HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/11/02 - Agenda Packetft�AMO ACTIONS
Crff OF
}t
RANC7 p C1."1V0D%A
CITY COLTl�1(,'IL
z AGENEA
U >
1977
Lions Park Community Center
9161 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California
November 2, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline
for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The
City Clerk's Office receives all such items.
1. CALL TO ORDRR
A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. Called to order at 7:30
S. Roil Call: BuAuet X Dahl R , Frost A
Schlosser k , and Mikels x
C. Approval of Minutes: October 17, 1983 and October 19,
1983.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Thursday, November 3, 1983 - HISTORICAL COMMISSION -
Lions Park Community Center,
b. Presentation of a donation by the Alta Loma Riding Club
to the City's Heritage Park Develonment Fund.
c. Presentation of Proclamation commending the Rancho
Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce for the 1983 Nine
Festival.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be
routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without discussion.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83 -11 -2, and Payroll
ending 10 -16 -82 in the total amount of $162,086.14.
b. Forward Claim (CL83 -43) against, the City by Philip
Jacobs to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for
handling.
Approved 5 -0
Approved 5 -0
City Council Agenda -2- November 2, 1983
c. Forward Claim (CL83-44) against the City by Karen
Iskades to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for
handling.
d. Forward Claim (CL83 -45) against the City by Econolite
Corporation to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier
for handling.
e. Forward Claim (CL83 -46) against the City by Steven Dale
Brockman to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for
handling.
f. Approval of a Resolution adopting annual spending
limitations.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -183
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
g. Approval of Sapphire Street sidewalk improvements
project (06- 25 -71) and authorize the City Engineer to
file a Notice of Completion, and to release bonds.
Release Performance Surety $30,902.29
Release Retention $ 3,147.31
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -184
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAPPHIRE STREET
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
h. Approval of amended map of final map TR 12090 submitted
by USA Properties located on the northeast corner of
Archibald and Feron Boulevard.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -185
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT 1209G.
City Council Agenda -3- November 2, 1983
i. Approval of amendments to the Salary Resolution No. 83-
182.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 83-
182.
j. Approval of modification of the City Manager's life
insurance policy as provided in Employee Agreement.
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOL FENCE HEIGHT REVISION.
Staff report by Jerry Grant.
ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (second reading) Approved 5 -0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FCR
S'n IMiMTNG POOL FENCING.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HERITAGE Approved 5 -0
PARK Heritage Park, a forty acre public park site
located at the southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl,
will be reviewed for environmental determination and
site plan design. Staff report by Dill Holley,
Community Services Director.
C. NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DISTRICT MAP. This is for
review and conaideratlon of the proposed Development
Code and Map to replace the current Interim Zoning
Ordinance. The Planning Commission has been reviewing
the conducting public hearings on the proposal over the
last three months and is recommending approval of the
amended draft. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City
Planner.
ORDINANCE NO. 211 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE,
INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
City Council Agenda -4- November 2, 11983
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -186
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING
PUBLICATION IN ACCORDA "';F WITH GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 369331c)l2) - DEVELOPMENT CODE
(ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
MAP.
5. NON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS
None submitted.
6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
Approved 5 -0
A. REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL Received 8 Filed Report
SCHOOL DISTRICT. Frank Cosca, Central School District
Superintendent, has requested time to provide the City
Council with an overview of the educational facilities
within the Central School District.
B. AlENMENTS TO SHERIFF'S CONTRACT Staff report by Lauren Approved 4 deputies per
Wasserman, City Manager. contract amendments 5 -0
C. ROUTE 30 STATUS REPORT. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, puade Received A Filed Report
and Douglas, Inc., consultants for the Route 30
Implementation Study, will discusz t;.e status of their
work and summarize the alternatives developed in their
interim report.
7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to
Ex. Session not to
reconvene.
10 October 17, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
An adjourned meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, October 17. 1983
in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. The purpose of the
meeting was to adopt the 1983 -84 Program of Service. Mayor Mikels called the
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip
D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd
Hobbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finanrc Director, Harry Empey; Community
Services Director, Bill Holley; Building Official, Jerry Grant; and Sheriff's
Captain, Thomas Wickum.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION — PER30NM ISSUES. Item discussed first.
• Mayor Mikels announced that Council would adjourn to a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters.
The meeting, reconvened at 6:35 P.M. with all members of Council and staff
present.
Mayor Mikels stated that Council had agreed to the following employee salary
and fringe benefit package for 1983 -84;
1. Salary adjustment of 5 percent.
2. Health Care Adjustment to increase the health premium to $225 per
month.
3. Increase in the Dental Plan
Mr. Wasserman stated that staff would get with the Employee Committee in the
morning,, to discuss this with them.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for any comments from the employees. There
was no response.
11
Page 2
1. APPROVAL OF MF.MORANDNM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Memorandum of _
Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 198344. The
agreement provides for services to be provided to the City with reimbursement
at the rate of $12,000 per year.
Mr. Wasserman went over the MOU explaining the differences between what is
being proposed and the former contract.
Mr. Frost stated he would rather that the agreement include a date of June
30th so that it would be reviewed yearly as we do all our agreements.
Presently the MOU provides that the agreement would be continuing until
termination.
Mr. Schlosser stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to he independent of
the City as soon as possible, and concurred with Mr. Frost that a date should
be inserted.
Discussion continued amongst the Councilmembers regarding whether a sunset
date should be added in order to review the agreement yearly.
110TION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the Memorandum of •
Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce as written by the City Attorney.
Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. DISCUSSION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE. Staff report by Lauren
Wasserman, City Manager.
Mr. Wasserman stated that there was now $438,515 available for
appropriation. He then proceeded to go throught the list of significant
issues yet to be approved by Council:
a. One additional 80 -hours sheriff's patrol unit
$
91,676
b. Civic Center Reserve
$
75,000
C. Park Development Fund
$150,000
d. Printing /Planning Department
$
18,000
e. Fencing and Screening for City property
$
6,000
f. Transfer to Reserve for Changes in Economic Conditions
$
67,930
g. Clerk typist /City Clerk's Office
$
8,300
h. Management Development Training
$
5,000
I. Accountant I position reclassified to Accountant II
$
1,500
Mr. Dahl stated there was another item which he had requested which was a Park
Planner. lie felt that this position was needed since we are still in the
designing stage of parks. Mr. Holley has been a one -man operation and is •
over- rxtended. He felt a lot of the work could be done inhouse instead of
using consultants, thus saving the City some money.
•
Page 3
Mr. Buquet asked where this person would be located
Mr. Dahl stated this brought up another point, and that was of utilizing extra
space which was available in the building next to the city offices.
Mr. Buquet felt there would be problems with this location since it was
upstairs.
Mr. Holley stated they had thought of tnis. Actually, it would not be any
different from what takes place now. People come to the main counter at the
switchboard. They are notified that someone is there, and they come out. If
they were located upstairs, then the same procedure would be followed. They
would go to the person.
Mr. Wasserman stated that a Park Planner would be an entry level position at a
cost of about $26,000. In their calculations, an amount had been included to
cover the expense of spare this employee.
Mr. Empey stated they calculated this based on 75 to 85 cents per square foot,
• or $6300 for space for 8 months. We did not come up with any particular
place, only considered the cost.
Mayor Mikels stated that we will need more space if we add any new employees.
Mr. Wasserman stated that Mr. Grant had just informed him that it was a State
law that handicap facilities be available. Staff would have to check into
this.
Discussion continued between Council and staff regarding the issue of space.
4. ADOPTION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE.
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet. to amend and adopt as final
the Interim Budget with the available resources as follows:
Motor Vehicle in lieu fees $175,933
Interest Earnings /reserves $171,099
Cont,inpency $128,687
Building Permits $ 70,954
Buatness Inv. Prop. Tax $ 47,771
Elinination of Helicopter Charge $ 43,712
Sheriff Dispatchers 1 61,719
$528,490
42 to cover the following expenditures and transfers into reserves:
Page U
80 hour Patrol Unit $ 91,676
City Employee package E 61,982
Sheriff Personnel Adj. $ 61.719
Park Planner $ 26,317
Printing /Planntrig $ 18,000
Clerk Typist /City Clerk $ 8,300
Management Development $ 5,000
Reclassification /Accountant I to Accountant II $ 1,500
and to transfer the non - appropriated, non- designated reserves to reserves for
changes in economic conditions. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
5. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, •
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
I
• October 19, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, October 19,
1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Council members: Richard M. Dahl; Charles J. Buquet II; Phillip
D. Schlosser; James C. Frost; and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Hobert
Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd
Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill
Holley.
Approval of Minutes: MOTION: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to
• approve the minutes of September 7, September 21, and October 5, 1983. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 2:00 p.m. - COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ON FOOTHILLS COMMUNITY PLAN - Board of Supervisors Hearing floor, 175 'West
Fifth Street, San Bernardino.
b. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Lions
Park Community Center.
c. Friday, October 21, 1983, 4:00 -7:00 p.m. - MEASURE "W" RECEPTION - Board
of Realtors Office, 217 West 2nd Street, Upland.
d. Thursday, October 27, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION -
Lions Park Community Center.
e. Pre" ?lta6le" of B deflation ty the Alto 6eme RIAI"g Blat to the 6ityae
Weri6age Park Development Fwad. Item removed by the Group. They wished
to present, donation at the time Heritage Park comes to the City Council
^or review.
Ll
Page 2
I 1
LJ
f. Mayor Mikels announced that the "Purple Foot Award" for the grape stomping
contest at the Wine Festival was won this year by Councilman Jim Frost.
It was won by Councilman Phil Schlosser last year.
g. Mr. Wasserman requested an added item to the Agenda: 6D - Resolution No.
83 -182 which adjusts the salaries per a previous action of Council. Mr.
Wasserman also requested a closed session at the end of the meeting to
discuss a legal matter.
h. Chief Feuerstein stated that in 'light of the article which appeared in the
Daily Report, he wanted to assure the Council and the RDA that the Fire
District would continue working in partnership with the City staff and the
Redevelopment Agency, They have been meeting regularly with staff and the
City Manager to come up with some possible joint City and District
facilities and would continue to do so.
3• CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83- 10 -19, and Payroll ending 10 -2 -83 in
the total amount of $1,199,491.15.
b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Warrants for July for $3,625.60;
August for $96,110.47; and September for $2,341.30. Approval of .
Assessment District 82 -2 Warrants for July for $3,690,00; for August for
$64,740.00.
c. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -10) for On -Sale Beer and Wine Public
Premises License for LeRoy and Rose Gamble, Ernie's, 7157 Amethyst Avenue.
d. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -20) for On -Sale General Eating Place,
for N. L. Disco, Inc., Nite Lite Hens A Herfords, 8874 Foothill Boulevard.
e. Forward Claim (CL83-40) against the City by Ernest Sims to the City
Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
f. Forward Claim (CL83-41) against the City by James Glidewell Hall to the
City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
g. Forward Claim (CL83 -42) against the City by C.V. Holder to the City
Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
h. Request approval of Resolution establishing the Recreation Services
Enterprise Fund and its operational guidelines. This is an item which
brings the method of collecting and disbursing fees within the Recreation
Service Division into compliance with current Governmental Accounting
Standards.
C,
J
U
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -171
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RECREATION
SERVICES ENTERPRISE FUND.
i. Approval of agreement for reconstruction of south half of Lemon Avenue
between Xiusman and Archibald Avenue in conjunction with Tract 963= L,
Crismar Homes; in amount of $50465. Funds to be drawn from the Systems
Development Fund.
j. Approval of intent to annex Tracts 12237, 12337 -i, i2237 -2 to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No. 15, and set public hearing
for November 16, 1983.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -172
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTANANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1,
• 12237 -2).
RESOLUTION N0. 83 -173
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCPAING AND LTnHTTNG ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (TRACTS 12237, 12337 -1, 12337 -2).
k. Approval to summarily ordering the vacation of unimproved road right -of-
way north of Arrow Route and east of Vineyard Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -174
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF
AN UNIMPROVED ROAD NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF
VINEYARD AVENUE.
1. Apprrval of acceptance of street improvements and storm drain for Parcel
Map 61977 located on the east side of Haven Avenue at 7th Street;
Cadillac- Fairview Development, developer.
Page 4
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -175
.A RESOLCTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PARCEL MAP 6194 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
m. Release of Bonds:
Tract 10569 - located on Placer, east of Archibald Avenue; owner, William
Lyon Co.
Accept Mainten. Guarantee Bond (road) $ 3,300
Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $176,600
S.A. 80 -13 - located on the southeast corner of Sapphire and Highland;
owner, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LUS Church.
Release Faithful Perform. Bond $55,000
P.M. 7555 - located on the southeast corner of Milliken and 8th Street;
owner, O'Donnell, Brigham. •
Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $86,000
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -176
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR TRACT 10569 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -177
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR S.A. 80 -13 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -178
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMUNGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PARCEL MAP 7555 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
•
Page 5
n. Approval of Redevelopment Agency action regarding Judicial Validation
Action for future tax allocation bond issues
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -179
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ITS RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS
RELATING THERETO.
o. Approval of destruction of city personnel records which are no longer
required by law.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -180
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS
PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090.
• p. Approval of reclassification of Administrative Analyst to Assistant to
City Manager at a monthly salary range of ;2096- 2550 /mo.
q. Set public hearing date of November 2, 1983: Draft Development Code.
r. Set, public hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for consideration of revocation or modification to the
conditions for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 - Roars Head. An appeal for
the review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of
approval which are intended to resolve complaints and distrubances created
by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on
the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street.
a. Set Public Hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and General Plan
Amendment 83 -04A - Carnelian Investments. A request to amend the General
Plan Land Use Plan from low residential (2 -4 du /ac) to medium residential
(4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the R -1 -8500 zone (R -3
pending) located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and
Carnelian - APN 201 - 214 -08.
t. Set Public, Hearing, date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and Zone Change 83 -03 -
Carnelian Investments. A change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (multiple
Family residential) on approximately 7 acres of land located on the south
side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 214 -08.
4
Page 6
•
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
N. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOH. PENCE HEIGHT REVISION. A proposal for the
reduction of a fence height required around swimming pools. Staff report by
Jerry Grant, Building Official.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 122 -A.
ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of
Ordinance No. 122 -A. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayrr Mikels set second reading for Ordinance No. 122 -A for November 2, 1983. •
No items submitted.
5. HON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
6A. STATUS REPORT ON A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD. A resident who was
concerned about a recreational vehicle storage yard located at 10191 Base Line
Road had requested time on the Agenda. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner,
presented a staff report summarizing the problem and the present status of the
same.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was:
Donald K1ng, planning consultant, 9375 Archibald, representing Mr. Musa.
He passed out some photographs for Council to look at. He stated that the
situation is that Mrs. Danna has developed and constructed a vehicle
storage yard on her property located south on Base Line, east of Turner in
violation of the Rancho Cucamonga zoning ordinance. In the development of
this facility, drainage patterns were created which have and are cuasing
F-
L] L
•
Page 7
physical and monetary damage to the welfare and property of Mr. Musa.
City staff has outlined the problems. Mr. King then proceeded to give
background of the approval of the storage yard. On behalf of his client
he requested Council direct the City Attorney to offer Mrs. Danna one of
the following alternatives:
Alternative 1. Cause to have adequate drainage plans prepared and
approved to prevent flooding on Mr. Musa's property. Such approval by
the City Engineer should occur before October 31. Cause to have these
approved drainage improvements installed prior to November 21.
Alternative 2: If Mrs. Danna cannot agree with the former then City
Council order all vehicles removed from the illegal facility by
November 1 and have illegal improvements removed, regrading the site to
its previous condition, thereby eliminating the drainage problems that
were created. The regrading should be done by November 21.
They requested Council direct the City Attorney to order Mrs. Danna to
immediately install a temporary sandbag berm at a size adequate to prevent
further flooding this year on Mr. Husa's property. Further, request that
Council direct the City Attorney to proceed promptly with Code action as
• provided for in the zoning ordinance if one of these choices is not completed
on November 21.
Mrs. Danna, 10191 Base Line, owner of the recreational storage yard,
stated nhe started the storage yard in June 1976 before the City was
incorporated. She claimed Mr. Musa had not talked to her about any of
this. She had received registered letters from him the last three years
on Christmas eve stating he was having someone come out to survey and
wanted her to remove everything off his property. As far as she knew she
had nothing on his property. Last Christmas eve she received a bill for
water damage which she ignored. This was the first she knew of any water
damage that Mr. Huss had. The first she heard is when she received a call
from Mr. Vairin that there were problems. She was trying to get
authorization from the Edison Company for an easement in order to install .
a drainage across their property. So far, there has been no response.
Mr. Dougherty stated the issue of the sandbagging is something the city
council could direct. Obviously if not complied with, it could be a factor in
the Counci'l's derision at a later time on the use under a CUP if in fact the
Development Code is adopted is it is presently written. Essentially though
any flooding caused by one property owner onto the property of another is a
legal matter which can be resolved in court in a private law suit. Its not
something the City should get involved in except insofar as we are attempting
to correct the zoning violation.
19
Page 8
•
Mr. Schlosser stated that if sandbagging is done, all you would do is move the
water east or west onto someone else's property. He felt this might create
more problcao and did not feel it was a wise decision to require the
sandbagging.
Mr. Vairin concurred and stated he wanted Mr. Musa to be aware that a sandbag
berm would not stop water from coming across to his property, but would divert
the water from the stable area to somewhere else on his property.
Mr. Dougherty asked Mr. Vairin if this would result in a concentration of the
flow at given points.
Mr. Vairin stated yes. The water is being concentrated now because Mr. Musa
built a trench on his side of the property which is taking the water to the
same area.
Mr. Dougherty asked if the concentration is a result of his action on his
property?
Mr. Vairin stated that was correct.
Mr. Dougherty felt that in view of the discussion that requiring sand bagging
might be counter productive and would perhaps expose the upstream property •
owner to a greater degree of liability.
Mayor Mikels pointed out to Mrs. Danna that generally speaking ignorance of
the law is no defense. The fact that her property has been altered and it has
an ilijegal negative impact on the neighbor can be serious.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to instruct Mrs. Danna to install
the necessary drainage improvements, to obtain the necessary easements, obtain
final approval of grading plans and accomplish the tasks by December 1st.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Mikels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED; Frost
*e11 *•
Mayor Mikees called a recess at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
with all members of Council and staff present.
400,**
6B. CONSIDERATION OF SHERIFF'S CONTRACT. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman,
City Manager. •
•
Page 9
Mr. Wasserman stated that the contract before Council is a contract which
reflects the revised method for providing the services that was tentatively
approved in dune. The additional deputies and the issue of the dispatchers
will be handled through an amendment to the contract. Amount of the contract
will be $2,548,243 for existing levels of service.
Lt. Futscher pointed out that the contract does not reflect the two new
deputies approved on October 17.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response,
the public portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Buquet asked who presently pays for maintenance on the automobiles'?
Mr. Wasserman stated that we pay maintenance at 7 cants per mile and buying
the gas and oil for the vehicles. For maintenance on the automobiles, the
City pays for the actual costs, but if the repairs exceed the amount
allocated, then the maintenance cost would increase or decrease the next
year's contract..
Mr. Wasserman stated that the helicopter services would be paid for by the
County through another fund and not through the contract.
• MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the contract. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
6C. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES MH RENTAL OF COMMUNITI CENTER
FACILITIES_ R,,r.tal of Community Centprs to partially defray the overall cost .
of operation is a common municipal practice. Adoption of these guidelines
will provide Rancho Cucamonga a partial cost recovery tool with which to
operate. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -181.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -181
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE
RENTAL OF COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. There was no response,
so the public portion of the meeting was closed.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 83 -181
and to waive frill reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
5D. ADDED ITEM: SALARY
RESOLUTION Mr.
Wasserman reported
that Council had
approved adjustments in
the salaries.
The Resolution
reflected those
19
adjustments.
Page 10
•
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -182.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82 -119 RELATING TO
SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR ALL FULL TIME AND PART TIME
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR
1983 -84.
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -182
and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
T. CITT ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8A. REQUEST BT ANDREW BARMA[IAN TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. Mr. Barmakian proposed
that Council consider making his project an "adult only" project. This would
allow him to proceed with the project. At the time when school space was
available, he would change the designation. •
Mr. Dougherty stated there were two decisions from the State Supreme Court
stating that excluding all chilaren from apartment projects or condominiums
were in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court in these cases
expressly distinguished between the normal adults -only type of use and
developments for senior citizens. They did leave that open. Whether or not a
situation as Mr. Barmaklan proposes could be legally enforced would be pure
speculation. He has no way to knowing whether the Supreme Court would depart
from their already announ^_ed decision; simply because we were to allow a
building to take place where no school space is available.
Discussion followed regarding who would ultimately be responsible if such a
development occured since there were other developers who have not yet come
forth but had similar problems within the same school district.
Mr. Dougherty stated that if a developer feels that a school district has
arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld a school letter, then there is a
mechanism whereby the developer can appeal that determination or action to the
Planning Commission which would then recommend a determination to the city
c,ancil. Ultimately the City Council, if it feels the school district is
arbitrary or unreasonable, would have the power, on hearing the appeal, to
waive the requirements.
•
•
Page 11
" =yor Mikels pointed out the requirements of a school letter was not a State
law, but one of our own requirements. W ty,t.p,y. ,r-wlty,d,,,,,
.t by creating a nry ordinance- whieh roecindr that policy. The Mayor
continued that it was his understanding that the Central School District has
reached the capacity for the portables which are provided by the funds
generated pursuant to SB 201.
Mr. Wasserman stated that there was a Committee working with the school
district composed of representatives ^rom the building industry. Hopefully,
this will not come to the city council, but will be resolved between the
school district and the developers.
Mr. Dahl asked the city attorney if we would be liable if we entered into an
agreement with a developer that was contrary to State law and was illegal.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not assuming that such an agreement under
these circumstances would be an illegal agreement. There is certainly an
agreement to be made that there is a public purpose to be served by precluding
occupance of new dwellings by children until sufficient school facilities are
available. These two supreme court decisions which held that the arbitrary
exclusion to children was in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As far
• as the liability of City and Council, he does not see a serious exposure to
monetary damage because we are not tlaking about the federal civil rights law,
but a California law. There is no federal equavilent to this type of decision
involving children. The most a court action could do is find the agreement
unenforceable and to enjoin some enforcement.
ACTION: The request was received and filed.
SB. CONSIDERATION OF PILLING VACANCY ON THE PARRS ADVISORY C0MMIWEE.
Mayor Mikels brought forth two names for consideration: They were Sam Punter
and Molly Mitchell. He asked if there were any additional names to be
added. There was no response.
Those in favor of Molly Mitchell were: Dahl, Mikels
Those in favor of Sam Punter were: Buquet, Schlosser, Frost
Council rrquested that letters be drafted over the mayor's signature to Mr.
Punter ana to all those who submitted applications but were not chosen.
9. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adjourn to a closed session to
reconvene. Mooting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:20
42 p.m. No action was taken.
Page 12
MOTION; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
•
•
•
'R87 CITY nTjaC49 C9CA4C-J6A
a r1 VFL F 4 n n A N A Y F
n, n -, r
i;�
:!T
4 1
Inry ^1 'In 1 4 1 1. T
I r I I
I I,- 1 S . ITT,
1041+ 1,2. M1 1`lv4 I - - - v
1 ^M1rG .I A, I I - I 111 'R
1" 511^117 1 1 1 "T I cl 9A O1 pr 419
4�0 1'4' 1 A" J1 T r 4
I , Y �r
It "A
jot+l 11.9 -4x12
T
11414 111, r I I
'( 'A C •L 11
111410 .1117 r1q,11
1 "411 1 1 T I I
�11 r ll
15 c T 1 '4 - 1.I
19418 1'15 r GIST
11-38 I'll 1 11 IIllrI--
il,rIII 111.1 1 It '1 F"
'In `11 ":1, -1
11 11 11-11"—�
cvt
VG
n'zA-n
� 1824
. ,
_
l'!L F
)41 02/11. lL,.
9 1 r T1, ; A
�44 1 Il 1; 111 L I T,jn
IVIII 41,71 ltlr°jt TFJ Cl
194%2 10.11
P4% 41" IJIRV� —.5 IrVTrW
IIISS -.a 21
I.S4 4
1 41
t'45 I In,, H1111•111 lll-1
11
1'1.51 SI IJ Iry
11461 5112 1"91' ^t'.:• J—.,r
I`Al 5114 1 1 - c
Ll<&Z 5144 I-ITL CITY -ip�T
174AI 6141 1�111Y I-JTFRV4TTl!;iL nP
I 11ws l l l 1-11 1) 9 Yr -C 1 %b Ij-P ,
II P
I I r
-:n j,"I "n' W ,7 -- r r I rP, ,
114SI "" WP1 , q-'
164 1& I I IL-ViJ-A riTl,
IV449 .119 l
P470 &,.) 1,1!,r T
',CIL 1. t"N-11ARn
1471 67�j 1
1'471 01.1 I -I'Ll . �..l I Y
1"471 -r PA.,-.IAPA
I &
WAPRANT P40•CIL1A
PATF ltll-RIplll
In/ 111/`
'0 /1' / >l
R
11/02/81
DISLm"T NET
12.00-
sflo.V9-
I ls.nn-
112.11 )-
qn.00-
R%li
52.52
, �:
11"r 52
.91
LA
I.117
12A.70
967 2�.O.1s
4
915.)5
t,512.s?
I
14.49
4,716.10
710
1
2.1
7
S.
1,
PICFO I
RI167 CITY NCIKI CFCAN NnA
N NAJX R VE: V E N n n R N A M F
1"414 '.vn H( KAI'fl1eN rr, Pr ±CPT
19415 ] ^01' NA9 TI'T7 UNIn'I S'ItVICr
19,4
I& 774n Ai I'A ^[•., 91L
loon 7191 Nr InPnLA lN[
19478 Tits Nni FIN nrFlrr4t ASSPC
1 'x4" `ITl 1•II4C IU S] " ^. INS]ITII
1944; 755S PACIFIC, OP0n11CTS SIIPr1.Y
1-4113 T6Tn PACTrir ^PfK C (•RAVFL r.
T Ml. T5g5 P414ru 'PIK
94115 7119 PAPA Pill
1'14.6 Tn) PAT/[ SILFS rr4P
t 10497 777, ^ 4 P ^P
lg419 1174 PFP4RAL CF)'PNl1'm
1040." 1795 x11114 11,1 POUT LIM 10
1 1491 77% Pf POLAP Cngm)TM!
R PP[CISIf1N 1'Y9 "AII`lr. SYS
1'149) TP99 IFS- -111,1 I -AT T6
10494 9055 P4'ICHIll PR 1 ^l;i.RFC 41111]
T 11,405 P160 AANOn —^ ICAI CLINIC
10496 8915 9APIn RATA TVC
1949 1,- 1 nC r
. -11 r,
pr Vrl^r;lr•• {, A 11
3 11499 71159 RI77 CM-IIA r111TrP
11,571^, 92Jn 0•.941'71lri. 1'FAw:t
Igtnl 8775 PUS,f L.I, Nf AI
IgSC] A'C1 S C S 5^ 6
T 1959, 144, ;:.N P ('P fr t•JO V'A'IJ4
1'4SP4 -1" 4N nil-.1 N +T EI'Y gvr ^4
19515 9159 If "PI ". J"Y
1'1504 r =60 SIVrry LAY 61'11' PACTS
1950] A1.1
]C!IAI '117'7 119'11(
5 1l SOR 119, SI IMS vey SN.'•P
19510 899q SWITI III JACK
Ivsll V�19 vFan 11' Nt]. dn
f 1 ^5 IT 110 v`N10 y�. ncII
19511 8619 S^ CAR If 1 PI[1•1 f.^
10514 9,115 in IALTF G,S [
T 171515 145 SP.G1 -1 •, SA° ^
11511 PF.55 S1 FKLF'TS
19511 811. STAN9IPV Pn P!qf P41VT
19519 R61n STITI^.NSPS C :-r1'
Lq Slq 95P1 STr VFS '1 IL
R LS 521 RI-R SkFLLIVA^ P' t: 'IgFRT
19571 743 SVIVAII. JIt
I'll, 174, TI.
195"1 7571 16 ^frT Ill' VIC
3 19 P7 Rjr F TRUST
515 61 ToP w CIIC nlSI.F
195]1 Pl" TP1 CITY CP9ST
195 11 SO" r TY of UPI A-41 P 195]9 Onion IIPr NA, rrr..v
705'1 171 N, L "v' 1N11T ^1[ICF
IOSj9 03gC U11l ITY I%I S'f P IF
19111 9 111 5 VAIPIN `119111 n
:-131 114P YASr:U1f, 6
19533 9151' V[TI`P e ,p,,jr TNC
!0514 'two W41 IN, I `R"
19535 952S WILLI AN{ Px l•'r T'r. n
Y 10536 1,— Ill" Crr P'P,T I�'C
9 ^7 617 IF, • ^n 1141 110 VICF
1191A 9dlq J ":TS, 11.11.1141
1 ^519 91'1 Al"
L 19•.40 9,,I A••,n S5•u)1I
19541 '"' .19'1 {n ' I"I7111
9542 91''2 Gill,'•, rA"tF
10,41 'IC't
Y 10514 ]324 KI ^KA, 111191
10145 Ply 9'11TF, KIPrN
9, ' v n n1Aar I41 9v n
11
WARRANT RMI"CIILLLIF
WARP 'IF FPf�✓f
DISCOUNT NFT
540
1.690
in
65
7.
I00
75
49
100
252
P.2ii
511
46
19
200
659
lei
6.334
I,0
I
I
1
I
5,1
1
45
1
Il.t
1.1
Q!1FIF1
1•
IY
I Y
I
� Y
I
I •
I
1
Cl r
i-
I •
I ,
I
i •
I
1 •
1 •
•
•
R061 C1 YY WWC# Q CAWNGA
YARD P YEN F N 0 N Ir N A N E
`l9[tV 9911 R ^SF. ^ J
19549 99]9 Y1,1. l°•IISA
195" aa9 fl^cf, 1'II IF
to cgt Glal '1l 4 ^c, .P_M1 If
l ^c53 +aa ^1
I! It C]v ^1
1
YAPPANT PFCJONCILf ll /02/83
XARR P`FFFnn }E DISCOUNT MFT
I I /v /el 15.00
11 /n] /Vl 15.00
11 /m /tJ ]0.00
1L101 /Pa 39.00
f H4L VITALS 1191905.50
PAGF• 3
. I `' ti 83- 1 3
CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY
1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed nck 44 RJnd C 1
100 days offer the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ADMINISTRrsTIDN
Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after f(crrppe
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF 34yse�,a (2"Cia h.ov,aa.s O Ctm- -s.u� 7A9iI%%I2i1A8AI5I6
P67/8 a 3
Nome o Claimant Address Zip Phone Age
—2.52 S Ki �t Aue Rte U�Iwvd� Cq 4t7Rh
Address to which Claimant washes (ices stint.
WHEN did damage or injury occur? Sg Ito I cj ?J
7 1
WHERE did damage or injury occur? I relsi 641 h .�. Rrr w tZaea�w ppnc
HOW and under what, circumstances did damage or injury occur? CCU °f,.t s.saS V
eY 1 U� _ nu, �rr.Ni Uc��rl� n,nv„ muck gM ev- \o )C.a k ..,, - ( 1.T
N al ek TL %e 'MW.
WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(Include names of employees, if known)
nr
Ls
C.wu.s,v_c99 Qr`c puZ dnws.a�y¢„Te vehiel¢,. t 19 T2 V, 1,,. ,
WHAT sum 2ro ybu ll oimZlnclude thle estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar ors it may he known
at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates or bills, if possible)
ten,'
Al1ee._.. I eS( srol -el b
` ci. asS,
Cf<, .i6\une COQ
Total Amount Claimed: o $
NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Donors and Hospitals:
0< .TT s - r 1 1 7 S, -"='A. ,o n' A fi b
r 9 51
DATE
cnn /rnnl Sirnalure C nimnnl � —
•• CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY (f
1. Claims for death injury to B T C E 1 tl E B
I Y person, a to personal property must be fiQltlytI DAMCIIOsBIICl1MONG11
IDO days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). ADMINISTRATION
Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than I yea after 49TO'ELrft4f!'E
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). (itu.Q G�tuus,e -•� ?�_�����
TO: CITY OFn_,,ohc Cucnmona0. / !1� ,
.�nrc n L ,YC CIP. J&zbS l Tuns.'- i is -1. c%I-1;�e -p9-
Name of Crimant // Address Zip Phone Age
ysCr l'kL. 645 l�nC1n)6 _
Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
WHEN did damage or injury occur? 0cf, , IC1 s 1gT55 5 IS P - sr � -
WHERE did damage or injury occur? Arc,i�, bxj (i "Ikor-i k o{ fro* 00-
HOW and under what circumstances did damage a injury occur ? -Fm,,e-\ n no. nmjL e ry
RTC-\N , \)ao r -I- \,Ere. iS ecn Frua aty in 40RO or� m; \lest s
\r,.sc•.t. hnit ns. rco.d. 111v,. rsm Vifs•J oil r -Front RAA: ot>_-
WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(Include names of employees, if known)
t]c c.n yc�.1 -8 of a 1u«aE \ e1e X00 AV)t �rwQ
Y\Ckoc bct;.o A,(-re F-Z u..0 c.ow\dn`i CInUt, 'nr, qLi IC*
WHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known
at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates or bills, if possible)
QV I)I,r'ct I L'-'I• I, -V\cr 1 oyr ot'i', folio.
rC.
s
Total Amount Claimed:
NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals:
1 _
DATE nla 1' '! ure oo ' )ant
•
r
CU4
1
BRIAN M. aROWN, ESQ. y p
MURTAUGH, HATCHER E MILLER
•
2
400 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 423
Santa Ana, California 92705
3
(714) 953 -2199 C t d s
4
Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ECONOLITE CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION
5
OCT 241983
6
7A9IIhnA2f2A415j6
A
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I 9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
JOAN M. MASON, WILLIAM F. ) CASE NO: OCV 30621
VON HUBEN, and CAROL JEAN VON HUBEN, )
12
) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs, ) (Government Code
13
) Section 910)
14
V. )
)
•
FREDERICK DOCKS, etc., et al., )
15
Defendants. )
16
)
17
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
18
You are hereby notified that ECONOLITE CORPORATION,
19
whose address is 3360 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California
20
92806, claims damages from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for
21
contribution and indemnity, computed as of the date of the
22
presentation of this claim in the amount of one million dollars.
23
This claim is based upon an accident that occurred on
2'
July 11, L982, at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and
25
Fourth Streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga wherein
26
decedents William and Beatrice Von Huben were killed after a
®
27
collision occurred between their vehicle and a vehicle driven
28
by Frederick Docks.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
It is alleged that at all times pertinent to this
action, the City of Rancho Cucamonga owned, controlled and ,
maintained property located adjacent to the above - described
intersection, which.property consisted, in part, of large
amounts of dirt and debris which obstructed the view of the
drivers approaching the above - described intersection. It is
further alleged that said intersection constituted a dangerous
condition of public property by reason of the visual
obstructions referenced above. In addition, the intersection
was in a dangerous condition for the reason that its traffic
signals, signs and devices, were non - operational, a condition
that had occurred prior to the subject accident and of which
the defendants, and each of them, had actual constructive
notice, but had failed to take protective measures.
Econolite Corporation has been named as a defendant in •
an action now on file with the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, case number OCV 30621 brought by the heirs of William
and Beatrice Von Ruben alleging that defendant Econolite
Corporation caused or contributed to the wrongful death of
William and Beatrice Von Huben as alleged in the plaintiffs,
complaint. Econolite Corporation therefore will seek damages
from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for full or partial
indemnification for any judgment or settlement obtained by the
plaintiff against Econolite Corporation.
All notices regarding this claim should be sent to Brian
M. Brown, c/o Murtaugh, Hatcher 6 Miller, 400 North Tustin
r �+
1
I 1
\J
nia 92"S,. 14 953 -2199
TAUGR, Tcm 6 MILLE
or Defendant,
CORPORATION
1
Avenue, Suite 423, Santa Ana, Cali
•
2
Dated< October 12. 19A'1
3
/
4
5
r
\-
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28
nia 92"S,. 14 953 -2199
TAUGR, Tcm 6 MILLE
or Defendant,
CORPORATION
WARNING:
No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the
above- stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to
be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson
s Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 Main Street, Suite 600,
Riverside, California, 92502.
• DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983.
LOCATICN: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8/10 mile north of
23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho
Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino,
State of California.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND
This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying
lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County
o` San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino
67est Distract Superior Court, case number OCV 30186.
The anderlyinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident
whit` . occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in
a c r.olaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/
claimant filed on March 8, 1983.
On or about July 19, 1933, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P.
Beck, loca'toO at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101,
by alternate - ethod of service mailed a summons and complaint to
cur client defendant /claimant, Mr. Broc:em.an. Notice and Acknow-
IoO=-ent cf Receipt for sane was not sicned. Therefore, service
of "-.It cc-nl.aint was not effective until the answer by this
lie`•: r. :ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino
C ;u:.tv ncr.or Court, asst District, in Ontario, California,
on ^ctcbor 3, 1983.
The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total
Cl'
CLAIM
AGAINST: 1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA r "
2) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
VEcrsa -,2
CfTy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ADMINISTRATION
NAME OF CLA I:• ±4NT:
STEVEN DALE BROCiC!•'_ -l.^1
OCT 24 IM
ADDRESS OF CLAIM_aNT:
Steven Dale Brockman AM pV
19909 E. Honors 7 {618VA1i14213141616
Rowland Heights, California 91748 ,
ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT'S
ATTORNEYS: Thompson 6 Colegate
3737 Main Street, Suite 600
P.G. Box 1299
Riverside, California 92502
WARNING:
No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the
above- stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to
be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson
s Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 Main Street, Suite 600,
Riverside, California, 92502.
• DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983.
LOCATICN: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8/10 mile north of
23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho
Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino,
State of California.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND
This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying
lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County
o` San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino
67est Distract Superior Court, case number OCV 30186.
The anderlyinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident
whit` . occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in
a c r.olaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/
claimant filed on March 8, 1983.
On or about July 19, 1933, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P.
Beck, loca'toO at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101,
by alternate - ethod of service mailed a summons and complaint to
cur client defendant /claimant, Mr. Broc:em.an. Notice and Acknow-
IoO=-ent cf Receipt for sane was not sicned. Therefore, service
of "-.It cc-nl.aint was not effective until the answer by this
lie`•: r. :ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino
C ;u:.tv ncr.or Court, asst District, in Ontario, California,
on ^ctcbor 3, 1983.
The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total
Claim Against: 1) State of California
2) County of San Bernardino
3) City of Rancho Cucamonga
Claimant: Steven Dale Brockman •
Page 2
indemnity, expressed and implied, and for declaratory relief as
to the apportionment of danaces between Steven Dale Brockman
and these governmental entities.
On information and belief, it is believed that the State of
California, County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga all have joint control and responsibility for the
maintenance, design, construction and control over the said
roadway at the place described herein.
The basis of the claim at this tire is that the governmental
entities, who have control, have a legal obligation to prevent
a dangerous condition of a public roadway, which is on the
basis of failure to place the proper traffice warnings relative
to a dancerous and severe dip in the roadway, failure to properly
construct the roadway pursuant to design and plan, that the
original design and plans were negligently drafted and carried
out all within the knowledge of the governmental entities, and
that the failure to correct the dangerous condition resulted in
damages to the plaintiff, Anthony Louis Martinez.
It also alleced there was a failure to maintain the roadway and .
to keep it in a state of repair so as to prevent a dangerous
condition from arising.
The actual names of the public employees, who designed, constructed
or in any manner were involved in the maintenance of said roadway,
are unkno•,+ to this defendant /claimant at this time.
The amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff are speculative
at this tine. Therefore, on the basis of this claim for indemnity
and declaratory relief, no specific sum of money demanded by
plaintiff is know., to this claimant at this time. The plaintiff
is cla_nir.g physical injuries, making claims for medical and
dental exrenses, loss of earnings, tests Of suit and general
damages, for which this defendant /claimant will ask indemnity
as to t:
L
•
01
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
October 28, 1983
TO: City Council
FROM: Finance Directp�—
SUBJECT: Adoption of Spending Limitation for 1983 -84
Each year municipalities must adopt a spending limitation with
regards to proceeds from taxes. The limitation is built around
population growth, and the consumer price index or the income
per individual whichever is lower.
Attached is a copy of the calculations for 1983-84, and the
resolution adopting said limitation.
j
~I �'iz
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, set the spending limitation
for 1983 -84 at $9,583,742.
1977
SPENDING LIMITATION CALCULATION •
1983 - 1984
Spending Limitation for 1982 -83 $9,180,093
Factors for determining 1983-84 spending limitation
% Population 2.00
% C.P.I. - 2.35
Ratio of Change 1.0200 x 1.0235 1.04397%
Convert to a percentate (1.04397 x 100) - 100 - 4.397%
Spending limitation claculation for 1983 -84
Spending limitation for 1982 -83 + $9,180,093
Ratio % Population to % C.P.I. - 4.397%
$9,180,093 x 104.397% - $9,583,742 •
Spending limitation for 1983-84 - $9,583,742
•
ll�
• RESOLUTION NO. - /f_ �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTASILISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION.
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State of California provides
that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State
and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations Iir.it
of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in
the cost of living and population except as otherwise provided in said
article XIIIB; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said article XIIIB of the Constitution of
the State of California, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
deems it to be in the best interests of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to
establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-1984.
WHEREAS, The Finance Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has determined that said appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-
• 1984 be established in the amount of $9,583,742.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga that an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-
1984 pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of Calif-
ornia be established in the amount of $9,583,742, and the same is hereby
established.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriations limit herein
established may be changed as deemed necessary by resolution of the
City Council.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of
1983.
ATTEST:
0
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
1a
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
•
{' 1
u
LJ
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT .In
al
CII
DATE: November 2, 1983 ,'I i;
TO: City Council and City Manager is%%
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs \ty Engineer
BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71)
The Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvement Project has been completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Council approve
the acceptance of the project, authorize the final payment and direct the City
Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release
performance surety and retention.
RECOMNF.NDATION
It is recommended that Council accept as complete the Sapphire Street Sidewalk
Improvements and pass the attached resolution authorizing the City Engineer to
file the Notice of Completion and release performance surety in the amount of
$30,902.29 and retention in the amount of $3,147.31.
tfully submitted,
LBH:RC:Jaa
Attachments
• RESOLUTION NO. U- 02 -01CR'
A RESOLUTION OF lHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WORK
•WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Sapphire Street
Sidewalk improvements (06- 25 -71) have been completed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying
the work complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and
the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with
the County Recorder of San Bernardino County.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
• NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mikels7R-ayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City ClerT
jaa
0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
WHEN �ECOROEO MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RAMC NO CUCAMONGA
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The undersigned is an owner of an Interest or estate in the
hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate
IS:
SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT> (06.25 -71)
2.The full name and address of the undersigned owner Is: CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base Line Road, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730.
3,On the 2nd day of November, 1983, there was completed on the •
hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in [he
contract documents for:
SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71)
A,The name of the original contractor for the work of
improvement as a whole was:
THI CITY CONSTRUCTION INC.
S.The real property referred to herein is Situated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as
follows:
East side of Sapphire Street from Banyan Street
to South of Viemar Avenue
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a
municipal corporation, Owner
LL7oyCT.- HubbS, rty ngineer
I i
I.�
•
•
•
u
1.
STAFF REPORT
F ,
GATE: November 2, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Amending Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 submitted by U S A
Properties located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Ferun
Blvd.
Tract Map No. 12090 was previously approved on May 18, 1983 by City Council
and presently is under construction.
The developer has found that none of the smaller units are being sold and has
requested permission to eliminate the smaller building plan thereby changing
the lot lines of seven lots. This requires an amended map now submitted for
approval.
The Planning Commission approved this request at their meeting of October 26,
1983,
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Engineer to sign the
Amended Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 on behalf of the City.
Respectfully submi Ved,
C�
LBH:' jaa
Attachments
it
* . CITY OP RANCI 10 CUG%.VO. \GA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
--- VICINITY NIAP ;
A
N
PaB�
f Y 6 1
r
�I III, :�. –.mot - V -`fit —"� if• -, ^I '� y� � I
i I
L
S _
I'
: "1 —', hi'I•.^ ,— ^w_., �r,•:`, r,J- .�1-s,'''•— l��.r;�ii_;�r�Yi rl';�1: �
.BCxB40 M I[MY1 Blro
SYPlc AL SECT NS
LOT ADJU,STME.�tS
t�I B�Vl�C Ill �i;i 1
CI;CA, \IO \GA � 'Trt�c.� A�
1209D
'NGINIiGRING DIVISION
9n
-., VICINITY NIAP I N rag` 3
• RESOLUTION NO. al- 02 -02CR
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP
OF TRACT NO. 12090
WHEREAS, the Amended Map of Tract No. 12090 consisting of 128 lots,
submitted by U S A Properties, Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of
Archibald Avenue and Feron Blvd. has been submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the
requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, all conditions and requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract remain in full force and affect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. That said Amended Map be and the same is approved
and the City Engineer is authorized to execute same
on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
• AYES:
NnES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
jaa
46
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
NESOLUTION N0. 83 -182A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby amends Resolution
No. 83 -182 as follows:
02XX Administrative
0202 Administrative Analyst+ 306 1,593 336 1,850 346 1,945
0204 Assistant to the City Mgr* 371 2,203 401 2,559 431 21971
0205 Assistant City Manager* 406 2,623 436 3,047 466 3,538
0259 City Manager* - - - -$ 5,417. Flat Amount - - --
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983•
AI ES: *
NOES: *
ABSENT: *
40
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
I�
1,
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
•
19
n Tmv na. n
STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1983
a tF' S� �II
197
TO: City Council
?ROM: Robert A. Rizzo
Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Modification of City Manager's Life
Insurance Policy as Provided in Employee Agreement
Per City Council's request, the City Manager's life insurance
policy coverage will be increased to $125,000 as part of his
fringe benefit package.
RAR:mk
�f
• ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL
FENCING
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: Section 15.12.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Minicipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 15.12.110 Section 1107 added -- Swimming Pool Fencing. Chapter
11 of the Uniform Building Code is amended by aiding Section 1107 to read as
follows:
Section 1107 SWIMMING POOL FENCING. Every person in possession of
land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, either as owner, purchaser under
contract, lessee, tenant, licensee, or otherwise, upon which is situated a
swimming pool, having a water depth exceeding 18 inches, shall, at all times,
maintain a fence or other structure completely surrounding such pool and
extending not less than five feet (5' -0 -), measured vertically, above any
•
walking, surface, wall or other climbable structure, within two feet (2' -01) of
the exterior of the enclosure. Openings in auch fence or structure, other
than those created by gates or doors, shall be of such size so that a sphere
exceeding 4 inches in diameter will not pass between adjacent members.
Members of such pool enclosure shall not be arranged so as to materially
.facilitiate climbing or scaling by small children.
Gates or door openings through such enclosure shall be equipped with
self - closing and self - latching devices designed to keep, and capable of
keeping, such door or gate securely closed at all times when not in actual
use; however, the door of any dwelling occupied by human beings which forms
any part of the enclosure herein required need not be so equipped. Required
latching devices shall be located not less than four feet, six inches (4` -6 ^)
above the ground. The pool enclosure shall be in place and approved by the
Building Official before water is placed in the pool.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. The provisions of tr.is section shall not apply to public
swimming pools regulated by State Building Standards adopted by
the State Building Standards Conmission.
2. Any fencing serving as an enclosure for a swimming pool,
lawfully in existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance,
and meeting the requirements for fencing in effect at the time
of construction or the swimming pool, may be continued; however,
any replacement in whole or in part, shall comply with the
requirements act forth above.
r�
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk •
shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The
Gaily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of
Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES: 4
ASSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
% 7
•
•
0
•
D
v.. auwwn Gtv.mO'h
MEMORANDUM ,
Date: October 28, 1983
To: City Council and City Manager
1977
From Hill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
Subject: Council Agenda Item 4 -B, November 2, 1983
F.nvrronmental Findings and Site Plan Review for Heritage Park
Council is well familiar with the Heritage Park project:
• 40 acres square in configuration (34.6 acres park, balance in flood
control area);
• Located southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl;
• First park site incrementally purchased by City at an average cost of
$9,000 + /- per acre.
You have before you tonight two items: first, making environmental findings
in relation to the project; and, second, taking action on the site plan
i tun lf.
You have vie-aed the site plan several times previously and will have another
presentatior at your November 2 nesting. We have Provided as an addendum to
y-,r acenda vack the design development report, which contains site plan cross
s ^c cinn s, itb,strative construction elevations, and related narrative.
We view the sire plan as workable, well balanced and strongly supported by the
community. There should be no problem in this area.
on the other issue, environmental, there may be some discussion.
One res,dent living on Hillside wishes the site to remain as is or simply be
turfed. He stirred his neighhors up with 'horror stories' of what was grins
to no in and the negative impact that would result on their property values.
When we heard of thin, we went door -to -door to each adjacent property owner
alone Hil l;; i.:o, including the protester, and invited them to a meeting in the
nark te .1i r:uv; their enncorns.
Pnttr,m line i:: this: the sinaie protesting resident did not come to the
meeting but - rlmnst all of his neighbors did, liked whet they saw, a„d
szpres see; enthusiasm for the projert's success. (Members of PAC who were
pn•r.ent, 14,nry, Pings!, and Vallanre, well attest to this fact.)
continued ...
lt/
page 2
10/20/83 memo
re: Heritage Park
The lone dissident, however, is an attorney and has threatened to sue us on
environmental grounds. We do not believe he has any basis for success and
believe he in just 'sounding off' in frustration to what he perceives as an
unwelcomed change. And that is his right. If he sues... so be it.
In the attached environmental documents, Parts I and II, we have 'bent over
backwards' to be fair and objective. For instance, many of the questions that
could have been conceivable and technically answered 'no', were answered 'yes'
just to put a clarifying narrative in the record. This will become self
evident as you examine the attachment.
Please review the Initial Study Parts I and II as this will be the focus of
the lone protester ... if indeed he intends to pursue the issue.
This, however, will he a very positive item. Look for many enthusiastic
people to be present to support your findings.
Staff Reecom endation:
is
1. Find that the Heritage Park project will not have a significant
impact on the environment, and issue a Negative Declaration so
stating; and,
2. Find that the Heritage Park Site Plan as developed by the Heritage •
Park Citizens Design Task Force, and reviewed by the Park Advisory
Connittee and City Planning Commission, be approved as presented.
If I can provide further information, please advise.
AH /mw
attachments: Initial Study, Parts I and II
PAC Minutes 7/21/93 (excerpt)
Planning Commission Minutes 8/24/A3 (excerpt)
Heritage Park DDR (under separate cover)
10,ritage Park Task Force Roster
40
0
AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
�NTY OF SAN RGRNARDINO
I, tiaurine D.- Pagan_ -, ,do hereby certify that I
am the lxgal Advertielnq clerk of THE DAILY REPORT, a daily
newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario,
County and State aforesaid and that the attached advertisement
of .___.. Fnvirunnenta I A?.sessmentAlat ire.__. ._._
for the-City . at _ Ranrlio Cucamanea,
was published in said newspaper ._ One_f.1>_ time.. -. ..._ _ .
to wit: October 211 1983
1 certify under penally of perjury that the foregoing is tnie and
correct. �� n
iLL
- - -- Signatnrrl
Dated at Ontario, California this _. 21s t .. _ _.. _ day of
October
CIT Of
F FFV�OF4lM 1 NOTICE 1C.
CpeOt633MFFT
Ip.ry
IP'm`e b7.. oYO K,
IM,e •,\n�menf�,�f1µY':41ite�'
port(, le 4 [mYanN
I x:11.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Heritage Park
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucnmonga,
P.O. Sox 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Attn: Community Services
Uvp.n'trcnt_ Director
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: bill Holley, Director Community Sercires
Dopartmcn., (714) 989 -1851
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Sn,d hmc <t co rncr of_Ili 11 <idc and 6c ry LJ(L rl mnn Ay f
A�wc•;<or's Parcel No, 201, 151 -08
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: %o NP
T -1
7
•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A 40- acre community recreation facility, including
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project area is 40♦ acres in gross size with
structures limited to recreational support b�uch as restrooms snack
Fars. .and service and storage huildings. with a cumlat ivrz strnetural snnare
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR US£ (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
The setting is a 40 acre
• The native vegetation is limited to the extreme north we<t corner of th,
nnrc el generally described as the Rancho Nash spetion-
11 runerti es surroun tng t c parcel as designated in the General Plan a5
on
rcaident inl, with ly the north and west sides develoned at this time.
Thare is no known historical ,i nificance to the nroperty.
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
NO.
Ed
T-2
�l
WILL THIS
PROJECT:
•
YES NO
X
1.
Create a substantial change in around
_
contours?
X
2.
Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X
3.
Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X
4.
Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
none of 4"
X
5.
Remove any existing trees? How many? caliper or
more
X
`
6.
Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation
of
any YES answers above: see attached
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
N/A _____________ _______________________________
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, anJ that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct t, the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand tnat additional
information may be required to be ubmitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Dev opment view Committee.
Date 0 Signatur
Title C.C17"�lrt��
I -3
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
• r
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to acco=odate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date r—pn qed to
begin construction:
Earliest date Of
occupancy:
Model 4
and : of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Range
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
I -4
�' T
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Initial Study, Part I
page I -3: Explanation of 'YES' Answers
Will this
•
project:
Q. 1. Create a substantial change is ground contours?
A. 2. Yes, however the charge will not be adverse or detrimental, The changes
will be encountered in creating a more level playing surface for multi-
use athletic fields and equestrian activities than is now afforded by
the 85 average slope. It is not anticipated that soil will be imported
or exported, but will be balanced on site.
Q, 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration?
A. 2. The noise level will change but will not be adverse or detrimental.
Currently, the noise level from the grape vineyard is very low, Any
introduction of noise, therefore, results in a change. The new sound
level will be c,isistant with other community parks within residential
areas, and that has n•, .._d to be negative in nature.
Q. 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services?
A. :5. Similar to the situation descril•ed above, where no service now exists,
am change is substantial. Maintenance services will provide the bulk
of' f nor services to the site, with some increase in routine patrol by
law enforcement officials. There will be an increase in water useage
in watering the plant material to be introduced.
•
•
'3r
• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
APPLICANT: City of Rancho Cucamonga
FILI%G DATE: LOG NUMBER:
PROJECT: Heritage Park
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest comer, Hillside and Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
`L)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
•
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
x
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
x _ _
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
x _ _
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
x
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
_ x
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
x _— _
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
__ x
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
•
use of any mineral resource?
2. Ilvdrology. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
`L)
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
body of water?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity?
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies'.
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Oaality. Will the proposal have significant
result-1i W
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources?
Stationary sources?
b. Det.:, iuLation of ambient air quality and /or
interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
C. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature?
4. Biota
Flora. Will the propotinl have significant result.=.
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants?
b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
F.gL
YES MAYBE NO
-_ - ]L •
x
x
x
x
x
x
- x
X
x
x
x
•
x _
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production?
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results
III;
a. Chance in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
of any species of animals?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Dcteriorntion or removal of existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
ulat ion. Will the proposal have significant
remits in:
. a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
tiie human population of an area?
h. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
u. Factors. Will the proposal have
sif,niiiennt results in:
a. Chnncc in local or regional socio- economic
characteristics, including economic or
corn. ercial diversity, tax rate, and property
values?
h. 'dill project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers,
tax payers or project users?
7. Land li,c and nimt C�msidoraHro)q. Will the n
pro pp xal have signif ic.mn results in?
a. A ralbst.mtial altoration of the present or
planned land use of an aran?
b. A conflict with any de ^;ianutiuns, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
entities?
c. An impact upon tho qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non - consumptive
recreational opportunities?
YES %%Y6F. NO
n.a.
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
tag--, i
•
X
X
X
X
Page S
YES MAYBE NO
8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significane
results in: °
•
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
X
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction?
X
C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion systems?
X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and /or goods?
X
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic?
X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
•
n. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and /or historical resources?
X
10. Health, Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
X
C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident?
X
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pat:henogenic
org.misms or the exposure of people to such
or;ianisms?
X
e. Increase in existing noise levels? X
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels?
X
g. The creation of objectionable odors?
X •
h. An increase in light or glare? X
35
ra ;u �
YES MAYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
•
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
x
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
x
C. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
x
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will, the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
a. Electric power?
x
b. Natural or packaged gas?
x
C. Co=wnications systems?
x
d. Eater supply?
x
e. Wastewater facilities?
x
•
f. Flood control structures?
x
g. Solid waste facilities?
x
h. Fire protection?
x
i. police protection?
x
J. Schools?
_ x
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
x
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
x
M. Other governmental services?
i x
11. I(n err•, and Scarce R,,sourcos. Will the proposal
hava "cnifiraut results in:
n. Cse of Snh Stattlial or excessive fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy?
x
r. An inoroase in the demand for development of
now sources of energy?
x
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy are available?
x
.7
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population, to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact an the
environment is one which occur[ in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future projects).
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
X •
X
X
•
X
d, Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
II. DISCIfSSIO7t OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures).
r
L
�7
III. Dr. Tr..RaINAT ION
On the basis of this initial evaluation: a
I`I I find the proposed project COCLD NOT have a significant effect
L on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project could hevc a significant
Ueffect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project `LAY have a significant effect on the
E envirnment, and an ENVIRO`MENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
Dat
•
`! 1
Signature
Page 7
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Initial Study, part II
I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers •
1. b. In constructing the park the entire surface area will be graded, smoothed, and
cut and filled to accommodate to features of an approved site plan. This is
disruptive but not detrimental or adverse to the environment.
1. c. Same as l.b.
1. f. Currently runoff from the site travels off site onto adjacent properties to the
south . sometimes precipitating expressed concern by those owners. The
proposed project will change the runoff pattern into a managed collection and
harmless disposal. This is a change but one which is not detrimental or adverse
to the enrironment.
2. b. Same as l.f.
G, a, Currently there is, on a portion of the site, abandoned grape vineyards, These
will be removed.
There are groupings of native plant material and trees in the vicinity of the
Rancho Bash. Much of this will be retained or replaced with like material to
serve as a base for the park's 'nature area'.
There will he grasses, groundcovers, varieties of trees and shrubs, not now
on the site which will be introduced as desired elements of a properly appointed •
municipal park.
The above items represent change, however, they are neither detrimental or
adverse to the environment.
10. c. Currently the majority of the site is an area comprised of vineyards, open brush
and flood control improvements. These features generate little or no noise.
Therefore, the introduction of any activity which generates any level of sound
can be described as an 'increase'.
Iloweeer, the. new nnued level will be consistent with those of other municipal
parks and generally less than an elementary school site during recess /play
periods. Roth of these uses, parks and schools, are an accepted and _desired
part of the i'abric of residential areas,
hhily it is n change, it will be neither detrimental or adverse to the environment.
10. h. 'I'iIis 1s one area of the project that will provide a significant change to the
existing site ... possible activity lighting.
Posniblo advor ?e impacts from activity lighting at the project, will be mitigated
in several ways:
Through grading and depressing the equestrian activity center below the level
fall of the grade, thereby reducing light level elevation above fall of grade.
continued ...
•
U
Page 2
Initial Study, Part II
City of Rancho Cucamonga
I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers
2. Shielding and directing light to avoid spillage; and
3. Centel of use.
while light will not directly spill onto surrounding residential properties,
there will likely be a glow or a glare that will have an impact on night views
of the valley from homes that overlook the park. This cannot be avoided if
activity lighting is a part of the project.
On balance, it is believed that positive benefit accrued from Wh feature
outweigh possible negatives from glare, therefore, is acceptable.
t
Pitons I
PAC halo'..
7131 /85 - 1e911ar •+nano
Nei9hborion r elaentn• Jack ad.... Molly Mitchell. Sharon ddamal
sae eoyette and thr—. fees the audience +11 side positive
eomx nt. [egardvng the park .].sign.
Committee memMra ay.—.fed the Park dew ign. Committee memo. r.
asked staff if the Task Force was always involved with the plan.
Staff explained that the Task yore. was esp,rsible for the
original site plan, technical stpport was done by start And
E.S.v.. and •Jle .raga nil site plan he. repined Ne fame.
Committee nambers d..cu.sed the safety necessary for play
apW ra tva in the olaygrcund are.,. ge
..,ared plant nv cerla L and
r"i—ted that the Jvo,lro trail Far widened to 6 feet.
' Motaonl Moved by Pifeeaa. s tended by V.11anc., that adoption TN15 SECTIaN AMENDED
m! the official site plan for xeritaga Park he recterended to
City Co—ril. with Ulm following pkovi.son.:
1. That the Park Advisory Committee he kept involved with
defiyn devlopnent through the wrkinq drawings of the site
de.vgn; and
3. The jagglnq toil width be ",,..ad to 6 feet; and
D. That particular attention be paid to the safety of All
p1AYgrowed ammo r +tus.
Motven carried 4-0. (Atnent: Allen)
Chairman Henry and Committee members expressed their
a PPr[caalfon to Perreetlln Stara., Inc.. fee the excellent
do "' plan fir I:e[•tage Park.
Chao non wenry called (or A rece.. at 0:26 p.m.
Meatine r eC an
d at 0:39 p.m. with the [ellowinq member.
pre.—I! Henry. Pvta,es and i,,A. Absent: Allen and
Vallanc.•.
Conmittee enhM s di s trd tht review of the Park Element of
tha. plan. It w , the consent.. of the Committee that
thla ds...... no he lahled until after the Sept —ter meeting at
which the Youth Sport, Council will be invited to comment on
e
Park a lute,. Stet[ explained that the f.vi.ion of the Park
Elemont of the Central Plan will take a veral meetings and
a
Additional e , tm!m be re of the pinnninn staff. are.).
Staff nvthero xrlA.n <d that a document much at a General Plan
offer, A rohrsnmty of law in it. guidetin It will go no -
nitt.rs. c m ck le. boards And Ae.ff will .11
than.;.. Thu,. j4w nn foul of an ongnlno dornntnt of
contimw•., mu.l4inr. .och as a General Plan.
Committe e amber PitVi q),Otiored staff o the .tats:% of the
u
CormnilY l'a.:l•t.ry a•IArt. Staff r.ln[ted tha the C;1, Council
ttY n rvl tnr Iwnxihle Mnet its tc car r rxnriny
(ego r dingo tlsi4 Art..'
�n:;t n ^ent
Chairman Henry nd lee n:rl the m<e Ong At q:li
h..
Mary Xble -1
CrannunitY Serval 1•:nrrra nt
aMmute, amcml ... I. add top, of .:all .- arm re'. D0R /1lenta,, Park
0—
E
•
`1
01
•
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 1983
To: PAC Members
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
Subject: Preliminary Desion Development Report: Heritage Park
ri�casrc�
„x
H
9; Y
Find attached the above described document.
It would he helpful if you review it prior to Thursday's meeting.
RSi will be prefacing their presentation to you with some verbal changes in
the document, those changes are:
1. Increasing the 79 parking spaces to 99 by adding 5 spaces per row;
2. Increasinq the 10' equestrian trail width to 15' width;
3. Deleting reference to tensiometers in the irrigation system;
4. Roplacinq wood fencing with City standard concrete fencing, such as
that which is in place at Rancho Nash and Hillside Road;
5. unify types of building materials in parlt structures (restrooms,
snack bar and equestrian building).
The above changes were direct to RSi by staff based on citizen comments and
professional judgement.
Pleacp. ftivl free to call out any concerns over and above those cited above
that you have with the plan. If you wish changes, say so.
A last concern, which will not be easily dealt with, is the bottom line
estimited cost of the project. RSi is more in touch than we are with current
pticinq, so may well be correct. It does seem somewhat high however.
Lastly, w� apologize for the lateness of delivery of this material.
nll /nw
n
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT •
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
I
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC4IEL, REMPEL
Chairman Stout advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning
Commission is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date
should his attorney advise him not to enter into a lien agreement with the
City.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. USE DETERMINATION - BLANCO INVESTMENTS - A request to determine if a
mini - storage facility would be consi ere similar to other uses permitted
in the C -2 zone. Proposed project to be located on the southeast corner
of Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street.
Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report explaining that this review by the
Commission was not for approval of the project, but to gain a consensus of the
Planning Commission if this type of use could be considered in the C -2 zone,
Chairman Stout stated that this could be a permitted use, however, would
prefer to see it under the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit.
•
There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that a mini- storage facility
could be considered a permitted use in the C -2 zone with a Conditional Use
Permit.
+ + + + +
7:50 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened
J. HERITAGE PARK SITE PLAN REVIEW
Bill Holley, Community Services Director, presented the Heritage Park site
plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley stated that the Parks Advisory
Commission provided extensive input into the site plan.
Peter Patassi addressed the Commission on behalf of the Parks Advisory
Commission expressing their support of the park plan,
Chairman Stout stated that the plan saemed to meet the needs of the community
well.
Lvery
•
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1983
q `f
• Commissioner Barker agreed that the plan considered all facets of the
community.
There was a consensus of the Commission that approval of the site plan be
forwarded to the City Council.
x x x * x
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Stout requested that the Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head
Bar and Restaurant facility in the Rancho Plaza be placed on suspension and
brought before the Planning Commission in thirty days for consideration of
modification or revocation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that this item be heard at a public hearing on September 28, 1983.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adjourn to the
Foothills Community Plan meeting to be held on August 30, 1983.
8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned
• Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam
Secretary
® Planning Commission Minutes -6-
August 24, 1983
CWRI0.\'ITY TASK FORCE (Committee for the Design of Heritage Park) •
Pam Henry
9013 Caballero Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701 -
Christine Benoit
Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent
6020 Eastwood
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Rebecca Martin
8083 Sarre, lane
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Orrin Kiefer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91750
8810 Strang Lane
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Sue Draper
6127 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Sharon Romero
8242 Rosebud Street
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
•
Mar', Pfister
9002 liillside Road
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Snn Grasso
7838 Valle Vista Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91730
.hoe Whit,
P.O. Box 5
Etivanda, California
91739
John fill
c/o Alta Loma School
District
P.O. Box 370
Alta Loma, Ca. 91701
Peter Pitassi
7417 Kinlock
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91730
Molly Mitchell
9028 Camellia Ct.
Rancho Cucamnnga, Ca. 91701
H 15
0
•
E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �uG+nrovc
STAFF REPORTS °r
U >
19-17
DATE: November 2, 1983
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MA
ABSTRACT: In the course of the last twelve months, the Planning
Division staff has been compiling and working on a new Development
Code and Development Districts Map to replace the Interim Zoning
Ordinance now in effect. The first public draft was completed this
summer and was distributed. The Planning Commission began
reviewing and conducting workshops in August and recently concluded
their review and recommendation on October 12, 1983. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Development Code
based upon the changes and recommendations which the Commission has
made to the document. Attached to this report is the Planning
Commission staff report of October 12, 1983 which summarizes the
majority of the Planning Commission work as well as transmits the
Planning Commission's recommendation for the adoption of the Code.
Tonight the Code is being presented to the Council for first
reading of the Ordinance as well as adoption of the attached
Resolution which authorizes the City Clerk to publish a quarter
page ad in the newspaper to legally advertise the hearing and
review of this document.
This report is intended to be a brief overview of the process and
the basis for the creation of the new code.
i,
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 2
•
II. REVIEW PROCESS: The Planning Commission conducted four workshops
beginning August 16, 1983, as well as two additional public
hearings at regular Planning Commission meetings. The workshops
were established in order to allow public input fror all persons
Involved and desiring to have input on the content of the
Development Code. Representation from the Building Industry
Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Real Estate Board, and the
general public was provided at the workshops. Favorable comments,
as well as constructive suggestions were received at the workshops
and are reflected in the final Draft Development Code. Attached is
a letter from the Building Industry Association acknowledging its
support of the Code. We have received like comments from the Board
of Realty and Chamber of Commerce and expect to receive written
communication from the Chamber shortly.
At tonight's hearing, staff does not propose to go through a
detailed review and analysis of each of the chapters and sections
of the Code. We feel it would be more productive at this time to
review any specific questions and concerns the Council or public
may have and to address ourselves to those areas. The action
needed this evening is the adoption of the Resolution authorizing
the necessary legal publication, as well as first reading of the
Ordinance. If there are areas of concern or questions which are
not resolved at the first reading, we would anticipate addressing
those issues and answering them at the second hearing on November
16, 1983.
In preparation of the final draft, staff found an area which will
require correction prior to final print of the text. In the
Residential Chapter, the VL Residential District was inadvertently
included in the optional development standards. The VL Residential
District should not be included as it would not be consistent with
adopted Council Resolution No. 82 -81 which reserves the half -acre
area of the General Plan for individual half acre lots, not
clustering. Unless Council has any questions on this matter, staff
will remove it from the optional standards for the final printing
of the text.
III. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE:
A, What was the goal and basis for its creation?
When staff first began plannng the Development Code format, we
assembled the many ordinances and policies which had been
previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City
Council. It became apparent that these ordinances had become
somewhat fragmented and difficult to view in a comprehensive
manner. Therefore, an overall goal for the Development Code was
•
•
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 3
to develop a comprehensive document that provides guidance to
all development - related issues with appropriate standards in
order to promote and assure the health, safety, and welfare of
all Rancho Cucamonga residents. Further, this goal was refined
into the following objectives:
1. Develop a clear, concise, and simple format for easy
interpretation and understanding by the general public.
2. Combine all like development requirements in one document
for easy access and information gathering.
3. Coordinate and implement the existing General Plan goals,
objectives, and policies.
4. Coordinate development guidelines and standards with
existing and proposed specific plans and planned
communities.
5. Bring together and coordinate all previously adopted land
use policies and ordinances, update and provide other
needed sections.
• 6. Develop new enern, conservation guidelines, performance
standards and design guidelines.
1. Whenever possible, simplify the planning and development
process without sacrificing the intent of the Genral Plan
for quality development.
B. How will it relate to other planning documents?
Over the last five years, the City has adopted four other land
use regulatory documents; the Industrial Specific Plan, the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Victoria Planned Community, and the
Terra Vista Planned Community. These documents contain land use
controls as well as developmwent and design guidelines and
standards for these specific areas. The area which these plans
cover encompasses approximately twu- Lhirds of the City's land
mass, therefore leaving the area generally west of Haven and
north of the industrial area to be regulated mainly by the
City's Development Code.
In formulating the Development Code, much consideration was
given to the makeup of these other plans and how they would
• relate to one another, A major step towards relating the
documents and standards to one another was the change of
traditional zoning districts, such as R -1, R -2, and R -3, to the
land use districts which are used throughout the planned
communities, specific plans, and the General Plan, which are VL,
c �^
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 4
L,
L, LM, etc. Other items, such as landscaping requirements,
design guidelines, animal regulations, and parking regulations,
were written to be consistent throughout the entire city area.
C. What is the Code's basic contents? In all, the Draft
Development Code contains ten c apters. The first three
chapters deal mainly with administration, permits, and review
process. Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal more specifically
with actual land use development standards and regulations. The
last chapter, Chapter 10, is an overlay district chapter which
is intended to be expanded as the need arises for special
overlay districts,
Each chapter is arranged in a similar fashion, particularly
those dealing with standards and regulations. In each case, the
land use regulations are located in the same section of each
chapter, followed by development criteria, performance
standards, and design guidelines. The style of each chapter has
been to combine standards into matrix form for easy access and
comprehension.
The Development Code has essentially evolved into a compilation
of the many ordinances and policies which have been adopted over •
the last couple of years.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has forwarded its
recommendation for the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
and Development Districts Map. Tonight it is recommended that the City
Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to move ahead
with the legal publication and to conduct first reading of the attached
ordinance.
Re �pec fully �sd�mitted,
�7 )
hicl( Gomez — -_�
Citp Planner
RG:MV:jr
Attachments: Letter from Building Industry Association
Commission Resolution No. 83 -123
Planning Commission Staff Report 10/12/83
City Council Resolution 11- 02 -03CR
City Council Ordinance
•
L! r)
i 1
IE
C
07mv nc o n arum r77r w nann7r n
STAFF REPORT
DATE: Octoher 12, 1983
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
ps' tiG+
� y
� G �Ilj
1977
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT ME AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
ABSTRACT: This is the final public hearing before the Planning
Commission tor review and comment on the proposed Development Code and
Development District Map. A Resolution for a final recommendation to
the City Council is being provided for action by the Planning
Commission.
BACKGROUND: Since August 16, 1983, the Planning Commission has
been con acting a number of public workshops for the specific
purpose of reviewing the Draft Development Code text and the
Development District Map. During these workshops the Building
Industry Association, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, has
provided input with regard to the text, graphics and map and are in
basic support of its general concepts and programs. The Commission
has modified the Code to best reflect the implementation of the
General Plan goals and policies and public input.
Tonight's meeting is intended to be a public hearing to review the
Commission's actions, as well as any final actions desired by the
Commission. The remainder of this report focuses upon the major
actions of the Planning Commission on a chapter -by- chapter basis.
Additionally, this report discusses the environmental assessment
for the Development Code.
II. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION ACTIONS:
A. Chapter 1 - Administration:
1. Section 1.1 - Revisions /Modifications: This was rewritten to
include a description and listing-7o the difference between
minor and major revisions and the process by which such
revisions would be made.
2. Section 1.8 Appeals: The existing appeal process which the
City currently follows, which includes appeals to the City
Council for all staff and Commission actions.
PLANNING COMMISSI' STAFF REPORT
Environmental Ass sment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 2
2. Section 2.5 Minor Exception'. The title of this section was
reworde rom "Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order
not to conflict with existing state law regarding variances.
3. The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant
sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement,
findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are
covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal
Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify
this chapter and eliminate the redundancies.
CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1. Section 3.i Pu ^pose and Intent; Additional purpose
statements were added to this section to reflect those which
were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance.
•
•
3.
Y
Business License Section: This section was eliminated in favor
of having appropriate statements and signatures on the Business
License application.
4.
Section 1.13 - Code Enforcement; This section was modified to
e iminate the majority ot`Ue reference to code enforcemnt as
this is covered in another section of the Municipal Code. The
remainder of this section was modified to deal mainly with
noise abatement procedures.
5.
Non - Conforming Use Section: This was modified to eliminate
precise amortization time periods for non - conforming uses.
Instead, non - conforming uses will be regulated in terms of
expansion and intensifications and would be eliminated over a
long period of time through natural attrition.
6.
Section 1.14 - Definitions: This section has been continually
mo i ie to incorporate comments received throughout the
hearings on terms which require definitions. The final
document which will be presented to the City COnn.:il will
contain all of the final definitions and changes.
.
CHAPTER 2 - PERMITS:
1.
Section 2.3 - Conditional Use Permits: This section was
modified to provide precise pr -- oceduresr an applicant or the
Planning Ccavnissinn to modify, suspend, or revoke any
Conditional Use Permit.
2. Section 2.5 Minor Exception'. The title of this section was
reworde rom "Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order
not to conflict with existing state law regarding variances.
3. The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant
sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement,
findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are
covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal
Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify
this chapter and eliminate the redundancies.
CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1. Section 3.i Pu ^pose and Intent; Additional purpose
statements were added to this section to reflect those which
were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance.
•
U
PLANNING COMMISSr STAFF REPORT C
Environmental Ass sment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 3
2. Section 3.3 - Residential Growth Management P,ev iew 5 stem: The
tit e o this section was amen ed to inc u e re.erence to
growth management in order that it is clear that much of the
current growth management philosophies and requirements are
included within this code.
CHAPTER 4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
1. Modifications to Tab to 4.3 Use Re ulations were made to list
eed and tack stores accessory to commercial stables) and
dormitories (accessory to college or schools) as accessory uses
in the residential zones.
Table 4.3 E was amended to clarify the keeping of ponies in
conjunction with the keeping of horses. The final wording will
be submitted to the City Council. Also, the keeping of birds
and rodents beyond the specified limit would require a
Conditional Use Permit. The commission decided that the basic
number regulations in conjunction with the performance
standards and noise regulations would be utilized to control
this area.
equ ipme. ^.t repair and storage regn lotions.
3.
Tables 4.4 -B and C Development_ Standards have been modified
and fine tuned to become more easib le and workable. As the
staff has been reporting to the Commission, the basic and
optional standards were developed in an attempt to implement
the original objectives of the General Plan ranges to create
transitions and neighborhood compatibilities. Under the
optional standards if a developer desires to go beyond the
mid -point of a density range, there would be additional
requirements expected of the development. Some of these
requirements include increased open space, solar energy,
increased setbacks, and landscaping. Based on the Commission's
last review of these tables,a copy of the latest revised tables
is attached for your review and any final comments.
4.
Section 4.5 - Absolute Policies were added to Chapter 4 to
comTment t e other requ�r-ements of the Growth Management
system such as the dcvelop^_r.t ttandards, design guidelines,
and the performance standards.
5.
Section 4.6 - F was added to include the policies with regard
to the installation of sidewalks.
6.
Section 4.6 - M.4 was added to regulate sattelite dish antennas
within residential districts.
®
7.
Section 4.7 -O was modified to simplify the vehicle and
equ ipme. ^.t repair and storage regn lotions.
PLANNING COMMISSI- STAFF REPORT
Environmental AS sment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 4
•
E. CHAPTER 5 - COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DISTRICTS
1. Section 5.2 - Districts: The Administrative Professional (AP)
District was changed to be titled "Office Professional" (OP).
2. The Use Re ulation Table was modified slightly to add some
a itiona uses as Con itional Use Permits within the OP
District.
3. Special Use Re uiations were added for adult businesses,
ry
tempora o fice modu es, and shopping centers.
4. Section 5.4 - G was added to provide reference to trails which
Fay be required in a commercial development to be consistent
with the trails map.
F. CHAPTER 6 - PARKING REGULATIONS
The requirement for allowing the usage of compact car stalls was
reduced from a maximum of 50% to 35 %.
G. CHAPTER 7 - SPECIFIC PLANS AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS •
No major changes were made to this chapter.
H. CHAPTER 8 - OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
1. Table 8.3 - Use Regulations: This section was amended to
change the density requirement of the dwelling units within the
open space district from one unit per net buildable 40 acres to
one unit per 40 acres.
2. _Section 8.4 - Site Develo Kent Re ulations: Site dimensions
an setbacks were eci a to be determined on a site -by -site
basis based upon topography, water and drainage, circulation,
and other environmental factors.
I. CHAPTER 9 - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Fire safety regulations were changed to reflect the
requirement�e Foothiil Fire Protection District.
2. The Planning Commission decided to require that a statement be
placed on all deeds for parcels which are located along fault
lines to inform them of the location of faults and the
possibility for seismic activity.
•
mot.
PLANNIIIG COMMISS� STAFF REPORT
Environmental As sment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Pace 5
•
:l. CHAPTER 10 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS
1. All of the Overlay Districts were combined into one chapter.
2. The Mobile Home Overlay District was eliminated by the
Commission as a result of state legislation which limits the
amount of control the City has over the design and regulation
of mobile home parks.
3. An Equestrian Overlay District was added to implement the
resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council
with regard to the equestrian area and the keeping of animals
within that area.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code is considered part
of the same project as the General Plan since it is the
implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. Since the
Development Code is a related project to the General Plan, state
environmental planning law allows the Planning Commission to
determine that the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared
for the General Plan is adequate in covering any potential
significant adverse impacts that could be created as a result of
the Development Code. This finding can be made as long as the
• Planning Commission finds that the Development Code does not cause
a substantial change in any of the goals or policies, or that no
new additional information beyond which was presented in the
General Plan EIR has become available that would alter the findings
or the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division
13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that
would not require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact
Report. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development
Code is implementing the existing goals and policies of the General
Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to environmental impacts
during the General Plan EIR.
IV, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Ce :mission
conduct the final public hearing for final consideration of the
proposed Development Code and Development District Map. Attached
is a Resolution recommending approval and adoption of the
Develooment Code and the Map to the City Council. Additionally,
attached is the draft Ordinance that will be presented to the City
Council which repeals the existing interim ordinances and other
development- oriented ordinances that have been incorporated into
the Development Code,
Re sp ctfully'mitted,
49 Rick �ome
City Planner
RG:MV:jr
C C
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -123
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION •
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF
THE RANCHO CUCN40NGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.08,
17.12, 17.16, 17.20 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public
hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, such action is necessary to implement the General Plan
pursuant to Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the Development Code
is an implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the
General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential
significant adverse impacts. Further, the Planning Commission finds that no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to
Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
Specifically, the Planning Commission finds:
A. No nubstantial rhanges are proposed in any goals or
policies which would require major revisions to the
EIR. •
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken.
C. No new information on the project has become
available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 through 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends that the City Council approve and adopt
the attached Ordinance adopting Title 17, Development
Code, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
2. That a certified copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1983,
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
•
•
•
49
Resolution No.
Page 2
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, JUAREZ, McNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
i
Bill
baldy •airy 6apter
bu:ldinq industry assxtahon of southern ca6fornia. inc
October 5, 1983
Mr. Jack Lam
Director of Community Development
932^ Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Mt, Lam:
After a lenothy review of the proposed development code, the 6aldy View
Ch Inter of the Building Industry Association endorses and supports the
adoption of the new code. We appreciate the work that has gone into this
document as it represents a definate improvement over the existing amenied
county code that the city had been utilizing. We feel the new code has the
potential of becoming a model ordinance to various other municipalities in
the area that are due for an updated development. code.
Rick Gomez and Mike Varian have done an outstandine job. They have taken •
the initiative to go out into the community and solicit public input. u_
have had ample opportunity to discuss with them oar views on certain ascects
of the code and are pleased with the results.
Pool free to use our association's name as one that favors the adopticn of
the proposed development code.
sincerely,
Garry wn J
Cx,•euL e Director
rti: 11,
E
1150 N Mountam Ave . Bldo A Ste 207 peoresenbng all of San Bernardino County
lJoland CA 91786 (714) 981 -2997 o1 946 -2869 An Affiliate of the NAHS and the CBIA
7
is
ORDINANCE NO. y
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE
INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows.
SECTION 1: That the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments
thereto, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: The following sections c' *�^ Se^ D—nardino County Code,
previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed:
(a) 61.021 through 61.029C, inclusive;
(b) 61.0210 through 61.0219P, inclusive;
(c) 61.0220 through 61.0223, inclusive.
SECTION 3: The following chapters of the San Bernardino County Code,
previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed in their entirety:
(a) Chapter 3. Subdivision Code;
(b) Chapter 4. Mobilehome Parks.
SECTION 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
repealed, with the exception of Chapter 17.16, Condominium Conversions, which
shall be renumbered as Chapter 17.22.
SECTION 5: The following sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code are hereby repealed:
(a) 1.08.090. Director Review;
(b) 1.08.150 through 1.08.170, inclusive. Home Occupations;
(c) 1.08.180 through 1.08.190, inclusive. Pyramidal Zoning.
SECTION 6: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding Tit e TT thereto to read as follows:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
INSERT
RENUMBERED
CODE
PER
MUNICIPAL CODE
FORMAT
40
go
J
7J
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION 7: The development district map, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A ", is hereby adopted.
SECTION G: The City Council finds that the Development Code is an
implementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant
adverse impacts. Further, the City Council finds that no subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13,
Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the city
Council.
A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or
policies which would require major revisions to the
EIR.
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken.
C. No new information on the project has become
available.
• SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Cler'.,
shall cause a display advertisement of at least one- quarter of a page to be
published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 (c)(2) within fifteen (15)
days after its passage at least once in The Dail R- ort, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City a Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren My 'Aasserman, ity er
kep
0
U
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -03CR -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PUBLICATION IN A CORAfJCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 36933(c)(2) - DEV OPMENT
CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) the City
Council previously designated the City Clerk as the City Official to prepare a
summary of the Development Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Development District
Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reported to the City Council that he has
determined that it is not feasible to prepare a fair and adequate summary of
the proposed ordinance or of the ordinance if it is in fact adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
res,lve, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1; At least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting
at which t5e proposed Development Code and Development District Map are to be
adopted the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and
content required by Government Code Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City.
• SECTION 2: Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Development Code and Development District Map the City Clerk shall cause a
display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code
Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren t4. Wasserman, its y -7erT
kep
On D. Mike s, Mayor
Central School V istrid
a37 Foothill Blvd. - Ranrho Cucomixi CA 91710 - (7141969-8541
REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
WITHIN THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION
Fourth A. Casco, Jr.
J'W"' $gNinlrnNnl
Jahn A. McOory
Arvrbm SugnnHM[�r, /p mnwl
Thomas W. Owmlla, Ed.D.
I,u 1b01 $u /.��n Mn0M1 tu,�rtfll Se r. R.l
Purpose: The purpose of this report is to present to the City Council
and to the public, the situation faced by the Central School District
in providing adequate educational facilities to accommodate students
which will be generated by proposed residential developments within the
school district.
1. Present Situation
Central School District operates three elementary schools and one
junior hieh school. Facilities at each of these schools consist of a
combination of permanent classroom and core facilities and relocatable
• classrooms. The designed capacity and current enrollment of each of
these Schools is shown below.
Designed Current
Excess Over Relocatable
School Capacity Enrollment
Designed Capacity Facilities
Central 570 658
88 3 Reloc. C.R.
1 Trailer
Valle Vista 570 643
73 3 Reloc. C.R.
1 Trailer
Dona Merced 570 807
237 9 Reloc. C.R.
1 Reloc. R.R.
Cucamonga d.H. 660 824
164 4 Reloc. C.R.
2 Trailers
!inch school in the district is currently
operating beyond its designed
capactty. This creates an overcrowded situation
and an extreme burden on the
ayc of corn facilities such as playgrounds, restrooms,
libraries, resource
and dmintntration space.
Elomen tary School
'rhe first phase of Bear Gulch Elementary
School will open in September,
l'M;. This y. -n school will consist of eight
new modular clasurooms to be
•
rolraructl,d on the site, five relocatable classrooms
Aurn.l, o �:ma11 relocatable administration building,
to be moved from Dona
and a relocatable restroom.
boas or Monts
J9ek MaKalwy la tnumi W. Dutton Ruth A. Musser
01an E. ORdon PUMIN J. WHOM
InLMnI Clpl Membe / ^
M.mw' M..W,
- 2 -
Total enrollment of Bear Gulch is projected to be 420 students
in September,
•
1984. Bear Gulch will allow this district
to alleviate
the extreme
over-
crowding presently at Dona Merced and
create space for an
additional
240
students in the district. The first phase
of Bear Gulch
will
consist almost
entirely of classroom space with core
facilities limited
to the relocatable
administration and restroom buildings.
Playground space
will
be limited to
three of six acres necessary for an elementary
school.
3. Projected Enrollment and Capacity,
September, 1984
Projected enrollments and school
capacities in September,
1984 are
shown below.
Gr. 1 -6
K
Total
Central
17 Classrooms
450
120
570
3 Portables
90
--
Sub Total
540
120
660
Loss 1 Classroom (SDC)
30
—
—
Total
510
120
660
Valle Vista
17 Classrooms
450
120
570
3 Portables
90
_
•
Total
540
120
660
Dona Merced
19 Classrooms
510
120
630
4 Portables
120
_
Sub Total
630
120
750
Less 2 Classrooms (RS;.SDC)
60
—
Total
570
120
690
Bnar Gulch
I: Classrooms
360
60
420
C rcn_nnr, ,7unier fli ch
2 Classrooms
60
60
District Totals
2,040
420
2,460
L J
y
- 3 -
• FACTS CONCERNING ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY
1. Projected enrollment, September 1984 in grades 1 -6 will be 1,894 with
no yro.th.
2. The opeuinq of Bear Gulch School in September 1984 will increase the
student capacity of the district to 2,040 students in grades 1 -6.
3. Increased district capacity will allow the district to house an additional
146 students (2,040 - 1,894).
.. There are five 1rvelopments which have final maps and building permits
approved and are paying fees to the district. These total 6 "<8 multi-
family units and 32 single - family homes.
5. using student generation factors of 0.3 and 0.6, these five developments
are projected to generate 207 students in grades K -6 and 139 students in
grades 1 -6.
6. The developments already approved and under construction will generate
students approximately equal to the district's increased capacity to
house them during the 1984 -85 school year.
• 4. hoard _ Trustees Action
Based on the in Fur tion shown above, the Central School District Board
of Tr istocs took the following action at their meeting on October 11, 1983.
1, lusue Letter of Certification of School District Capacity to
American National Group for 27 multi - family units.
2. Notify developers who have requested or who may request Letters of
Certification that capacity is not available in Central School
District.
3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with developers concerning
mitigation of overcrowding within Central School District.
5. krl•u _st:e for Letters of Certification of School District Capacity from
INrvola•o rs
AL prosont, there are regonsts for Letters of Certification of School
District gaPV•tty from cicht (A) developers for 988 multi- family dwelling
uuir:; In ;:iuglu- family dwulling units. These developments are projected
to nonorate 'i34 students in nradcs K -8.
G. !netinn,: with LM VC lopers
Control School District staff members '.Ave met with representatives of
• Cho i,,h, developers requesting certification of school district capacity
and tho Nnildino Industry Association, to discuss the overcrowding situ AI -ion
and possible solutions to mitigAte this situation. A presentation has been
made to these developers on the costs of completing Phase 2 of Bear Gulch
School. A copy of the information presented at this meeting is attached.
6q
- 4 -
State Fundinq for School Facilities
The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F.
Greene Leese - Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for
funds throuah this program. However, Greene funds are approved on a priority
point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction
funding by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has
46 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to
have an additional. 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district
has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining
funds available statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it
has $400 million in applications from districts who have already qualified
for "o Greene Program.
Conclusion
The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing
adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments •
within the district would generate students for which the district cannot
provide facilities. A solution which would allow the district to provide
classroom and minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers
of these pr,olects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable
and equitnblc mitigating solution.
•
•
Since this meeting, district
staff has
revised the plans and costs for
Phase 2 of Beer Gulch School. The
addition
of six (G) relocatable classrooms
in this revised plan allows the district
to
issue Letters of Certification
to all of the developers who have
requested
them upon their commitment to
pay a mitigation fee of $3,476 per
single - family dwelling unit and $1,738
per multi - family dwelling unit.
State Fundinq for School Facilities
The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F.
Greene Leese - Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for
funds throuah this program. However, Greene funds are approved on a priority
point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction
funding by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has
46 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to
have an additional. 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district
has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining
funds available statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it
has $400 million in applications from districts who have already qualified
for "o Greene Program.
Conclusion
The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing
adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments •
within the district would generate students for which the district cannot
provide facilities. A solution which would allow the district to provide
classroom and minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers
of these pr,olects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable
and equitnblc mitigating solution.
•
' 17��ltr.�oo�5
.• I. REAR GULCH SCHOOL, I b t I (r V
1. Master planned elementary school (Grades K -6).
2. Ultimate Capacity: 18 Gr. 1 -6 Classroons @ 30 - 540
2 Kdg. Classrooms @ 60 . 120
Total 660
3. Phase 1
a. 13 Classrooms '
I Portable Office (960 S.F.)
1 Portable Student Restroom,, Custodial Room C Serving
'Kitchen (960 S.F.)
It. Capacity = 420 Students.
C. 3 of G Acres of Playground.
d. a of 10 Acres Graded.
c. Utility Connections.
f. One Half (1/2) of Site Developed. ,
(Blacktop, Parking Lot, - sidewalks, Concrete Block, Landscaping)
4. Pbasc TI_
• • a. Core Facilities.
1. Media /Resource Center.
2. Administration Building.
3. Student Restrooms.
4. Multipurpose /Cafeteria /Serving Kit:chon.
b. Scvon (7) Classrooms (5 Regular, 2 Kdg.).
C. Remaining Site nevclopment - Landscaping, Site Development, Concrete
Block, Hlacktop, Parking iii, jidcwalks.
5. 1'hnsc I .
Financed by $660,000 local Fonds, building fund, and seven year lease/
Imrchor:c paid from developors• fees. Total eSLim,ted Costs are
approxil"!tely $1,100,000.
IT, COST 01' PHASE I1 - 13VA14 GULCH
1. Cla.;umnm; (7):
a. 5 Wigrllar Cla::srnonts @ 9GO S.F. @ $7G.42/S.F.• - 366,016
h. 2 Kind(-r9,11 ten Clnosroom:: @ 1,360 S.P. @,
• 0).711/5... d 222,442.
s
Sub Total. 507,250
:t:: Per 1LF. .,re Current State Allocatinnr; fur Sch„n1 Construottoil
X7,1!
Page 2
2: Library /Media Resource Center
•
a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @
$82.00 /S.F.
= 98,400
b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @
$76.42/S.F.
= 45,852
'
C. Speech Therapist - 144 S.F. @
$76.42/S.F.
11,004
d. Audio Visual Stor. - 128 S.F. @
$87.34/S.F.
11,179
Sub Total
166,435
3. Administration Building
Staff Lounge 450 S.F.
,
Workroom 400 S.F.
Staff Restrooms 200 S,F.
Reception /Secretary 600 S.F.
Nurse's Room 200 S.F.
Principal's Off. 240 S.F.
Conference Room. 144 S.F.
Custodian 150 S.F.
Psychologist 144 S.F.
Sub Total 2,528 S.F. @ $87.34
220,796
4. Student Restrocins
•
4 @ 300 S.F. = 1.,200 S,F, @ $199.40/5.£.
- 239,280
S. Multipurpose /Cafeteria
a. Multipurpose /Cafeteria - 3,000 S.F.
b, Stage - 1,000 S.F.
'
. Sub Total 4,000 S.F.
@ $76.42
305,680
C. Serving Kitchen 650 S.F.
@ $113.09 =
73,509
Sub Total
379,189
6, Circulation, Covered Walk wn Y s, utilit y
Rom,
om__
4,500 S, F. E'.
@ $26.77 =
118,665.
Total Ruildinr,._ phase II
1,713_623
7. Site Dc�_r )o_nnonl !Im �rnvom�•n CS
a. crading - Two (2) Acres -
20,000
b. ULillti CS b Improvements
1. Classroom Water Connections -
3,000
'2. Classtnom sewer Connections -
1,000
3. Parking Lot
'
12,000 , ^,. F. @ 5.95/5.1'. -
11,400
•.
4. Igncktop
0,000 S.F, @ $.li /S.F, -
6,000
��ft '
t•.
•
Page 3
7, Continued
S. Concrete Block - 8,000
6. Concrete Sidewalk - 16,000
Sub Total 43,400
c. Landscaping - 100,000
d. Building Systems
(Fire, Bells, Intercom) - 10,000
Sub Total 173,400
Sub Total•BUildings 6
Improvements 1,887,023
8. Fees 6 Inspections
a. Architects (8 %) - 150,461
b. Plan Check Fee (.7t) - 13,209
c. Building Inspector - 20,000
d. Tess /Inspections - 10,000
Sub Total 194,170 194,170
• 9. 56 contingency - 94,351
Total - Phase II 2,175,544
III. COST OF JUNIOR HIGH 7.DDITION
1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $76.42 = 146,726
2. Architects Fee 11,738
Total 158,464
IV. CALCULATION OF FOES
1. Single Family Ilome Generates 0.6 Children Pot' Home
(•467 Gr. K -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8)
2, Tha rom:,ininq c.pncity of Bear Culch is 240 students. Using .467
�,Idontn per S.P. hrnno, capacity will exist for 514 S.F. homes to
ho ronsl n;c tad. Those 514 S.F. homes will also eenerato 68 Gr. 7 -8
nlod,•nts to bc: housod it Cncmnnng., Ju,,ior nigh, necorsitating the
cnnr.l, ncl ion of two �la::nrooms on that site.
3. The total cost of Ph,n;e II nt Re3r Gulch and the addition of two
• cIn ^steam:; at the Jnniur Ili.)i, is p2,33,I,OOS. If dov'101or fees
aro tin: :olo moue: Iof flh.v;cinq this ph:u'.o of tla project., foes
would be $1,511 for a sinyle- ratluly dwclli;nl unit .ind $2,270 for
a multi - family dwolling unit.
t)•� L
V
II V
M
'
October
25, 1983
II. COST OF PHASE
II - BEAR GULCH
(REVISED)
1.
Classrooms (7):
a. 5 Regular Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $70.00 /S,F.-
336,000
b. 2 Kindergarten Classrooms @ 1,360 S.F. @
$75.00 /S.F.
-
204,000
Sub Total
540,000
*
Costs per S.F. are Architect's
Estimates.
2.
Library /Media Resource Center
a. Library -
1,200 S.F. @ $75.00
S.F. =
90,000
b. Resource Teacher -
600 S.F. @ $70.00
S.F.
42,000
c. Speech Therapist -
144 S.F. @ $70.00
S.F. =
10,080
d. Audio Visual Storage -
128 S.F. @ $80.00
S.F. =
10,240
Sub Total
152,320
3.
Administration Building
Staff Lounge 450
S.F.
Workroom 400
S...
•
Staff Restrooms 200
S.F. ,
Reception /SecreLary 600
S.F.
Nurse's Room 200
S.F.
Principal's Office 240
S.F.
Conforence Room 144
S.F.
Custodian 150
S.F.
Psychologist 144
S.F.
Sub Total 2,528
S.F. @ $80.00 =
202,240
4.
Student _RPstfooms
4 0 300 S.F. = 1,200 S.F. @
$120.00 /3.F. =
154,000
5,
sorvinq Kitchc_n
650 S.F, 9 $113.09
73,509
6.
Circulation_ Cnv_erod Walke_aYs,
Utili�Rootns
4,500 S.P. n $26.37
118,665
TMAL'DUILDINGS, PHASE II =
1,230;734
5
- 2 -
7. Site Development /Improvements
•
a.
Grading - Two (2) Acres -
20,000
b.
Utilities 6 improvements
1. Classroom Water Connections -
1,000
2. Classroom Sewer Connections -
1,000
3. Parking Lot
12,000 S.F. @ $.95 /S.F. -
11,400
4. Blacktop
8,000 S.F. @ $.75 /S.F. -
6,000
5. Concrete Block -
8,000
6. Concrete Sidewalk -
16,000
Sub Total
43,400
c.
Landscaping -
100,000
d.
Building Systems
(Fire, Bells, Intercom) -
10,000
Sub Total
173,400
Sub Total Buildings
6 Improvements
1,404,134
•
G Portables
960 S.F. @ $55.00 /S.P.
3162800
TOPAL
1,720,934
S. Fees
6 Insnect_ions
a.
Architects (88) -
137,674
b.
Plan Check Fee (.7t) -
12,047
C.
Building Inspector -
20,000
d.
Tests /Inspections -
10,000
Sub Total
179,721
9. 5% Contitinrncy -
86,047
TOTAL, PHASE II
1,986,702
III. COST OF dUNIM NIGH
ADDITION
1. Four
Clas!o,xrmrn @ 960 S.F. q $70.00 -
268,800
2, Architec
U: Foe -
21,504
•
TOTAL
290,304
�73
n
u
- 3 -
IV. CALCULATION OF FEES
1. Single Family Home generates 0.6 children per home
(.467 Gr. K -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8)
2. With the addition of six portables, the remaining capacity of Bear
Gulch is 420 students. Using .467 students per S.F. home, capacity
will exist for 899 S.F. homes to be constructed. These 899 S.F.
homes will also generate 120 Cr. 7 -8 students to be housed at Cucamonga
Junior High, necessitating the construction of four classrooms on that
site.
3. The total cost of Phase II at Bear Gulch and the addition of four
classrooms at the Junior High is $2,277,006. The annual payment
for this amount is $446,29yon a seven (7) year lease purchase.
If developer fees are t sole means for financing this phase of the
project, fees would he N ,476 fir a single - family dwelling unit and
$1,738 for a multi- family we-11'ing unit.
4. Currently there are requests for capacity letters for 395 single -
family homes and 988 multi - family units.
•
\I
IT --�EEY 4S PO4 LMS
Unerens:, the parties entered into a contract for law enforcurrient services
ca.ncin7 July 1, 1983; and
V,'nercas, the =ties desire to &-.sind said contract- to o ,ide for additional patml
• ,,•j e t -feOtive 1# 1983;
s I
:73", IT IS AG= AS MIZZIS:
1. ':'nQ I.iw en--Orcerient cont-ract bettwetan the parties is &�.ded effective
1951 adding thereto the altactied SCIMMIU "A" AD=rXZ! to orwide for
a-i-'--tianai patrol units and coiairzation for such by City as indicated on said addena=.
--- ----- r 7r-l-
Cktjniy GOLMV I —ve.
AMIRMOr COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
IFLMD TIMIlL, MMTFF
,3?3-2'511
STANDARD CONTRACT
J
401 %46
001 $170,474
the f ebw.mc
r.,,rr o'navm.,e 12
E—e, iii
Puy.—SCIMBLU
THIS SON-, RACT is entered into in the State of Caiifom;a Im and bEiween
the Countt of San Bernardino, he-ea4i;
cafec tie Cointy, and
CT7Y OF RM,'�HO Cl�r-k%CNGA
IT --�EEY 4S PO4 LMS
Unerens:, the parties entered into a contract for law enforcurrient services
ca.ncin7 July 1, 1983; and
V,'nercas, the =ties desire to &-.sind said contract- to o ,ide for additional patml
• ,,•j e t -feOtive 1# 1983;
s I
:73", IT IS AG= AS MIZZIS:
1. ':'nQ I.iw en--Orcerient cont-ract bettwetan the parties is &�.ded effective
1951 adding thereto the altactied SCIMMIU "A" AD=rXZ! to orwide for
a-i-'--tianai patrol units and coiairzation for such by City as indicated on said addena=.
--- ----- r 7r-l-
Cktjniy GOLMV I —ve.
SCHEDULE "A" ADDENDUM .
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F.Y. 1983 -84
Service Cost
80 -Hour General Law Patrol Units
(Effective November 1, 1983, 8 -month Service Fee) $ 168,390 •*
County Direct Cost 2,084
TOTAL (ADDITIONAL SERVICE) $ 170,474
Monthly Payment Schedule
1st Payment Due November 15th $ 21,311
2nd through 8th Payment due 5th of each month $ 21,309
•
NOTE: Service is exclusive of overtime and
Court appearance cost - actual cost
will be billed quarterly.
Cost subject to change due to Memorandum of Understanding
changes.
•• Less Fuel and Maintenance - actual cost Will be billed quarterly.
•
design development report
heritage park
city of rancho cucamonga
august 1983
recreation systems, inc.
acknowledgments
city council
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
Charles J. Buquet II, Mayor Pro Tem
Richard M. Dahl
James C. Frost
Phillip D. 50,losser
city manager
Lauren M. Wasserman
staff
William L. Holley, Director, Community Services Dopartment
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
park advisory committee
Pam Henry, Chairperson
T. Harrell Allen
Peter Pitassi
Leslie Riggs
Livia Vallance
community task force
Christine Benoit
Sue Draper
John Gill
Sam Grasso
Pam Henry
Orrin Kiefer
Dave Leonard
Rebecca Martin
Molly Mitchell
Mark Pfister
Peter Pitassi
Sharon Romero
Michael Vairin
Joe White
table of contents Page No.
PREFACE
I
AUTHORITY
1
PURPOSE
1
BACKGROUND
2
METHODOLOGY
3
SITE DESCRIPTION
4
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
9
DESIGN OVERVIEW
9
EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT
11
SPORTSFIELDS
14
RESTROOM /CONCESSION BUILDING
14
PLAY AREAS
15
GROUP /FAMILY PICNIC AREAS
17
OPEN PLAY /OVERFLOW PARKING
17
PARKING /CIRCULATION
17
TRAILS /EXERCISE COURSE
19
LANDSCAPING
19
IRRIGATION
21
SIGNAGE
21
THEME CONCEPT
22
POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
25
AESTHETICS
25
NOISE
25
LIGHT AND GLARE
26
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
27
DRAINAGE
27
DUST
28
COST ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING 29
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 30
SUGGESTED PHASING PROGRAM 31
PROJECTED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS 35
plates
VICINITY MAP
6
MASTER PLAN
7
SITE SECTIONS
8
EQUESTRIAN BUILDING
13
CREATIVE PLAY AREA PERSPECTIVE
16
ENTRANCE PERSPECTIVE
24
preface
There is an increasing awareness on the part of the people
to the physical surroundings within which they live. Much
publicity has been given to the obvious problems. Air,
water, noise and ecological pollutie?ns are vitally important
and must receive our immediate attention. During the pro-
cess, however, government must not ignore the problem of
social pollution.
- until recently, planning efforts tended to emphasize physi-
cal and economic growth as barometers of effectiveness, with
only limited consideration to the people values that affect
the quality of the living process. Those factors that affect
the daily lives of people -- dramatically affect their atti-
tudes, motivations and stability within the social structure.
Society has spent too much time on things and accumulation
and not enough effort on ideas or matters of the spirit.
r,
Unfortunately, there are no scientific standards or specific
economic justifications for the recreation function. The
most efficient "efficiency expert" would be hard pressed to
justify the cymbal in an orchestration of the "1812 Over-
ture". An orchestration of our "living environment" would,
be as sterile as a cymbal -less overture -- without the accent
and impact of effective open space.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is facing a crucial test as it
considers the recommendations contained in this development
report. There will be some who question the importance of
the recreation function. Some will oppose the scope of
the recommended improvements. Others may express concern
over the method of achievement. Many will challenge the
specifics. There will be few, however, who can challenge
the need for action.
Rancho Cucamonga is not unique. It is facing the same
social problems, the same financial crises, and the same
internal stresses that are currently faced by the majority
of local governments within urban regions across the nation.
Its major battle becomes one for identity. The goal is to
avoid the homogeneity of suburbia - -to provide a living
environment that will encourage and enhance individuality.
To recognize this goal is to recognize a standard and
quality of urban amenities that cannot be sacrificed nor
compromised.
ii
authority
On October 7, 1982, the City of Rancho Cucamonga entered
into an Agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc. to furnish
park planning and landscape architectural services for the
design and development of Heritage Park. Included in these
services as the preparation of a Master Plan and Design
Development Report.
purpose
The Design Development Report is an association of planning
functions composed specifically to meet the needs of the
public agency in processing the initial design of the
facility. Its purpose is to establish a master plan that
depicts the ultimate development of a building and specific
site - -a plan that allows the citizen, administrator, and
elected official to participate effectively in the decisions
on the scope, function, priorities and responsibility of the
project. The Design Development Report describes functional
aspects of the design, evaluates environmental impacts, in-
vestigates methods of implementation, determines logical
phasing priorities, and promotes community understanding and
support for the program.
1.
background
Heritage Park, located in the northwest sector of Rancho
Cucamonga, was the first park property acquired by the
new City of Rancho Cucamonga. Acquisition took place via
a four increment purchase agreement with the property's
owner, beginning in 1978 and completed in 1981. The fund-
ing for the purchase, €39,500.00, was derived through a
combination of 1976 State Bond Act Funds and local re-
sources.
Prior to this acquisition, the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District had initiated acquisition proceed-
ings for the purchase of rights -of -way for the development
of flood rontrol improvements that would transverse the
property. The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, in coopera-
tion with the County Flood Control District, completed
channel improvements in 1982.
As a part of this channel improvement program, the U.S.
Army, Corps of Engineers, will share park development costs
on a matching basis for all improvements involving the flood
control rights -of -way. This dollar for dollar cost sharing
agreement will include three bridges, two spanning the
Demens Channel and the third crossing the Rancho Wash; and
complete landscape development within flood control areas.
These Corps improvements will again connect the trisected
areas of the park and provide a visual amenity to mitigate
the negative impact of channel improvements.
2.
methodology
The provision of park and recreation facilities is a people
oriented program, and successful implementation requires
public support and involvement. In an effort to establish
maximum citizen participation in the planning process, the
City established a fourteen member Community Task Force to
work with staff and the consultants in the preparation of
the master plan for the park. Task Force members were se-
lected to give a balanced representation to anticipated user
groups, neighborhood residents, involved City functions, and
general community -wide interests.
The Task Force met six times, with the primary objectives
being to develop recommendations on the functional scope
of intended uses, the allocation of ^arcs, and the arrange-
ment of final facilities. The group operated under a con-
sensus format, encouraging full discussion of all issues from
a variety of perspectives and backgrounds, including active
involvement by staff members responsible for maintenance and
operation.
A public meeting was also conducted on the park site where
recommended plans were reviewed with adjacent residents and
other interested citizens. A formal presentation was made
to the Park Advisory Committee, and citizens in attendance
were given the opportunity to give input and have questions
answered by staff representatives or the consultant.
3.
The entire process was designed to develop public input
and provide opportunities to react to proposed concepts,
solutions and compromises.
site description
The park site is located in northwest Rancho Cucamonga
at the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Beryl Street.
The approximately 42 acre site is bordered to the west and
north by residential developments and to the south and east
by vineyards. The project site is trisected by the Anny
Corps of Engineers' Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash
flood control improvements. These fence -lined concrete
channels segregate the park site into three distinct areas.
No vehicle, pedestrian, or equestrian crossings exist.
The majority of the site was formerly a vineyard and is
relatively clear, sloping from 5 to 15 percent to the
south. The natural canyon area slopes are in excess of
15% gradient.
The only significant vegetation un the site is in steep areas
where vineyard cultivation was not done. This includes some
oak and chaparral in the northwest canyon and on slopes in
the southwest corner of the piuperty. The remainder of the
site is abandoned vineyards.
4.
An existing riding ring is located in the southeast corner
of the park site. This facility was built by local eques-
trian interests and is actively used. A dirt parking area
and driveway off Beryl Avenu< currently serves the riding
ring facility.
Vehicle access to the parksite is currently from Beryl
Avenue. Equestrian and pedestrian access to limited areas
of the site is from existing trails off of Hillside Road
and Beryl Street, and trails that parallel the storm drain
channels.
5.
sfte
pwr 1$1
iol
• n aswhm
• ��J � �� o ��9 C o o a e,: n.4.atu ,...,►.spy
44
W: mpwn*J 'j,%W%,Vf
development concept
design overview
As a community park, Heritage Park provides a variety of
facilities to serve the recreation needs of the Rancho Cuca-
monga population. There were several key factors during the
design development process, however, that significantly affected
the final park master plan.
The design of the park was most influenced by existing site
conditions and engineering restrictions. The Army Corps of
Engineers' flood control channels divide the site into three
isolated parcels. This division not only affects internal park
circulation but the actual size and configuration of facilities.
The existing 8% gradient of the site was another major aspect
which had an impact on the master plan design. There is a 100
foot elevation difference between the northern and southern park
boundaries. With the major facilities being equestrian arenas,
sportsfields, and parking areas (all requiring fairly level
areas), the engineering and cost impacts became significant
design factors. Facilities were located to reduce the great
amount of grading required. The design intent included a balance
of cut and till, with on -sste material independently obtained
from grading operations within three segments of the park. This
would allow convenient phasing of grading operations, if neces-
sary, and reduce costs by eliminating heavy equipment channel
crossings to redistribute material.
Community recreation interests expressed through City staff,
9.
park advisory committee, and public participation also con-
tributed to the master plan design.
A popular activity that is currently enjoyed at the park
site and fits into the rural character of the park is horse-
back riding. Equestrian interests are strong in Rancho
Cucamonga. Many neighboring residences have horse corrals in
their backyards. A regional equestrian trail system is planned
along Demen's Creek Channel and Beryl Street, making this park
an excellent terminus for equestrian trails. Interests were
expressed in expanding proposed equestrian facilities to allow
organized competitive horse shows sponsored by local equestrian
groups. As a response to this interest, the master plan iden-
tifies a comprehensive equestrian complex and trail system that
occupies almost one -half the total parksite. It has been de-
signed to function separately or in conjunction with the re-
mainder of the park site.
Besides equestrian use, there were other community needs iden-
tified in the design development process. There is a great
demand for recreation level sportsfields for programmed and
casual softball and soccer use. Associated activities such
as family and group picnicking, informal play, jogging, and
childrens' play were identified as activities befitting a
community park. Over half of the site has been developed to
satisfy these active and passive recreation needs.
10.
Throughout the design development, functional relationships
between activity areas have been developed to avoid conflicts
of use, yet afford effective implementation of programming
and supervision responsibilities. Special attention has been
given to protect and enhance the aesthetic setting while pro-
viding adequate facilities. All improvements will be designed
to keep maintenance and operational costs to a minimum.
Lastly, we have attempted to project a creative and innovative
dpproach throughout the design process. Our goal has been to
provide a variety of recreation experiences in a compatible
setting in a cost effective manner. We feel that this effort
and goal will continue to encourage public interest and involve-
ment and thereby enhance the quality of community life associ-
ated with Heritage Park.
equestrian development
The proposed equestrian area occupies the northeast portion of
the park and is bounded on the north by Hillside Drive and on
the south by the Demens Flood Control channel. Separation
from the natural area to the west is provided by the Rancho
Wash channel and the relatively deep natural canyon occupying
the northwest corner of the park. The isolated state of this
section offers a functional benefit by effectively segregating
this special use from other park functions and controlling
access to equestrian activities. fortunately, its size and
11.
configuration matches the scope of proposed facilities.
The central activity area includes a small circular arena for
longeing and individual work; a rectangular arena for dressage,
stock horse work, show warm -up, jumping and training; and a
main oval arena for general riding, instruction, and horse shows.
The two larger arenas are separated by a common spectator area
capable of serving either or both arenas. The spectator area
includes bleachers (positioned to avoid direct sun glare) and
landscaped space for lounging and eating between activities.
This area will be free from horse traffic.
The equestrian building sets the architectural theme for the
entire park. Patte,i,ed after the historic Virginia Dare
Winery, this structure houses a small concession stand with a
ranch kitchen to serve special events, restrooms, storage,
an announcing tower and dual entry offices to serve and observe
either of the main arenas. The floor plan is typical of early
Californian outbuildings, with functional spaces aligned on
either side of a wide central aisle that opens to lofts above.
Space in the loft area is designed to accommodate meetings or
social events associated with the function of the area.
On the hillside north of the practice arena is a small area
designated as an equestrian picnic area. This area would be in
turf and have scattered picnic tables for individual family use.
12.
EQUESTRIAN RULOW - SOUTH
oil
M LS
nf� If ;i II
I
lili JI �
WT JT« T
LII
N
j
r (( c�nc� � rvTVY rwwlnw - Ix�.anw r�wn r� Inlry
tit
comml
STOMP£
I �
f it _��_��1�� 1,aT r,
i f - _om m�
M6Kp A�AY
1� b
L,
� T
1
Jw�s+y +ow o.vm
- FIRST FLOOR PLAN
sportsfields
Two softball /Little League fields with 300' outfields and
overlay soccer are located on the southern half of the site.
Overlay soccer fields include a regulation size 225' x 36b'
field and a 200' x 300' practice field. The fields are posi-
tioned to maximize efficient use of shared lighting and rest-
room /concession facilities. The sportsfield area has been
carefully positioned to maintain a minimum 1% to maximum 2%
cross gradient for positive drainage and playing ease. Steeper
gradients are proposed once out of the field of play to con-
form to the general 5% to 10% natural slope of the site. An
alternative grading design provides for a split level ath-
letic area with the western ballfield and soccer overlay
approximately 8' higher than the eastern fields. This solu-
tion would significantly,reduce required export and allow for
a balanced cut and fill operation.
Ballfield improvements include brickdust infields with 20'
high curved backstops, fenced team dugouts, and paved spec-
tator area with bleachers.
restroom /concession building
Space has been allocated for a restroom /concession building
to serve both sportsfields, play area, and group picnic
facility. It is centrally located for maintenance ease and
security surveillance. Architecture will feature early
Californian rancho styling, with stucco walls, exposed wood
beams, and tile roof. The building and fixtures will be
14.
:7
designed to achieve maximum protection against vandalism.
play areas
A large creative play area is conveniently located between
the group picnic and sportsfield areas, allowing supervised
use by children from either activity areas. The recessed
play area is defined by a wide concrete curb which contains
the sand base, as well as acting as a wide mow strip for
maintenance ease. Walkways provide access from neighboring
use areas and the nearby parking area.
Modular play equipment includes a large arched swing set and
various timber -sized play structures with slides, ladders,
clatter bridges, balance beams and lookout platforms. A
terraced themed play area is proposed for both play and
visual interest. Two half -court basketball courts are in-
cluded near the play area.
A smaller play area is located adjacent to the equestrian use
area for children associated with this activity area. Im-
provements would be similar to those in the large play area,
however, reduced in scope.
15.
group /family picnic areas
The group picnic facilities are located between the
equestrian use area and sportsfield complex for indepen-
dent or associated use by park visitors. Two group
shelters allow flexible use by either one large group or two
medium sized groups. Improvements include shade shelters,
picnic tables (to accommodate approximately 100 persons),
and barbegje and sink facilities.
A large open turf area is adjacent to the group shelters for
informal play. Individual picnic table and barbeques are
scattered around the edge of this open play area for family
use. concrete slabs are provided under tables to minimize
maintenance requirements.
open play /overflow parking
In addition to the group and family picnic areas, a small
area at the northeast corner of the park site and adjacent
to the entrance road, is designated for open play and over-
flow parking during special events or peak use periods. This
area can be utilized with either the equestrian area or the
athletic /picnic faciiities.
parking /circulation
The entrance to Heritage Park is off Beryl Street towards the
north end of the site. The entrance road has been located to
17.
provide convenient access to both parking areas an either side
of the drainage channel, with minimum division of property.
The entrance drive will be accentuated with a widened road-
way, 20' wide median planter, special paving, and feature
arbor. The access drive splits and crosses the drainage
channel to the north, serving the equestrian parking area,
and continues to the southwest, serving the sportsfield park-
ing area.
The equestrian parking area is designed for horse trailer
circulation and parking ease. There are 21 trailer pull -
through spaces and 16 spaces for cars. Separate equestrian
and pedestrian walks are provided which cross the drainage
channel and link into the park circulation, as well as the
regional trail system.
The sportsrield parking area is asphalt paved. It provides
convenient access to not only the ballfields, but also the
play area, group picnic facilities, and maintenance building
and yard. Ninety -nine parking spaces are provided. A wide
planter helps to define circulation, parking, and provides
appreciated shade from trees.
An overflow parking area for special events is provided at
the open turf area in the northeast corner of the park site.
trails /exercise course
A 15' wide dirt equestrian trail encircles the entire project
site, tying into the regional trail system which borders Hill-
side Road and Beryl Street. The trail meanders through the
"natural area" just west of the drainage channel spur and
connects into adjacent neighborhood trail heads.
Two equestrian service bridges are provided that cross the
drainage channels and help to complete the trail loop. A
concrete post and wood rail fence is proposed to control
equestrian access around the sportsfields, group and open
picnic areas, and where separation from pedestrian and ve-
hicle traffic is required.
In the sportsfield area an exercise course parallels the riding
trail for joggers' use. The 6' wide decomposed granite course
is edged by concrete headers and includes 10 to 20 periodic
exercise stations with equipment and related instructions. A
wood fence would separate the trails.
landscaping
A blend of open space and screen planting is used to provide
adequate buffers between the equestrian area, natural area,
sportsfield complex, and adjacent residences. Tree planting
and mounding is used to better define activity areas, direct
circulation, and provide visual interest.
19.
Formalized and regularly maintained turf areas are generally
contained within the trail improvements. These turf areas
will have a minimum gradient of lz for positive drainage and
a maximum gradient of 5:1 for mowing ease. Trees will be
located at least 20' apart to allow efficient mowing with
large gang mowers. Concrete mow strips will be used at
fences in maintained turf areas to speed mowing.
The less formal landscape areas located outside the trail im-
provements will be meadow -like in appearance with 4 " -6" tall
fescue and drifts of wildflowers requiring semi - annual mowing
as necessary. The primary purpose of this planting is to con-
trol erosion and dust and provide a "natural" buffer between
activity areas.
To minimize maintenance requirements, plant species will be
selected for drought, disease, and pest tolerance. Trees
will be located to maximize shade in activity areas for park
users' comfort.
Every effort will be made to preserve the existing trees,
particularly those located in the "natural canyon area"
where grading and improvements are minimal.
U
irrigation
The entire site will be covered by an automatic sprinkler
system designed to provide adequate irrigation for the dif-
ferent types of landscape planting. Low precipitation heads
will be selected to minimize water runoff, particularly in
steeper areas.
Rotary -type sprinkler heads with protective rubber covers
will be used in the large maintained turf areas. Two inch
pop -up sprinklers are recommended for the smaller turf areas.
Impact type sprinklers will be used in areas where erosion
control seeding is proposed. Elevated heads shall be pro-
tected from damage caused by users or horses. Trees in the
less irrigated natural seeded areas will be on a supplemental
drip irrigation system to provide regular deep watering and
promote speedy growth.
signage
A park identification sign will be located at the entrance
road median on Beryl Street. The sign will be designed to
reflect the general "heritage" theme of the park. It will
be lighted for night identification.
Directional signs and facility identification signs will be
placed where necessary to direct park users to the appropriate
parking and activity areas.
21.
Signs will also identify the restroom facilities and handi-
cap parking stalls.
An information kiosk will be located at the feature arbor
for posting park activities or special program events.
theme concept
A "heritage" theme for the park site was proposed in the
initial request for proposals as developed by the City. The
theme is intended to unify the various structures in the
park and tie the development to historical and cultural aspects
in Rancho Cucamonga's past.
Since the park site and local area were once extensively
cultivated in grapes and part of the wine industry, we
decided to incorporate vineyard type elements and rancho
style architecture into the "heritage" theme.
The character of the equestrian center building is strongly
indicative of the "heritage" theme. The building, patterned
after the historic local Virginia Dare Winery, includes
buttressed walls, arched doorways and windows, sculptured
facade at roofline, tower with exposed wood beams, and the
roofs. An open alley runs through the building with loft
area overhead and large sliding wood doors >t either end.
This adds to the intended working rancho character of the
22.
equestrian area.
The entrance to the parksite also reflects the rancho
character, with an irrigation valve box typical of large
agricultural operations, featured as part of the park
identification sign.
At the end of the patterned entrance drive, an arbor is
featured with stucco columns or arches and heavy wood
timbers. Climbing grapevines will be used where appro-
priate. Similar structures will be used for shade in the
group picnic area.
The restroom /concession building in the sportsfield area
will be the same style as the equestrian center building.
23.
i Loo I IN I A-swAl
f
0
Q
qVl;
i Loo I IN I A-swAl
f
0
Q
possible environmental impacts
This preliminary evaluation of environmental conditions and
possible impacts has been made without the benefit of thor-
ough scientific assessments or testing techniques. These
preliminary findings are based on visual inspection of the
site; comparison with similar projects; and a working know-
ledge of the EIR process. The primary intent is to identify
critical impacts early in the design program so that solutions
reflect both environmental concerns and functional criteria.
aesthetics
The transition from vacant land to high quality landscaping
and providing amenities not yet present in the community is
direct, major, and extremely beneficial. The proposed park
will contribute to the recreational, social, and aesthetic
character of the Rancho Cucamonga area as a whole, and will
substantially improve the aesthetic quality of the immediate
neighborhood. A tone and an identity to the surrounding resi-
dential areas will develop with the park.
noise
Negative impacts are minimal. During construction, there may
be significant, though temporary, increases in noise levels.
The new function projected for this site of providing recrea-
tion facilities will have a permanent impact on the noise
level. However, major slopes adjacent to the equestrian and
sportsfield areas will significantly reduce noise impacts, by
acting as an acoustical shield, particularly when planted. A
25.
landscape buffer adjacent to residential development will en-
hance the appearance of the area and reduce the noise impact.
Control of construction noise will be by enforcement of con-
struction specifications and inspection. Noise generated from
park maintenance equipment will be controlled by adequate
muffler devices and work scheduling. Program scheduling will
control organized activities and the noise they generate. If
any amplified speaker system is installed, it should be low
profile, low amplitude, and professionally designed for minimal
impact outside its immediate use area.
light and glare
Equestrian area and security lighting will be low profile and
directed downward with a minimal amount of light spill or
glare. Athletic field lighting, if installed, will increase
light levels in a major way for a more extended time period.
The 60' to 70' foot poles with recreation level lighting
luminaires will not directly spill on residential property.
However, the area glare produced will have an impact on the
immediate neighborhood, particularly views from the homes over-
looking the park.
Proposed light systems will be energy effic; ant high intensity
discharge type. The particular types will be selected for
color and control of light distribution pattern. Impacts are
local, direct, and major (with athletic field lighting).
26.
Mitigation measures will include; (1) shielding the light
sources, where necessary; (2) control of lighting systems
by timers for limited use; and (3) design security lighting
to a minimum level (to eliminate dark spots in the park with-
out glare).
traffic and parking
Generation of additional traffic (vehicular, bicycle, eques-
trian and pedestrian) will be experienced in the immediate
vicinity of the park, particularly along Beryl Street. Normal
scheduling of recreation activities avoids major conflicts
with existing peak traffic loads caused by school transporta-
tion or during periuds prior to and after regular working
hours. Impacts are direct, major, and adverse. Mitigation
measures include the provision of off - street parking (117 cars,
21 horse trailers); locating activity areas convenient to park-
ing; provision of bicycle parking facilities; and providing an
internal pedestrian and equestrian system.
drainage
The existing drainage pattern of the site will be maintained
with adjustments to protect buildings and accommodate rela-
tively flat sportsfields and equestrian arenas.
Catch basins and drain lines are proposed throughout the site
where steep slopes or paved areas offer a collection point.
A curb and gutter system associated with the southern trail
27.
will collect and direct drainage flow off the site.
Negative impacts are minimal. Where erosion damage is
possible, additional measures will be taken to disperse
drainage flow and protect slopes as necessary. ,
dust
Negative impacts are minimal. During construction, there
may be an increase in dust level; however, the construction
specifications will require the Contractor to take measures
necessary to control the dust.
An irrigation system will be incorporated into the riding
arena fences to control dust generated from equestrian use.
All areas disturbed during grading operations will be
seeded with either turf or an erosion control mix to
eliminate excessive dust. Trails will be restricted to
use by pedestrians or horses only - -no motorcycles.
28.
cost analysis and construction phasing
The Design Development Report is a planning product that pro-
vides required information to establish a realistic program
of implementation. Not only does it determine an accurate
scope of proposed development, it must also provide detailed
estimated of construction costs and projections of required
expenditures for maintenance and operation.
Construction costs can be projected quite accurately after
the establishment of scope and the adoption of reasonable
standards of development. Cost projections are based on tested
costing information, including comparisons with similar projects
or facilities that have been constructed during the past six
rmonths period. Estimates do not include future inflation
factors and they must be updated according to schedule of
accomplishment.
Maintenance and operational costs do not enjoy this same con-
sistency. Maintenance costs will vary significantly between
agencies and levels of government. A major constraint Appears
to be a total absence of any conformity to methods of assessing
costs and a great diversity in the sophistication of cost
accounting.
Other problems affecting the accuracy of projecting operational
costs include the variables associated with alternative levels
of service, the amount of assistance that can be generated from
user groups, and the quality of the original improvements. It
29.
qR
0
shall be our intent to present an estimate of operating costs
that reflects a better than average level of service and does
not assume any assistance from outside sources. Costs will
be based on median expenditures reported by private industry
and a number of local government agencies providing similar
services. Costs will reflect average expenditures to main-
tain established landscaped areas and some special maintenance
can be expected during the first year of operation.
estimated construction costs
BUILDINGS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
1.
Mobilization - 5%
$ 100,345.00
2.
Clearing and Grubbing
74,590.00
3.
Earthwork
263,860.00
4.
Drainage
92,520.00
5.
Buildings, Shade Shelters
326,900.00
6.
Bridges
49,200.00
7.
Site Concrete
159,460.00
8.
Surfacing Materials
81,845.00
9.
Masonry
24,885.00
10,
Fencing
112,550.00
11.
Site Amenities
110,850.00
12.
Irrigation
339,430.00
13.
Planting
370,840.00
Overhead and Profit (10 %)
210,725.00
90 -Day Maintenance
46,500.00
TOTAL
$2,364,500.00
M
suggested phasing program
Rarely can a facility of this size and scope be completed as
a single construction project. Gb:iously, this is the de-
sirable alternative for a number of reasons, not the least of
which is a substantial reduction in costs.
An actual phasing program must be tailored to funding limita-
tions and, where possible, it should be designed to avoid
major revisions or removals with subsequent segments.
Recognizing that funding can be a major concern at Heritage
Park, the following suggested phasing program segregates each
of the primary areas of the park and breaks down improvements
into two phases involving site grading, drainage and erosion
control, and the individual activity facilities or spaces.
This method allows the City to proceed with initial site
preparation incrementally and adjust individual improvements
to fit funding sources. Utilization of volunteer contributions
of money or services can be accommodated by scheduling or
adaptation.
31.
AREA I - SPORTSFIELD AREA (26.3 ACRES)
PHASE I
Clearing /Grubbing $ 47,340.00
Grading 180,260.00
Drainage .8,120.00
Erosion Control (Temporary) 68,730.00
Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 286,380.00
Sub -Total $ 640,830.00
PHASE II
A.C. Paving - Parking and Channel Access $ 42,110.00
Concrete Paving and Picnic Table Pads, Curb 95,865.00
Stamped Concrete Paving
39,575.00
Ballfields
21,175.00
Restroom /Concession Building
88,000.00
Maintenance Building
54,000.00
Picnic /Shade Shelters (2) and Arbor
80,900.00
Play Area
38,850.00
Miscellaneous Site Amenities
59,870.00
Planting
250,775.00
Chain Link Fencing
12,590.00
Exercise Trail
14,955.00
Equestrian Fencing
21,080.00
Equestrian Trail
2,680.00
Masonry
7,785.00
Sub -Total $ 830,210.00
TOTAL S 1,471,040.00
32.
AREA II - EQUESTRIAN AREA (8.27 ACRES)
PHASE I
Clearing /Grubbing $ 14,880.00
Grading 70,000.00
Drainage 34,400.00
Erosion Control 21,610.00
Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 90,050.00
Bridge 26,700.00
Sub -Total $ 257,640.00
PHASE II
D.G. Parking Area
Concrete Paving
Concession /Office /Restroom
Arenas
Play Area
Bridges (2)
Miscellaneous Site Amenities
Planting
Equestrian Fencing
Equestrian Trails
Masonry
33.
$ 22,860.00
16,800.00
104,000.00
17,670.00
13,770.00
22,500.00
17,960.00
56,295.00
41,310.00
1,260.00
3,900.00
Sub -Total $ 318,325.00
TOTAL $ 575,965.00
AREA III - NATURAL AREA (6.87 ACRES)
PHASE I
Clearing /Grubbing S 12,370.00
Grading 13,600,00
Erosion Control 17,955.00
Irrigation (Temporary and Permanent) 88,670,00
Chain Link Fencing 7,390.00
Sub -Total $ 139,985.00
PHASE II
Trails Surfacing $ 800.00
Planting 63,760.00
Sub -Total $ 64,560.00
TOTAL $ 204,545.00
AREA I
AREA 11
AREA III
•
MOBILIZATION - 5%
OVERHEAD AND PROFIT - 10%
MAINTENANCE - 90 DAY
a
•
34.
$ 1,471,040.00
$ 575,965.00
$ 204,545.00
Sub -Total $ 2,251,550.00
$ 112,575.00
$ 236,410.00
$ 46,500.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 2,647,035.00
projected maintenance and operation costs
The following cost projections are based on ultimate develop-
ment and use of the entire facility. Specific projections
are provided by activity unit or square footage costs so they
can be adjusted to fit partial developments.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE:
Turf - 610,023 sq.ft. @ $.011 per mo. x 12 $ 80,520.00
Natural Areas - 717,180 sq.ft. @ $.002
per mo. x 12 = 17,210.00
Trails, Arenas, and Dirt Parking -
284,198 sq.ft. @ $.003 per mo. x 12 = 10,230.00
BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
2,000± sq.ft. @ $.20 per mo. x 12 = $ 4,800.00
TOTAL BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE $112,760.00
($2,750 per acre)
UTILITIES
Security Lighting - 5 kw per hr. @
$.10 x 6 hrs. x 365 = $ 1,095.00
Activity Lighting
Adult Softball - $5.00 per hr. per field
Sorcer - $3.50 per hr. per field
Equestrian Ctr.- $3.50 per hr.
IRRIGATION VOLUMES (ANNUAL)
Turf Area - 14 acres x 3 ft. = 42 acre/ft.
Natural Area - 16.5 acres x 1,5 ft. = 24.75 acre /ft.
35.
• October 17, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
An adjourned meeting of the City Council was held on Monday, October 17, 1983
in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. The purpose of the
meeting was to adopt the 1983 -84 Program of Service. Mayor Mikels called the
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip
D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd
Hubbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finance Director, Harry Empey; Community
Services Director, Bill Holley; Building Official, Jerry Grant; and Sheriff's
Captain, Thomas Wickum.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PERSONNEL ISSUES. Item discussed first.
• Mayor Mikels announced that Council would adjourn to a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters.
The meeting, reconvened at 6:35 p.m, with all members of Council and staff
present.
Mayor Mikels stated that Council had agreed to the following employee salary
and fringe benefit package for 1983-84:
1. Salary adjustment of 5 percent.
2. Health Care Adjustment to increase the health premium to $225 per
month.
3. Increase in the Dental Plan
Mr. Wasserman stated that staff would get with the Employee Committee in the
morning to diacass this with them.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting, for any comments from the employees. There
was nn
C J
Page 2
•
APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CRAM13HR OF COMMERCE.
IL is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Memorandum of
Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 1983 -84. The
agreement provides for services to be provided to the City with reimbursement
at the rate of $12,000 per year.
Mr. Wasserman went over the MOU explaining the differences between what is
being proposed and the former contract.
Mr. Frost stated he would rather that the agreement include a date of June
30th so that it would be reviewed yearly as we do all our agreements.
Presently the MOU provides that the agreement would be continuing until
termination.
Mr. Schlosser stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to be independent of
the City as soon as possible, and concurred with Mr. Frost that a date should
be inserted.
Discussion continued amongst the Councilmembers regarding whether a sunset
date should be added in order to review the agreement yearly.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approve the Memorandum of •
Understanding with the Chamber of Commerce as written by the City Attorney.
Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. DISCUSSION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF SERVICE. Staff report
by Lauren
Wasserman, City Manager.
Mr. Wasserman stated that there was now $438,515 available
for
appropriation. Be Cher, proceeded to go throught the list of
significant
issues yet to be approved by Council:
a. One additional 80 -hours sheriff's patrol unit
$ 91,676
b. Civic Center Reserve
$ 75,000
c. Park Development Fund
'150,000
d. Printing /Planning Department
$ 18,000
c. Fencing, and Screening for City property
$ 6,000
f. Transfer to Reserve for Changes in Economic Conditions
$ 67,930
g. Clerk typist /City Clerk's Office
$ 8,300
h. 11anagement Development Training
$ 5,000
i. 6. —. untant I position reclassified to Accountant II
$ 11500
Mr. Dahl stated there was another item which he had requested which
was a Park
Planner. He felt that this position was needed since we are still in the
designing stage of parks. Mr. Holley has been a one -man operation and is
over - extended. He felt a lot of the work could be done inhouse
instead of
•
using consultants, thus saving the City some money.
•
Page 3
Mr. Buquet asked where this person would be located.
Mr. Dahl stated this brought up another point, and that was of utilizing extra
space which was available in the building next to the city offices.
Mr. Buquet felt there would be problems with this location since it was
upstairs.
Mr. Holley stated they had thought of this. Actually, it would not be any
different from what takes place now. People come to the main counter at the
switchboard. They are notified that someone is there, and they come out. If
they were located upstairs, then the same procedure would be followed. They
would go to the person.
Mr. Wasserman stated that a Park Planner would be an entry level position at a
cost of about $26,000. In their calculations, an amount had been included to
cover the expense of space this employee.
Mr. Empey stated they cale'alated this based on 75 to 85 cents per square foot,
• or $6300 for space for 8 months. We did not come up with any particular
place, only considered the cost.
Mayor Mikels stated that we will need more space if we add any new employees.
Mr. Wasserman stated that Mr. Grant had just informed him that it was a State
law that handicap facilities be available. Staff would have to check into
this.
Discussion continued between Council and staff regarding the issue of space.
4. ADOPTION OF 1983 -84 PROGRAM OF sgRvim.
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to amend and adopt as final
the Interim Budget with the available resources as follows:
Motor Vehicle in lieu fees
$175,933
Interest. Earnings /reserves
$171,099
Contingency
$128,687
Building Permits
$ 70,954
Busincns Inv. Prop. Tax
$ 47,771
Elimination of Helicopter Charge
$ 43.712
Sheriff Dispatchers
61,719
$528,490
49 to cover the following expenditures and transfers into reserves:
Page 4
•
80 hour Patrol Unit $ 91,676
City Employee package $ 61,982
Sheriff Personnel Adj. $ 61.719
Park Planner $ 26,317
Printing /Planning $ 18,000
Clerk Typist /City Clerk $ 8,300
Management Development $ 5,000
Reclassification /Accountant I to Accountant II $ 1,500
and to transfer the non - appropriated, non - designated reserves to reserves for
changes in economic conditions. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
5. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, •
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
•
• October 19, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in
the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, October 19,
1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Council members: Richard M. Dahl; Charles J. Buquet II; Phillip
D. Schlosser; James C. Frost; and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd
Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill
Holley.
Approval of Minutes: MOTION: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to
• approve the minutes of September 7, September 21, and October 5, 1983. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 2:00 p.m. - COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ON FOOTHILLS COMMUNITY PLAN - Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 175 West
Fifth Street, San Bernardino.
b. Thursday, October 20, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PARKS ADVISORY r,OMMITTEE - Lions
Park Community Center.
c. Friday, October 21, 1983, 4:00 -7:00 p.m. - MEASURE "W" RECEPTION - Board
of Realtors Office, 217 West 2nd Street, Upland.
d. Thursday, October 27, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION -
Lions Pzrk Communi�y ruts,.
e,, Presentation eF a donation by the Alta 6ema Riding Glob to kpe City's
Heritage Perk Development, Fund. Item removed by the Group. They wished
to present donation at the time Heritagi Park comes to the City Council
for review.
C J
Page 2
•
f. Mayor Mikels announced that the "Purple Foot Award" for the grape stomping
contest at the Wine Festival was won this year by Councilman Jim Frost.
It was won by Councilman Phil Schlosser last year.
g. Mr. Wasserman requested an added item to the Agenda: 6D - Resolution No.
83 -182 which adjusts the salaries per a previous action of Council. Mr.
Wasserman also requested a closed session at the end of the meeting to
discuss a legal matter.
h. Chief Feuerstein stated that in light of the article which appeared in the
Daily Report, he wanted to assure the Council and the RDA that the Fire
District would continue working in partnership with the City staff and the
Redevelopment Agency. They have been meeting regularly with staff and the
City Manager to come up with some possible joint City and District
facilities and would continue to do so.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83- 10 -19, and Payroll ending 10 -2 -83 in
the total amount of $1,199,491.15.
b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Warrants for July for $3,625.60;
August for $96,110.47; and September for $2,341.30. Approval of •
Assessment District 82 -2 Warrants for July for $3,690,00; for August for
$64,740.00.
c. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -10) for On -Sale Beer and Wine Public
Premises License for LeRoy and Rose Gamble, Ernie's, 7157 Amethyst Avenue.
d. Alcoholic Beverage Application (AB83 -20) for On -Sale General Eating Place,
for N. L. Disco, Inc., Nite Lite Hens A Herfords, 8874 Foothill Boulevard.
e. Forward Claim (CL83 -40) against the City by Ernest Sims to the City
Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
f. Forward Claim (CL83 -41) against the City by James Glidewell Hall to the
City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
g. Forward Claim (CL83 -42) against the City by C.V. Holder to the City
Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling.
h. Request approval of Resolution establishing the Recreation Services
Enterprise Fund and its operational guidelines. This is an item which
brings the method of collecting and disbursing fees within the Recreation
Service Division into compliance with current Governmental Accounting
Standards.
•
1 J
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 83-171
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFURNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RECREATION
SERVICES ENTERPRISE FUND.
i. Approval of agreement for reconstruction of south half of Lemon Avenue
between Klusman and Archibald Avenue in conjunction with Tract 9638 by
Crismar Homes; in amount of $5,465. Funds to be drawn from the Systems
Development Fund.
j. Approval of intent to annex Tracts 12237, 12337 -1, 12237 -2 to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No. 15, and set pubiin hearing
for November 16, 1983.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-172
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTANANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1,
. 122j7 -2).
RESOLUTION N0. 83 -173
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCPAING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (TRACTS 12237, 12337 -1, 12337 -2).
k. Approval to summarily ordering the vacation of unimproved road right -of-
way north of Arrow Route and east of Vineyard Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -170
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF
AN UNIMPROVED ROAD NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND EAST OF
VINEYARD AVENUE.
1. Approval of acceptance of street improvements and storm drain for Parcel
Map 6194 located nn the east side of Haven Avenue at 7th Street;
Cadillac - Fairview Development, developer.
�J
Page 4
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -175
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PARCEL MAP 6194 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
m. Release of Bonds:
Tract 10569 - located on Placer, east of Archibald Avenue; owner, William
Lyon Co.
Accept Mainten. Guarantee Bond (road) $ 3,300
R ?lease Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $176,600
S.A. 80 -13 - located on the southeast corner of Sapphire and Highland;
owner, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church.
Release Faithful Perform. Bond $55,000
P.M. 7555 - located on the southeast corner of Milliken and 8th Street;
owner, O'Donnell, Brigham. •
Release Faithful Perform. Bond (road) $86,000
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -176
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR TRACT 10569 AND AUTHORIZING THE riLTNG OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-177
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR S.A. 80 -13 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -178
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR PARCEL MAP 7555 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
•
•
Page 5
n. Approval of Redevelopment Agency action regarding Judicial Validation
Action for future tax allocation bond issues
RESOLUTION NO. 63 -179
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ITS RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS
RELATING THERETO.
o. Approval of destruction of city personnel records which are no longer
required by law. _
RESOLUTION NO. 83-180
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS
PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090.
• p. Approval of reclassification of Administrative Analyst to .Assistant to
Cil,v Manager at a monthly salary range of ;2096- 2550/mo.
q. Set public hearing date of November 2, 1983: Draft Development Code.
r. Set public hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for consideration of revocation or modification to the
conditions for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 - Boars Head. An appeal for
the review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of
approval which are intended to resolve complaints and distrubances created
by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza.located on
the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street.
s. Set Public Hearing I. Le of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and General Plan
Amendment 83 -OUA - Carnelian Investments. A request to amend the General
Plan Land Use Plan from low residential (2 -4 du /ac) to medium residential
(4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the R -1 -8500 zone (P -3
npnAing) located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and
Carnelian - APN 201 - 214 -08.
t. Set Public Hearing date of November 16, 1983: Appeal of Planning
Commission decision for Environmental Assessment and Zone Change 83-03 -
C4rnelian Investments. A change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (multiple
family residential) on approximately 7 acres of land l..cated on the south
side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 214 -08.
Page 6
u
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF SWIMMING POOL PENCE HEIGHT REVISION. A proposal for the
reduation of a fence height required around swimming pools. Staff report by
Jerry Grant, Building Official.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk 'Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 1 ?2 -A.
ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of
Ordinance No. 122 -A. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Mikels set second reading for Ordinance No. 122 -A for November 2, 1983• •
No items submitted.
5. NON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. CITY NANAGRR'S REPORTS
6A. STATUS REPORT ON A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD. A resident who was
concerned about a recreational vehicle storage yard located at 10191 Base Line
Road had requested time on the Agenda. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner,
presented a staff report summarizing the problem and the present status of the
same.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was:
Donald King, planning consultant, 9375 Archibald, representing Mr. Huss.
He passed out some photographs for Council to look at. He stated that the
situation is that Mrs. Damns has developed and constructed a vehicle
storage yard on her property located south on Base Line, east of Turner in
violation of the Rancho Cucamonga zoning ordinance. In the development of
this facility, drainage patterns wera created which have and are cuasing
•
r1
U
Page 7
physical and monetary damage to the welfare and property of Mr. Musa.
City staff has outlined the problems. Mr. King then proceeded to give
background of the approval of the storage yard. On behalf of his client
he requested Council direct the City Attorney to offer Mrs. Danna one of
the following alternatives:
Alternative 1. Cause to have adequate drainage plans prepared and
approved to prevent flooding on Mr. Musa's property. Such approval by
the City Engineer should occur before October 31. Cause to have these
approved drainage improvements installed prior to November 21.
Alternative 2: If Mrs. Donna cannot agree with the former then City
Council order all vehicles removed from the illegal facility by
November 1 and have illegal improvements removed, regrading the site to
its previous condition, thereby eliminating the drainage problems that
were created. The regrading should be done by November 21.
They requested Council direct the City Attorney to order Mrs. Darns, to
immediately install a temporary sandbag berm at a size adequate to prevent
further flooding this year on Mr. Husa's property. Further, request that
Council direct the City Attorney to proceed promptly with Code a %ion as
• provided for in the zoning ordinance if one of these choices is not completeu
on November 21.
Mrs. Donna, 10191 Base Ling, owner of the recreational storage yard,
stated she started the storage yard in June 1976 before the City was
incorporated. She claimed Mr. Huss had not talked to her about any of
this. She had received registered letters from him the last three years
on Christmas eve stating he was having someone come out to survey and
wanted her to remove everything off his property. As far as she knew she
had nothing on his property. Last Christmas eve she received a bill for
water damage which she ignored. This was the first she knew of any water
damag, Mr. Musa had. The first she heard is when she received a call
from Mr. 4airin that there were problems. She was trying to get
authoriziti:+n from the Edison Company for an easement in order to install
a drainage across their property. So far, there has been no response.
Mr. Dougherty stated the issue of the sandbagging is something the city
rounnil could direct. Obviously if not complied with, it could be a factor in
the Council's decision at a later time on the use under a CUP if in fact the
Development, Code is adopted as it is presently written. Essentially though
any flooding caused by one property owner onto the property of another is a
legal matter which can be resolved in court in a private law suit. Its not
something the City should get involved in except insofar as we are attempting
to correct the zoning violation.
C
Page 8
•
Mr. Schlosser stated that if sandbagging is done, all you would do is move the
water east or west onto someone else's property. He felt thin might create
more problems and did not feel it was a wise decision to require the
sandbagging.
Mr. Vairin concurred and stated he wanted Mr. Huss to be aware that a sandbag
berm would not stop water from coming across to his property, but would divert
the water from the stable area to somewhere else on his property.
Mr. Dougherty asked Mr. Vairin if this would result in a concentration of the
flow at given points.
Mr. Vii ^in stated yes. The water is being concentrated now because Mr. Husa
built a trench on his side of the property which is taking the water to the
same area.
Mr. Dougherty asked if the concentration is a result of his action on his
property?
Mr. Vairin stated that was correct.
Mr. Dougherty felt that in view of the discussion that requiring sand bagging
m!glr be counter productive and would perhaps expose the upstream property
owner to a greater degree of liability. .
May,, Mikels pointed out to Mrs. Danna that generally speaking ignorance of
the law is no defense. The fact that her property has been altered and it has
an illegal negative impact on the neighbor can be serious.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to instruct Mrs. Danna to install
the iecessary drainage improvements, to obtain the necessary easements, obtain
final approval of grading plans and accomplish the tasks by December 1st.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, ;iikclo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Frost
• *o• :e
Mayor Miklos called a re^ ^o_ ,.t 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
with all members of Council and staff present.
6B. CONSIDERATION OF SHERIFF'S CONTRACT. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman,
City Manager.
E
•
Page 9
Mr. Wasserman stated that the contract before Council is a contract which
reflects the revised method for providing the services that was tentatively
approved in June. The additional deputies and the issue of the dispatchers
will be handled through an amendment to the contract. Amount of the contract
will be $2,548,243 for existing levels of service.
Lt. Futscher pointed out that the contract does not reflect the two new
deputies approved on October 17.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response,
the public portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Buquet asked who presently pays for maintenance on the automobiles?
Mr. Wasserman stated that we pay maintenance at 7 cents per mile and buying
the gas and oil for the vehicles. For maintenance on the automobiles, the
City pays for the actual costs, but if the repairs exceed the amount
allocated, then the maintenance cost would increase or decrease the next
year's contract.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the helicopter services would be paid for by the
County through another fund and not through the contract.
• MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the contract. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
bC. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR RENTAL OF 00144MITY CENTER
FACILITIES. Rental of Community Centers to partially defray the overall cost
of operation is a common municipal practice, Adoption of these guidelines
will provide Rancho Cucamonga a partial cost recovery tool with which to
operate. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director.
City Clerk 'Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83-181.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -181
A RESOLUTION OF THP rrmv rnfiNCTr. OF THE r.TTY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONr.A, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE
RENTAL OF COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public comments. There was no response,
so the public portion of the meeting was closed.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 83 -181
and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
5D. ADDED ITEM: SALARY
RESOLUTION Mr.
Wasserman reported
that Council had
approved adjustments in
the salaries.
The Resolution
reflected those
19
adjustments.
Page 10
•
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 83 -182.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82 -119 RELATING TO
SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR ALL FULL TIME AND PART TIME
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR
1983 -84.
MOTION: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -182
and to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8A. REQUEST BY ANDREW BAIMAAIAN TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. Mr. Barmakian proposed
that Council consider making his project an "adult only" project. This would
allow him to proceed with the project. At the time when school space was
available, he would change the designation. •
Mr. Dougherty stated there were two decisions from the State Supreme Court
stating that excluding all children from apartment projects or condominiums
were in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court in these cases
expressly distinguished between the normal adults -only type of use and
developments for senior citizens. They did leave that open. Whether or not a
situation as Mr. Barmakian proposes could be legally enforced would be pure
speculation. He has no way to knowing whether the Supreme Court would depart
from their already announced decision; simply because we were to allow a
building to take place where no school space is available.
Discussion followed regarding who would ultimately be responsible if such a
development occured since there were other developers who have not vet come
forth but had similar problems within the same school district.
Mr. Dougherty stated that if a developer feels that a school district has
arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld a school letter, then there is a
mechanism whereby the developer can appeal that determination or action to the
Planning Commission which would then recommend a determination to the city
council. Ultimately the City Council, if it feels the school district is
arbitrary or unreasonable, would have the power, on hearing the appeal, to
waive the requirements.
11
Page 11
Mayor Mikels pointed out the requirements of a school letter was not a State
law, but one of our own requirements. We can continue that policy or withdraw
it by creating a new ordinance which rescinds that policy. The Mayor
continued that it was his understanding that the Central School District has
reached the capacity for the portables which are provided by the funds
generated pursuant to SB 201.
Mr. Wasserman stated that there was a Committee working with the school
district composed of representatives from the building industry. Hopefully,
this will not come to the city council, but will be resolved between the
school district, and the developers.
Mr. Dahl asked the city attorney if we would be liable if we entered into an
agreement with a developer that was contrary to State law and was illegal.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not assuming that such an agreement under
these circumstances would be an illegal agreement. There is certainly an
agreement to be made that there is a public purpose to be served by precluding
occupance of new dwellings by children until sufficient school facilities are
available. These two supreme court decisions which held that the arbitrary
exclusion to children was in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As far
• as the liability of City and Council, he does not see a serioua exposure to
monetary damage because we are not tlaking about the federal civil rights law,
but a California law. There is no federal equavilent to this type of decision
involving children. The most a court action could do is find the agreement
unenforceable and to enjoin some enforcement.
ACTION: The request was received and filed.
80. CONSIDERATION OF PILLING VACANCY ON THE PARRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mayor Mikels brought forth two names for consideration: They were Sam Punter
and Molly Mitchell. He asked if there were any additional names to be
added. There was no response.
Those in favor of Molly Mitchell were: Dahl, Mikels
Those in ,favor of Sam Punter were: Buquet, Schlosser, Frost
�ouncil requested that letters be drafted over the mayor's signature to Mr.
Punter and to all those who submitted applications but were not chosen.
9. ADJOURNMENT
LION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adjourn to a closed session to
reconvene. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:20
19 p.m. No action was taken.
Page 12
MDTION; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
•
C,
J
1117 CITY
^l
f c1 f C9CAYC'1CA
4APRA!IT
R[[n ^:f ILIAD
PARR
Vr\ f 9 p r R N A 4 F
YA.R
JFIO^RAI
PATE
9 ^`RCaf.0
lln {n
n.q
11. \r or r[ aI'i
I!1 /lv /Pl
t9 V9
1•'•1
I• rr:rl !41r ^f. C'•
q /.`1 /")
Ilia
°t
11 r " v SY'
Ir /!OI °a
IP 15p
>I
Pr r,; rl l
^` 1•`>.'If[
I ^ /In /91
ins
'Y`1^
^t S ll!" IT
II / ^J /Pl
116)4
VI'I^
� 411^ I ^'i
114 ^]
V "In
=11': i'•'_"
It /'`J /Pl
°oil
•II^
\C' utl Pr - •.rl t'S
11 /T / "'l
941)
+
1 r, R il'r •. 'Vif'
11 / ^J /el
In<11
•
Al FD'� i'4 •`v
1) 19 71 P)
'
\I rA 1.••..t it l'1 -1
111 ^ > /AI
"414
It
I
In sli
1 > /•.
` A••r..Ir: ••i r :5
tr / ^) / ^l
t ^i14
ld +e
�A9 C^
ll /:P /P1
1.:410
Ir.`
n::ri I..r .'AR ^4A ^•
1I / ^: /.r.3
I ^4 >1
759
1T59
R^nayc, rl irl
11/07131
1'411
1
la4'c
l.a
.q r^ il..rn
I1 /O> /nl
IT41
^PlnRr r. ,3:':
11 /0 ? /93
laA >]
I!^
Ffr +rllt[R SY`rl
Iit, J /i.3
tn4•9
Iv'.'
r r 1•.FF "'1'I^
I1 /n)/ei
IOA ?O
>CM1n
( ^I Il I4C F "'!`.n :t t "rl
II /nl /Ni
v4ln
^41l
r�]
r�n'1�1, I '•I
r
•. ^[ 4- I'll I
tI /')` /N'
It /C ? /'ll
1 ^ 4>>
>l15
c }lr ;i'.1 il
11 /il > /'1l
1'1511
' >'1
CI_`O " " "'L '1'If p I'IT I"
[9M1lG
?] \5
C' :A C-1A `�ITrt Ir'.
11 /ni /ri
I^4i5
"'r5 " "lA rfTTl l ": Cr
/'ll
SVrS
11 /n2181
1041]
JSlS
[4r nwrq :A Cr Y!TFe r` t5T
11 /�' /Pl
1 1419
35r5
rJ1.lw -`J ^A P ^1 "T••.`
11 /1J /P3
I v411
'e41
rn r "'I F°
I gh
"AI 4 eT
Il /�L /Nl
1'pGl
•v9
/fY
•.•. 1Y1
ll /12 /e3
1 ^i <>
• /t^
ni Yl '.I '1 ! n.l r
/_' /il
<l
1/^7/93
14444
•ngA
Till Rp9P
1] /7] /g3
of
nvlF
n:A NrT til
�liiS /Rl
Ii
1
^a
7
2115
('••T "'A 1++ 1.� ^ ,.. 'l
II /m /o
I I44v
` +Sr
4Ih'
r.'1 LIL• +n
- �•Fr +t rllf>nff
l I iFI
IC452
<n r<
`^ilgFS C _" I'!f
1110) / ^l
1'!4$3
4ell
F•Arfn, •1, Sf
II /1> /v3
I1G'4
+a VAI. n'I:Y q'YI[M
11/07/13
I1455
4V.•3
"n
`I Le VAt�1 I!'•IV ^F FS'.
i
11 /O ? /9i
11454
X41
a -r.Crr rnYAV
1]45]
c ^.,i
1.11" roRY SI['I 5 ClnPlr
11117/93
Ic
/0 > /R3
1'1650
511.1
In9
Il /P > /•Il
Ig460
5112
Ie9rncgr Jr51°
11 /n7 /a3
Iv461
5114
I 1 w C
1 ^552
5715
INTL f.ITV NG4T ASSOC
II /J2/23
IV4Al
6 1
J' .S`Y 1 ^ITFR•IAT }'1•;il ".r
11117/91
1^456
AI1I
J"IIK'_. ?• ^AVI^
11/02/91
1.415
`Pi
%"4" 1'1 f':T
11 /n• /P]
641 3
*1•If L 11
11 /v /PS
I1467
6411
vr'r1S[": flrg3
11/01/93
19469
LLtS
Rn2VV1EBr Or,-i`
II/1J/93
6651
[1115`, J °pn'
ll / ^' /fl3
11,10
L 1;111 ;CIL L 1'INl'Invn
Il /^.? / ^l
In4T1
6111
-S A'Ir[^q "' -If ^'1
1l /OJ /AI
11442
310
'GUFIif
t l , .AI I
11/07/ "1
1 ^4 ]3
LOLv
wr c':. MI, 94? ^Ai3
11 /OJ /43
11/02/83
DISCOUNT
J
1
l
I
2,
1,
5,
T1
S,
t,
NET
17 00-
560.0 ¢
IS.On-
72 110 -
SO 00-
>Affi
Ii
' RR6T r.ITY O1CIIII CIICA4"Nr.A
1 VA0.R E N O P P 4 4 M 1'
jna i5 i•1ir inn I P,,, .i,4.... P i1v it
P 1 1416 7)40 NFA ^r'., `III <
477 7191 Nf T71P1'LA INr
19478 7410 MIN FIN nrrlPUt ASV'C
19479 7445 1In1 IMC
P 1 ^410 7515 NA TL n00.0 1rAS1 "'. IYSTITV
IA481 IL15 PACIFI`. TnVP'Il1P S1I11IV
i"513 i670 Per Trlr ^irK 6 COWL r
R 1^444 7595 reLYrn 'PIK
11445 ]TI Peen ATLI
1'1496 7770 PATTi'r SALES roar
4 19497 771 A P^^
19 418 ii94 0179^!011 TRIlUTni^r•m
1^490 1704 VPPPLAP C ^° ^911"'.
4 11491 77`•0 PPCCI11In "1 IV9 ^All IC SYS
1949] 7099 FSG -TICr 1951 TG
WARRANT Ot"1NC❑ `1
oni°
IF r4f IV
OD/Ill
19491 7
791? P
PPINTIPG SEPV /RFC 4r.MT 1
1: /J1 /Pi
19494 '
'I P
PANC11n Pa^
19495 A
All, 1
11.101. ICAI CLINIC I
II/9]11`
19496 8
8-175 R
RAPIn DATA 1P( 1
11 /0)/n'
Ic4nT A
AIRI P
Pr LFFlT` IT •11 I
II /n] /01
1149. 9
999c R
Rcllrn IAyrl "f:4r °T, A 11 1
11/07191 .
In499 1
1159 1
11111 CAP"PA CINTFP I
I1/121A'
1 l'IIn I I
IF ,, �
� " ^ainur /, pr4Nk! I
II /02 18'
I9wl .
.175 u
uGGFIL. N1 RI I
I1 /O2 /n'
I9507 P
P'03 S
S C 5 9" f
19593 `
`448 A
AN '1rn rt <•In 4,'Y VIV I
IVtP /9'.
P 1
uIt' S
SAN nIf'i I "TAP' n
I1 /n2fA3
')ISCIIIINT MET
540
1.660
I?
6
1
5,
I
I
2
7
w
PAGFO 2 I •
I•
I V
i
r
I.
I
I
I
I .
�y
1, J
I
I
1' r
f V
i
I Y
1
•
fMl' GTV
AYI CUCAt ;A
VI RAAWr
Tf� CC ". LllIA
S YARlk 1
VE
I E N O 9 A F
A Al M
y
0\TE
RFFFRFIAC
'1QS59
917a
YF'S, UIIISA
11/Ol)P3
19550
YOD
FI ^IT, 1-111F
11 /'V /91
19151
9911
,IT A'S, JOL IF
1: /0• /A)
19c
9.11
j
ill
'll`l X'l,Jrll ^l
11/02/91
1egA
W W
11PAL T ^T +V
II /0: /13
G
�Al
IL 1021 IS
01 SCOM
FIMSL TOTALS
MFT
;5.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
70.00
39.00
109,905.50
'RUGE ?'�
CLAIM FOP. D.gMAGE OR INJURY Ck
1. Claims For death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed ncl 44 ;IV c 1
100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
= ADMINISTRnTION
Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than I yea after t ftTrylo
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). Qe' 0-0 U -�^^ -� AN tt��WW IV
n,e CUtrwuy 7fa191�In11�111= 1$141518 I� .
TO: CITY OF 1�' av\e�ka
!1
.iaco6s `/ 46- 67/S
Name of-Claimant Address Zip Phone Pge
a.5 o. S Fts t Aoz Ao1 C llelci -4 , CA 41784
/\ddress to which Claimant wishes tices9nt.
WHEN did damage or injury occur ?g,o"r, I (cow I cj $ aj
WHERE did damage or injury occur? Nre ; %�cu(L `nit s- grro u� Y�nvselw �er y.•.eha4.
HOW and under what`` circumstances did damage or injury occur? Clclswsaslt sans Al 1%)
�sy n.s 1-r he'hl Vc.,1 �, sv< �� e, ov.sue\ as. c� �s•, ev. �o ynn�<�v.�J+ 1��T
e_ Au%A. 11ses-c.(au sTtusok Z(ss. wVAIQ%.
WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(Include names of employees, if known)
nnlrlu � *IlL n��t,�S MP n( eQNae_ ,�i I h x110.2 ncLL ate. \a'a,N�ylNa,
U�� Lt
Qvu -s"vq r`cpa�Z da -^sa. T. %xt`in-Le t 19 T2 Valero.
WHAT sum Ylo �su <!loim?- Include tk)b estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known
at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates or bills, if possible) W4s 4 Aotcc� Loss
$ 1600,
Total Amount Claimed: E -779,
NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Donors and Hospitals:
r \
L . .A
_ /O — /4- T n
'E - -f . .1 C „-
CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY
IBE0RIVE0
1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be fiQipynoflWICHOAUCAMOHGA
100 days after tha occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). ADnM.INISS(T�RATIIOO�N
Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later then 1 year after MfljoPcUrlLtlftL•
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). CC,1 (ICU.( iLt.u'^ -e-'v ?I����1� PO
TO: CITY OF ka, o)c Cucar „On�u,
c ,� _LS p I •” 1.1' +;ul Trr, .,s.roccJ �'.t. 91130 �1� -6' ) F.-1 r�%8
Name of Claimant Address Zip Phone Age
s' l iI)Ec (.;6 dy')J7`Cr
Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
WHEN did damage or injury occur? /C }, IC7 t lclra3 r'7 I'D
WHERE did damage or injury occur? (�C�.},��]C \ICi " C. ,tJ . c{ FC04lvli.
HOW and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? —1 cc.\: rW nori -h 0N
s
r 1 ,l,cclrl r4hue cc,s u�,on.l in - V IL',VA CRT rti- \, e-t�
t
lc.cc� 1'rl „ rrc,d Y�l. r %rl � 4R'\c1 OLLi _
WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(Include names of employees, if known)
r. ,' � d nS a ) c,r4 �C` E c=JO ME•�Y1, p r. �- Os.l�(�
�..11. _1 1 I
hUUC `'.)fl rl }I�Ffe cZ` 1.1C,..0 OOU.\Cf, 1 L \f1UE.
r
WHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known
at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates or bills, if possible)
Q r. n %c\ I �•.�i \_ ���1,u_1 C'One \', Sr�(e.0
be 1 V*4i,
Total Amount Claimed: j fnn C?,
NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Dortors and Hospitals:
�Y,c ti T c ' lJurf ; )
A TE aimant
1
• 2
3
4
5
6'.
7�
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,4
26
27
cc: f iai,�
BRIAN M. BROWN, ESQ.
MURTAUGH, HATCHER S MILLER
400 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 423
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 953 -2199 d is
Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ONGA
ECONOLITE CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION
OCT 2413
AN Pie
7i8j9^11411431`15166
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOAN M. MASON, WILLIAM F.
VON HUBEN, and CAROL JEAN VON HUBEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FREDERICK DOCKS, etc., et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: OCV 30621
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
(Government Code
Section 910)
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
You are hereby notified that ECONOLITE CORPORATION,
whose address is 3360 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California
92806, claims damages from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for
contribution and indemnity, computed as of the date of the
presentation of this claim in the amount of one million dollars.
This claim is based upon an accident that occurred on
July 11, L982, at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and
Fourth Streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga wherein
decedents William and Beatrice Von Huben were killed after a
collision occurred between their vehicle and a vehicle driven
by Frederick Docks.
t to
this
all times pettine ntcoiled and
at co es ib d
It ig alleged
that o Cucamon9 at
."e t t a abo�e_dt lay ge ed
2 action, ed Pt to locatettY dcons istedf acted a the of It eis
maintain which pcoP which obst. tetsection• our e in 3 and
5 ntets stot dit cbi 9dthe e�descfl des ct ion c° stituv ig a dangeY
dYi�ets aPPYoa that said int reason of the the intersection
6 they alleged c ptoPettY by n addition, its tYaftic
78 tcondition of Pubfeten°ed above to the Yeason ton l a ct'dityOn
9 ObgttuCti dangeY OUs conditlsn we {e non _0 eYa`ldent and of wve ch
10 was it, s, signs and del, es, Cne ,,) ecd actual C°nsttUcti
11 sign had occuf {O Fa each Ot them, of ctioe measnYe defend in
ant
12 the defend amts, an to to take to
named as a de SupeYiot
13 to but nad f otation has Retnatdino Co Of William
14 notice, ite CoYP he San heirs
5 Econol on tile with t bfouglot by the t RConoiite
16 an action ,,V
pC`1 3p621 that detendan ful death of ,
Court, case Ruben alleging d to the "tong a plaintiffs
1� d Deattice Von ,,,se Ot contribute s alleged in th l Seek damages
IB an 19 rot POtatfo a CReatt ice von ,,,ben
thete tote l of 1pattial the
20 WilliaminC Ec.nolite CorpotamonV tot to le0 Obtained by
21 comPiat of Ran °a Y ,udgment °r se
i °O gent to Brian
Ao City
M25 tindemnific atia }nStt,,000jite CoRh °S aClaim $no 0o Re ill Tustin
2d plaintitpll 9notices regac d� 9chet 6 Millets 4 •
26 c/o MuY tough,
Brown.
26 M -
2,6
1
2
3
4
,5
6
7
A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'2
24
::5
2fi
27
Avenue, Suite 423, Santa
Ana, California 92T,5. 14 999.
Dated: October 12, 1983
i
MURTAUGH,_tATCHER 6 MILLE
,.Liza-
MAN W. HRflWN,
_
! Attorn`E�j foc Defendant,
�. -ECONOLITE CORPORATION
.4 a.
. CLAIM AGAINST: 1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3) CITY OF RANCHO CUC d N A
TVi -IVs9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
ADMINISTRATION
NAME OF CLAIi•LANT: STEVEN DALE BROCFM_AN OCT 24 IM
ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: Steven Dale Brockman AM
18909 E. Honore 78iIh %U 11AaI41$IB
Rowland 9eights, California 991748 1
ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEYS: Thompson S Colegate
3737 Main Street, Suite 600
P.O. Box 1299
Riverside, California 92502
WARNING:
No mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the
above - stated address of the claimant. All correspondence is to
be directed to claimant's attorneys, the law firm of Thompson
6 Colegate, Post Office Box 1299, 3737 `main Street, Suite 600,
Riverside, California, 92502.
• DATE OF OCCURRENCE: October 3, 1983.
LOCA71ON: Etiwanda Avenue at approximately 8 /10 mile north of
23rd Street in or near the city limits of Rancho
Cucamonga, within the County of San Bernardino,
State of California.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM AND DAAGES:
This claim for presentation is made on the basis of the underlying
lawsuit of Anthony Louis Martinez vs. Steven Dale Brockman; County
of San Bernardino, et al., filed in the County of San Bernardino
West District Superior Court, case number OCV 30186.
The underlvinc lawsuit is as a result of an automobile accident
which occurred on or about September 25, 1982, which resulted in
a comolaint for personal injuries against both this defendant/
clai ^ant filed on March 8, 1983.
On or about July 19, 1983, plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Thomas P.
Beck, located at 45 S. Hudson Avenue, Pasadena, California, 91101,
by alternate method of service mailed a summons and complaint to
our client defendant /claimant, Mr. Brockman. Notice and Acknow-
ledrrent of Receipt for same was no_ -icned, Therefore, service
•
Of that com ?laint was not effective until the answer by this
defe. ^.;;ant / claimant was in fact filed with the San Bernardino
County Superior Court, test District, in Ontario, California,
on October 3, 1983.
The basis of our claim at this time is for complete and total
Claim Against: 1) State of California
2) County of San Bernardino
3) City of Rancho Cucamonga
Claimant: Steven Dale Brockman •
Page 2
indemnity, expressed and implied, and for declaratory relief as
to the apportionment of damages between Steven Dale Brockman
and these governmental entities.
On information and belief, it is believed that the State of
California, County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga all have joint control and responsibility for the
maintenance, design, construction and control over the said
roadway at the place described herein.
The basis of the claim at this time is that the governmental
entities, who have control, have a legal obligation to prevent
a dangerous condition of a public roadway, which is on the
basis of failure to place the proper traffice warnings relative
to a dangerous and severe dip in the roadway, failure to properly
construct the roadway pursuant to design and plan, that the
original design and plans were negligently drafted and carried
out all within the knowledge of the governmental entities, and
that the failure to correct the dangerous condition resulted in
damages to the plaintiff, Anthony Louis Martinez.
It also alleced there was a failure to maintain the roadway and •
to keep it in a state of repair so as to prevent a dangerous
condition from arising.
The actual names of the public employees, who designed, constructed
or in any manner were involved in the maintenance of said roadway,
are unknown to this defendant /claimant at this time.
The amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff are speculative
at this time. Therefore, on the basis of this claim for indemnity
and declaratory relief, no specific sum of money demanded by
plaintiff is known to this claimant at this time. The plaintiff
is claiming physical injuries, making claims for medical and
dental expenses, loss of earnings, costs of suit and general
damages, for which this defendant /claimant will ask indemnity
as to to total or apportioned amount by virtue of the plaintiff's
complaint is sought against this claimant.
To more fully acquaint the governmental entities with the accident
scene, a copy of the traffic report is attached.
DATDD: October 21, 1983 THOMPSON
Attorneys for Defendant/
Claimant, STEVEN DALE BR
l0
0
October 28, 1983
va a a yr awv.vuv .. ..�.........•.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Finance Olrect�
SUBJECT: Adoption of Spending Limitation for 1983-84
Each year municipalities must adopt a spending limitation with
regards to proceeds from taxes. The limitation is built around
population growth, and the consumer price index or the income
per individua! whichever is lower.
Attached is a copy of the calculations for 1983 -84, and the
resolution adopting said limitation.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, set the spending limitation
for 1983-84 at $9,583,742.
u
LA
TIM
SPENDING LIMITATION CALCULATION •
1983 - 1984
Spending Limitation for 1982-83
$9.180,093
Factors for determining 1983-84 spending limitation
% Population - 2.00
% C.P.I. - 2.35
Ratio of Change - 1.0200 x 1.0235 -
1.04397%
Convert to a percentate - (1.04397 x 100) - 100 -
4.397%
Spending limitation claculation for 1983-84
Spending limitation for 1982-83 *
$9.180,093
Ratio % Population to % C.P.I. -
4.397%
$9,180,093 x 104,397% - $9,583,742
•
Spending limitation for 1983 -84 -
$9,583,742
C
1la
• RESOLUTION N0..7�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTABILISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE %1118 OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION.
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State of California provides
that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State
and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations limit
of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in
the cost of living and population except as otherwise provided in said
article %IIIB; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said article %IIIB of the Constitution of
the State of California, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
deems it to be in the best interests of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to
establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983 -1984.
WHEREAS, The Finance Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has determined that said appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-
1984 be established in the amount of $9,583,742.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga that an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1983-
1984 pursuant to Article %IIIB of the Constitution of the State of Calif-
ornia be established in the amount of $9,583,742, and the same is hereby
established.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriations limit herein
established may be chanced as deemed necessary by resolution of the
City Council.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of
, 1983.
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
/A
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
0
•
0
III nn n ♦ Wrvn rT Tr. a MrnU!` a
STAFF REPORT
O�i A
DATE: November 2, 19G
TO: City Council and City Manager 19=7
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71)
The Sapphire Street Sidewalk Improvement Project has been completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Council approve
the acceptance of the project, authorize the final payment and direct the City
Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release
performance surety and retention.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council accept as complete the Sapphire Street Sidewalk
Improvements and pass the attached resolution authorizing the City Engineer to
file the Notice of Completion and release performance surety in the amount of
$30,902.29 and retention in the amount of 53,147.31.
Res' ctfully submitted,
V�
LSH: :jaa
Attachments
• RESOLUTION NO. U- 02 -OICR „ " 1-1� it
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71) AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLEf10N FOR THE
WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Sapphire Street
Sidewalk Improvements (06- 25 -71) have been completed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying
the work complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and
the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with
the County Recorder of San Bernardino County.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
• NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City erk
j as
11
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
n
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the
hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate
Is:
SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71)
2, The full name add address of the undersigned owner is: QTY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 9320 -C Base Line Road, P. 0. Box 807. Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730.
3.0, the Odd day of November, 1983, there was completed on the •
hereinafter described real property the worx of improvement set forth in the
contract documents for:
SAPPHIRE STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (06- 25 -71)
4,The ti m of the original contractor for the work of
improvement as a whole was:
TRI CITY CONSTRUCTION INC,
S.The real property referred to herein is situated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as
follows:
East side of Sapphire Street from Banyan Street
to South of Videar Avenue
CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a
municipal corporation, Owner
e - - -- L o—T y�B- Hu 5, 7 Ity n9•noer
I it
•
u
I'll / " ! ♦ 11111A 1 fly A 1./ 111 I
STAFF REPORT�`v
9
z' h
F � (-
DATE: November 2, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: John Martin, .assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Amending Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 submitted by U S A
Properties located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Feron
Blvd.
Tract Map No. 12090 was previously approved on May 18, 1983 by City Council
and presently is under construction.
The developer has found that none of the smaller units are being sold and has
requested permission to eliminate the smaller building plan thereby changing
the lot lines of seven lots. This requires an amended map now submitted for
approval.
The Planning Commission approved this request at their meeting of October 26,
1983.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Engineer to sign the
Amended Map for Final Tract Map No. 12090 on behalf of the City.
Respectfully submiteed,
Attachments
'-1
%114661
CITY OF RANCI III CUCA.MON'GA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Ui+ii�"• VICINITY AIAP I�
L-
A
N
paF,.
•
vdah
LO'T AA)JLkrzTMe,.QTS
CITY 01; R ANCI 10 CUCAN IONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
page
ILI
I
.,,4 011
L
r,-. r
=4
LO'T AA)JLkrzTMe,.QTS
CITY 01; R ANCI 10 CUCAN IONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
page
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -02CR
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONr,A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP
OF TRACT NO. 12090
WHEREAS, the Amended Map of Tract No. 12090 consisting of 128 lots,
submitted by U S A Properties, Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of
Archibald Avenue and Feron Blvd, has been submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the
requirements of Ordinance No, 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, all conditions and requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the final Map of said Tract remain in full force and affect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. That said Amended Map be and the same is approved
and the City Engineer is authorized to execute same
on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1985.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. 'Aasserman, City Clerk
jaa
E
on Mi a s, Mayor
0
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALARY
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -182
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby amends Resolution
No. 83 -182 as follows:
02XX Administrative
0202 Administrative Analyst.
0204 Assistant to the City Mgr*
0205 Assistart City Manager*
0259 City Manager"
306 1,593 336 1,850 346 1,945
371 2,203 401 2,559 431 2,971
406 2,623 436 3,047 466 3,538
-- - -E 5.417. Flat Amount - - --
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
•
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
h i�l
r
n.mv nn n � wrn vn nnn w ee nwin n
STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1983
10: City Council
FROM: Robert A. Rizzo
Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Modification of City Manager's Life
Insurance Policy as Provided in Employee ASreement
Per City Council's request, the City Manager's life insurance
pntiry coverage will be increased to $125,000 as part of his
fringe benefit package.
RAR.:mk
V1
t ry,
1917
• ORDINANCE NO. 122 -A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AMENDING THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR SWIMMING POOL
FENCING
The City Council of L1,e City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: Section 15.12.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Minicipal 'ode
is amended to read as follows:
Section 15 12 110 Section 1107 added -- Swimming Pool Fencing. Chapter
11 of the Uniform Building Code is amended by adding Section 1107 to read as
follows:
Section 1107 SWIMM1ING POOL FENCING. Every person in possession of
land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, either as owner, purchaser under
contract, lessee, tenant, licensee, or otherwise, upon which is situated a
swimming pool, having a water depth exceeding 18 inches, shall, at all times,
maintain a fence or other structure completely surrounding such pool and
extending not less than five feet (5' -0 "), measured vertically, above any
•
walking surface, wall or other climbable structure, within two feet (2' -0 ") of
the exterior of the enclosure. Openings in such fence or structure, other
than those created by gates or doors, shall be of such size so that a sphere
exceeding, 4 inches in diameter will not pass between adjacent members.
Members of such pool enclosure shall not be arranged so as to materially
facilitiate climbing or scaling by small children.
Gates or door openings through such enclosure shall be equipped with
self- closir;g and self - latching devices designed to keep, and capable of
keeping„ such door or gate securely closed at all times when not in actual
use; however, the door of any dwelling occupied by human beings which forms
any part of the enclosure herein required need not be so equipped. Required
latching devices shall be located not less than four feet, six inches (4' -601)
above the ground. The pool enclosure shall be in place and approved by the
Building Official before water is placed in the pool.
EXCEPTIONS
1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to public,
swimming pools roFulated by State Building Standards adopted by
the State Building Standards Commission.
2. Any fencing, serving as an enclosure for a swimming pool,
lawfully in existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance,
and meeting, the requirements for fencing in effect at the time
of construction of the swimming pool, may be continued; however,
Is any replacement in whole or in part, shall comply with the
requirements set forth above.
r' h
L
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk •
shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The
Daily Retort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of
Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983•
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
•
•
•
I
- ..... ... ..,- ......,.. .. �..�,..,..,..,.. s vl
MEMORANDUM ° ` ?,
❑ate: October 28, 1993
F- C�
To: City Council and City Manager _
1977
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
subject: Council Agenda Item 4 -B, November 2, 1983
Environmental Findings and Site Plan Review for Heritage Park
rounc 1 is well familiar with the Heritage Park project:
• 40 acre, square in configuration (34.6 acres park, balance in flood
control area);
• Located southwest corner of Hillside and Beryl;
• First park site incrementally purchased by City at an average cost of
$9,007, + /- per acre.
You have before you tonight two items: first, making environmental findings
in relation to the project; and, second, taking action on the site plan
it. elf.
You have viewed the site plan several times previously and will have another
presentation at your November 2 meeting. we have provided as an addendum to
ynnr aponda nick the design development report, which contains site plan cross
—tions, illu,,trative construction elevations, and related narrative.
We view ti— ni'e plan an werkahle, well halaneed and strongly supported by the
conmum ty. There should be no problem in this area.
on the ether issue, environmental, there may be. some discussion.
Ono resident living on Hillside wishes the site to remain as is or simply be
turfed. He stirrnd his neighbors up with 'horror stories' of what was going
to go in and the nenative impact that would result on their property values.
wh.•n we, heard of thin, we went door -to -door to each adjacent property owner
ale ", in-ludinq the protester, and invited them to a meeting in the
par, to ,iineon.•, •heir noncerns.
pnttnm line is this: the sinnle protestinq resident did not come to the
meetirrj hnt alpost all of his neighbors did, liked what they saw, and
n zF r,• <se., en t!.nain .m for the projept's success. (Members of PAC who were
pre;enr, Henry, P1t.t5ai, and Vallanre, well attest to this fact.)
continued ...
11 �1
page 2
memo
re; Her •
re: Heritage Park
The long dissident, however, is an attorney and has threatened to sue us on
environmental grounds. we do not believe he has any basis for success and
believe he is just 'sounding off' in frustration to what he perceives as an
unwelcomed chance. And that is his right. If he sues...sc be it.
In. the attached environmental documents, Parts I and II, we have 'bent over
backwards' to be fair and objective. For instance, many of the questions that
could have been conceivable and technically answered 'no', were answered 'yes'
just to put a clarifying narrative in the record. This will become self
evident as you examine the attachment.
Please review the Initial Study Parts I and II as this will 'oe the focus of
the lone protester ... if indeed he intends to pursue the issue.
This, however, will be a very positive item. Look for many enthusiastic
people to be present to support your findings.
Staff Peacmr^e nda Lion:
1. Find that the Heritage Park project will not have a significant
impact on the environment, and issue a Negative Declaration so
stating; and,
2. Find that the Heritnne Park Site Plan as developed by the Heritage •
Park Citizens Design Task Force, and reviewed by the Park Advisory
Ccnnittee and City Planning Commission, be approved as presented.
If I can provide further information, please advise.
PH /mw
attachments: Initial Study, Parts I and II
PAC Minutes 7/21/83 (excerpt)
Planning Commission Minutes 8/26/83 (excerpt)
Heritage Park DDR (under separate cover?
11eritane Park Task Force Roster
•
f� 6
0
- - -- -,.,,,
AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OP CALIFORNIA
SMY OF SAY BERNARDINO
1, _ Maurine. Pa_0an _. , do herebyeertify that I
am the Legal Advertising clerk of THE DAILY REPORT. a daily
newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario,
County and Slate aforesaid and that the attached advertisement
Of .___.._— EnvirunmenIaI As.sessm.ent.Notice___ ._...
._____.... for.. the- City .of_RaR4ho_ Cucamonga___,___
was published in said newspaper . __.One .f 11. time - -.. . __ _ .
to wit: October 21, 1993
1 certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trop, and
correct.
Dated at Ontario, California this _. .._ ._ 21s t .. .,_ day of
G�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report
should be supplied by the applicaiiL giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Heritage Park •
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, _
P.O. BOX 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91750, Attn: Community Services
Department Director
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rill Holley Director Conmiality Services
Department, (714) 989 -1851
LOCATION OF PROJECT (S'T'REET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Si„ thx <t ce ricT of II' l l�idc and 81'1 R' h C ,mnn P.•1. ��
A ;:v war's Parcel No. 201- 151 -08
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: xoN1,
•
I -1
h'-7
• PRC:;ECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF
:A 40« acre community recreation facili
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PiRO:OSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project area is 40+ acres in Bross s
DESCRIBE TILE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORM -NTION OTOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
,711)!ALS, ANY
CULTURAL, RIL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
01' SLRaOUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXIS'i ING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
The setting; is a 40 acre snuare of land slonina an oversee of 8' north n
Dire is current n' rr1- sectea or in Improeeo goon control stru
and tl•,c remnants of an abandoned grape vineyard.
• the n:�i i•;o vrectatlm, ii linited to the ect ieme north west cpmcr of the
Ln ^,:et rene ral l> described as the Rancho Kish secrion
Fill nl rt yes surrounding the Parcel as designated in the General Plan as
rvs iJcn un1, with nn ly the north and west sides developed at this tiael
'There is no known historical significance to the nronerly.
Is the project part of a larger project, one o`, a series
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
NO,
49
I -2
ng
with
ack
WILL THIS PROJECT: •
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
none of 1"
_ X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many ?calire - or more
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above: see attached
•
Im PORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page,
____________ ____ N/A ----------------------------------- --------
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand that add. itior..'il
information may be required to be ubmitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Devcl opment , view Committee.
I
Date; _Signature /^ w
Tit,' V_oJb.
I -3 n^
C fi
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to acccr..modate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Soecific Location of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOT:L
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin construction:
Earliest date of
Mc-aA -
an.i ; of Tentative
S. Beciroo -s Price Range
49 I -4
T
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Initial Study, Part I
Page I -3: Explanation of 'YES' Answers
Will this project:
Q. 1. Create a substantial change is ground contours?
A. 2. 1'cs, however the change will not be adverse or detrimental. The changes
will be encountered in creating a more level playing surface for multi-
use athletic fields and equestrian activities than is now afforded by
the 8 °° average slope. It is not anticipated that soil will be imported
or exported, but will be balanced on site.
Q. 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration?
A. 2, The noise level will change but will not be adverse or detrimental.
Currently, the noise level from the grape vineyard is very low, Any
introduction of noise, therefore, results in a change. The new sound
level will be consistant with other community parks within residential
areas, and that has not proved to be negative in nature.
Q. 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services?
•
A. 3. Similar to the situation described above, where no service now exists,
nny charge is substantial. Maintenance services will provide the bulk
of new services to the site, with some increase in routine patrol by
law enforcement officials. There will be an increase in water useage
in watering the plant material to be introduced. .
•
CITY OF RA:;CHO COCA:IOAGA
PART II - INITIAL
EMCIRON IE ;ITAL CHECKLIST
APPLIC ;d:TO City of Rancho Cucamonga
LOG NUMBER: ,
PEO.; i:CT: Ilc:itage Parl,
PROJCC:' LO(ATIO':: Southtaest comer, Hillside and Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga
(:i::p:anation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
In
YES `4:'.' ?•' SO
1. soil_ . and Goololv. Will the proposal have
�i�,ni: icon[ results in:
.�. l'n_s table ground condieinna or in changes in
ge, +logic relationships?.
b. Di.nupc ions, displacements, compaction or
hurial of the soil?
A u _
C, Chnngc in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
A _
d, The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
X
c. Any potential incroase in wind or water
ern: ;ion of soils, affecting either on or off
Fite conditonry?
„ Chem, ;es in erosion siltation, or deposition?
l
r. l:.gmsuro of people or property to geologic
ba+mrds such av ear [hqunkus, landslides, mud-
'
slidos, ground failure, or sinilar hamrds?
h. An inc renso In the rate of extraction and /or
•ree of any mineral resource ^.
Ilvd Jill the proposal have significant
resu its in
In
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels?
b, Chan „'s in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the mate and amount of surface water
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
body of water?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity?
h, The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air ouality. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources?
Stntionary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or
interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature?
4. Rio to
Flora, Will the proposal have significant results
in:
;n. Charge in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered ,species of plants?
Yes MAYBE No
I •
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X _
- - Y
u
•
Vag,
YES _RAYRE
NO
Introduction of new or disruptive species of
•
C.
plants into an area? --
X
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production? --
X
—
Faun,. 8f11 the proposal have significant results
i r,:
a. Chane,e in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
R
of anv species of anislals? .-- --
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
X
or endangered species of animals? --
—
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
an finals into an area, or result in a barrier
X
to tl,c migration or movement of animals? ___
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
—
5, Po`ulnti on. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
•
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
rate of
bution, density, diversity, or growth
=
the human population of an area? -,---
b. 17 (Il the proposal affect existing housing, or
creata a demand for additional hnusir,g? _—
=
(. $aria- iie „nomic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Chnnrc in local or regional socio- economic
characteristics, including economic or
co=orcial diversity, tax rate, and property
IL
values? -- --
b. will project costs be equitably distributed
ar..ong project bunefici cries, i.e., buyers, n a
tax payers or project users?
—
7. 1,,j l__e . ptnnnin; rune iderat ions. Wtil the
have Signlf CL ct re,—Jts in?
prnpon"I
;1. A substantial alteration of tji, present or
x
plInn"d land axe of kin area?
h. A conflict with any des irnat ions, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
X
en',itios'. --- --
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non - consumptive
Y
recreational opportunities? -----
—
Page 5
YES
MAYEF. NO
S. Transnortation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
c. ^eneration of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
X
b. Effects on existink streets, or demand for
new street construction?
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion systems?
X
C. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and /or goods?
X
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic?
X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
•
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and /or historical resuuices?
X
10, Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors, Will the
proposal have significant results in;
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
R
C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident?
- X
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people to such
organisms?
X
e. rncre.ase in existing noise levels? X
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels?
X
g. The creation of objectionable odors?
X
•
h. An increase iu light or glare? X
w
Page i
YES ,MAYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
•
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
A
C. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
X
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
a. Electric power?
X
b. Natural or packaged gas?
X
C. Communications systems?
X
d, Water supply?
X
C. Wastewater facilities?
A
•
f. Flood control structures?
X
g. Solid waste facilities?
_ X
b. Fire protection?
X
i. Police protection?
X
j. Schools?
X
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
X
m. Othor governmental services?
X-
13, Rn -avv and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
havo Significant results in:
:1. USe Of SUb!itAuLial Or excessive fuel or energy?
b, Sub.:tantIal incronse in demand upon existing
sources of l`nl'rpy?
X
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of cnery,y?
Y X
d. An inrroaso or perpetuation of the consumption
of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy are available?
X
7`�
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
C. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or •
scarce natural resource? _ X
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? X_
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future). _ X
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an •
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future projects). X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
II. DISCCSSI07: OF ENVIRMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to
the above questions plus -a discussion of proposed mitigation measures).
0
n
III. DETERMINATION
• On the basis of this initial evaluation: _
I find the proposed project COIMD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECUPUTION will be prepared.
E
j
I 1
U
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
L.J in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DCCLIRATION WILL RE PREPARED.
�I I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
u envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
Data
1��
Signature
Title
Page 7
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Initial Study, part II
1: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers
1. b. In constructing the park the entire surface area will be graded, smoothed, and
cut and filled to accommodate to features of an approved site plan. This is
disruptive but not detrimental or adverse to the environment.
1. c. Same as 1.b.
1. f. Currently runoff from the site travels off site onto adjacent properties to the
south . sometimes precipitating expressed concern by those owners. The
proposed project will change the runoff pattern into a managed collection and
harmless disposal. This is a change but one which is not detrimental or adverse
to the enrironment.
2. b. Same ns I.f.
0. a. Currcrtly there is, on a portion of the site, abandoned grape vineyards. These
will be removed.
There are groupings of native plant material and trees in the vicinity of the
Rancho Wash. Much of this will be retained or replaced with like material to
serve as a base for the park's 'nature area'.
•
There will be grasses, groundcovers, varieties of trees and shrubs, not now
on the site which will be introduced as desired elements of a properly appointed •
municipal park.
The above items represent change, however, they are neither detrimental or
adverse to the environment.
10. e. Currently the majority of the site is an area comprised of vineyards, open brush
and flood control improvements. These features generate little or no noise.
Therefore, the introduction of any activity which generates any level of sound
can be described as an 'increase'.
Ilowever, the new sound level will be consistent with those of other municipal
parks and generally less than an elementary school site during recess /play
periods. Roth of these uses, parks and schools, are an accepted and desired
part of the fabric of residential areas.
Whil^ it i< n change, it will be neither detrimental or adverse to the environment.
lhi:: is one area of the pro iect that will provide a significant change to the
existing site ... possible activity lighting.
possible .tdverse impacts from activity lighting at the project, will be mitigated
in several ways:
Thru.igh grading and depressing the equestrian activity center below the level
fall ut the grade, thereby reducing light level elevation abo•.e fall of grad
continued ...
•
it
L
page 2
Initial Study, part II
City of Rancho Cucamonga
I: Environmental Impacts, Explanation of 'YES' Answers
2. Shielding and directing light to avoid spillage; and
3. Centel of use.
While light will not directly spill onto surrounding residential properties,
there will likely be a glow or a glare that will have an impact on night views
of the valley from homes that-overlook the park. This cannot be avoided if
activity lighting is a part of the project.
On balance, it is believed th— — sitive benefit accrued from this feature
outweigh possible negatives from glare, therefore, is acceptable.
D
peak 3
PAC rv3Utf9
7/21/83 - revu let xet: nv
he+GhhOr+na [ eidfnt, d.Ck Adams, Molly Mitchell, Sharon Adams,
Sap sage tce and other.a free the audience all Made pos, ei ve
Comment, remit L,n4 the park design.
Committee members dlacvaasd the park design. Committee members
asked staff if the Task force a always involved with the plan.
Staff explained that. the Task Force v a. ea Wnaible [Or the
original site plan, technical support was done by staff and
R.S.i., and the oriq,rml Site Plan has remained the use.
COam,ttee members discussed the safety necessary for play
apparatus in the Playarcund a , suggested plant materials and
regvmtti that the leonine trail•te widened to 6 test.
Macon: Mov.d ny PatAeea, a t nded by valiance, that adoption TI115 SECTION AMENDED
-
loft, aI S ite plan for Heritage Park be recvmrended to
City Coup-al, vi N the following Prevision.:
1. That the Park Advi.o[y C r."ttee be kept i ' volved with
deeagn dev.lopreat through the working drawings of the site
doe , , and
]. The jogginq trail width be increased to 5 feet: and
8. That particular attention be paid to the safety of all
Playground apps atu s.
Motion carried i -n. (Absent: Allen)
Chairman "arty and Comm tree ...hers expressed their
apFr ^c +a e, en to P . . r•nt,on system,. Inc., for the excellent
•
design plan for "entaq^ Park.
Che,lron Harry Cai1M for a ranee, at 8:35 P...
Meet+nn r eC nod at 0:19 p.m. with the fellovinn members
p[ee^nt: Merry, Pitaa,+ and Riggs. Absent: All.n and
V.11ance.
Committee menher% dl,u:.aed the ..view of the Park Clement of
N. r, rel Plan. ft was the c of the C ... itte, that
•after
this da,... anon he tabled until the Sap Cenber _,ran, at
which the youth Spnre, Council will be invited to comment O
Park a Marge,. Staff explained that the ,vision of the Park
glen.nt•of he Aral Plan 'ill take a rat .satin'. and
Additional r a cos (nember, of the Planning staff, ate.).
Staff further expla+n.d that a detimant such a a General Plan
•
offer n i,ty of law its guidelines. It will ad r
-,oc
niltema m nom, c, oils, board, and staff mail all
•r
Miry
'
Oba _ hn of anni n, d.c.c.,t nt
tone mlrn:, ndi ,la nrM mrh as . C nnral Plan.
Ccnnat V. 1.111•[ lillaa: gu..11pamd at.tt on th. status of the
L�
Community 1'ac,l,t,.a A-t. st.tf ra Mrt^d teat th- C,ty Council
ar uy I'm ,oname n^n..l:t, to our t —snit,
rkadang hw Act
Ad !porn ^Ant
Chaarnan limply ad inn 11..I the meeUM .t
bs {.[[fully �Wma fret ny:
Mary whl Mry
CrYeUpatY tin rv:.H In:,at tie nt
e'
•M...te. Intnd..l, add ropy of duly 10 memo rC: DOk /Ilk stage Park
L�1
0
•
A
v it I yr D.AINUnv t.ui.nmvivt,ri oCV` MQ1f,
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 1963
p, r
y' I:
To: PAC Members
Fron: Dill Holley, Director, Community Services Department 1B,]
Subject: Preliminary Design Development Report: Heritage Park
Find attached the above described document.
It would he helpful if you review it prior to Thursday's meeting.
P.Si will be prefacing their presentation to you with some verbal changes in
the document, these changes are:
1. Increasing the 79 parking spaces to 99 by adding 5 spaces per row;
2. Increasing the 10' equestrian trail width to 15' width;
3. Deleting resa —e o to tensiometers in the irrigation system;
4. Replacing woad fencing with City standard concrete fencing, such as
that which is in place at Rancho Nash and Hillside Road;
5. Pn_fy types of building materials in part: structures (restrooms,
snac:: bar and equestrian building).
The above changes were direct to RSi by staff based on citizen comments and
professionil ju3gement.
Please feel free to call out any concerns over and above those cited shove
that you have with the plan. If you wish changes, say so.
A last cor�ern, which will not be easily dealt with, is the bottom line
estinited cost of the project. RSi is more in touch than we are with current
pricing, so may well he correct. It does seem somewhat high however.
Lastly, w.• arnlogize for the lateness of delivery of this material.
D!I /ry
7ieaC/Px.�k �, �� 2 �cN.wr,
�' n
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT •
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, REMPEL
Chairman Stout advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning
Commission is appealable to the City Council within fourteen days of this date
should his attorney advise him not to enter into a lien agreement with the
City.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. USE DETERMINATION - BLANCO INVESTMENTS - A request to determine if a
mini- storage facility would be considered similar to other uses permitted
in the C -2 zone. Proposed project to be located on the southeast corner
of Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street.
Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report explaining that this review by the
Commission was not for approval of the project, but to gain a consensus of the
Planning Commission if this type of use could be considered in the C -2 zone.
Chairman Stout stated that this could be a permitted use, however, would
prefer to see it under the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit. •
There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that a mini - storage facility
could be considered a permitted use in the C -2 zone with a Conditional Use
Permit.
1 • R fe !
1:50 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened
w i • w R
J. HERITAGE PARK SITE PLAN REVIEW
Bill Holley, Community Services Director, presented the Heritage Park site
plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holley stated that the Parks Advisory
Commission provided extensive input into the site plan.
Peter Patassi addressed the Commission on behalf of the Parks Advisory
Commission expressing their support of the park plan.
Chairman Stout stated that the plan seemed to meet the needs of the community
very well.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1983 •
i�
• Commissioner Barker agreed that the plan considered all facets of the
community.
Tnere was a consensus of the Commission that approval of the site plan be
forwarded to the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Stout requested that the Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head
Bar and Restaurant facility in the Rancho Plaza be placed on suspension and
brought before the Planning Commission in thirty days for consideration of
modification or revocation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that this item be heard at a public hearing on September 28, 1983.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to adjourn to the
Foothills Community Plan meeting to be held on August 30, 1983.
8:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned
•
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 24, 1983
.. . AIL± .. .... ... ..
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE (Committee for the Design of Heritage Park) •
Pam Henry
9013 Caballero Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Christine Benoit
Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent
6020 Eastwood
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Rebecca Martin
8083 Surrey Lane
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Orrin Kiefer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
8810 Scrang Lane
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Sue Draper
6127 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Sharon Romero
8242 Rosebud Street
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
•
:dark Pfister
9002 Hillside Road
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91701
Sam Grasso
7838 Valle Vista Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
91730
Joe. White
P.O. Box 5
Etiwnndn, California
91739
Jahn Gill
c/o Alta Loma School
District
11.0. Box 370
Alta Lemn, Ca. 91701
Peter Pi Lassi
7417 Kinlock
Rnncho Cuc.:imanRa, Co.
91730
MI'lly Mitchell
901.H Camellia Ct.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 •
I
•
l J
/�TTV /11;T T A AI ITTTII liT i/� A liA Ai /�
STAFF REPORT�GInV
'r
C. Ij
1977
DATE: November 2, 1983
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
ABSTRACT: In the course of the last twelve months, the Planning
Division staff has been compiling and working on a new Development
Code and Development Districts Map to replace the Interim Zoning
Ordinance now in effect. The first public draft was completed this
summer and was distributed. The Planning Commission began
reviewing and conducting workshops in August and recently concluded
their review and recommendation on October 12, 1983. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval of the Draft Development Code
based upon the changes and recommendations which the Commission has
made to the document. Attached to this report is the Planning
Commission staff report of October 12, 1983 which summarizes the
majority of the Planning Commission work as well as transmits the
Planning Commission's recommendation for the adoption of the Code.
Tonight the Code is being presented to the Council for first
reading of the Ordinance as well as adoption of the attached
Resolution which authorizes the City Clerk to publish a quarter
page 5d in the newsoaper to legally advertise the hearing and
review of this document.
This report is intended to be a brief overview of the process and
the basis for the creation of the new code.
1 ,
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 2
•
11. REVIEW PROCESS: The Planning Commission conducted four workshops
beginning August 16, 1983, as well as two additional public
hearings at regular Planninq Commission meetings. The workshops
were established in order to allow public input from all persons
involved and desiring to have input on the content of the
Development Code. Representation from the Building Industry
Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Real Estate Board, and the
general public was provided at the workshops. Favorable comments,
as well as constructive suggestions were received at the workshops
and are reflected in the final Draft Development Code. Attached is
a letter from the Building Industry Association acknowledging its
support of the Code. We have received like comments from the Board
of Realty and Chamber of Commerce and expect to receive written
communication from the Chamber shortly.
At tonight's hearing, staff does not propose to go through a
detailed review and analysis of each of the chapters and sections
of the Code. We feel it would be more productive at this time to
review any specific questions and concerns the Council or public
may have and to address ourselves to those areas. The action
needed this evening is the adoption of the Resolution authorizing
the necessary legal publication, as well as first reading of the
Ordinance. If there are areas of concern or questions which are
not resolved at the first reading, we would anticipate addressing •
those issues and answering them at the second hearing on November
16, 1983.
In preparation of the final draft, staff found an area which will
require correction p,,inr to final print of the text. In the
Residential Chapter, the VL Residential District was inadvertently
included in the optional development standards. The VL Residential
District should not be included as it would not be consistent with
adopted Council Resolution No. 82 -81 which reserves the half -acre
area of the General Plan for individual half acre lots, not
clustering. Unless Council has any questions on this matter, staff
will remove it from the optional standards for the final printing
of the text.
III. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE: r
A. What was the goal and basis for its creation?
When staff first began plannng the Development Code format, we
assembled the many ordinances and policies which had been
previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City
Council. It became apparent that these ordinances had become
somewhat fragmented and difficult to view in a comprehensive
manner. Therefore, an overall goal for the Development Code was
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 3
to develop a comprehensive document that provides guidance to
all eevelopment- related issues with appropriate standards in
order to promote and assure the health, safety, and welfare of
all Rancho Cucamonga residents. Further, this goal was refined
into the following objectives:
1. Develop a clear, concise, and simple format for easy
interpretation and understanding by the general public.
2. Combine all like development requirements in one document
for easy access and informatlon gathering.
3. Coordinate and implement the existing General Plan goals,
objectives, and policies.
4. Coordinate development guidelines and standards with
existing and proposed specific plans and planned
communities.
5. Bring together and coordinate all previously adopted land
use policies and ordinances, update and provide other
needed sections.
• 6. Develop new energy conservation guidelines, performance
standards and design guidelines.
1. Whenever possible, simplify the planning and development
process without sacrificing the intent of the Genral Plan
for quality development.
6. How will it relate to other planning documents?
Over the last five years, the City has adopted four other land
use regulatory documents; the Industrial Specific Plan, the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Victoria Planned Community, and the
Terra Vista Planned Community. These documents contain land use
controls as well as developmwent and design guidelines and
standards for these specific areas. The area which these plans
cover encompasses approximately two-thirds of the City's land
mass, therefore leaving the area generally west of Haven and
north of the industrial area to be regulated mainly by the
City's Development Code.
In formulating the Development Code, much consideration was
given to the makeup of these other plans and how they would
relate to one another. A major step towards relating the
documents and standards to one another was the change of
traditional zoning districts, such as R -1, R -2, and R -3, to the
land use districts which are used throughout the planned
communities, specific plans, and the General Plan, which are VL,
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Development Code and Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 4
•
L, LM, etc. Other items, such as landscaping requirements,
design guidelines, animal regulations, and parking regulations,
were written to be consistent throughout the entire city area.
What is the Code's basic contents? In all, the Draft
Development Code contains ten chapters. The first three
chapters deal mainly with administration, permits, and review
process. Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal more specifically
with actual land use development standards and regulations. The
last chapter, Chapter 10, is an overlay district chapter which
is intended to be expanded as the need arises for special
overlay districts.
Each chapter is arranged in a similar fashion, particularly
those dealing with standards and regulations. In each case, the
land use regulations are located in the same section of each
chapter, followed by development criteria, performance
standards, and design guidelines. The style of each chapter has
been to combine standards into matrix form for easy access and
comprehension.
The Development Code has essentially evolved into a compilation
of the many ordinances and policies which have been adopted over •
the last couple of years.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has forwarded its
recommendation far the adoption of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Cade
and Development Districts Map. Tonight it is recommended that the City
Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to move ahead
with the legal publication and to conduct first reading of the attached
ordinance.
R 1peecc55fully'saomitted,
V
RicK Gomi*Y
City Planner
RG:MV:jr
Attachments: Letter from Building Industry Association
Commission Resolution No. 83 -123
Planning Commission Staff Report 10/12/83
City Council Resolution 11- 02 -03CR
City Council Ordinance
-,
0
•
C — CITY OF RANCHO CLT AMONGA
STAFF REPORT
v
DATE: October 12, 1983
T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DEVELOPMENT DI TRI MAP
ABSTRACT: This is the final public hearing before the Planning
ommission for review and comment on the proposed Development Code and
Development District Map. A Resolution for a final recommendation to
the City Council is being provided for action by the Planning
Commission.
BACKGROUND: Since August 16, 1983, the Planning Commission has
been conducting a number of public workshops for the specific
purpose of reviewing the Draft Development Code text and the
Development District Map. During these workshops the Building
Industry Association, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, has
provided input with regard to the text, graphics and map and are in
basic support of its general concepts and programs. The Commission
has modified the Code to best reflect the implementation of the
General Plan goals and policies and public input,
Tonight's meeting is intended to be a public hearing to review the
Commission's actions, as well as any final actions desired by the
Commission. The remainder of this report focuses upon the major
actions of the Planning Commission on a chapter -by- chapter basis.
Additionally, this report discusses the environmental assessment
for the Development Code.
11. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION ACTIONS:
A. Chapter 1 - Administration:
1. Section 1,7 - Revisions /Modifications: This was rewritten to
include a description and Tistio the difference between
minor and major revisions and the process by which such
revisions would be made.
2. Section 1.8 - Appeals: The existing appeal process which the
Citycurrently os, which includes appeals to the City
Council for all staff and Commission actions,
PLANNING COMMISSr STAFF REPORT C
Environmental AsA-iment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 2
•
3.
Business License Section: This section was eliminated in favor
of having appropriate statements and signatures on the Business
License application.
4.
Section 1.13 - Code Enforcement: This section was modified to
eliminate the maJornty o the reference to code enforcemnt as
this is covered in another section of the Municipal Code. The
remainder of this section was modified to deal mainly with
noise abatement procedures.
5.
Non - Conforming Use Section: This was modified to eliminate
precise amortization time periods for non - conforming uses.
Instead, non - conforming uses will be regulated in terms of
expansion and intensifications and would be eliminated over a
long period of time through natural attrition.
6.
Section 1.14
- Definitions: This section has been continually
modified
to incorporate comments received throughout the
hearings on terms which require definitions. The final
document which will be presented to the City Council will
contain all of the final definitions and changes.
CHAPTER 2 - PERMITS:
1.
Section 2.3 - Conditional Use Permits: This section was
modified to provide precise procedures for an applicant or the
Planning Commission, to modify, suspend, or revoke any
Conditional Use Permit.
2.
Section 2.5 - Minor Exce Lion: The title of this section was
reworde rom ^Minor Variance" to "Minor Exception" in order
not to - onflict with existing state law regarding variances.
3.
The City Attorney noted that there were several redundant
sections throughout this chapter on things Such as enforcement,
findings, and effective dates which were not needed as they are
covered either in Chapter 1 or in parts of the Municipal
Code. Therefore, these were eliminated in order to simplify
this chapter and eliminate the redundancies.
CHAPTER 3 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1.
Section 3.1 Purpose and Intent: Additional purpose
statements were ad ed to this section to reflect those which
were originally adopted with the Growth Management Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSIr STAFF REPORT (`
Environmental Asset sment /Draft Development Code `
October 12, 1983
Page 3
•
2.
Section 3.3 - Residential Growth Mana Review S stem: The
title o this section was amended to c u e re ere"ke to
To
growth management in order that it is clear that much of the
current growth management philosophies and requirements are
included within this code.
D. CHAPTER 4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
1.
Modifications to Table 4.3 Use Re ulations were made to list
eed an tack stores accessory to commercial stables) and
dormitories (accessory to college or schools) as accessory uses
in the residential zones.
2.
Table 4.3 E was amended to clarify the keeping of ponies in
conjunction with the keeping of horses. The final wording will
be submitted to the City Council. Also, the keeping of birds
and rodents beyond the specified limit would require a
Conditional Use Permit. The Commission decided that the basic
number regulations in conjunction with the performance
standards and noise regulations would be utilized to control
this area.
• 3.
Tables 4.4 -B and C 'eve to Tent Standards have been modified
and fine tuned to bome mo feas ib a and workable. As the
ec re
staff has been reporting to the Commission, the basic and
optional standards were developed in an attempt to implement
the original objectives of the General Plan ranges to create
transitions and neighborhood compatibilities. Under the
optional standards if a developer desires to go beyond the
mid -point of a density range, there would be additional
requirements expected of the developmeni. Some of these
requirements include increased open space, solar energy,
increased setbacks, and landscaping. Based on the Commission's
last review of these tables.a copy of the latest revised tables
is attached for your review and any final comments.
4.
Section 4.5 - Absolute Policies were added to Chapter 4 to
comp ement C e other requirements of the Growth Management
system such as the development standards, design guidelines,
and the performance standards.
5,
Section 4.6 - F was added to include the policies with regard
to Ghe installation of sidewalks.
6.
Section 4.6 - H.4 was added to regulate sattelite dish antennas
within —residential districts.
19 7,
Section 4.7 -D was modified to simplify the vehicle and
equipment repair and storage regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSY STAFF REPORT C
Environmental As ' sment /Draft Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 4
E
E. CHAPTER E - COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DISTRICTS
1. Section 5.2 - Districts: The Administrative Professional (AP)
District was changed to Be titled "Office Professional" (OP).
2. The Ustioe Re ulati on Table was modified slightly to add some
a ina uses as on itional Use Permits within the OP
District.
3. SDeC ial Use Re�u_lati�ons were added for adult businesses,
temporaryfice modules, and shopping centers.
4. Secticn 5.4 - G was added to provide reference to trails which
Tay be required in a commercial development to be consistent
with the trails map.
F. CHAPTER 6 - PARKING REGULATIONS
The requirement for allowing the usage of compact car stalls was
reduced from a maximum of 50% to 35 %.
G. CHAPTER 7 - SPECIFIC PLANS AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS •
No major changes were made to this chapter.
H. CHAPTER 8 - OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
1. Table 8.3 - Use Regulations: This section was amended to
change requirement of the dwelling units within the
open space district from one unit per net buildable 40 acres to
one unit per 40 acres.
2. _Section 8.4 - Site Development Regulations: Site dimensions
and setbacks were decide to be determined on a site -by -site
basis based upon topography, water and drainage, circulation,
and other environmental factors.
I. CHAPTER 9 - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
I. Fire safety regulations were changed to reflect the
requirements o the Foothill Fire Protection District.
2. The Planning Commission decided to require that a statement be
placed on all deeds for parcels which are located along fault
lines to inform them of the location of faults and the
possibility for seismic activity.
h i
PLANNING COMMISSY STAFF REPORT
Environmental As smenti DrafL Development Code
October 12, 1983
Page 5
•
J. CHAPTER 10 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS
1. All of the Overlay Districts were combined into one chapter,
2. The Mobile Home Overlay District was eliminated by the
Commission as a result of state legislation which limits the
amount of control the City has over the design and regulation
of mobile home parks.
3. An Equestrian Overlay District was added to implement the
resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council
with regard to the equestrian area and the keeping of animals
within that area.
I1I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code is considered part
of the same project as the General Plan since it is the
implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. Since the
Development Code is a related project to the General Plan, state
environmental planning law allows the Planning Commission to
determine that the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared
for the General Plan is adequate in covering any potential
significant adverse impacts that could be created as a result of
the Development Code. This finding can be made as long as the
• Planning Commission finds that the Development Code does not cause
a substantial change in any of the goals or policies, or that no
new additional information beyond which was presented in the
General Plan EIR has become available that would alter the findings
of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission make the findings required pursuant to Division
13. Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that
would not require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact
Report. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development
Code is implementing the existing coals and policies of the General
Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to environmental impacts
during the General Plan EIR.
IV. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission
conduct the final public hearing for final consideration of the
proposed Development Code and Development District Map. Attached
is a Resolution recommending approval and adoption of the
Development Code and the Map to the City Council. Additionallo,
attached is the draft Ordinance that will be presented to the City
Council which repeals the existing interim ordinances and other
development- oriented ordinances that have been incorporated into
the Development Code.
Re sp,ctfully""mitted,
Rick ome
0 yIPlanner
I RG:MV:jr
Ij ✓ !
c c
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -123
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION •
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION
OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.08,
17.12, 17.16, 17.20 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public
hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, such action is necessary to implement the General Plan
pursuant to Section 65800 et, seq, of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the Development Code
is an imp ementation of the General Plan goals and policies and that the
General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential
significant adverse impacts, Further, the Planning Commission finds that no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to
Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
Specifically, the Planning Commission finds:
A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or
policies which would require major revisions to the
EIR. •
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken.
C. No new information on the project has become
available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 through 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends that the City Council approve and adopt
the attached Ordinance adopting Title 17, Development
Code, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
2. TF,ot a —, tified copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1983.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
E
•
•
Resolution No. /
Page 2
I, JACK, LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, JUAREZ, MCNIEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
r �
r
Bin
�aloy 'A*W rcOapter
uuildinq industry association of southern catfomia. iix
October 5, 1983
Sir. Jack Lam
Director of Ce:^munit•y Development
9320 Baseline Road
Poncho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear :Ir. Lam:
After a lengthy review of the proposed development code, tho Baldy View
Chanter of the Buildinc Industry Association endorses and supports the
adoltion of the new code. We appreciate the work that has gone into this
dccument as it represents a definate improvement over the existing amended
county code that the city had been utilizing. We feel the new cede has the
potential of becoming a model ordinance to various other municipalities in
tho area that are due for an updated development code.
Rick Gomez and ?tike Varian have done an outstanding job. They have taken
tho initiative to oa out into the community and solicit public input. '.1e
have had ample opportunity to discuss with them our views on certain aspects
oC tho code and are pleased wish the results.
Fcel free to use our association's name as one that`avors the adoption of
the proposed development code.
Sincerely,
Gar r•y r.ca,t n tic /wwn
' nirectnr
0
1150 N rdounlam Ave. Bldg A Ste 207 Reoreseneng allot San Bernardino County
uoland. CA 91 766 (71 4) 961 -2997 or 946.2869 An Affiliate of the NAHB and the CBIA
ORDINANCE NO.
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE
INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments
thereto, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: The following sections of the San Bernardino County Code,
previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed:
(a) 61.021 through 61.029C, inclusive;
(b) 61.0210 through 61.0219P, inclusive;
(c) 61.0220 through 61.0223, inclusive.
• SECTION 3: The following chapters of the San Bernardino County Code,
previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed in their entirety:
(a) Chapter 3. Subdivision Code;
(b) Chapter 4. Mobilehome Parks.
SECTION 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
repealed, with the exception of Chapter 17.16, Condominium Conversions, which
shall be renumbered as Chapter 17.22.
SECTION 5: The following sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code are hereby repealed:
(a) 1.08.090. Director Review;
(b) 1.08.150 through 1.08.170, inclusive. Home Occupations;
(c) 1.08.180 through 1.08.190, inclusive. Pyramidal Zoning.
SECTION 6: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding Title T7-thereto to read as follows:
Is
Ordinance No.
Page 2
INSERT
RENUMBERED
CODE
PER
MUNICIPAL CODE
FORMAT
E
•
•
Ordinance No,
Page 3
SECTION 7: The development district map, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A ", is hereby adopted. ,
SECTION 8: The City Council finds that the Development Code is an
implenentation of the General Plan 9�cls and policies and that the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential significant
adverse impacts. Further, the City Council finds that no subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to Division 13,
Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the city
Council.
A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or
policies which would require major revisions to the
EIR.
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken.
C. No new information on the project has become
available.
. SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause a display advertisement of at least one - quarter of a page to be
published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933 (c)(2) within fifteen (15)
days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. 'Wasserman, tty er
kep
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 02 -03CR
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCA'40NGA, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PUBLICATION IN ACCORANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36933(c)(2) - DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) the City
Council previously designated the City Clerk as the City Official to prepare a
summary of the Development Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Development District
Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reported to the City Council that he has
determined that it is not feasible to prepare a fair and adequate summary of
the proposed ordinance or of the ordinance if it is in fact adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
resolve, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1: At least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting
at which the proposed Development Code and Development District Map are to be
adopted the City Clerk shall cause a display advertisement, in the form and
content required by Government Code Section 36933(c)(2), to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City.
• SECTION 2: Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Development Code and Development District Map the City Clerk shall cause a
display advertisement, in the form and content required by Government Code
Section 35933(c)(2), to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M, Wasserman, ity er
kep
Cenfral School Visfrui
w57 Foothill Blvd. - Rancho Cumomenge, CA 91770 - (714196"541
REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
WITHIN THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMMISTRATION
Fmnk A. Cores, Jr.
omu sp«rrnrrwm
John A. McGary
Avenam Sorr..nrn.d.nr, M,wrM
Themes W. Garna1W. Ed.D.
Aenrnm Sp« nnnOmr, Wumu Sa.mn,
pure ^ose_: The purpose of this report is to present to the City -Council
and to the public, the situation faced by the Central School District
in providing adequate educational facilities to accommodate students
which will be generated by proposed residential developments within the
school district.
1. present Situation
Central School District operates three elementary schools and one
junior high school. Facilities at each of these schools consist of a
combination of pe[m.:. ;-nt class< m and core facilities and relocatable
• classrooms. The designed capacity and current enrollment of each of
these schools is shown below.
Designed Current Excess Over Relocatable
School capacity Enrollment Designed rapacity Facilities
Central 570 658 88 3 Reloc. C.R.
1 Trailer
Valle Vista 570 643 73 3 Reloc. C.R.
1 Trailer
Dona I4erced 570 807 237 9 Reloc. C.R.
1 Reloc. R.R.
Cucamonga 'I.H. 660 624 164 4 Reloc. C.R.
2 Trailers
Each schnul in the district is currently operating beyond its designed
capacity. This creates An overcrowded situation and an extreme burden on the
r;e of c.rre facilities such as playgrounds, restrooms, libraries, resource
and ciminir;tration space.
L, d «ar _c_ul_ch Elementary School
'fhe I:r': ;rh "tn of BCAr Gulch Elementary School will open in September,
I1�i, This t: -n school will consist of eight new modular classrooms to be
• ronctri,cjv4 rm the site, five relocatable classrooms to be moved from Dona
Ncrcrd, i .:mall relocatable administration buildinq, and a relocatable restroom.
60110 01 11USTEES
Jerk Md(91vW Lawrence W. Dutton Ruth A. Mutter Olen R. Ogden ►amda J. WdBM
/nubnr 00 Mrmbrr /^ ^ Memb« M«nbrr
- 2 -
Total enrollment of Bear Gulch is projected to be 420 students
in September,
•
1984. Bear Gulch will allow this district
to alleviate the extreme
over -
erowdinq presently at Dona Merced and
create space for an additional
240
students in the district. The first phase of Bear Gulch will
consist almost
entirely of classroom space with cote
facilities limited to the relocatable
.
administration and restroom buildings.
Playground space will
be limited to
three of six acres necessary for an elementary
school.
3. Projected Enrollment and Capdcity,
September, 1964
Projected enrollments and school
capacities in September,
1984 are
shown below.
Gr. 1 -6 K
Total
Central
17 Classrooms
450 120
570
3 portables
90
_
Sub Total
540 120
660
Less 1 Classroom (SDC)
30
Total
510 120
660
Valle Vista
17 Classrooms
3 Portables
450 120
90
570
•
Total
540 120
660
Dona Merced
19 Classrooms
510 120
630
4 Portables
120
Sub Total
630 120
750
Less 2'Classrooms (BS;SDC)
60
_
Total
570 120
690
Bear Gulch
13 Classrooms
360 60
420
O samnn �a duninr Ili 9h
2 Classrooms
60
60
District Totals
2,040 420
2,460
•
I J a
- 3 -
• FACTS CONCERNING ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY
1. protected enrollment, September 1984 in grades 1 -6 will be 1,894 with
no •qr wth.
2. The o- riling of Bear Gulch School in September 1964 will increase the
student capacity of the district to 2,040 students in grades 1 -6.
3. Zncrease,l district capacity will allow the district to house an additional
146 students (2,040 - 1,894).
4. There nre five developments which have final maps and building permits
approved and are paying fees to the district. These total 628 multi -
fimtly units and 32 single - family homes.
5. Usin; student generation factors of 0.3 and 0.6, these five developments
are projected to generate 207 students in grades K -6 and 139 students in
grades 1 -6.
The developments already approved and under construction will generate
students approximately equal to the district's increased capacity to
house them during the 1984 -85 school year.
• �. Roari of Trustees Action
8asod on the information shown above, the Central School District Board
of Tr:c;teo.s took the following action at their meeting on October 11, 1983.
1. Tssoo Letter of Certification of School District Capacity to
,lmorican National Group for 27 multifamily units.
2. Notify developers who have requested or who may request Letters of
Certification that capacity is not available in Central School
District.
3. Direct staff to enter into discussions with developers concerning
mitigation of overcrowding within Central School District.
5. Requc_tt: for Letters of Certification of School District Capia..ity .from
Develnl vrs
At Ir- •cant, there are rerpicsts for Letters of Certification of School
Distrio -, Ciparity from eight (a) developers for 988 multi- family dwelling
w:i t:; mid 1t5 evnlle- family dwelling units. These developments are projected
to arrnerarn 1:14 students in qradns K -8.
6. llectinnn with Developers
Central School District staff members have met with representatives of
• tha eight developers requestinq certification of school district capacity
and the hnildinu Industry Association, to discuss the overcrowding situation
and possible solutions to mitigate this situation. A presentation has been
made to these developers on the costs of completing Phase 2 of Bear Gulch
School, A copy of the information presented at this meeting is attached.
q -
Since this meeting, district staff has revised the plans and costs for •
Phase t of Bear Gulch School. The addition of six (6) relocatable classrooms
in this revised plan allows the district to issue Letters of Certification
to all of the developers who have requested them upon their commitment to
pay a mitigation rea of 3 q ?6 per single - family dwelling unit and $1,738
per molti - family dwelling unr
State Funding for School Facilities
The only source of State funding for school facilities is the Leroy F.
Greene lease- Purchase Program. The Central School District has applied for
funds throuch this program. However, Greene funds are a ^ ^ ••tee on a priority
point basis and the present threshold level for approval of construction
fund inq by the State Allocation Board is 167 priority points. Central has
36 priority points. To reach 167 priority points, Central would need to
have an additional 800+ students in leased or rented facilities. The district
has been informed by the State Allocation Board staff that the remaining
funds avnilable statewide from Proposition 1 are $100 million and that it
has $300 million in applications from districts who have already qualified
for the Greene P.ogram.
Conclusion
The Central School District faces a very serious situation in providing
adequate educational facilities for its students. Proposed developments
within the district would generate students for which the district cannot
provide .,cilities• A solution which would allow the district to provide
classr,;om ani minimal core facilities has been proposed to the developers
04 these nrc;ects. The district believes this proposal is a reasonable
end a,:itable mitigating solution.
•
f�
,• I. BEAR GULCH SCIIOOL I�%� ` 'rj S
1. Master planped elementary-school (Grades K -6).
2. Ultimate Capacity: 18 Gr. 1 -6 Classrooms @ 30 - 540
2 Kdg. Classroomu @ 60 a 120
Total 660
3. Phase 1
a. 13 Classrooms '
1. Portable office (960 S.F.)
1 Portable Student Restroom,, Custodial Room 6 Serving
'Kitchen (960 S.F.)
b. Capacity = 420 Students.
c. 3 of G Acres of Playground.
d.. 0 of 30 Acres Graded.
e. Utility Connections.
'f. one Half (112) of Site Developed.
( Blacktop, Parking Lot, 'Sidewalks, Concrete Block, Landscaping)
4. 1'ha re, II
• a. Core Facilities.
1. Media /Resource Center.
2. Administration Building.
3. Student Restrooms.
A. Multipurpose /Cafeteria /Serving Kitchen.
b. Seven (7) Classrooms (5 Regular, 2 Kdg.) .
c. Remaining Site Development - Landscaping, Site Development, Concrete
Block, Blacktop, Parking Lot, Sidewalks,
5. Phase, T
Pinancod by $660,000 local ponds, building fund, and seven year lease/
purchase paid from devolop,et's' fees. Total entim?ted costs are
apptov.i,,<:tely $1,100,000.
11. COST 01' Nn Sr. Ll - nCAR GULCH
1. C) ac: i c_mmr:_(7):
a. 5 Rcgul,,t fa maroams @ 9GO S.F. @ $' /G.A2 /S. F. •' 366,016
b. 2 Gind(,tq.IILen Cln:a,roomn n 1,360 S,11. P.
• 07 .' /njS „', 222,442
Sllb T'ntnl 509,250
a Cn:a n P.•r D.I” arc Current State Al locoHolls fur 0cbon) Construction.
'••I
Page 2
2: Library /Media Resource
Center
•
a. Library
- 1,200 S.F.
@ $82.00 /S.F.
- 98,400
b. Resource Teacher
- 600 S.F.
@ $76.42/S.F.
- 45,852 '
c. Speech Therapist
- . 144 S.F.
@ $76.42/S.F.
- 11,004
d. Audio Visual Stor.
- 128 S.F.
@ $87.34/S.F.
= 11,179
Nurse's Room 200 S.F.
Sub Total
166,435
3. Administration Buildis
Staff Lounge 450 S.F.
Workroom 400 S.F.
Staff Restrooms 200 S.F.
Reception /secretary 600 S.F.
Nurse's Room 200 S.F.
Principal's Off. 240 S.F.
Conference Room. 144 S.F.
,
Custodian ISO S.F.
psychologist 144 S.F.
Sub Total 2,528 S.F. @ $87.34
220,796
•
4.
Student Restrooms
4 @ 300 S.F. = 1,200 S.F. @ $199.40/S.f.
- 239,280
S.
Nu It;_pu"ose /Cafeteria
a. Multipurpose /Cafeteria - 3,000 S.F.
b. Sragn - 1_000 S.F.
'
.. Sub Total 4,000 S.F.
@ $76.4 =
305.680
c. Serving Kitchen 650 S.F.
@ $113% =
73,509
Sub Total
379,189
6.
Circulation, Covered Walkwn_y5, U[i li ty heoms
4,500 S.F.
@ $26.37
118,665.
Total guild ings, phase II
1,733,623
7.
Site �cvrlopmnnt /Jm >rovcmvnts
a. cradieg - Two (2) ACI'C.9 -
20,000
b. Utilities S Improvements
1. Clansroom Water Cunnoctions -
1,000
'2. Closstnom Sewer Connections -
3,000
3. Parking Lot
12,000 S.F. @ $.95/S. 11. -
11,400
• •'
4. In! at op
0,000 S.F, 0 $.79 /S.F. -
6,000
III. COST OF JUNIOR III1511 TT)DITI(%1
1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F, @ $76.42 = 146,726
.. Architvcts Fce 11,738
Total. 158,464
IV. CALCULATION OF YC:ES
1. Single gamily Bome Generates 0.6 Children Per Ho"
(.AG'/ Gr. K-6 and .133 Cit. 7 -6)
2. Tho rtmaininq co.pacity of Scar rulch in 240 students. Uning .467
studonte per 8.1•. hmmQ, capagily will oxist for 51.1 S.F. homes to
by oonntructod. These 519 S.F. homes will al;;o gencritc 68 Or. 7 -8
ntudrnln to ho housai M. 01comongo Junior High, necessitating the
coualruclion of two clarsroenr. on that site.
3. The tDt..nl Cost of hh,:so IT at ltClr Gulch and the addition of two
• 0.l a�n :none:: at 1110. Onnior High is p2,33d,00q. If developer fees
art tln• ;ole Inoanr lot' fitonciuq this glen" of the 1,170300., rocs
would be $1,511 for a ninylo- ramify dwcllinq unit and $2,270 for
A mulLi•- :amity dwolling unit.
Page 3
•
7,
Continued
S.
Concrete Block _ -
8,000
6.
Concrete Sidewalk -
16,000
Sub Total
43,400
c.
Landscaping -
100,000
d.
Building Systems
(Fire, Bells, Intercom) -
10,000
Sub Total
173,400
Sub Total-Buildings s
Improvements
1,887,023
S.
Fees
& Inspections
a.
Architc�ts (81) -
150,%%
b:
Plan Check Fee (.7R) -
13,209
C.
Building Inspector -
20,000
d.
Tests /Inspections -
10,000
Sub Total
194,1 ?0
194,170
9.
•
5% Contingcny -
94,351
Total - Phase II
2,175,544
III. COST OF JUNIOR III1511 TT)DITI(%1
1. Two Classrooms @ 960 S.F, @ $76.42 = 146,726
.. Architvcts Fce 11,738
Total. 158,464
IV. CALCULATION OF YC:ES
1. Single gamily Bome Generates 0.6 Children Per Ho"
(.AG'/ Gr. K-6 and .133 Cit. 7 -6)
2. Tho rtmaininq co.pacity of Scar rulch in 240 students. Uning .467
studonte per 8.1•. hmmQ, capagily will oxist for 51.1 S.F. homes to
by oonntructod. These 519 S.F. homes will al;;o gencritc 68 Or. 7 -8
ntudrnln to ho housai M. 01comongo Junior High, necessitating the
coualruclion of two clarsroenr. on that site.
3. The tDt..nl Cost of hh,:so IT at ltClr Gulch and the addition of two
• 0.l a�n :none:: at 1110. Onnior High is p2,33d,00q. If developer fees
art tln• ;ole Inoanr lot' fitonciuq this glen" of the 1,170300., rocs
would be $1,511 for a ninylo- ramify dwcllinq unit and $2,270 for
A mulLi•- :amity dwolling unit.
1r
u
LJ
October 25, 1983
11. COST OF PHASE II - BEAR GULCH (REVISED)
1. Classrooms (7);
a. 5 Regular Classrooms @ 960 S.F. @ $70.00 /S.F.-
b. 2 Kindergarten Classrooms @ 1,360 S.F. @
$75.00 /S.F.
Sub Total
Costs per S.F. are Architect's Estimates.
2. Library /Media Resource Center
a. Library - 1,200 S.F. @ $75.00 S.F.
b. Resource Teacher - 600 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F.
C. Speech Therapist - 144 S.F. @ $70.00 S.F.
d. Audio Visual Storage - 128 S.F. @ ;80.00 S.F.
Sub Total
3. Administration Building
Staff lounge
Workroom
Staff Restrooms
Reception /Secretary
N,Irse's Room
Principal's Office
Conference Room
Custodian
Psychologist
Sub Total
450 S.F.
400 S.F.
200 S.F.
600 S.F.
200 S. F.
240 S.F.
144 S.F.
150 S.F.
144 S.F.
2,528 S.F. @ $80.00 - 202,240
4. f,tudent Rest rooms
-0 0 300 S.F. - 1,200 S.F. @ $120.00 /S.F, = 144,000
S. Serving Kitchen
650 S.F, 1 $113.09 73,509
6. Ci r�iil .0 inn, C_overnd Wnlhe_nyq, Utility Rnoms
4,500 S.F. @ $26.37 = 118,665
TOTAL'OUILOINOS, PHASE II 1,230,734
1�
- 336,000
204,000
540,000
90,000
= 42,000
= 10,080
= 10,240
152,320
- 2 -
7. Site=
Pl,ent /Improvem t
a. Grading - T,, (2) Acres
•
b. Utilities 6 Improvements
- 20,000
'
1. Classroom Water Connections
- 1,000
2. Classroom Sewer Connections
3. Parking Lot
- 1,000
12,000 S.F. @ $.95 1S.f,
_ 11,400
4. Blacktop
81000 S.F. @ $.75 /S.F.
5. Concrete Block
- 6,000
6.
- 8,000
Concrete Sidewalk
- 16,000
Sub Total
43,400
C. Landscaping
d• Building Systems
100,000
(Fire, Belts, L,tercom)
- 10,000
sub Total
173,400
Sub Total Buildings
6 Improvements
11404,134
u Portable,
•
960 S.F. n $S S.
---L —6 liow
TOTAI,
B.
1,720,934
Yr r^ d In s__c ti ons
a. Arahitecls (R3)
-
b. Plan Check Fee (,7q)
137,G'/q
-
12,047
c. Building Inspector
-
A. Tusts /Inspections
20,000
-
10,000
Sub Total
9. 5^
179,721
con ti n ?r ncy
- -. __.
-
06,047
TOTAL, PHASE 1I
1,966,701
OF M4l (AR _IIi GII
ADD IRION
-
1. roar CI.,::,,•,,, ,0., (r 96n $70.00
• Arrh;rccl,; 1'rr
2GR,ROo
-
_11,5o,I'
TOTAL
290,304
•.
%U
•
- 3 -
IV. CALCULATION OF FEES
1. Single Family Home generates 0.6 children per home
(.467 Gr. H -6 and .133 Gr. 7 -8)
2. with the addition of six portables, the remaining capacity of Hear
Gulch is 420 students. Using .467 students per S.F. home, capacity
will exist for 899 S.F. homes to he constructed. These 899 S.F.
homes will also generate 120 Gr. 7 -8 students to be housed at Cucamonga
Junior High, necessitating the construction of four classrooms on that
site.
3. The total cost of Phase II at Dear Gulch and the addition of four
classrooms at the Junior High is $2,277,006. The annual payment
for this amount is $446,293 on a seven (7) year lease purchase.
If developer fees are the sole means for financing this phase of the
project, fees would he $3,476 for a single - family dwelling unit and
$1,738 for a multi - family dwelling unit.
4. Currently there are requests for capacity letters for 395 single -
family homes and 988 multi- family units.
•
0
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD CONTRACT
neneeao�e � Te•remu:
TIDML, SHERIFF
901 9696 001 1 $170,979
�Cneu Uv � E.nntli:oa nn mare tna, ene n.vme ^.' c• re:,:.r
I $IE.L ° Ieomninr me foborvnq
e. F>peq, Ao ^!<• o� oevmem; 12
Emo,ove•,tl= iESnmaue >moum of >a;r 5
PER
THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California b� and between the County of San Semardir.o, herea'te:
caller the County. and
QTY O£ RMMO CLUM29CA
ne;cai r c:'�e�
IT IS 'r'EREEY ACR --EO AS FOLLOWS'
0" cse moon e"e revers: s ue o' /mm ,' nrrof:: Se; ro ^' sw,,:r re [,: rr: „area awo.n: rc oc Faa m�'nr, a' payvrF
rrnr for per: p•manrF o• co!"o'erio”, derermmtnon of o;rt']cro•p Ne-'o" q-f anp c »ae to, rem .. arior,' omew fe 's a•;v
cr,nariow. and Rrwn olaox specibcariom. nd a omw, if anr.
Ffiereas, the parties entered into a contract for law enforoenent services
cormencin? JulY 1, 1983; and
tPnereas, the parties desire to aped said Contract to pMide for additional patrol
•
mites effective xovisrims 1, 1983;
; FCtt, -niER! OfiE, IT IS AQMM AS FMIC16:
1. The law e,forcenent contract between the parties is amrided effective
Nova-. -r 1, 1953 by adding thereto the attache9 SrJt= "A" ADIY:^7LkN to provide for
additional patrol units and cormpensation for suc=h by City as indicated on said addendtrr.
Ann nro'..:.:,..- o mo side ano raierenceo altacnmcnls rV e cc'lr.,nr: a Lc•1 r V
CC) :i', -- C.c Sh•: EEFKARDIkO
C S(.pery m—s fS:.;n c co•oora:,n,. rn •:
a
c• 1 Soerc c' Sunerv�s.s
i C(wmv Coonfel •.� ,
le; ISn✓[ faro) �•�
T
F. r r
LP
col,n•v F::r•iINSV]:9r o,IL� ,.c, , r
SCHEDULE 'A' ADDENDUM
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA F.Y. 1983 -84
Service Cost '
2 - 80 -Hour General Law Patrol Units
(Effective November 1, 1983, 8 -month Service Fee) $ 168,390 *•
County Direct Cost 2,084
TOTAL (ADOITIObQAL SERVICE) $ 170,474
Monthly Payment Schedule
Ist Payment Due November 15th $ 21,311
2nd through 8th Payment due 5th of each month $ 21,309
E
NOTE: Service is exclusive of overtime and
Court appearance cost - actual cost
will be billed quarterly.
cost subject to change due to Memorandum of Understanding
changes.
** Less Fuel and Maintenance - actual cost will be billed quarterly.
11
i
November 1, 1983
Members of City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Honorable Councilmen:
My name is Alvin Musser, I live at 1747 N. Wilson Avenue, Upland, California.
I am appearing here tonight to explain my concern in regard to the down grading
in zoning of the property at the southeast corner of Baker and Arrow Highway,
more fully described as the north 8 acres of the shaded area on Planning Division
Exhibit "C -1" Division Districts Map. (enclosed)
Prior to purchasing this property, I was assured by the Planning Department
People that this area in the General Plan was planned for medium density.
Previous maps have showed a density for the area of 8 -14 Dwelling Units Per
Acre. It is very disturbing to find out, after planning the development of
this property with the 8 -14 D.U. P.A. in mind, that this down grading is being
considered without even notifying the property owners involved.
I think the present plan is well suited for the area. We have a good trans-
portation corridor on Arrow Highway, frontage on three streets and close to
the industrial area, meaning less commuting time for working people. All
zoning on the north side of Arrow is medium density. Property to the east is
medium, bordering the Industrial Special Purpose Zone. Even with a 8 -14 units
per acre zone, a builder would have to come in with a super good plan with
unaffordable amenities to get the top of 14 units per acre. The three housing
projects under construction in the immediate area have a density in the area
of 1y to 10 units. This; by Rancho Cucamonga standards, is not high density
when you have 14 -24 and 24 -30 de.ignations for other areas.
One of the reasons given for the changes was to reduce potential land use
conflict. I think the conflicts come when, after you have paid for outside
services to come up with a General Plan, it is refined to a specific plan,
people accept this, then to come back and change it without notifying the
affected property owners, this is a real reason for conflict.
Sirycer %l ,
J. Alvin Musser
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 2, 1983
To: • City Council
From: Rill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
Subject: The Park Pond
CUCAA1QA
�O C.
r
1477 _ -1
9
Tuesday, November 1, Lauren, Harry and I met with Hill Fieldman and Larry
Folapp of Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, Municipal Finance Consultants, to
solicit their technical advice on the steps involved in bringing a Mello -Roos
Park bond before the voter.
As a side note and prefacing comment, the steps involved for Mello -Roos are
technical and not wholly dissimilar from the process the City encountered in
forming the Redevelopment Agency or the Industrial Assessment District., In
other words, a lot of work, requiring a carefully drawn scheduled execution.
In their opinion, properly executed, the process will take approximately 9
months, give or take a little either way.
Peeormended steps would he as follows
1. Form a professional team (as in RDA or Ind. Assm. Dist.)
a. Pond Consultants
h. Bond Counsel
C. Assessment Engineer
d. Project Fngincor (Already engaged and proceeding: RSi)
2. Desion of Project Scope and Environmental Review
a. Heritage Park: Complete
b. Red ilill Basin Park: 90 days
3. Setting Basis of Assessment (Equity) 30 days
4. Setting Spread of Assessments 30 days
5. Land use Tnventory 30 days
F.. Petition to Coverning hoard (Council) and within 40 days adopt
Resolution of Intent to establish a Community Facility District.
7. Set.. a Public Hearinq on the Resolution of Intention not less than 30
dav, nor more than 50 jays from adoption of Resolution of Intention
P. Hold Puhlic Hearing, which must he completed within 30 days.
9. Hold election within 90 days of the conclusion of Puhlir Hearing.
continued ...
page 2
memo 11/2/83
re: Park Pond
After Election
10. Validation in court of proceedings (routine)
11. Procedures connected with Bond sale
12. Build Park
When you add the numbers, the minimum time to net to election is about 9
months, or the beginning of August, 1994. So, all thinqs bei'i.g equal, it
would be fair to figure September 184 as a good 'possibility' for the
election.
As I mentioned earlier, Step 2 of the process is already in progress with Ron
Paige and RSi. We need to go back and pick up Step 1, however. In addition
to the proposal of Fieldman and Rolapp, we will be soliciting proposals from
John Brown, and, Wildan and Associates, whom you have worked with in the past
on this type of venture, for your review and direction on November 16.
If you have any comments or questions on the above prior to the 16th, contact
Lauren, Harry or me. Additionally, Councilman Dahl sat in on the last part of
the meeting and may provide you insights on this subject from a
Councilmember's perspective.
D11 /mw
cc: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Harry Empey, Finance Director
Mello -Roos file
vaa a va' au-u,va+v v��,aunvn vr. GU��m
MEMORANDUM , 'c
51
F
DATE: November 2, 1983
1977
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP
In conjunction with the review of the Draft Development Code, a new
Development Districts Map (Zoning Map) has been prepared to reflect the
land use densities and designations of the General plan.
Over the last several years, there have been several situations where
developments have been proposed within the medium density category of
the General Plan (4 -14 du /ac) and which did not provide the appropriate
transition from the existing single family residences in the area. As a
result of those developments, the Council and Commission directed staff
to prepare an implementation method within the new Development Code to
provide for better transitions of these medium category areas. The
General Plan designation of 4 to 14 was originally done to provide
enough flexibility for transitions.
In review of the Development District Map, the Planning Commission, at
its meeting of October 4, 1983, reviewed four specific areas which are
currently planned for medium density residential at 4 -14 units per
acre. These four areas were reviewed to determine whether they should
be designated Low Medium (LM - 4 to 8 du /ac) or Medium (M - 8 to 14
du /ac). Within the new Development Code, the densities from the LM and
M districts have been split from 4 to 8 and 8 to 14 in order that the LM
district can be used more as a transitional district. The Planning
Commission has recommended that these four areas be designated LM and
are so indicated on the Development Districts Map. The designation of
LM does not affect the General Plan and does not preclude a property
owner or developer from requesting a future change to the medium
district if they can show the appropriate transitions and meet the
policies of the General Plan.
Attached to this memorandum are exhibits showing these four areas and
indicates approved projects in the vicinity of those areas, as well as
the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1983. Also
attached are letters from a few of the affected property owners who are
objecting to the LM designation and would rather have the M designation.
c'
Proposed Development Districts Map
November 2, 1983
Page 2
All of the four sites wh -ich were considered by the Commission are
currently either zoned A -I (Limited Agriculture) or R -1 (Single Family
Residential). The new Development Districts Map will be reflecting
these areas as Low Medium, which is a higher density des'gnation than
what the property owners currently have on the site. Again, the purpose
of the LM district is to provide transitions from the lower intense uses
to the higher intense uses in the; areas seen by the Commission as
appropriate for these designations.
If the Council would like to have any further explanation on any one of
the specific areas, we would be happy to respond to those. If the
Council feels any one specific area should be designated within the
medium category rather than the low medium category, the Council need
only to provide the direction to staff to redesignate those areas as
medium on the final Development Districts Map.
RG;MV;jr
CITY OF ITEM: ,( --
RANCHC) CUCAMO \C :A TITLE: LA us M
o
PLANNING DIVISION EXI!IRIT -1 — SCAI.E:–
A,
4
WAI
HIGHLAW
Po,cof* Map No. 6 12 5, PM. 69/]0'
o 1/03 Pn"PI MnD No IA?A PM 41,11
FVtUAU A,—(— r,.L 1., ;,-, ,
p.
�J—h ST-11
NORTH
CITY OF ITEM: aAA;U—. -P'e>-r9b-M AAA-4
RAINCHO CUGXNAON'(YA TITLE: I-M Vla A - AWGO k", MA-P
PLANNING; DIVISM EXHINT: �k-f SCALE: — —
FORTH
CITY OF ITEM: -odez vsla -ICZS MAP
RA:NCi O CUCAAK 'sA TITLEt d 114 A
PLANNING DIVISDN E\Iim '16-14 - SCALE ; -
� Rer.l
° f.•arn r
II (o.N ip;•,fA4
3r-
J�
-s(wi6 FMAILY
elzl
6 vv. e
4..c
+ CBW LINE
CITY OF
RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A
PLANNING DIVISION
V
NI MTH
ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP
TITLE: Lm Js M
-1
TORA,I,I
' SIiiGF -F ��
I
gels /�
I-,�tiu Lf
POOR
O
1 ■7 L
6 vv. e
4..c
+ CBW LINE
CITY OF
RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A
PLANNING DIVISION
V
NI MTH
ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP
TITLE: Lm Js M
-1
I
gels /�
I-,�tiu Lf
14
-u_�
e�
o
�
nT
a
y ,e r .Ssl
_ 15
O
�
r
Rw. 12
z
II
u
6 vv. e
4..c
+ CBW LINE
CITY OF
RAICH.) CL'CkMUNG,A
PLANNING DIVISION
V
NI MTH
ITF. \L �1 -. '7,s`Rtict< /vthP
TITLE: Lm Js M
I
A
i
Tract- 104911
5.12 4C MA
j
VlaTOf,'IA
t
7Z 1 1!
,
MIMI
-j
M
VA [arc.?' IL
4�11 C 1.11 L
p
LA VINE.
ree roam GJAC
Fes.
NORTH
CITY OF ITEM:
RANCI-K) CUC-MMONGA TITLE: tM V6 M
PLANNING DIVISION EXIIIIlrr: 0 79-3 q SCALE:
ary OF
RA;NCI -K) CUCkNI0 \GA
PLANNING DIVISION
ITIi \I . \I PI'2Z4ic iS 1APtt
TITLE. rs M
n
EXHIBIT SCALE �" '
I\YMTH
J�LARROW- -- —. t - 'uom STREET)
:, a i0
a J I
i
26 .... t C
77 .. ,.9iwuy
W UN�.rsrl$r. I
0
z I
^M
4'
fe.w�� 4N'.x. S.OJW US[
•... .. n e • i van S_- ✓ V
A 7
t"TH
a[
CITY Of ITEXI: f-VCL. 1715Th r5 Uka
RANCHO CUG \N'IUN'GrA TITLE: LA IM, M - AS fE� r5 MkO
PLANNING, UIVISK)N ESI III3fTr Gam_ SCALE - -
ri
1 I M
Lczr(t.Im IISP
lCAAAaµ own ......u.a. - ... ._� .._
lummom
lI —
J
ii
NORTH
CITY OF ITF.\I:100JEL V��21cf�MtQ_
RANCII) CLGNMONGA TITLE: P � - —
PLANNING DIVISK)NI ESIHRIT C I, SCALE: -
�r
\\: AL.n
(29,
WJ
66
r
33
C� �l
NORTH
CITY OF ITEN11 -JeJ- t4Af
RANCID CUCVNIONGIA TITIT.- LAAI,-, M - A95cTA9'6 MAP •
PLANNING DIVISM LXHIBIT:4trZ�' -SCALe �
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Q PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Development Code Workshop
October 4, 1983
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was
held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho
Cucamonga.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dave Barker, Addie Juarez, Larry Mc Niel,
Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman,
Assistant Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner;
Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Michael Vairin,
Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by Barker, carried, to approve the Minutes
of the September 6, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Rempel abstained because he was not present.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to approve the minutes
of the September 20, 1983 Adjourned Regular Planning Commission meeting.
• 1 • • •
Chairman Stout advised that the purpose of this meeting is to review the
Development District Map for conformance with the General Plan and to complete
a detailed review of the Residential Development Standards.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, presented the staff report indicating that
they would concentrate on the Development District Flips as well as the zoning
maps with the intent to attain consistency with the General Plan.
Mr. Vairin advised that Girt Johnston would review the Development District
Maps and Lan Coleman would review and conclude with the charts contained
within Chapter 4 of the Development Code which are the Development Standards
Charts,
Mr. Vairin explained that the Development Code hearings would conclude on
October 12 at which time a resolution would be prepared for the Planning
Commission and a preliminary ordinance prepared for the City Council
incorporating all the revised chapters. He stated there would also be minor
adjustments to the definition section prior to distribution of the final draft
to the City Council.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, then reviewed the Development District
Map. He explained the medium density areas which were shown on the General
Plan Map and which should be shown as low medium in order to more readily
transition the residential areas.
Mr. Vairin reiterated that the General Plan shows a density range of 4 -14;
however, the Planning Commission and the City Council has stated that this is
too broad a range and preferred a low medium category with a density range of
4 -8 in order to provide for transition.
Mr. Johnston explained Exhibit A as a good site for a low- medium density
range. He stated that currently there are two approved projects in the area
at nine units per acre.
Chairman Stout asked for comments on Exhibit A.
Commissioner Hempel asked if there are any tentative maps in the area at the
present time.
Mr. Johnston replied that there are two, the Shafer Westland project and the
Roberts Group; however, the area in question does not have anything on it at
the present time.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing and stated he thought the area shown
in Exhibit A should be designated as low- medium, 4 -8 dwelling units per acre,
Mr, Jeff Sceranka, representing the Rane I Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce,
stated that he was a member of the Planning mmission when the General Plan
was set and indicated that there was a lot ollllllllll, debate and much discussion on
the residential area to the west of the propose* designation change concerning
the maintenance and buffering. M•. Sceranka indicated he would concur with
the residents that making the density 4 -8 dwelling units per acre would make a
lot of sense.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to designate the area shown in
Exh ihit A to low- medium, with a density range of 4 -8 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Johnston stated that the second area in question is further to the south
and near the Stater Brothers shopping center and is actually two areas. He
further stated that to address Mr. Rempel's question, the M.J. Brock site is
under. construction at 6.4 dwelling units per acre and by designating it medium
they would really be making it nonconforming to the General Plan. He
Indicated that thin alto is a little bit different because there is a mobile
home park, single family tract homes by Lightner Construction Company and a
number of condominium projects adjacent.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 4, 1983
F
Commissioner Hempel questioned whether there would be a size problem in
getting a single loaded street within this area.
W. Vairin stated that it would be nossible to get private drives in that area
with a possible access way or even private streets. The size of the area was
discussed with tl,e conclusion that it does match the street shown on the east
side.
Commissioner Mc Niel a;':. about the tree farm in that area.
IM. Vairin replied that it would remain in the 8 -14 density range which would
be consistent with the area.
Commissioner Barker asked if it would be possible to transition that site to
4 -8 dwelling units per acre.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he has no real problem with this if someone
new in with other parts and divided the tree farm and the area below, there
might be room. Further, there could always be modification at a later date.
Chairman Stout asked the Commission to indicate whether there should be a
change to the present density range. The consensus of the Commission was to
have a range of 4 -8 dwelling units per acre for the two areas in question.
Mr. Vairin interjected that with the General Plan there is the option of
changing this at a later time without a General Plan amendment.
Mr. Johnston showed the third area near the Cass: 'n' Cleaver restaurant „here
a duplex project is under consideration. He indicated that there is an
elementary school and a church as well as a mobile home park located nearby
with the Acacia project and a series of older homes. He indicated that part
of the issue is that there is industrial mixed single family homes.
Mr, Vairin stated that currently there is a project under construction with a
density range of 7.7 dwelling units per acre. He asked if it should remain at
that range or be allowed to go higher. He indicated that it would be better
to zone to the lower end of the range and rhange this at some time in the
future.
Commissioner Hempel stated he foresees this going into the Industrial Specific
Plan at some point in the future so it would be better to leave it where it
is. He indicated that his feeling is that it should be 4 -8 dwelling units per
acre at the maximum.
The consensus of the Commission is tnat this area be designated 4 -8 dwelling
units per acre.
Mr. Johnston discussed area a -2 and that the staff recommendation is that this
should be 4 -8 dwelling units per acre in order to maintain the integrity of
the area.
Chairman Stout asked why the zoning isn't 2 -4 dwelling units per acre
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 4. 1983
Mr. Vairin replied because at the time it was felt that with its location and _
access problems it would not warrant a lower density. Further, that the l
property owner was requesting this designation.
Commissioner Bempel stated that he did not remember this being discussed.
Mr. Vairin stated that this could be taken up in the future for General Plan
amendment discussion.
Mr. Bempel stated this would be the proper way of handling this and stated the
General Plan Amendment could change the density to 2 -4 dwelling units per
acre; however, 4 -8 dwelling units per acre is all right at this time.
Mr. Sceranka stated he did not think there was any discussion on this area.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to designate this area at 4 -8
dwelling units per acre and to direct staff to bring this area before the
Commission as a possible General Plan Amendment to 2 -4 dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Johnston reviewed another area and indicated that this originally was a
part of the planned communities. He explained the high density designation
and the medium density designation as shown currently on the zoning map, with
a description of the nearest property. Mr. Johnston indicated further that
the property owner requesting the designation change is in the audience and
that the request is in conformance with the General Plan.
Chairman Stout asked if this would require a General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Vairin replied that it would not as it is a border line case and there is
some room to decide which category this piece should be in. Further, given
the Victoria Planned Community, it would make sense to put it in the same
category.
The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Diamond, 12559 Base Line, stated they were
in favor of this change.
Commissioner Barker stated it would be consistent to continue all high density
in this area.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to change this area to high
density.
Mr. Sceranka asked if the property owners in this area and all others affected
by the changes to the Development Design Map would be informed of the changes
made. He recommended that notification be made in the interest of good public
relations and to alleviate any future problems.
The Commission concurred with Mr. Sceranka's statement that staff notify all
property owners to advise them of any major differences in the zoning other
than what they were led to believe when they purchased their property.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 4, 1983
mr, Johnston explained the Commercial /Office category which districts include
neighborhood commercial, general commercial and office professional. He
indicated that the most significant boundary changes from the current z.nlrg
map would include the west side of Haven south of Foothill near the K -tart
which is M -1 and is proposed. to change to Office /Professional. Relative to
the commercial area he indicated there is the old downtown Alta Loma which is
M -1 and residential so revisions are necessary for conformance with the
General Plan with a proposed change to general commercial.
Chariman Stout asked if the background information on this was gathered by
going to the assessor's parcels.
Nhr. Johnston replied that this is how it was done because there were so many
small properties.
Chairman Stout asked if any conflicts worth noting were found.
Mr. Johnston replied there were none.
Mr. Sceranka asked for clarification of terminology on the General Plan so
that people would know what the different types of commercial are.
Mr. Johnston deferred to Mr. Vairin who stated that within the Victoria Plan
these categories appear; however, convenience commercial is not on a map
except on an as needed basis resulting from a market study in the neighborhood
commercial category. He indicated that they wanted to keep these three
categories for the General Plan.
Mr. Sceranka asked if these will be differentiated for the General Plan.
Mr. Vairin replied that the references to these categories is within the two
planned communities only.
Chairman Stout asked, if there was a reason to put additional categories in
the planned communities, would there have to be a general plan amendment.
Mr. Vairin replied yes, but you would take care of the zoning at the same
time.
Mr. Johnston went on to the Oper. Space category which includes hillside
residential, open space, flood control and utility corridor. He indicated
that these areas are designated in the northern section of Alta Loma where the
natural terrain limits development potential. further, the largest area of
hillside residential occurs at the nprthwesf. corner of the City, north of
Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise and is currently zoned R -1 -11 and an
application has been submitted for this area.
Mr. Johnston explained the flood control areas stating that a compatible use
would be a nursery or Christmas tree farm.
Chairman Stout stated that as the City channelizes a lot of the major channels
a lot of land is being removed from the flood control problem. He asked if
any thought has been given to taking some of this area that had been
designated as flood control and changing it to something else.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 4, 1983
Mr. Vairin and M^. Johnston stated that at some point in time if these flood -
control areas are deemed to be developable they can be changed through a zone 1117
change.
Pam Henry asked why the area in the northern corner which is a utility
corridor can't be designated that way.
Mr. Vairin explained that they are owned by the Metropolitan Water District
and are shown as a line on the map.
Mr. Coleman indicated that the corridor is 600 feet wide.
M•. Vairin stated that this area should be given some consideration to zoning.
Chairman Stout asked that although they don't own the land in fee don't they
have some easement on the property.
Mr. Vairin stated that property owners are able to use the land but they
cannot put up a permanent structure such as a horse barn.
Chairman Stout stated that the point he wished to make is that if they have an
easement or land in fee he doesn't know why it would be any different than any
other utility corridor.
M'. Vairin stated that you could go either way and be safe. He indicated that
staff will check this particular piece of property before the next meeting,
but he was sure that it had not been purchased.
Mrs. Henry asked about the piece of property owned by Sievers Development
Company at the top of Beryl and the reason for not continuing that particular
wash.
Mr. Vairin replied that this will be examined but it does not go that far. He
explained how it would connect and make a different zone. Further, that they
wanted to encourage that this become part of a development and if it is zoned
flood control, the City might have to purchase the property.
Mrs. Henry stated that is why the open space designation would be the proper
one for the area.
Chairman SLout stated that as a practical matter the terrain would prevent any
deveioy,,Fnt, and if the deslenation were changed the City would have to buy it.
Mr. Vairin recom.:,ende^ rFit as development comes forward on this piece of
property it be looked at.
Chairman Stout asked for consensus on the utility corridor.
The consensus of the Commission was that this be explored further, j
Mr. Johnston reviewed Specific Plans and Planned Communities.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 4, 1963
Chairman Stout asked if there would be conflict between the definitions and
general concepts relative to the designations proposed or are they fairly
consistent.
Mr. Vairin replied that they are fairly consistent and when you deal with
specific plans and planned communities they don't generally call out all
individual land uses. The planned community is a specific zoned area and it
is being zoned as a land was and ;,s a whole.
M•. Vairin pointed out the Data Design situation and suggested that it be
amended to the planned area shown as Industrial Park category zone.
Mr. Sceranka asked if the areas that the City owns would be designated as open
space in order to plan for park land.
Mr. Vairin replied that they will not, although it can be shown as open
space. He asked Mr. Johnston how they are currently shown.
Mr. Johnston replied a number of things such as scC- ^.ols, fire stations,
Chaffey College, civic center, freeway right -of -way are designated as
residential.
Mr. Vairin stated that the City could show the parks it owns as open space on
the map.
The Commission felt that City owned parks should be shown in this manner.
Chairman Stout stated that the Commission would discuss the overlay district.
Mr. Johnston explained of the three districts previously discussed, mobile
home parks will be eliminated and included in the residential area and another
overlay area will be added which is an equestrian overlay in the north Alta
Loma area above Banyan.
Chairman Stout stated he thought that the area just south of Banyan and west
of Sapphire should be added to this district.
Mr. Vairin explained that it would not prevent the people living there from
having horses.
wmmissioner Hempel stated that the properties that are now excluded should
be; the reason is because of deed restrictions, and they must be careful not
to include those areas with the restrictions in the overlay area.
Mr. Hopson stated that Mr. Hempel is right in concept but he d'.d not know how
the CCh H'a can be pulled in residential tracts and the acreage covered in the
overlay. He indicated it would be a gigantic task.
Mr. Coleman read a section of the code on animal regulations that deals with
this in the Development Code.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the Commission and the Council have passed a
resolution that allows horses in any future development. He felt that
something should be said so that there will not be hassles over this.
Planning Commission Minutes -7-
October 4, 1983
Mr. Vairin replied that the Development Code contains a statement in the event
there is a conflict between the CC&N's that the more restrictive covenant
would be applicable.
Commissioner Bempel stated that what he is getting at is that he does not want
the reverse of that either.
M•. Vairin stated that the Code speaks to this issue on pages 91 and 162 of
the revision.
Commissioner Hempel stated that his only concern is that the Commission does
not face future problems in dealing with this issue.
Commissioner Barker stated that the Code is all right as long as it covers the
issue in both directions.
Mr. Johnston stated that relative to the water plan and the General Plan
statements staff will add the designation to the zoning map su that '.t will be
clear to developers that a master plan is required. Further, that the
original intent was that they would add the master plan designation stating it
will be required when the master plan is done but if it is done initially, it
would work better.
Mr. Johnston then went into the Special Considerations section.
Mr. Vairin stated that they would prefer, since these are permitted uses or
conditional uses within the special zones, that they be shown as proposed
because they will be much clearer to understand. He also asked the Commission
to keep in mind the Foothill Freeway corridor. He explained the possibility
of inverse condemnatin should the designations change.
There were no comments from the Commission on the Special Considerations
Section.
Chairman Stout asked that other properties held Cy the City such as Civic
Center also be shown.
Mr. Vairin explained why they did not choose to do this and the ability to
include some of these designations into the Industrial Specific Plan. He felt
there might be a redundancy.
Chairman Stout stated that he only wants something shown on the map so that
everyone will know what is proposed to be there.
Mr. Vairin replied that this could be done through the use of an asterisk
marking. Further, that the Chamber of Commerce map will show these areas.
Commissioner pempel stated that the only people looking for such designations
will be developers and people purchasing property.
Mr. Sceranka spoke of the special language in the General Plan that ,teals with
Chaffey College and its surrounding area and asked if this special designation
will also he shown on the development district map. He also asked if t;i is
special language could he shown in the text of the zoning ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 4, 1983
W. Vairin explained that this is a very precise policy for a specific area.
Chairman Stout stated that this was left out of the General Plan but he is
sure that the City complies with this.
Mr. Sceranka stated that most developers will not look at the General Plan but
at a zoning map or they will go to the Development Code. He felt it should be
called out in the zoning map.
Mr. Johnston replied that the pieces around Chaffey College would all have an
asterisk to designate it being a special area.
Commissioner Bempel stated that this could be a master planned area.
Mr. Johnston replied that is correct.
Following brief discussion, consensus of the Commission was that the only
matter to be brought back at the next meeting is the utility corridor issue.
7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Commissioner Juarez left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
••••.
Goa irman Stout stated that the second major issue concerning basic and
optional development standards would be discussed.
Mr. Coleman explained the basic and optional standards to the Commission.
Commissioner Barker asked about cul -de -sacs and front setback lines.
Mr. Vairin explained how this is done and referred the Commission to numbers
4 and 7.
W. Coleman explained the reduction in open space in No. 16.
Commissioner Barker stated he wanted a guarantee that 75 feet of open space
would be used by private owners and that common areas will not be lost by
building density. He asked if this would give hi: that guarantee.
Mr. Coleman replied that it would because the City is now requiring 40
percent. Further, that whatever is required in private ends up in common as
it is just a breakdown of percentages.
Nu•. Vairin stated that the 40 percent can be left but this affords the ability
to select where the open space is put. Further, it provides flexibility in
J design.
Commissioner Fempel asked about the 100 foot setback on upper story units. He
felt it was too little.
Planning, Commission Minutes -9- October 4, 1983
Mr. Vairin stated that even when it is under 100 feet developers ask if they
must have a balcony.
Commissioner Hempel stated that if a minimum is set they would have a hard
time arguing the point. Commisoioner Hempel stated that on the low medium it
should be at least 200 and on the low at least 150.
M•. Sceranka stated that he was curious about lowering the percentage from 40
to 35 on open space.
Mr. Coleman explained the difference between the basic and optional standards
and how it would affect this.
Following brief discussion among the Commission the consensus was to go to 35-
-40 percent.
Chairman Stout stated it was difficult to compare the two charts and suggested
that they be set up on such a way within the Development Code so that they
would invite easy comparison.
In conclusion, PA. Vairin reviewed the new requirements under the optional
development standards. They include increased setbacks around the perimeter
of the project, recreation facilities, front yard landscaping, and energy
conservation measures. The energy requirement will require an alternative
energy system to provide domestic hot water to all dwelling units and heating
pools and spas.
The Commission consensus was to approve these standards.
• • a
9:00 P.M. The Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
J W4-
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 4, 1983
+ r t A SAF -TEST DIVISION
k90E. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90022
October 31, 1983
r aesa �_ icom[[
3223 Fos a Street
Rancho la C wa, Cawcra 920ce
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. and City Council
Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730
Re; 11 -2 -83 public hearing to consider adoption of a New Development
Districts (zoning) Map.
Property: The area between Sixth and Seventh Streets bordered on the
West by the Cucamonga wash, and Hellman Avenue on the Fast.
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department dated February 9, 1981.
On February 9, 1981, there as held a Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
meeting, which we attended, and at which time Medium Density zoning
was approved, just as we ourselves proposed in our attached letter.
This letter outlines our thoughts on the subject, and our present stand
on the matter.
We, therefore, recommend that the present Medium Density zoning as
shown on the Executive Summary of Draft General Plan be retained.
Respectfully submitted,
Jess and/or Meg Gr er
enc
11 Al�
3223 Fos $Ved
ftneho U C nu. Ca4tornu 921108
- c-bruary 9, 1901
vr. Dan Henrsycks
C/o Pend» Cucamaga Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
Dear Mr. Herr!zycksh Re, Recu=fte.ed caning for the new Rancho
ctcamorga General Plan.
ty: Tine area betwoer Sixth and S-- -nth
Siesta h ortlared m the West by the
0 - ;mr>rcja wash, ani Hallman Avmue on
the Fast.
As comers cf 656 feet on Hellman Averom of the above described property,
we submit the following suggested zoning for your ocnsideration and
addition to the proposed General Plan for P=.cno Cucammgaj
;% recccrend that this tr1arxyula. -- shaped panaal of land be zoned Medium
Density. 7 %ls- property would lord itself imil to this zoning inasmuch
as it is bordered by the Clrarnga wash on the West, by industrial zoning
to the North, and a slu type bowing project to the Fast.
":e believe our suggaasted zoning twld be of benefit to the entire area
i.ck.• -udr as it mild t'•m bo i.- .,saved by the ounstructtm of attractive
aaridunium with bahutifully lariat. "1 areas that held be well - maintained
at all limns by a Ynreotnt• s A-macciation, and at the score time providing
needed, affore,:ble housing Wjoining the inn, trial area. Ir could, in
addition, be rvh an incvntive toward the babutiiwtton of the rundown
housing project on the Past. Also, there would be welm:e tax benefits
for the city.
Our obsarvaUo;n ever the years has teen that the best-designed and most
attractive developnehts do provida for a buffer zone such as we reeanc",
and wa are hopeful that you will give this mutter your serious study and
consideration, and that you will ultimately incorporate it in the proposed
General Plan.
Very truly yours,
Jere Groaner
l
Abg Groat>e¢
November 1, 1983
Mr. Michael Varin
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Mr. Varin:
It has come to my attention at this late date that the Planners of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga are in the process of down grading certain parcels within
the City, the purpose being to have more control over future developments in
those areas that certain density classifications were too broad.
The property which I am particularly referring to is at the southeast corner
of Baker and Arrow, When I purchased this property I made three trips to your
office, bought a zoning map, and with the staff there had the assurance that
this property fell in to the medium density designation of the General Plan.
i feel very much disturbed that this change is being comtemplated without at
least giving the property owners in question some kind of notice. With
medium density to the north and to the east of this property, I fail to see
the need for this change.
It would appear that the present zoning is well suited for the area in that
you have a good transportation corridor "Arrow Highway ", Baker and Madrone
Streets. It is close to industrial zoned area meaning less computing time
for working people and after all you do have final control before any project
is started, Again, I see very little to be gained in the down zoning of this
property.
Sincerely,
J. Alyin Musser
434 N. Second Ave,
Upland, CA 91786
982-8801
� v ,
, Irl Uf fiIr "r�''1 LONGA
nr•n Nr DFPi.
rn, m:17 ,. ,��.
PM
hM
71819116 [111121112[31`11616
SAF -TEST DIVISION
E. l05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90042
October 31, 1983
3223 F„sca shoe)
Rancho La C>s,a. Cahforma 92000
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. and City Council
Rancho Cuc-umnga,
California 91730
Re: 11 -2 -83 public hearing to consider adoption of a New Developrent
Districts (zoning) Map.
Property: The _sea between Sixth and Seventh Streets bordered on the
West by the Cucamonga wash, and Hellman Avenue on the Fast.
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Department dated February 9, 1981.
On February 9, 1981, there as held a Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
meeting, which we attended, and at which time Medium Density zoning
was approved, just as we ourselves proposed in our attached letter.
This letter outlines our thoughts on the subject, and our present stand
on the natter.
We, therefore, recommend that the present Medium Density zoning as
shown on the Executive Su mazy of Draft General Plan be retained.
Respectfully suhnutted,
Jess and /or Meg Groaner
enc
3223 Fo 51'e0l
RAMM UCxu, CAW"
92006
Rebruaxy 9, 1981
MSc. Dan Haxkycks
C/o I.3ocno Cuc-gu `ga Planing Dept.
P.O. Box 793
Rancho cacamomp, Calif. 91730
Dear Mr. Hervbn dcx: Re: Reco®ended zoning for the new RaK3ro
CZuo�aga Oaneel Plan.
Prgxaty: The arse between Sixth and Seventh
Xests bordered on the West by the
Cucamonga wash, and Hallman Avenue on
this East.
As cfa:ery of 656 feet on Hellman Avenue of the above described property,
we submit the follaoing suggested swL-V for your araidenati.on and
addition to the proposed Cereral Paso for Panda Cucamonga:
We reo=wd that this triangular - shaped parcel of land be =w3a medium
Density. This property would lend itself well to this zoning iramm:du
an it is bordered by the aszwxxga wash on the west, by industrial zoning
bo the North, and a slug typx hoeing project to the East.
,Je believe our suggested zoning would be of benefit to the entire area
innamucn as it could `Son be iz4x ved by the cwotructton of attractive
aadcudnium with beautifully lariscaped areas tlat weld be well- snintairffi
at all timuee by a H� Aamiatirn, and at the same time providing
needed, affordable housing adjoining the .incbuatrial area. It could, in
addition, bean* an incentive toward the beauti:icatiwn of the rundown
losing project on the Past. Also, there would be welaame taut benefits
for the City.
V Cur ohsr atlon over the years has been that the beet -designed and most
attractive develop•ents do provide for a buffer zone such as we rec= d,
and we are hopeful that you will give this ratter your serious study and
consideration, and that you will ultimately Wxmpurate it in the proposed
Cendral Plan.
Very trely your,
Jess Groomer
Meg