________
Non. noted
_______________
Non. noted
Parking
Lot needs narking.
Same ae
-- --
so. as
--- ------ - - ---
Same a.
-- --- --- -------
Ned. vertical
--- -- ---- --
Ga. a.
lot.
vart. handicapped
Administration
Admi.zetrati on
Adwint.tation
handicap
Ad.inisbvtion
park•g signs needed
parking signs
EMrancee
No barrier
No bar. ier
No barrier
No barmen
No barrier
No barrier
noted
________________
noted
___________
noted
noted
noted
noted
Mastro
N/A
N/A
_____________
ac cesabl• only
________________
N/A
__________________
N/A
_______________
N/A
by stairs
Floors/
to barrier
No barrier
No barrier
No barrier
No barrier
No barrier
c.yerings,
---- ------
noted
------ -------- --
noted
noted
noted
noted
noted
Public
No barrier
--- ----- ------ --
No barrier
---- --- --- ----
No barrier
--- -- -- - - - --
No barrier
- ----- ---- ---- --
No barrier
------ ---- --
Not .cceasibl.
telephones
noted
noted
noted
noted
noted
to Nhealcha /r
----- _-----
________________
________________
________________
par.on.
Lighting
No barrier
No barrier
No barrier
________________
No barrier
__________________
No parr tar
_______________
No barrier
------- _---
noted
________________
opt ed
_____,
______
noted
n.t.d
.
noted
noted
Naming
No barrio
No eamvr
________________
No barrier
________________
No barrier
__________________
No barrier
_______________
No barrier
signals
noted
noted
noted
noted
noted
noted
Public
N/A
N/A
N/A
No r..p
No barrier
N/A
wtings
leading to
noted
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c cnnroM
MEMORANDUM
��i
� � 2
DATE: October 17, 1984 — is
/ - 1977
TO: Mayor and Members of the C,Lt`y' unci l
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner ""�
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING C MISSION DECISION DENYING
N RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A D DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8-
- The deve opment of 4 industrial buildings
totaling 76,120 squard feet on 5.68 acres of land in the
Industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located on the
northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 7th Street.
The above item was inadvertently omitted from the City Council's consent
calendar agenda this evening. Staff would like to request that
November 7, 1984 be set as the public hearing date for the above appeal.
RG /jr
Minutes
Joint Special Meeting
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Rancho Cucamonga Park Advisory Committee
April 26, 1984 - 7:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Mikels at 7:35 p.m. Call to Order
Present were Council members Buquet, Dahl, King, Mikels and R❑11 Call
Wright; and Committee members Henry, Pitassi and Vallance.
Absent: Committee members Punter and Riggs. Also present:
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager; Harry Empey, Finance Director;
Bill Holley, Community Services Director; and Bob Dougherty,
City Attorney.
Mon - Agenda Staff Items
Mr. Wasserman requested a closed Executive session meeting ith
9 Executive Session
the Council upon adjournment of this Special meeting. Request
was granted and the meeting was returned to Agenda items.
Introduction
Bill Holley reported that the purpose of this joint meeting was Mello -Roos
for the presentation of the Mello -Roos Implementation Plan
Feasibility Study to the Council and the Committee.
Park Facilities
Mr. Holley introduced Ron Paige of Recreation Systems, Inc. Park Funding
(consultants for the design Of Heritage and Red Hill Basin
Parks) . Mr. Paige presented Council and Committee with the site
plans for Heritage Park and Red Hill Basin Park. Funding for
the development of these parks (to include acquisition of Red
Hill Basin Park) is the proposed target for the Mello -Roos
program.
Committee member Riggs arrived at 7:40 p.m. Arrival /Riggs
Mr. Paige reported that each of these parks were designed by a
separate community task force comprised of a cross section of
the community.
Mello-Roos Program
Mr. Holley introduced Mr. Sohn Brown of Best. Beat a Krieger Community Facilities
(Bond Counsel for this project). Mr. Brown explained that the District
Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 is an enabling act
authorizing the creation of a legally constituted governmental
entity to be used as a vehicle for providing acquisition and
development of certain public facilities.
Mr. Brown reported that not only does Mello -Roos provide for
electorate approved establishment of a Community Facilities
District, but can also provide authorization for that District
to sell bonds, providing immediate capital for specific
projects, and to levy a special tax to retire the bonds.
Mr. Brown reported on the necessary steps involved prior to
creation of the District.
o Development and /or acquisition projects must be
specifically defined. These projects are currently
defined as development of Heritage Park and
acquisition /development of Red Hill Basin Park.
continued ...
1. P,
page 2
minutes 4/26/84
City Council and Park Advisory Committee
• Costs for these projects must be estimated. Total project
cost is currently estimated at $5 million.
• District boundaries must be established. Boundaries
currently proposed: Beginning at Haven and Foothill,
proceed along Foothill easterly consistent with the
Industrial Specific Plan to Etiwanda. South on Etiwanda
to Arrow, east along Arrow to City Limits. At that point,
boundary is contiguous to southern, western and northern
City limit boundaries to a point where the boundaries
intersect at Highland then west to Deer Creek Flood
Control Channel, south along the channel to the Southern
Pacific Railroad, west to Base Line Road, then south to
point of origin.
District Boundaries
o A Public Hearing receiving testimony regarding Special Tax Levy
establishment of the District, levy of tax and sale of
bonds must be held. This -Public Hearing is triggered by a
request by two or more Councilmembers or a Council
'Resolution of Intent' to form a Community Facilities
District and authorize that District to levy a special
tax. (if the District intends to sell bonds, this request
must be made at the same time.)
o After the Public Hearing, the formation of the District, Bond Election
levy of tax and sale of bonds must go before the
electorate (located within the proposed boundaries) within
90 - 180 days.
Mr. Brown cautioned Council on the possible effects of the Jarvis Bill
Jarvis Bill, to be put before the electorate in November. The
Jarvia Bill, if passed, may have the effect of nullifying a
Mello-Roos taxation based on ownership of land.
A second caution concerns an apparent conflict between the
Election Code and Mello -Roos regarding special elections.
Clarification of that conflict is hoped for in a 'clean -up' bill
this June.
Bill Holley introduced Larry Rolapp of Fieldman 6 Rolapp, Bond
Consultants.
Mr. Rolapp explained the cash flow connected with formation of a Cash Flow
District as follows: First, define the debt. Second, define
the amount and method of payment per parcel. Third, collect the
revenue from the tax rolls. He further explained that the $5
million construction cost estimate translates to a $7.5 million
pay back. This $7.5 million include, the monies needed to pay
all costs associated with a bond issue and a reserve fund that
can be used to pay debt prior to collection of taxes if needed.
Mayor Mikels asked Mr. Rolapp if the Mello -Roos issue could be Future Legislation
hampered because of possible effects of future legislation. Mr.
Rolapp suggested that future legislation always carries the
Possibility of concern.
continued ...
�r
page 3
minutes 4/26/84
City Council and Park Advisory Committee
Councilmember King asked Mr. Rolapp if a bond issue is preferred
to an assessment district. Mr. Rolapp explained that the chief
benefit of bond sales over assessment levies is that the revenue
is produced immediately on the sale of the bonds. A benefit
assessment district only allows the monies to be generated on an
annual basis from the property tax rolls. Thus, the sale of
bonds will guarantee available monies for immediate acquisition
and /or development at today's dollar value rather than a 'pay as
you go' plan such as would be allowed by a benefit assessment
district.
Councilmember King ouestioned the possible effects on assessment
districts should new legislation be enacted. Mr. Dougherty,
City Attorney, reported that various assessment district laws
currently exist and any new legislation would be 'overlaid' on
existing laws for determination. It is feasible that a 2/3 vote
of the electorate could be required to establish an assessment
district. ,
Councilmember Wright asked Mr. Rolapp if an 'area of benefit'
must be defined. Mr. Rolapp explained that an 'area of benefit'
is defined by the boundaries of the District.
Council and Committee discussed the time frame allowed regarding
public hearing process and the election date. Mr. Brown and Mr.
Rolapp reported that to insure all legal requirements have been
met, the preferred method is to have the entire election process
judicially validated.
Chairman Henry asked for an opinion on the feasibility of having
a special election prior to November. It was the consensus of
the Council and Committee that holding a special election prior
to November would be premature.
Bill Holley introduced Bob Merrell of Willdan a Associates. Mr.
Merrell explained the proposed taxing formula. In the proposed
formula there is a direct relation to benefit received by park
improvements and costs required to meet debt obligation. This
proposed formula calls for contributions from all taxable
parcels of land and has been based on land use information
obtained from the County Assessor's office. Emphasis for
repayment of the debt has been placed on residential parcels
containing one or more dwelling units per acre.
Bond Issue /Assessment
District
Area of Benefit
Special Election
Taxing Formula
Mayor Mikels asked Mr. Merrell what amount of property tax the Tax Amounts
average home owner would be charged. Mr. Merrell reported that
the average home owner would be charged a maximum tax of $35
annually. He further explained that the home owners not within
that $35 category would be charged on a sliding scale of a
minimum tax of $17.50 per year and a maximum tax of $875 per
year. Mr. Merrell explained that the sliding scale Would affect
less than 11 of the property Owners within the City.
Discussion was held on proposed District boundaries. It was Boundaries
explained that the planned communities of Victoria and Terra
Vista have been excluded from the District as their development
plans call for adequate park space to serve the residents in
those areas. Mayor Mikels and Chairman Henry suggested that
development of adequate park space to serve that entire area may
not be a correct assumption at this time.
continued ...
page 4
minutes 4/26/84
City Council and Park Advisory Committee
Mr. Merrell explained that boundaries do not have to show
Boundaries
'direct benefit' and that the proposed boundaries could be
changed to include areas not currently shown to be within the
proposed District. He suggested that a logical approach to
defining the boundaries would be to include the supporters of
the issue.
Councilman Buquet suggested that voters south of 19th Street
Area Voters
would not vote favorably for Heritage park.
Mr. Merrell reported that voters would not be voting on specific
General Electorate
park sites, but rather the over all project scope which includes
Heritage and Red Hill Basin parks. Staff explained that each
park will need $2.5 million for development, each park is
general use in nature and each park was designed by a citizen
design group and addresses the local needs of each.
Chairman Henry asked Mr. Merrell how the taxing formula is
Taxing Formula
justified when some parcels are charged at a higher rate. Mr.
Merrell explained that for the formula to be defendable to the
electorate, all taxable property within the District boundaries
must be taxed, including industrial, commercial and very low
density areas.
Mayor Mikels asked staff what they considered appropriate action
Feasibility Study
for the Council to take at this meeting. Bill Holley suggested
that Council digest the results of the feasibility study they
were presented with and perhaps consider asking the Park
Advisory Committee and the Advisory Commission for
recommendations regarding this issue.
Councilmember King reported on possible problems associated with
the boundaries as proposed in that some voter groups within the
District may not vote in favor of an increase in taxes.
Councilmember Wright requested an opinion regarding the
Grass Roots
scheduling of the election. Councilmember Dahl suggested that
entire issue of a bond election should not come from the Council
or Committee, but rather a grass roots movement from the general
public.
It was the consensus of both the Council and the Committee that
a 'grass roots' movement to try for a bond election for the
Mello -Roos program would be necessary for the issue to be
approved by the electorate.
Committee member Pitassi reported that he was in basic agreement
with the taxing formula and the maximum price per average
dwelling unit being $35. He further stated that the need for
development of these two parks is evident and the only apparent
way of funding would be a bond issue.
Committee member Vallance left the meeting at 9:19 p.m., not to
Depart /Valiance
return.
Councilmember Dahl suggested that further discussion of the
Mello -Roos issue be abandoned at this time and that the entire
issue be left to a 'grass roots' movement from residents.
Mayor Mikels stated that the Council is already involved as it
Election Expense
will be Council's decision on whether to commit to the expense
of an election.
continued ...
C
page 5
minutes 4/26/84
City Co -oil and Park Advisory Committee
Mayor Mikels requested staff to prepare an analysis framing the Analysis
issues to be considered Sboundaries, taxing formula, election
timing and direction of the grass roots movement) . This
analysis is to be sent in addition to the minutes of this
meeting. Another meeting will be scheduled within the next
month to discuss staff's analysis.
Non - Agenda Council Items
Councilmember Dahl requested that an ordinance be prepared for Park Advisory
presentation at the May 3 Council meeting establishing a Park Commission
Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Buquet stated he thought this matter should be
addressed at a future meeting as it would be too late for
consideration at the May 3 meeting.
Mr. Wasserman reported that the agenda for the May 3 meeting has
already been processed.
Councilmember Dahl requested Mr. Wasserman to prepare the
ordinance as an add item for the May 3 meeting.
Councilmember Buquet reiterated that he felt discussion of the
ordinance Was inappropriate at this time.
Ordinance is to be prepared by staff and submitted as an add
item for the May 3 Council meeting.
Adjournment - Park Advisory Committee
Motions Moved by Riggs, seconded by Pitassi, that meeting be Adjournment PAC
adjourned. Motion carried. Chairman Henry adjourned the
meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Adjournment - Council
Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl, that meeting be Adjournment /Council
adjourned to Executive Session, not to reconvene. Motion
carried. Mayor Mikels adjourned the meeting to Executive
Session at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Sub itted y:
1
Mary Why
Community Services Department
October 3, 1984
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council met on Wednesday, October 3, 1984 in the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The
meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Councilmembers: Pamela J. Wright, Charles J. Buquet II, Richard
M. Dahl, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet; Assistant to City Manager, Robert
Rizzo; Administrative Analyst, Mark Lorimer; Community Development Director,
Jack Lam; City Planner, Rick Gomez; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Community
Services Director, Bill Holley,; Finance Director, Harry Empey.
Absent: Councilman Jeffery King.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of September 5, 1984 were amended as follows:
delete the words, "in the rent mediation ordinance" from the final motion on
item 4A, MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the minutes of
June 14, 1984 and amended minutes of September 5, 1984. Motion carried 4 -0 -1
(King absent).
* * * * * *
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
2A. Presentation of Rancho Cucamonga's Official Belt Buckle. David Kierdowski,
President of the Kiwanis Club presented the City one of the new sterling silver
Rancho Cucamonga belt buckles.
1B. Staff requested that item 6B be continued to October 17, 1984. Council
concurred.
2C. Staff requested a Closed Session with Council regarding some potential
litigation.
2D. Councilman Buquet presented a report from the League of California Cities
Annual Conference.
* * *
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3A. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 84 -10 -03 and Payroll ending 09/16/84
for the total amount of $382,805.18,
3B. Forward Claim (CL 84 -21) against the City by Vincent Brocatello, auto
damage, September 17, 1984, at Malvern Street.
3C, Approval of Tract 12809, submitted by Lewis Development Company, located on
the north aide of Base Line Road between Milliken Avenue and Deer Creek
Channel.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -252
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO.
12809
. 1
y
City Council Minutes -2- October 3, 1984
3D. Approval of Parcel Map 8550 and request for a vacation of 6 feet of
Rochester, submitted by Richard Wagner, located on the southwest corner of
Rochester Avenue and 7th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -253
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8550
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8550)
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -254
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION
OF THE WESTERLY 6 FEET OF OLD ROCHESTER AVENUE AS SHOWN
FOR PARCEL MAP 8550
3E. Approval of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement,
submitted by Lincoln Property Company for the future construction of a
cul -de -sac street in connection With DR 84 -02, located on the west side of
Rochester Avenue, north of 8th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -255
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
SIGN THE SAME
3F. Release of Bonds:
Tract No. 9658 - Located at 9th Street and Madrone.
Monumentation Bond $ 2,500.00
CUP 83 -04 - Located on the west side of Sapphire, south of Banyan.
Labor 6 Material Security $24,500.00
Minor Subdivision 78 -0194 - Located at the southeast corner of 19th and
Jasper.
Faithful Performance Bond (road) $12,343.64
Labor d Material Bond (road) $12,343.64
3G. Approval of Award of Engineering Design Agreement for the reconstruction
and improvement of Base Line Road from Teakway to Haven for the sum not to
exceed $18,180.00 to be paid from Gas Tax and Systems Development Funds.
3H. Approval of request for authorization of additional funds for Contract
Change Order 1 to Cooperative Agreement with Lowy Development per Council
Resolution No. 84 -13. Recommend authorization of additional 516,000.00
expenditure of funds for relocation of 600+ feet of 8 inch watermain in Base
Line Road, east of Hermosa.
3I. Approval of Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Central
School District for a sewer easement to serve Bear Gulch Park.
3J. Approval of amendment to Salary Resolution No. 84 -190 to recognize three
additional 1984 -85 budget authorized full -time positions.
RESOLUTION NO, 84 -190A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 84 -190
3K. Approval to authorize staff to commence negotiations regarding CATV service
program proposals with the companies presently operating in Rancho Cucamonga.
3L. Set public hearing for November 17, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission
decision approving Tentative Tract 12726, A -M Company,
5
City Council Minutes -3- October 3, 1984
MOTION; Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to approved the Consent Calendar
as submitted. Motion carried 4 -0 -1.
x x x x x x
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
4A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84 -32 - BARMAKIAN - The development of an
tndus[rta1 complex totaling 123,000 sq. ft. on 8 acres of land in the General
Industrial /Rail Served category (Subarea 5) , located at the northwest corner of
Center Avenue and 6th Street - APN 209 - 261 -26. Linda Daniels, Associate
Planner, presented the staff report.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were:
Leonard Santoro, representing Barmakian, presented the reasons for the
appeal to Council.
Jim Barton, Barton Development, stated that when sandblasting is done, this
opens up the pores and a coating needs to be put on it. Otherwise, you
would have water leakage. A painted surface can be changed while
sandblasting and fluting is permanent; therefore, buildings can be changed
to reflect a new tenants wishes.
There being no further public response, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Dahl felt sandblasting would not be a benefit to the standards or
the surrounding areas. Painting would be a better option.
Andy Barmakian stated that his original plan submitted was for an all
painted building. They had been asked to add some sandblasting and fluting
areas. Their appeal is to paint the whole building and eliminate the
sandblasting.
Mayor Mikels stated his inclination is to go along with the Planning Commission
only because to grant this the Council would be deluged with other such
requests. He felt this was a Planning Commission responsibility.
Mr. Dahl stated he would approve sandblasting in the area around the doors, but
was totally against the buildings being completely sandblasted.
Mr. Buquet expressed unhappiness with the many appeals coming to City Council
from developers who were not happy with the Planning Commission decisions.
However, he could not see any real reason why this should be sandblasted.
Mrs. Wright expressed that she did not want to lead developers on that the City
Council will override the Planning Commission in such matters.
Mr. Barmakian stated he did not understand why the design was changed.
They had presented an all painted building originally.
Mr. Santoco stated that the project had CC&Rs, and they would be willing to
put the colors allowed in the CC&Rs.
Mr. Dahl stated that he would like to continue this item to the next meeting
when there is a full Council.
The appellant concurred to continuing this item to October 17, 1984.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to continue item to October 17,
1984. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (King absent) .
x x x x x x
4B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 84-2.2 - Amendments
to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Sections 17.02,110, 17.08.090,
17.08.050 and 17.02.020, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, in relation to time
City Council Minutes -4- October 3, 1984
extensions, public hearing notification, transition of density, neighborhood
compatibility (site plan design, landscaping, open apace, grading,
architecture), and preaervation of viewshed. Item continued from September 5,
1984 meeting. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 233.
ORDINANCE NO. 233 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 16, SECTION
1.401.11.2 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, IN RELATION TO
TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSIONS
MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 233. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1.
MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Dahl to adopt Ordinance No. 233. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels, Dahl
NOES: None
ABSENT: King
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 234.
ORDINANCE NO. 234 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTIONS
17.02.110, 17.08.090, 17.08.050, AND 17.02.020 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, IN RELATION TO TIME EXTENSIONS, PUBLIC
HEARING NOTIFICATION, TRANSITION OF DENSITY,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (SITE PLAN DESIGN,
LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, GRADING AND ARCHITECTURE), AND
PRESERVATION OF VIEWSHED
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 234. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (King absent).
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adopted Ordinance No. 234.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels, Dahl
NOES: None
ABSENT: King
x x x • + <
5. NON - ADVERTISED HEARINGS
5A. CHANGE OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE - Item continued from September 19, 1984
meeting. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager.
Mayor Mikels stated he had talked with Councilman King before he went on
vacation and he wanted to minutes to reflect that he opposed the adoption of
this ordinance.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 236.
City Council Minutes -5- October 3, 1984
V
ORDINANCE N0. 236 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING THAT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SHALL BE HELD
ON THE SAME DAY AS THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION,
NAMELY, THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY OF
NOVEMBER IN EACH EVEN NUMBERED YEAR
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 236. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (King absent).
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adopt Ordinance No. 236. Motion
carried by the fallowing vote:
AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels, Dahl
NOES: None
ABSENT: King
x x x x x x
6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
6A. DISCUSSION OF AMBULANCE MATTERS PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS OF AMBULANCE
SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Item continued from September 19,
1984 meeting. Robert Dougherty, City Attorney presented the staff report.
He went over the changes made in the ordinance. He stated that on page 84 the
words, "such need and" should be deleted.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were:
Michael Leight, Attorney, suggested that an alternative definition for
ambulance be used to include vehicles constructed and modified for the
transportation of patients for emergency services.
Dennis Hansberger, Mercy Ambulance, felt an ambulance must be prepared at
all times to provide full range of services.
There being no further public response, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 230. Motion carried 4 -0 -1.
Councilwoman Wright stated that she felt there should be a definition added for
Emergency Vehicle to relate to the definition of Emergency Call. She felt this
would resolve the problem.
Mayor Mikels set second reading for October 17, 1984.
xxxxxx
Mayor Mikels called a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened with all
Councilmembers present except King.
xxxxxx
x x x x x x
6B. A REOUEST FROM SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS FOR TAX EXEMPT BOND FINANCING, Item
was continued to 10- 17 -84.
x x x x x x
City Council Minutes -6- October 3, 1984
6C.
report by Lauren
Wasserman, City Manager.
Mr. Wasserman suggested that the item be referred back to the City Manager's
Office in order to meet with the Superintendent of Alta Loma School District.
There were several options to consider: whether to continue Hamilton to
Hermosa. Another option would be to work out something with the school
district regarding a land swap so we could enlarge the proposed park.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was:
Bruce Ann Hahn, 9910 La Vine, stated she would like to see the City and the
School District put the street through.
Mr. Buquet expressed that he would like to have the issue of City's being able
to review ingress and egress for new schools addressed by the legislators in
Sacramento to see if this type of situation could be alleviated in the future.
ACTION: Council referred back to staff to work out a solution and to come back
as soon as possible.
6D. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BEAR GULCH PARK.
Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to award the construction contract
to Mathis Environmental Inc., the lowest bidder, in the total amount of
$247,443, including the four alternatives and authorize the funding from the
Park Development Fund for the full contract amount plus 10% contingency.
Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (King absent).
• + w z r
6E. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NAMING OF THE UNNAMED PARK SITE ON CHURCH STREET
EAST OF TURNER AVENUE AS CHURCH STREET PARK. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman,
City Manager.
Councilman Dahl stated he had problems with the naming of this park, Church
Street Park.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comment. There being none, the
public hearing was closed.
Title of Resolution No. 256 was read by City Clerk Authelet.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -256
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NAMING OF THE
UNNAMED PARK SITE ON CHURCH STREET AS CHURCH STREET
PARR
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to adopt Resolution No.84 -256 and
waive full reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels
NOES; Dahl
ABSENT: King
6F
FOOTHILL. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
0
City Council Minutes -7- October 3, 1984
Jim Barton, Barton Development, stated he has full soil tests on all the
property in that area. He stated he would give the City all the soil testa
which should help save the City some money for the civic center.
Mayor Mikels thanked Mr. Barton for his generosity.
Mayor Mikels led a discussion regarding some points in the proposed agreement.
Section 1.2.9 Mayor Mikels expressed, with Council concurring, that Council
should be included in all the meeting.
Article 3, Section 3.2 felt this language would preclude the city from a
lease back agreement.
Discussions followed between Council and Charles Oakley of John Carl Warnecke
and Associates regarding the latter issue. Council concurred in adding the
following language:
Section 3.2. Project Construction Cost shall be based upon the lowest
acceptable bona fide Contractor's Bid received for any or all portions of
the Project advertised for bids by the Owner, provided however, that if
there is no public bid associated with the project, Project Construction
Costs shall be the architect and city's mutually agreed upon best estimate
of costs prior to construction.
The definition of construction cost shall in no way limit the City's
options for financing the final facilities.
MOTION; Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to approve the contract with John
Carl Warnecke and Associates as amended. Motion carried 4-0 -1 (King absent).
• r � � w w
6G. REQUEST TO SET DATE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS RELATED TO
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY.
ACTION: Council set the following times: Wednesday, October 24, 6:00 p.m. -
place to be announced for a Closed Executive Session. Dinner to be brought
in. Monday, October 29, 6:00 p.m. for a public open meeting. Place to be
announced.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
Councilman Dahl requested that the following items be brought forth for Council
discussion:
a. Consider putting together a Goals Program to include both long -range and
short -range goals.
b. Joint meeting with the Water District regarding projected future water
availability. (Lauren to set up meeting).
c. Appoint a replacement for Jim Frost on the Subcommittee that was to study
alternatives and ideas for design review. Mr. Buquet stated he would like to
see this as a topic at the next meeting.
Mr. Buquet added that we should set up some joint meetings with the Planning
Commission, and one item to discuss would be the 14 -24 density range.
�^
City
Council
Minutes
-8-
October
3,
1994
y
S. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adjourn the meeting to a Closed
Session, not to reconvene this evening but to reconvene on October 17, 1984 at
7:30 p.m. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Ring absent), The meeting adjourned at 10:07.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor 6 Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney
RE: Technical Comments on Proposed Development Agreement
DATE: October 16, 1984
A. Certain language in paragraph 3 of the proposed Development
Agreement (Agenda cages 391 and 392) is ambiguous at best in
regard to what Lewis Homes must do to satisfy the proposed
Development Agreement. In oaragraph 3(A) reference is made to
the "obligations undertaken" by Lewis pursuant to this Agreement
and the School Agreement - "shall be accepted in lieu .
Nothing is said regarding Lewis' subsequent performance of the
"obligations undertaken." Query what would happen if Lewis
undertakes such obligations only to later fail or refuse to
perform them. Arguably, the City would have no recourse in such
event.
Preferable wording in paragraph 3(A) would be: "The oerfor-
m_ance of the obligations undertaken by Lewis pursuant to this
Agreement and the School Agreement shall be accepted in lieu .
Also, in paragraph 3(C), the Agreement has the City
accepting "as evidence of full satisfaction of the obligations of
Lewis . . . a master certification letter from the District
stating that Lewis has executed the school agreement . . . .
Lewis' entering into the school Agreement should not be
1
accepted by the City as "evidence of full satisfaction." only
execution of the school agreement and performance by Lewis accor-
ding_to_its_ terms should be accepted as evidence of full
satisfaction.
B. In paragraph 3(C)(i) a special provision is made in the
event of overcrowding with respect to grades 7 -8 and that is
"payment by Lewis of two - ninths (2 /9ths) of the impaction fee
(defined in the School Agreement) applicable to such project."
The definition of "impaction fee" appearing at page 5 of the
School Agreement (Agenda, page 340) appears to lock -in the amount
of the fee at 1984 levels for the next thirty (30) years!
Is this appropriate?
C. Paragraph 7 (Agenda page 394) "Existing Law Applies" is too
general and may be construed to effect the ability of the City to
change the General Plan and the Community Plan in areas not
directly relating to schools. The paragraph is not necessary to
the agreement.
D. Paragraph 10, (Agenda, page 395) appears to give Lewis the
ability to sell, assign or transfer its rights, duties and
obligations pursuant to the Development Agreement to some person
or entity other than a purchaser of land subject to the
Development Agreement. Further, paragraph 10 provides that the
City must consent to any such transfer of rights, duties or
obligations but then paragraph 10 goes on to provide: "It is
expressly agreed the City shall have no right of approval or
disapproval of any sale or purchase of real property within the
2
boundaries of the property or any other portion of the planned
community."
At best, paragraph 10 is ambiguous. At worst, it is an
attempt to seoarate the obligations of the Development Agreement
from the underlying land ownership.
E. Paragraph it (Agenda, page 396) is too large of an escape
hatch, and could conceivably he construed to allow a developer in
Terra Vista to continue to build houses unchecked during a time
when existing school facilities were inadequate and additional
school facilities were impossible to obtain. I recommend
deletion of paragraph 11.
F. I do not see the need for Paragraph 13 of the Agreement
(Agenda page 397). A Development Agreement would not constitute
a "lien" upon any property in Terra Vista. Also, I do not see
any reason why a lender, which might suddenly find itself a
"developer" as a result of default and foreclosure under a deed
of trust, should be in any better position than the original
developer would have been with respect to providing school
facilities.
G. Paragraph 14 (Agenda page 397) pertaining to certificates of
compliance should be reworded to require current school district
certification that Lewis has and is satisfactorily performing its
obligations under the ,School Agreement.
H. Paragraph 16 of the Agreement (Agenda, page 399) provides a
means of annual review, but does not expressly provide for a
3
termination mechanism in the event Lewis is found to be in
material noncompliance with either the Development Agreement or
the School Agreement. Although arguably the ability to terminate
might be implied from the nature of the Agreement (see Gov C
section 65865.1), I would feel much better about it if the
Agreement expressly provides for termination.
I. Paragraph 18 on suspension and severability (Agenda, page
399) is not appropriate in this type of an agreement where all
rights, duties and obligations are so closely interrelated. The
provisions of paragraph 11 and 18 together might, for example, be
construed to permit Lewis to avoid a school moratorium even in
the event Lewis becomes legally unable to perform its obligations
under the School Agreement.
If the City Council is disposed to entertaining some form of
Development Agreement, then it is my recommendation that the
matter be referred back to staff so that the concerns expressed
above can be addressed in negotiations with Lewis. Thereafter it
would be necessary for the Planning Commission and the City
Council to conduct public hearings on the proposed Development
Agreement (see Gov C section 65867).
e:rcmemor
4
-Z. -���
BELOW AND MANNERINO
9333 BASELINE Roan. SOME 110
ne.en• e. •uouo RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 -1311 Teephone
JOwN n MwN N[niNO ('141980 1 IN
October 16, 1984 .
Re: Sycamore Investments
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Subject: Planning Commission Appeal Supplement
At the time of the preparation of the appeal from the planning
commission previously submitted, this office was of the
understanding that the site plan and elevations for the therein
referenced project had been previously submitted to City Staff
and Planning Commission for approval subsequent to the filing
of the appeal document.
It has come to our attention that in fact the latest elevations
and site plan have not been so submitted. While the elevations
are substantially different than those originally filed, the
site plan remains almost identical with some relatively
insignificant alterations.
While we do not believe this prohibits the approval in prin-
cipal'of the architecture and design of the project in general,
be advised that should you be enclined to favor this project we
would accept such favor conditional on the approval by the
Staff and Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
BELO/D AND MANNERINO
/ D
By:
JOHN D. MANt�TE INO
JDM /i; /
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 17, 1984
TO: Mayor and Members of the C'ty C no it
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
�i
e
BY: Linda D. Daniels, Assoc 4t, P anner
SUBJECT:
N
�oj cq
a
Due to the continuation of this item, I thought the following
information would be helpful to clarify some confusion from the previous
City Council Meeting.
on August 2.2, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by The
Barmakian Company to develop the above described project. As a part of
that design package were the building elevations. The elevations
submitted to the Planning Commission identified the building materials
proposed to be used as follows: 1) A fluted - sandblasted accent band,
with an 8 -inch color reveal at both the top and bottom of the band, to
be located around the building entrance and window areas; 2)
Sandblasted concrete columns and sandblasted concrete panels between the
window areas and inside of the fluted - sandblasted accent band; and 3) A
painted grey surface for the majority of the building elevation which
lies outside of the area "framed" by the fluted - sandblasted accent
band, Exhibit "A" attached, identifies these design features and
proposed materials of the elevations submitted to the Planning
Commission for their review and approval.
At the Planning Commission Meeting the Commission members discussed the
applicant's proposal to paint the concrete surface versus the
sandblasted texturing of the building as recommended by the Design
Review Committee. The Commission determined that the sandblasting of
the building, where the applicant was proposing to paint the building,
was preferable since the project was located on a major boulevard, 6th
Street, and hence, a greater architectural /design statement was
needed. The Commission further stated that the maintenance of a painted
building was greater and that it was difficult to control any changes in
colors as new tenants move into the complex.
As a result of the Planning Commission's discussion, condition number
of Resolution 84 -92 was added. This condition only required the
Barmakian Company Appeal Memo
Development Review 84 -32
Page #2
sandblasting of the concrete panels, except where the fluted - sandblasted
accent band with reveal colors, was proposed.
The Barmakian Company subsequently filed an appeal, regarding condition
number 3 only, on August 29, 1984.
During the review and hearing on October 3, 1984, it was proposed by the
applicant to eliminate all textured elements, as submitted to the
Planning Commission, and replace these textured areas with a smooth
painted surface. Staff was not aware of this change prior to the
meeting, nor is the proposal by the Barmakian Company in conformance
with their appeal request of condition number 3 of Resolution 84 -92.
The proposal presented to Council by the Barmakian Company to paint the
entire building is in concept the same as that originally submitted and
reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC recommended that
all of the painted surfaces be eliminated and replaced with a textured
concrete, based on the fact that the elevations were on a major
boulevard, and is an industrial office complex which should project a
higher architectural image than a single industrial building or
warehouse distribution project.
The DRC or Planning Commission has not reviewed the modified elevations
presented by The Barmakian Company at the October 3, 1984, City Council
Meeting. If The Barmakian Company desires to obtain approval of these
revised building elevations, showing all painted surfaces, with no
texturing, it wou id be proper for the City Council to refer the matter
back to the DRC and Planning Commission. This is necessary since the
elevations have been substantially revised from what was approved by the
DRC and Commission, and is not in conformance with the submitted appeal
request. It is also necessary because if the fluted - sandblasted
material is removed, another condition of Resolution 84 -92 (number 4),
which requires the fluted block to be used on the proposed walls is
affected.
I hope this clarifies some of the confusion as to what the Design Review
Committee and Planning Commission reviewed and approved. Should you
have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
call me at any time.
CC: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
LD:cv
WIWI 0 -- - RM992- 51 -d
-..l---1---.-----. � I -
■gs
W
0 9
OIL)
r
w
ecl
µe0v
4�
uNS CLa/�T.UV�
ovi �N. J
�f
M RI"3
aN °' Os
PAZ#- 32
r:xhib* "A.
a
U
Q°a0
Lul
2
Q'�t� lY� GlA'C
uNS CLa/�T.UV�
ovi �N. J
�f
M RI"3
aN °' Os
PAZ#- 32
r:xhib* "A.
a
U
Q°a0
Lul
2
'nLI f
cc
cr
zg<L
V 039
< -j I
occ @I
Uy id
Dot
120 6
November 1, 1984 (tor November 7, 1984)
Ranebo Cucamonga City Council
93120 Baseline Road
Rancno Cucamonga, CA 91701
Dear Councilmembers,
I have four general comments to make before I give my presentation.
First, I'd like to thank the City Council for giving me the opportunity as a
citizen to appeal a decision by the Planning Commission.
Second, I know that the council has been concerned with the many appeals of
decisions by the Planning Commission. However, I would like to point out
that most of them have been made by builders because, according to Chairman
Dennis Stouc as quoted in the October 5, 1984 Daily Report, "I think we're
very tough," My appeal is by a citizen and may be the exception that proves
the rule, since I feel that the Commission was not tough enough on the
builder.
Third, The Planning Commission did not even discuss my request for a
continuance. I would like to thank Rick Gomez of the planning department
to.- arranging the inital meeting between the A -M Company and myself which
paved the way for reaching the compromise that we have agreed to.
Fourth, I want to emphasize that I followed through on this appeal as an
individual although I have been negotiating as a self - appointed represent-
ative for the residents Of Opal and the residents of Avalon and have been
keeping them informed through progress reports. 1 paid for the appeal and
I retained an attorney (after the basic elements of the compromise had been
agreed to), not to create an adversary relationship but to provide we with
legal advice. Many neighbors have offered to help with the expenses.
Tonight I am again speaking as an individual, but I have asked my Opal and
Avalon neighbors to come and speak for (or against) the compromise. The
Planning Commission was not particularly interested in the number of neigh-
bors present at its meeting, It the Council is interested in reducing the
number of speakers it might want to ask my neighbors to stand.
Now for my presentation. I plan to cover as briefly as possible my five
areas of concern, the mitigations I proposed, the discussion of the Planning
Commission, the actions of the Planning Commission and the compromise reached
with A -M.
The first area of concern was the transition area, or lack of it, between
the lot sizes on Opal and those of Tract 12726 and Tract 12,114 to the east.
Tract 12726 has approximately 7.78 du /a with lot sizes averaging 3,300 to
4,400 square feet. Tract 12414 has approximately 7.05 du /a. My lot is
10,000 square feet and my neighbor's lots are about 7,500 square feet. It
should be obvious that Tract 12 -26 does not provide a satisfactory transi-
tion between the Opal lots and those of Tract 12.14.
3
The Development Code refers to the desire to provide for compatibility between
existing and new tracts and transitions between projects having dilferenc
densities. Section 17.05.090 -C 11. of the Development Code states
"Transition of Density. The site plan should consider compatibility with
surrounding neighborhood through providing proper transition of density,
particularly on infill sites adjacent to lower densities. (Emphasis
mine.) Although this section was inacted as part of Ordinance 235 in
September, 1954, I believe it to have been declaratory of the intent of
the Development Code, and not a departure Iron prior planning principles.
My proposal, based on the American principle of compromise, was to enlarge
the lots adjoining Opal to 6,000 square feet to bridge the gap between the
predominately 3,300 to 4,400 square toot lets of A -M's projects.
The minutes o: tee meeting indicate the only discussion of density was a
comment by Chairman Stout that "the transition of density is one of degree
rather than one of philosophy and cites one difference between a large
apartment campiex next to single family homes as opposed to single family
homes."
The second area of concern was traffic flow /sate ty /parking elements,ecc.
The roads as designed are 32' wide (ordinance 235 now requires a minimum of
36'). They will be private, maintained by a property owner's association
and more than likely posted with no tresspassing signs. If the general
public is permitted to use its roads the association will have cc bear
the maintenance costs. Cars will not be allowed to park on both sides of
the street. In several instances cars parked in a driveway will extend over
the sidewalk. Two, Three and four bedroom houses are more Chan likely going
to have two or more cars with them. Several families in our area have four
cars. Many families can not put one, much less two, cars in their garages
with houses considerably larger than the ones in A -M' a tract. Where are all
Elie cars going to park?
Entering once Carnelian from Avalon is very difficult w'ri• current traffic,
particularly during rush hours. Any increase at traffic on Avalon is going
to impact an already difficult situation.
The corner of Opal and Avalon is already a hazardous intersection. Again,
any increase in cross trait is will compound this situation.
Opal is one of two primary streets used by children below 19th and east of
Carnelian for getting to Carnelian Elementary School and Alta Loma High
School on the south and Alta Loma Junior high to the north. Additional
cross traffic at Opal and Avalon will not increase their safety.
Chairman Stout asked if we didn't expect Avalon to be extended at some point.
My response to that query is: "Sure I expected it to be extended - the same
width through a comparable tract and connecting to Beryl (as will LaVine
when the H'n'z property is developed), not to a "rivate road winding through
a tract that has about twice the density as Silverwood Estates, and not
coming out on Beryl only a halt -block below liamilton."
Presented two secs of mitigations. If Avalon should go through (to which
I am violently opposed), the intersection of Onal and Avalon should have a
2
4 -way stop and the intersection of Avalon and Carnelian should have a
signal. The other mitigation was to make Avalon an emergency access only.
Planning Commission discussion centered around the necessity of having a
secondary access, particularly in the even[ of a flood on Beryl, or some
ocher emergency, the undesirable aspects of having a public street running
into a private street and various possibilities for routing traffic. The
Commission also verified that some cars in the driveways would extend onto
the sidewalk, but did not follow thr ugh on this issue.
The third area - Lack of open space. A -M first acquired Tract 12414, for
which the plans had been submitted by another developer. As you know from a
previous appeal there is a considerable amount of open space in this tract.
Then they acquired, or are acquiring, Tracts 12126 and 12727. Trying to
make them all into an integrated whole they put the open space for 12726
into 12727 - whether successfully or not depends on your point of view -
arguing that this made more efficient use of the land. I'm confident that,
it they had acquired all of [he property at once and scarred from scracch,
they would have come up with a more cohesive plan.
I made no suggested mitigations for this, although the obvious one is to
put some open space in 12726. The minutes do not show the Commission
discussing this point at all.
The fourth area - "No- Maf'�" Land. The houses on Opal were built under
county regulations. The backyard fences are approximately 4 -6' inside
the property line on the top of the pad with the slope going down to
the general area of the property line. If A -M were to put its fence on,
or east of, rhr property line a no -man's (or person's) land would be
created.
I offered no solution and, to the best of my knowledge, the issue was not
discussed.
The fitth area - Concern about 2 2 -story houses looking into one of our
single lots. This would happen in three cases with 4 second story
bedroom windows facing one lot. In several ocher cases there will be 3
second story bedrooms looking into single lots.
I made no suggested mitigations for this situation, but the obvious one
is to replace 2 -story houses with l -story houses and /or replace some
of the 4 bedroom models with 3 bedroom models which puts 1 upstairs bedroom
in the back. The minutes show no discussion on this matter by the
Commission.
A motion that addressed three of these mitigations (to make Avalon a cul-
de -sac, eliminate lot 20, and provide tyre and pedestrian access) died on a
2 -2 vote..
A motion was msc to make Avalon a connector tieing the two tracts
together, eliminate one westerly lot to provide an additional 250
square feet per lot. . .
The compromise reached wzth A -M is as follows
3
A -M (with property owner approval) will tear down the existine,
wood lances of the affected Opal properties, regrade the pads so that
the property line is at the top of the pad, compact the seal, build a
new 6' wood fence on the property lane and have the toe of the slope
on A -M property, all at no expense to the Opal owners. The property
owners will be responsible for any needed landscaping and for joining
the side fence to the back fence. (This part of the compromise adds
more useable land to our lots than she elimination of one lot adds to
the remaining A -M lots):
A -M will re'Place 3 of the 2 -story houses w'rh 1- story. This
provides more mitigation than removing one lot, so the compromise
does not require the loss of a lot as directed by the Planning
Commission.
Avalon will remain a cul -de -sac within tract 12726 but emergency
access will be provided by curt block and a break -a -way fence.
I an supporting this compromise because it addresses the primary concerns
of both the Opal and Avalon residents I have been crying to represent and,
specifically,
1. It is consistent with the density transition goals set forth in
17.08.090 -C.11 by separating two diverse densities.
2. It meets one parameter of 17.08.090 -C.12 by providing a cul -de -sac
design.
3. It provides fire prevention with its own emergency access (which
is acceptable to the Foothill Fire District) - consistent with
Planning Commission members' views that Avalon become "the
emergency acce ^-. . . Or
4. It solves the "no -man's land" problem.
5. It mitigates the problem of 2 2 -story houses overlooking neighbor-
ing back yards.
6. It is no way inconsistent with the programs at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga as expressed in its Zoning Ordinance and Development
Code.
Therefore I respectfully request the City Council to amend the
conditions of approval of Tract 12726 to include the conditions of this
compromise, subject to the normal checks by the Planning and Engineering
Departments.
Finally I would like to thank Rick Gomez and Linda Daniels at the
Planning Department, Gary FRtchell of Bob Haaland and Associates and
John Sauer and Bob Bagby of A -AI Company for their cooperation in
working out Chas compromise, and my neighbors for their moral support.
William B. Blanchard
8890 Avalon (P.O. Box 968)
Alta Loma, CA 91701 4
987 -4471
f�L
As11I
Company
November 1, 1984
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Post Office Box. 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Honorable Jon Mikels
Members of the City Council
Re: Appeal, Tentative Tract 12726
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in regards to the appeal of our tentative tract map 12726 to allow
Avalon Street to continue through the new subdivision.
In our initial submission to the Planning Department and to the Planning
Commission, we had planned to continue Avalon Street but to make that specific
area a corner and fence off the entire tract. Our idea was to make Tract 12726
more of a Planned Unit Development which would give more of a "community" feel to
our project.
The Planning Commission with the recommendation of staff, requested to continue
Avalon Street through the development. We have complied with this request.
We have designed a new corner treatment which would conform to the fire
regulations using turf block, which would allow the access and ingress of the
fire vehicles and we would also design the pedestrians access to Avalon Street if
the council desired to close off Avalon Street.
Since the Planning Commission previously considered the merits of extension of
Avalon Street versus closing it, we do not feel that this tract would benefit by
being referred to the Planning Commission again. Therefore, we respectfully
request your Council's action at your meeting of November 7th.
Southern Callfornia Office:
1115nuth Knaccr1eWelenl • SulwC • BmaCA92621 p14)99fb18lxl
RvPtrmul Offs cn. Ao,unn • Calnnrnln a ('nlnnda
rancuc
e
We are enclosing exhibits showing each alternative tract design for your review
and information.
I thank you for your time and will be available to answer any questions at the
November 7th meeting.
Very truly yours,
A -M COMPANY
R.F4,y
Manager Special Projects
rancuc
TENTATNE TRACT NO. 12726
tires PLM
� �_� Lam,• --r�
AVAIDN
z] 1 .
I
�I
- I
N
F
Q
58
O
IV7�gq
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert E. Dougherty,- City Attorney
DATE; November 2, 1984
RE: Proposed Terra Vista Planned Community Development Agreement
No. 2
The proposed Development Agreement has been revised, following
a meeting with Lewis' representatives, and all of my technical com-
ments contained in my memorandum of October 16, 1984 have been satis-
factorily addressed. At this time I have no legal objection to the
proposed Development Agreement, and the decision of whether to adopt
the same is a policy decision for the Council to make. If the Coun-
cil i disposed of entering into this Development Agreement, then it
will be necessary for the Planning Commission and the City Council to
c. nd::ct public hearings as required by Government Code §65867.
RED:sjo
Enclosure
pjw -a -07 -11731
11/06/84
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO;
LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Post Office Box 670
Upland, CA 91785 -0670
ATTN: Legal Department
TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2
This Terra Vista Planned Community Development
Agreement No. 2 (the "Agreement ") is made the day
of , 19 , by and between LEWIS HOMES OF
CALIFORNIA, LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO., and WESTERN PROPERTIES,
each being general partnerships (collectively referred to as
"Lewis "), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal
corporation (the "City ").
RECITALS
A. The existing boundaries of the Central School
District of San Bernardino County (the "District ") include a
portion of the 1300 acre Terra Vista Planned Community (the
"Planned Community ") located within the City. The portion
of the Planned Community lying within the District, and
which is affected by the provisions of this Agreement, is
more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the
"Property ") and generally lies south of Base Line Road, west
of the planned extension of Milliken Avenue, east of Haven
Avenue and north of Foothill Boulevard.
B. On the 16th day of February, 1983, the City
adopted Ordinance No. 190, approving Planned Community Zone
No. 81 -01. Ordinance No. 190 provided that development
within the Planned Community would thereafter be "regulated
by the adopted Planned Community Text entitled Terra Vista
and, in part, by the Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Ordinance."
That text shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Community
Plan."
C. Lewis desires to sell or lease residential
housing constructed or to be constructed on the Property.
The District has informed the City that the capacity of
public schools serving kindergarten through the eighth grade
( "Grades R -8 ") is presently inadequate to serve the
additional pupils expected to be generated from the new
homes. In order to assure adequate school capacity in
Grades R -8 to serve the Property, Lewis and the District
have entered into an agreement (the "School Agreement ")
pursuant to which Lewis will provide temporary school
facilities at school sites designated in the Community Plan,
but contingent upon obtaining an agreement by the City that
the City will not prohibit, regulate, or constrain Lewis'
performance of the obligations undertaken.
D. The City desires that Lewis and the District
implement the School Agreement in order to mitigate the
conditions of school overcrowding in Grades R -8 which
presently exist, and so that development of the Planned
Community may proceed. The City acknowledges that such an
undertaking by Lewis and the District would provide
significant public benefits by alleviating the threat of
further student overcrowding, and should materially assist
in avoiding any need for double school sessions, busing over
extended distances, or similar undesirable mitigation
measures.
-2-
E. The School Agreement will provide for certain
temporary school facilities within the Property which will
be subject to review and approval by the District and
various state agencies. Were the District to provide such
facilities without participation by Lewis, existing law
would exempt the planning, design, and construction from
City controls and exactions. As an inducement to Lewis to
undertake the obligations of this Agreement and the School
Agreement, the City desires to assure Lewis that the use and
construction of relocatable structures, the review of
planning, design, and construction details, and all
regulatory matters related to the temporary school
facilities on the Property shall be exempt from City
control.
F. The City desires to facilitate implementation
of its General Plan and the Community Plan, and the elements
of this Agreement are deemed to be major and important steps
in furtherance of the comprehensive objectives contained
within those Plans. The planning objectives which are
advanced through this Agreement include the City's goals
of: (a) ensuring that conditions of school overcrowding are
avoided during the development of the Planned Community, and
(b) ensuring that development and the resulting financial
benefits to the City are not delayed awaiting state funding
for the construction of new schools.
G. Sections 65864- 65869.5 of the California
Government Code (the "Development Agreement Authority ")
authorize the City to enter into binding real property
development agreements with persons having legal or
equitable interests in such property. Lewis and the City
-3-
desire to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the
Development Agreement Authority, and thereby remove all
uncertainties related to the application of City rules,
regulations and policies as they relate to development of
school facilities pursuant to the School Agreement. The
City and Lewis acknowledge that a development agreement is
intended to define, among other things, "the permitted uses
of the property, the density or intensity of use, the
maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes" (Government Code Section 65865.2). Uses,
densities, dedication and building constraints with respect
to the school facilities are acknowledged to be exempt from
City control, and with respect to the balance of the
Property are not the subject of this Agreement and are
therefore not included herein. As between themselves, Lewis
and the City intend to be contractually bound by the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, intend it to be in
compliance with all requrements of law, and mutually waive
any objections which might be raised contesting the applic-
ability of the Development Agreement Authority.
H. The City acknowledges that by electing to
enter into contractual agreements such as this one, the
obligations of which shall survive beyond the term or terms
of the present City Council members, that such action will
serve to bind the City and future Councils to the obliga-
tions thereby undertaken. This Agreement shall limit the
future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary
powers of the City and is intended to bind the parties for
its duration. By obligating the City pursuant to this
-4-
Agreement, the City Council has elected to exercise certain
governmental and proprietary powers at the time of entering
into this Agreement, rather than deferring its actions to
some undetermined future date.
I. The terms and conditions of this Agreement
have undergone extensive review by the City and its Council,
and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable. The
City has concluded that the economic interests of its
citizens, and the public health, safety, and welfare will be
best served by entering into this obligation.
J. The City Council has found that this Agreement
is consistent with the General Plan of the City and the
Community Plan of the Planned Community.
R. On , 19_, the City Council of
Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. (the
"ordinance") approving this Agreement and authorizing the
undersigned Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same, and
thereby bind the City in accordance with the provisions
herein.
MATTERS OF AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be
effective as of the Effective Date of City Ordinance
No. which adopts this Agreement (the "Effective
Date "), and shall terminate when all residential units to be
built in the Planned Community within the boundaries of the
Property have been constructed, or thirty (30) years after
the Effective Date, whichever is the later.
-5-
2. Covenant to Perform. Lewis agrees to mitigate
the conditions of school overcrowding which result from
residential development within the boundaries of the
Property in the manner described in the School Agreement, as
it may be amended from time to time.
3. Satisfaction of Fees and Exactions. With
respect to present or future conditions of overcrowding, or
any similar school impaction problems, in Grades E -8, the
City agrees that:
(a) The performance of the obligations
undertaken by Lewis pursuant to this Agreement and the
School Agreement shall be accepted in lieu of fees,
dedications, assessments, taxes or any other exactions
related to school overcrowding or any other aspect of school
facility operation or development related to or arising out
of residential development within the boundaries of the
Property and which are levied pursuant to the School
Facilities Act (Government Code Section 65970, et seg,), or
pursuant to any other provisions of state or local law or
policy, whether in force at the Effective Date of this
Agreement or adopted subsequent thereto, including without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, all regulations or
policies adopted by the City in the administration of
Municipal Code Sections 16.24.010 et seg, and 17.04.070 et
seg.
(b) All real property development projects
in that portion of the Planned Community located within the
boundaries of the Property are hereby exempted from any
future moratorium, limitation on development, or other
restriction or constraint imposed by the City for purposes
-6-
of alleviating or mitigating school overcrowding or
impaction, or for any other aspect of school facility
operation or development with respect to Grades x -8.
(c) With respect to an application for any
approval and /or permit applicable to any residential
development project within the boundaries of the Property,
and to which Lewis or a subsequent owner of the Property or
any portion thereof (collectively an "Applicant ") may be
entitled, the City shall accept, as evidence of full
compliance with this Agreement, the School Agreement, and
all City ordinances relating to school overcrowding,
operation, or facility development:
(i) A master certification letter
issued by the District stating that Lewis has executed the
School Agreement and has thereby undertaken a satisfactory
program to mitigate any potential school overcrowding or
impaction problem caused by residential development within
the boundaries of the Property;
(ii) A confirming letter issued by the
District within the 60 -day period preceding such application
stating that as of the date of issuance the provisions of
the School Agreement are not in default; and
(iii) In the event conditions of
overcrowding in the District with respect to Grades 7 and 8
exist at the time of such application, evidence of payment
by the Applicant of two- ninths of the Impaction Pee (defined
in the School Agreement) applicable to such project.
In the event the Applicant is unable to obtain from
the District the confirming letter or evidence of payment as
required by the preceding sub - sections (ii) or (iii) of this
-7-
Paragraph 3(c), the City may refuse to issue the approvals
and /or permits requested, but in such event shall, upon
written application, conduct a public hearing to determine
whether or not a material default in the provisions of the
School Agreement then exists. In the event that the City
determines there is no such material default, then
notwithstanding the lack of the confirming letter or the
evidence of payment hereinabove mentioned, the City shall
issue the approvals and /or permits requested by the
Applicant.
4. State Approvals Are Pre - emptive. In recogni-
tion of the fact that school facility development is a State
agency responsibility, the Parties agree with respect to
facilities within the scope of the School Agreement:
(a) All plans, specifications, design and /or
construction documents related to school development shall
be reviewed and approved where required by the Office of the
State Architect, the Department of Education, or any other
applicable state level agency and all such plans,
specifications, design and /or construction documents, as
well as the construction of work of improvements resulting
therefrom, are and shall be exempt from any review,
approval, inspection, or other processing by the City;
provided, however, unless the District is the fee owner of
the land at the time in question, the City shall retain
design and development control for streets and roadways
adjacent to such school facilities and Lewis shall be
responsible for installing such streets and roadways in
accordance with standards and specifications established by
the City.
-8-
(b) Any City fees, regulations, or other
exactions related to planning, zoning, subdivision,
construction, installation of relocatable structures, or
miscellaneous City services shall be waived with respect to
design and development of the school facilities; provided,
however, unless the District is the fee owner of the land at
the time in question, Lewis shall pay the street improvement
plan check and inspection fees for the construction of
street and roadway improvements adjacent to the school
facilities.
5. No Covenant of Development. Lewis presently
intends, but does not covenant, that the Planned Community
will be developed on a schedule justified by market
demand. The Parties agree that the City shall not require
or attempt to require Lewis to begin development, or
continue development once begun, of the Property or any
other portion of the Planned Community.
6. Relocatable Structures Approved. The School
Agreement allows the construction and /or installation of
wood frame or other relocatable structures at one or both
school sites on the Property for use as temporary core and
classroom buildings and the City hereby acknowledges and
approves such intended construction, installation and use.
7. Notices. No notice, request, demand, or
instruction to be given hereunder to any Party shall be
effective for any purpose unless personally delivered to the
person at the appropriate address set forth below (in which
event such notice shall be deemed effective only upon such
delivery) or delivered by mail, sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows:
-9-
If to Lewis, to:
Lewis Homes Of California
1156 North Mountain Avenue
P.O. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785 -0670
Attn: General Counsel
If to City, to:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 -C Base Line Road
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: City Manager
Notices so mailed shall be deemed to have been
given 48 hours after the deposit of same in any United
States Post Office mailbox in the state to which the notice
is addressed, or 72 hours after deposit in any such Post
Office Mailbox other than in the state to which the notice
is addressed, postage prepaid, addressed as set forth
above. The addresses and addressees, for the purpose of
this Paragraph, may be changed by giving written notice of
such change in the manner herein provided for giving
notice. Unless and until such written notice of change is
received, the last address and addressee stated by written
notice, or provided herein if no such written notice of
change has been received, shall be deemed to continue in
effect for all purposes hereunder.
B. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of
this Agreement shall apply to and bind the successors and
assigns of the parties hereto. Lewis shall have the right
to sell, assign, or transfer its obligations pursuant to
this Agreement to any subsequent owner of the Property or
portion thereof at any time during the term hereof subject
to the prior written consent of the City, which consent will
not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that the
City's consent shall not be required for transfers between
-10-
or among any business entities controlled, or with more than
fifty percent (509) capital interest owned, by any one or
more Lewis business entity or any one or more of the Lewis
family members. Any such sale, assignment, or transfer of
obligations wherein the transferee shall have been approved
by the City pursuant to this paragraph and expressly assumes
the obligations of Lewis hereunder shall relieve Lewis from
the obligations so assumed. It is expressly agreed the City
shall have no right of approval or disapproval of any sale
or purchase of real property within the boundaries of the
Property or any other portion of the Planned Community.
9. Miscellaneous Provisions.
9.1 Attorneys' Fees. Should any party
hereto bring any action against any other party related in
any way to this Agreement, its validity, enforceability,
scope or subject matter, or to the covenants made or
releases given herein, the prevailing party or parties shall
be awarded its or their actual attorneys' fees and costs
incurred for prosecution, defense, consultation or advice in
connection with such action. The attorneys' fee award shall
fully reimburse the prevailing party or parties for all
attorneys' fees incurred in good faith and shall not be
reduced below the actual amount of fees incurred for any
reason, including but not limited to the amount of judgment
sought or received, or by any court schedule for attorneys'
fees.
9.2 No waiver. The waiver by one party of
the performance of any covenant, condition or promise shall
not invalidate this Agreement nor shall it be considered a
waiver by such party of any other covenant, condition or
-11-
promise hereunder. The exercise of any remedy provided by
law shall not exclude other consistent remedies unless they
are expressly excluded.
9.3 Construction. This Agreement shall be
construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair
meaning, the captions being for convenience only and not
intended to fully describe or define the provisions in the
portions of this Agreement to which they pertain.
10. Limitations on Encumbrance. The parties agree
that this Agreement shall not encumber any land to be
developed as a non - residential subdivision. The parties
agree to negotiate in good faith to modify any of the
provisions of this Agreement based on reasonable requests by
the other party, lending institutions, title companies, bond
counsel or similarly interested persons, but neither party
shall be obligated to consent to such a modification. In
the event any mortgagee or beneficiary under a trust deed
(collectively "Lender ") with respect to a loan insured by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment ( "HUD") under the authority of Title 12 of United
States Code, Section 1749(aa) et seq., obtains title to the
Property or any portion thereof ( "Foreclosure Property ")
pursuant to the remedies provided in such mortgage or deed
of trust, or by judicial foreclosure, then effective as of
the time of transfer of title to such Lender or to HUD the
development of the Foreclosure Property shall not thereafter
be governed by the provisions of this Agreement.
11. Certificate of Compliance. Provided that the
requirements set forth in Paragraph 3(c) have been met, then
at the time any Applicant pays for building permits for any
work of improvement within the boundaries of the Property,
-12-
and upon written request, the City will issue, in a form
suitable for recordation, a Certificate of Compliance with
respect to the real property to be so improved. In
addition, the City shall issue a Certificate of Compliance
at the time of recordation of this Agreement, and upon
request by Lewis, applicable to each property in the Planned
Community for which building permits have been issued prior
to such date. The Certificate of Compliance shall
constitute, and shall so state, conclusive determination of
satisfactory completion of the requirements of this
Agreement with respect to the property to which it
relates. After issuance of such Certificate of Compliance,
any party then owning or thereafter purchasing, leasing, or
otherwise acquiring any interests in said property shall not
incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement.
12. No Agency. The parties hereto are acting as
independent entities and this Agreement shall not constitute
a partnership, agency, or other business relationship
between or among them.
13. Annual Review. The City shall review this
Agreement at least once during every twelve -month (12- month)
period following the Effective Date, in accordance with
Government Code Section 65865.1. During each periodic
review by the City, Lewis shall be required to demonstrate,
and hereby agrees to furnish, such evidence of good faith
compliance with the terms hereof and with the School
Agreement as the City may reasonably require. If, as a
result of such periodic review, the City determines, on the
basis of substantial evidence, that Lewis has not complied
in good faith with the provisions hereof, or with the
provisions of the School Agreement, the City may terminate
or modify this Agreement.
-13-
14. Period to Cure Default. In the event of
alleged default or breach of any terms or conditions of this
Agreement, the party alleging such default or breach shall
give the other party not less than thirty (30) days' notice,
in writing, specifying the nature of the alleged default and
the manner in which such default may be satisfactorily
cured. During any such thirty -day (30 -day) period, the
party charged may commence and thereafter diligently proceed
to cure such defult and, in such event, the party charged
shall no longer be considered in default.
15. Recitals Incorporated. The Recitals to this
Agreement are incorporated herein and by this reference made
a part.
16. Recordation. This Agreement, or a memorandum
thereof, in a form acceptable to the Parties, shall be
recorded by the City in the Official Records of the County
of San Bernardino, State of California, within 10 days after
the Effective Date.
17. Limitation on Applicability. Except as to
matters expressly provided for herein or constrained by
other agreements, and notwithstanding the provisions of
Government Code Section 65866, all rules and regulations and
official policies governing permitted uses of land as well
as design, improvement, and construction standards or
-14-
specifications applicable to the Planned Community are
subject to change by the City in the manner otherwise
provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
"LEWIS"
LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA,
a general partnership
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
P. O. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785 -0670
By:
Authorized Agent
LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO.,
a general partnership
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
P. O. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785 -0670
By:
Authorized Agent
"CITY"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
a municipal corporation
9320 -C Base Line Road
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
WESTERN PROPERTIES,
a general partnership
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
P. 0. Box 670
Upland, CA 91785 -0670
By:
Authorized Agent
ATTEST:
By: By:
Mayor City Clerk
-15-