The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981/04/15 - Agenda PacketCl'CA VO , CITY OF 5, RA\'CHO CL)CAN" \CA CITY COUNCIL D AGENM 1977 April 15, 1981 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The dead- line for submitting these itc= is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. A. Flag Salute. B. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, and Schlosser_ C. Approval of Minutes: March 16 and March 23, 1981. • 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Thursday, April 23, 6:30 p.m., Advisory Commission, Lion's Park Com- munity Center, 9161 Base Line Road. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontro- versial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -4 -15 for $1,536,413.63. 1 b. Refer claim by Sy Ekwall, Lila Ekwall, Ed Stevens and 3 Denise Stevens to the City Attorney for handling. c. Refer claim by Marcelo Julian Payes to the City Attorney 7 for handling. d. Alcoholic Beverage License for Red Hill Liquor by Long 8 Seng Lee, 8939 Foothill Blvd, for Off -Sale General. e. Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzler Family Steak House 10 10 by Forsco Management Corp, 9588 Base Line Road. City Council Agenda -2- April 15, 1981 f. Authorization for City Manager to attend the "After the 11 Tax Revolt" Symposium in Sacramento on April 22, 1981. g. Agreement with Caltrans for Modification of Traffic Sig- 13 nal at Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Avenue. Project was originally proposed by Caltrans last year and funds were included in the city's 1980 -81 budget. Current estimated cost is $14,000 with the city's share being $7,000 plus a 10% contingency. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -41 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. h. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 24 Agreement from Brooks Products, Inc. for Director Review 80 -41. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -42 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM BROOKS PRODUCTS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. i. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 29 Agreement from Ronald W. Nunnally and Susan L. Nunnally, husband and wife as joint tenants for 8880 Strang Lane. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -43 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM RONALD W. NUNNALLY AND SUSAN L. NUNNALLY, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. j. Award of Carnelian Street Storm Drain Project. The low 34 bidder was K.E.C. Company at $272,306,00. The engineer's estimate was $344,781 for the project; this represents 21;; below the engineer's estimate. ilecommendation: It is recommended that the Council award the contract to K.E.C. Company at $272,306.00, authorize execution of the contract, and authorize the contract amount plust 10% for contingencies from the Storm Drain.Fee Account. • P City Council Agenda -3- k. Acceptance of Tract Map No. 11700. Located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Haven. Subdivider: Daon Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT HAP NO. 11700 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11700). April 15, 1981 1. Acceptance of Map, Bonds, and Agreement for Parcel Map 4762. Located at the southwest corner of Sixth and Turner consisting of 19 lots on 27.6 acres of land. Owner: Westwards Properties. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 4762 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 4762), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. m. A Resolution Expressing Opposition to Senate Bill 314 which supports binding arbitration. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 314. n. Set for Public Hearing on May 6, 1981 the Victoria Planned Community. o. Set for public hearing on May 6, 1,981 the Street Name Ordinance. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 37 38 40 41 46 46 The following items are public hearings in whcih concerned citizens may voice their opinion. Please wait to be recognized by the Mayor and address the City Council from the public microphone by giving your name and address. If possible, comments should he limited to five minutes. Please register on the "Sign -up sheet" on the podium before taking your seat. A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 49 "APS 1 6 ND 4-4- , B. CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 79 -01: 65 INDUSTRI L STREETS AND S- M R IN GE. City Council Agenda -4- April 15, 1981 --'C. APPEAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -01 - Coca Cola Bottling Co. 93 The development of a 26,900 square foot bottled beverage distribution warehouse facility on 9.2 acres of land located on the north side of 6th Street, east of Haven Ave. D. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - Westend Investments: A 115 residential subdivision on 70.32 acres of land divided into 277 single family residential lots in the R -1 zone located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of- way, between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek. APN 207 - 211 -18. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. REQUEST BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR 139 COUNCIL T SUPPORT TTHE REPEAL OF SECTION 301—a Hf E FUEL USE ACT. A representative from the Edison Company will be present to answer questions. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -47 141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF • LEGISLATION REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS AND PRO- HIBITIONS ON THE USE OF NATURAL GAS IN UTILITY POWER PLANTS. B. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR LICENSING SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR 148 GENERATING STATION UNITS, RESOLUTION NO. 81 -48 149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF LICENSING THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS. REQUEST BY THE NATIONAL ORANGE SHOW TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. 169 Fir. James K. Gut rie, res i dent of the E6t Nations Orange Show, will be present. JD. D. REQUEST BY THE FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT 168 R . THE U'C0001INb`' -ELEC ION. Chief Bo-- b— Lee -and Marge Tfanw Oil be present. 4-1 • • F City Council Agenda -5- April 15, 1981 E. APPROVAL OF THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE." 169 ORDINANCE NO. 142 (first reading) _ 169 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE." 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Rt67 C OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WARRANT REG LIATION WAR EN A V E N 0 0 R N A M E OATS 0.E NCE 0 1 4/15/81 DISCOUNT NET 295.28 24t„00 154 CC SG9. 2', 115,50 10 9.00 30.0^ 860. on I, 353 CC 9.20 8,090.01 150.00 looloco GO 2.712.18 119. C0 35.00 1,4!3.04 a 45.23 1,00 2:92'9:6"1- n 1 1 AGE l I Iil I . 1 � i I'. I, II I9 I� I1 IA I, I I A In I I I + I� I i A I I l I` PRCOUCT n 1:.11 VUIV IN.L IUIALA 11 22 A 4870 HISTORIC PRESCRVATION r - - - - -- --------------- WARRANT RECONCILIATION 4/15/81 WARR JOURNAL DISCOUNT NET DATE REFERENCE FINAL TOTALS 2,1 3.9 1 4 2 1 2,1 1 2 1.7 1. 150.00 6.397.77 9.35 888.72 61.066.52 3.9666.929 400.00 1.3133.9020 3.175.00 159.61 5.00 1.40 85.00 124.62 568.30 321.07 806.00 60.00 45.00 16.54 1,536.413.63 PAGE i 2 II I a � R907 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V MARR / YEN 0 V E N 0 0 R N A M E 06518 4995 HUBBS. LLOYD ® 06579 C6590 5110 5140 IPM TNt AND POWER 54EEPING 0.1531 5275 INTL CITY M3T ASSOC 06582 5400 INTL TIME RECORDLR 0 06583 06584 6160 6600 JINS E.AaN SERVICE KING ENGINEERS. L D 06585 66C6 KIVL INGER CAL LETTER. T P6586 "09 KREGEL. DOUGLAS L a C6587 C6588 6618 6624 KRUSF, JCCN LTU CONSTRUCTION INC 06599 6.30 LAY JACK P6590 6725 LEe-UE OF CALIF CITIES C6591 C6592 6730 6783 LEE. PJAGE 1-14VILL`_- SANDERSCN -HORN 06593 01.594 6830 7280 LC60E, SALLY PEARE L MEL ® 06595 0•.596 7293 7375 MC ELENNEY, F MONAIAN, CLAUDIA 06'.97 7615 OELCFSCHLAGEd GUNN HAI Co599 06600 7745 7770 PERKINS WELOINGO SERVICE PATTON SALCS CORP 66601 T772 VAYNf MECHANICAL C PLMB C6602 7783 PHOTO C SOU -40 COCPANY s, n 603 06604 7795 7620 ^C:SA DISTRIBUTING CO PRICE COLGB PRESS C66p5 7825 PROGRESS BULLETIN C6606 7993 PUPPET PRODUCTIMIS C, (76607 ^6608 8020 8045 RAMIREZ CJNSEPCION RANCHO S[SPOSAL SERVICE 06609 8075 RAPID DATA INC 0661 8150 P 061.12 8163 R IC IA CAM F.N4LC ENTERC RIZZO, ROBERT C6613 8180 KCACAUNNER PAGING /. 06614 C6615 06616 8200 8307 8318 ROBINSON JAMES M SAFETY Sf RIPING SVC SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 06617 8355 SIGNAL MSINTENANCE C6619 VOID VENDOR 40. 8390 r 0.6619 06620 VOID 8390 VENDOR NO. 8390 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 06621 8395 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO 06622 8396 SO CA LANDSCAPE MGT 06624 8525 STATIONERS CORP •, CC625 8530 STOCKN LL 6 3INNEY 06626 8535 ROB STONE CONSTRUCTION -� 06627 8760 TORO PACIFIC OISTRIB PRCOUCT n 1:.11 VUIV IN.L IUIALA 11 22 A 4870 HISTORIC PRESCRVATION r - - - - -- --------------- WARRANT RECONCILIATION 4/15/81 WARR JOURNAL DISCOUNT NET DATE REFERENCE FINAL TOTALS 2,1 3.9 1 4 2 1 2,1 1 2 1.7 1. 150.00 6.397.77 9.35 888.72 61.066.52 3.9666.929 400.00 1.3133.9020 3.175.00 159.61 5.00 1.40 85.00 124.62 568.30 321.07 806.00 60.00 45.00 16.54 1,536.413.63 PAGE i 2 II I • 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF a... [e.A...K 2E NT, Bon1FO NIA CIA pEMONT. CA.IFO671 Ybll vin e22.wn Atiomey for Claimants 19PA4& BELOW FOR RUNG STAMP ONLY) ANDERSEN, TAVES & REEVER 1365 W. Foothill Boulevard Upland, CA 91786 T V?1 W?' 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION MAR 25 1981 AM 718191NIll1121112131915 6 >2 CLAIM AGAINST A GOVERNMENT SY EKWALL, LILA EKWALL, ED STEVENS ) and DENISE STEVENS, ) Claimants, ) V. ) ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO and CITY ) OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ) Respondents. ) CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJU GOVERNMENT CODE §910 et TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: YOU AND EACH OF YOU will please take notice that: 1. Sy Ekwall and Lila Ekwall of 25285 Bundy Canyon Road Sun City, California and Edward Stevens and Denise Stevens claim damages on account of an accident and injury sustained by them on account of a negligent high -speed police chase conducted by the defendant, and their employees on December 24, 1980. On December 24, 1980 claimant Edward Stevens, and the Decedent Stephen Paul Ekwall were lawfully driving a 1977 Volkswagen van south on Sierra Avenue in the County of San 1 Bernardino. 2 2. At said time, date and place, due to the negligencia 3 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and County of San Bernardino 4 Sheriff's a 1967 Ford Galaxy, license No. VFG 845 driven by Charles 5 Stewart was caused to collide with the Volkswagen van. 6 3. As a result of the collision, Steven Paul'Ekwall was 7 killed, who was the natural son of By and Lila Ekwall. The claiman 8 Edward Stevens was caused severe injury, and claims damages for 9 personal injury, and Denise Stevens makes her claim for loss of 101 consortium on account of the injuries suffered by her husband 111 Edward Stevens. 12 4. On the date of this accident, which was December 24, 13 1980 the defendant County of San Bernardino, and City of Rancho 14 Cucamonga engaged in a high -speed chase along Baseline Avenue in 15 an Easternly direction at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour* 16 The driver or one of the occupants of the Ford Galaxie was sus - 17 petted of shoplifting a single battle of liquor from Albertson's 18 Supermarket at 9743 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The defen- 19 dant County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department and City of 20 Rancho Cucamonga, despite knowing the minor nature of the offense, 21 and that it was at most a misdemeanor or petty theft nevertheless 22 engaged in and gave pursuit in a high -speed chase along Baseline 23 Avenue, resulting in a collision between the Ford Galaxie, and 24i the Volkswagen van at the intersection of Sierra and Baseline. 251 S. The defendant Sheriffs negligently participated 26 in and conducted such high -speed chase, without giving adequate 27i and due regard for other innocent users of the roadway. 26 6. The names of the public employees responsible for • Il..hc.+ 16G( . nron++ioen< o +x N1 F[ +t b111i1 .VV [ 2 GlI NI1 M �. +1f 11 / 1)1.1 Il. •,In ll this accident are believed, among others who may be unknown, to be Officer Young, MacMillan, Bennett, Karns, and Abernathy. 7. As a result of the accident mentioned herein, By and Lila Ekwall have suffered the death of their son Steven Ekwall, age 31, and have incurred burial and funeral expense:. in the amount of approximately $1500 -2500. Additionally, they have lost the society, comfort, and support of their son who was a faithful and dutiful son, and these damages are estimated to be in the amount of $250,000.00. B. Ed Stevens has incurred, as a result of the accident, approximately $23,000.00 in medical expenses, and continuing. Ed Stevens was employed as a carpenter at the time of the accident at the rate of approximately $15.00 per hour including fringe benefits�i and has not worked since the date of the accident and therefore has incurred lost wages in that amount, and it is estimated at this time that Stevens will not be able to return to work for another year on account of his injuries. It is estimated that Stevens' loss of income by the time he returns to work will be approximately $20,000.00, and that he will suffer an unknown loss of earning ca- pacity after that period of time, but estimated to be in the amount) of $250,000.00, General damages in the amount of $250,000.00 is likewise claimed. Denise Stevens, the lawful wife of Edward Stevens, claims damages for loss of consortium estimated to be in the amount of $100,000.00, 9. For further information regarding this claim, claim- ants refer to and incorporate by reference as though set forth in full herein Sheriff's Report No. T80 -7940. 10. All further correspondence in regard to this claim C 3 should be directed to John Taves, at 1365 Foothill Boulevard, upland, California. DATED: March 19, 1981 LAW OFFICES O)�F ///�%)HERB(ERryRT HAFIF BY: Z�' L� TE iEN L. ODG F. 6 3 . .. I Beverly Bills RUU, \1. , Qoccns B..1.1R11 III LLN. I AL,YV1(YrA 1102 March 9, 1981 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 211 West 5th Street Ontario, California 91662 Attention: Mr. Russell Dickinson Assistant Superintendent for Business City of Alta Loma /City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 F. ; P Ranco Cucamonga, California 91730 CITY OF�RANCHO CUCA4OHCA Attention: City Clerk ADMINISTRATION City Office MAR San Bernardino County AM PM 175 West 5th Street 71819110111112111213141516 San Berardino, California 92415 Attention: Clerk of the Board is To Whom It May Concern: RE: My Client MARCELO JULIAN PAYES ( a minor ) Date of Occurrence : December 9, 1980 Place of Occurrence: Lemon Avenue, between Archibald and Hermosa Streets, City of Alta Loma Time of occurrence : 2:20 P.M. Pursuant to notice requirements, you are hereby notified that the above- referenced individual was injured on the above date at the above place and is making a claim against the parties to whom this notice is addressed for said personal injuries by and through his guardian, Mrs. Marta Payes, his mother. said injuries occurred when a school bus, 815, belonging to the Chaffey School District passed the boy on the above- referenced r,trect throwing a stone, or other hard object, into his face injuring his right eye. V If you have a formal Claim Notice that you wish filled out ploase forward the same to me. r/ Ito (;.% 1. & ('o a u:�s Chaffey Joint Union High School District City of Alta Loma /City of Ranco Cucamonga San Bernardino County • March 9, 1981 Page Two Any and all further correspondence regarding the above matter should be sent to office from this time forward. BR /bc Thank you for your cooperation now and in the future. very truly yours; '� 6 && Bert L. Rog 1 / for ROGAL 6 COGGAt� u • • COPYn..w..,..,_............. p M.I w. :,..�.. T.1..,.._F.. R..�...... a... a.l. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEV @AGE LICENSEES) Te D<pmlmem o1 AImM1OLC Be.eraga Canlrvl 1]ISO Slrea Seneremv, C.1195811 ,_ 'O ^ O- tr -1 ^] ..,n.,......... w..a. + the undern9.ed Aer.bf opplu. Iv. Lamer d—Ibed IF I.T.- I. MUST OF LICENSEIS) FILE NO, em or RFNCHD 6UCAMONGA AOM�9 c1R 1 Y Or? )`. utter AF D J 17 &1 78 ❑ • PEE I 1 I I Pi1HW1.3191516 Applied - ERecfie Date: ^'D FEE NO. GEOGRAPMIUL CODE Dvle Mold 'f. NMIEIS) OF APPLICANT(S) remP. Plano Efla eDOto-, 1 vFEE 1. '- 'IF•. J. TYPES) OF TRANSACIION(5) LTC, TYPE •vwn.,r •r ,.. ,..r.,•r �...., .... i... ..n... ,..r.........•.. 16 11-10 nl 1 vm - ^4r V BiS.mvrehr vl LlreaumP A. Neme IF IFI, S. WDIDn If Bm......N.mbcr and Sbeel S)3? 1';c. c.Iy nd Z Code ,C.." Q _ a]'SJ .]3 i11;11 :. .. L _ : :i E,RECfIPi NO. •) TOTAL S 6. If P—Fol bcenvJ. ]. Me P..mn<c I—d. SM1a, free of 6, Mmlm9 Add—, 0 diflvenl from 5) -N—Or end Slreel ^p 9. Har• you evm been — ;lNd al o 41-y? ID. Have yor .,P, Noland anv If the pnvmm, of IAe Alcabalic 81Pe1a9e Control All al re,61iom of AD Deporimem per. • ro n. la,nin9lo IAe A<I) _ 11 E.p!nm a "YES" em.er ,m 9 er 10 on nn almcbmrnl nAICM1 >M1ell 6e deemed pnn vl IAn appllmuon. 11 Applrt , . "—, In, . any --v, emPlayed M o Ede li—ld P - -n -ill F— a!I If. goai, 6mli n of a LcenKq end IF, m_al ne WII ,tor . — ,._m_mme o p!rmil_m_b<_vinloled v y of IFe pory.nm_of rM1. Om_hnllc Bev!_mg! Cvnlrnl Acl_ IS STATE OF CAUFORINIA� Coonry PD IA APPLICANT • • • •n , .1 r,..r... > rr ,. u...r., .wi... . .w. e. - e.. e.., .. n..wi..,r r rp i,w nr . rn m ,rrvrn,l .u.r .. SIGN MEPE APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR 15 STATE OF CAUFOPNIA C.." vl on -:T.1. I ;D.::] Do•e � �.1 •vwn.,r •r ,.. ,..r.,•r �...., .... i... ..n... ,..r.........•.. 16 11-10 nl 1 vm - ^4r V BiS.mvrehr vl LlreaumP iR Emem. Nvmb"(11 191n<rr.n Nu I'd 5rrn.1 C, ..d fin Crd. GOa�W 71,r nrr A.rI 11.... unr.rr<' r La Frrr.: rrr, m,- F,—, r.. nrdr, Alr,<A.d — ra.a•d nark.. E.dF, a1, Pupen, CI COPIES MARED� • I a_e.,., "I Rene.ai F.e If 2, 1).'YIPId IF —i':._I 61:.]/6 ••nn .; . -__ P«r :P1 Na O� r• C0PY.......r. «.......,,..A. ... e, fol h. ..,R,w ... ....... ...9...9.,. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC SWERAGE IICEPI 1. TYPE(5) OF LICENSE(5) FILE N0. To Depanmem of AlcaFeF< 9 .na.. Cm.tral FEE NO. 1115 O Srreer Sarrmmenro. Cm.,. 95011 _ — .e,..m.,......... _ ly. GEOGRAPHICAL COOE ,OC:i The u,deniq"d 0aebr III lw b<enrer dunAed 11.0 .r: A,I under Sec M44 , {] bored 2, NA US) OF APPOCANT(S) Temp. Permit ERe, re Ume — Eth"im, Dole ]. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION($) FEE LIC. TYPE _ 5 .. .. r _ 1 ... .. _ CITY Of RAN-40 CUPMIDVGA / Name ai Bu:i r` n ' qql 5. lomrmn of 0mmetf— Number end Stitt, AR PN mn L >ce 1tI{IVf�t'7d:i14NF6 City and Z Code Count' s _ 21 RECEIPT NO, TOTAI p1 d, II Premnee h<emetl, 2. Are Premiter Imid. 8. Mimi— Addlem If diP<rcm f,mp 51_N—her and Sy-, rt.me: v..•, 9. 11— Ynu ery been coxricled ofa Felony? ID. 11 yw ev vi,l,i,d my of the pmvinom of the Alcoholic Eererngr Ccnbnl At, or r.,.1mcnr of the Deponn•em per. laming le he All? I I Errplom a "IFS —m he b<mt 9 or 10 on on .".dorm' whkh Ih.11 be deemed pmr, of Fhb oppbmlran. 12 , AI con....... I.I rhar ony m ne9er employed in .<.T. licerled ...mnef will F— all the mml�p<or,pn, of a R .-m., and (b', r m h• .JI_.n _ or perml. m_be vlolo..d any of the n v of the AlmhoGC kmrn_ge Corrro Atl. U. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ceony of --5, Z.. Jfi:aiSinG OaR �+. ..rM.rr rfnr .r rn..f.,s ifi rn..... r.e.rr., .rrurn.•. m., e.. +ne.. ". er r.,...n. n+ .. "r w rt....n.. ... •. ...... reeinr x Id ^APPIICAM •' 'SIGN NEPf'.' APPEICATION BY TRANSFEROR 15, STATE OF CALFOPNIA Count' of Dole IM1 Ne+ __o, b_•• ••• "•• •• •••• v .. r „^• u• °••I 1519no 10 .1 u— ne10 _ Is I' a Numb.. C,d, 19 Iowbon Number and S.rce, City end Irp Cnde Count' DI A ,, t5 'm. lirlmr I N, Lirrr. F'nr Uepnuprfn, I'v fhdp A.m<hed. - I md•d nnbv, Fduup, pope',, ❑ COPIES NAILED 4—.1 Fe of Ppid of n,.., OS 11 nn R ... I., No • • • 0 • NIN INFIFANRASCTRUG CTVRE REDEVELOPMENT r�OPPORTUNITIES REDUCING IIOUANG COSTS sr +r[ u.rvo +r[s FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Q PROP. 1` PROP. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND JOB! Economic Development in an Era of Fiscal Limits APRIL 22, 1981 ___ Woodlake Inn, Sacramento A one -day symposium bringing together private and public sectors in a positive Search for solutions... SPONSORS: California Building Industry Association • California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy • California Tax Foundation • League of California Cities • County Supervisors Association of California • Construction Industry Advancement Fund CO- SPONSORS: California Manufacturers Association • California Chapter, American Planning Association • The tray Area Council California Planning Roundtable l "Help .frame the solutions to assuring economic vitality for California in an era of severe fiscal constraints. • Opportunity Is the keynote of this Intensive, one -day to supply adequate housing, to meet community symposium. We will examine In detail the restraints on Improvement demands. Alternative systems financing government finance, such as taxing and spending strategies and new pnonties will be reviewed Your limitations, but the main goal will be a positive search for contribution is welcome and needed. solutions. Following the symposium, proceemngs st,mmarutng The challenges to find opportunities lot economic discussions and proposals will be distnbuted to all development, to create lobs, to stimulate economic growth, registrants. PROGRAM WORKSHOPS 9:00 a.m. Introductions. P,ri Michi mt R each person may participate In two of six workshops Papers for r;cn Poevey Prosidera. Callomm Council for workshop topic will be sent to you so you can prepare In a0va-c., c' Ewrenmon'al and Economm Balance Ile symposium. You should se'ect first and second Choices 'r 9:15 Keynote Address. Alan Sten.'01mer workshops in both morning and afternoon on the recistral:Cn tor,, Secretary, Stale Business and Trans' 1. Financing Major Infrastructure after Proposition 13. pcna'roh Agency currently a Ilmnea partner with Goldman Sachs b Co, Overhaul or replacement and expansion of the state's existing San Fla esco Infrastructure to serve economic growth will require s•gnnicant cap tit' 9:45 Workshops spending. Some Of the alternatives are. (1) divert money born sery ce5 1. Financing Major Infrastructure to capital construction (2) increase the efh0lenCy with which we use after Proposition 13. Kevin Bacon. existing capital facilities (3) lower our expectations (4) Increase the Senior Consultant, Slate Assembly flow of revenue from taxes, fees, assessments, bonds and o!ner Office of Research, Sacramento I creative financing mechanisms. 2. The Redevelopment process as an 3. The Redevelopment Process as an Economic Opportunity. Economic Opportunity. Joseph E. 1 Coomes Jr, Allorney. McDonough. HoF The redevelopment process can be applied to other commune p P land 8 Allen. Sacramento. Newport oevolopmenl areas, meludinb housing, Industrial and control Beach development. Creative ways to finance rp:frvniopmenl ac!iv4:es w J 3. Coordinating Public Efforts to be discussed. Proposed changes need, ' :r California law will be Reduce the Cost of Housing. explored a Lance 9,11 Planning Director, 3. Coordinating Public Efforts to Reduce the Cost of Housing. Sacramentc County a Bob SoldlvBnt. Santa Clara County The potential for reducing housing costs will be explored through s.,::n Planning [)apartment thumps as streamlining of processing lime for county services, s J Michael wovord, Puh;ir '.Yorks mnc Valive financing concepts, and more flexible Slate gmdelinos ar) I Drafter. Contra Costa County mandate options. a Kenneth L Warn Plannlnn Director, 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis An Opportunity for Public and Private El Dorado County Sector COOpersion. s John D Mnnhell, Deputy Director, County Surveyor, Lassen County. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the fiscal Impact analvsls Why Is it important" How can it best be used? These and o''mr 11:45 Lunch questions will be reviewed, along with analysis of major Issues such Workshop Summery as fiscal effects of changes in populallon and density. fiscal Keynote Address, Peter Kronor, Pres Interaction among jurisdictions, changes In preferences for services (dent. The Irvine Company and laxmg methods and secondary Impacts of development on 1:45 p.m, Workshops revenues. 4. Fiscal Impart Analysis; 5. Effects of Tax and Expenditure Limitations on Commercial for public end Private Seclor to to roi.r Development, Cooperation. Gnnnrtrty P. nsociatrh Coop Inc. Sarrairnnlo I he Impact of Propositions 4 and 13 on local governments and S. The Effects of Tax and Expendi. Commercial development will be assessed. Ways to provide morn ture Limitations on Commercial support for economic development w9hln the new limits on public. Development. David E Dowall finance will be outlined, with examples of recent commerical presents Department of Cl, and Rrhponaf Pisa in I nvhold, San Francisco and Southern California ring. Univcrsey of Cill'i, Brreelry 6. Housing for Jobs — the California Opportunity. 6. Housing for Jobs — the California Opportunity. Don de Ia Pena Indusfol j Jota and housing are closely related Economic growth and allorddble DevelOOmcrt Dnpclm Rvlh n ruing housing are intimately related Lack of adequate housing now Inc, San Jose formerly Pr,n Ipal threatens economic growth, lobs, prosperity and quality Of life SPOC'sc Planner. City of San Josr, laanipfes of solving housing problems are outlined. plus ways to 0:30 Workshop Summaries devrinp support, Involve business and Industry and create a better Concluding Discussions government private partnership for Increasing housing supply 4:30 A llournmenl ! ", • • is 31 I'll, roc n I I'll ,� r" 1� a 11, .vim 1 -1 IC.A d - STAFF REPORT H�vr`) Y DATE: April 15, 1981 To: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Agreement with CalTrans for Modification of Traffic Signal at Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. 1977 The State Department of Transportation has proposed the modification of the sianal at Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. to provide a push botton operated pedestrian crossing phase. This improvement will tie in well with the development occurring in the area, which will generate increased pedestrian traffic. This project was originally proposed by CalTrans last year and funds were included in the City's 1980 -81 budget. Current estimated cost is $19,000 with the City share being $7,000, plus 108 contingency. Respectfully submitted, LBII:PAR:jaa r RESOLUTION NO. 81 - +41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGP. CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the benefit to the City of participating in the cost of the work proposed by Cooperative Agreement No. 8 -404, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approves the execution of Cooperative Agreement No. 8 -404 and authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on its behalf and transmit to the California Department of Transportation, District 8 for processing. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: is Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C1erTc • 1 %/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS AND TRANSMRTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN IR., G--, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT e. P.o. BO] m O SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92RD3 .� `714) 3S3 -4255, .� . -`: Fir March 3, 1991 1',,_�' -'• 09- 32d- 66 -5.1 0 Foothill Blvd. at VIA i= 12A1151E Vineyard Ave. I�Ie�t1i:;- 80 -351 - 244501 tt Signals Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of 9ancho Cucamonga P.O. Sox 807 Ranchc Cucamonga, 04 91730 Dear i-r. Hubbs: Included herewith are five (5) copies, including the original, OF the C000e_rative Agreement for the Ninor Contract to modify trarfic signals on Foothill Boulevard at Vineyard Avenue. Please return Four (4) signed copies, including the original, with one copy of the City Council's Resolution authorizing the • mayor's signature. 4180 attached, for your information, are two (2) sets of the tentative plans for the above referenced project. Please feel free to offer any comments you Feel necessary that would provide a better project. Very truly yours, J. E. PEDDY Dist cict Director By Jeri R. Butler 'Pusinnss Services Manager I tt. • STAIE OF CANIORNIA— BUSINESS AND YRANSFORIAIION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., Cmono, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DI$nJCY e. 1. 0. Box 231 1 N BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92403 14) 383 -4368 �'A FN March 24, 1981 il$I�IIL;ia i�'?(3;?IS�o" 08- SBd- 66 -5.1 Foothill Blvd. Vineyard Ave. 80 -351 - 244501 Signals Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Hubbs: The attached pages (page numbers 2 and 5) of Cooperative Agreement No. 8 -404 (above referenced project) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California have been amended, and should replace the corresponding pages in your copy of the agreement. • Amendments made: Page 2. #3 - Change monetary amount from $7,000 to $7,700. Page 5 - Rewording of #8. If the four (4) additional copies of the agreement are still in your possession please make substitution there, also. 4 Very truly yours, MR. J. E. PEODY ' District Director 8y / Mr. R. H. Karns,Chief Traffic Operations - Branch 8 RNK:ej Att. i; 0 08- SBd- 66 -5.1 08351 244501 Foothill Blvd. 0 Vineyard Ave. District Agreenent No. B -404 THIS AriEUIENT, ENTERED INTO ON is between the 5T +TE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY RECITALS • (1) STATE and CITY contemplates modifving traffic control systen at the intersection of Vineyard Ave. with Foothill Blvd., State Highway Route 66 , referred to herein as "PROJECT ", and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which such systems are to be installed, financed and main- tained. • 0 SECTION I STATE ArREES: (1) To provide plans and specifications and all necessary construction engineering services for the PROJECT and to bear STATE'S share of the expense thereof, as shown on EXHIBIT A, attached and made a part of this agreement. (2) To construct the PROJECT by contract in accordance with the plans and specification of the STATE. (3) To pay an amount equal to 5of construction costs; but in no event shall STATE'S total obligation for construction costs under this agreement exceed the amount of S 7,700 : provided that STATE may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authcrize a greater amount. (4) To maintain and operate the entire traffic control signal systems and safety lighting as installed and pay an amount • equal to 51 cf the total costs. �J -2- SECTION II CITY AGREES: 0 (1) To deposit with STATE prior to award of a construction contract for PROJECT, the amount of S 7.000 , which figure represents CITY'S estimated share of the expense of preparation OF plans and specifications, construction engineering, utility negotiation and inspection, and construction costs required to cor..plete PROJECT, as shown on EXHIBIT A. In no event shall CITY'S total obligation for said costs under this agreement exceed the amount of S 7,700 ; provide that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greeter amount. (7) CITY'S share of the construction costs shall be an amcunt equal to 50�_of the actual cost for the entire PROJECT, as deternined after completion of work and upon final accounting OF costs. (3) CITY'S share of the expense of preparing plans and specifications, shall be an amount equal to 8.5'.' of CITY'S share . of the actual final construction cost. (4) CITY'S share of the expense of construction engineering shall be an amount equal to 5OLof the actual costs of construc- tion engineering for the entire PROJECT. (5) To reimburse STATE for CITY'S proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and operation of said traffic control signal systems and safety lighting, such share to be an amount equal to 50%;_of the total cost. • i 0 SECTION III IT IS NUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS; (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. (2) STATE shall not award a contract for the work until after receipt of CITY'S desposit required in Section II (1). (3) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that, cursuant to Government Code Section 855.4 CITY shall fully indemnifyy and hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of • anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connec- tion with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreement. (4) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 STATE shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this agreement. (5) Should any portion of the PRO]ECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds all applicable procedures and poli.cioo relating to the use of such funds shall apply not- withstanding other provisions of this agreement. (8) After opening of bids CITY'S estimate of cost will be revised based on actual bid prices. CITY'S required deposit under Section II(1) above will be increased or decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase or decrease is less than 51,000 no refund or demand for additional deposit will be made until final accounting. n ^J,.1 (7) After opening bids for the PROJECT and if bids indicate a cost overrun of no mors than 10% of the estimate will occur, STATE may award the contract. (0) If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost overrun exceeding more than 10 of the estimate will occur, STATE and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of action. (9) Prior to advertising for bids for the PROJECT, CITY nay terminate this agreement in writing, provided that CITY Pays STATE for all costs incurred by STATE. (10) If termination of this agreement is by mutual agreement, STATE will hear SO and CITY will bear 5O of all costs incurred prior to termination. (11) Upon completion of all work under this agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurte- nances installed will be jointly shared by the ratio of 501 STATE and 503 CITY. (12) If existing public and /or private utilities • conflict with the construction of the PROJECT, STATE will make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal. STATE will in- spoct the protection, relocation or removal of such utilities. If tha_re are costs of such protection, relocation or removal which the STATE and CITY must legally pay, STATE and CITY will share the cost of said protection, relocation or removal in the amount of 50' STATE and�CITY. (13) The cost of any engineering or maintenance referred to herein shall include all direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable to such work, applied in accordance with STATE'S standard accounting procedures. However, STATE'S share is accounted for in a state- wide account and is not shown separately on each project's cost brea'rdown. (14) That, in the construction of said work, STATE will. furnish a representative to perform the functions of a Resident Engineer, and CITY may, at no cost to STATE, furnish a represen. ' tative, if it so desires, and that said representative and Resident Engineer will cooperate and consult with each other, but the decision of STATE'S engineer shall prevail. (15) That execution of this agreement by CITY grants to STATE the right to enter upon CITY owned lands to construct the • PROJECT referred to herein. =5- n �R 0 • (16) That this agreement shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of PRCJECI by STATE and CITY or an January 1, 1983, whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership end mainte- nance clauses shall remain in effect until terminated, in writing, by mutual agreement, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Department of Transportation ADRIANIA GIANTURCD Director of Transportation Ry District Director CITY OF RANCHG CUCAP -GNGA or Attest: City Clerk �� r Ce- SRd- 66 -5.1 06351 244501 Foothill Blvd. 2 • Vineyard Ave. EXHIBIT A ESTIM9TE OF COST 510,000 5,000 5,000 DF.SCRIPTIDN TOTAL COST CITY'S (50 SHARE , °) STATE'S SHARE (50 %) Construction 510,000 5,000 5,000 Preliminary Engineering (17,� of Construction) 1,700 850 850 Construction Engineering (14% of Construction) 1,400 700 700 • TOTALS 513,100 56,550 $6,550 USE w E14,000 57,000 87,000 Rounded off to nearest S1, 000 for agreement purposes J • \J I CITY OF RANa-10 CUCAMO \GA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 uj TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement from Brooks Products, Inc. for Director Review 80 -41 As a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit for an addition to Poly Plastics (Brooks Products, Inc.), located on the northside of 4th Street between Turner and Haven Avenues, the installation of street improvements including sidewalks is reeuired. Poly Plastics (Brooks Products,Ine.) has entered into a Lien Agree- ment for the installation of said sidewalks, because immediate construction is not necessary for public safety and welfare. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolu- tion and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept the Lien Agreement on behalf of the City. Resepectfully submitted, LSH:BK:jaa Attachments n`I RESOLUTION NO. '�jI -Ha • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM BROOKS PRODUCTS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. WHEREAS, Director Review 80 -41, located on the northside of 4th Street, between Turner and Haven Avenue, submitted by Poly Plastic (Brooks Products, Inc.) was approved on January 26, 1981; and WHEREAS, Installation of sidewalk established as prerequisite to issuance of Building Permit has been met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement by Brook Products, Inc.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does accept said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. AYES: • NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Y � Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor RECORDING REQUESTED BY and WHEN RECORDED MAIL T0: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9310 -C Base Line Road Post Office Box 907 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT n� THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of , 1980, by and between Brooks Products Inc,. (hereinafter referred to as "Developer '), and the CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMONOA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), provides as follows: WHEREAS, as a general condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit for residential development, the City requires the construction of mission off -site street improvements, including curbs, • gutters and pavement, adjacent to the property to be developed; and, WHEREAS. Developer desires to Postpone construction of such improvements until a later date, as determined by the City; and, WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such postponement provided that Developer enter into this Agreement requiring Developer to construct said improvements, at no expense to the City, after demand to do so by the City, which said Agreement shall also provide that the City may construct said improvements if the Developer fails or neglects to do so and that the City shall have a lien upon the real property hereinafter described as security for the Developers' performance, and any repayment due City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE.: 1. The Developer hereby agree that they will install off - site street improvements, including sidewalks only, in accordance and compliance with ill applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of the City in effect at the time of the installation. Said improvements shall be installed upon and along Fourth Street • adjacent to Developers' property hereinafter described. n� 0 2. The installation of said improvements shall be completed not later than one (1) year following written notice to the Developer P i from the City to commence installation of the same. Installation of said improvements shall be at not expense to the City. 3. in the event the Developer fails or refuses to complete the installation of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at any time thereafter, upon giving the Developer written notice of its intention to do so, enter upon the property hereinafter described and complete said improvements and recover all costs of completion incurred by the City from the Developer. 4. To secure the performance by the Developer of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to City of any .`unds which may be expended by City in completing said improvements upon default by the Developer hereunder, the Developer does by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey to the City the following described real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit: • Parcel 1 of Parcel Map Number 5239 as per map recorded in Book 52 of Parcel Maps, Pape 10, gerords of said County. 5. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purposes described above. 6. Now, therefore, if the Developer shall faithfully perform all of the acts and things by them to be done under this Agrne^ont, then this conveyance shall be void; otherwise, it shall rem,iin in fall force and effect and in all respects shall be considered and u'cated .1a a mm'tnalc on the real property and the rights and ablioationv or the portion with r,•spect thereto shall be governed by the prnvisinas of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any other applicable statute, pertaining to mortuages on real property. 7. This Avrecmeot shall be binding upon and shall insure H, the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and • assi;ns of each of the parties hereto. � P i 0 8. To the extent required to give effect of this Agreement as a mortgage, the term "Developer" shall mean "mortgagor" and the City shall be the "mortgagee" as those terms are used in the Civil Code of the State of California and any other statute pertaining to mortgages on real property. 9. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is entitled to recover from the Developer hereunder or to foreclose the right of the Developer to redeem the above - described property from the morteage created hereby, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be awarded by the Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. • CITY: DEVELOPERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, corporation a municipal corporationlG= :i - - - "' Brooks Products, In BY:_ PHILLIP p. SCHL055F:R Mayor ATTEST: F„1 .MM. W7055HR'AN City Clerk 1�,r1.' 0 A D (-rry nr. n s ��r•,.,n r, �r�e �env(-e STAFF REPORT •N DATE: April 15, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement from Ronald W. Nunnally and Susan L. Nunnally, husband and wife as joint tenants for 8880 Strang Lane As a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit for 8880 Strang Lane, a private road located on the eastside of Carnelian Street between Hillside Road and Almond Street, the installation of street improvements including sidewalks is required. Mr. and Mrs. Nunnally have entered into a Lien Agreement for the installation of said curbs, gutters, pavement and sidewalk, because immediate construction is not necessary for public safety and wel- fare. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept the Lien Agreement on behalf of the City. Resp ctfully sub}aitted, LBH: JS: jaa Attachments C -a RESOLUTION NO, 5� � H3 go A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM RONALD W. NUNNALLY AND SUSAN L. NUNNALLY, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. WHEREAS, Installation of curbs, gutters, pavement and sidewalk as prerequisite to issuance of Building Permit has been met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement by Ronald W. Nunnally and Susan L. Nunnally, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants for 8880 Strang Lane, located on the east side of Carnelian, between Hillside Road and Almond Street; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does accept said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. AYES: • NOES: ABSENT: • ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C ark 1/ J J Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor • RECORDING REQUESTED BY and WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 -C ease Line Road Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___ day of , 1981, by and between Ronald W. Normally and Susan L. Nunnally, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants (hereinafter referred to as "Developers "), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), provides as follows: WHEREAS, as a general condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit for residential development, the City requires the • cons traction of missing off -site street improvements, including curbs, gutters, pavement, and sidewalks, adjacent to the property to be developed; and, WHEREAS, the Developers desire to postpone construction of each improvements until a later date, as determined by the City; and, WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such postponement provided that the Developers enter into this Agreement requiring the Developers to construct said improvements, at no expense to the City, after demand to do so by the City, which said Agreement shall also provide that the City may construct said improvements if the Developers fail or neglect to do so and that the City shall have I lien upon the real Property hereinafter deerribed as security for the Developer's perEOrma nee, and any repayn•,ent due City. VOIJ, THEREFORE., THE PARTIES AGREE: 1, The Developers hereby agree that they will install off - site street improvements, including curha, gutters, pavement, and sidewalks, in accnrdnnee and compliance with all applicable ordinances, resnlutionsr ru'::s Ind regulations of the City in effect at the time of the installation. Said impc ovaments shall be installed upon and along Strang Lane, adjacent to Developer's property hereinafter described. J 2. The installation of said improvements shall be completed • cot later than one (1) year following written notice to the Developers from the City to commence installation of the same. Installation of said improvements shall be at no expense to the City. 3. In the event the Developers fail or refuse to complete the installation of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at any time thereafter, upon giving the Developers written notice of its intention to do so, enter upon the property hereinafter described and complete said improvements and recover all costs of completion incurred by the City from the Developers. 4. To securn the performance by the Developers of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to City of any funds which may be expended by City in completing said improvements upon default by the Developers hereunder, the Developers do by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey to the City the following described real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit: • The North one -half of the South one -half of Lot 4, Block 13 Cucamonga Homestead Association Lands, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, page 46 of Maps, records of said County, except therefrom the westerly 973 feet thereof. 5. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purposes described above. 6. Now, therefore, if the Developers shall faithfully perform all of the acts and things by them to be done under this Agrremenh, than this conveyance shall be void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect and in all respects shall be considered and treated as a mortgage on the real property and the rights and obligations of the parties with respect. thereto shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any other applicable statute, pertaining to mortgages on real property. 7. This Agroement shall be binding upon and shall insure • to Lhe benefit of the heirs, execato r. ^., administrators, successors and assigns of each of the parties heioto. rl 7 � d • 81 To the extent required to give effect of this Agreement as a mortgage, the term "Developers" shall mean "mortgagors" and the City shall he the "mortgagee" as those terms are used in the Civil Code of the State of California and any other statute pertaining to mortgages on real property. 9. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is entitled to recover from the Developers hereunder or to foreclose the right of the Developers to redeem the above - described property from the mortgage created hereby, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be awarded by the Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed thla Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY: DEVELOPERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, corporation a municipal / • corporation P HIL LtP O. SCNLOSB ER ✓ Mayor ATTEST: WIiR FN M. WASEEP.MAN City Clerk � � I 0 • EI CITY OF RANaIO CUCANIO: \CA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Carnelian Street Storm Drain Project On April 6, 1981 bids were received on the Carnelian Street Storm Drain Improvement Project. The low bidder was K.E.C. Company at $272,306.00. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $344,781.00. The Staff has analyzed the bids and finds them correct and accept- able. The low bidder, K.E.C. Company was 21% below the engineer's estimate. A summary of all bids is attached. RECObLMENDATION It is recommended that the Council award the contract to K.E.C. Company at $272,306.00, authorize execution of contract and the authorization of the contract amount plus 108 for contingencies from the Storm Drain Fee Account. Respectfully submitted, LBH:jaa Attachment .l 0 0 CITY OF RANCN0 CUCAMNGA SumORY OF PROPOSALS OPENED PROJECT Car "e n an itree[ storm ore In Impro eno LOCArioe DATE April 6, 1981 CONTRACT NO. 80 -07 0 K.E.C. Company G.B. Cook, Inc. Beictak c Sons,lnc FClcon Construction [e rs F.e, ss true- ° V r Laitd Construction 1TE415 QUANTITIES - -- _ BID MBIUNT _ 1 n BID AMOUNT B!D MMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT D_ddrr's Bond _ _ yes 10% yes 10% ve_ lot yes 10% yes 10% yes 102 1. Traffic Control L.S. f 4000 4,000.00 9500 9,500.00 2000 2,OOD.00 IDOOD ID,ODO.OD 5000 5,ODO.00 2100 2,100.00 2. Removal of A.C. c Co., L.5. 7300 7,300.00 25000 25.000.00 10000 10,o0D.00 5000 5,000.OD 30000 30,000.00 6900 6,900.00 3. Removal of C., 6nnl. L.S. 8700 8,700.00 9000 91000.00 15000 15,000.00 5000 5,000.00 55000 55,000.00 4350 4,350.00 4. Eacava[ion Boo Cy 4.00 3.200.00 MOD 10,400.00 5.00 4,000.00 20.00 16,000.00 10.00 8.000.00 3.35 2,680.00 5. Fill 1100 CY 4.00 4,400.00 6.00 6,6oD.00 5.00 5.500.00 5.00 5.50D.00 20.D0 22,000.00 2.45 2,69500 6. Aggregate Base 68o T 10.00 6,800.00 12.OD 8.160.00 7.00 4,760.00 10.00 6,800.90 10.00 6,800.00 11.20 7,616.00 7. 0.3' A.C- 595 T 35.00 20,825 -00 30.00 17,850.00 25.00 14,BIS.a' 41.10 23.800.00 4D.00 23.800.00 4o.30 23,978.50 8. RCB C..lvert 718 LF 25..00 179,500.W 250.00 179.500 012 315.00 226,170.0. 250.00 179,500.0. 200.00 143,600.00 335.65 240,996.70 9. R.C. Inlet Trans. wall 70 IF 100.00 7, DOD. DO 175.00 12,250.00 70.00 4,900.00 300.00 21,000.00 100.00 7,000.OD 18535 12,974.50 10 Trapezoidal Channel 157 LF 120.00 18, B40. DO 100.00 15,700.00 90.00 14,130.00 150.00 23.550.00 50.00 7,850.00 91.75 14,404.75 H. Air placed w "c re to 1200 SF 2.00 2,400.00 4.00 4,800.00 1.50 1,800.00 5.00 6,000.00 3.00 3,600.00 2.10 2,520.00 12. 12" P.C.C. curb 6 g[r. 176 LF 10.00 1,760.00 15.00 2,640.00 8.00 1,408.00 20.00 3,520.00 10.00 1,760.o0 12.80 2,252.80 13- 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 883 5F 3 -DO 2,649.00 2.00 1,766.00 1.00 883.00 4.00 3.532.00 2.00 1,766.00 2.10 1,854.30 14. P.C.C. Drive Approach Ila SF 5.00 I 550.00 3.00 330.00 2.00 220.00 5.00 550.00 3.00 330.00 2.85 313.50 15. 6' Chain link fence 170 LF 20.00 3,400.00 12.00 2,040.00 6.00 1,020.00 10.00 1,700.00 30.00 5.100.00 9.60 1,632.00 16. Chain link gates 2 EA 350.00 700.00 500.00 1,000.0 250.00 500.00 1000 2,000.00 SOD 1,000.00 300.00 600.00 17- 10" curb only 47 LF 6-OD 282.00 8.00 470.OQ 5.00 23500 10.00 470.00 10.00 470.00 10.50 49350 (376.00 TOTAL $272,306.00 $307,006.0 $307,401.10 $313.922.00 323.076.00 5328,361.55 . I I (306,9.2100 CITY OF RANCI!O CUCAIUNOA PAGE 2 SU:CNRY OF PROPOSALS OPEUED PROJECT Carpel ;an Street storm Drain Improvement, DATE - -I LCC0:10N COMPACT 110. • • • enneth jmith Edward J. Vaginal, Engineer's _ ITEMS NIUUIIT _ _ _ _ BID id!OIMT _ _ DID __ AMM T _ DID A OUNT 11D 31D A19IDNT oto N40ULT O"nd Yes }300 3,300.00 5000 5,000.00 I. Traffic Control SODC 5,000.DO 2. Removal of A.C. L Conc IQUANTITIES 2000 22,000.00 15000 15,000.00 12500 1.500.00 3. Removal of Comic. Chn1 7000 7.00D.00 8000 8,000.00 7000 7.000.00 r. E-.v. thin 20.00 16,000.00 6.00 4,800.00 3.00 2,400.00 5. Fill 10.00 11,000.00 6.OD 6,600.00 5.00 5,500.00 C. A9grega[e Base 21.00 14,280.00 15.00 10,200.00 9.00 6.120.00 7. 0.3' A.C. 595 T 33.00 19.635. DO 40.00 23,800.00 25.00 14,875.00 8. DEB Culvert 718 LF 260.00 106,680.00 350.00 251,300.00 350.00 251,300.00 9. R.C. Isle[ Trans- .all, 70 LF 250.00 17,500.00 230.00 16,100.00 80.00 5.600.00 10. Trapezoidal Channel 157 LF 250.00 39,250.0D 170.00 26,690.00 128.00 20.096.00 11. Air placed concrete 1200 5F 3.00 3,600.00 4.00 4,BDO.DO 3.00 3.600.00 12. 12" P.C.C. corn c 9ntr. 176 LF 20.00 3,520.00 10.00 1,760.00 9.00 11584.00 13, 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 883 SF 1.50 1,324.50 4.0D 3,532.00 2.00 1,766.DO 14. P.C.C. Drive Approach 110 5F 1.50 165 -00 6.00 66o.OD 3.00 770.00 15. 6• Grain Link Fence 170 LF 25.00 4,250.00 2000 . 3,400.00 IO.OD 1,700.00 16. Chain 1'mk gates 2 EA 400.00 800.00 800.00 1,600.00 1000 21000.00 17. 10" cork only 47 LF 7.00 329.00 16.00 752.00 10,00 47D.00 TOTAL $352.333.50 $382,294.00 S3M4,259,00 • • • L • I'll, I nl1,, 1l STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tract Map 11700 The subject map was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1981 for the division of 7.9 acres into a one (1) lot 70 unit industrial condominium in the M -2 zone. The subdivider, Daon Corp., has previously bonded for all off -site improvements under Parcel Map 6206. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolu- tion approving Tract Map 11700. Respectfully submitted, +%�4 LBH:BK:jas Attachments 37 RESOLUTION NO. 81-NH • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 11700. (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11700) WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map Number 11700, submitted by Daon Corporation and consisting of 1 lot, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue, being a division of Parcel 16 of Parcel Map 6206, as recorded in Book 59, Pages 91 -95 in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and, WHEREAS, Tract Map Number 11700 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative tract map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Tract Map Number 11700 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • L Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor �I TENTATIVE TRACT ,• ., T MAP N0.11700 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rt�ruo.5 coonrr, a +n or uioo ni. 4440 6206 i•r.. �rnC" \�_�:�n •.r: m -2 cmd uae: /.ye. AJw tr;Rl funn«CO•az;l ! 1 - - "ll ,a.d�•, pCL S OCL. i ��PCL. > ec[ J nCt. 9 \ fct. ro\ � ka p ••• •.r .•.ui � xe • rrr � aao- � — 1 I wi`i'L ,,.., :i'• .n 1 y oarN , • b N ryn n...f✓ i u •.•, ;! S l i t 3 i 3 3 i � l:/ .•• N� s. t. S :Rg3w — ..eT%. 8 .in mo sr z. • 9 X ?r, GTY OP RA\GiO CUCkMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Map, Bonds and Agreement for Parcel Map 4762 The subject map was tentatively approved by the City Engineer on December 11, 1980 and extended by Planning Commission to May, 1981. Parcel Map 4762 is located at the southwest corner of Sixth and Turner consisting of 19 lots on 27.6 acres of land. Westwards Properties has submitted an agreement and bonds for the off -site improvements in the following amounts: $86,000.00 Faithful Performance $86,000.00 Labor and Material RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Parcel Map 4762, improvement agreement and security. Respectfully submitted, LBH :BR:jaa Attachments N/) RESOLUTION NO. '3 /-A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 4762, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.4762) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 4762, submitted by Westwards Properties, and consisting of 19 parcels, located at the southwest corner of Sixth and Turner, being a division of portions of lots 19 and 22, section 14, T.1S, R7W, as recorded in Book 4 page 9, San Bernardino County Records was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on October 2, 1978; and, WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 4762 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and, WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable improvement security by Westwards Properties as developer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and said improvement security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said • improvement agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that said Parcel Map Number 4762 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Cork J! Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor P.(-r CEL M- .. � Nc0. :•7(,-2 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUUMONGA COUNTY OF SAN RERNARD;NC) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA .. Of ING 1 SVNOIV"0N OF 104t10N5 OF LOTS H AND 22, Sr CTJON N, 1011NAHP I $OU111, NANAC 1 W11?, SAN OCNAdNO1NO MEOIDIAN AS $NOM'll DN MLP OF CVCAMOIIOA LANOS, HCCONOEO IN GOON e, PATE O OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE a 1 THE --MTV NECOHDEN OF THE COUNTY DF Sal OE..DAO.5TATE OF C N(NNM. ' rl .. �, mn � iL':�.'l' CAOnrrrel.ua i rN..�'; —GG3= rA • 4l!ESTYYARD 1,VOL/T7AVAL PgRK" a E _ STRET; _ -- 'I 1 • I LOT }' tj /y.; L, if I \\ �; / -��•K 7;.::.,` . � III '2 }u �n II r' y 3 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL HAP NO. 4062 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and was[va Ids Pro riles hereina ter referred to as the Deve oper. VITNESSETH: TWAT, OHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the City of Parcel Nap Number 4162 in accordance with the provisions of the report of the City Engineer thereon, and any amendments thereto; located on the vest side of marner between 5th street L 6th Street. and, WHEREAS, the city has established certain requirements to he met by said Dev- eloper prior to granting the final approval of the parcel map; and, WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the pupose of securing said approval; HOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: • 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at Developer's expense all inprovee.ents described on Page 3 hereof within nine months from the data hereof, as per Section 2.12 of Ordinance No. 28. • 2. The term of this agreement shall he nine months commencing on the date of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on the day following the last day of the tern stipulated, unless said tem has been extended as hereinafter provided. 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to conplete the Pro- visions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In consideration of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer fails or nealecis to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any lawful means, and thereupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. S. Encroachment pe mits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right of way, and thw Developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the re- gulations contained therein. lion- compliance may result in stopping of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. . 5. Public right of way improvemnt work required Shall be constructed in can. form,nce with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. construction shall include any transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. RCE12A �i fMFt Z • I;irnnl'CY!.!!i ACRCF:eI ^, !' lip tbr . <iell +I treertil` aithtrl r••• ii 11., lc 'nt o(inturrvdllrm dog tlm • 'r rCri •n mrwlt'M1• �It illy ,k inmVle ' nrk In the nvmr. ^ the peve lur• .nd /ornhis c � om .,nJ pmt nw[nr Iry any I.naful 8, llir. Iknfl1ltr xR.11i In' rt'.q,nna liar fn„ rrP l.lr�e.i�l. rn laeA i,,n. nr r oche m' com.p••neot of anI irr tgat in, voter <v<tom in 'nnflict With 'egWmtl :avl: to the sa tiz rac[VOn of the Pity I:nRincer an0 the f [Re Water sysl Cm, ner 9. Th., R•ve lr per `boll by rca p tns(b Iv in r......v,l rr nll Inon„ rock anJ other rent rop Ier� r[ y ort.ithlntI ay righlyo(r. tl ng fToa °nrk done on the nJja- 10. I;e Ovct lnpvr <h,til pl.int uul m intain ra it"" trcex as direetntl by the Cumi,u:nitY Devc Lq•munt 0i recto r,a 11. TP¢ im••,rve •nl secnrtty to be (u tnivhrJ br tlm Dev�•I nprr to q::aran[rt nm;n rat inn or tl,e c1. I this n8memrnt shalt he s "1'1e1t to the npr rural of [hc City At Mrnry, The pr(nciral nm not of said improvement s arlty zlmll be nor Ices t!mn the amount zho.o belt.: ec 111F'nU'JEtE:NT SCCi1Ri1Y SUR411TE11: F.ti Lh(ul P¢r (t rmantr Bond ME SURETY /AGENT PRINCIPAL A IOUfii 586,000.00 • Na serial and Labor pond 586,000.00 la Iarxrs5 IICREOr. lIII` ;evt(es htrr[n Il.n'r r <rA the <r ;,resent: to Nod, " oimd an'I Mr, ...eaeda^d With "II fmm nn set forth ap pox i to their alitles required by law on the dates ai Fnatnres: MELOFER B - __�sw� DATE: �1 DAIE; 7 8� :1L5f: �.{.P DATE: /J.�_•S� V CITY OF RANCRO CUCMIOSaA. CALIFORNIA n m "niairal on rrrrat inn BY __ �_• MAYOR 1 :2 Ty CLUE nl.LS r: DA1 P:: 1I \l u I ACE12B 1 /I IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUC690 %GA CONSTRUCTION AND POND ESTI:S\TE • ENCROACILNENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE. (Attach to "Inspector's Copy ") DATE: PF.RMTT NO. C04PUTED BY n. P—ee., • File Reference Parcel 4nn 4762 City Drawing No, :ATE: Does nor include current fee for writing permit or pavement replace- ment deposits. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE IV OToNITY UNIT I UNIT CST A AHCHM I:'d`.:w i11-MT OF t<: \1' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S.F. 19 1 Do 16 00n ).216 1V. t. tivo Cost I:,tlaatc) .1. C. P.11:'iN2:T 11. S.F. I "' "• 660 L. r, 1 3.00 1 f.CPB '. I:; r7Ei $ 86,000 L. T'. 1 6.00 11,460 IE0.1S Gr TTE3 /eRO'OREL S.F. Cash Menumenting Deposit - $ O s L,i C<ALR RCE22E S.F. v:"-- .\1,-HOAGIES - rrsvcvnla.l S.F. CaRVS: :ED AGGREGATE BASE 42 160 1 r .46 18,9]2 S T 1111 RFDBWO XF.ADER SIGNS EA. too. 00 ".. f..n. CATCH BASIN EA. nl'T L!T 51 RLCTURP. e . i I I I 1 I 1 1 1 i I I Ri TAT':I':C CALLS M1I IP: "':p1.L.S L.F. LXWDIAi'E n IXRIG:ATUN I L.S. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 24.))0 INSPECT Toll FEES 1. I_. .y I. r ;. •• •. . .nr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CI fnlGTtnP INSPECTION 17 , S. I ).216 1V. t. tivo Cost I:,tlaatc) - TOTAL I "' "• Faithful Perfemanra Bond > 86,000 Material and L.tbor Rond $ 86,000 Natntenancr Nord $ 0 Cash Menumenting Deposit - $ O 1. TNTI% I:NSPECTTON FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3,116 I1. COH."ACTIO:f TEST FF.F.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,413 1V. 'S I 1;:1 FFES (10: nE TO LII Cnn st tivo Cost I:,tlaatc) . $ TOTAL $ 8s. '.79 Faithful Perfemanra Bond > 86,000 Material and L.tbor Rond $ 86,000 Natntenancr Nord $ 0 Cash Menumenting Deposit - $ O RCE22E �� 0 RESOLUTION NO 81• 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 314 0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk WHEREAS, Senate Bill 314 proposed by Senator Dills supports binding arbitration; and, WHEREAS, Binding Arbitration is a method of resolving labor disputes under which the parties to a controversy must accept the award of a third party; and, WHEREAS, Senate Bill 314 would drastically affect the Collec- tive Bargaining process in local government and undermine the authority of locally elected representatives in handling employer- employee relations; and, WHEREAS, Binding Arbitration has not historically prevented the threat or occurrence of a strike; and, WHEREAS, Senator Ruben S. Ayala has requested that the Rancho Cucamonga City Council oppose by Resolution, Senate Bill 314; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby state its apposition to Binding Arbitration as a mechanism to resolve local employer - employee relations • and opposes the adoption of Senate Bill 314. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. 0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk REPLY O: L[O ST re n STATE MTO 30 10 SACRAMENTO. CA P 14 1916) 445.6100 (Aj mnn KT o,nc[ A.°Own !A N. ARROWHEAD AVMUL SUIT[ 100 SAN B[nMM O1N 0, CA .2401 • 0141 004.3165 ❑ .29 NO.TN EUCUO AV .U[ SUIT[ A ONTAN- CA 91'/02 0141 , a3-3 91'/02 06 ❑ STATE SENATOR RUBEN S. AYALA TNX1TT.f[COXOf[XATO.. ALTNET.", (falifontin' #u #e Seztafe April 6, 1981 WATM I.... C[a. n.. NATURAL NAry TAt R[[OV [cb AXO WI R[V[XU.Y[ .. AMO TA2 Al10M Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Phil: • Thank you for writing me recently expressing the City's opposition to Senate Bill 314, relating to employer - employee relations. I have not been in favor of binding arbitration in the past, and I do not expect to change my mind this year. ._I_, would expect the City Council to go on record by Resolution -in-Opposition-t&--Senate Hill 314.' Please continue to keep me informed. RSA /rp • Sincerely, RU M S. AYALA Sena or, 32nd District t City of RANCHO CUCAMONGA'o March 11, 1981 Senator Ruben Ayala 515 North Arrowhead Suite 100 San Bernardino, Ca. 92401 RE: SENATE BILL 314 Dear Ruben: As you aware, Senator Dills has again proposed a binding arbitration bill which would affect cities and fire protection districts. Although the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not presently providing fire services, we do receive those services from the Foothill Fire Protection District, It is also anticipated that at some point in the future, perhaps within the next feu; years, the City will be absorbing the Fire District operations. We are quite concerned with Senate Bill 314 because it would drastically • affect the collective bargaining process in local government. We feel that this process is best determined by locally elected representatives rather than non - elected arbitrators who would be making major spending decisions for our City. Arbitrators who are not accountable to the taxpayers have no loyalty to the Community and often make decisions which have the effect of by- passing the good face collective bargaining which is prevalent in most communities. Perhaps, the most important reason to oppose binding arbitration is that historically it has been shown that binding arbitration in no way elimi- nates the threat or the occurrence of a strike. There have been many communities where strikes have occurred, even though binding arbitration is an alternative to employees. While I recognize that your previous position has been to oppose binding arbitration, we did feel it important to let you know the views of Rancho Cucamonga. We are assuming that your position has not changed. We urge the defeat of Senate Bill 314. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Phillip D. Schlosser PDS /L'7W /vz Mayor • CC/ Yen Emanuels, League of CA. Cities !i z POST OFFICE. BOX 721, RANCHO COCA)IONOA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (717) 989.1851 r, n LJ ,2 CITY OF RANO-10 CU'C1610NOP. STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 197 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditions for Tentative Tract Maps 11609 and 9441 The above referenced tracts have appealed Planning Comission conditions for their respective tracts which require the construc- tion of the portions Loma�chiLnnel adjacent to theeir.pro- jec_ ts. Attac a are copies of the appeal requests, Planning Commission conditions and pertinent documents related to the im- posed condition. In recent months several tracts have been submitted along this channel and in each case this condition has been imposed. These are the first tracts to formally appeal the condition. Alta Loma Channel is an unimproved flood control facility draining approximatley 960 acres of mountain and hillside lands. The site of both tracts is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly portion of the tract is particularly subject to flood hazard due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition. This channel in the recent past has undergone severe erosion from moderate storms and in the past year placed a residence at Hillside in severe jeo- pardy. The recommendation of development of the tibutary drainage area without attention to this facility would be negligent on the part of the Engineering Division. Because the proposed tracts are the most directly impacted by the channel construction and because they have been the first to apply for subdivision, they will be required to bear a substantial burden beyond the usual development. To offset burdens of this nature, the conditions provide for the execution of a reimbursment agreement. REIMBURSEMENT POLICY As we have begun to approve tracts under growth management and as we near adoption of the revised storm drain master plan, two facts have become apparent: First, the current storm drain fees are inadequate to construct the planned drainage facility and, second, that tracts within the infill area require facilities that gener- ally arQ beyond any practical fee obligation. .OFF Aprill5, 1981 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11609 and 9441 Page 2 As the Council is aware, the current City policy on reimbursement is to set aside 108 of all fees collected each year to be distri- buted among all outstanding agreements in proportion to the original agreement amounts. In reflection of the above referenced problems, it is likely that the City will be receiving very few fees with which to reimburse developments such as the two under appeal. For this reason, several developers with this situation have asked that the amount of reimbursement be increased or that reimbursement districts be formed to require all fees collected within the district area to apply directly to reimbursement. The impact of this policy will be and has been to severely limit the accumulation of storm drain fees for application to priority storm drains. In essence, storm drain priorities are being established by development activity rather than City needs. I'm afraid that this just confirms what we originally expected and that is that some means other than fees is required to deal with existing City problems. Fees are most effective in insuring that new development is handled responsbily. ALTA LOMA BASIN- TURNER AVENUE • An aspect of development in the area of the subject developments and various other infill projects that Council should be aware of is the commulative impact of development on Turner Avenue. All the lands tributary to the Alta Loma Basin are ultimately tributary to Turner Avenue which has been subject to severe damage in the past and can be a severe public hazard. In lieu of any broad scale solutions to this problem, staff has approached approvals within the drainage area with the purpose of obtaining significant improvements to the system so that major improve- ments to the system can be accomplished as development occurs. The pace of development in the area may have reached the stage where we should begin to look more closely at the entire Turner Avenue system and develop a strategy for solution and a funding mechanism which will allow development to proceed responsibly under an equitable cost sharing program. CONCLUSION In the case of the tracts currently appealing the channel conditions, the Council has several options: 1. Require something less than full improvement of the channel - This option would subject future homes to severe flood hazard �r and reduce the likelihood of any facility ever being complete. r� STAFF REPORT April 15, 1981 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11609 and 9441 • Page 3 2. The Council could contribute to construction of the channel - In that funds available are severely limited, I would not recommend this solution unless the Council wishes to make this facility the City's number one priority drain. 3. The Council can allow the establishment of a reimbursement district within the watershed and pledge fees in the area to these agreements - This solution would reduce funds available in other areas of the City and have some of the effects of Option 2. 4. The Council could increase the amounts available for reimburse- ment to something higher than the current 108. 5. Uphold the condition of the Planning Commission and maintain the current reimbursement policy. RECOMMENDATION Given the severe drainage problems throughout the City, the Staff • recommends the fifth option to retain the condition and current reimbursement policy. Staff would also recommend that a special study of the Turner drainage area be explored in conjunction with the Storm Drain Committee. Respectfully submitted, LBti : j a a Attachments E �1 w- .......... 1. '5 7 o 3t N 0 Syr N 10N�, 4�6 R ST,/ • -C AF� 3V TA. H 'LSIDE Ai-. iL 51 7 -E 3-J ...... 3 24" 9 3 3-G , FF — IF 39" 3 5-K -fC 2'7- 30" 7 ALTA LOMA BASINS W.W.D. FOOT"ILL FEEDE 0,I oc Z -A Ae 54-�f,2 �pi ii APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT CITY OF RANCXO CUCALM-N M COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN TENTATIVE MAP PENDING PROJECT NO. 2- 5 517 N. Euclid Avenue JANUARYT DRAWING . OF Ontario, CA 91762 tgal L9w O![IC CS O! SuRR & HELLYER . "u. +[R nee e.Inenl POO[ RS<ve•C+ • wv ..11.1 D X911950 III pC "S a[ SDn • w wr, C6D nv u NEE P. [ Ow•R DS 9» "•S v n<P[fC w5 , pfllC 1. 9°a 6096[ • vLC,• ", SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 92412 ✓i SvI..O Yf I)•I 96• •)Of March 6, 1981 "' °• " ° c1 ,,' OF RANCHO COCAPAONGA DANIEL .. "<,- ADMINISTRATION Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk MAR 07 138t City of Rancho Cucamonga AM FN 9320 Baseline Road 718191'101ll112111213101516 Rancho Cucamonga, CA ! Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -20 Dear Mr. Wasserman: This office represents Mark III, the applicant with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 9441. Enclosed is our client's appeal of the Planning ' Commission's conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. • 9441 as expressed in Resolution No. 81 -20 approved February 25, 1981. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $100.00 payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga representing the required appeal fee pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10. Please address all notices and other correspondence regarding this appeal to: Surr & Hellyer (FJD) A Professional Corporation P. O. Box 6086 San Bernardino, CA 92412 If you would like to discuss this matter prior to the hearing on the appeal we will be happy to do so. Very truly yours, SORR & HELLYER A P ESSIO,t \1 ^1AL\1 CORPO By V • James D. Stroffe JDS /kw Enclosures GC(;G''GV - "!9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION • Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk MAR U 7 1981 PM City of Rancho Cucamonga AM 11112112 9320 Baseline Road 778191101 113141516 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 4 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -20 TO: LAUREN WASSERMAN, CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Mark III, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.5 and Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10 hereby appeals from the action of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga taken on February 25, 1981 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 9441. Specifically, the undersigned appeals the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -20 Section 2 Item Numbers 2 and 3. U • Bated: March 6, 1981 MP RK I, a Ca orni co or tion B J es Golfos, Vi a President STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this 6 day of March, 1981, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared James Golfos, known to we to be the Vice President of Mark. III, a corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r=,v` y O /IICIAI SEAL GARNER MIEEER NaA'Y Pv31¢ Glilnmp ORANGE COUNTY ' MY .m MWn Loves MA, 24, 19371 .......... ............... ......... . �� I, - r d l ,, , I Notary Public in and for said County and State Page 2 i (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 9441, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Planning Division I. Unless the Developer of this tract chooses to exclude equestrian uses through the recordation of appropriate C. C. & R.'s, approved by the City, local equestrian trails and easements will be required for equestrian access to all lots within the subdivision. Engineering Division 2. A dedication in fee to the Flood Control District shall be required along the westerly tract boundary to provide for an ultimate District right -of -way width of 80 feet measured from the channel's westerly rights -of -way line. 3. Design and construction of an adequate concrete lined channel with inlet structure along Alta Loma Channel contiguous to subject tract shall be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction cost •. of the facility shall be credited to the stonndrain fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement will be executed per City Ordinance No. 75 to cover the contribution which exceed the amount of the fee. 4. All existing easements lying within the future right -of- way are to be quit claimed or delineated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. 5. Final'plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. 6. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City standards. 7. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 8. Private drainage easements with improvements for cross lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated on the final map. E 6J $n.r �czrn�(iKO eourly COUNTY ORONME RNARD1No FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT :�_ ENVIRONMENTAL .. ` T.^�� % T 65 �' - PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 825 ast Thud Slrrnt Sin Bernardino, CA 92415 17141 38316 �. m PIE TRo. noon cn.,nm Pr•¢I!ii CP,G CUCA�iIGNGA _ 1o,m e. es -N1110 Cp,, ,I01 T Y DEVU Of "A ENT DEPT. February 19, 1981 AN P+1 7131 f0111it'1112131a1516 File: 1- 405/2,02 � Tract 9441 Mark III 2950 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attention: Mr. Jack Tannenbaum Director of Engineering Re: Zone 1, Alta Loma Storm Drain Tentative Tract 9441 Gentlemen: The District is in receipt of your letter dated February 9, 1981, regarding dedi- cation of rights -of -way for the Alta Loma Storm Drain to the District as part of the • approval of Tentative Tract 9441 located north of the District's Alta Loma Basin NO. 1, west of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Alta Loma Channel in the northern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The District would be pleased to review a revised Tentative Tract Map 9441 which shows an improved concrete lined channel for the Alta Loma Channel, The submittal should be made through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. At that time we will review the proposed channel section and rights -of -way then comment to the City. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Allan J. P,ielhold, Chief, Water Resources Division at (714) 383 -2388. RV:l :RI!C:mjs ,_rc: city of Rancho cklcarlonpa •Encl. as noted Very truly yours, C. J, BE PIETRO, Flood Control Engineer r Ruben V. Montes Asst. Flood Control Engineer planning - Engineering S" gev,4" j?4"Wey (- FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ly't rto COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO /i°,�,�,n' ENVIRONMENTAL 825 Ea,t Third Street , San Bernardino, CA 92415 • (714) 3831665_ ._�``^.? PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY C.J. DI PIETRO, PIPPtl CenLOI En f!J { :y"��Y JOIiNM BERNARD ginger yf� pyen<Y Atlminis.nler • September 19, 1980 File: 1- 405/1.00 r 1- 406/1.00 CITY OF RA. XHO CUCANIONGA Tract 9441 C6fdif,UNITY CEVEECPMENT DEPT. sEp ° a 19EG City of Rancho Cucamonga AM PM glglgl91111>211(2(3141016 Engineering ng Department 9340 Baseline Avenue 4 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Ms. Barbara Krall Re: Zone 1, Alta Loma Storm Drain Tentative Tract 9441 Gentlemen: The District is in receipt of your letter dated August 25, 1980 regarding Tentative Tract No. 9441. The proposed tract is located adjacent and north of the District's Alta . Loma Basin No. 1, west of Hermosa Avenue, and adjacent and east of the District's Alta Loma channel. The Alta Loma channel serves to outlet drainage originating in the mountainous areas to the north. The channel, adjacent to the tract, has interim improvements consisting of an earth - graded channel with rail and wire bank protection. Extending north and northeast of the site, the facility consists of an earth - graded channel. Although able to handle runoff from most small storms, neither improvement is considered adequate to withstand a major flood. The site is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly and southerly portions are within Zone AO (depth 1') and Zone A respectively. The remainder of the tract falls within Zone B. See Attachment A for location and clarification of zones. Therefore, in our opinion, the westerly portion of the tract abutting the Alta Loma channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm. The southerly portion may also be subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from Alta Loma Basin No. 1 in the event of a major storm until such time as the basin is fully excavated. • CO'am � „ lLllon Antl O .al•P • PI—nmo And Ln.0 +r me . F.•MUl P,o;,al% City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Ms. Barbara Krall September 19, 1980 • Page 2 Our recommendations are as follows: 1. A dedication in fee to the Flood Control District shall be required along the westerly tract boundary to provide for an ultimate District right -of -way width of 80 feet measured from the channel's westerly rights -of -way line (see Attachment B). The District will prepare the necessary right -of -way documents. 2. Construction of a 15 -foot wide levee, eight feet (minimum) above the existing flowline. 3. A 50 -foot building setback line from District's proposed rights -of -way should be shown on the grading plan and tract map for the site. 4. Installation of chain link fencing per District SP -151 -C (Attachment C) or some other adequate barrier along the District's rights -of -way. 5. Placement of a statement on the grading plans that a permit will be required from the District's Construction - Operations group, Permit Section, for any encroachment onto District's rights -of -way. It is assumed the City will establish adequate provisions for intercepting • and conducting the accumulated tributary drainage from the north around or through the tract in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent properties. It is also assumed that City will require provisions for flood - proffing the site per the National Flood Insurance Administration requirements. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Allan J. Kielhold, Chief, Water Resources Division, at (714) 383 -2388. Very truly yours, C. J. DI PIETRO Flood Control Engineer RVM;RWC:cm� Attach. 0 By /'ZI / _ J. Gum -f RUBEN V. MONTES Asst. Flood Control Engineer Planning - Engineering • .. _..`» SURR & HE nLYER sz. , _ SA`: snv�wvc• •v SAN BERNAROINO. CAUFORNIA 92412 March 9, 1981 Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk Citv of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 on February 25,1981 Resolution No. 81 -19 l`..., Dear Mr. Wasserman: This office represents Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., the applicant with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 11609. • Enclosed is our client's appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 as expressed in Resolution No. 81 -19 approved February 25, 1981. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $100.00 payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga representing the required appeal fee pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10. Please address all notices and other correspondence regarding this appeal to: Surr S Hellyer (FJD) A Professional Corporation P. 0. Box 6086 San Bernardino, CA 92412 If. you would like to discuss this matter prior to the hearing on the appeal we will be happy to do so. Very truly yours, BURR 6 HELLYER A PROFESSIONAL COP ATf I011 '.. • B� �� "� ^mes D. Stroffe JDS /kw Enclosures of l ✓ l Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Man No. 11609 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -19 TO: LAUREN WASSERMAN, CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO11GA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.5 and Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance Code Section 1,401.10 hereby appeals from the action of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga taken on February 25, 1981 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 11609, Specifically, the undersigned appeals the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -19 Section 2 Item Number 2. Dated: March 10, 1981 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OR SAN BERNARDINO ) 0 BOB JENSEN BUILDERS, INC., • a California corpora n 'n obert c. Jense� resident On this 4L2,•day of March, 1981, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Robert C. Jensen, known to me to be the President of Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., a corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. toITNEES my hand and offii.cial seal, �_: 'ao Wry inn Pub is in Ant c�T- r.�>.d _.Caunry and State :....:, "... G 79 Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the • environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11609, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Planning Division 1. A 6 foot high, decorative block wall shall be constructed along the north side of lots 1, 6, 7 and 12. In the required 25 foot front yards, and at equestrian easement locations, the wall shall be omitted. Colors, materials, and precise design and location of such wall are subject to approval by the City Planner prior to final map recordation. Engineering Division 2. Master planned stormdrain shall be required as follows: (a) Design and construction of an adequate concrete lined channel over Alta Loma drainage course from the south tract boundary to the north edge of Wilson Avenue shall be required. • (b) The length of the Wilson Avenue crossing of the channel shall be based on master planned street width, and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. (c) Inlet structures north of street crossing and an outlet transition structure at south tract boundary shall be required. The outlet structure shall be adequately designed to protect the downstre.,,, end of the existing channel from erosion and overflow. (d) A dedication in fee to the Flood Control District shall be required along the westerly tract boundary as shown on the tract map. (e) The design and improvements of the stormdrain facilities shall be done in conformance with the Flood Control District's standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Approval and permits for the stormdrain construction shall be obtained from the Flood Control District, • l 1 Page 3 (f) Reconstruction of full width of Wilson Avenue • shall be required on both sides of the approaches to the required channel crossing. (g) The cost of constructing the storm drain facilities shall be credited to the storm drain fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement will be executed per section 8 of the City Ordinance No. 75 to cover the contributions which exceed the amount of the fee. (h) The cost of constructing the Wilson Avenue channel crossing including the apprach road shall be credited to the system development fee for the project except for that portion of half width approach road contiguous to the subject tract which shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A reimbursement agreement, at the discretion of the City Council, may be executed to cover the contribution which exceeds the fee amount, with a stipulation that the system development fees from the proposed tentative tract 10047 shall be directly reimbursed as required to the applicant to cover the cost of construction. This reimbursement shall be made only after the system development fees • are collected in connection with the subdivision developments of the above- mentioned tract. • 3. Adequate roll shall be provided on the tract access street at Wilson Avenue to preclude flood flows entering the tract. 4. All existing easements lying within the future right -of -way are to be quit claimed or delineated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. 5. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. 6. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City standards. 7. Existing City road requiring reconstruction, shall remain open for traffic at all times with adequate detours during actual construction. A cash deposit shall be required to cover the cost of the grading and paving prior to recordation of the tract map. On completion of the grading and paving, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the cash deposit shall be refunded. l.'t /Saa Vev&- zrsfd ra eorarat ('. FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 825 East Third Street • San Bernardino. CA 92415 • I COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY ofIPIE TRO, Flood Control Engineer \f� —�% /r JOHN BERNARD �_��L,' Agenq Atlm.msrnlm September 25, 1980 L`3:if.: h;a r•r i.: n,C:v f!i? CE'i. File: 1- 405/1.00 �..7 Q,', l0,t3lri 1- 406/1.00 F ?A Pal Tract 11609 1.1!.2!114,uL41v1f> 8 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department 9340 Baseline Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Re: Zone 1, Alta Loma Storm Drain Tentative Tract 11609 Gentlemen: The District is in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 1980 regarding • Tentative Tract No. 9441. The proposed tract is located adjacent and south of Wilson Avenue and adjacent and east of the District's Alta Loma Channel. The Alta Loma Channel serves to outlet drainage originating in the mountainous areas to the north. The channel, adjacent to the tract, has interim improvements consisting of an earth - graded channel with rail and wire bank protection. Extending north and northeast of the site, the facility consists of an earth - graded channel. Although able to handle runoff from most small storms, neither improvement is considered adeugate to withstand a major flood. The site is located entirely within the National Flood Insurance Program's flood overflow area. The westerly portion is within Zone AD (depth 1'). The remainder of the tract falls within Zone B. See Attachment A for location and clarification of zones. Therefore, in our opinion, the westerly portion of the tract abutting the Alta Loma Channel is subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and debris deposition in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities have been provided. The tract is also subject to infrequent flood hazards due to overflow from accumulated tributary drainage from the north in the event of a major storm, 0 Cnnsrra<nnn and 0 ..... .W: i,n City of Rancho Cucamonga September 25, 1980 Page Two Our recommendations are as follows: 1. A dedication in fee to the Flood Control District shall be required along the westerly tract boundary as shown on the tract map. The District will prepare the necessary right -of -way documents. 2. Construction of a 15 -foot wide levee, eight feet (minimum) above the existing flowline. 3. A 50 -foot building setback line from District's proposed rights -of -way should be shown on the grading plan and tract map for the site. 4.. Installation of chain link fencing per District SP -151 -C (Attachment B) or some other adequate barrier along the District's rights -of -way. 5. Placement of a statement on the grading plans that a permit will be required from the District's Construction - Operations Group, Permit Section, for any encroachment onto District's rights -of -way. • It is assumed the City will establish adequate provisions for intercepting and conducting the accumulated tributary drainage from the north around or through the tract in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent properties. It • is also assumed the City will require provisions for flood - proofing the site per the National Flood Insurance Administration requirements. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Allan J. Kielhold, Chief, Water Resources Division at 714/383 -2388. RVM:RWC: rn Enclosure Y A Very truly yours, C. J. DI PIETRO Flood Control Engineer By 12-.— (/. RUBEN V. MONTES Assistant Flood Control Engineer Planning - Engineering • i • CITY OF RANCHO Cl,'CANIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Continuation of Hearing on Assessment District 79 -1 Industrial Streets and Storm Drainage On March 4 the Council heard testimony on the establishment of Assessment District 79 -1 and received a nearly 508 protest. This hearing was then continued to April 15 to allow the Staff to explore District revisions which would mitigate concerns expressed by the various property owners and define a district which would have a broader base of support. At the April 1 meeting, Staff submitted for Council adoption a resolution of intention to modify the Distiict boundaries to accomo- date some of the concerns expressed and to allow renotification of property owners of the proposed changes. Those modifications are described in the attached April 1 memo and appendixes. As the Council is aware, the major conditional protests were express- ed by the Koll Company and O'Donnell, Brigham s Partners. Combined these two owners represent 168 of the modified district and therefore 508 of the outstanding protest. Staff has been meeting with these property owners as well as others to attempt to answer major concerns to allow the District to progress. These meetings have all been extremely positive but to date have not resulted in the formal removal of any protests. Protest on the re- vised district currently stands at approximately 338. If this amount could be reduced by inclusion of Koll and O'Donnell, Brigham and no substantial protest is received by the recently annexed properties, it would be Staff's recommendation to order the District to proceed. The following are issues which appear to remain to be resolved: KOLL PROTEST 1. Appears to be in agreement on the current spread of drainage facilities. 2. Koll wishes to have currently constructed improvements on 6 Assessment District 79 -1 April 15, 1981 Page 2 LJ Milliken, Sixth and Pittsburgh included within the Distirct. This would require that the City enter into a reimbursement agreement with them. Bond Counsel has indicated that acquisi- tion of improvements under this means would be legal and appro- priate. These improvements were not a condition of approval of a development and are currently non dedicated improvements owned by the petitioner. This agreement is consistent with the current modified spread. Paveout portions of these improvements will be assessed directly to the Koll Property and all of Pittsburgh Avenue will be assess- ed to the property. A copy of the draft agreement is attached for your review. If more definitive information becomes avail- able between now and the meeting, I will transmit the information to the Council. It is requested that an addtional street be added north /south between Pittsburgh and New Rochester. This improvement would be assessed directly to Kell and not be a part of the overall assessment. The only impact of this request would be to increase the overall size of the District and hence its marketability. This proposal would be acceptable as long as the District is marketable. If, however, the District requires reduction,this • item should be low priority for inclusion. It has also been a concern that property owners be allowed to fully paveout improvements with inclusion of the paveouts being assessed to the fronting property on a frontage basis. This has always been the intent of the District and would provide the most desirable situation for all concerned. In addition, Koll would like to receive a commitment from the City to seek full improvement to Sixth and Milliken to insure a finisned appear- ance of the District. Staff concurs with this goal and will attempt to obtain a substantially finished product through the design and right of way acquisition phases of the project. Paveouts would be the added improvement required to complete a full half street. This would include medium island curbing, curb and gutter and addition ^ -1 paving. Although at the time of this report, no official response has been received from the Koll Company. I have every indication that they would withdraw their protest if the Council would agree with the items listed above. O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM S PARTNERS The only concern remaining on the part of O'Donnell, Brigham is the degree of benefit assessed to their property for street improvements. They wi:,h to assure that their assessments reflect credit for the Sixth and Milliken improvements aleady constructed. Staff will attemp 66 n L I LFr• Assessment District 79 -1 April 15, 1981 Page 3 to deal with this issue prior to the Hearing and discuss the options with Council. Marketability On April 6, the Staff received a letter from Stone and Youngberg concerning the viability of a bond issue for the District. This letter confirmed their belief in the marketability of this issue at around 12 million dollars. The letter is attached for your information. RECOMMENDATION The staff has spent nearly two years in the development of this Assess- ment District and feels confident that sufficient support exists for the District to warrant proceeding with formation. Through all of the discussions concerning spread methods and the legal intricacies of the District formation, its is easy to overlook the significance that this District has to the future of the City. The District will be a bold move to open the heart of our industrial area for development, will signal to the industrial community our resolve and willingness to deal effectively with problems facing the community on a broad scale approach, and prove our ability to move ahead efficiently and effec- tively. It is recommended that the Council should hear the final input on the modified district, evaluate further modification to the District then order Staff to move ahead with finalization of the District forma- tion. This action would involve the commitment of a loan of up to $350,000 from storm drain and systems development fees to fund the design, right of way acquisition and incidental costs. The City would be paid back with interest at the time of bond sale. If this recommendation is acceptable to the Council, Staff would further recommend authorization of contract negotiation with the following consultants to perform the listed tasks. BUDGET Assessment Engineering WILLDAN S 25,000 Project Manager and Plan Check WILLDAN 20,000 Right of Way Acquisition WILLDAN 25,000 Environmental Documentation CITY PLANNING SELECTION 10,000 Bond Counsel MAC BROWN 15,000 Street Design LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING 45,000 Storm Drains 7E, 19D, 19F LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING 45,000 Storm Drains 5D S 19A WILLIAMSON 6 SCHMID 140,000 Consultants were selected for their continued participation in the project. Lockwood Engineering has completed a substantial portion of street designs under contract to R. C. Land Company in anticipa- tion of District formation. They have the appropriate topography STAFF REPORT Assessment District 79 -1 April 15, 1981 Page 4 • and familiarity to complete the job. Selection of any other consul- tant would cause lengthy delays. Williamson & Schmid have completed sigificant portions of the design of the Drain 5d under contract to the Caldwell Company and are involved in design of Drain 19A with the Koll Company. Again selection of a new consultant would cause undue delay. If these recommendations meet with Council approval, you should direct Staff to prepare the appropriate contracts for execution at the May 7 Council meeting. Given this approval date, attached for your review is the overall project schedule. Respectfully s bmitted, LBH: jaa Attachments L �?" • F, I L 0 • k 111.11 n, 1 11 1 11 — ..1.1 —I ..re,. STAFF REPORT DATE: April 1, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Modify Boundary to Assessment District 79 -1 GAO V ` FI 0 1977 Attached for Council approval is a Resolution of Intention to modify the boundaries of the Industrial Assessment District. These modifications follow closely the Staff recommendation presented in the March 4 Staff Report. Basically these changes remove the Daon property and squares off the southerly and wester- ly boundary to make them more consistent with the fee district. A detailed description of these changes is attached with a summary of the inpact in cost. The primary impact of these changes are to reduce the storm drain assessments from $4,700 per acre to $4,117 per acre. This would represent a considerable savings under the current fee which is $4,600 /acre. Staff is requesting this Notice of Intention to allow us to re- notify the property owners of these changes prior to the April 15 hearing. In addition to notifying those previously,noticed new properties would also be informed and their input solicited. This action will not commit the Council to approval of the modified proposal. Staff has been meeting with property owners since the Public Hear- ing to obtain modification which would allow the District to pro- ceed with a substantial reduction in the previous protest. I am optimistic that a solution will be accomplished soon to present to the Council for your consideration. Respectfull�d, LBH:jaa Attachments V 'ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 • 6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES The area under consideration might be considered from a drainage standpoint as an alluvial fan. Runoff from the heavy rainfall encountered in the mountains northerly of the project concentrates into canyons and spreads out across the area where the proposed assessment district lies. The drainage Flows in a southerly direction with very little elevation differential occurring In the east - west direction other than the Day Creek and Deer Creek channels that align With the direction of the drainage flow. The storm waters Flowing across the area are not precisely confined except for the abovementioned channels. This • is further borne out by the fact that maps prepared by the Federal Flood In- • surance Administration indicate that the entire area between Interstate 15 and the Deer Creek channel is subject to flooding. The area of this assessment dis- trict, therefore, constitutes a part of a much larger drainage shed. With the above background, the boundaries of this proposed assessment district are pro- posed as follows: Easterly Boundary: The easterly boundary is proposed as the Interstate 15 Freeway. The freeway establishes a fixed boundary from a drainage standpoint with storm waters crossing the freeway only in the conduits provided. Since the southerly Flows across the area are impeded from changing course by the freeway, the freeway becomes a logical assessment district boundary for drainage. Southerly Boundary: • The southerly boundary is proposed as the common City Limits line between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. This constitutes a legal jurisdictional boundary, although not necessarily a physical boundary from the drainage standpoint. By consistently attributing benefit to properties for storm drains installed at their southerly boundaries or pick -up points, the City Limits line assessment district boundary becomes consistent with the method of cost spread. Westerly Boundary: The westerly boundary is established as Deer Creek. Deer Creek, when fully constructed, will theoretically intercept all drainage Bowing in an east -west direction such that the creek would be a physical boundary to any drainage plan. Northwest Boundary: The westerly boundary is modified northerly of Eighth Street and is extended easterly from Deer Creek to Haven Avenue and thence north of Haven Avenue to Arrow Highway. The reason for this is the nature of the property excluded by this westerly boundary modification. The property consists principally of a golf course and residential units. Benefits to golf courses by drainage • facilities are limited. Residential units are inconsistent with the proposed land use (or the rest of the assessment district. There is a storm drain proposed on Eighth Street extending easterly from Deer Creek on the southerly boundary of this proposed area to be excluded. By not constructing that storm drain within this assessment district, the area so excluded will retain a drainage deficiency similar to that which its assessment would have been had it been included. Northerly Boundary: The northerly boundary for the proposed assessment district is proposed as Arrow Highway, In establishing this street as a boundary, it is recognized that this is not the boundary to the natural drainage shed. On the other hand, by omitting construction of the proposed storm drains on Arrow High- way such that these storm drains will become the obligation of the upstream owners, an equity as between those properties within and without the dis- trict is established. Arrow Highway then becomes a logical terminal point for benefit for works proposed by this assessment district. \J �l ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Amended 1 April 1981 CONSTRUCTION AND INCIDENTAL COSTS Original Balance to Assessments $11,417,277 Eliminate SC Storm Drain - 1,865,952 Subtotal $ 9,551,325 Eliminate East 1 lane of Milliken $ between 6th 6 7th and North 1 • Add 48" Storm Drain extension lane of 6th between Milliken to 1090' easterly - 115,359 Subtotal $ 9,435,966 Eliminate 2 lanes of Cleveland from 6th to 7th - 130,996 Subtotal $ 9,304,970 • Add 48" Storm Drain extension of Trademark Street to Deer Creek + 107,040 Subtotal $ 9,412,010 Add 48" Storm Drain in 4th Street from Deer Creek to Center + 107,040 Subtotal $ 9,519,050 Less Storm Drain Fees from Lusk Properties - 5,800 1 AMENDED BALANCE TO ASSESSMENT $ 9,513,250 U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOUNDARIES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, this City Council has previously adopted a Resolution covering preliminary determination pursuant to the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation & Majority Protest Act of 1931 ", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and set a public hearing on certain improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, at this time, this City Council is desirous to declare its intention to order certain changes and modifications to the works of improvements and boundaries of the proposed Assessment District; and • WHEREAS, a map has now been submitted to this Council, dated the date of this meeting, showing the amendment and addition of certain additional properties, as well as certain additional storm drain improvements; and WHEREAS, it appears to this City Council that said changes and modifications are in the best public interest and all property owners again should be noticed by mail as to the effect and impact of these proposed changes and modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA State of California, as follows: SF,CTiON 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. This City Council expressly declares its intention to order certain changes and modifications to the work and boundaries of the Assessment District, as said amendments and modifications are shown on a map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A ", referenced and so incorporated. • SECTION 3. That said changes and modifications will cause the amendment and modification to the assessm_nts as well as cause certain parcels to now be assessed which were not previously proposed to be assessed, and this City Counci/Tj,,at this time approves an u amended report of assessments as submitted to this Council, dated the date of this meeting. • SECTION A. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 1981 AT THE HOUR OF 7:00 P.M. AT THE LION COMMUNITY CENTER, 9121 BASELINE ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANY AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN THE WORK AND THE PROPOSED INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SHOULD APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE. ANYONE OBJECTING TO SAID CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS SHOULD FILE A WRITTEN PROTEST AND OBJECTION WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR SAID HEARING. SECTION 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to immediately upon adoption of this Resolution, mail Notice to all property owners within the boundaries of the Assessment District, said Notice advising said property owners as to their estimated assessment, as determined at this time by the Engineer of Work. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of • ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF IL>NCHO CUCAMONGA 0 CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO WORK PROCEEDINGS AND BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Proposed Changes: A. Delete storm drain line number 5(c) and modify boundaries to delete properties no longer receiving a benefit from the proposed construction of said drainage facility. D. Delete all street improvements on CLEVELAND AVENUE, northerly of 6TH STREET. • C. Delete all street improvements in MILLIKEN AVENUE, northerly of 6TH STREET (easterly half). • D. Delete all street improvements in 6TH STREET from MILLIKEN AVENUE to a point approximately 800 feet easterly (northerly half only). D, Construct certain additional storm drain improvements in the southwesterly portion of the district, and modify the boundaries to add certain additional properties now determined to receive a benefit from the works of improvements. (For particulars, reference is made to a map as submitted by the Assessment Engineer, dated the 1st day of April, 1.981, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk]. Modify the boundaries and delete Parcel No. 225, inasmuch as said parcel receives no benefit from the works of improvements. i �vl EXNT'.11"7 "A" NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, State of California, did on the 1st day of April, 1981, adopt a Resolution of Intention to order certain changes and modifications to the boundaries of the Assessment District and works of improvements, said special assessment district having been designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District ". The changes and modifications to the boundaries of the Assessment District will now cause certain parcels to be assessed which were not originally proposed to be assessed, and also said proposed changes and modifications will cause the amendments and modifications to parcels previously included within the boundaries of the Assessment District. These proceedings are pursuant to the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation 6 Majority Protest Act of 1931 ", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The estimated cost of the improvements are as follows: Estimated Cost of Construction: $ 6,495,938 Estimated Incidental Expenses: 3,077,726 Total Estimated Cost: $--T75 7 3, 6 6 4 Estimated Contribution: 60,414 Balance to Assessment: $ 9,513,250 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 1981, AND ALSO AT SAID TIME THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENTS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. SAID HEARING WILL BE HELD AT THE LION COMMUNITY CENTER, 9121 BASELINE ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONG.A AT THE HOUR OF 7:00 P-M. ON SAID 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 1981, AND ANY PERSONS WISHING TO PROTEST OR OBJECT TO SAID PROCEEDINGS SHOULD PILE A WRITTEN PROTEST O1ITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SAID 'TIME. Per particulars as to any questions relating to the procoedings, inquiries should be addressed to the fo11o•4ing: Lloyd B. Hubbs City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0 • 0 CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO WORK PROCEEDINGS AND BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Proposed Changes: A. Delete storm drain line number 5(c) and modify boundaries to delete properties no longer receiving a benefit from the proposed construction of said drainage facility. B. Delete all street improvements on CLEVELAND AVENUE, northerly of 6TH STREET. C. Delete all street improvements in MILLIKEN AVENUE, northerly of 6TH • STREET (easterly half)_ D. Delete all street improvements in 6TH STREET from MILLIKEN AVENUE to a point approximately 800 feet easterly (northerly half only). • D. Construct certain additional storm drain improvenents in the southwesterly portion of the district, and modify the boundaries to add certain additional properties now determined to receive a benefit from the works of improvements. (For particulars, reference is made to a map as submitted by the Assessment. Engineer, dated the 1st day of April, 1981, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk). Modify the boundaries and delete Parcel. No. 725, inasmuch as said parcel receives no br.nafit from the works of improvements. 77 ORDER OF PROCEDURE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 • DATE OF MEETING: APRIL 15, 1981, 7:00 P.M. MAYOR: Announce that this is the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing on Assessment District No. 79 -1 and the time for hearing protests and objections to any proposed changes and modifications to the boundaries and work in the Assessment District. CITY CLERK: Report that notices have been mailed to all property owners regarding amended assessments and that on file is a CERTIFICATE OF MAILING. STAFF: Summarize proposed modifications and amend- ments to Assessment District. Summarize amendments and modifications to proposed work. Summarize method and formula of assessment spread. Update report on written protests received. • Report on any written withdrawal of protests. MAYOR: Open meeting for public discussion. A. First, ask to hear from those protesting or in opposition. B. Next, ask to hear from those in favor. CITY COUNCIL: Discussion. STAFF: Report on final percentage of written and oral protests. STAFF: General presentation of alternates available and presentation of any additional modifica- tions or amendments. IF APPROPRIATE, A RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, INCLUDING ALL MODIFICATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL DEBT REPORT. By Motion, declare the public hearing closed • Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS. MAYOR 5 COUNCIL: Pb1YOR 5 COUNCIL: F 76 • • ORDER OF PROCEDURE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PAGE TWO MAYOR & COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS. MAYOR & COUNCIL: Adopt RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (4/5 vote). MAYOR & COUNCIL: Direction to staff to proceed with the Assess- ment District. MAYOR, COUNCIL A.ND STAFF: Miscellaneous actions as deemed necessary. x x x "�Jc BROWN d NAZAREK 2171 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 330 E w+cxFVZrE enowv IRVINE, CALIPORNIA 92715 JONN n w +n >En (714) 752�9494 L0S ANGELES W31 se] 4755 MO VIt rNS SAN 0.EGO 111.1155 ]09U • JOSEV +J M1G125 ArvE PSIOE Plq 359.509 EUGENE A NAIAPEx March 23, 1981 (1TY of RAMC c'r C' C MONGA C0F:id1B+1Tv LCVr. fP':i IIT Pi ?i, Lloyd B. Hubbs City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA g18191101L11it Phi Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 Dear Lloyd: Enclosed herein find preliminary draft of Agreement that would allow the purchase of certain facilities in 6TH STREET, MILLIKEN and PITTSBURG AVENUE where said facilities have been, or are being, constructed by the property owners prior to the formation of the assessment district, which assessment district contemplates the need for those facilities. Please review and under separate cover I am transmitting a copy of said Agreement to Mr. Dick Ortwein of the Kell Company • and to Mr. John Murphy at Mr. Ortwein's request. Upon your review I would appreciate comments so that any amendments or modifications can be made to said Agreement. Thank you. ry tru y yours, F. MACKEN2::E BROWN FMB: j Ln Enclosurus cc: Mr. nick Ortwein Mr. John Murphy U V • AGREEMENT • THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and as property owners, hereinafter referred to as "Property Owners ". WHEREAS, City, at this time, is considering the formation of a special assessment district- under the terms and conditions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 ", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, • for the construction of street and other improvements, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work within the incorporated limits of said City, said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, the improvements proposed to be constructed in said Assessment District consists of major street improvements in 6TH STREET, MILLIKEN AVENUE, CLEVELAND AVENUE, and other streets; and WHEREAS, Section 66462 of the Government Code of the State of California (Subdivision Map Act) expressly authorizes financing and completion of public improvements under an appropriate special assessment act, and Section 10102 of the Streets and Highways Code ( "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 "), expressly authorizes the acquis„Qtt on of any improvements authorized to be constructed under said law; and • WHEREAS, Property Onwers, in order to proceed with their development, have constructed, or are constructing, certain portions of improvements that are proposed to be included within the work of the Assessment District, namely, portions of the work within 6TH STREET, MILLIKEN AVENUE and PITTSBURG AVENUE; and WHEREAS, City and Property Owner are in agreement that said works of improvement within said above streets shall be included within the Assessment District proceedings at prices determ neY by the City Engineer to be reasonable, said prices being a lesser price than proposed for the works of improve- ments to be bid for said Assessment District; and • WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Agreement to provide that Property Owners shall, upon a successful confirmation of assessment and sale of bonds for the above referenced Assessment District, be paid for the works of improvements, which are integral and a part of the above referenced Assessment District, at the prices as determined.by the City Engineer \1 and Property Owner; and � t WHEREAS, City has no objection to purchasing the improve- ments from said Property Owner, and Property Owner is desirous that City purchase said facilities, and at this time said improvements are owned by Property Owner and are not constructed within any dedicated public rights -of -way of the City of • Rancho Cucamonga. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between the a respective parties as follows: c,,^ �j Cf, • SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council does intend to proceed with the adoption of a Resolution of Intention and the formation of a special assessment district for the improve- ments above described. SECTION 3. The City agrees to buy and finance through the use of special assessment proceedings and Property Owner agrees to convey certain completed improvements to the City, those improvements being portions of 6TH STREET, MILLIKEN AVENUE and PITTSBURG AVENUE, as described in the referenced attached and incorporated Exhibit "A ". • SECTION 4. The prices to be paid for said improvements are prices determined by the City Engineer to be reasonable, Ind agreed upon by the Property Owner. Said prices are set forth in the referenced Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated. SECTION 5. The cost for said works of improvements shall be spread in accordance with the benefits received, as determined by the Assessment Engineer for the Assessment District. SECTION 6. Said money shall be paid to Property Owner upon the successful sale of bonds for the above referenced Assessment District. SECTION 7. Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall have the right to use said facilities as determined • necessary and integral for the works of improvements within the above referenced Assessment District. SECTION B. This Agreement �s ¢5ntingent upon the confir- mation of assessment and successful of hnnA:; an -1 shill h- year period following the date of this Agreement. • SECTION 9. This Agreement is binding on heirs, assigns, and successors in interest. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of By: ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY OWNER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • C�^ 4 • STONE & YOUNGBERG INVESTMENT SIECURITIES MEMBERS: PACIFIC STOCK EXCHANGE • April 1, 1981 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer 8 Director of Public Works 9320 11C" Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment District No. 79 -1 (6th Street Industrial Area) Dear Mr. Hubbs: A f::';.:.... F,,i :4 On December 11, 1980, Mr. David Hartley of our San Francisco office attended a meeting at the City Hall to discuss various aspects of assessment district financing as it relates to Assessment District No. 79 -1. On March 25, 1981, Mr. Joe Dilorio and I inspected the property within the Assessment District. • Based upon the lien per acre as reported in the Engineer's report and my investigation, it is my belief that under present market conditions the financing of this project is feasible at this time. This would assume the project would be funded under the 1915 Act, mature over a period of 15 years and have an adequate reserve fund. Enclosed you will find our pamphlet entitled "Public Financing Alterna- tives", This pamphlet indicates the various types of public financing available in California. You will note on page 2 our remarks on assessment districts. I will call you sometime next week to set up an appointment to further discuss Assessment District No. 79 -1. Encls; cc: Richard M. Ortwein; The Koll Company Joe Dilorio; R.L. Land Company John Murphy; Stradling, Yocca, Carlson Y Rauth AfiM LAHKERSHIM BOULEVARD SUITE 202 . LOS ANECLES C2111Q -411 91602 . 12131 911S612 0 • • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30, 1981 1 TO: File FRON: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer /1 SUBJECT: Schedule and Staffing for Assessment District 79 -1 A meeting was held March 25, 1981 to discuss schedules and staffing for the Industrial Assessment District. The following were the general principles agreed for presentation to the City Council: STAFFING Assessment Engineering WILLDAN Project Manager and Plan Check WILLDAN Righi -of Way Acquisition WILLDAN Environmental Documentation CITY PLANNING SELECTION Bond Counsel MAC BROWN Street Design LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING Storm Drains 7E, 19D, 19F LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING Storm Drains 5D & 19A WILLIAMSON & SCHMID BUDGET it was agreed that each firm would submit budget figures for design and other services for review by the City Council at its April 15 meeting. It is planned that at that time Council would authorize funding and approve consultant selection. Agreements with firm budgets should be completed for Council execution May 6. All work should begin May 7. SCHEDULES It was determined that the critical path for all District configura- tions was governed primarily by right of way acquisition. Appraisal and final. right of way requirements will take 60 days, acquisition of right of way 90 to 120 days depending on need for condemnation action. After right of way acquisition and final design approximately 30 days are required to prepare debt report and approval to advertise contracts. Sc!iedciv and Staffing for Assessment District 79 -1 March 30, 1981 Page 2 • It was determined that work would begin May 8 and hearings would be held and contracts advertised by January 3, 1982. Final plans, quantities and estimates should be to the Assessment Engineer by Octeter 15, 1981. Project construction would begin in June of 1982. April 15 May 7 July 7 October 15 1. District Proceeds 1. Complete Contracts 2. Start Appraisals 1. Right of way require- 1. Acquisition ment, set, appraisals complete 3. Start E.I.R. complete, acquisition begin 4. Start Design Work 2. E.I.R. complete for 2. E.I.R. circulation certified 3. Design concepts 3. Design complete complet 4. Begin permit processes 4. Bid docu- ments com- pleted January 3 February 15 March June Approval to Advertise Open Bid I Public Hearing Construction FUND REQUIREMENTS TO BOND SALE TASK ESTI.MATE COSTS 1. Project Management /Plan Check $201000 2. Assessment Engineering $25,000 3. Rightof way Acquisition /Appraisal $25,000 4. Environmental Impact Report $10,000 5. Bond Counsel $15,000 6. Storm Drain Design $185,000 7. Street Design $45,000 S. Contingency $25,000 $350,000 • LBH:jaa 4 C 7 I uw OFF$C[5 • VITO DEVITO FRANCESCO weNSLC.row.A emLmN C. smrc nI e1s Now.N c�c Lle ..�s.NCc ONYAg1O. CALIF04.1. 9116E 11I� peJJe]p April 7, 1981 LCTTIiR OP PROTCST OR OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT City Of RanChO Cucamonya PQ t Office, Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Lloyd B. liubbs City Engineer Re: 160+/- acres bounded as follows: North - 8th Street; South - 6th Street Cast - Milliken; West - Cleveland Rancho Cucamonga, California • PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 79 -1 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 15, 1981, 7:00 p.m. • Lear Mr. Ilubbs: With regard to the above - referenced land and with regard to the proposed Assessment District #79 -1 (6th Street Industrial Area), please be advised that the owner of said land does not wish to be a part of said proposed assessment district and wishes to be excluded therefrom and wishes to let this letter serve as official notice of said owner's objection to the formation of said rli:;trict and furthermore, said owner does not wish the above - referencorl land, or any part: thereof, to be included in said assessment district in any manner whatsoever.. If th,; owner of said land needs to do anythinq further in order to have his wi:;hes carried out, as set forth herein, please tic, n „t hesilatu to inform us thorcof. Unless we hear from you to th,, contrary, we 511011 rely upon the fact that this letter will be nuffici.cnt to register the owner's objection to the formation Of said as!ics!mcont district and to the proposed inclusion of said City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Lloyd B. Hubbs Re: Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 April 7, 1981 Page Two land therein and that nothing further needs to be done on his part in such regax' VDF:fm cc : i 1 CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Post Office Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attn: PAUL ROUGEAU JACK SYLVESTER, 4002 Calle Sonora, Apartment 2 -A, Laguna Hills, California 92653 Post Office Box 793, r I • • • sTFRV R WATTONS A LAW CORPORATION April 2, 1981 Reply to: West Covina Office Rancho Cucamonga City Council P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0039 CENTURY PARK EAST Re: ASMT 257 Assessor's Humber 229 - 261 -38 SUITE ]010 105 ANGELES, CA 9W69 Dear Council Persons: Q131 S57-0636 This firm represents Occidental Land Research and approximately forty other land owners under the direct or indirect control of Occidental Land Research. • 100 SOUTH VINCENT AVENUE SUITE 605 WEST COVINA, CA 9;190 1931 919.4060 Attached hereto, please find a copy of a letter from W. Keith Walker to your council. We adopt Mr. Walker's position as our own and urge your consideration of our position. Very STERN A Law BY: GES /ct Attachment cc: W. Keith Walker Occidental Land Research �6 ' L - W( Keith Walker}'aP'o.EOx 4n6','IGLLNDALE, CALIFORNIA 91202 0 m e N m N J March 2, 1981 O Rancho Cucamonga City Council • Fast Office Box 907 N Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0 Re: ASMT 257 Assessor's Number 229 - 261 -38 m <- Gentlemen: 'l_ W O This letter addresses itself to two items relative to the - referenced property: V1. Flood Control Assessment II. Possible Routing of "New Rochester" < 1. Flood Control Assessent: D 1. it is my understanding that the most significant •w V flooding problem is in the Western portion of Assessment District N79 -1. Apparently the Eastern portion where my property is located is not as Beverly impacted by flood = waters as is the Western side. w � 2 The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 states that - -- -the costs and expenses of the proposed improvement, pro -rated - - - -IN DIRECT PROPORTION to the estimated benefits �. to be received by each parcel. r 3. 1 request that the Council consider lowering the assessment for those properties located in the Eastern w portion of 79 -1 that are riot as 'severly impacted by flooding problems and resultant storm drain construction costs. } It would seem that establishing sub - districts that more N accurately reflect the true impact of the flooding problems would be a more fair and equitable basis for assessment. N O • ye II. Possible Routing of "New Rochester" 1. The referenced property has been in escrow two times in the past two years. On one of those occasions, the _ .escrow was terminated by the buyer because the City of ' Rancho Cucamonga suddenly announced the re- routing of + Rochester. Apparently this was because of railroad switching considerations north of the referenced property. I have been materially damaged by the city action because the buyer would not proceed with the purchase without a clear delineation of Rochester. The City has in effect condemned my property without due process or compensation. 2. On later occasions, potential buyers backed away from opening an escrow until the location of Rochester was defined by the City. 3. I have seen maps wherin New Rochester curves through the central portion of my 9.6 acres thus dividing it - in an undesirable manner. 4. I question the validity of curving New Rochester because the curve materially damages several properties in addition to mine. 5. If a curve is deemed necessary, then I suggest that only one radius be used - -not two so as to create an "S ". . Also. I suggest that the termination of the one arc run east and west along 6th or 7th street so that it can tie into the possible 7th street freeway off ramp. 6. I hereby request a rapid resolution to the location of Rochester be made and that careful consideration he given to my concerns and proposals. In conclusion, I cannot support approval of assessment district 79 -1 until these two items have been carefully considered and resolved by the Council. Respectfully, W. Keith Walker General Partner Freeway Rochester 36 L 360 • WKWI Jm cc: Mr. U_oyd D. Ilubbs Mr. Paul Rougeau E 0 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -01 - The Development of a 26,800 square foot bottled beverage distribution ware- house facility on 9.2 acres of land located on the north side of 6th Street, east of Haven Avenue. ABSTRACT: Per request by the City Council, this project is being brought before the Council for its review and consideration relative to the approval granted by the Planning Commission. Please find at- tached the Planning Commission Staff Report of March 25, 1981. In- cluded in that report is a copy of the Resolution of Approval with Conditions. At the time of review of this project by both the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission, several issues were dis- cussed; the architectual design and exterior building materials, the sensitivity of the Industrial Park category proposed for this area, and the screening techniques utilized for the outdoor area. Included in this report, is a detailed analysis of the Commission action and review of the issues that were raised during the review process of this project. Staff is seeking direction from Council relative to any desired changes to the project for completion of this review process. BACKGROUND: The Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles has been seeking approval to develop a warehouse and office facility which is to become the regional distribution facility for bottled products since the first of the year. The project site is located on the north side of 6th Street, east of Haven Avenue. During the review of the project by the Design Review Committee, several concerns were raised; the style of architecture and the exterior building materials, sen- sitivity of the Industrial Park category in which the project is lo- cated, and the method of screening the outdoor area. The Design Review Appeal of Director Review 81 -01 April 15, 1981 Page Two Committee felt that the design of the project was not satisfactory. The Committee voiced concerns that the use of all metal material may not be the most successful architectual design solution given the bulk and size of the building in the Industrial Park area. Additionally, the Committee was concerned about the architectual design as it may relate to the Industrial Park category of this area which is planned to attract and develop high quality industrial research /office style development. Also, the method of screening the outdoor area with an 8 foot chainlink fence and barbed wire was felt to be undesirable in this vicinity. Through several discussions, the Design Review Com- mittee felt that contrasting colors between the building walls and roof parapet would help create the differences which was felt needed for a successful design. As such, the Design Review Committee recom- mended approval of the design to the Planning Commission with the rec- ommended Condition of Approval that the final colors be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Staff was of the opinion that more than just a color change • was needed in order to obtain the design desired for the Industrial Park category. We therefore recommended that, in addition to review and approval of a color change, that the final exterior building ma- terials should be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee to ensure that an appropriate exterior design of the facility will be compatible with future development in the immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 25, 1981, approved the projeet_w.i.th_Cond tnigns,gLfippreval. The final approval included a condition which does require the final exterior materials and colors of the office and warehouse structure be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of the building permits. In addition, the Planning Commission added a condition that no outdoor storage of goods or other materials will be allowed. However, the Commission did not address the issue af___We chainlink screening method for the outdoor area where the distribution trucks will be stored and parked. The Plarning Commission verbally emphasized landscaping and their high i expectation for a quality landscape design. We are available at your convenience to review any of the issues and development plans with Council members prior to the meeting should you have further questions on this proposal. A colored photograph is available in the project file in the Planning Division office. The applicant will have available at the meeting, larger scale colored drawings of the project. !J lI)j 0 Pi Appeal of Director Review 81 -01 April 15, 1981 Page Three RECO,WENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and consider the issues described within this report and any others which may be of concern to the Council and provide direction to Staff and /or Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, BARRY K. HOGAN City Planner BKH:MV:jr Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report Conditions of Approval of March 25, 1981 i r1 LI r _— CITY OF RANCHO CU AmONCA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 25, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -01 - COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY - The development of a 26,800 square foot bottled beverage distribution and warehouse facility on 9.2 of land in the M -2 zone, located on the north side of 6th Street, east of Haven Avenue. ABSTRACT: The applicants have completed the Development and Design Review process for the above- described project and it is now before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Recommended Conditions of Approval are attached for consideration. BACKGROUND: The applicants, Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, are requesting approval for the development of a warehouse and office facility totaling 26,800 square feet in building area. The project site is located on the north side of 6th Street, east of Haven Avenue, and will be the first project in that immediate vicinity. Presently, 6th Street is only a small dirt road which provides access to the existing on -site vineyards. The facility is proposed to be used as a warehousing facility only, with no manufacturing occuring on the site. The operations include warehousing, loading and pickup for distribution of products. The site is presently zoned M -2 and the General Plan indicates the area as Industrial Park. ANALYSIS: The site development plan, Exhibit "B ", has been developed in accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements and standards. Building set- backs, parking areas, and landscaped areas are all being provided in accor- dance with standards and policies set by the Planning Commission. 6th Street is a Special Boulevard as designated on the General Plan and it is being proposed to be landscaped as such. Since this is the first development in the area, this project will require the necessary improvements to 6th Street from Haven east of the new north/ south street proposed by this development. The street pattern was previously established by a parcel map for this area which was approved by the Planning Commission several months ago. Access to the project will be provided by one driveway from 6th Street and onefrom the new interior north /south street. Planning Commission March 25, 1981 Page 2 The Design Review Committee has met with the applicant and architects to discuss the design of the facility. The proposed designs are indicated on the attached exhibits which show the elevations of the structures. Colored renderings will be available at the meeting for your review. The project is proposed to be con- structed of metal walls, panels, and a metal parapet roof. The Design Review Committee had concerns relative to the use of an all metal building in the Industrial Park area. The Committee's final recommendation was that the design of the structure would be more successful if the parapet roof and the side walls were different colors in order to provide more contrast and differentiation in the roof and walls. Staff also shared the same concerns, however, feels that more than a color change is needed to accomplish and appropriate design for a building in the Industrial Park category. The Industrial Park category is an- ticipated to contain high design quality projects which would include quality landscape, and architectural treatments. It is Staff's opinion that additional changes are necessary to create the desirable architectural feeling which has been discussed for the Industrial Park category. The building walls of the office building could into ^porate other building materials and yet retain the basic purpose of the metal building concept. Therefore, in addition to the Design Review Committee's recommendation that a color change be made between the roof and building walls, Staff further recommends that additional materials be incorporated into the building walls which would further enhance the design and aesthetics of the building. • Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and a field investigation and has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and con- sider the various aspects of this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings and analysis of Staff, then appropriate Conditions of Approval are attached for your review and consideration. ed, Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Man Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Illustrative Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations • Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Crading Plan Part I - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions q7 7 t • • �.� KIM &AI W -- PRa1��T sii12 CITY OF RANCHO CCCANIONGA PLANNING DIVISION NORTH ITEM: DK 11701 AO TITLE I.00ATIOM MAP _ G \IIIRIT: A SG \LG: n� y f\ J • • exHi811' "�' 0 F[� v.: Y Um 6 Z E m � aV V o uu °a" 9 61, (a f� u ure. 1Y N Kn.r Xu a - • G (n'1 X ^II 0 V m E m� o U 6 / / I 4frt l4un�w I _ - • I y� y V 711 u Q T RESOLUTION NO. 81 -36 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -01 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE, IN THE M -2 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 9th day of January, 1981, a complete application was filed by Coca Cola Bottling Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 25th day of March, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public • health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 25th, 1981. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 81 -01 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1, The final exterior materials and colors of the office and warehouse structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. No outdoor storage of goods shall be allowed (i.e. tins, cans, bottles, pallets etc.). • r • t Page .2 / ENGINEERING DIVISION: 3. Recordat;on of tentative parcel map no. 6544 shall be required prior to issuance of building permit. 4. Applicable portions of the conditions of approval for Parcel Nap 6544 shall also apply to this project as determined the the City Engineer. 5. Letter of acceptance from downstream property owners shall be required where runoff from 6th Street flows onto private properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City standards. 7. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 25th day of March, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, King, Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ADS ENT: COMMISSIONERS: None TLF- i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS — Subject:_ sVt:tJiQ ✓uqi saii Af MO. 6I-_01 _ Applicant:_C,CC.A COLA" - Location- t` Those items checked are conditions of approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLL0WING CONDITIONS: A. Site Cevelor,.ent 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of ._ approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of - building permits. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at time of Building Permit issuance. The developer shall provide all lots with adequate sideyard area for Recrea� Vehicle storage pursuant to City standards. _ 5. Mail boxes, in areas where sidewalks are required, shall be installed and located by the developer subject to approval by the Planning Division. 6. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 7. If dwellings are to be constructed in an area designated by the Foothill Fire Districts as "hazardous ", the roof materials must be approved by the Fire Chief and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. — 8.- A sample of the roof material shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 9. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning and Building Divisions. _rL 10. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Colmunity Development. L %J' 11. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height and method of shielding. No lighting shall adversely affect adjacent properties. 12. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be solar heated. — - 13. Texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. _ ld. All trash pick up shall be for individual units with all recepticals kept out of public view from private and public streets. _ 15. Standard patio cover plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and Building Official prior to occupancy of the first unit. 16. All buildings numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. -- _ _ 17. Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks shall be installed on each unit in this project. . _ 18. Security devices suchas window locks shall be installed on each unit. 19. All units within this development shall be preplumbed to be adapted for a solar water heating unit. • 20. Energy conserving building materials and appliances are required to be incorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of insulation, double paned windows, extended overhangs, pilotless appliances, etc. 21. This development shall provide an option to home buyers to purchase a solar water heating unit. • 22. Emergency secondary access shall be provided to this tract to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire Protection District. _ 23. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan for Alta Loma. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical condition, fencing and weed control in accordance with City equestrian trail standards shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. 24. This tract shall form or- annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian trails. 25. This project.shall provide percent of affordable housing and /or rents, in conformance with General Plan housing policies and the housing criteria defined in the Growth Management Ordinance. Affordability shall he determined by current market rates, rents and median income levels at tFe time of construction of the project. Proof of this provision shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to finalizing building permits and occupancy of the units. B. Parkino and Vehicular Access 1. All parking lot landscaped islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contain a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall. 2. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. 3. All trio -way aisle widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 4. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 24 feet .aide at all times during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire District requirements. S. All parking spaces shall be double striped. 6. All units shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Designated visitor parking areas shall be turf blocked. 8. The C.C. & R.'s shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on • this site unless they are the principle scurce of transportation for the owner. 9. No parking shall be permitted within the interior cirulation aisle other than in designated visitor parking areas. C.C. & R.'s shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Landscaoina / 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Existing trees shall be retained wherever possible. A master plan of existing trees showing their precise location, size and type shall be completed by the developer. Said plan shall take into account the proposed grading and shall be required to-be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading plan. %J� 3. Existing Eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed and topped at 30'. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the descretion of the Planning Division during the review of the Master Plan of Existing On -Site Trees. Those trees which are approved for removal may be required to be replaced on a tree -for -tree basis as provided by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planted at an average of every 30' on interior streets and 20' on exterior streets. 5. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 20'; -24" box or larger, 70 " -15 gallon, and 10; -5 gallon. �6. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. _ 7. All slope banks in access of five (5) feet in vertical height shall and are 5:1 or greater slopes be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with slope planting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and trees. All such planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Pricr to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection of the slopes shall be completed by the Planning Staff to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. In the case of custom lot subdivisions, all • . such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion of grading or an alternative method of erosion control satisfactory to the Building Official. Irrigation on custom lot subdivisions shall be provided to germinate the seed and to a point 6 months after germination. • 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be fully maintained by a homeo hers association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of maintenance shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The front yard landscaping, and an appropriate irrigation system, shall be installed by the developer in accordance with submitted plans. 10. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping and Sid Pwalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 11. A minimum of b j specimen size trees shall be planted within the proiLct. 12. Special landscape features such as mounding, alleivial rock, specimen si•e trees, an� an a undance of landscaping is required along �� /L_ rf X ( 1 D. Si Cris ,z1. Any signs proposed for this development shall he designed in conformance with- the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. _ 2. A uniform sign program for this development- shall be submitted to the Planning Division for their review and approval prior to issuance of Building permits. 3- The signs indicated on the submitted plans are not approved with this approval and will require separate sign review and approval. E. Additional Anprovals Reouired _ I. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. _ 2. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. _ 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of Zone Change _ and /or Variance /Conditional Use Permit _ 4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of month(s) at which time the Planning Commission may add or delete conditions or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The developer is required to obtain the following signed statement by • purchasers of homes which have a private or public equestrian trail on or adjacent to their property. In purchasing the home located on Lot Tract O° , I have read the C.C. & R.'s and understand that said Lot is subject to a mutual re- ciprocal easement for the purpose of allowing equestrian traffic to.gain access. Signed Purchaser Said statement is to be filed by the developer with the City prior to occupancy. 6. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to issuance of building permits, when no subdivision map is involved, written certification from all affected School- Districts, Shall-be submitted to the Department of Carmurrty Cevelopment which states that adequate school facilities are or will be cape Lle of accommodating students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School District within sixty (60) days prior to the final map approval in the case of the subdivision -.0 or issuance, of permits in the case of all other residential projects. is ,J ' 7. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district, that adequate sewer and water facilities -are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within sixty (60) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional 'dater Control Board and the City, written certi- fication of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City. 8. This approval shall become null and void if the tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorded or building permits issued when no map is involved, within twelve (12) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. This subdivision was not submitted as a total development package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative to the design section of the Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is -going to be developed as tract homes. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, • Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval of this project. Cl 2. Prier to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fee. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 5. This ap ?roval shall beccne null and void if building permits are not issued for this protect within one year from the date of project approval. 6. Street names and addresses shall be provided by the building official. )1T l / 7. D,.,elling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and non - combustible roof material. 8. All corner dwellings shall have the building elevation facing the street upgrade with additional wood trim around windows and wood siding • or plan -ons where appropriate. G. Existing 'Structures _ 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearances considering use, area and fire - resistiveness of existing buildings. _ 2. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Building and Zcning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. _ 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and /or capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the Uniform Plumbing Code. H. Grading �1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the ap, ^roved conceptual grading plan. z - A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the • State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE EHGPIEERIIIG DIVIS1071 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLO1:1IYG CONDITIONS: - Dedication, and Vehicular Access 1. Ocdicaticns shall be made by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as sho:m an the tentative map. 1 2. Dedication shall be made of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on (a?(l S'+(eet _�— additional feet on additional feet on • r%3. Corner property line radius will be required per City standards. _ 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedicated as follows: _ S. Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. ✓6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and internal circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the Property or in the operation of the proposed business. J. Street_ Imorovements • J I. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: STREET NA, LUR6 2 GUTTER I A.C. PWIT. SIDE -I IJALK DRIVE APPR. STREET LIGHTS A.L. OVERLAY WHEEL CHAIR RXIPS OTHER �G �i15�. l I ✓ ✓ ✓ _ y' ,_0u .. •„1.__,.r.,.1 e, .— y-...-„ w. vro, -1 Iwpwxu )Xry ¢no IvrWj U1(N. ✓ 3. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, an encroachment Permit and fees shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. ✓ 4. 1 Street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improvements, prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. ✓ S. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public 1mrrovements, prior to recording of the map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. ✓ 6. All street irpr•o veinen is shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. 7. Pavq^^nt striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed Per' the requireo;ents of the City Engineer. i n K. Drainaee an! Flood Control ✓1. The applicant will be responsible for construction of all onsite drainage facilities required by the City Engineer. - ,_ 2. Intersection drains will be required 'at the following locations: The proposed project falls within areas indicated as subject to flooding ur.c =_r the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions 'Of the program and City Ordinance No. 24. ____ 4. A d- ainace channel and /or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to street. 5. The following north -south streets shall be designed as major water carrying streets requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood protection walls, and /or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line. L. Utilities 1. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 KV, 2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. 3. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing public • utilities, as required. ✓ 4. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City standards. 5, ldater and sewer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD;, Foothill Fire District and the,Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino, A letter of compliance form CCHD will be required prior to recordation. _Z6:- Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. PI• General Req•ii en_.s and A0,,nva15 1. Perriits front other agencies :rill be required as follows: A. Caltrans for: S. Cpun ^v pus: Aba tan•e, nu r-e� red prior to issuance of a grading permi• C. San Serrardir.o County Flood Control District _D. Other: 1'� is C C 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCLR's) and Articles of incorporation of the Homeowners Association, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and a copy provided to the City. . _ - ✓ 3. Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to form Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Council._ The engineering costs involved in Districts Formation shall be borne by the developer. 4. - Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and procedures. R 1�4 KAFFYREPORT DATE: April 15, 1981 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner ..,!rA u. c 1977 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - WESTEND INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision on 70.32 acres of land divided into 277 single family residential lots in the R -1 zone located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way, between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek APN 207- 211 -18. ABSTRACT: Attached please find the following information: - Letter of Appeal from C. Douglas Gorgen - March 11 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - Director of Community Services Staff Report on Letter of Appeal The applicant has submitted a residential custom lot /tract subdivision application in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. The Growth Management Review Committee reviewed the proposed development and gave the project the minimum necessary to be considered for approval by the Planning Commission. On March 11, 1981 the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 11606 with Conditions of Approval. A recom- mendation will be made to consider the applicant's request and provide policy direction to the Staff relative to improvement of Flood Control rights -of -way, for trail purposes. DISCUSSION: The Director of Community Services provided a Staff Report for the City Council's information relative to the applicant's appeal that relate to section 2 under Planning Division of Resolution 81 -26: "2. The Developer shall install and construct that portion of Deer Creek Regional Trail System adjacent to the project. Appropriate bonding shall be completed prior to the final map approval." The development is composed of 277 single family lots on approximately 70 acres of land. The project, as proposed, indicates variable lots sizes ranging from 6300 square feet to as large as 16,000 square feet. Under the provisions of the new Zoning Ordinance, variable lot sizes are Permitted in the R -1 district with a maximum 25% of the lots permitted to be less than the minimum 7200 square feet. The developer is consistent 1 1,5 Appeal of Tentative Tract 11606- Westend Investments April 15, 1981 Page 2 with the newly adopted General Plan, and the developer has submitted a revised Tract Mao indicating the location of the pedestrian access - ways to the Deer Creek Regional Multi- Purpose Trail. Public hearing notice has been given and been mailed to property owners within a radius of 300' of the project boundary. To date, no correspondence has been received on this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the applicant's request and establish City policy on the improvements, if any, for the Regional Trail System located on Flood Control Channels. j Do ctfuly submitted, RR . H tePlan BKH: jr Attachments I )l U C, C. DOUGLAS GORGEN Attorney at Law 7333 Hellman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 (714) 997 -6328 blanch 23, 1981 City of Ratcho Cucamonga Comma ity Devcilopment Depantmen-t ! PZnnninn Division CIT'i OF RANCHO CUuA7'dONCA P.O. &ox 807 ADMINISTRATION Rancho Cucamonga, CuU6. 91730 fdA!? 1.13 !l�l8! Re: Tentative Tract No. 11606 AM PM (, CnvteZ -E" Inv 'st nentn 71S191!UI 111111213141516 �` Appeat- Ptannin Commission Resoeution Dea.a Sas: • we teish to appcae the Aesofu,tiou 06 the Ptann.ing Commission made at its neoueau.y scheduted meeting o6 Blanch 11, 1981, as it pentaiu to P,esotution 81 -26, ScctLon 2, PCmntutg DivZs.iou: "2. The devetopen. shaft instaLt and consttuct that po,ttiot o$ the Deer. Cheek aegionaC tnait system adjacent to the ptojeet. Appnop.tia.te bonding shaCE be eompleted pti.oa to 6ina,C map apptova.Z," It Ls out .aeque,5t that this condition be deee.ted as a condition 06 appaovaC boa Tentative Tract 11606, unZe54 the deveeopeA is given a CAedi.t boa the .isu.tt.Cea.tion o6 these 6aciUties against bees paid Jot rank and aecneationaC 6aciu,i.tics . This p.tojert utiCC, pay in excess o6 Tlvuee Hundred ThLtty Thousand Poe Cann ($330,000.001 in bees pwisuatt .to C.i,ty Paib and Recteatimt Fee dadLia:ce. UndOuutc.c 61o. 105 has a stated .intent to co CCect bees Got the deviceopmeat 04 pm:k and n0eteationaC jac.,Citios, The De.ea Creek Aegionae .LtaiC is a mufti - purpose aegionaC necaeat(onaE 6aciFity designed to seAve the entiac city atea. It in not a eocaZ ernes tr.ian t%aZE intended to serve a speci.,ftc subd.%vision on ite%ghbo.hcod, but is intended to leave negienaC lecieati.ouae needs o6 the eutine colrmuuu ty. It aas designed 601 use by joggea.s, pedesttimu, bicycecs, hikets, au( equc.s.ttLni uses. It in OteanCy a aegionaC tecteatictaZ jacUi,ty, the cost 66 which, allouCd be bonne by 19 cicvxi.de �'ee.s, not by a devc&p1(,nt that happens to be adjacent to it. 117 A;seae.,Tcntative Ttact 1160, 11 In this patticutat instance, the devetopet is being ached to pay path and .tecieati.onat 6ecs and aLo imtaet aeeteat,ionae 6acititi.e6 adjacent to the p,tojec.t. Thi6 .LC etean.ty inequitable and onetom on pnopeAti.es that ale adjacent to •%ecneationae 6aci,ti.tCee. The Lezident6 o6 this pat Lculat tract nli.tt not deti.ve any move bene6it 6nom the aegionat ttaii. 6acEUUe6 that other pnopetty owxeu not adjacent to the 6acility, and yet, the adjacent ptopetty ownets are being ached to beat the entire burden o6 paying bon the Legionae trait. 16 the appUcant ie tequested to .instate and construct th.u, negionat mu CLi- punpo6e trait, etedi.t 6o,t such eca.0 o6 .ineta.Ceati.on should be given anai.n6t pa.k and necneati.on bees paid. We nespect6ulty rtequest you con6iden out appeat. Encto6ed i6 a check ben the $160.00 appect bee. CDG /wt enc. Vows truey, C. Dougtas Gokgen . C-ARNEL-IAW INVESTAIEM ' b,,�(2 0 • 0 • lJ — CITY OF RANCI-10 CUG�..0-NGk STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner -K7 h � SCI 'n r v r C'i O FI g• Z U > SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11606 14ESTEND - A residential subdivision on 70.32 acres of land into 277 single family residential lots in the R -1 zone, located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek - APN 207 - 221 -18 1977 ABSTRACT: The applicants have submitted a residential custom lot /tract subdivision application in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. The Growth Management Review Committee, has reviewed the proposed develop- ment; the project received the minimum necessary points to be considered for approval by the Planning Commission under the Growth Management system. Therefore, Staff has prepared conditions of approval for the Commission's consideration and has provided them for your review. BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting review and approval for the development of 277 lot single family residential subdivision on approxi- mately 70 acres of land located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way and between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek (Exhibit A). This application has been submitted as a custom lot /tract subdivision and has therefore, not submitted precise dwelling unit locations or designs. Should the applicant decide to develop this as a tract, then precise designs would be required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The project as proposed indicates variable lot sizes ranging in size from 6,300 sq. ft. up to as large as 16,000 sq. ft. Under the provisions of the new Zoning Ordinance, variable lot sizes are permitted in the R -I district with a maximum of 25; of the lots permitted to be less than the minimum 7,200 sq, ft. This development proposes only 39 lots to be less than the 7,200 sq. ft which is 14% of the total lots within the development. The site is presently zoned R -1 and is General Planned for Low Density Residential at 2 -4 dwelling units per acre on both the Interim and Proposed General Plans. The project as presently designed will be providing 3.9 units per acre. The site is presently undeveloped and vacant and is bounded on the east by Deer Creek and on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. Housing developments to the west are either existing or are under construction. The project has been reviewed by the Growth Management Review Committee and has been assessed a total of 47.6 points under the Residential Assess- ment System, thus exceeding the threshold point limit and can be considered by the Planning Commission for approval. 1 I ITEM H f TT -2- March 11, 1961 • Staff ff Report e All ALYSIS: The project as shown on Exhibit B; the tract map, has been prepared in accordance with the State Subdivision Flap Act, the City Subdivision Ordinance, and the City's Zoning Ordinance. The developer intends to develop the project in several phases. Phase I is to occur at the southeast corner of the project site and the remaining phases going northward. Access to the project will be provided from three existing stubbed streets from the east and one street to the north of 19th Street. Victoria Street is a 66 ft. right -of -way and has direct access to Haven Avenue. The street to the north will have direct access to 19th Street. All interior streets are being designed and improved in accor- dance with the City Engineering Standards. It is recommended that a pedestrian pathway be provided through lots 108 -109, 190 and 211 between the two side -on cul -de -sacs. No exterior or perimeter parkways will be created as a result of this development. No walls are presently proposed by the developer on any portion of the project site. However, there is a need for a noise attenuation wall along the southern boundary of the project adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way. The wall should be placed at the top of the slope along the property line and the height should • be equal to the height of the eave of the structures so that noise may be effectively attenuated. No two -story structures will be permitted on the lots along this boundary. A regional equestrian trail is proposed along Deer Creek and it is recommended that the applicant install or bond for the installation for the development of that portion of the trail which immediately boarders the project boundaries. In addition, it is recommended that two points of pedestrian access from the tract to the trail be provided. It should be a minimum 10-ft. wide concrete pathr:ay separated from lots with walls and landscaping. A street light shall also be provided in the pathway. Part 1 of the Initial Study as prepared by the applicant is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and a field investigation and has not found any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. There- fore, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was published in the Daily Report newspaper on Feb. 27, 1981. In addition, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received on this project. • 7 c^ • TT 11606 _3- March 11, 1981 Staff Report • RECOMMENDATION: It is recummended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of this project. If, after such consideration, the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval as recommended, then the adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions would be appropriate. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Initial Study - Part I Resolution of Approval Map and Conceptual Grading Plan L�11' le 11 = Um: VIC11VITY Iv4p 6r,A.�� lo-la�7al CITY OF ITF IT 1�60� RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE; LOCATION MW PLANNING DIVISION EX11111IT: IN SCALE: Li NORTI I 9 • • E 9 MCA,. zo� �L ®E II R RESOLUTION N0. 81 -26 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11606. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11606, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Westend, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision of 70 acres located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad and bordering the west side of Deer Creek into 277 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on March 11, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings • in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11606 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; • (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Page 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the . environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11606, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. A noise attenuation wall shall be constructed by the developer all those lots bordering the Southern Pacific Railroad. Construction of the wall shall be bonded for prior to final approval of the map and construction shall be completed prior to occupancy of the first dwelling along this boundary. 2. The developer shall install and construct that portion of the Deer Creek regional trail system adjacent to the project. Appropriate bonding shall be completed prior to final map approval. 3. Two points of pedestrian access shall be installed by the developer from the tract to the regional trail. Such pathways shall be a minimum of 10' wide and shall include a concrete pathway, walls, landscaping and security lights. Detailed plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to final map approval. • 4. A concrete pedestrian pathway shall be provided between the two side -on cul -de -sacs on lots 108, 109, 190, and 211. Said path shall be separated from the adjacent lots by low profile walls. ENGINEERING DIVISION Installation of a portion of master planned stonn drain from 19th Street to the Southern Pacific Railroad (Line No. 4 -0) shall be required. The cost of construction of the stormdrain shall be credited to the stormdrain fee for the project and a reimbursement agreement will be executed per city Ordinance No. 75 to cover contributions which exceed the fee amount with a stipulation that the drainage fees from the proposed Tentative Tract No. 11595 shall be directly reimbursed as required to the applicant, at such time as the drainage fees are collected from the above - mentioned tract. E Page 3 6. The proposed stormdrain within the tract boundary as • shown on the Tentative Map shall be extended to north tract boundary to accept runoff from the tributory areas to the north. 7. No structure or building shall be constructed nor any street dedication and improvement shall be accepted by the City within 300 feet of the centerline of Deer Creek Channel until such time as the Deer Creek Channel and its debris basin are constructed. The 300 -foot setback line shall be delineated and a certificate for building restriction shall be noticed on the final map. 8. The order of phasing for development may be modified to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to maintain the required setback line. 9. Construction of interior street improvements beyond a phase boundary along with the development of the phase for proper circulation of traffic may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer, 10. Installation of flood protection wall along northerly tract boundary and easterly setback line to the satis- faction of the City Engineer shall be required. This condition shall remain in force until such time as the Deer Creek Channel improvements are constructed. 11. Dedication and improvements of the roadway (Palm Dr.) connecting to 19th Street shall be required at the time of development of phase IV improvements. 12. The required width of easement for stormdrain purposes shall be per city standards. 13. All existing easements lying within the future right -of- way are to be quit claimed or delineated as per the City Engineer's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. 14. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. 15. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 16. Letters of acceptance from downstream property owners shall be required where runoff from the tract flows onto private properties, if such acceptance is deemed necessary • by the City Engineer. 3 n I•r"' H Page J BUILDING DIVISION 17. A revised conceptual grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Grading Committee prior to final map approval. 18. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on -site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 19. Appropriate easements, for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted unto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 20. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering or protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to, or contributes to, drainage flows entering, leaving or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 21. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1981, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: R Fchard Dahl, Chai an ATTEe T:-'. I ��v✓ Secretary of the Planning Coinnission 1, 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 11th day of March, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King, Rempel, Sceranka, Dahl None Tolstoy ln� r1 \J • • DEPARTMENT OF CONPIUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS • Subject:TeNI A IVe i f`/ •O1 111,06 - Applicant:_ Location: SV %5 OS 5. ?.e.R, �ju', >�,� Uj�altd C1er Cvg�< Those items checked are conditions of approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWmG CO'rDITIONS; A. Site Develocment _ 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. _ 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Z3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect -at tire of Building Permit issuance. �4. The developer shall provide all lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreation • Vehicle storage pursuant to City standards. 5. Mail boxes, in areas where sidewalks are required, shall be installed and located by the developer subject to approval by the Planning Division. u _ 6. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 7. If dwellings are to be constructed in an area designated by the Foothill Fire Districts as "hazardous", the roof materials must be approved by the Fire Chief and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. _ 8, A sample of the roof material shall be submitted to the Planning Division far -- review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. _ 9. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning and Building Divisions. 10. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. N �K I'a � r� - i 11. A detailed lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height and method of shielding. No lighting shall adversely affect adjacent - properties. 12. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall • be solar heated. 13. Texturized pedestrian pathways across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings with open spaces and recreational uses. _ 14. All trash pick up shall be for individual units with all recepticals kept out of public view from private and public streets. 15. Standard patio cover plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and Building Official prior to occupancy of the first unit. 16. All buildings numbers and Tndividual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. ✓17. Solid core exterior doors, security dead bolts and locks shall be installed on each unit in this project. 18. Security devices suchas window locks shall be installed on each unit. 19. All units within this development shall be preplumbed to be adapted for a solar water heating unit. 20. Energy conserving building materials and appliances are required to be • incorporated into this project to include such things as but not limited to reduced consumption shower heads, better grade of insulation, double paned windows, extended overhangs, pilotless appliances, etc. _ 21. This development shall provide an option to home buyers to purchase a solar water heating unit. _Je!-'4202. Emergency secondary access shall be provided to this tract to the satisfaction of the Foothill Fire Protection District. 23. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan for Alta Loma. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, phys -ical condition, fencing and creed control in accordance with City equestrian trail standards..shal l be- submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. - __ 24. This tract shall form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance of equestrian trails. • r1,C � _ l 2S. This project shall provide percent of affordable housing and /or rents, in conformance with Genera Plan housing policies and the housing criteria defined in the Growth Management Ordinance. Affordability shall be determined by current market rates, rents and median income levels • at the time of construction of the project. Proof of this provision - shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to finalizing building permits and occupancy of the units. _ B. , Parking and Vehicular Access -• 1. All parking lot landscaped islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contain a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall. _ 2. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. _ 3. All two-way aisle .,idths shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 4. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 24 feet .aide at all times during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire District requirements. 5. All parking spaces shall be double striped. 6. All units shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Designated visitor parking areas shall be turf blocked. _ 8. The C.C. & R.'s shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on • this site unless they are the principle source of transportation for the owner. 9. No parking shall be permitted within the interior cirulation aisle other than in designated visitor parking areas. C.C. & R.'s shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Landscaoina • 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits, 2. Existing trees shall be retained wherever possible. A master plan of existing trees showing their precise location, size and type shall be- - c=pioted by the developer. Said plan shall take into account the proposed grading and shall be required to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to approval of the final grading plan. 3. Existing Eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed and topped at 30'. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the descretion of the Planning Division during the review of the Master Plan of Existing On -Site Trees. Those • trees which are approved for removal may be required to be replaced on a tree- far -tree basis as provided by the Planning Division. 4Z 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be installed in accordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be planted at an average of every 30' on interior streets and 20' on exterior streets. 5. A minimum of 50 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the development; 20: -24" box or larger, 701-15 gallon, and 10" -5 gallon. _ 6. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. V/ 7. All slope banks in access of five (5) feet in vertical height shall and are 5:1 or greater slopes be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with slope planting requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such slope planting shall include but not be limited to rooted ground cover and appropriate shrubs and trees. All such planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. . Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection of the slopes shall be completed by the Planning Staff to determine that it is in satisfactory condition. In the case of custom lot subdivisions, all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion of grading • or an alternative method of erosion control satisfactory to the Building Official. Irrigation on custom lot subdivisions shall be provided to germinate the seed and to a point 6 months after germination. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be fully maintained by a homeowners association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of maintenance.shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of building permits. _ 9. The front yard landscaping, and an appropriate irrigation system, shall be installed by the developer in accordance with submitted plans. 10. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping and side:aalks shall be included in the required landscape plans arid shall be -subject to approval by the Planning Division. 11. A minimum of specimen size trees shall be planted within the project. 12. Special landscape features such as mounding, alleivial rock, specimen size trees, and an abundance of landscaping is required along • 13 1 D. Sicns 1. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance • with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. 2. A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the - Planning Division for their review and approval prior to issuance of Building permits. _ 3, The signs indicated on the submitted plans are not approved with this approval and will require separate sign review and approval. E. Additional ADorovals Required 1. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. _ 2. Director Review shall be accomplished prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of Zone Change and /or Variance /Conditional Use Permit _ 4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of month(s)-at which time the Planning Commission may add or delete conditions or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. • _ 5. The developer is required to obtain the following signed statement by ,purchasers of homes which have a private or public equestrian trail on or adjacent to their property. In purchasing the home located on Lot Tract on I have read the C.C. & R.'s and understand that said Lot is subject to a mutual re- ciprocal easement for the purpose of allowing equestrian traffic to gain access. Signed Purchaser '0 Said statement is to be filed by the developer with the City prior to occupancy. 6. Prior to approval and recordation of the final nap, or prior to issuance of building permits, when no subdivision map is involved, written certification frcri all affected School Districts, shall be submitted to the Department of Caa ^unity Development which states that adequate school facilities are or will be capable of accorrodating students generated by this project. Such letter of certification must have been issued by the School District within sity (60) days prior to the final map ap ^.,oval in the case of the subdivision rap or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. tJ r —111. Prior to approval and recordation of the final map, or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district, that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project, shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by• the water district within sixty (60) days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. For projects using septic tank facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board and the City, written certi- fication of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained and submitted to the City. _1/8. This approval shall become null and void if the tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorded or building permits issued when no map is involved, within twelve (12) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. _/9. This subdivision was not submitted as a total development package and is required to reapply for a point rating relative to the design section of the Growth Management Ordinance prior to final approval and recordation of the map if the subdivision is going to be developed as tract homes. APPLICANT SFi.ALL C09TACT THE SUILDIIIG DI415ICN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CVDITIONS: Site Develocr.ent 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uni`orn Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and• all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval of this project. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to an existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fee. _ 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay deveio;,-ient fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, 5, This acar•.al shall beccr..e null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. 6. Street nar:es and addresses shall be provided by the building official, • ' � f 7. Duelling units shall be constructed with fire retardant material and non - combustible roof material. _ 8. All corner dwellings shall have the building elevation facing the • street upgrade with additional wood trim around windows and wood siding or plan -ons where appropriate. G. Existing Structures _ 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearances "- considering use, area and fire- resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Building and Zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and /or capped to comply with appropriate grading practices and the Uniform Plumbing Code. H. Grading �1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the — approved conceptual grading plan. �2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the • State of California to perform such work. _ 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. __�Z4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering -and Building Divisions and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERIi!G DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CPA I T I ONS: — I. Dedications and Vehicular Access 'V 1. Dedications shall be made by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets:11 Dtiv , �n fO additional feet on 'R. I!'i <L o;(_ additional feet on additional feet on _ 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedicated as folI ass: _ 5. Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. 6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and internal .- circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the property or in the operation of the proposed business. J. Street Imorovements ^.� 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: STREET CU. °.6 & GO ?TER A.C. PVI.1T. SIDE- NALK DRIVE APPR. 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City standards. _ 4. All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedicated as folI ass: _ 5. Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. 6. Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, engress and internal .- circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the property or in the operation of the proposed business. J. Street Imorovements ^.� 1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. Construct the following missing improvements including, but not limited to: STREET CU. °.6 & GO ?TER A.C. PVI.1T. SIDE- NALK DRIVE APPR. STREET LIGHTS A.C. OVERLAY WHEEL CHAIR RAMPS OT HE7 •N,A�ME ,I 3. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, an encroachment permit and fees shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. ' 4. Street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improvements, prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. _ y% 5. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City- Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public irprovements, prior to recording of the map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. ✓ 6. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of -the City Engineer, prior to occupancy. ✓• 7. Pave-.ent striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per the requirements of the City Engineer. • K. Drainage and Flood Control V 1. The applicant will be responsible for construction of all onsite drainage • facilities required by the City Engineer. 2. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations: v 3. The proposed project falls within areas indicated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions 'of the program and City Ordinance No. 24. a/ 4. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to street. 5. The following north -south streets shall be designed as major water carrying streets requiring a combination of special curb heights, commercial type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood protection walls, and /or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line. L. Utilities - 1. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 KV. - !." 2. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving • utility companies and the City Engineer. A., 3. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities, as required. ° �4. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City standards. .L 5. Water and sealer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet recuirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance form CC'd0 will be required prior to recordation. 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other tnterested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. M. General Racui'e ^gri.is and A.00rovals 1. Per -its from other agencies will be required as folloos: A. Caltrans for: _I V1- $�- B. County Dust Abatorent required prior to issuance of a grading permit) C. San eernardir,o ''aunty Fled Cant�r?I Di rict ✓ ^0. Other: Ctju- l.)'1L T+\ 'YCaC ri�La, i0 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCLR's) and Articles of Incorporation of the homeowners Association, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and a copy provided to the City. _ 3. Prior to recordation, a Notice of Intention to form Landscape and Lightin • Districts shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in Districts Formation shall be borne by the developer. 4. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and procedures. • • 0 • Ll Date: April 15, 1961 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: Agenda Item: Gorgen Appeal regarding Tract No. 11606 The question posed by Mr. Gorgen's appeal revolves around granting parks credit under Ordinance 105 for his Planning Commission required improvement of the Regional Trail System adjacent to Deer Creek which abuts the easterly boundary of his tract. The answer to the question as posed is simple and quite clear. Under Ordinance 105, this appealed condition is not eligible for considera- tion for a credit against park fees due. The intent of the Ordinance was clearly put forth to allow development of a park system within our City. A park system and a trail system are two separate items and have been so distinguished in our own recently adopted General Plan as well as the California State Suhdivison Map Act which provides the enabling legislation for cities to enact Ordinances, such as 105, requiring dedications and /or fees for park purposes. The question more appropriately centers around the issue of "Is a developer required to install or finance a master planned improvement adjacent to his venture or is he not ?" This issue could be construed to be of a similar nature to storm drain improvement, roadway improve- ments, and all manner of infrastructure. COUNCIL OPTION: Two choices exist: either require Gorgen to improve the portion of the Regional Trail adjacent to his development, per the Planning Commission requirement... or don't. The question of credit against park fees is not germain to the issue. WLH: mm cc: Barry Hogan Southern California Edison Company F B. W. BOND April 2, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 793 Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Repeal of Section 301 of the Fuel Use Act The Southern California Edison Company has joined with California utilities and state agencies in supporting federal legislation recently introduced to repeal Section 301 of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA). Accordingly, we are seeking support for this legislation by having resolutions passed by local governmental agencies and chambers of commerce. . The attached position paper was prepared by representatives of the Governor's Office, Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, and various state electric and gas utilities. Also enclosed is a copy of Section 301 and a copy of a proposed resolution which can be used to support the repeal. It would be appreciated if the City would adopt a resolu- tion in support of repeal of the restrictions and prohibitions on the use of natural gas in utility powerplants. If you adopt the resolution, please return the signed resolution to me and I will see that copies are delivered to our Washington and Sacramento representa- tives. Please call me at 947 -2996 if you would like for me to present this matter, or if you have questions about it. RWB: mb • Attachments Sincerely, R. W. nd • SECTION 301 OF THE POWERPLANT AND INDUSTRIAL FUEL USE ACT OF 1978 TITLE III — EXISTING FACILITIES Subtitle A— Prohibitions sac ace- aylsnNG IMICTRIC pOrITM ANTE (a) Gt v Nounrrtowa —Except to week extent as may be auNo (1)underlpwhB- (I) Bing e1 s poe not be and u a•er Jana rear�r m; io an meting a l g r powc of be on or alter primary t 1,1190; ( xi natural gee %hill not rs used re a puary 1, energy' auuroe in aoeeisting caused natural lantsalon January 5,1990,unless such time tale oatunl N u •primary energy source N any tame during calendar vur 1be i and (/) natural gas alull not la and u a primary ever foot I in an eeertieg electric ns than in toy Wander year felon 7990 in g set hyick— proportions tbao the avenge yearly proportion of eat• enl ofwbieh- (Al such years 1974 the gh used 1 7 • primary energy scare in elenddaryeahr a plaghgan etc (B) if such powe' plant began operations; on or after Jano- t to.a. « 1, m rolant vaed u a Drill parer mum for wcb powerplant W any lim, titer the tonsure parr or tma nu, out at Mast we year before the data ouch prohibition firs takes tied - (b) At cra rr co SECAMar To PaonsaR Rena¢ Coax. ea Assn- scan Fm CArssuv Esims. —The Sermtan may prohibit, in • wourdance with action MW (a) Or (b), thee e n of petroleum or oatunl gas. pr both, u a primam mer`r sourea in toy "rating Osetric powerp ant, if the Secretary Mds that — (1) web powarplant hea or ppnriouslr had the technical capa. bility to sae mal or another altamat* fael u a primary merit mum; (9) aoeh powerplant bu the laehnical capability to OR coal Or another alternate fuel u a primary murgy muru, ca it could bate such ca sbilitr without — `A) substantial pbyideal modification of the powerplan4 R(H) subsantial mductia in the rated capacity of she powarplant; and (a) it is financially fusible to am mall of another alternate fuel u a primary energy mute in such powerplue- 7ba renqquirement of puagrapb (1) shall not be considered to be utis fled m7ass the finding under such pangsph is made befom the date of the publication of the notice of proposed prohibition under section 701(b) and is published with such notice. (c) Anaou or Sscur•nr To Prleatan Eidwns Ira rsc Mrs• erars. —In the tau of any uirtini electric powerplant in which the Sec etar) finds it is trchneeally an financially fusible m or a min- tun of petroleum or natural gas and owl or sea alternate fuel u a pri• mary aergt source, the Secretary may prohibit, in accordance with reenon 303(a), the use of petroleum cr nature? gas, or both, in well powerplant in amounts in unless of the minimum amount necauary rp mamum nliabditr of ooention of she unit amsirtent with al • II V SJ -17 7 • A RESOLUTION OF nryQy IN UPPORT OF L ISLA I —�REHO YN�/ G THE RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF NATURAL GAS IN UTILITY POWERPLANTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION On motion of , seconded by , the following resolution is adopted. WHEREAS, it is in the national security and national economic interest to promote the policy of the government of the United States to reduce the nation's dependence an imported oil; and WHEREAS, Section 301 of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act contains prohibitions and restrictions on the use of natural gas as a utility powerplant fuel; and WHEREAS, the complete development of alternate fuels technologies are subject to technical, financial, environmental, site and social constraints and as a result fuels from these projects may not be available on a commercial basis for several years; and WHEREAS, domestic natural gas reserves are estimated to be • sufficient to last for at least several decades at the current rate of consumption and; WHEREAS, implementation of Section 301 will impose a host of new costs upon electric utility customers; and WHEREAS, natural gas is a cheaper, cleaner fuel than fuel oil; and WHEREAS, the United States needs to utilize all available resources in order to achieve energy independence at the earliest possible time; therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that strongly supports federal legislation which will repeal Section 301 of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, thereby permitting the use of natural gas as a transitional utility powerplant fuel until such time as alternate or renewable sources are available for the commercial generation of electric energy. PASSED AND ADOPTED by State of California, at a regular meeting thereof this day of 1981 by the following votes: AYES: • NOFS: ABSENT; CALIFORNIA URGES THE REPEAL OF SECTION 301 OF THE FUA • Over the past several months, a task force consisting of representatives of the executive branch of the State of California, various interested State regulatory agencies, and public and private gas and electric utilities in California have been analyzing the impact of Section 301 of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of r 1978 ( "FUA ") upon California. l/ TASK FORCE POSITION The task force has concluded that repeal of Section 301 of the FUA is essential. Natural gas must be utilized as a transition fuel as California and the nation move toward alternate and renewable energy resources. Failure to repeal Section 301 prohibitions and re- strictions will: (i) obligate electric utilities to burn increased quantities of oil in lieu of gas, thereby continuing the dependency • on expensive and uncertain foreign oil supplies; (ii) divert capital resources from other productive applications; (iii) unnecessarily in- crease consumer utility rates; and (iv) frustrate efforts to improve air quality. Although the task force exclusively addresses the repeal of Section 301 in this document, it is our position that other amend- ments to FUA addressing unduly restrictive limitations on the develop- ment of important fuel efficient energy options such as cogeneration should also be pursued. I/ The task force consists of representatives from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Air Resources Board, Public Utilities Commission, Energy Resources Conservation and Develop- ment Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Cas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, City of Burbank, City of Glendale and City of Pasadena. � n In 1978 the Congress enacted FUA for several purposes • including the need to conserve domestic natural gas supplies which appeared to be declining. Section 301 of the Act: (i) restricts the burning of natural gas in existing powerplants prior to 1990 and prohibits the burning of natural gas in such powerplants beginning in 1990; (ii) provides authority for the Economic Regulatory Adminis- tration ( "ERA ") to order conversion of an existing powerplant from c'.1 or gas to coal whenever such a powerplant is found to be "coal cap- able"; and (iii) provides authority for the ERA to order an existing powerplant to use a mixture of gas and coal or a mixture of oil and coal. However well intentioned the purposes of Section 301 were in 1972, such purposes are no longer valid and, continuation of the mandates of that Section will be detrimental to national security, • balance of payments and national economic and environmental interests. The balance of this paper discusses the basis for the task force's position that Section 301 must be repealed. BASIS FOR POSITION Repeal of Section 301 Will Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil and Increase the Use of Domestic Resources 1. Most of California's fossil - fueled electric powerplants are limited by their design to the use of gas and low sulfur residual fuel oil which, in large part, is produced from foreign crude oil. The continued use of natural gas in powerplants will reduce the volumes of oil which would otherwise be required and thus, will reduce the nation's dependence on foreign petroleum. • 2. It has been estimated that California powerplants can save over Y. 700 million barrels of oil over the period 1990 through 2000 by • utilizing the projected available supplies of natural gas. The major portion of California's natural gas supply is from domestic sources. Naticnal security and national economic interests are most favorably improved by a reduction in dependence on foreign oil supplies and a greater use of indigenous resources. Natural Gas Supplies are Projected to be Adequate to Fulfill All Other Customer Req ul rements 1. Recent studies, including a long -term gas supply report prepared by the task force, indicate that, with continued exploration and expanded conservation efforts, and planned projects coming to fruition, California will have adequate natural gas supplies to serve some of its electric powerplant requirements to the end to exceed, present levels. 2. Under present federal and state gas curtailment plans and policies, use of natural gas for electric generating boilers receives the lowest priority. All other classes of gas customers are fully served before natural gas is available for boiler fuel use. Therefore, supplies to residential and commercial customers are protected. Real of Section 301 Will Avoid Unnecessary Costs to Consumers Enforcement of Section 301 could impose a host of new costs upon utility consumers -- costs which could be avoided if existing powerplants were allowed to continue burning natural gas. • A few examples are: )"� `-' 1-3- of the century. Current gas exploration efforts have yielded • new gas supplies. Independent forecasts now project that gas supplies in the year 2000 should at least equal and, are likely to exceed, present levels. 2. Under present federal and state gas curtailment plans and policies, use of natural gas for electric generating boilers receives the lowest priority. All other classes of gas customers are fully served before natural gas is available for boiler fuel use. Therefore, supplies to residential and commercial customers are protected. Real of Section 301 Will Avoid Unnecessary Costs to Consumers Enforcement of Section 301 could impose a host of new costs upon utility consumers -- costs which could be avoided if existing powerplants were allowed to continue burning natural gas. • A few examples are: )"� `-' 1-3- I . Substantial capital expenditures could be required to retrofit existing powerplants with air emission control dtvices to accommo- modate the increased burning of oil. Moreover, it is unlikely • such retrofit abatement systems would limit emissions of all pollutants to the same levels achievable through the burning of natural gas. 2. Electric utilities serve an important load balancing function. Although assigned to the lowest priority, electric powerplants provide the cushion for balancing continually fluctuating gas demands of higher priority residential and commercial customers. Section 301 restrictions on gas use will eliminate electric powerplants as a gas customer class and, thus, adversely impact all other classes of gas customers. It will mean either, resi- dential, commercial, and industrial gas customers will face the possibility of service interruptions or, expensive gas system • additions possibly including new underground storage will be re- quired. Conversion to Coal is Not Financially Feasible The potential use of coal in existing facilities for gener- ation of electricity is extremely limited in California. Most of the California's fossil - fueled powerplants were designed to burn only natural gas and oil. As a result, these powerplants do not contain design configurations that would accommodate the utilization of coal without substantial modifications, nor are there adequate coal transpor- tation systems available to these powerplants. Modification of exist- ing facilities would cost California utility customers billions of dollars. Use of funds for conversion would of necessity compete with those required for necessary system additions including alternate • -4- luZ and /or renewable energy sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric and would reduce the funds available for cogeneration, conservation and load management programs currently contemplated. The utilities and their customers are not financially capable of under- taking the huge capital expenditure of the conversions alone, much less a combination of both conversion and investment in conservation and renewable energy sources. The Continued Use of Natural Gas is Environmentally Preferable The increased use of oil required by enforcement of section 301 will result in substantially increased emissions. These increased emissions cannot be justified in regions which are deemed environmental- ly sensitive when they could be avoided by the continued use of natural gas. Thus, air quality regulatory agencies advocate the use of natural gas in preference to oil. • The California Air Resources Board has calculated by sub- stituting natural gas for residual oil in California utility boilers, n U average emission reduction would result on the order of 959 for par- ticulate matter, 509 for oxides of nitrogen and 99.88 for oxides of sulfur. The Department of Energy also recognizes the preferences of natural gas over oil from an environmental and national security standpoint and has reiterated this position in several publications. Natural gas rather than oil can serve as the transitional fuel while utilities expand their generation mix including the develop- ment of environmentally acceptable alternate resources while con- tinuing to emphasize cogeneration, conservation and load management. 1 �I -5- Fj The Process for Obtaining Permanent Exemptions to Burn Natural Gas is Imoracticable 1. Electric utilities must make immediate long -range decisions relax tive to the types and amounts of fuels to be utilized if they are to meet their service obligations during the remainder of this century. The uncertainties and unworkability of the FUA exemtion process presents a serious obstacle to that goal. 2. While the FUA provides for permanent exemptions, such exemptions will be granted by the ERA only when economic, environmer.Lal, or technical factors indicate that an extreme circumstance exists. Even when it is possible to demonstrate that such an extreme circumstance exists, in a recently promulgated final rule, the ERA stated "... for natural gas -fired facilities, therefore, ERA suggests that permanent exemptions under Section 312(a) of FUA, lack of alternate fuel supply, site limitations, or environ- mental requirements, not be applied for at this time. "2/ Thus, • while it is theoretically possible to obtain permanent ex- emptions, it appears highly uncertain that they will be granted to use available natural gas in existing powerplants. 2/ "Calculation for the Cost of Using Alternate Fuels Under FUA." 45 Fed.Reg. 84971 (1980). -6- II�� • Southern California Edison Company 133 HOgiH SECOHO wvE .PLC O. CLLIFORNII. 217,5 April 6, 1981 N.W. BOND plq ).P3ff, wnV xwxnecq Mayor Phil Schlosser City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor Schlosser: SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for Licensing San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units Would you please ask the City Council to adopt a resolu- tion in support of licensing San Onofre Units II and III nuclear power plants. Our Company believes the early operation of Units II and III is of vital importance to the economy of Southern California and that any further delays will cost our consumers millions of dollars in • increased energy billings. I am attaching a sample resolution and several fact sheets relating to nuclear power for your information. It would be appreciated if you would present this matter to the City Council for action. I would be happy to present the issue personally if you wish. If the signed resolution can be returned to me, I will see that it is forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the proper governmental representatives in Washington and Sacramento. Thank you for your cooperation and support in this matter. RWB:mb Attachments • Sincerely, ond V0 �;/ -H b' /y RESOLUTION y1ye''`1 EREAS, (Name of Orouo )' i:.vitally concerned t at the economic, environments and scial well -being of the State of of California be maintained; and WHEREAS, an adeouate supply of energy is critical to meeting California's economic and social needs while preserving the environmental gains of the past decade; and WHEREAS, this nation's continued overdependence on foreign oil has caused major adverse economic impacts; and WHEREAS, there is a probability that instability in the Middle East will, at some near future time, result in reduced supplies of oil, thereby causing further social and economic chaos here at home, and WHEREAS, there must be a strong commitment to conservation of the nation's limited resources and development of efficient and secure new sources of energy here at home, and WHEREAS, regulatory delays in the planning and licensing of needed energy facilities are costly to the consumer, damaging to the environment, and result in greater importation of foreign oil; • - NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED, that (Name of Group supports ' 1. licensing San Onofre Units II and III nuclear power plants 2, developing alternative forms of energy such as, solar, geothermal and wind 3. a continued commitment to conservation of our energy resources I FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION The Need For Nuclear Power Few would dispute the fact that energy is rapidly becoming the "Achilles' Heel" of the United States. However, this country possesses energy options which are much • more substantial than Achilles' mythical armor. One such option is nuclear power, x w ■ ENERGY REALITIES. During the next ten years, Southern California Edison does not expect to build any oil -fired electrical generating stations. Oil must be phased out as a fuel for electricity production due to soaring costs and dependence on other nations to supply it. National policy and current government regulations require that the electric utility industry reduce oil usage and phase out natural gas usage. Edison projects need for 6,000 megawatts of additional generating capacity by 1990. Where will this additional power come from? The answer is alternative and renewable energy sources, nuclear and coal generation. Southern California Edison has made a commitment to more than double the amount of cloctricity genera. ed by sclar, wilid, yc4the'i inai, and Otiier 1'CheWdUle sources over previous estimates. Current plans call for renewable energy sources to be responsible for generating over 30% of the projected increase in power needs by 1990. But what of the remainder? The answer in the '80s is nuclear power. Edison and the entire utility industry are convinced that nuclear power is one of the few viable alternatives to meeting energy needs effectively in the 1980s. It is vital that this safe, clean, and economical source of energy be developed. Is Nuclear Power Really Necessary? In a word, yes. Even with dedicated conservation efforts, t e emand for electricity is expected to increase. Although alternate energy options such as solar, wind, geothermal and other renewables will make a significant contribution by 1990, they cannot effectively meet the energy •needs of our customers during the 1980s. According to the National Academy of Sciences, "as fluid fuels are phased out for electricity production, coal and nuclear power are the only economical alternatives for large scale application in the remainder of this century." Due to environmental and technological considerations, the burning of coal in California for energy production is not feasible at this time. That leaves nuclear power as the primary alternative. Why Expand San DnOfre? Although aggressive conservation and load management programs have he ed to reduce the demand for electricity, Edison will still need additional generating capacity in the next decade. To help meet these power needs, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is being expanded to include two more units, each capable of producing 1100 megawatts of electricity in addition to the 450 megawatts already provided by the plant. Units 2 and 3 are now about 90 percent completed. San Onofre Units 2 and 3 are of vital importance to the economy of Southern California. The California Energy Commission has indicated that the on- schedule operation of the two new units will be important in meeting the state's demand for electricity during the remainder of this century. In addition, Edison has a 15.8% interest (579 MW) in three 1,222 -MW units being constructed at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, Arizona. The units are scheduled for firm operation in the 1983-86 period. These units are now about 50% completed. Any delay in the operation of the San Onofre or Palo Verde nuclear units will cost consumers millions of dollars because expensive fuel oil will have to be burned to replace much of the power lost by their non - operation. • aaA ECONOMIC REALITIES. Southern California Edison customers are facing the painful reality that a ectricity is no longer inexpensive. Because of restrictive air quality regulations, Edison has relied heavily on low-sulfur oil and natural gas for its electricity generation. Back in 1970, oil cost about $2 a barrel. Edison now pays more than $34 a barrel for low - sulfur oil. How Much Oil Will San Onofre Save? When operating at full power, San Onofre now saves the equivalent o of oil per day, When the two new units begin operating, the plant will save about 100,000 barrels of oil daily. How Much Does The Electricit Produced At San Onofre Cost? Nuclear power is the most economtca major power source presently avai ab a to Edison. During 1979, the • total cost of generating electricity at San Onofre was aporoximately 1.7 cents per kilowatt -hour (kWh), compared to approximately 4 cents per kWh for oil- generated electricity and 2 cents per kWh for coal - generated electricity. In 1979 alone, San Onafre saved Edison customers approximately $95 million in fuel costs by negating the need to burn expensive oil. Furthermore, nationwide statistics compiled by the Edison Electric Institute show that the more utilities are able to utilize nuclear power, the more they are able to hold the line on rising electricity costs. While electricity costs across the nation rose 14.6 percent per year from 1973-77, utilities which had 50 percent or more nuclear capacity held their average annual increase to 9.2 percent. * * * ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES. Edison has no "favorite" form of producing electricity. eery reasonable, cost-effective form of producing energy must be considered if Edison's responsibility to the public is to be met. In fact, the Company is actively pioneering solar, geothermal, wind power and coal gasification as future energy sources. Recent developments Edison has made in the alternative energy field include the dedication of California's first Wind Energy Center near Palm Springs, and the first operation of our 3 MW wind turbine generator -- soon to be joined by a 500 kW vertical axis wind turbine generator; the site dedication of our 10 -MW "Solar One" project located near Daggett in the Mohave Desert; and the dedication and start -up operation of our 10 -MW Geothermal - Electric Station Unit 1 near Brawley in the Imperial Valley. We also are progressing in our research and development of the nation's first commercial -size coal gasification power plant, a solar salt pond and production of low -cost photovoltaic cells. Some significant successes in a number of research and development areas prompted Edison to adopt a major corporate policy change in October 1980. The Company made a • commitment to more than double the amount of electricity generated by renewable, rather than finite, power sources and to continue emphasis on cogeneration, conservation and load management. The Company's current plans call for renewable energy sources to provide more than one-third or 2,000 MW of the 6,000 MW projected increase in power needs by 1990. Aren't There An Economical Ener Sources Other Than Nuclear? Despite these developments ,n the renewab a energy ie d, nuc ear power remains the lowest cost method of generating electricity. Following is a comparison of the projected cost of generation alternatives: 1980 Levelized Power Cost 1980 Levelized Power Cost Nuclear 8 Solar- Thermal 17 Coal 12 Geothermal 18 Wind 10 Fuel Cells 22 Solar- Photovoltaic 13 Combustion Turbines 20 Can Conservation Defer The Need For Nuclear Power? In a word, no. Southern California Edison has been in the conservation load management business for eight years. Presently, more than 70 programs are in operation impacting the entire spectrum of Edison customers. Although it is of prime importance, conservation alone cannot solve energy supply problems. Conservation and load management efforts plus the impact of higher electric rates, are expected to reduce projected peak demand by about 5,000 megawatts by 1990. Even considering this reduction, 6,000 megawatts of new capacity will be needed to meet increasing customer demand in the • coming decade. That is equal to about 40% of present Company -owned capacity. Remember, conservation does not create energy; it saves it. Further development of nuclear power is important in meeting our customers' electricity needs during the next decade. SCE /December 1980 11 FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Nuclear Power Plant Safety • Since people tend to fear most what they understand least, safety has always been one of tha most misrepresented aspects of nuclear power. This country has gained the economic and environmental benefits of two decades of n•iclear power production without injury to the public or serious injury to plant employees by radiation exposure. The commercial nuclear power industry actually has maintained a safety record unparalleled by any other industrial experience. However, the public has every right to demand assurance that plants, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, are designed, constructed, operated and regulated to meet exacting safety standards. Insuring the safety of nuclear energy is a responsibility to which Southern California Edison is strongly committed. k k SAFETY FEATURES AT SAN ONOFRE. A major nuclear power accident depends on a higlhy__un1iT ke y �com -combination of circumstances. Even so, layers of engineered safeguards and structural protective barriers are employed in nuclear power plants to control even the most improbable accident. Safety measures which would help prevent dangerous radioactive releases from a nuclear plant such as San Onofre include: Multiple Barriers -- The multiple barrier safety concept is achieved by keeping time fission p�ucts within ceramic fuel pellets, enclosing the pellets within metal tubes called "cladding" and enclosing these metal tubes or "fuel rods" • within a steel vessel, concrete shield wall and leak -tight steel shell. Finally, a massive concrete containment structure surrounds the entire reactor and its primary cooling system to prevent release to the environment even if the several other barriers are penetrated. To reach the environment, radioactive fission products would have to penetrate each of these barriers in succession and leak out of the concrete containment structure. However, if any potentially harmful radioactive materials did penetrate these barriers, San Onofre also has several systems which would trap and treat them so that they could be safely disposed of. Desi n Redundant -- San Onofre has many overlapping safety features. There would still be sufficient additional safeguards to contain the radioactive elements, even if a disproportionate number of systems failed. Automatic Reactor Shut Down -- The reactor is remotely operated from a control room in a di Brent part of the plant. In addition to its operators, San Onofre has automatic controls which will shut down the reactor if changes in normal conditions are sensed. RN enc Core-Coolin - An Emergency Core-Cooling System (ECCS) ensures that a back -up supp y of water will prevent overheating if normal cooling water is lost. Because of redundant components, the ECCS essentially represents two separate safety systems. What Assurance Is There That Safet Measures At San Onofre Are Sufficient? Before they can go into service, a nut ear power plants must emonstrate • that their construction and operation will not present undue risk to public health and safety. During the licensing process, more than two dozen permits must be secured to comply with federal, state and regional regulations. Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR and FSAR) and detailed Environmental Reports (ERs) must be submitted, including an analysis of how systems and components respond to accident conditions. After the plant begins operating, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspectors make frequent announced and unannounced visits to make sure safety standards are being met. • How Close Are We To No -Risk Nuclear Power? Some risks will always be present, but they are sma in terms of long -range probability and statistical analysis. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences released a report in January of 1980 which stated that, in terms of public risks from all types of electric power production, "coal -fired generation presents the highest overall level of risk, with oil -fired and nuclear generation considerably safer...." x x % IMPACT OF THREE MILE ISLAND. No one in the nuclear power industry minimizes the significance of the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), the concern that it raised or the need to assure nuclear plant safety. However, it's important to remember that the safety systems at TMI worked as designed until over- ridden by human error and that no one was injured. In fact, because of the lessons learned from TMI, nuclear power is even safer today than prior to the accident. What Was The Most Im ortant Lesson Learned From TMI? Most of the preventa- tive safety measures tan in nuc ear power pan s, as recommended by the NRC, were directed at coping with massive, credible accidents, since licensing policy focused on these rather than on a series of minor ones. TMI analysis revealed that insufficient emphasis may have been placed on combinations of smaller incidents and operator actions. What Is Be in to Done To or Eliminate Accidents In The Future? The utility • in ustry as en imp an steps in assuming greater responsibility for nuclear safety. A Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC), designed to supply the industry with the best possible information on questions of nuclear safety, has been staffed by 50 technical experts. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), an even more ambitious response to TMI, will establish new standards for plant operations and operator training. INPO's basic purpose is to help nuclear plant owners achieve higher levels of excellence in operations, training, management and emergency planning. The Institute is now building a professional staff of 200 people. x TMI - RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT SAN ONOFRE. Lessons learned from TMI have resulted in million in design and prowl changes at San Onofre Unit I and another $30 million in modifications at Units 2 and 3. These modifications were made at the request of the NRC. Steps have also been taken to further improve the training of San Onofre operators, even though an extensive 18 -month training program already exists. Although a TMI-like sequence of events at San Onofre was already unlikely because of basic differences in plant design and operating philosophy, the new improvements will further reduce the chance or mitigate the consequences of such an accident. Prior To These Chan es Could San Onofre Have Suffered An Accident Similar o evera sa ety eatures n eren in an no re s eslgn, inc u ing arger volumes of water in the steam generators permitting longer response • times, would have made a TMI -like accident highly unlikely. SCE /December 1980 1 �� FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Earthquake Safety •In the aftermath of a large -scale natural disaster, no other emergency service is more vital to public welfare than power. The availability of power is crucial to hospitals, transportation, communications and recovery operations. The nuclear power industry has always recognized the importance of designing and siting plants capable of withstanding or avoiding the effects of severe natural phenomena, including earthquakes. Nuclear power plants are located away from earthquake-prone areas and carefully designed to withstand an earthquake if one should occur. These design and siting standards, which are necessarily more stringent than those for other types of power plants, not only assure the safe operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, but in emergency situations, they would also allow San Onofre to Provide a more reliable supply of electricity than many other types of power sources. a;� x SAN ONOFRE AND THE "COASTAL STABLE BLOCK ". The sites of nuclear power plants are carefully chosen to avoid areas o high earthquake likelihood and active faults. San Onofre is located in an area five miles south of San Clemente which has been described as the "coastal stable block" by Or. Charles F. Richter, seismologist and developer of the Richter scale. How Was San Onofre's Site Selected? San Onofre's site was specifically selected because of its location in a stable area where earthquakes have not frequently occurred. All utilities follow a selection procedure for nuclear power stations which is based on many years of siting experience involving all types of power plants. Three important factors in determining the seismic integrity of the site • included identification of known faults in the area, their distance from the site and the size of the maximum earthquakes which could occur on these faults. What Assurance Is There That San Onofre's Site Is Stable? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will permit cons ruc ton o nuc ear power plants only after design and siting criteria have been satisfactorily met. Before the construction site for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was approved, it was examined carefully for any geological conditions indicating the possible threat of earthquakes in the area. Specific characteristics were evaluated through environmental, engineering and scientific studies, including geology, seismology, topography, ecology, water quality, meteorology and oceanography. The site for San Onofre earned federal approval when its relative stability and distance from known active faults were confirmed. x � x WHEN AN EARTHQUAKE STRIKES. Although nuclear power plants are sited in areas of low seismicriSK, ion of a plant's ability to survive earthquakes without harming the public is one of the major items considered during the licensing process. The NRC requires each plant to be designed to withstand the maximum earthquake motion possible in the area of the site. If San Onofre Suffered An Earth uake Would Public Safet Be Threatened? Evaluation of San Onofre's a6l ity to survive earthquakes without risk to the public was one of the major items considered during the licensing process. The plant is designed to withstand earthquakes far more severe than the area is believed capable of producing. In fact, the geography, geology and soil at the site would minimize the effects of any earth movements. How Stron An Earth uake Could San Onofre Withstand? The San Andreas and San acinto au is are t e on y such systems in Southern California believed capable of producing major earthquakes in the Richter range of 8 or more. San Onofre is 12/ located 60 miles from the San Andreas fault and 45 miles from tfie San Jacinto fault, at their closest points. The plant is designed to withstand major earthquakes originating along these fault lines. The largest recorded earthquake within the south coastal area of California, the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, was centered about 37 miles northwest of San Onofre • and rated 6.3 on the Richter scale. San Onofre is designed to withstand a similar earthquake five miles from the plant. Unit 1 remained in operation and was undamaged during the 1971 San Fernando /Sylmar earthquake, which was similar to the Long Beach temblor but was centered 90 miles from San Onofre. Vibration tests, conducted to confirm structural anal ysis o es i ggn safety features, are often done on the first models of individual components including piping, fuel elements, pressure vessels, pumps and valves. Whole reactor buildings have even been tested with mechanical shakers or high explosives used to simulate strong earthquakes. In 1978, an earthquake registering 7.5 on the Richter scale struck Japan without damaging four operating nuclear power plants located in the vicinity of the temblor, although damage was suffered in nearby cities, where water and gas service to more than a half - million people was disrupted. When Earthquakes Strike, Are Nuclear ants Always Shut Down? All nuclear plants a ive i -nstruments to warn o and me asuPlre eart qua a motion. Although plants are designed to shut down safely in the event of major earth movements, they are also designed to continue safe operation. San Onofre is capable of providing electricity during emergencies when it is most urgently needed to maintain the general health of the public and to aid in recovery operations. Is San Onofre Protected Against Tidal Waves Generated %E arthquakes? The plant • is designed ti o resist a tsunami, or ti aaalwave, in combination with storm waves and high tide, for a total of approximately 25 feet above sea level and 28 feet above the mean low water level. This includes protection against ocean water flooding the plant's cooling system. Furthermore, San Onofre is designed to endure winds of over 100 miles per hour and severe rainfall of 12.25 inches in six hours with 7 inches in a single hour. * * * SAN ONOFRE'S CRISTIANITOS FAULT. The closest fault to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is the "Cristianitos," which can be seen along the sea cliffs about one mile southeast of the plant. Based on studies conducted by geologists and seismologists, it has been reliably determined that the Cristianitos fault has not moved in at least 120,000 years. This fact and results of other thorough investigations provide substantial evidence that the fault is inactive. What Constitutes An "Active" Earth wake Fault? A fault is a break or crack in the earth a ong which the grown on one si a moves vertically, laterally, or both, with respect to the ground on the other side. An active fault is one which has moved in the last 35,000 years. Is Cristianitos The Only Fault Near San Onofre? A system of faults exists five mi es offshore from San Onotre. Mis system has also been closely studied. Former activity on these faults appears to be related to older stress systems now dormant. However, San Onofre has been designed to withstand any earthquakes which the area is believed capable of producing. Edison and its consultants have made repeated studies and found no evidence of any linkage between the Cristianitos • fault and the "offshore zone of deformation." SCE /December 1980 % FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION . Nuclear Waste Most electricity today is generated by turning water into the steam necessary to drive turbine - generators. Whether that steam is created by burning fossil fuels or by splitting atoms of uranium, some waste by-products are always produced. k k k MANAGING NUCLEAR WASTE. One of the most significant obstacles confronting the use of nuclear power is the public's concern over radioactive waste management. However, commercial nuclear waste's unique characteristics actually present several advantages compared to the problems associated with disposing of other toxic wastes. ° Nuclear waste is one of the few wastes produced by our society that is effectively controlled and prevented from entering the biosphere. Although nuclear waste can be isolated, equivalent isolation standards may prove infeasible for many other hazardous wastes. ° The management of nuclear waste is more rigidly regulated than wastes from other sources. ° Its radioactivity permits easy monitoring and control. ° Nuclear waste is small in volume compared to wastes produced by other technologies. This minimizes problems associated with its management. k k k THE NON- PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL. Managing radioactive waste is not a • technological problem. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences recently reported that, "No insurmountable technical obstacles are foreseen to preclude safe disposal of nuclear wastes in geological formations." All necessary process steps for immobilizing wastes have been developed, and there are no technical barriers to their implementation. How Would Nuclear Power Waste Be Safel• Dis osed Of? The technique most likely to be adopte involves mixing ig - eve was es into molten glass formed into cylindrical shapes. The glass -like waste would then be sealed in welded stainless steel canisters and buried in deep salt beds or rock formations. In addition to being among the most stable of geological formations, salt beds are good heat conductors and effective radiation shields. What Would The Volume Of Nuclear Waste Be? If all the country's nuclear power waste through the year were so i tfied into glass, it would only fill a football field eight feet deep. Stopping nuclear power would not stop the production of nuclear waste. Even by the year 2000, the U.S. weapons program is expected to be producing 33 times more waste than nuclear power plants. Wh Are There No Permanent Waste Disposal Facilities? The federal government assumed t e response i ity or disposal o commercial nuclear waste in 1954. Although certain waste disposal technologies were researched and shown to be scientifically feasible during the following 15 years, political indecision in the 1970s prevented their implementation. However, in February of 1980, • President Carter announced a comprehensive national program for dealing with all forms of nuclear waste. The plan calls for site selection of the first waste repository by "about 1985" and operation by the mid- 1990s. * *x NUCLEAR WASTE AT SAN ONOFRE. Nuclear wastes are residues created in the nuclear fuel cycle. A power plant, such as Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, produces both low -level and high-level radioactive wastes. • Low -level wastes, which make up the bulk of waste materials routinely removed from San Onofre, possess only traces of radioactivity. These wastes include supplies such as towels, gloves, shoe covers and containers used by reactor workers. Low-level wastes are shipped to licensed sites in Nevada and Washington and buried in shallow trenches to isolate them from the environment. wastes are the highly radioactive elements created within nuclear fuel �High-level during' the fission process. These wastes require long -term isolation from the environment. How Much Hi h -level Waste is Produced At San Onofre? San Onofre Unit I has a net generating capacity o megawatts. A typical 500-megawatt nuclear power plant produces about 58 cubic feet of high -level waste annually... about the same volume as one telephone booth. What Happens To It? When San Onofre is refueled, approximately once every 16 months, one -third of the fuel assemblies are replaced. This spent fuel, which contains high -level waste, is stored in deep pools of water at the reactor site and at General Electric's facility at Morris, Illinois, using a standard technique proven to be environmentally safe. However, unless the U.S. government provides permanent waste disposal, more pool storage space will be needed in the future. • x x TRANSPORTING WASTES FROM SAN ONOFRE. All shipments of both low -level waste and spent nuclear fuel are strict y controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation: Spent fuel shipments are made in what may well be the most carefully designed shipping containers ever fabricated, • Is It Safe To Tr_ann, ort Spent Fuel? In 25 years, there has never been anyone injured or ��d �`rom a radioactive release of nuclear power materials in transport. The primary hazards considered are radioactivity, ability to form a critical mass and theft. The first two are controlled by the use of appropriate shielding and separating materials. Theft is preventable by a combination of impenetrable shipping materials and security personnel. Each shipping container, or cask, must be licensed by the NRC and approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation before use. It must be rigorously demonstrated that the cask design meets all regulatory requirements before either agency will give its approval. Are Shi in Casks Safet Tested? No other shipping container is designed to standards more stringent. a design of the 25 to 100 -ton casks, constructed with steel walls and lead shielding, must be able to withstand the following accident conditions, in sequence, without leaking. The casks are dropped from a height of 30 feet onto an unyielding surface, dropped onto a pointed steel bar, exposed to a 1474 °F fire for 30 minutes and immersed in water for eight hours. What About Traffic Accidents? The shipping casks are strong enough to withstand accident scenarios described in the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. At full-scale tests at Sandia Laboratory in New Mexico, the casks withstood impact with a railroad locomotive traveling 80 miles per hour and crashes up to 84 mph into a solid concrete block. In the past 10 years, there has been only one traffic accident involving a truck hauling spent fuel. • Although the truck overturned in the accident, the cask did not leak. SCE /December 1980 FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION • Emergency Planning California was one of the first states in the nation to devise nuclear generating plant emergency plans approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A severe emergency situation at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is considered highly improbable. However, as a result of an extensive three -year study and lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident, certain additional requirements have been mandated. These key additions include: o A larger evacuation planning zone, which increases the evacuation area from 5 miles to about 10 miles. This involves a 1980 population of about 77,000 residents in the communities of San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Capistrano Beach, Dana Point, and portions of Camp Pendleton. o Establishment of a more detailed notification procedure to better inform local officials as to the actions they may need to take. o A public information program in advance of need which will allow a more rapid response by the public. • o Installation of a public alerting system (sirens) capable of alerting all the public of an emergency within the 10 -mile evacuation zone. Plans are designed to expedite communications during an emergency involving several primary response agencies other than Edison, including Orange and San Diego Counties, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Camp Pendleton, and the State Parks and Recreation Department. Each of these agencies, along with other state agencies in the area, must have plans containing provisions for notifying the general public, media and government officals. The plans also must define evacuation and radiation monitoring procedures as well as procedures for interagency coordination. When And How Will The Local Plans Be Activated? Local plans become operative upon notification or verification that an incident has taken place at SONGS which falls into one of four levels of emergency action: 1. Unusual Event 2. Alert 3. Site Emergency • 4. General Emergency l� Notification will be received by various local agencies, whether directly from SONGS or from the Edison Company Energy Control Center in Alhambra. • The notification will use a pre - worded message format which identifies the level of emergency, the nature of the incident, and any appropriate protective measures. Who Will Coordinate Emergency Response Activities? Each local entity becomes the coordinator for its respective political jurisdiction. Coordination is provided through a single emergency operations center that will be located in San Clemente. Emergency response action will be dependent upon the nature and seriousness of the incident. Standard response procedures have been developed for each of the four levels of emergency. In The Event That Protective Actions Are Necessary What Actions May Ae aken nd How i e Populace Be Noti ied. Protective actions may include sheltering, selective evacuation, or general evacuation. The populace will be notified by mobile public address units or by other warning systems, including a future siren system. Citizens will be instructed to turn on their radios or televisions for information regarding actions to be taken. The emergency planning zone has been divided into easily identifiable • subsectors to facilitate the effective broadcasting of information and guidance to the populace. Public information packets, distributed in advance to the residents, will contain information on radiological emergencies, including evacuation procedures, location of transportation assembly areas, evacuation routes, and designated reception centers. The populace has been classified into five groups by transportation needs: car owning, noncar owning, school children, those with restricted mobility, and transients. Plans call for specific actions to evacuate each of these groups. Traffic control during evacuation will be provided by local and state law enforcement agencies. Once evacuation of the general public has been completed, the emergency personnel and essential equipment will be relocated outside the risk area. Emergency forces will provide perimeter check points, air surveillance, and ground patrols for the evacuated area. SCE /December 1980 //�7 • FACT SHEET -- SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Environmental Effects •There is no way to produce and deliver electricity without impacting the environment in some way, just as there is no way to drive a car or operate industrial equipment without some impact. However, there are ways to assure that the environment will not be significantly affected by electricity production. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station testifies to the fact that nuclear power and the environment can safely co-exist. The results of more than 15 vears of continuous *xh RADIATION -- A FACT OF LIFE. Every living thing on this plant is exposed to radiation an has een since time began. It's in the air we breathe, in the food we eat and in the homes we live in. This "natural background" radiation is the largest contributor to a person's average radiation dose, followed by exposure from medical sources. If asked whether a nuclear reactor emits radiation, one would have to answer "yes." However, the nuclear power industry contributes less than 1% of the radiation we are exposed to. It's important to remember that: ° Most of the radiation we receive is unavoidable because it is part of the natural environment. ° The nuclear power industry is a very small contributor to our total radiation dose. ° The health effects of radiation are not unique. Many natural • and man -made materials can produce similar effects. ° Since the effects of radiation are better known than those of practically all industrial pollutants, the regulation and monitoring measures to protect us against radiation exposure are more complete and more advanced. The radiation from the operation of a nuclear power plant is little different from natural background radiation. No radiation - related injuries or fatalities have ever been experienced by the public as a result of commercial nuclear power. x x x RADIATION AT SAN ONOFRE. Radiation exposure is measured in units called millirems mrems a ra toactivity in the vicinity of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has been monitored continuously, beginning years before the plant began operating. This elaborate monitoring system, which measures radiation in the air, ground, plants and water, has yet to detect any change in natural background radiation above the five additional mrems per year allowed by federal regulation. How Much Radiation Is Released At San Onofre? If you lived near San Onofre uc ear enera ing Station, you wou receive less than one mrem of additional radiation per year. To put that one mrem in perspec tve, the natural background alone exposes the average U.S. citizen to 100 mrems of radiation per year, 22 to 27 of them from your own body. Is That Radiation Within Safe Limits? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for implementing- and enforcing the radiation protection standards set by the EPA. Radiation standards have evolved from years of study and recommendation by radiation-protection organizations. According to NRC radiation safety requirements, persons living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant may receive no more than about five mrems a year from the facility. X�v) Annual releases of both gas and liquid emissions at San Onofre represent only a small fraction of conservative regulatory limits. What Are Some Typical Radiation Exposure Levels From Man -Made Sources? • SOURCE MREMS Watching color television 1 One coast -to -coast jet flight 5 Working in U.S. Capitol Building for one year 20 (Due to stone construction) One chest X -ray 50 Average dose to public within 50 miles of 1.5 Three Mile Island during the accident Is Radiation Monitored At San Onofre? Yes. Monitoring programs, required and approved by the NRC and the California Department of Public Health Services, are used to assure that there is no radiation - related impact upon land and sea life in the area. Monthly to semi - annual samples, including sand, water, kelp, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, crops, vegetation and animal life, are collected at locations ranging from Newport Beach to eight miles south of San Onofre. Analyses of the samples are performed by a California - licensed laboratory and by the State. The most recent r ?port by the-State Department of Health confirms the laboratory's previous analysis that San Onofre is not and has not been presenting any radiation hazard to the public and the environment. SAN ONOFRE AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. Ocean water is used for cooling purposes at dozens of power plants along t e alifornia coast, including oil and gas -fired • facilities. At San Onofre, sea water is used to cool plant condensers and the warmed water is returned to the sea. What Is Meant By The Term, "Thermal Effect "? Some people are concerned that warm water returned to t e ocean could do harm by creating a "thermal effect" which would change the marine environment. However, San Onofre operates well within EPA guidelines regarding marine thermal effects. In fact, marine life seems to thrive around the outflow. Is San Onofre's Cooling System Affecting The Marine Environment? Environmental montoring of thermaY effect five years before the plant began operating, has scientifically documented the compatibility of San Onofre with its marine environment. In 1974, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) formed the San Onofre Marine Review Committee (MRC) to conduct additional studies of the plant's thermal effects. In the past five years alone, Edison has spent $15 million in support of dozens of special MRC marine studies. In last year's interim report to the CCC, the MRC concluded that San Onofre's impact on the marine environment was not significant enough to require any changes in the operation of the plant's cooling system. Monitoring will continue in order to assure a safe marine environment, in keeping with regulatory requirements. As part of Edison's ongoing commitment to protect sea life, an innovative fish handling and return system has been designed and built for San Onofre Units 2 b 3. The system protects marine resources by guiding fish entrapped in the cooling system to a holding chamber. Marine life can then be lifted to a • sluiceway and safely returned to sea. SCE /December 1980 ORDTNANCE NO. 3 (As Amended by Ordinance No. 4) • AN ORDINANCE OF THE FOOTHILL FIRE PRO'; 1;C'f ION DISTRICT DETERMINING AND PROPOSING FOR ADOPTION AN ANNUAL CHARGE FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION AND RELATED SERVICES, AND CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD. IN THE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING THE PROPOSITION TO THE VOTERS WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that revenues which will be provided from ad valorem property taxes alone are insufficient to support continuation of present levels of fire protection and prevention services by the District during fiscal year 1981 -82 and thereafter; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that State augmentation funds may not be available for providing an adequate level of fire protection and prevention services by the District during fiscal year 1981 -82 and thereafter; and WHEREAS, Section 53978 of the Government Code of the State of California provides fire protection districts with the authority to impose special taxes pursuant to the provisions thereof; • NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Foothill Fire Protection District of San Bernardino County as follows: Section 1. The Board of Directors does hereby determine that a special tax shall be imposed for providing fire protection and prevention services to properties within the District. Section 2. Definitions. Except as specifically defined in ..:is section, words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be int ^rprcated to give them the meaning they have in common usage. A. Building - Any structure erected for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind. B. Dwelling Unit - A single family residence, each unit in a residential apartment or condominium building, r,ach mobile home. C. ;:�rinkler Adjustment - A reduction, by 25%, of the �h,arge if a structure charged under this ordinance ,rents or exceeds the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association Standard Number 13 for fully sprinklercd buildings. J� 1 ✓, 31 Ordinance No. 3 '1\r o D. Mobile Home Adjustment - A reduction of the charc;e if a mobile home is located within a mobile home park. E. Unimproved Parcel - Any land that is void of a build- ing or which has a building with 1,000 square feet or less of floor area. F. Combustible Construction - The use of combustible structural members that would propogate the extension of fire in a structure. Section 3. The rate of tax to be levied shall be in one or more of the following manners and in such amounts NOT TO EXCEED the following schedules: Parcel, Class of Improvement to _Property, Use of Prooertv Residential dwelling units and other buildings (except those appearing below in this schedule) Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings Unimproved (each parcel) Maximum Annual Charge $7.50 per assessed benefit unit as per the Bt •.efit Unit Schedule (BUS) $11.25 per assessed benefit unit as per the BUS $5.00 per assessed benefit unit as per the BUS Section 4. Schedule of Benefit Assessment Units: Description Each single family dwelling on one acre of iand or more Each single family dwelling on one acre of land or less Each additional dwelling unit on one acre of land or less (i.e., servant .?txa rte rs, guest house, etc.), except apartments and residential condominiums Crcit unit in a building with '.wo or more dwelling units Each r:obile home located wit.hin a mobile home park i. J Number of Benefit Units 6 each plus 1 for each unimproved additional acre up to 20 acres 6 each 3 each 2 each (with a minimum of 10 per building or a maxi- mum of 150 per building) 3 each • • 0 W. Dr ._..a:)c_ irce . Description Each commercial, industrial, or insti- tutional building on a parcel Each unimproved parcel within the Rancho Cucamonga city limits All non - dwelling buildings on a residential or agricultural parcel with a floor area exceeding 1000 square feet All non - dwelling buildings of 1000 square feet or less of floor area and all carports with no walls Spri.nklered buildings • Nursery lath or greenhouses used for the express purpose of shelter- ing living plants • Aboveground stationary containers of flammable or combustible liquids or gases, with a capacity of more than 4000 gallons Number of Benefit 1 each per 1000 square feet of floor area, or major .portion thereof, with a minimum of 6.67 benefit units per building 1 each per acre of land or part thereof, with a maximum of 20 units per parcel 3 each per building Exempt from all charges Charges reduced by a 254 sprinkler adjustment, as defined Exempt from all charges 15 each Section 5. Such tax shall be imposed upon any parcel, improve - mcnt, and use of property to which fire protection and prevention service may be made available, whether or not such fire protection and prevention service is actually used upon such parcel, improve- or use of property. Section 6. Such tax shall be imposed for the purpose of obtain - int;, .f arni sh ing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression equip- r,�:nt or apparatus and for the purpose of hiring and paying salaries ,, n. 1: •.uefi is to fire fighting personnel, and for such other necessary five protect.ion and prevention expenses within the district to which .ire Irotection or prevention services are made available. o.,.....:n _ !:c. 3 Section 7. A special election is hereby called, to be held in the district on TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the district the proposition, which shall • take effect upon approval of two - thirds (2/3) of the voters voting on the proposition. Section S. On the ballots to be used at the special election, in addition to any other matters required by law, there shall be printed substantially the following: Proposition: Shall the Poo [hill Fire Protection District be authorized to levy an annual charge for the purpose of obtain- ing, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression ecuipment or apparatus, for hiring and paying salaries and benefits to fire fighting personnel, and for such other neces- .s3 ry fire protection and prevention expenses to the District? YES in the amounts NOT TO EXCEED the following schedule and on the following basis? Parcel, Class of Improvement to Property, Use of Property Residential Commercial, industrial, insti- tutional and other buildings Unimproved (each parcel within the Rancho Cucamonga city limits) Fire Protection Charae Not to exceed $3.75 per month per dwelling unit and not to exceed $45.00 per year A maximum of $11.25 per 1000 square feet of floor area with.a mini- mum charge of $75.00 per building per year Maximum of $100 per parcel per year Pursuant to Government Code Section 53978 and Article XIIIA of the California Constitution Foothill Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 3 1091 Section 9. The election shall be called, held and conducted in all respects as nearly as practicable in conformity with the Uniform District Election Law and shall be, and is hereby ordered consolidated With any other election to be held on said date. _ �' ?Ction 10. If the proposition is approved, the dollar amount (not limits) of fire protoction charge for ro-'h !" ne.fit unit for fiscal year 1981 -82 and each fiscal year there - aft -r :hall La detcr-mined and adopted annually by the board of Din.:ctorrs u;inn the following formula: • J Ordinance No. 3 Total Dollar Amount to be Raised = Charge Per Divided by Total Determined Benefit Units Benefit Unit Section 11. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be a:fec ted thereby and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 1981, at an Adjourned Regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Foothill Fire Protection District, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ALEXANDER, AMODT, LYONS, RICHARDS, SPIERS NOBS: NONE ABSENT: NONE FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS • BY: /s/ William J. Alexander William J. Alexander, President (seal) • :va BY: /s/ Robert A. Lee Robert A. Lee, Secretary r J3 is Y S. • fF a SY WEST ENO COMMUNITY FIRE. PROTECTION COOPARISD9 FACT SIICET — 19RO -81 V Ifantral V.ticy Fate Prot. District serves Fontana, Bloomington, Nascoy 6 adjacent unincorporated areas. It is governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Fa.v wPU:c males in the northeast comer of the District is protected by the City of Rialto F.D. by con hoe r. Total S9ua a Miles of Distract: SO iu:mv R::ot Fare Punier... purser serves the Ity of Chino and unincorporated adjacent areas. Governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Bu.:gn n: n wh all agencies listed (except Foothill) there are cons idcrable administrative functions performed by City management or the County admanistm- tun,, ..uh os may n t be reflected s agency budgets. Foothill is the only self - governed Fire protection district in the valley and the largest finde- r f cifbadgutuase) Inthe c unty. Our budget figure contains everything, including equipment reserves. debt redemption and interest, all yernon- -II .. , I.c +: . ul c ovhu'h are probably n ncluded i mast of the elty fire department budgets. In all other agencies listed, there [ ar I—" u c ada:n uts.0 :vc leneltbetvean therFit. thief and the goveming body, With Foothill, all aJmlmstm[ive functions are perfornwd by, or under a the t of [he Fue htcf uLO 15 the general ial,,F, and secremry to the hoard of Directors, 'file only service performed rby the County for this q nt he ho!dang :md dlshumcmenr of fuud,. P.ryaLnt For all espevLt is lrynn order by us for this service, ve pay a [ransattion fee [h oar, a .r us SS,tts fur the Previous year's service. Ilerstofmrc, the Caw chin Pcrfarmed the asuwal vmdit} this Ycar ke have M1lred as Indent au.l 11. l r bc[ausc Cann t Y so re rte has been i nadequn ta'r FOOTHILL FIRE CENTRAL VALLEY CHINO RURAL2 PROTECTION CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF FIRE PROTECTION FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ONTARIO UPLAND MONTCLAIR DISTRICT DISTRICT POPCLAT_I J_: S_2C19 55,000 07,0570 4 ,850 32 500 100 000 Est. 5,000 Cs[. 0! On I L 350 100 251 135 251 290 Arn:::c. v, .d IIn SouIre 1411" 53 36.5 14.7 7 751 89 Gul: nn? Fire Stot us, 1 6 3 2 5 5 Fitch, -hears On :. 9 26 12 10 16 16 - irefiyncers on Duty for x.900 F,, -• P culaciom -- 1.64 3.0 2.62 3.08 1.6 2.13 41ur. --f . fighters on Duty 5or F.actt S:LO Million A.V. 2.57 e.67 4.78 7,41 6.37 5.52 er Arc+ Sved Per Flre Sta ti Or. (sO as re :Bales) I 1],6 6.0 4.9 3.5 15.0 17 -8 .cc: —, s 19PO- 111913 $1,679,297 54,026,687 $1,966,066 $1,714.113 $2.782,915 $2,460,294 TZFF o": or CCw eu yec for P.a1[ae and =ire 37,9% 26.29 24.031 471 n/a 25.7% KK un` ..• CtIlr [.[ricers 4 5 4 4 5 4 I � emu: _re Prevenur. o n Personnel 2 5 3 3 3 3 ir�ctaa —al_ of Clerical Fn: -w": 3 4 2 2 2 1 "Ziscnt Responsibilities b[r. Oi s2- F.D, Ce [y Oep [. City DeP[- n'[r. D[zt F.O. Pv4 Mt r. fo, F.D. City f Pma Vly N[r. Cunte rnnno Fire Iryd[ancs Wes Routine Fat. F.D. Ilas Yo F.O. Ilan Ho Does Some Fl ov Coes dlI Main[. 6 F.O. Does Same Nanor and b r S-1Stem !hint, 4 Flush Res ns. pet ons. Tests - No Naint. 0.e ei rs Ex[e rim Mal n[. Ifantral V.ticy Fate Prot. District serves Fontana, Bloomington, Nascoy 6 adjacent unincorporated areas. It is governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Fa.v wPU:c males in the northeast comer of the District is protected by the City of Rialto F.D. by con hoe r. Total S9ua a Miles of Distract: SO iu:mv R::ot Fare Punier... purser serves the Ity of Chino and unincorporated adjacent areas. Governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Bu.:gn n: n wh all agencies listed (except Foothill) there are cons idcrable administrative functions performed by City management or the County admanistm- tun,, ..uh os may n t be reflected s agency budgets. Foothill is the only self - governed Fire protection district in the valley and the largest finde- r f cifbadgutuase) Inthe c unty. Our budget figure contains everything, including equipment reserves. debt redemption and interest, all yernon- -II .. , I.c +: . ul c ovhu'h are probably n ncluded i mast of the elty fire department budgets. In all other agencies listed, there [ ar I—" u c ada:n uts.0 :vc leneltbetvean therFit. thief and the goveming body, With Foothill, all aJmlmstm[ive functions are perfornwd by, or under a the t of [he Fue htcf uLO 15 the general ial,,F, and secremry to the hoard of Directors, 'file only service performed rby the County for this q nt he ho!dang :md dlshumcmenr of fuud,. P.ryaLnt For all espevLt is lrynn order by us for this service, ve pay a [ransattion fee [h oar, a .r us SS,tts fur the Previous year's service. Ilerstofmrc, the Caw chin Pcrfarmed the asuwal vmdit} this Ycar ke have M1lred as Indent au.l 11. l r bc[ausc Cann t Y so re rte has been i nadequn ta'r U JAMES K SL^HSIE PreuAmv ♦r 1 U �� • NATIONAL ORANGE SHOW -- -1J 689 SOUTH E STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408 (714) 885.0201 Mml address. P 0 sox 5749 — 92412 Mayor James Frost City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 9340 Baseline, 8 A Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701 Dear Mayor Frost, JOSEPH G. BROSMER $cc refery. Manager CITY OF RANCHO 64MONCA ADMINISTRr TION MAR 2 G 1981 AN 71SI9110111112111213015 6 Mr. James R. Guthrie, President of the 66th National Orange Show, respectfully requests permission to be placed on the agenda to speak at one of your upcoming city council meetings. Mr. Guthrie's comments will be about the 1981 National Orange Show. Mr. Earl Statler, Administrative Assistant to Mr. Guthrie, will contact your office to de- termine if this request can be accomodated. Thank you. Sincerely, NaadYne Harden Director of Public Relations NH /rm a MAY 7 THRU MAY 17, 1 981 ORDINANCE NO. //M AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE." WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has provided for the codification and publication of the permanent and general ordinance of cities in Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10 of the Government Code, and WHEREAS, the Book Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington, has compiled, edited and published a codification of the perma- net and general ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and WHEREAS, there have been filed and there are now on file in the office of the city clerk, for public inspection, three copies of a document entitled "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code," together with three copies of each of the secondary codes therein adopted by references; Section 1. Adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 566Zi.1 t rrou_gR_50022.8 and 50022.10 of the Government Code, there is hereby adopted the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code" as published by Book Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington, • together with those secondary codes adopted by reference as authorized by the California State Legislature, save and except those portions of the secondary codes as are deleted or modified by the provisions of the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code." 0 Section 2. Title -- Citation -- Reference. This code shall be know as t e "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code ", and it shall be sufficient to refer to said code as the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code" in any prosecution for the violation of any pro- vision thereof or in any proceeding at law or equity. It shall be sufficient to designate any ordinance adding to, amending, correcting or repealing all or any part or portion thereof as an addition to, amendment to, correction or repeal of the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code." Further reference may be had to the titles, chapters, sections, and subsections of the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code" and such references shall apply to that numbered title, chapter, section or subsection as it appears in the code. Section 3. Codification Authority. This code consists of all the regulatory and penal Finances and certain of the administrative ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, codified pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 through 50022.8 and 50022.10 of the Government Code. Section 4. Ordinances Passed Prior to Adoption of the Code. Ordinance No. Page 2 Section 4. Ordinances Passed Prior to Adoption of the Code. The last ordinance included in this code was ordinance No. 121, passed September 17, 1980. The following ordinances, passed subsequent to Ordinance 121, but prior to adoption of this code, are hereby adopted and made a part of this code: Ordinance Nos. 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141. Section 5. Reference Applies to All Amendments. Whenever a reference is made to thin code as the "Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code" or to any portion thereof, or to any ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, the reference shall apply to all amendments, corrections and additions heretofore, now or hereafter made. Section 6. Title, Chapter, and Section Headings. Title, chapter, and section he contained herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any title, chapter or section hereof. L Section 7. Reference to Specific Ordinances. The provisions of this code shall not in any manner affect matters of record which refer to, or are otherwise connected with ordinances which are therein specifically designated by number or otherwise and which are included within the code, but such reference shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within this code. Section 8. Effect of Code on Past Actions and Obligations. Neither the adoption of this code nor the repeal or amendment hereby of any ordinance or part or portion of any ordinande of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall in any manner affect the pro- secution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date, hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty at said effective date due and unpaid under such ordinances, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof required to be posted, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect. Section 9. Constitutionality. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect • the v,ilidity of the remaining portions of this code. The council hereby declares that it would have passed this code, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, Ordinance No. IsPage 3 clauses or phrases had been declared invlaid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason this code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the origianl ordiannce or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. Section 10. Publication. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and th 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 Report, a newspaper of genera]. circulation, published in the City of Ontario, Calfiornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor V ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 17� r. Cc/ `;y E.,yY C'fy C.. dn( FROME INVESTMENTS C�}y�� 3822 CAMPUS DR. - SUITE 202 NEWPORT BEACH. CA. 92660 Lf -Iq „�l (71 dl 641 -1130 4/13/1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Sir. Proms Investments ownis property on the east side of Haven Ave.. and on the south side of 6th street bordering on the east side of Deer Creek Channel. Neither parcel was included in Assessment District NO. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) until recently. On the advice of our engineerp we protest the inclusion of our properties into the assessment district due to potential problems resulting from drainage design. sincerelyp From, stments Gregory Frome SAM SHERMAN & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE CWNSELLORS 3 e... 3 -- "!N. 5. SHERMAN 9331 HA2EN OR. RE 9ERLr HILLS. CA 1 90210 CRe9mw 46061 C• m , (, ff arf.C.�� ! rl ��iLzd 7k. We -. ' dY City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Detailed Transcript of: 4A APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 11609 and 9441 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, - Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Tract Maps 11609 and 9441 have appealed a condition of the Planning Commission which Would require the construction of the Alta Loma Channel. In that both tracts are represented by the same firm, and deal with basically the same issue, we've clumped them together as an item, although they are two separate appeals. The specific language on the condition that is being appealed reads, "the design and construction of adequate concrete line channel within that structure along Alta Loma Channel continguous to the subject tract, shall be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction cost of the facility shall be credited to the storm drain fee for the project and reimbursement will be executed per City Ordinance No. 75, to cover the contributions which may exceed the amount of the fee. I'll put on a transparency to show better the location of these two tracts. The tract 9441 is the tract shown here (referring to transparency), the other tract comes as the area northerly of that- -this area. Both tracts are located southerly of Wilson Avenue between Hermosa and Archibald adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel. The condition that has been imposed requires the construction of the Alta Loma channel as a concrete line, a facility designed for a 100 year storm in conformance with the master plan of storm drains. This condition was a condition of approval of several tract maps along Alta Loma Channel, including two tracts north of Wilson Avenue running to north of Hillside Avenue and two planned developments located at Hermosa and 19th Street, running to Lemon, again staddling the Alta Loma Channel. Alta Loma Channel is indicated and the entire side is indicated as an A -1 Flood Hazard area of the HUD Flood Hazard Map. you Question raised by _(referring to map) I have a question- -here see the A -0 flood lines Lloyd Hubbs - ..indicated passing over the center of the site, the remaining portion of the site, is a Zone A flood hazard indicating it is subject to infrequent sheet overflows. The A -0 indicates a flood channel zone. Under the provisions of Ord. 24, which was the City's ordinance regarding flood protection, we are mandated to find with any subdivision that the sufficient drainage facilities have been installed to protect against the 100 year flood integration. You can see from this map the additional tracts that have been approved northerly of this one, tract 10047 and tract 10046. The same condition was applied to those tracts, including the portions of the channel which run outside the tract on these and there was no appeal in that case. We have an additional tract map, 10088, shown up in the upper area which has been submitted and is in the process at this time. The other tracts that I mentioned are located along 19th Street in this area. To give you a feeling for the area that is tributary to there, some 960 acres tributary to this channel within that area... and they are shown on the red boundary on the area photo over there...and I think indicative of the potential problems in that area, you will note that major portions of that drainage area are undeveloped at this time. As they develop in the future, the drainage problem that exists now, which has been demonstrated over the years, will increase and the problem will be more difficult and extremely hard for any homes that develop in that area, for the resulting conditions of the Planning Commission map. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions for Tentative Tract Maps 11609 and 9441 Page Two (Mr. Hubbs went over to map and outlined the red boundary that is indicated) Mr. Hubbs -- To summarize our opinion is that the tract is subject to flood hazard without the required improvements and that we would be unable to find, as specified in Ordinance 24, that the site could be free of flood hazard without those facilities. You may remember that Ordinance 24 is the Ordinance that implemented the Federal flood insurance program within the City and is a requirement basically for any federal grants and was implemented for the purpose of not de- veloping in flood hazard areas. Thats basically the background of the condition and the property here to the appellants. Mayor Schlosser Thank you, Lloyd. Would you gentlemen care to comment or should we have public hearing? Art Bridge - I would like to ask a question of Lloyd- -are the conditions that are listed in our packet, Page 55, do they constitute a resume or summary of all the conditions that have been proposed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District? Lloyd Hubbs - These conditions were the conditions - -a portion of the of the engineering conditions related to the tract. Our engineering division's condit' ns i addition to this, I believe there are some other conditions that follow anddAM a set of standard conditions that relate to street improvements and a lot of other standard items that weren't really included in the sheet that had the condition in question. A. Bridge: and these are the conditions that were enumerated by the Planning Commission? L. Hubbs: That's correct Mayor Schlosser: Any other comments before I open it up? We will open Public hearing. All wishing to speak may do so. Jim Stroffe Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jim Stroffe. I'm an attorney with Surr s Hellyer in San Bernardino, and I represent the appellants in this case, Mark III and Bob Jensen Homes. If you have just a moment, I will sign the sheet. I also have a court reporter here, as you are all Well aware I am sure. And, I am sure that you do Mr. Mayor, but if you could, if anyone else speaks on this matter, I'd appreciate it if for her sake, make sure that everyone identifies themsalf. Mayor: I hate to comment but I will run the meeting - -don't tell me how. J. Stroffe: Yes sir, I didn't pretend to your honor. The position of the appellants is very simple in this matter. We don't necessarily disagree that the conditions were imposed. We all know what the conditions were that were imposed and we all know that the Planning Commission imposed them. There is a little difference in which conditions we are appealing, however. The two tracts are not identical -- the conditions imposed were not identical. The northerly tract, 11609, was also subject to a condition of improving or providing a bridge across the Wilson Avenue area where the Alta Loma Channel crosses, and that con- dition is also being appealed. The basis of our appeal is that the City is not authorized in this case to impose a condition of actual construction of these channel improvements on the subdividers, either pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or pursuant to the general police power of the City. The.. City has purported to do that under the authorizations supplied by ordinances No. 75 and Ordinance No. 61. There is no other authority in the Subdivision Map Act for the imposition of these conditions. —the general improvement April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Three and design statutes do not allow off -site improvements or do not allow the imposition of conditions requiring off -site improvements on subdividers. Accordingly, the only possible basis for the imposition of the condition is the ordinances I just mentioned. Those ordinances, however, are also not authorized by the Subdivision Map Act. The Act does permit, under given circumstances, the imposition of a drainage fee as a condition to subdivision development, provided that it meets, as I said, certain conditions. Those conditions are that the fees be expended for a purpose that actually benefits the tract, or for the construction of improvements which are necessitated by the improvement of the tract or the subdivision development itself. In this case, there is ample evidence, and we have consulted with numerous engineers, and we have also talked with Mr. Hubbs, and the evidence is that none of the sheet flow from this tract enters the Alta Loma Channel along the west side of either tract 11609 or tract 9441. There is absolutely no interception of any surface roads by that drainage channel. The improvements to that channel therefore could not in any way benefit our tract and on the basis of normal hydrologic studies, there is no benefit to be derived from the construction of the permanent channel improvements. The channel runs fine the way it is. As a matter of fact, this channel is probably the best improved channel. I note that Mr. Hebb's report to you today indicates that this channel is an unimproved channel. As a matter of fact, along the westerly boundary of these two tracts, the channel is temporarily improved according to County flood control definition. The channel to the north of Wilson Avenue is unimproved, but that is not adjacent to our properties. Insofar as the collection of the fee is concerned, if there were some benefit to the tract, which as I indicated we are not aware of that being the case, the imposition of fees may be acceptable under the Map Act. However, we are not talking about the imposition of fees. We are talking about imposing a condition of actual construction of the improvements to this facility. The imposition of fees pursuant to Ordinance 75 would amount to some, on a combined basis, some $119,500 for these two tracts. The construction of these improvements on the other hand is going to amount to over $410,000. That'sa significant dif- ference and we would maintain that, particularly absent any benefit to our par- ticular subdivision developments, that that is an impossible burden for us to bear and is a burden which is not sanctioned by any of the laws governing sub- division improvement. Insofar as the condition of building a bridge over Wilson Avenue is concerned, and that condition again is on Tract 11609, we have a similar situation. The Map Act does prempt this area and local ordinances required to be enacted to implement the Map Act, but it can not vary or change or in any way be more burdensome than what the Map Act allows. In this case the Act does not authorize the general imposition of fees in order to construct improvements to highways or drainage facilities or bridges, thoroughfares or anything of that sort. You can impose, under Section 66484 of the Government Code, a fee pursuant to an Ordinance which would be allocable to street improvements, including bridges. That Ordinance has April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions.... Page Four got to track very closely the conditions which are set forth in Section 66484 and Ordinance Number 61, which is the apparent authority under which this con- dition was imposed, does not comply with that section of the Government Code. We have one other main area of concern. That is to the extent these fees would otherwise be validly imposed upon us, the fact that there is no benefit to the property which is being subjected to the conditions indicates that these are not back special assessments, which would be permitted by the Act. But they are general revenue raising devices. The general raising of revenue has been severely- - the authority of the local entity -- has been severely cut back by the enactment of Proposition 13. Proposition 13 prohibits the imposition of any special taxes, absent a 2/3 vote of the electorate of the district and in this case, these fees being imposed without any benefit to the property owners qualify as special taxes. Special tax ordinances, if you will, would be the ordinances authorizing the fees. Ordinance 76 and Ordinance 61. Those Ordinances were not submitted to the voters and they were not approved by a 2/3 vote of the electorate and are therefore violative of the constitutional provisions of Article 13A, Section 4, of the Con- stitution. For those reasons at the least, we are imploring you to eliminate the conditions that were imposed upon these tracts - -only those conditions which were specified in our Notice of Appeal, so we can go forward with the development. The development of these tracts is not going to result in any additional burden on the Alta Loma Channel to the west of our project. Tract Number 9445 which was approved prior to the incorporation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was a tract that also, the easterly boundary of which would have abutted and would be continguous with the Alta Loma channel. That was approved by the County and as the conditions to that approval, there was no indication that the development would in any way affect or be benefited by any improvements to the Alta Loma Channel. We have a good deal of respect for Mr. Hubbs--he was very forthright with us in indicating that the City does have a drainage problem. The drainage problem, however, is in an area of the City southeast of our tract, apparently a Turner Avenue section that gets infrequently or frequently flooded during heavy rainstorms. Those rainstorms and the fees that you are collecting under these Ordinances should be used to remedy those critical situations in the drainage system and not used as a method of coercing a developer to put in an improvement thats not going to ben- efit anybody. This improvement, if installed, even if it were installed, would not affect at all the situation on Turner Avenue. I'm not sure that that map is an appropriate map but it is obvious that our tracts are toward the northerly end of the Alta Loma Channel. Drainage from the watershed to the north is basically- - basically comprises most of the watershed area that Mr. Hobbs referred to - -the 944 acres I believe roughly. The Turner Avenue problem is to the southeast and the improvement of this channel means only on e thing- -the water that comes into the northerly part of our project is going to moved faster past our project toward the Turner Avenue problem area. This small section oft drainage channel is not going to rectify that problem, which is a problemaneeds rectification, nor is it going to protect our property or the residents of our property once it is sold. We indicated initially a willingness to pay the fee which was imposed by Ordinance Number 75, the $190,000 that I spoke of, and I think that we would still be willing April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Five to do that. However, it is absolutely economically impossible for us to go for- ward with these tracts and build the permanent channel improvements that we have been conditioned to build, including the bridge. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I would also like to point out that the flood control district has responded in this case to the Planning Commission with what they consider to be adequate conditions on this tract. In a letter dated September 19, 1980, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, they indicated that this portion -this tract- is subject to infrequent flooding, as is almost every area in the City. Infrequent flooding is nothing more than a way of saying that if it rains hard enough the water is going to stay on the ground and its going to stay on the ground to the tune of approximately one foot. But that a condition which I think most engineers would say, if it were not for liability, would never occur. In any event, the recom- mendations by the flood control district included the dedication of a -- of a portion of the property for the pjxtension of the channels- -the widening of that channel to a distance of 80 feet. Now the widening of the channel - let me back up if I might - -that condition has also been imposed on the tract - -the widening of the channel. The widening of that channel, together with the permanent channel improvements, doesn't make any sense. The widening of the channel can, in of itself, increase the volume of water that that channel will handle. To the same extent, or to almost the same extent, that the permanent channel improvements in a non - widened channel could handle. The dedication..we are contending that we can't be compelled to do both - -to dedicate and to widen -- strike that -- to dedicate and to permanently improve and absent of a very specific ordinance we can't be compelled to improve. The other conditions are conditions that are reasonable... setback limitations, levies, chainlink fencing to keep people out, as well as grading statments and grading plans and permits and that sort of thing. As far as enroachments are concerned -- we don't have any objection to any of those and would be willing to comply with those conditions. I would like for purposes of the record to have the reporter mark that as an exhibit to the transcript. (handed a piece of paper to the Court Reporter). There are a couple of other slight inaccuracies in the staff report before you that I would like to bring to your attention. They are not really _ Tape ended and new tape started the past have undergone severe erosion from moderate storms and in the past year places the residents at Hillside in severe jeopardy. That, of course, is north of our project and that is in the area where the channel is unimproved., and our channel has temporary improvements. And Mr. Hubbs again has recognized in the next paragraph that there is a substantial burden being placed on these developers, Mark III and Bob Jensen Homes, simply because they're being compelled to build the improvements when there is no plans for the improvements, there are no engineering drawings for the improvements. You are starting in the middle of a channel and you're trying to say well its got to be engineered so you can build it both up and down, as well as the inordinate cost that is involved in April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition... Page Six this case, all of which substantiates a substantial burden. the Finally, if it were reasonably likely that A reimbursement would be provided to us in a timely fashion, this may not cause as much concern to us. However, we are aware, as are you, that the reimbursement policy of the City is such that it is unlikely, given the amount of development that is taking place right now and the amount of the fees being collectedthat's actually set aside for reimbursement, that we would ever receive that $300,000 in excess of the amount of the fees that are argueably able to be imposed upon us. And that is of major concern. Finally Mr. Hubbs mentioned in his report and he mentioned to you that the homes which will be ultimately constructed on these tracts face a severe flooding hazard. And, Mr. Mayor, the engineers that I have consulted with who are in the audience today, would vehemently disagree with that and I wonder if you might inquire of Mr. Hubbs the basis or what type of flooding hazard would be encountered by these homeowners so that we would be able to respond to that, Mayor Schlosser - Some of us live here and we've seen it flood. J. Stroffe - Well, the state of the ground is an ungraded state. I am sure you have seen other areas of the City flood too. I don't deny the fact that the City has a severe flooding problem in general, but you cannot, as a matter of policy or as a matter of equity, impose a burden on one particular developer to construct permanent drainage channel improvements which aren't going to be of benefit to the City as far as ameliorating that flooding problem is concerned. And, more importantly, are not going to be of benefit to the developments that are being approved, or that are being conditionally improved, because that amounts to a tax. Jim Frost - Are you aware sir of the history of the City and the reasons why we have had severe flooding problems in the past, and in the recent past? J. Stroffe - Mr. Frost, I cannot honestly say that I am. No. I'm not from the City. I only know what I've been told and I don't know the entire history, J. Frost - I would suggest in your research that you go back and talk to some of the developers who were not required in the past to provide adequate flood pro- tection and storm protection for the citizens. I'd be interested in hearing your response to that when you have had those discussions, particularly with members of the Chamber and the industrial community of the chamber. J. Stroffe - As I indicated, or I tried to indicate, we don't doubt that there are problems in the City, flood problems in the City. What I am concerned with is whether those problems on a general or on an area wide basis, should be imposed upon a developer for the priviledge of subdividing his property and the authorization to this legislative body for allowing the imposition of that con- dition. I don't have any problem if you were to say the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga are going to enact some sort of a legislative measure, a tax measure, which is going to provide for the wholesale improvement of the entire drainage April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes - Appeal of P.C. Condition... Page Seven system in the City. We are all going to contribute X number of dollars toward that; however, whatever formula you arrive at for imposing that tax, provided it is also constitutional, is approved by the voters, and that is a beautiful way to resolve the problem or at least to obtain the funds to resolve the problem. But to take what is a public benefit and impose the burden on a private developer, is something that is impermissible, no matter what the magnitude to the problem is. J. Frost - I guess what I've heard you saying is that somehow you're not of the impression that your development will contribute to the problem, rather than contribute to the solutions. Strof f -- Our developements in improved state are not going to contribute to any of the flows through the Alta Loma channel on the westerly side of our property, any more than they do in the natural state, and that in both cases is not at all. There is no flow from our property into the Alta Loma Channel. The sheet flows in a southeasterly direction away from the Channel. Palombo - That's almost an assumption that less rain falls on that parcel than the next one. Stroffe - No, sir. Its a question of the actual slope of the property. The same amount of rain falls on our property, as falls on the property to the north of us, where the channel actually cuts across the contours of the land. That parcel to the north will flow into the channel. Our property sheet flows away from the channel, so no matter how much water falls on it, it doesn't go into the channel. Bridge - There have been so many items brought up these last thirty minutes or so regard to this appeal that I believe that it should be continued. We have had enough testimony. I don't see how we could get any more. I think this should be continued so that the tapes can be studied and analyzed, and a worth- while decision be made. I'd like to see it continued for enough time so that we can so this analysis, using Mr. Hubbs and his staff. Yes, Bob, go ahead. Bob Dougherty - I would recommend that anyone wishing to testify on the matter be permitted to testify this evening and if you wish to take the matter under submission at that time or continue, it can be done then. Schlosser - I would like to hear an engineer speak to the issue. Bridge - Yes, we are spending a whole lot of time on one item. Every person has to have his time in court -- I started to say something else...but Stroffe - I wasn't going to say that either. I was going to say everyone knows how important this kind of decision is to the City and we are also in agreement that it should be made with deliberation. I do want to point out to the Council, however, the problem. That is that from a procedural standpoint, we have only 60 days within which to have an answer from you from the date that we filed our appeal. Otherwise, the determination by this body is deemed to have been a April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition.... Page Eight denial of our appeal and we have at thaw point in time, in order to preserve our rights, we have to take action to file a petition from writ of mandate with the court. Bob Dougherty: Of course, you can extend that by agreement with the Council. Stroffe: The routine waivers, I think, have been frowned upon by the State Legislature and.... Mayor Schlosser - Mr. Stroffe, we are not curing the problem with that kind of talk. We need somebody else. Thank you very much. Stroffe: Thank you. I'd like to have our engineer go over some topographic maps and some U.S.G.S. maps for you and its Mr. Hunsinger. Dick Hunsinger, 3001 Redbill Avenue., Costa Mesa, CA. - When we were asked by the developer to examine the existing channels, to be totally honest with you, I fully expected that when we did our hydraulic analysis of the channel, to find that the existing channel did not have capacity to handle the flows that are within it. Much to my surprise and after going out and looking at the channel, the channel that is there today which is approximately 15 feet wide, and eight feet deep, has capacity within the reach between Wilson Avenue and the basin to handle the flows that flow through this area. In reading the reports of your problems out here, and aware of the problem - not specifically where they happened - the inequity that I see is that you spend $400,000 on this channel - -on a channel that has capacity today. If we took the existing channel and constructed a tract channel within the same area that the existing channel exists today, we would not provide any additional or better flood pro- tection then that's there today. We are converting a hundred and- -Did Jim say $120,000 thereabouts - of flood control fees that you had attained on this development that could be usp-d in other areas of this channel that need flood protection. If you examine Was today, there are inefficiencies —not in this particular area. The channel that you want, be it concrete line, a trap channel, is a cadallac of channels compared to what's there today but whats there today has capacity of handling the flows coming off the mountain. I could not stand here before you and ask you to approve a subdivision and not provide adequate flood protection, if it was not there today. It's there today. Further evidence that it is there today is the letter that was submitted by the San Bernardino Flood Control District regarding the tract on the other side of the channel, a very similar letter from the Flood Control District regarding this channel. What they asked us to do is maintain a minimum of eight feet from the existing invert adjacent to the channel, which would mean that a one or two foot high him at the maximum would have to be built. The majority of the channel - -an additional him would not have to be built. They asked us to put a chain link fence there for safety reasons so that people would not wander and go under that channel. It's a sheer drop off of eight feet. ICs wire reveted with rock behind it that has capacity to handle the flow today so the argument April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition Page Nine is not does Rancho Cucamonga have flood problems. I think there is no way they are going to say there are not problems in the City. On this stretch of Alta Loma channel, there is not a problem there today. It is my opinion and I have not gone through the flood hazard methods. I put that if the new channel is in there, would the existing classification's change. If they changed, it would be very very remotely changed. What has been said regarding flooding is a statement that is made by I believe all County flood control district people that when you have an existing channel there is always a possibility that through debris coming down the channel, that it could fill up and you could obtain some sheet overflow. They are no going to come up with a statement that the homes next to those channels will never experience any type of sheet overflow from a particular channel. I believe if you examine the majority of all flood control letters and reports that are issued by the real estate commissioner, you'll always find — a statment in there that the property is subject to infrequent sheet overflow. There is always a possibility of obtaining some type of sheet overflow. The channel that is there today has 100 year flood protection. Schlosser - How do you know that? Hunsinger - We obtained a flow from L.D. King, who is doing the hydraulic revised storm drain studies of what they feel will be in that channel upon development of drainage area. We have a topographic map. We measured the width of the channel, the depth of the channel. We measured the slope of the channel and with those factors, determined the capacity of that channel. Schlosser - Do we have a copy of that report? L. Hubbs - Yes we do .... we have a copy of the L.D. King study that has the flow information Hunsinger - you do not have a copy of my calculations. Just in summary, to repeat, the existing channel has capacity and marginal benefit would ever be gained by the homes if a new channel was put in and I would just like to see you take that money that we would put in per our drainage fees and use it someplace where it would benefit the City --not in an area that has a channel that is not causing a problem today. Thank you. Mayor Schlosser - Thank you. Does anyone else have anything new to add to the particular issue? Jack Reeves, Mark III Homes - I'd like to clarify one thing. I was surprised tonight to see Lloyd bring the Flood Plain map. It was my understanding from a previous conversation I had today that those F.P. zones which were determined, were determined prior to the construction of the temporary channel adjacent to our tract and that those flood plain zones have not been re- calculated since those improvements were put in. The basin has expanded and the temporary re- ebutment , was put in above our tract. So I am not sure that the F.P. zones that you show tonight, as an exhibit are accurate. I would just like to clarify it for my own knowledge. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes — Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Ten L. Hubbs -Well the flood hazard maps are not periodically updated and there could potentially be some areas of revision, but I am not aware that the basin has been expanded since the flood hazard maps were prepared. And the improvements that are there in my opinion are not of the substantial nature to alleviate the types of flood danger that exists there. You refer to them as temporary facilities J. Reeves - Interim facilities L. Hubbs interim facilities because they are basically rail and wire revetment which is subject to erosion beneath. The channel below is concrete line in portions but that concrete lining has been eroded through and the erosion has caused scouring and pulling in of the walls. Day Creek channel is a rail and wire reveted channel. Its been subject to erosion within 330 feet of the existing channel and the potential for debris clogging and other methods, in my opinion, means that that channel is subject to severe erosion until improved in some fashion. Again, it's— I'd like to point out the generally undeveloped nature of the area above your tract and the conditions that will occur when that some 400 or 500 acres becomes developed. The frequency with which that channel, that unimproved temporary channel, is subjected to significant flows will increase and the hazard, in my opinion, will increase proportionately and the ability of the City to obtain improvements on that channel diminishes as the City builds out. I think that is the reason we have the problem we have currently and to continue that pattern, in my estimation, would be negligent and in violations of Ordinance 24, and other ordinances that require us to be stewards to that. J. Reeves - It was my understanding from the research and information provided me that if the channel was improved upstream of our property, the stretch of channel adjacent to our property left in its natural state, that no flooding would occur on our property from that channel;and that that stretch of channel clearly will carry the ultimate amount of water it has to; and that the flood plain zones were dated back to when they were first done for the City prior to any improvements put in; And that they do not correctly represent the flooding that is on our property. L. Hubbs - I think that statement can be made at any time prior to the devel- opment of the Flood hazard maps. The day they are done they are out of date, and I am not sure that in lieu of completely redoing those studies and re- establishing the flood hazard potential on that, I'm not sure that that's a cogent argument. Schlosser: Anyone else have anything new to add to the issue? L. Hobbs - I would like to make another clarification. In terms of the box culvert or crossing of Wilson Avenue, there are provisions in that condition to allow the credit addition of systems development fees to the offset the cost of the improvement of that, which relates to some of the Subdivision Map Act ordinances, which our systems development fees relates to, that is improvements that are required that serve large areas with the accreditable systems fees. In addition, the tract across the street was given the same condition and if the two tracts work concurrently they would share the cost of that crossing. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions Page Eleven Schlosser - Thank you Lloyd. That will close public hearing. The comment by the Council -- Art, do you have a recommrendation to table this until the next meeting? E. Dougherty - I would recommend that the matter be acted on this evening, unless the developer through his attorney consents to the matter being continued to the next meeting? Schlosser - For what reason? deemed Dougherty - For the reason that he'll try to have it Aautomatica3ly denied for the purposes of his court action. I would just as soon have the Council act, as opposed to have the natter deemed tonight. Mikels - When did the 60 day time period start? Dougherty - I do not know because I do not have the information as to when that appeal was filed. But I know that there was one delay by reason of a mispublication. Stroffe - Our recollection of when it was filed, our sixty days runs out prior to the next Council meeting. Dougherty - (referring to letter of appeal) It's stamped the 7th on the one. March 7th. Stroffe - 9441 is March 6th and 11609 is March 10th. Just as a matter of clari- fication, the hearing was to have been held within thirty days of the initial filing of the appeal and due to an inadvertance on the part of staff in getting it published, we were not able to be on the last meeting's agenda, which was the only meeting proceeding the expiration of the thirty days. Technically under the act, it was not heard within thirty days, its deemed denied but we wanted to show up and make our presentation and allow you an apportunity to act on it instead of having it deemed denied. Schlosser - Next City Council meeting is May 6th which is actually nearly three weeks. Dougherty - I take it you are unwilling to stipulate that the matter can be con- tinued Stroffe - I think that the position of the developer is that we would like to build a project as quickly as we can. It means we would like to have an answer as fast as we can on the conditional approval. Frost - If I may, I would expect the Council to be in a position to make a recommendation based upon what we've heard tonight. I would concur with what I think Art was saying. Anytime we get an attorney up here in a situation like this where they start talking about codes, numbers, and all that, I have an April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes — Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Twelve awful lot of troubling filtering that out between what you're actually trying to tell us as lay people, as opposed to what you are trying to tell our attorney and the court reporters. He knows all of those numbers and fancy words and we don't. I'd like to go back to the tapes and find out what you actually said. Palombo ..In the interim, would the Council consider a ten minute recess so you can consult with your clients. (Several people discussing) Stroffe- we would appreciate the opportunity, if you so dispose. Mayor Schlosser called a ten minute recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m., with all members of Council present. Schlosser - The question was , were you going to agree to a continuance? Stroffe - On my advice, it is our feeling that because we already let the time run for the holding of the hearing, that we are subject to some jeopardy if we agree to it. On that basis, we are not going to agree to it. We would like for you to make a decision and we would also like to request findings in writing within the ten day period provided by the Act so that we can all go forward. We would be more than happy to provide you with these documents if you think it would help you in preparing those findings. Bridge: I move to uphold the Planning Commission decision. Palombo - Second Bridge: I don't see where we have any other choice. Schlosser: I would agree. Any further comment? In the favor of the motion, so indicate. (All voting aye) Motion Carried. Stroffe - Mr. Mayor, I wonder if I might take maybe five minutes so that I could serve the lawsuit on you gentlemen or authorize the City Attorney to accept service on your behalf. Schlosser: Let me consult the attorney Dougherty: Why don't you follow the normal procedure, as outlined in the Code of civil procedure. The meeting continued as the papers were served. CI IYIIA40 1AAIN AAII CIA V A I A R 0 CAARCO . [T[T IRA10 IF ACNINA AY DIVI ^ION OF CLEVELAND CRANE & ENGINEERING McNEIL IN ICNCI IF(. OHIO ACOt t • PHONE (110) MR0T00• TELEX 00.0RA0• CARL T"WIFE CA ARE -TEXT [LAND' WAA CORPORATION r[l/.[[ Olw[CT w[KY f0 [Nf UTI[.[ wvE NU[ C YCA MO NG.[ c.[LISOR Nl.1 fpNl rvoN[ 61J w -wl April 15, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 Gentlemen: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of April 13, 1981 with Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, in which we registered our protest regarding Proposed Assessment District 79 -1. Cleveland Crane k Engineering, McNeil Corporation is opposed to this Proposed Assessment for storm drains in the City's industrial area. cc L. B. Hubbs City's Engineers Office H. A. Gorjanc File d. a•uA,cc Very truly ours, C. R. it at ck Plant Manage C I I V I L A A 0 T 0 A Y A A I t CLC VICORO CIA.CS 3 1 1 LLWI16 AACXI RIOT DIVISION OF CLEVELAND CRANE & ENGINEERING *CORPORATION McNEIL WICtLIRI.ORIO 4.00I.0RORI(OLC)OQ- 0006 -'Utt 01184441 -CABLE IIY[CRARpCIIYILA9 .. .... .V ,TO .1 uncA nvenV[ cou NOnew cwu rowNU Rnw Aloe[ foul Nuw, April 15, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 Gentlemen: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of April 13, 1981 with Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, in which we registered our protest regarding Proposed Assessment District 79 -1. Cleveland Crane & Engineering, McNeil Corporation is opposed to this Proposed Assessment for storm drains in the City's industrial area. Very /truly ours, C _ C. R, it at 'ek Plant Manage cc L. B. Hubbs City's Engineers Office H. A. Gorjanc File Rn U426-CC LL. ER SURR & HELLYER Ii BBB -19 B9I LAW orriccs or A.IN cBSC.e. c. ..BOrE: aoM.L 0 -1.—ow rES�a ABI 599. w ww .O nv rvu L <MESNR EOw AP05 0920 �9J>I L ✓ . EBOa COB. SAN BERNAROINOE CALIFORNIA 92912 PALL IA rvMx u r u n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA ID 11E1 C I.A.IN March 9, 1981 NON DANIEL F. wA.. GiA!? 1 0 7�gi AN Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk 7(Si9,10,11,12,lj2130156 City of Rancho Cucamonga ! 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 on February 25,1981 Resolution No. 81 -19 Dear Mr. Wasserman: This office represents Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., the applicant with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 11609. Enclosed is our client's appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 as expressed in Resolution No. 81 -19 approved February 25, 1981. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $100.00 payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga representing the required appeal fee pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10. Please address all notices and other correspondence regarding this appeal to: Surr & Hellyer (FJD) A Professional Corporation P. 0. Box 6086 San Bernardino, CA 92412 If you would like to discuss this matter prior to the hearing on the appeal we will be happy to do so. Very truly yours, SURR & HELLYER _� �� //�� A(PPRRROOFESSIONAL CO TION ��I' J r \(�T"t1 -'mes D. Stroffe JDS/kw DS /kw VVV Enclosures Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -19 TO: LAUREN WASSERMAN, CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.5 and Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10 hereby appeals from the action of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga taken on February 25, 1981 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 11609. Specifically, the undersigned appeals the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -19 Section 2 Item Number 2. Dated: March 10, 1981 BOB JENSEN BUILDERS, INC., a California corporat' n ey o ert C. Jense , resi ent STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) On this /day of March, 1981, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Robert C. Jensen, known to me to be the President of Bob Jensen Builders, Inc., a corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument and acknowled to me that such corporation executed the same. WITNESS my hand and offkcial seal. and State r�'u vs 4-l" , f 9JL TONE Ili'LAi11), 4ALli�, 91786 a ;' " ' SURR S HELLYER cEro. w.LawER nee sass sl Aoac .AE. L +JM gLEE ,ggOw„ - ' OA wr ES R E—w DD5 Ii9tOi9 ))I JJr1N o n.IT OF I B6E J SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 02412 SNENIO ry I>111 BBA.>04 O nNSON M[5 0 'O rrE EA,wE..`M` "AN` March 6, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DANE' ` "A^ ADMINISTRATION Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk MAR 07 1381. City of Rancho Cucamonga Pr 9320 Baseline Road 7181811"112111213141516 Rancho Cucamonga, CA ! Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -20 Dear Mr. Wasserman: This office represents Mark 111, the applicant with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 9441. Enclosed is our client's appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 as expressed in Resolution No. 81 -20 approved February 25, 1981. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $100.00 payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga representing the required appeal fee pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10. Please address all notices and other correspondence regarding this appeal to: Surr & Hellyer (FJD) A Professional Corporation P. 0. Box 6086 San Bernardino, CA 92412 If you would like to discuss this matter prior to the hearing on the appeal we will be happy to do so. Very truly yours, SURR & HELLYER A P ESSIOAt, CORPO By JDS /kw James ffe Enclosures 7 n Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA CITY OF RANCHO C06MONGA ADMINISTRATION MAR 0 7 1981 AM HM 7.1.8191101 H 112111213141516 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441 on February 25, 1981; Resolution No. 81 -20 TO: LAUREN WASSERMAN, CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, Mark III, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.5 and Rancho Cucamonga Ordinance Code Section 1.401.10 hereby appeals from the action of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga taken on February 25, 1981 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 9441. Specifically, the undersigned appeals the imposition of those conditions set forth in Resolution 81 -20 Section 2 Item Numbers 2 and 3. Dated: March 6, 1981 MARK I, a orni co r t i, n Ca B VAR Go os, i e President STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this 6 day of March, 1981, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared James Golfos, known to me to be the Vice President of Mark III, a corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r ............ ... _ ouivA1 4411 _ ......1 CANNER 911tF1 Ndary P, . Gli1W.0 I 1 sRnn4F rn981Y L _ .._..MY fummuvon 'MM A4Y t/, 19871 Notary Public in and for said County and State RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCEEDINGS AS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, this City Council has adopted a Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination relating to certain public works of improvement in a special assessment district, with said proceedings to be conducted pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 ", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, in a district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, at this time, said City Council has held and conducted a public hearing on the proposed works of improvements and report and is desirous to order certain changes and modifications to the proceedings and works of improvements as proposed to be constructed under said proceedings; and, WHEREAS, it appears to this Council that said changes and modifications are in the best public benefit and should be so ordered to be made at this time_ NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. 'That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require, and this City Council hereby orders, certain changes and modifications to be made in the proceed- ings and works of improvement as proposed to be constructed under these proceedings, all as said amendments and modifications are shown on an attached Exhibit "A" hereby referenced, attached, and incorporated. SECTION 3, That the City Engineer is hereby ordered to make the above changes and modifications to the proceedings and said changes and modifications are for the best interests of the property owners within. the Assessment District. APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: Cie 4,ejow Iwt.. Lre4e tierocAL SVOIA*40re aWC46- Rwa A 6' ,ao-0`440 ..'- ,¢sseac %irt /S IA,jowma61 6 / ✓u I RESOLUTION NO. P-90 RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCEEDINGS AS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, this City Council has adopted a Resolution Covering Preliminary Determination relating to certain public works of improvement in a special assessment district, with said proceedings to be conducted pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 ", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, in a district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, at this time, said City Council has held and conducted a public hearing on the proposed works of improvements and report and is desirous to order certain changes and modifications to the proceedings and works of improvements as proposed to be constructed under said proceedings; and, WHEREAS, it appears to this Council that said changes and modifications are in the best public benefit and should be so ordered to be made at this time_ NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. 'That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require, and this City Council hereby orders, certain changes and modifications to be made in the proceed- ings and works of improvement as proposed to be constructed under these proceedings, all as said amendments and modifications are shown on an attached Exhibit "A" hereby referenced, attached, and incorporated. SECTION 3, That the City Engineer is hereby ordered to make the above changes and modifications to the proceedings and said changes and modifications are for the best interests of the property owners within. the Assessment District. APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: CHANGES AND . SOD_IFICATiONS TO WOiiK PROCEEDINGS AND AOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS BE MADE: A. Delete storm drain line number 5(c) and modify boundaries to delete properties no longer receiving a benefit from the proposed construction of said drainage facility. B. Delete all street improvements on CLEVELAND AVENUE, northerly of 6TH STREET. C. Delete all street improvements in MILLIKEN AVENUE, northerly of 6TH STREET (easEer- ly —halfl . D. Delete all street improvements in 6TH STREET from MILLIKEN AVENUE to a point approximately 800 feet easterly (northerly half only). D. Construct certain additional storm drain improvements in the southwesterly portion of the district, and modify the boundaries to add certain additional properties now determined to receive a benefit from the works of improvements. (For particulars, reference is made to r. map as submitted by the Assessment Engineer, dated the 1st day of April, 1991, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk]. F. Modify the boundaries and delete Parcel Mo. 225, inasmuch as said parcel receives no benefit from the works of improvements. EXHIBIT "A" "k RESOLUTION NO. 8/-5-/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS IN A SPECIAL.ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, this City Council has heretofore commenced proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investi- gation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931," being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction of certain public works of improve- ment, together with appurtenances and appurtenant work, in a special assessment district, said assessment district known and designated�as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, this City Council sets a time and place for public hearing, pursuant to said "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 ". WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was given in the manner and form as required by law, and, at the time for the public hear- ings, this City Council considered all protests, written or oral, to the proceedings, and all matters related to the report for the Assessment District, and all persons had an opportunity to appear and present testimony relating to said Assessment District; and WHEREAS, at said time set for the public hearings, the City Countil considered all matters as to the method and formula of the assess- ment spread and the determination as to whether or riot the property did receive a benefit and whether the assessments were apportioned in accordance to benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That all protests and objections of every kind and nature be, and the same hereby are, overruled and denied, and it is further determined that said pro- tests and objections are made by the owners of less than one -half (�) of the area of property to be assessed for said improvements within said Assessment District. SECTION 3. That is is hereby further determined that all prop- erties within the boundaries of the Assessment District receive a local and direct benefit from the works of improvement as proposed for said Assessment District, and it is hereby further determined and declared that all assessable costs and expenses have been apportioned and spread over the properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District in direct proportion to the benefits received thereby. SECTION 4. That the Engineer's method of spread and apportion- ment of all costs is hereby adopted and approved as being a correct and proper apportionment and distribution of all assessable costs for these works of improvement. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA -2- RESOLUTION NO. 9/-50- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVEN- IENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANCES SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMITATION AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931," AND THAT THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE, AND THAT THE LANDS WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS= SECTION 1. That all protests and objections be overruled and ATTEST: CITY CLERK _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA denied upon the express finding that they are made by owners of less than one -half (1/2) of the area of property to be assessed. SECTION 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require certain public works of improvement and ap- purtenances and appurtenant work in a special assess- ment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79-2 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) substantially as set forth in the "Report" thereof filed under the provisions of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931," being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 3. That the project is feasible and that the lands to be assessed will be able to carry the burden of the pro - Oosed assessments and that the limitations on the amounts of assessments provided in Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California be disregarded both with respect to the limitation on the District as a whole and as to the limitation on individual specific assessments. SECTION 4. That by this Resolution it is the intention of this Council to make all findings by the affirmative 4/5 vote of all members thereof that all determinations as to necessity and feasibility and necessity to disregard the limitations and proceedings set up in Division 4 as therein provided be made and determined. APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of ATTEST: CITY CLERK _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NQL , Occ /r-UNC IL CM AA-.,t C tiro i a. April 10, 1981 City of Rands Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Lloyd B. Runts City Engineer Enclosed is a copy of a letter which you may not have seen even though it was received by the city two months ago. The letter exposes several very serious deficiencies and problems relative to the proposed assessment district. These problems should be resolved before any future actions or expenditures are made by the city. The first sentence of the second paragraph has not been complied with. Neither has the following sentence. The last sentence if read very carefully indicates that the drainage system proposed by the Ranco Cucamonga City F vj' is not adequate. It indicates the improvement of the necessary storm drains in Ontario to handle a 100 year flood should include in the Assessment District. Has this been done or has an agreement between the City of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga been reached so that there will be no additional assessment for the property owners? The next to the last paragraph indicates the two lines that drain into Fourth street are not acceptable. Also, that no connection to the speedway drains has been provided. If this is true, the drains built by the assessment district won't be useable. The preliminary design already paid for by the city and upon which the assessment district is based evidently did not include a solution to these problems. We urge the city to obtain a firm resolution of these problems before any further action is taken on the assessment district and before additional design contracts are awarded. CC: Rancho Cucamonga City Council � •, ,. an .fi, C I T � O � r=�• „u` QTY HALL ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91I64 AREA CODE )It 950 -1151 February 10, 1981 ENGINEERING DEPARTPIENT 2 a 0 C 0 V S D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMHIONITY DEVEEOpmENT DEPT. Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs FED 13 IMI City Engineer FM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AM89>p1112123 P. 0. Box 807 rj1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 141516 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ! Dear Mr. Hubbs: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 79 -1 PUBLIC HEARING /MARCH 4. 1981 The City of Ontario appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Assessment District 79 -1. It is essential that the hydrology, on which the storm drain improvements will be based, include the effect on downstream facilities in the City of Ontario. The hydrology should be based on a 100 -year storm frequency. Any necessary storm drain improvements in Ontario as a result of the hydrology study should be included in the proposed assessment district, unless other arrangements are made between Rancho Cucamonga and the affected property owner. Our concerns relate to the Ontario Motor Speedway which will be converted to the Ontario International Centre in the near future. Specifically, our comments are as follows: 1. Line 7e and Line l9a According to the description, both lines begin at Fourth Street. However, since no provision has been made for connection to the Speedway drains, it is assumed that the District intends to out- let directly onto Fourth Street. This is not an acceptable solution. 2. Line 19b Although the line is shown on the map, Figure 3, it is not included in the description of work. Adequate provision must be made for outletting and protection of downstream properties. Thank you again for providing Ontario with the opportunity to express our concerns.. Cordially, RO ALIN tE L City Engineer llh Minutes Regular Meeting Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission April 14, 1981 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Hickcox at 1:08 p.m. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Hickcox. Pledge of Allegiance Present were Commissioners Hickcox, Strane, Kilmurray, Cooper, and Billings. Absent was Commissioner White. Also in attendance was Councilman Jim Frost. Minutes of March 10, 1981, Regular Meeting, were reviewed. Minutes - 3/10/81 Motion: Moved by Billings, seconded by Cooper, minutes of March 10, 1981, Regular Meeting, be approved as posted. (Motion carried 5 -0). Announcements Rains sHouse rwouldnbeaheldnMay 3, 1981eandninvitedseveryonee Rains House Fiesta to attend. New Business Chairman Hickcox introduced to the Commission Resolution No. 81 -1, Resolution No. 81 -1 the text of which follows. Honoring Leonard Resolution No. 81 -1. A Resolution of the Historic Preservation Gorczyca Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, honoring and acknowledging the contributions of Leonard Gorczyca to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca's exemplary dedication to the service of the public good over a period of many years has established a standard of excellence in community service seldom achieved; and Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca's untiring and selfless devotion toward insuring that the past history of our community shall be protected and preserved for the enjoyment, enrichment and education of generations Yet to come; and Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca served as Chief Architect and Chairman of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Historic Preservation Commission from it's inception until his passing. Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California as follows: That Leonard Gorczyca's high standards of service, dedica- tion and contributions to the people of Rancho Cucamonga have made our community a better place in which to live; and That Leonard Gorczyca will hold a place of honor in the history of our City as a noted contributor of merit and deed. Motion: Moved by Strane, seconded by Kilmurray that Resolution No. 81 -1 be adopted and forwarded on to the City Council. Motion carried unani- mously. Chairman Hickcox provided some photographs and information to update George Johnston the files on the George Johnston house and the Etiwanda Church. House 8 Etiwanda Chairman Hickcox gave a brief report on the historic preservation con- Church update ference held at UCR with additional comments being offered by Comnis- Historic Preserva- sioners Kilmurray and Cooper. It was felt that the conference in general was very informative and beneficial. Materials, informational lion Conference Minutes - Historic Preservation Commission April 14, 1981 Page 2 brochures gathered at the conference were contributed to the Historic Preservation file for future reference. It was also requested that we acquire a copy of the "blue book" regarding National Registry proceedings. Councilman Frost asked for Commission input on the future Chaffey- Garcia of the Chaffey Garcia House with regard to the options of House retaining its present location or moving it to an appropriate alternate site. The Commission and the Councilman discussed this topic at length considering the pros and cons of each alternative. Motion: Moved by Strane, seconded by Kilmurray that the Adjournment meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. J Resp c/ttff fully submitted / by: , a-v� am L. Holley, Directyr Community Services Department Secretary, Historic Preservation Commission A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA &C. o MEMORANDUM - DATE: April 14, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Industrial Assessment District 79 -1 Attached for Council review is additional correspondence related to the Industrial Assessment District. O'Donnell, Brigham has officially removed their protest and KACOR registers guarded sunport for the district subject to credit arrangement for improvements already installed. Where these improvements can be shown to be a part of the master plan system credits will be allowed. The Koll Company has submitted a revised reimbursement agreement for existing improvements and an agreement for the Reacceleration of Construction and Additional Improvements. The reimbursement for existing improvements has been modified only slightly with the addition of Exhibit "A" which describes the improve- ments. The Reacceleration aareement would allow the applicant to proceed with addtional improvements in advance of the actual district forma- tion and still be included in the District at formation and bond sale. Bond Counsel and Staff have reviewed both agreements and concurred. It is not known at this time that improvements will be accelerated but it could only be a benefit overall to the district to beat inflation through accelerated construction. With approval of these agreements and the other items included in the District Staff report, the Kell Company has notified me of the full support of the District. PROTEST An updated protest map reflecting the protest on the District as currently proposed has been attached for your information. The revised protest is currently at 188. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION To recap the Staff would be seeking the following actions at the April 15 meeting: 1. Adoption of a Resolution Ordering Changes and Modifications f Industrial Assessment District 79 -1 April 14, 1981 Page 2 consistent with the currently aronosod boundaries. 2. Adoption of a Resolution Overruling and Denying Protest. 3. Direction to Staff to proceed with the District. X. Authorization of the loan up to $350,000 from storm drain and system development fees for design, right of way acquisition and assessment counsel services. 5. Approval of consultant selection and authorization of contract / u negotiations. v x. 6. Approval in concept of the Reimbursement and Reacceleration agreement with final approval at May 7 meeting. 7. Addition of North /South street between Pittsburgh and New Rochester to be assessed to fronting property owners. S. Approval of inclusion of requested paveouts from abutting with expression of Council's desire to complete as nearly as practi- cable the full street improvements. Respectfully submitted, vIL,� /�^ LRH:jaa Attachments i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 10, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager SUBJECT: Assessment District The Chamber of Commerce will be forward in' g to th Council a letter supporting the proposed Assessment District, which you will be considering at next Wednesday's meeting. It is significant to note that the Board voted overwhelmingly to support the Assessment District since it is of vital importance to the future development of the industrial community. The only dissenting vote was that of Buster Filipi who still contends that there are cheaper solutions and that those closest to Deer Creek should pay less for Assessment District participation. There is one side issue which did come up and may surface again Wednesday evening. It was presumed by many that L.D. King Engineering would handle the design phase of the Assessment District. The Chamber is concerned about that primarily because Doug Hone has apparently reached the con- clusion that L.D. King is too expensive and other engineers may provide the service at a more reasonable rate. Doughas therefore convinced the Chamber to suggest that we seek open proposals for the design work. In discussing this matter with Lloyd he has suggested that the work be assigned to the firm of Williamson and Schmidt, a firm from Orange County. The primary reason for having that firm handle the Assessment District is that they have already done considerable amounts of work for the Koll Company in the area. They have done some major design which can be incorporated into the Assessment District engineering plans. The purpose of this memo is merely to let you know that the Chamber has endorsed the project with some reservations. Lloyd will be prepared to explain the options to the Council on Wednesday. Please contact Lloyd if you need additional information concerning the Assessment District. LMW /vz CC/ Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Rancho Cucamo:T Chamdcr of Commerce 9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: 714/987.1012 March 30. 1981 TO: Citv of Rancho Cucamonga City Council City Planning Commission and affected City Staff FROM: Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors RE: Proposed Industrial Specific Plan It has come to the attention of the Industrial Committee of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce that the proposed Industrial Specific Plan, of which you have copies, has been overlooked as a source of additional information in the pro- ject approval process affecting land use and design standards in our city's industrial area. For approximately two years, the Chamber, through its Indus- trial League of professional experts, working in concert with Industrial Land Use Consultants hired by the City has nearly finalized fine - tuning the rough draft of the Industrial Speci- fic Plan. The Chamber requests that future staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council contain, for informational use only, a synopsis of how the proposal would interface with the proposed Industrial Specific Plan. The Chamber would appreciate any comments or additional guid- ance from your perspectives relative to our final delibera- tions on the proposed Industrial. Specific Plan which will be undergoing the final approval process during the next six months, approximately. Si ce re ly, Don Hardy, P�t Pau] `lied ind rum, Chair,, -lan Indus *riai League Rancho Cucamo a Chamber of Commerce 9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: 714/987.1012 April 13, 1981 To: Mayor and Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 From: Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Re: Endorsement of Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 Gentlemen: As you know, the Industrial League of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce has been working for over two years with city staff and consul- tants on the formation of an assessment district in the industrial sec- tor of our community. The essential storm -drain improvements to be paid for by this proposed assessment district, when constructed, are needed to provide both short -teen and long -term solutions for buildout of the industrial area. A second and equally important facet of this proposed assessment district will be the construction of street improve- ments south of Sixth Street. These street and storm -drain improvements will greatly enhance the area's marketability and the placement of in- dustrial users into our city. We as a Chamber of Commerce understand that there can never be 100% sup- port for any major funding program such as this. However, over the last few years, through the Chamber of Commerce, many interested landowners, users, and developers have worked to make this proposed assessment dis- trict defensible from both design and cost- effectiveness standpoints. We understand that there still may be some changes necessary so that we may minimize the cost of the proposed system, maximize the water conser- vation characteristics of the design, and properly locate the proposed drains. This however, we feel can be handled during the design phase of the assessment district. The Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, by this letter, strongly endorses the proposed Assessment District 79 -1. When you meet on April 15, 1981, we recommend that you move to the next stage of the assessment district formation so that we may construct the improvements as quickly as possible. We request that the city consider an engineering firm for final design of the district who will be respon- sive to the various concerns of the industrial community which have been presented to you at your public forums. This is a most crucial decision in order to insure the success of our industrial district. In addition to our endorsement of the proposed assessment district, the chamber wishes to express its sincere and grateful appreciation to the city staff for their excellent cooperation and input into the formation of this district. We look forward to continuing our work with the staff to insure that our city is developed with the greatest sensitivity to the concerns of our residents and businesses. cerely, CND on Hardy, loor President 1 , INDUSTRY HELPS A COMMUNITY GROW According to a anent survey by the United Suites Chamber of Com- merce, industry not only brings jobs to a community but money as well. According to the survey taken, if an irwhim, bnngs 100 new workers, it also provide a community with: —359 more people —91 more school children —100 more households —97 more registered vehicles —3 more retail establishments — 5229,000 more in bank deposits — 5710,000 more in personal annual income — 5331,000 more retail sales per year For this reason, one of the concerns of your Chamber is the seonmrdc growth of our community. Your Chamber is a catalyst, acting as an information service and coor- dinator between our city and the company concerned. We not only was levers, we research and provide needed materials as well as encouraging industry to relocate in our area. This is just one of the many functions of youtf anche Cucamonp Chamber of Commerce. 7i:. Des elopmvnt April 10, 1981 Lloyd B. Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 Dear Mr. Hubbs: G,"., t M. Cor, Indusvi.1 Propendes Pursuant to our discussion of April 9th, and your previous discussions with Messrs. Crosby and Zeibak regarding the above referenced proposed Assessment District, please be apprised that KACOR Development believes that the dollar amount of the assessor's proposed per acre cost does hot adequately represent the development costs expended by KACOR in the amount of $46,937.50, that sum reflecting contributions to drainage facilities. KACOR believes that had they not expended the aforesaid sums, the proposed assessment district would have to provide for the drainage facilities not constructed by KACOR. KACOR has contributed to the district's development and will strive to obtain credit for its contribution, thus reducing the amount assessed. Representatives of KACOR will be in attendance for the April 15th hearing and look forward to the resolution of this issue. V ry t mV/y yours R Yh1rd a. Tin Project Manager RJT /sg cc: Phillip D. Schlosser, Honorable Mayor Honorable Councilmen - Arthur H. Bridge, James C. Frost, Jon D, Mikels, Michael A, Palombo 2'495 Ynee Rosd / Temecula Rancho CAI Am ia. C,hfomis'J' -590 (714)676.5641 KACOR Dnb/+r,eeGmysq CLLY ItANO ILLLCEIL CLEVELAND CIANES LT EEL wELO 0ACMI0 ELT N ON CLEVELAND CRANE & ENGINEERING WwAWL ICEL IIIE. 0010(4012- PRONE(211) ftl•S)00• TELES UL. SCCS•CABLE -CLETE CLONE- CLEY ELNNO• CORPORATION RlLtl oP1KT RIRr To NLI I TIC. 11VLNV[ CVCI.MONCA CALleownu mm rHOR[ Irl.l+n..N. April 15, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: City Clerk Subject: Proposed Assessment District 79 -1 Gentlemen: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of April 13, 1981 with Mr. Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, in which we registered our protest regarding Proposed Assessment District 79 -1. Cleveland Crane k Engineering, McNeil Corporation is opposed to this Proposed Assessment for storm drains in the City's industrial area. cc L. B. Hubbs City's Engineers Office H. A. Gorjanc File R NO, EIAELdC Very truly yours, . R. C. R. it at ck Plant Manage Cc�Crir mia KOLL CONTRACTOR April 13, 1981 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Assessment District No. 79 -1 Dear Councilmembers: In our letter of March 3, 1981 we indicated to you that, although we supported the concept of an assessment dis- trict to provide financing for the installation of certain pub- lic improvements in the City's industrial area, we had substan- tial reservations with respect to certain aspects of the pro- posed assessment district described in the investigation report wnicn was previously submitted to you by Willdan Associates. Subsequent to that letter, we have had several meetings with your staff and consultants; and as a result of those meetings we are very happy to report that we are now prepared to with- draw our protest, to reaffirm our support for the assessment district, and to pledge our continued cooperation (both finan- cial and otherwise) with the City in completing the assessment district proceedings. It is our understanding that Willdan Associates has presented to you for your consideration a revised investiga- tion report which recommends certain changes to the improve- ments proposed to be constructed and the properties proposed to be assessed in Assessment District No. 79 -1. Although these changes do not include all of the recommendations set forth in our letter of March 3, it is our belief that the changes which have been recommended will be beneficial. We are, therefore, in general support of the report as revised. It is also our understanding that your staff and con- sultants will recommend to you that the assessment district include a provision for reimbursing property owners for certain street and storm drain improvements previously installed, that property owners willing to be assessed for the same be allowed 4490 Von Karmen Avenue • Newport Beach • California 92660 • (714) 8333030 Honorable Citv Council City of Rancho Cucamonga April 13, 1981 Page 'Iwo to include additional public improvements in the assessment district proceedings, and that property owners be allowed to accelerate construction of the improvements (subject to certain restrictions to provide the City with adequate control of such work) . Two agreements embodying our understandinq with respect to these points have been previously transmitted to Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, and F. MacKenzie Brown, Bond Counsel. If the understandings set forth hereinabove are correct, and if the City Council approves the two agreements in substantially the form submitted, then: (i) our protest of March 3 should be considered withdrawn; and (ii) we hereby indicate our willingness to advance up to $100,000 (in addi- tion to the $25,000 which we have previously advanced to the City for the assessment district) toward the detailed engineer- ing of the improvements. Of said $100,000, $70,000 will be designated for the engineering associated with line 19a, and our commitment is based upon our assumption that we will be able to persuade the other affected property owners to join with us. The remaining $30,000 will be expended for the en- gineering of street improvements. It is our intention to pre- pare and to present to you for your consideration a formal agreement setting forth our mutual rights and responsibilities witn respect to such money. In conclusion, we are very pleased that through the combined efforts of your staff and consultants and ourselves, a proposal nas been formulated which should prove to be of sub- stantial benefit to the City, the entire industrial area, and the individual owners of property within said area. To the best of our ability to do so, we will continue to cooperate with you and your representatives in furthering the industrial development of the City in a manner of which we will all be extremely proud. Very truly yours, R. C. LAND COMPANY RICHARD M. ORTWEIN Division President The Koll Company cc: F. MacKenzie Brown, Esq. cc: Mr. Walt Hamilton cc: Mr. �,auren Wasserman cc: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs KOLL CONTRACTOR April 13, 1981 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Assessment District No. 79 -1 Dear Councilmembers: In our letter of March 3, 1981 we indicated to you that, although we supported the concept of an assessment dis- trict to provide financing for the installation of certain pub- lic improvements in the City's industrial area, we had substan- tial reservations with respect to certain aspects of the pro- posed assessment district described in the investigation report wnicn was previously submitted to you by Willdan Associates. Subsequent to that letter, we have had several meetings with your staff and consultants; and as a result of those meetings we are very happy to report that we are now prepared to with - draw our protest, to reaffirm our support for the assessment district, and to pledge our continued cooperation (both finan- cial an] otherwise) with the City in completing the assessment district proceedings. It is our understanding that Willdan Associates has presented to you for your consideration a revised investiga- tion report which recommends certain changes to the improve- ments proposed to be constructed and the properties proposed to be assessed in Assessment District No. 79 -1. Although these changes do not include all of the recommendations set forth in our letter of March 3, it is our belief that the changes which have been recommended will be beneficial. We are, therefore, in general support of the report as revised. It is also our understanding that your staff and con- sultants will recommend to you that the assessment district include a provision for reimbursing property owners for certain street and storm drain improvements previously installed, that property owners willing to be assessed for the same be allowed 4490 Von Karmen Avenue • Newport Beach • California 92660 • (714( 833-3030 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga April 13, 1981 Page Two to include additional public improvements in the assessment district proceedings, and that property owners be allowed to accelerate construction of the improvements (subject to certain restrictions to provide the City with adequate control of such work). Two agreements embodying our understandinq with respect to these points have been previously transmitted to Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, and F. MacKenzie Brown, Bond Counsel. If the understandings set forth hereinabove are correct, and if the City Council approves the two agreements in substantially the form submitted, then: (i) our protest of Marcn 3 should be considered withdrawn; and (ii) we hereby indicate our willingness to advance up to $100,000 (in addi- tion to the $25,000 which we have previously advanced to the City for the assessment district) toward the detailed engineer- ing of the improvements. Of said $100,000, $70,000 will be designated for the engineering associated with line 19a, and our commitment is based upon our assumption that we will be able to persuade the other affected property owners to join with us. The remaining $30,000 will be expended for the en- gineering of street improvements. It is our intention to pre- pare and to present to you for your consideration a formal agreement setting forth our mutual rights and responsibilities witn respect to such money. In conclusion, we are very pleased that through the combined efforts of your staff and consultants and ourselves, a proposal has been formulated which should prove to be of sub- stantial benefit to the City, the entire industrial area, and the individual owners of property within said area. To the best of our ability to do so, we will continue to cooperatc with you and your representatives in furthering the industrial development of the City in a manner of which we will all be extremely proud. Very truly yours, R. C. LAND COMPANY RICHARD M. ORTWEIN Division President The Koll Company CC: F. MacKenzie Brown, Esq. cc: Mr. Walt Hamilton cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman,, cc: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs FROME INVESTMENTS 3822 CAMPUS DR. - SUITE 202 NEWPORT BEACH. CA, 92660 17141 641 -1130 4/13/1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Sir, Cy C.ry fN C,t,� -v„Im y Y• v l Prone Investments ownis property on the east side of Haven Ave., and on the south side of 6th street bordering on the east side of Deer Creek Channel. Neither parcel was included in Assessment District M. 79-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AP$►) until recently. On the advice of our engineer, we protest the inclusion of our properties into the assessment district due to potential problems resulting from drainage design. sincerely, Pro I etMonts Gregory Prome SAM S►IEBMAN & ASSOG . TES REAL ESTATE COUNSELLORS `7 93Si NRi EN DR. 902ERLY NfLLS. q I 90210 CRI M, 1601 o C � i `y F., J y, NO �ur1 zwe 7 3 L City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Detailed Transcript of: 4A APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 11609 and 9441 Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, - Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Tract Maps 11609 and 9441 have appealed a condition of the Planning Commission which would require the construction of the Alta Loma Channel. In that both tracts are represented by the same firm, and deal with basically the same issue, we've clumped them together as an item, although they are two separate appeals. The specific language on the condition that is being appealed reads, "the design and construction of adequate concrete line channel within that structure along Alta Loma Channel continguous to the subject tract, shall be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The construction cost of the facility shall be credited to the storm drain fee for the project and reimbursement will be executed per City ordinance No. 75, to cover the contributions which may exceed the amount of the fee. I'll put on a transparency to show better the location of these two tracts. The tract 9441 is the tract shown here (referring to transparency), the other tract comes as the area northerly of that - -this area. Both tracts are located southerly of Wilson Avenue between Hermosa and Archibald adjacent to the Alta Loma Channel. The condition that has been imposed requires the construction of the Alta Loma channel as a concrete line, a facility designed for a 100 year storm in conformance with the master plan of storm drains. This condition Was a condition of approval of several tract maps along Alta Loma Channel, including two tracts north of Wilson Avenue running to north of Hillside Avenue and two planned developments located at Hermosa and 19th Street, running to Lemon, again staddling the Alta Loma Channel. Alta Loma Channel is indicated and the entire side is indicated as an A -1 Flood Hazard area of the HUD Flood Hazard Map. you Question raised by _(referring to map) I have a question - -here see the A -0 flood lines Lloyd Hubbs - ..indicated passing over the center of the site, the remaining.portion of the site, is a Zone A flood hazard indicating it is subject to infrequent sheet overflows. The A -0 indicates a flood channel zone. Under the provisions of Ord. 24, which was the City's ordinance regarding flood protection, we are mandated to find with any subdivision that the sufficient drainage facilities have been installed to protect against the 100 year flood integration. You can see from this map the additional tracts that have been approved northerly of this one, tract 10047 and tract 1004G. The same condition was applied to those tracts, including the portions of the channel which run outside the tract on these and there was no appeal in that case. We have an additional tract map, 10088, shown up in the upper area which has been submitted and is in the process at this time. The other tracts that I mentioned are located along 19th Street in this area. To give you a feeling for the area that is tributary to there, some 960 acres tributary to this channel within that area ... and they are shown on the red boundary on the area photo over there—and I think indicative of the potential problems in that area, you will note that major portion• of that drainage area are undeveloped at this time. As they develop in the future, the drainage problem that exists now, which has been demonstrated over the years, will increase and the problem will be more difficult and extremely hard for any homes that develop in that area, for the resulting conditions of the Planning Commission map. r. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions for Tentative Tract Maps 11609 and 9441 Page Two (Mr. Hubbs went over to map and outlined the red boundary that is indicated) Mr. Hubbs -- To summarize our opinion is that the tract is subject to flood hazard without the required improvements and that we would be unable to find, as specified in Ordinance 24, that the site could be free of flood hazard without those facilities. You may remember that Ordinance 24 is the Ordinance that implemented the Federal flood insurance program within the City and is a requirement basically for any federal grants and was implemented for the purpose of not de- veloping in flood hazard areas. Thats basically the background of the condition and the property here to the appellants. Mayor Schlosser Thank you, Lloyd. Would you gentlemen care to comment or should we have public nearing? Art midge - I would like to ask a question of Lloyd- -are the conditions that are listed in our packet, Page 55, do they constitute a resume or summary of all the conditions that have been proposed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District? Lloyd Hubbs - These conditions were the conditions - -a portion of the of the engineering conditions related to the tract. our engineering division's conditigns4iintaddition to this, I believe there are some other conditions that follow and also a set of standard conditions that relate to street improvements and a lot of other standard items that weren't really included in the sheet that had the condition in question. A. Bridge: and these are the conditions that were enumerated by the Planning Commission? L. Hubbs: That's correct Mayor Schlosser: Any other comments before I open it up? We will open Public hearing. All wishing to speak may do so. Jim Stroffe_ Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jim Stroffe. I'm an attorney with Surr S Hellyer in San Bernardino, and I represent theappellants in this case, Mark III and Bob Jensen Homes. If you have just a moment, I will sign the sheet. I also have a court reporter here, as you are all well aware I am sure. And, I am sure that you do Mr. Mayor, but if you could, if anyone else speaks on this matter, I'd appreciate it if for her sake, make sure that everyone identifies themself. Mayor: I hate to continent but I will run the meeting- -don't tell me how. J. Stroffe: Yes sir, I didn't pretend to your honor. The position of the appellants is very simple in this matter. We don't necessarily disagree that the conditions were imposed. We all know what the conditions were that were imposed and we all know that the Planning Commission imposed them. There is a little difference in which conditions we are appealing, however. The two tracts are not identical -- the conditions imposed were not identical. The northerly tract, 11609, was also subject to a condition of improving or providing a bridge across the Wilson Avenue area where the Alta Loma Channel crosses, and that con- dition is also being appealed. The basis of our appeal is that the City is not authorized in this case to impose a condition of actual construction of these channel improvements on the subdividers, either pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or pursuant to the general police power of the City. The City has purported to do that under the authorizations supplied by Ordinances No. 75 and Ordinance No. 61. There is no other authority in the Subdivision Hap Act for the imposition of these conditions,1he general improvement April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions..: Page Three and design statutes do not allow off -site improvements or do not allow the imposition of conditions requiring off -site improvements on subdividers. Accordingly, the only possible basis for the imposition of the condition is the ordinances I just mentioned. Those ordinances, however, are also not authorized by the Subdivision Map Act. The Act does permit, under given circumstances, the imposition of a drainage fee as a condition to subdivision development, provided that it meets, as I said, certain conditions. Those conditions are that the fees be expended for a purpose that actually benefits the tract, or for the construction of improvements which are necessitated by the improvement of the tract or the subdivision development itself. In this case, there is ample evidence, and we have consulted with numerous engineers, and we have also talked with Mr. Hubbs, and the evidence is that none of the sheet flow from this tract enters the Alta Loma Channel along the West side of either tract 11609 or tract 9441. There is absolutely no interception of any surface roads by that drainage channel. The improvements to that channel therefore could not in any way benefit our tract and on the basis of normal hydrologic studies, there is no benefit to be derived from the construction of the permanent channel improvements. The channel runs fine the way it is. As a matter of fact, this channel is probably the best improved channel. I note that Mr. Hubb -s report to you today indicates that this channel is an unimproved channel. As a matter of fact, along the Westerly boundary of these two tracts, the channel is temporarily improved according to County flood control definition. The channel to the north of Wilson Avenue is unimproved, but that is not adjacent to our properties. Insofar as the collection of the fee is concerned, if there were some benefit to the tract, Which as I indicated we are not aware of that being the case, the imposition of fees may be acceptable under the Map Act. However, we are not talking about the imposition of fees. We are talking about imposing a condition of actual construction of the improvements to this facility. The imposition of fees pursuant to Ordinance 75 would amount to some, on a combined basis, some $119,500 for these two tracts. The construction of these improvements on the other hand is going to amount to over $410,000. That'sa significant dif- ference and we Would maintain that, particularly absent any benefit to our par- ticular subdivision developments, that that is an impossible burden for us to bear and is a burden which is not sanctioned by any of the laws governing sub- division improvement. Insofar as the condition of building a bridge over Wilson Avenue is concerned, and that condition again is on Tract 11609, we have a similar situation. The Map Act does prempt this area and local ordinances required to be enacted to implement the Map Act, but it can not vary or change or in any way be more burdensome than what the Map Act allows. In this case the Act does not authorize the general imposition of fees in order to construct improvements to highways or drainage facilities or bridges, thoroughfares or anything of that sort. You can impose, under Section 66484 of the Government Code, a fee pursuant to an Ordinance which would be allocable to street improvements, including bridges. That Ordinance has April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions.... Page Four got to track very closely the conditions which are set forth in Section 66484 and Ordinance Number 61, which is the apparent authority under which this con- dition was imposed, does not comply with that section of the Government Code. We have one other main area of concern. That is to the extent these fees would otherwise be validly imposed upon us, the fact that there is no benefit to the property which is being subjected to the conditions indicates that these are not back special assessments, which would be permitted by the Act. But they ale general revenue raising devices. The general raising of revenue has been severely- - the authority of the local entity -- has been severely cut back by the enactment of Proposition 13. Proposition 13 prohibits the imposition of any special taxes, absent a 2/3 vote of the electorate of the district and in this case, these fees being imposed without any benefit to the property owners qualify as special taxes. Special tax ordinances, if you will, would be the ordinances authorizing the fees. Ordinance 76 and Ordinance 61. Those Ordinances were not submitted to the voters and they were not approved by a 2/3 vote of the electorate and are therefore violative of the constitutional provisions of Article 13A, Section 4, of the Con- stitution. For those reasons at the least, we are imploring you to eliminate the conditions that were imposed upon these tracts - -only those conditions which were specified in our Notice of Appeal, so we can go forward with the development. The development of these tracts is not going to result in any additional burden on the Alta Loma Channel to the west of our project. Tract Number 9445 which was approved prior to the incorporation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was a tract that also, the easterly boundary of which would have abutted and would be continguous with the Alta Loma channel. That was approved by the County and as the conditions to that approval, there was no indication that the development would in any way affect or be benefited by any improvements to the Alta Loma Channel. tae have a good deal of respect for Mr. Hubbs - -he was very forthright with us in indicating that the City does have a drainage problem. The drainage problem, however, is in an area of the City southeast of our tract, apparently a Turner Avenue section that gets infrequently or frequently flooded during heavy rainstorms. Those rainstorms and the fees that you are collecting under these Ordinances should be used to remedy those critical situations in the drainage system and not used as a method of coercing a developer to put in an improvement thats not going to ben- efit anybody. This improvement, if installed, even if it were installed, would not affect at all the situation on Turner Avenue. I'm not sure that that map is an appropriate map but it is obvious that our tracts are toward the northerly end of the Alta Loma Channel. Drainage from the watershed to the north is basically- - basically comprises most of the watershed area that Mr. Hobbs referred to- -the 944 acres I believe roughly. The Turner Avenue problem is to the southeast and the improvement of this channel means only ongething- -the water that comes into the northerly part of our project is going to moved faster past our project toward the Turner Avenue oroblem area. This small section ofthtk drainage channel is not going to rectify that problem, which is a problem needs rectification, nor is it going to protect our property or the residents of our property once it is sold. We indicated initially a willingness to pay the fee which was imposed by Ordinance Number 75, the $190,000 that I spoke of, and i think that we would still be willing COndytyOns,.. 19 s APP °al of F C ssible tots as that we have n"t¢ 1 c "cil Ml e rye elY economt chlannel bey'ahaPPY t%01. .aeYC to U¢ ed Yr 1t 1 ap ld the th bridVo rbe floa°dt they °O 1g,.r adflY is d° tbat tbese� tracts ld r blilee ton n9 C 'cmr t Ty date d Sep Ion Putt e° C} Y s ash et tbe It eentt ,a 8 to . to a en coon s and h`s cos this tYa t th Y indi� s ¢ every £ e t Yai s t1+eY 9Y� yne Ys mold mwesti ded 1n ti °ns on acam°n9ar as is alm° n9 that to stay. °" m °st en the Y¢ °om� reeve ate conef Rancho C floedin4ar way °f d its 9p1 wbich T to a Y even f to the to infte4 °e mere thaa 9raVnd an °Ondltyo oce't. a dicatyOnthe widen let me a eve, �at8 . qo: ¢lYno,a ffeet' iabil i di t ie %tensyon Of ring d°f n toe act-- the tT roan ant ° fa it l if r V aPPro•yt were n° flpca c° tkY for the.. Now thbeen imP°s Y with a . canme in It, ISO it men as l teo l c a a PthatY °On 8o£ns c a a "�yded911 anal ymPrOVements yn a on the t at cha if I m19hTbe Va-ae any st that cgayoo nt °barrel mth'_to and dLO o ° too em¢Its 1 oivme o fxtnt t hat the P b¢ compel eeYmane, Y Y I Ibe 1¢viesr 'be in reaelm� t theca handle. that We ca cat¢ and ;led to isj mitati °a Yydyn9 or to channel tending _ to ded t be come¢ 5etpacX eats and c neesned" widen¢d we are 'on tri"e Chace we ca yeasonablradiog eta cbleats ate colplY to Ta ,I ca eo f and veo y Spec "nal e P 'att. we ps n a r+oold be w111ing Y tha as an exhibit s are p tof to se t . absent t condi c'cing to d tbat s to any of. t ° ter ma reP°r rt¢Yi ainliad PeYl ob7eGtyon ve the art Rep° Ye Y °U Plans don't ba�ondytions' the record aP� ato the CO taf4 tap" befO th tbo ,, ses of a Pyece of P la the snot really wi e for pI k anded accacacy °s They are wo"ld liX script' light In ention' in the to ere areaI coop ee to bring t° ands wttaP° staroedfrom mrepardY step sonnet 4 %y2 d Lte that I wool Tape an vote erosi severe 7th° cbannne band on the ell ¢d In then �s hevyes dd tY imPY vem nbstapmPly bT t eb mPrOVem the mlad can¢ 15 in past Ch ° ann °lPhas tr at ..are ensen ROis¢no Plan Yoa °ore be en9yn eisinveyed ya 'raqra? and Bob 1 ana the ne s r tptaYk T vemen b n imPrev � l s tS 'lot ato cost thaC i dev b °y1d th° ym drawing e trying well say as the inor to inee:I and you do'ra' as no of a cha ^tioth ap and build it April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition... Page Six this case, all of which substantiates a substantial burden. the Finally, if it were reasonably likely that A reimbursement would be provided to us in a timely fashion, this may not cause as much concern to us. However, we are aware, as are you, that the reimbursement policy of the City is such that it is unlikely, given the amount of development that is taking place right now and the amount of the fees being collectedthat's actually set aside for reimbursement, that we would ever receive that $300,000 in excess of the amount of the fees that are argueably able to be imposed upon us. And that is of major concern. Finally Mr. Hobbs mentioned in his report and he mentioned to you that the homes which will be ultimately constructed on these tracts face a severe flooding hazard. And, Mr. Mayor, the engineers that I have consulted with who are in the audience today, would vehemently disagree with that and I wonder if you might inquire of Mr. Hurts the basis or what type of flooding hazard would be encountered by these homeowners so that we would be able to respond to that. Mayor Schlosser - Some of us live here and we've seen it flood. J. Stroffe - Well, the state of the ground is an ungraded state. I am sure you have seen other areas of the City flood too. I don't deny the fact that the City has a severe flooding problem in general, but you cannot, as a matter of policy or as a matter of equity, impose a burden on one particular developer to construct permanent drainage channel improvements which aren't going to be of benefit to the City as far as ameliorating that flooding problem is concerned. And, more importantly, are not going to be of benefit to the developments that are being approved, or that are being conditionally improved, because that amounts to a tax. Jim Frost - Are you aware sir of the history of the City and the reasons why we have had severe flooding problems in the past, and in the recent past? J. Stroffe - Mr. Frost, I cannot honestly say that I am. No. I'm not from the City. I only know what I've been told and I don't know the entire history. J. Frost - I would suggest in your research that you go back and talk to some of the developers who were not required in the past to provide adequat. _flood pro- tection and storm protection for the citizens. I'd be interested in hearing your response to that when you have had those discussions, particularly with members of the Chamber and the industrial community of the chamber. J. Stroffe - As I indicated, or I tried to indicate, we don't doubt that there are problems in the City, flood problems in the City. What I am concerned with is whether those problems on a general or on an area wide basis, should be imposed upon a developer for the priviledge of subdividing his property and the authorization to this legislative body for allowing the imposition of that con- dition. I don't have any problem if you were to say the citizens of Rancho Cucamoila are going to enact some sort of a legislative measure, a tax measure, which is going to provide for the wholesale improvement of the entire drainage April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes - Appeal of Y.C. Condition.. Page Seven system in the City. We are all going to contribute X number of dollars toward that; however, whatever formula you arrive at for imposing that tax, provided it is also constitutional, is approved by the voters, and that is a beautiful way to resolve the problem or at least to obtain the funds to resolve the problem. But to take what is a public benefit and impose the burden on a private developer, is something that is impermissible, no matter what the magnitude to the problem is. J. Frost - I guess what I've heard you saying is that somehow you're not of the impression that your development will contribute to the problem, rather than contribute to the solutions. Stroffe -- Our developements in improved state are not going to contribute to any of the flows through the Alta Loma channel on the westerly side of our property, any more than they do in the natural state, and that in both cases is not at all. There is no flow from our property into the Alta Lome Channel. The sheet flows in a southeasterly direction away from the Channel. Palombo - That's almost an assumption that less rain falls on that parcel than the next one. Stroffe - No, sir. Its a question of the actual slope of the property. The same amount of rain falls on our property, as falls on the property to the north of us, where the channel actually cuts across the contours of the land. That parcel to the north will flow into the channel. Our property sheet flows away from the channel, so no matter how much water falls on it, it doesn't go into the channel. Bridge - There have been so many items brought up these last thirty minutes or so regard to this appeal that I believe that it should be continued. We have had enough testimony. I don't see how we could get any more. I think this should be continued so that the tapes can be studied and analyzed, and a worth- while decision be made. I'd like to see it continued for enough time so that we can so this analysis, using Mr. Hubbs and his staff. Yes, Bob, go ahead. Bob Dougherty - I would recommend that anyone wishing to testify on the matter be permitted to testify this evening and if you wish to take the matter under submission at that time or continue, it can be done then. Schlosser - I would like to hear an engineer speak to the issue. Br idre - Yes, we are spending a whole lot of time on one item. Every person has to have his time in court -- I started to say something else ... but Stroffe - I wasn't going to say that either. I was going to say everyone knows how important this kind of decision is to the City and we are also in agreement that it should be made with deliberation. I do want to point out to the Council, however, the problem. That is that from a procedural standpoint, we have only 60 days within which to have an answer from you from the date that we filed our appeal. Otherwise, the determination by this body is deemed to have been a April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition.... Page Eight denial of our appeal and we have at that point in time, in order to preserve our rights, we have to take action to file a petition from writ of mandate with the court. Bob Dougherty: Of course, you can extend that by agreement with the Council. Stroffe: The routine waivers, I think, have been frowned upon by the State Legislature and.... Mayor Schlosser - Mr. Stroffe, we are not curing the problem with that kind of talk. We need somebody else. Thank you very much. Stroffe: Thank you. I'd like to have our engineer go over some topographic maps and some U.S.G.S. maps for you and its Mr. Hunsinger. Dick Hunsinger, 3001 Redhill Avenue., Costa Mesa, CA. - When we were asked by the developer to examine the existing channels, to be totally honest with you, I fully expected that when we did ourhydraulic analysis of the channel, to find that the existing channel did not have capacity to handle the flows that are within it. Much to my surprise and after going out and looking at the channel, the channel that is there today which is approximately 15 feet wide, and eight feet deep, has capacity within the reach between Wilson Avenue and the basin to handle the flows that flow through this area. In reading the reports of your problems out here, and aware of the problem - not specifically where they happened - the inequity that I see is that you spend $400,000 on this channel - -on a channel that has capacity today. If we took the existing channel and constructed a tract channel within the same area that the existing channel exists today, we would not provide any additional or better flood pro- tection then that's there today. We are converting a hundred and - -Did Jim say $120,000 thereabouts - of flood control fees that you had attained on this development that could be used in other areas of this channel that need flood protection. If you examine AHEsthere today, there are inefficiencies - -not in this particular area. The channel that you want, be it concrete line, a trap channel, is a cadallac of channels compared to what's there today but whats there today has capacity of handling the flows coming off the mountain. I could not stand here before you and ask you to approve a subdivision and not provide adequate flood protection, if it was not there today. It's there today, Further evidence that it is there today is the letter that was submitted by the San Bernardino Flood Control District regarding the tract on the other side of the channel, a very similar letter from the Flood Control District regarding this channel. What they asked us to do is maintain a minimum of eight feet from the existing invert adjacent to the channel, which would mean that a one or two foot high birm at the maximum would have to be built. The majority of the channel - -an additional birm would not have to be built. They asked us to put a chain link fence there for safety reasons so that people would not wander and go under that channel. It's a sheer drop off of eight feet. Ids wire reveted with rock behind it that has capacity to handle the flow today so the argument April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Condition Page Nine is not does Rancho Cucamonga have flood problems. I think there is no way they are going to say there are not problems in the City. On this stretch of Alta Loma channel, there is not a problem there today. It is my opinion and I have not gone through the flood hazard methods. I put that if the new channel is in there, would the existing classification's change. If they changed, it would be very very remotely changed. What has been said regarding flooding is a statement that is made by I believe all County flood control district people that when you have an existing channel there is always a possibility that through debris coming down the channel, that it could fill up and you could obtain some sheet overflow. They are no going to come up with a statement that the homes next to those channels will never experience any type of sheet overflow from a particular channel. I believe if you examine the majority of all flood control letters and reports that are issued by the real estate commissioner, you'll always find a statment in there that the property is subject to infrequent sheet overflow. There is always a possibility of obtaining some type of sheet overflow. The channel that is there today has 100 year flood protection. Schlosser - How do you know that? Hunsinger - We obtained a flow from L.D. King, who is doing the hydraulic ravised storm drain studies of what they feel will be in that channel upon development of drainage area. We have a topographic map. We measured the width of the channel, the depth of the channel. We measured the slope of the channel and with those factors, determined the capacity of that channel. Schlosser - Do we have a copy of that report? L. Hobbs - Yes we do....we have a copy of the L.D. King study that has the flow information Aunsin ,er - you do not have a copy of my calculations. Just in summary, to repeat, the existing channel has capacity and marginal benefit would ever be gained by the homes if a new channel was put in and I would just like to see you take that money that we would put in per our drainage fees and use it someplace where it would benefit the City- -not in an area that has a channel that is not causing a problem today. Thank you, Mayor Schlosser - Thank you. Does anyone else have anything new to add to the particular issue? Jack Reeves, Mark III Homes - I'd like to clarify one thing. I was surprised tonight to see Lloyd bring the Flood Plain map. It was my understanding from a previous conversation I had today that those F.P. zones which were determined, were determined prior to the construction of the temporary channel adjacent to our tract and that those flood plain zones have not been re- calculated since those improvements were put in. The basin has expanded and the temporary re- nbutment , was put in above our tract. So I am not sure that the F.P. zones that you show tonight, as an exhibit are accurate. I would just like to clarify it for my awn knowledge. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes — Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Ten L. Hobbs -Well the flood hazard maps are not periodically updated and there could potentially be some areas of revision, but I am not aware that the basin has been expanded since the flood hazard maps were prepared. And the improvements that are there in my opinion are not of the substantial nature to alleviate the types of flood danger that exists there. You refer to them as temporary facilities J. Reeves - Interim facilities L. Hobbs interim facilities because they are basically rail and wire revetment which is subject to erosion beneath. The channel below is concrete line in portions but that concrete lining has been eroded through and the erosion has caused scouring and pulling in of the walls. Day Creek channel is a rail and wire reveted channel. Its been subject to erosion within 330 feet of the existing channel and the potential for debris clogging and other methods, in my opinion, means that that channel is subject to severe erosion until improved in some fashion. Again, it's— I'd like to point out the generally undeveloped nature of the area above your tract and the conditions that will occur when that some 400 or 500 acres becomes developed. The frequency with which that channel, that unimproved temporary channel, is subjected to significant flows will increase and the hazard, in my opinion, will increase proportionately and the ability of the City to obtain improvements on that channel diminishes as the City builds out. I think that is the reason we have the problem we have currently and to continue that pattern, in my estimation, would be negligent and in violations of Ordinance 24, and other ordinances that require us to be stewards to that. J. Reeves - It was my understanding from the research and information provided me that if the channel was improved upstream of our property, the stretch of channel adjacent to our property left in its natural state, that no flooding would occur or, our property from that channel; and that that stretch of channel clearly will carry the ultimate amount of water it has to; and that the flood plain zones were dated back to when they were first done for the City prior to any improvements put in; And that they do not correctly represent the flooding that is on our property. L. Hobbs - I think that statement can be made at any time prior to the devel- opment of the Flood hazard maps. The day they are done they are out of date, and I am not sure that in lieu of completely redoing those studies and re- establishing the flood hazard potential on that, I'm not sure that that's a cogent argument. Schlosser: Anyone else have anything new to add to the issue? L. HLII)I>s - I would like to make another clarification. In terms of the box culvert or crossing of Wilson Avenue, there are provisions in that condition to allow the credit addition of systems development fees to the offset the cost of the improvement of that, which relates to some of the Subdivision Map Act ordinances, which our systems development fees relates to, that is improvements that are required that serve large areas with the accreditable systems fees. In addition, the tract across the street was given the same condition and if the two tracts work concurrently they would share the cost of that crossing. April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes -- Appeal of P.C. Conditions Page Eleven Schlosser - Thank you Lloyd. That will close public hearing. The comment by the Council -- Art, do you have a recommendation to table this until the next meeting? B. Dougherty - I would recommend that the matter be acted on this evening, unless the developer through his attorney consents to the matter being continued to the next meeting? Schlosser - For what reason? deemed Dougherty - For the reason that he'll try to have it Aautomatically denied for the purposes of his court action. I would just as soon have the Council act, as opposed to have the matter deemed tonight. Mikels - When did the 60 day time period start? Daugherty_- I do not know because I do not have the information as to when that appeal was filed. But I know that there was one delay by reason of a mispublication. Stroffe - Our recollection of when it was filed, our sixty days runs out prior to the next Council meeting. Dougherty - (referring to letter of appeal) It's stamped the 7th on the one. March 7th. Stro£fe - 9441 is March 6th and 11609 is March 10th. Just as a matter of clari- fication, the hearing was to have been held within thirty days of the initial filing of the appeal and due to an inadvertance on the part of staff in getting it published, we were not able to be on the last meeting's agenda, which was the only meeting proceeding the expiration of the thirty days. Technically under the act, it was not heard within thirty days, its deemed denied but we wanted to show up and make our presentation and allow you an apportunity to act on it instead of having it deemed denied. Schlosser - Next City Council meeting is May 6th which is actually nearly three weeks. Dou herty - I take it you are unwilling to stipulate that the matter can be con- tinued Stroffe - I think that the position of the developer is that we would like to build a project as quickly as we can. It means we would like to have an answer as fast as we can on the conditional approval. Frost - If I may, I would expect the Council to be in a position to make a recommendation based upon what we've heard tonight. I would concur with what I think Art was saying. Anytime we get an attorney up here in a situation like this where they start talking about codes, numbers, and all chat, I have an April 15, 1981 City Council Minutes — Appeal of P.C. Conditions... Page Twelve awful lot of troubling filtering that out between what you're actually trying to tell us as lay people, as opposed to what you are trying to tell our attorney and the court reporters. He knows all of those numbers and fancy words and we don't. I'd like to go back to the tapes and find out what you actually said. Palombo ..In the interim, would the Council consider a ten minute recess so you can consult with your clients. (Several people discussing) Stroffe- we would appreciate the opportunity, if you so dispose. Mayor Schlosser called a ten minute recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m., with all members of Council present. Schlosser - The question was , were you going to agree to a continuance? Stroffe - On my advice, it is our feeling that because we already let the time run for the holding of the hearing, that we are subject to some jeopardy if we agree to it. On that basis, we are not going to agree to it. We would like for you to make a decision and we would also like to request findings in writing within the ten day period provided by the Act so that we can all go forward. We would be more than happy to provide you with these documents if you think it would help you in preparing those findings. Bridge: I move to uphold the Planning Commission decision. Palombo - Second Bridge: I don't see where we have any other choice. Schlosser: I would agree. Any further comment? In the favor of the motion, so indicate. (All voting aye) Motion Carried. Stroffe - Mr. Mayor, I wonder if I might take maybe five minutes so that I could serve the lawsuit on you gentlemen or authorize the City Attorney to accept service on your behalf, Schlosser: Let me consult the attorney Dougherty: Why don't you follow the normal procedure, as outlined in the Code of civil procedure. The meeting continued as the papers were served. a ,jd -6r RESOLUTION NO. 81 -49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND ACKNOW- LEDGING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LEONARD GORCZYCA TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEREAS, Leonard Gorczyca's exemplary dedication to the service of the public good over a period of many years has established a standard of excellence in community service seldom achieved; and WHEREAS, Leonard Gorczyca's untiring and selfless devo- tion toward insuring that the past history of our community shall be protected and preserved for the enjoyment, enrichment and education of generations yet to come; and WHEREAS, Leonard Gorczyca served as Chief Architect and Chairman of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Historic Preservation Commission from it's inception until his passing. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California as follows: THAT Leonard Gorczyca's high standards of service, dedication and contributions to the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga have made our community a better place in which to live; and THAT Leonard Gorczyca will hold a place of honor in the history of our City as a noted contributor of merit and deed. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 1,ancho Cucamoa Cham6cr o f Commerce 9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: 714/987 -1012 April 14, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga P,0. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Attention: City Council Subject: Foothill Fire Protection District Election to be held June 2, 1981 to approve Ordinance 3. Gentlemen: The Rancho Cucamonga Chanter of Camerce, upon learning of said election, established a fact finding committee conprised of business persons to determine the merit of the Fire District's request to the electorate. The fact finding comnittee met with the Fire District officials and accertained that a genuine need exists and therefore remnrended to the Board of Directors Of our Chanter that the entire Chamber be mobilized to support the Fire District's request in the upcoming election. Additionally, our fact finding rnnni.ttee determined that the ability of our Fire District to continue protecting life and property in our area has serious limitations without additional funding. Business does not normally desire to increase its awn cost with additional taxes; however, it is poor business to allow an essential service to deteriorate to a point where it could conceivably endanger our citizens and our homes, factories and stores. Nearly one out of every two responses made by our Fire District is for first aid, involving serious life threatening injuries, yet no funds are even received by our Fire District for this task. They are only paid by property taxes for fire fighting purposes. The 1977 -78 budget for this purpose was Wore than is currently budgeted for 1980 -81. Now, consider inflation for an even greater impact upon the current budget! The last time the District purchased a new fire truck was in 1974 and the recent addition of a brush fire fighting unit was actually constructed inhouse using surplus equipment. We feel this de onstrates a desire to conserve our citizens scarce resources. The Rancho Cucamonga ChaAxr Board of Directors and Officers request your endorsement and support to help obtain a favorable vote of our citizenry on June 2, 1981. Z y s Y DDn Hardy, 13esi t DH /vr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 9, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Tract No. 11606 Appeal I will not be present at the City Council meeting on Wednesday evening. However, I wanted to relay to you my thoughts on the appeal. Doug Gorgen has made a very logical case for some type of change in the City policy. It is important that the action you take be considered for its total impact not only on Doug's tract, but more importantly throughout the community. Jack's appeal report will focus on the fact that Gorgen's tract is adjacent to a flood control right -of -way. That differentiates it from the Lewis property in Etiwanda and the property owned by other devel throughout the City. The primary issue is whether park fees should be used to offset the costs for developing horse trails which must be dedicated. My concern is that if we use park fees to develop the horse trails, we will be left with no money to purchase the much needed park land throughout our city. It is my recommendation to you that we do the following with Doug Gorgen's appeal: 1. Recognize that the dedication of land is a standard requirement of the City. That the City take no action to actually develop the horse trails other than to grade them to the appro- priate standard. That park dedication fees be used for park acquisition and development rather than for trails systems. Again, the important point to be made is that as other tracts are approved, all funds dedicated for park acquisition and development will be shifted to finance the horse trails which really benefit only a very small segment of our community. It is essential that we maximize the use of our park dedication fees by purchasing land for parks and eventually developing it. We can survive with a pro- perly graded horse trail along the Deer Creek flood control channel. At some point in the future, I think the Council was aware that we will have to deal with the issue of how to finance the trails system. That is a city -wide issue and to channel park dedication fees into the horse trail system would greatly reduce our ability to purchase City Council RE: Appeal 11606 April 9, 1981 Jack will be contacting each member of the City Council to ex- plain the issue to you, and to seek your support for a compromise position which is between that approved by the Planning Commission and that requested by Doug Gorgen. We have had conversations with Doug, and he is agreeable to the compromise position which Jack will explain to you. LMW:baa cc: Jack Lam kancho Cucamoa Cham6cr of Commerce 9350 BASE LINE ROAD, SUITE D RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE 714/957.1012 April 14, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Attention: City Council Subject: Foothill Fire Protection District Election to be held June 2, 1981 to approve Ordinance 3. Gentlemen: The Rancho Cucaonga C=a ber of Commerce, upon learning of said election, established a fact finding committee aomprised of business persons to determine the merit of the Fire District's request to the electorate. The fact finding committee met with the Fire District officials and accertained that a genuine need exists and therefore recd m okIed to the Board of Directors of our Chamber that the entire Chamber be mobilized to support the Fire District's request in the upcoming election. Additionally, our fact finding a Inittee detPimned that the ability of our Fire District to continue protecting life and property in our area has serious limitations without additional funding. Business does not normally desire to increase its own cost with additional taxes; however, it is poor business to allow an essential service to deteriorate to a point where it could conceivably endanger our citizens and our homes, factories and stores. Nearly one out of every two responses made by our Fire District is for first aid, involving serious life threatening injuries, yet no funds are even received by our Fire District for this task. They are only paid by property taxes for fire fighting purposes. The 1977 -78 budget for this purpose was :ore than is currently budgeted for 1980 -81. Now, consider inflation for an even greater impact upon the current budget! The last time the District purchased a new fire truck was in 1974 and the recent addition of a brush fire fighting unit was actually constructed inhmme using surplus equipment. We feel this demonstrates a desire to conserve our citizens scarce resources. The Rancho Cucamonga Chamber Board of Directors and Officers request your endorsement and support to help obtain a favorable vote of our citizenry on June 2, 1981. DA/vr Minutes Regular Meeting Rancho Cucamonga , Historic Preservation Commission April 14, 1981 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Hickcox at 7:08 p.m. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Hickcox. Pledge of Allegiance Present were Commissioners Hickcox, Strane, Kilmurray, Cooper, and Billings. Absent was Commissioner White. Also in attendance was Councilman Jim Frost. Minutes of March 10, 1981, Regular Meeting, were reviewed. Minutes - 3/10/81 Motion: Moved by Billings, seconded by Cooper, minutes of March 10, 1981, Regular Meeting, be approved as posted. (Motion carried 5 -0). Announcements Commissioner Strane announced that the annual fiesta at the Rains House Fiesta Rains House would be held May 3, 1981 and invited everyone to attend. New Business Chairman Hickcox introduced to the Commission Resolution No. 81 -1, Resolution No. 81 -1 the text of which follows. Honoring Leonard Gorczyca Resolution No. 81 -1. A Resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, honoring and acknowledging the contributions of Leonard Gorczyca to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca's exemplary dedication to the service of the public good over a period of many years has established a standard of excellence in community service seldom achieved; and Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca's untiring and selfless devotion toward insuring that the past history of our community shall be protected and preserved for the enjoyment, enrichment and education of generations yet to come; and Whereas, Leonard Gorczyca served as Chief Architect and Chairman of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Historic Preservation Commission from it's inception until his passing. Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California as follows: That Leonard Gorczyca's high standards of service, dedica- tion and contributions to the people of Rancho Cucamonga have made our community a better place in which to live; and That Leonard Gorczyca will hold a place of honor in the history of our City as a noted contributor of merit and deed. Motion: Moved by Strane, seconded by Kilmurray that Resolution No. 81 -1 be adopted and forwarded on to the City Council. Motion carried unani- mously. Chairman Hickcox provided some photographs and information to update the files on the George Johnston house and the Etiwanda Church. Chairman Hickcox gave a brief report on the historic preservation con- ference held at UCR with additional comments being offered by Commis- sioners Kilmurray and Cooper. It was felt that the conference in general was very informative and beneficial. Materials, informational George Johnston House 8 Etiwanda Church update Historic Preserva- tion Conference Minutes - Historic Preservation Commission April 14, 1981 Page 2 brochures gathered at the conference were contributed to the Historic Preservation file for future reference. It was also requested that we acquire a copy of the "blue book" regarding National Registry proceedings. Councilman Frost asked for Commission input on the future of the Chaffey Garcia House with regard to the options of retaining its present location or moving it to an appropriate alternate site. The Commission and the Councilman discussed this topic at length considering the pros and cons of each alternative. Motion: Moved by Strane, seconded by Kilmurray that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Re sp Ictfully submitted by: Wi liam L. Holley, 0i rect9r Community Services 0epartment Secretary, Historic Preservation Commission - 4 Chaffey- Garcia House Adjournment a March 16, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Adjourned Mee ting I. CALL TO ORDER. A special adjourned meeting on the General Plan of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on March 16, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present: Councilmen Tames C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Manager Lauren M. Wasserman, Deputy City Attorney Robert Dougherty, Community Development Director Jack Lam, City Planner Barry Hogan, Senior Planner Timothy Beedle, and City Engineer Lloyd Hobbs. 2. DISCUSSION OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN. Mr. Hogan presented the Etiwanda Specific Plan item. He stated that the revised general plan text stated that a Specific Plan should be developed for the Eti- wanda area and should address the following: a. Local Street and Circulation Patterns b. Community Character and Design Standards C. Neighborhood Park Plan d. Riding and Hiking Trails e. Commerical Center Location f. Land Use Adjustments. He said the cost to prepare such a Plan would be approximately $50,000 whether a consultant did the work or it was done by staff inhouse. It would require hiring two additional employees if it were done inhouse. He said the Council would have an opportunity to discuss this further at the time the 1981 -82 fiscal budget was prepared. A Resolution was presented for adoption with a map described as Exhibit "A" which detailed the boundary areas for the Specific Plan. The number assigned to the Resolution was 81 -35. The resolution also stated that no general plan amendment applications would be accepted within the Specific Area until the Plan has been adopted by the City Council; any request for a residential development within this area must be presented as a total development package; and any proposed development must he consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Hogan further stated that commercial development usually followed residential, therefore, it was not anticipated there would be any great amount of commercial acitivity. Also, because of the limited amount of sewer lines and the low water pressure in that area, it was doubtful there would be much residential acitivity in the next year. Adoption of Resolution No. 81 -35 puts into writing the policy of the City Council relative to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve and adopt Resolution No. 81 -35 and to consider the cost of the Specific Plan development through the budget process and that the work be done inhouse rather than by a consultant. Councilman Frost suggested that the southern boundaries be dropped south to Arrow, east to Etiwanda Avenue. Both Mikels and Palombo concurred with these changes. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: • Ron Tannebaum. Expressed his support for the Specific Plan concept.. * Donald King, representing Andrew Barmakian. He read his statement. A copy was submitted for the record. .j City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 2 There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Bridge asked how long would it be before we would know whether we could fund and get into this process. Mr. Wasserman stated that we are now in the budget process. Once Council approves the Resolution, it will be included in the budget. Mr. Bridge also asked if it were possible to do like the County had done with the A -1 -5 (agriculture) zoning by zoning areas to a "holding" zone. Mr. Dougherty said there were two requirements by State law: zoning and general plan. the law requires that the zoning be consistent with the general plan. The specific plan's purpose is to systematically implement the general plan within a given area. He said he would not recommend a "holding" zone while a specific plan was being con- sidered. He recommended that the zoning be made consistent with whatever the general plan designation is. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 to adopt Resolution No. 81 -35. City Clerk Wasserman read the Resolution in full. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -35 A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE bTIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Councilman Mikels said Mr. King brought up several points which should be considered during the specific plan review, such as the circulation around Base Line, section on urban design, and some of the measurable criteria. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels for Council to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the approval of the tract in the northern Etiwanda area and to set April 1 City Council meeting for the hearing. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. (Tentative Tract No. 11549 by Lewis Homes). Councilman Frost expressed concern of whether the current General Plan designations would be reasonable guidelines until the time the Specific Plan was adopted. 3. LAND USE ITEMS IN THE ETIWANDA /PLANNED COMMUNITIES AREAS. Following are the items which City Council had reviewed on March 9, but deferred to this meeting for consideration. Timothy Beadle presented the staff reports. Mr. Beadle stated that the items had been referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration along with changes made in the Victoria Plan. Changes had been made to be consistent with the Victoria Plan. a. Property located at approximately Rochester Avenue north and south of the Pacific Railroad tracks. (Known as Item "j" on the March 9 agenda). Was originally designated medium density; however, staff was recommending low- medium density which would be more suitable with the surrounding low density. Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Mikels to retain the low- medium density for the parcel on the north, and medium density (5 -15 du /ac) for the parcel on the south. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 3 Councilman Frost asked about the future of the lumber yard; if the area is zoned medium density, would the lumber yard be grandfathered until such time as the ownership changed or the use was changed. Mr. Hogan said it would be grandfathered until such time as the use discontinued. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 to retain the low- medium density for the northern parcel, and to designate medium density for the southern parcel. b. Property east of Day Creek Boulevard, north of Church Street. (Known as Item "e" on the March 9 agenda). Mr. Beedle said staff recommends that this area be designated commercial which is consistent with the Victoria Plan which was recommended and approved by the Planning Commission. Council expressed concern over the large area of commercial designation (approxi- mately 200 acres). Mayor Schlosser asked if this were viable with the potential of the regional shopping center and the rest designated commercial? Mr. Hogan said the same concern was expressed by the Planning Commission, and one of the suggested conditions of approval for the Planned Community was the applicant must phase his development of regional related from Foothill to Miller Street first, then subsequent phasing would be from Miller Street to Base Line. The character of that development would be residential kind of office use. Those would be con- ditions of approval of the Planned Community which would tie the applicant down to some very specific kinds of things that he can or cannot do. The final Resolution would come before Council for consideration and approval. Councilman Palombo stated that he did not like the idea of increasing the commercial. Councilman Mikels requested the language for the condition for monitoring the phasing development. Mr. Hogan read the following condition which the Planning Commission adopted as a staff guidance for the preparation of the final condition: "The development process and regional demand for the regional related area shall be periodically reviewed to determine the continued viability of the amount of acreage proposed. This review shall be not more than three years apart and shall begin after the opening of the regional center." Mr. Hogan said the Planning Commission was satis- fied with this language of the conditions for monitoring the development. Councilman Mikels concurred that this wording would put in the safeguards that were necessary. Motion: Moved by Palumbo to designate this area as office. For lack of a second, the motion failed. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to change this from high density to commercial and regional related with the stipulation of a full review. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the hearing was closed. Motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation was approved unanimously 5 -0. City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 4 c. Parcel located at East Avenue and the Pacific Railroad tracks by the I -15 freeway. Currently designated low density. Has been requested that Council consider a neighborhood commercial designation. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to leave as low residential designa- tion until after the completion of the Specific Plan. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking was: * Mrs. Kleinman. She requested that Council go back to the Sedway /Cooke Plan and return the ten acres to a neighborhood commercial designation as originally approved by the Planning Commission. She said the area did not lend itself to residential land use. There being no further response, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 to retain the low density designation. d. Parcel north of Church, east of Day Creek Boulevard. Mr. Hogan said this was previously indicated as high density. However, last Thursday the Planning Commission saw revisions of the Victoria Plan and felt a designation of commercial would be better, and to designate the parcel next to it as high density. It is presently indicated as office. This would put the higher use next to the proposed water amenity. Councilman Frost said he totally objected to a high density in this area. Council questioned why this change was requested. Mr. Hogan said the applicant indicated that where the high density was originally proposed was doomed to poor planning, it had no amenity to draw from. Therefore, he said the high density would be more appropriate along the western edge of the lake. Councilman Frost said that without knowing what the lake was going to look like, he could not visualize this. Mr. Lam said that in effect what has happened is the density has shifted from the corridor to the lake. Councilman Frost said he questioned whether the density should be there at all. He felt it should remain regional related commercial. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to retain the residential use for this area. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palomobo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Frost. Mayor Schlosser requested Council to reconsider a decision made on March 9 on the property located at Foothill east of Rochester. Applicant has requested a low- medium density (5 -8 du /ac), but Council determined to leave this an office designation. Mr. Dougherty said there had to be a motion for reconsideration which had to be approved by at least three members of the Council. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Mikels to reconsider the previous action for the parcel at Foothill east of Rochester. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Schlosser. NOES: Frost, Palombe, Bridge. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 5 Additional Individual Requests for the Etilia-nda/Planncd Communities Area, * Charles V. Cummins, 1645 N. Laurel Avenue, Upland. Requested the zoning for the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard remain commercial. Councilman Mikels said this should wait to be addressed by the Specific Plan. Council concurred with the Planning Commission's designation for this property pending the completion of the Specific Plan. * Mr. R. R. Smith, 34 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills. Requested that the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road should remain commercial. Council concurred this should remain as designated until the completion of the Specific Plan. * Randall Lewis, Lewis Homes. Requested that the density for Terra Vista be changed from medium to medium -high density. Council concurred that this should be handled after the total plan for Terra Vista has been submitted. * James Banks, 13181 Victoria, Etiwanda. Requested that 15 acres north and south of the Pacific Railroad tracks between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue be considered for very low density pending the Specific Plan. He felt such a designation would protect the whole area until the specific plan was completed. Council expressed the draft General Plan did what he wanted. * Betty McNay. Said Mr. Banks'parcel is bounded by Southern Pacific Railroad. This area is made up of many small parcels. Feels this area should have a specific plan to include all these small parcels. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing for further discussions on the Etiwanda area. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palumbo to approve the recommendations by the Planning Commission as modified by the City Council for the Etiwanda area. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser. NOES: Frost. (Councilman Frost said he did not completely concur with the Sedway/ Cooke Plan), Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the General Plan Land and Use designations as shown on the map as recommended by the Planning Commission modified by the City Council for the areas within the proposed planned communities areas, Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Individual Requests from the CucamonR Area * Anne Calinsky. Requested consideration of the parcel at the southeast corner of Archibald and Church which is designated medium density. She said an office designation would be more compatible with the surrounding area. * Lloyd Michael, owner of the property, felt the property should be zoned office. * Bob Mill, owner of the property, felt the property should be zoned office. * Sharon Romero, felt an office designation would create more traffic. Best designation would be medium density. Councilman Bridge said he would like to postpone item so he could study the actions of the Planning Commission. Council concurred, City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 6 *Gerry Koski, 9268 Layton Street. Represented over 200 homeowners just north of 6th Street who were concerned with the development south of 6th Street between Hellman and Archibald. Council concurred they would they would look into this and return on March 30 to discuss this and to make a determination. * Roy Ratliff, 9405 Hellman Avenue. He has five acres that runs along the flood control channel. His property has been divided between low- medium density and industrial. He requested a consideration for the entire property be zoned medium density. Council concurred to return this item on March 30 for a determination. * Nacho Gracia, 10360 Humbolt Avenue. Speaking regarding the La Manchia Golf Course. He said the owner of the golf course was going to donate a portion of the property for parks. Me. Beedle said that Mr. Milliken, the owner, had said he would consider a pro- posal to donate up to ten acres of land for park use. Council directed staff to look into this item. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present, Individual Requests from the Alta Loma Area. * Stan Sievers, 6481 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park. Requested that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to designate their property very low density. Property was located northeast of Beryl and Almond, "Valleyview Mesa Ranch." Council directed staff to provide Council with information as to the Planning Commission's actions. Council concurred it would be helpful to look at the pro- perty and to bring back on March 30 for a determination. * Roger Sudduth, 5695 Canistel Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. Said he was present to discuss the proposed Neever tract buffer on east end of Wilson Street just east of Chaffey College. He said they had retained Charles Doskow to represent them. He said he simply was present to speak and will come back on the 30th for a determination. * Sharon Romero. She addressed the issue of park credits being given for bridle trails and wanted to see the practice stopped. Council said they would take this item up with the Parks Element discussion on the 30th of March. * Anne Calinsky. She requested the removal of the Trails System from the General Plan. * Pam Henry, felt the trails system should be left in the General Plan. * Chris Benoit, emphasized the safety that trails bring for horse riders, and re- quested the item remain in the General Plan. * Bruce Chitiea said he concurred with Ms. Calinsky. Council concurred this item should be looked into and discussed during the Parks Element on March 30. City Council Minutes March 16, 1981 Page 7 a Diana Hoard, The Planning Center, 240 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. , Requested consideration of the 97 acres at the north end of Hermosa which is currently designated entirely for parks. Councilman Frost, with Bridge concurring, said that we should keep the park designation. Any development in this area should be unique utilizing clustering or other such considerations, Council concurred this should come back on March 30 for further discussion. a Paul Burns. Requested that the park designation at Foothill and east of Archibald be placed back in the original area. , Mr. Hogan said that at the request of the owners of the property, the park site was relocated at Central School on Archibald along with the policy to locate parks adjacent to schools for park facilities. What Mr. Burns was asking was to have the park site removed so he could proceed with his development so he will not have to revise his map. He is willing to designate park site land on a future site. Councilman Mikels said that not all of the Council had read Mr. Burn's letter and that they should consider this on the 30th and to direct staff for more input regarding this item. Council concurred to bring this back on the 30th. 5, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER ELEMENTS. It was decided to discuss this item at the March 23, 1981 meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk March 23, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting on the General Plan by the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on March 23, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Schlosser who led the flag salute. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Manager Lauren M. Wasserman; Deputy City Attorney Robert Dougherty; Community Development Director Jack Lem; City Planner Barry Hogan; Senior Planner Timothy Beedle; and City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs. 2. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SUPER - ELEMENT. Mr. Hogan presented an overview. He said the intent of this Super - Element was to encourage the identification and management of the City's diverse natural resources. He said there were five areas for consideration: (1) Land Resources (2) Water Resources (3) Plant and Animal Resources (4) Open Space (5) Energy Included in this element are two mandatory general plan elements: Open Space and Conservation. Also, an optional Energy Element is included. Mayor Schlosser said he had a comment regarding Water Resources. He said he wanted to see us protect areas that are capable of replenishing ground water supplied. He said we had the Cucamonga and Chino rain water basins below us, and he hoped we would put enough water back into the ground so we would not have to transport our water from hundreds of miles away. Councilman Frost commented whether energy conservation as it applies to building standards should be handled during the General Plan process or to handle later with modifications to the building standards. Mr. Hogan said that Council would get into details in how to implement the energy conservation element through a specific ordinance rather than through the General Plan. Councilman Mikels pointed out that at a recent SCAG meeting, they had reviewed some regulations that had been promulgated from the State Energy Commission specifically designed to modify the Uniform Building Code to provide standards for energy reten- tion, etc. He said he has not followed this along to know what has happened, but that the matter may be taken out of the city's hands. He said the changes which were suggested by the Energy Commission.would increase the cost of a house by approxi- mately $7,000. Councilman Frost said we should go on record stating that we have not done enough at this point and want to actively pursue doing more in energy conservation. Councilman Bridge said he would like to see the city become more active, along with others, to make a mandatory utilization of on -site disposal because a tremendous amount of water is sent down the lines to the Chino area when it should go through our own purification into our own basin. He recommended that the City Engineer get with the General Manager of the Cucamonga County Water District to see what could be done. City Council Minutes March 23, 1981 Page 2 Councilman Mikels had a questions on page 195 of the draft General Plan starting He asked how we were going t� regulate and implement the following: Demolition of existing housing stock and replacement with new residential construction shall be undertaken only when it can be demonstrated that renovation /rehabilitation is less energy efficient based on a life - cycle cost analysis which considers the embodied energy of the existing structure. He said he felt this should be deleted from the text. Council concurred. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the Environmental Resources Super Element. Councilman Frost recommended that on page 174 the section after the asterisk should a3so be deleted from the General Plan. Section states " *particularly from residents in the hillside area. Council concurred with this deletion. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Doug Hone, 7333 Hellman Avenue. He said he had concerns as to the overall plan as to the compatibility of the actual water capabilities. He said he would like to see other street landscaping requirements which required less water. There being no further comments from the public, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion to approve the Environmental Resources Super - Element to include the changes on page 174 and 195 was carried unanimously 5 -0. 3. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SUPER - ELEMENT. Mr. Beedle gave an overview of the Element. He said the intent of the Element was to identify potential hazards, or hazard areas, both natural and man- created, and to regulate land development to minimize the impact of a given hazard. Nine areas are considered: Geologic Hazards Seismic Hazards Flood Hazards Fire Hazards Noise Air Quality Crime Prevention Emergency Services Miscellaneous Hazards (wind and eucalyptus windrows) He said that within this Super - Element were sub - elements of land use, circulation, housing, public facilities (parks and recreation), and community design. Councilman Mikels stated that the section on page 224 of the draft General Plan, second paragraph from the bottom of the page, "Any major subdivision, emergency facility, or other type of structure that attracts numbers of people, is open to the general public, or provides essential community services should not be per- mitted within a Fault Hazard Special Study Zone, as shown in Figure V -3." lie stated that this language would apply more appropriately to the Alquist - Priolo Zone only, and there was nothing for the other inferred fault areas. It was agreed that staff should come back with a revised policy to include the Alquist- Priolo Zone and to add another section to address the inferred fault area. Councilman Frost said that when referring to future locations for fire stations, there should be the same type of disclaimer added as we did with parks and schools, that it does not mean the location is owned by the Fire District. City Council Minutes March 23, 1981 Page 3 Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. • Jeff Sceranka expressed that there was further need to investigate the Red Hill Fault. Local geologists claim there is a problem while others claim there is not. He felt a determination sbes1d be made. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve the Public Health and Safety Super - Element with the following changes: - Staff come back with revised language for Inferred Fault Area and Alquist - Priolo Zone. - Disclaimer added to fire station locations. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0, Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconved at 8:30 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. 4. EMENT. CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER - EL Mr. Hogan stated that there were other components to this element which the Council must consider. These included the Housing, Circulation, Public Facilities (parks and recreation and trails), and community design. In the original plan by Sedway /Cooke, the residential holding capacity was 54,611 dwelling units. However, the Planning Commission reduced this to 52,168. This would mean a total estimated population of approximately 140,000. The meeting was turned over to Mr. Beedle who went over the housing programs. Mr. Beedle stated that the State Department of Housing and Community Development completed their review of our Housing Element with two main suggestions: 1. To clearly define the existing and future housing needs of the community. 2. To spell out in detail, programs which the City will use to strive to meet the identified housing needs. Mr. Beedle said most of the home programs that ask for city participation on a level where major commitments have been tied into the Community Development Block Grant. This would be asking for a commitment in these areas. He said we are now within an Urgan County Block Grant Program with the County of San Bernardino. He said San Bernardino County commits 30% of their block grant funds toward housing. Each city can participate at their own level. Although we don't have exact numbers, we are probably looking at the same type of commitment when we get our own entitlement classification which is anticipated to begin in 1982. Councilman Frost said there were a lot of budget implications included. He asked if we adopted this, could we live with these budget requirements? Mr. Hogan said there were budget considerations and if Council wished to consider the housing program as recommended by the Planning Commission in its present form, there will be certain commitments that Council must make in the area of housing during 1981 -82 which would have to be taken up as budget considerations during the budget process. Councilman Mikels stated that we have a three year Block Grant contract which was signed in June 1978. We have precluded use of our population as an entitlement city until that three years expire. Mr. Beedle said at the time this cycle ends which would be June of 1982, they will begin another three year period. Its our estimate that we will be qualified to begin our own three year Block Grant cycle at that time, In July 1982 we will trans- City Council Minutes ' March 23, 1981 Page 4 fer from County operation to City operation. on another subject, Councilman Frost said that the disclaimer by the school districts -- in some instances the school district does own the land. He said some type of adjustment has to be made in those cases. Councilman Frost recommended that the last sentence on page 73 of the draft General Plan be deleted which reads, "In order to prevent a situation where workers cannot find nearby housing and must therefore commute longer distances, the City shall encourage the increase in the amount of residentially developable land" He said when the need occurred, a future City Council could add this, but £or a written stated policy at this time, he felt it should not be there. Council concurred. Mr. Hogan presented the issue on the Industrial Area. He said there was particular concern when the Planning Commission was considering revisions to the Industrial portion. The Planning Commission added under the Section General Industrial (rail served) the following statement, "Through the Industrial Specific Plan, greater definition of uses will be established within this Land Use category in the area east of Haven, south of Arrow Highway, and north of Seventh Street. Examples of uses allowed within this area would include forge shops, steel milling facilities, plastic plants, steel fabrication facilities, welding shops, wood working plants, and heavy machine shops." Mr. Hogan went on to say that there should still be greater delineation for the particular area that this is addressed to. Specifically the area south of Arrow down to the existing Atchinson, Topeka, and Sante Fe Railroad, He said most of the uses which he read in the added section were already operating in this area. He said perhaps Council would want to consider amending the Land Use Map to indicate this area as heavy industrial. It would more appropriately reflect the existing uses that are there. He said he recommended in implementing this that the text of the Cenral Plan remain the same, and the specifics of what kinds of uses could be developed and how they are to be developed would be addressed in the Industrial Specific Plan. Councilman Palombo suggested that the boundaries for this area be dropped to Fourth Street and then the whole area could be considered as heavy industrial. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Those addressing Council were: * Paul Mindrum. He said there are areas south of the railroad tracks that should be considered heavy industrial. * Ben Wick, had ten acres at Rochester and 8th Street. He said he moved here because it was zoned heavy industrial. He encouraged Council not to be bothered with the title "heavy industrial." He said it does not mean a "dirty city." He encouraged Council to consider expanding the heavy industrial area as far as possible. * Dean McGinnis, General Latex and Chemical Company, had eleven and half acres north of Jersey Boulevard, He said he located here because it was a heavy industrial area. To change this would create some problems. He said chemical operations are clean, but need to be zoned heavy industrial. * Doug Hone, Chamber member, said the Chamber has not been able to have a Board meeting on this issue. He questioned changing the zone when there was a company the size of Ameron within this boundary area. * Betty McNay, realtor, cautioned the Council that heavy industrial users did not want to be placed in an area with light users, nor the other way around. City Council Minutes March 23, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Lam said that if this change were approved, it should be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration. He said they did not consider the option of designating this area heavy industrial. He said there was a discussion about heavy industrial users recognizing the character of the area. But it was to be handled through the Industrial Specific Plan and the conditional use permit pro- cedure. Councilman Bridge said this area was looked upon by those on the incorporation committee with a great deal of favor because of the potential revenues which would be received from this area for the city. He felt as much area as possible should be zoned for heavy industrial. But, that we should be selective about the types of uses which came into the city. He felt this should go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to return item to the Planning Commission for consideration of a heavy industrial designation for the area. Mr. Dougherty said that once the Planning Commission considers this, the Council is still free to make any kind of determination it wishes. Mr. Sceranka, a Planning Commissioner, was asked if, in his opinion, the Planning Commission had considered this item. Mr. Sceranka explained what the Planning Commission had considered. He said they did consider heavy industrial uses in the general industrial (rail served) category, and determined they were permitted under the existing general plan terminology and so recommended it be adopted by Council. He said Council's consideration of what to call it: general industrial (rail served) or heavy industrial, doesn't require the Planning Commission going through the whole process again. In his viewpoint, its just a terminology issue and does not see why the Planning Commission needs to go through it again. He said the Council understands the issue, and they would simply be going over the same issue to determine what to call it. The City Attorney asked Mr. Sceranka, is it your opinion then that in affect the Planning Commission has considered the subject matter of which has been discussed. Mr. Sceranka said they have considered the subject matter of heavy industrial use in the general industrial (rail served) area. Mr. Dougherty said that based upon what Mr. Sceranka has said, and if the Planning Commission has considered the subject matter, then the Council does not have to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. Councilmen Bridge and Palombo both withdrew the motion. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palumbo to change the designation of land use within the orange boundaries from general industrial (rail served) to heavy industrial and to remove the double asterisk section made by the Planning Commission on page 44 of the General Plan under General Industrial (rail served). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: None. ABSTAINED: Schlosser (his business was located in the area). Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to refer back to the Planning Commission for consideration other areas which should be included in this same classification. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Council directed staff to bring back revised language for the heavy industrial section of the General Plan. City Council Minutes March 23, 1981 Page 6 * Sharon Romero. Requested that Council consider the section, Community Design. She said the Advisory Commission spent considerable time discussing this and came up with many suggestions. She said this has not been discussed at any public meeting, and felt the issue should be addressed before 10:00 p.m. so people could address the issue. Council concurred with her. Mr. Hogan said what information was included in the general plan now should be adopted now. He said it would be difficult to incorporate major revisions in the text now, but Council could come back at a later time for an amendment. Or, they could removed this from the general plan since this section is nets require- ment. The Planning Commission felt it was better to have something now than nothing at all. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk I. CALL TO ORDER. March 18, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, March 18, 1981. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in the flag salute. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present: City Manager Luaren H. Wasserman, Assistant City Manager James Robinson, City Attorney Samuel Crowe, City Planner Barry Hogan, Community Services Director William Holley, and Finance Director Harry Empey. Absent: Community Development Director Jack Lam and City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs. Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Frost to approve the minutes of March 4, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. An Executive Session will follow after the adjournment of the meeting. b. Staff requested that item 5 -C be removed from the Agenda. "Request to consider a Resolution establishing elective boundaries." C. Councilman Mikels announced that last Saturday, March 14, both he and the City Manager met with Assemblyman Jim Cramer to discuss the financial pro- blems which would be encountered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga if we lost bail -out assistance from the State. He felt they were successful in getting Mr. Cramer to understand the city's positon. d. Mr. Wasserman briefed the Council on the Board of Supervisors meeting which was held on Monday, March 16. He said the Supervisors were discussing the division of park bond money with the cities. He said that 51% of the cities in the County had to approve the formula for dividing the money. He said there was no agreement. He said the funds will be lost if they cannot agree. However, it is hoped that this can be salvaged although at the moment it is doubtful since the State has received many differing reports. Councilman Bridge said it would be appropriate and beneficial to authorize the City Manager the power to negotiate for the Council. He said one of the problems at the hearing was the city manager's did not have this power. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palumbo to authorize the City Manager and or Mayor the power to negotiate for the City in trying to reach an agree- ment regarding the division of park bond money so the funds will not be lost entirely. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. e. Councilman Palombo said he had attended a meeting at which March Fong Eu presented a plan to be followed at National elections which would help elimin- ate the problem encountered this past election when the polls in the East closed and candidates conceded before the polls in California were closed. It has been estimated that a great many did not vote because of this. Her suggesttion is for the polls to be open for a period of three hours on Monday and on Tuesday to close the polls at 4:00 p.m. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -3 -18 for $315,216.97. b. Request authorization to complete sale of City land to San Bernardino County Flood Control District for construction of Demens Channel. c. Acceptance of North Town Street and Drainage Improvements. Recommend that Council accept as complete the North Town Street and Drainage Improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion and re- lease Performance Bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE NORTH TOWN STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVE- MENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. d. Quitclaim Deeds for abandonment of Easements for Chestnut Street. Recommend that Council approve the abandonment of easements granted to the City by Victor Cherbak for Chestnut Street. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AND EXECUTING A QUITCLAIM DEED. e. Request to set for public hearing on April 1, 1981 an appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 9441. f. Request to set for public hearing on April 1, 1981 for an appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 11609. g. Added item: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion. Parcel Map 4869 located on the southeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian. Owner: C /L, Inc. Faithful Performance Bond (road) for $45,000. Tract 9403 located north of Highland and east of Mayberry. Owner: Olympus Pacific. Recommended that bonds be release and notices of completion be filed by the City Engineer. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4A. Item was delayed since public notices had been sent out stating the meeting would be at 7:30 p.m. Council concurred to go to the next item first. 4B. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. Staff report by Barry Hogan. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 139. ORDINANCE NO. 139 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL PENALTY FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR AS INDICATED ON A CITATION ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 3 Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Ordinance No. 139. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Councilman Palombo stated that since the problems specifically require police power, he felt the employees involved should have some type of informal training. 4A. MOBILE HOME RENT REVIEW. Mr. Robinson turned the meeting over to the attorney representing five of the mobile home parks: Alta Laguna, Alta Vista, Chapparel Heights, The Pines, and Ramona Villa. Mr. Steven White, attorney, presented Council with petitions from residents of the five parks totaling 474 signatures. He read the petition: "We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, residing in the Mobile Home Park know as , located at , where we rent spaces to accoamodate our mobile homes. Due to continuing rent increases, which always seem to exceed the cost of living index and annual rate of inflation, we hereby petition the City of Rancho Cucamonga to enact an ordinance establishing a rent control or stabliliza- tion board to review past, present, and future rent increases to determine if they are justifiable, both to the owner and to the tenant, and if they are not justifiable to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. Whereas, we feel the park owner is entitled to realize a reasonable return from his investment, there are instances where that return might be termed unreasonable, or excessive. This creates undue financial hardship on many of us who are living on fixed incomes that could cause some of us to seek County, State or Federal Aid. Relocation of our homes is not the answer as the relocation cost is financially insurmountable, costing from $2500 to $5000 depending on the size of our homes, distance of the move, etc." Mayor Schlosser asked that spokesmen for the residents speak now. (There were an estimate of approximately 250 park residents present). * Harry Pate, Alta Laguna resident. He expressed there has been an increase of approximately 25% per year. * Mr. Glen Bray, Chapparel Height's resident. He said they were told that the last rate increase was because of the increase cost of utilities. He felt the owners had a protection with Proposition 13 since their taxes did not go up. * Mr. Verne Maxie, representative for Supervisor Cal MacElwain on the Senior Citizens Commission and employee of the Gas Company. He addressed the issue of the senior citizen who was on fixed income. Councilman Frost asked Mr. Maxie if the County was taking a position in this since he said he represented Cal MacElwain. Mr. Maxie said no, he was a representative of Mr. MacElwain's for the Senior Citizens Commission. The opinions expressed were his own. * Mr. Sampson, Alta Laguna resident. Addressed the issue of the widows and the hardship on them. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for comments from the Park Owners and their representatives. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 4 * Brent Swanson, attorney representing the park owners. He emphasized that in order to implement rent control procedures, the Council must make the following findings: 1. There is a low vacancy factor. 2. There are rapidly rising rents which is a consistent pattern in the community, not in just one or two parks. 3. Rents rising are not attributable to other normal economic factors, but are attributable to the low vacancy factor. 4. There is substantial economic detriment being done to the residents. * Howard Sunderland, owner of Chapparel Heights. * Dale Tate, park manager of Alta Laguna. * William Semain, owner of Alta Vista. * Mrs. Carli Crowder, owner of Casa Valente. * Betty Yukech, manager of Casa Valente. * Virgil Payne, representing Mr. Williams, owner of Ramona Villa. * Jim Koski, 9580 Horseshoe Bar Road, Western Mobile Home Association. He presented ways which other cities and counties have used to help resolve the problem: a. Can give priority status to mobile home tenants to receive Section 8 rent subsidy monies. b. Create proper zoning and encourage development of more mobile home parks. (San Diego is a leader in this in the State). C. Take redevelopment money assigned for affordable housing to sub- sidize rents. (City of Garden Grove has done this). d. Counties get into equity partnership arrangements with mobile home owners and help subsidize rents by equity partnership arrangement. e. Block grants coming from federal government. Use these funds to develop programs for mobile home or apartment tenants. After allowing time for rebuttals, Mayor Schlosser closed the public portion of the meeting. Councilman Palumbo suggested that a rent review committee be established with re- presentatives from the park residents (8), representatives from the park owners (2), council representatives (2), and representative from the Advisory Commission M. Councilman Mikels suggested that Council continue this item for two weeks in order to study the various alternatives. Councilman Bridge stated he would rather rely upon staff to search out the alter- natives and come back to Council for a decision. He felt it was Council's responsibility to make these harder decisions without delegating 1t. Councilman Frost suggested a compromise -- that a council representative and staff representative meet with one park owner and one park resident. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to continue the discussion to April 1, 1981 and to make a committee selection at that time. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Palombo. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 5 Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m, with all members of the Council and staff present. 4C. REQUEST TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE OMNITRANS ROUTES TO MEET SB -620 REQUIREMENTS. Staff report by Jim Robinson. Mr. Robinson reported on the staff's recommended changes for the current level of service for Routes 50 and 60. • Route 50, Alta Loma - Cucamonga. Eliminate service up Hellman and Layton and an Base Line. Extend service on Foothill to include a portion of Baker and Arrow. Eliminate Sunday service. • Route 60, Chaffey College. Retain the current route and current 40 minute Frequency of service. Staff would like more time to consider and evaluate appropriate hours of operation. • Dial -A -Ride. Retain existing level of service of one vehicle from 9a.m. to 5 p.m. seven days a week. • Direct staff to periodically evaluate and report to the Council the ridership and fare box return for Route 50, Route 60, and Dial -A -Ride. Mr. Bob Chafin, General Manager of Omnitrans was present. He made a counter proposal with changes in the Route 50 in particular. Councilman Mikels stated that this was the third routing system which Omnitrans has proposed. He suggested that council adopt the route as proposed by staff to start with and to modify this later if we feel it is appropriate after studying the new proposal by Omnitrans. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve staff's recommendation for route changes and to implement the services July 1, 1981. In the meantime staff should evaluate the recommended hours of operation and Omnitrans new pro- posal and bring back to the City Council any recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4D. ZONE CHANCE N0. 80 -12 - BARMARIAN. A request for a zone change from A-1-5 (limited agriculture, 5 acre minimum lot size) to R -1 -20 (single family residential, 20,000 sq, ft. minimum lot size) for 24.36 acres of land located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN 202 - 181 -07. Staff report by Barry Hogan. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 140. ORDINANCE NO. 140 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 202- 181-07 FROM A -1 -5 TO R -1 -20 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALMOND ROAD, EAST OF CARNELIAN STREET. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion carried 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Schlosser set April 1 for second reading. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 6 4E. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. Designation of street tree plantings on Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue as a historic landmark. Staff report by Bill Holley. Councilman Bridge asked what Caltrans would do when the street needed to be widened. Mr. Holley said that Coltrane was at the meeting when the Historic Commission held its public hearing. Their question was why would the Council want to save the trees. Mr. Holley said there were several alternatives: could put the trees within a center median or perhaps they could divide a future high- way. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 141. ORDINANCE NO. 141 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE PATH AND EUCALYPTUS STREET PLANTINGS ON HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE AS A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY, AND THEREFORE, DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Councilman Frost if this referred to trees on both the north and south. He said the palms do not go all the way to East Avenue. He felt there should be some type of refinement in the ordinance. Mr. Holley stated it was the intent to give the entire section a special treat- ment and to recommend it cover any kind of tree in that area. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Schlosser set April 1, 1981 for second reading. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. A REQUEST BY THE INLAND EMPIRE CULTURAL FOUNDATION Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. The Inland Empire Cultural Foundation had been retained by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors under contract to conduct an assessment of needs in the field of cultural arts and, from this, develop a county -wide comprehensive arts plan. This was being done under a grant from the California Arts Council as part of its State /Local Partnership Program. Mr. Jim Hardesti, from the Cultural Foundation was present to answer any questions of the Council. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to continue this in order to look into the request and the Resolution since they had not seen this prior to the meeting. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palumbo. NOES: Frost, Bridge, and Schlosser. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palumbo to turn down the request and to turn down any money from the grant. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser, NOES: Mikels, Frost, Councilman Frost stated he would support to turn down the request of support, but felt if there were monies coming, the city should have their share. City Council Minutes March 18, 1981 Page 7 5B. REQUEST TO RECONSIDER REVERSION TO ACREAGE FOR TRACTS 9399 AND 9400 NORTH SIDE OF BANYAN BETWEEN CARNELIAN AND BERYL. Staff report by Barry Hogan. Last year the City Council took action to revert to acreage Tracts 9399 and 9400 because the ocners of the tract had allowed the improvement agreement and bond to lapse on the County approved tracts. However, a quirk in the Subdivision Map Act requires that the signature of the property owner is necessary in order to record a reversion map. The owner in this case does not wish to sign. Mr. Jerry Wilson, engineer for the project, was present to answer any questions that Council might have. After some discussion, Council agreed that three months would be reasonable time for the applicant to secure his loans. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to hold off any action for a period of three months in order to see if bonds are reestablished and to remove the reversion if the bonds are submitted within three months which would be July 1. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: Frost. 5C. REQUEST TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ELECTIVE BOUNDARIES. Staff had requested that item be removed from the Agenda. RE69LUTiON NO. 81 33 (removed) v4R£SOLUTION- BR-TME ^ Rmele OP-- REBi9N-RAR'HBR, TiIAN-£ AUHTY,- IHHRAHHtI£S- �{7-- ESTa1B- SD. REQUEST FOR A PRE - BUDGET STUDY SESSION. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. Staff was requesting a pre- budget study time with the Council. It was decided by Council to set aside Thursday, April 2, with April 9 as an alternative date, pending confirmation from Councilman Bridge the following day. The meeting would be held in the Lion's Park Community Center at 5:30 p.m. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Mr. Crowe stated that he did not have anything to report. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to an Executive Session to reconvene on March 23 at 7:00 p.m. for the General Plan public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk April 15, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, April 15, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in the flag salute. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also Present: Assistant City Manager Jim Robinson (Acting City Manager /Clerk); Deputy City Attorney Bob Dougherty; Director of Community Developement Jack Lam; City Engineer Lloyd Hobbs; Director of Community Services Bill Holley. Absent: City Manager Lauren Wasserman Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve the minutes of March 16, 1981 and March 23, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Councilman Mikels reported on the actions taken by the Executive Committee of the Southern California Association of Governments. b. Mayor Schlosser announced a blood drive on April 20, 1981, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m, at the Rancho Cucamonga Library. c. Mayor Schlosser announced that Item 5C was removed from the agenda and Item 5D was moved up to just before Public Hearing. He also announced the addition of Resolution No. 81 -49. d. Council requested that all those wishing to give their input regarding the Assessment District, which would be discussed under Public Hearings, to fill out the request forms provided. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR At Councilmen's Palombo's request, Itema a, e, and f were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion /clarification. •a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -4 -15 for $1,536,413.63 b. Refer claim by By Ekwall, Lila Ekwall, Ed Stevens and Denise Stevens to City Attorney for handling. c. Refer claim by Marcelo Julian Payes to the City Attorney for handling. d. Alcoholic Beverage license for Red Hill Liquor by Long Sang Lee, 8939 Foothill for Off -Sale General. e. Akeehe } fe- Beverage- bieenee- for- 64eeiler- Femf+y- Sleek - Renee -by Forsco Manage- ment Corporation, 9588 Baseline Road. f.. Aelherfeel fen - far -6fly- Manager- le- eeeend- eke- '- Afler- the -:ex Revolt" Symposium in Sacramento on April 22, 1981. g. Agreement with Caltrans for Modification of Traffic Signal at Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Avenue. Project was originally proposed by Caltrans last year and funds were included in the city's 1980 -81 budget. Current estimated cost is $14,000 with the city's share being $7,000 plus a LOX contingency. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Two RESOLUTION NO. 81 -41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. h. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement from Brooks Products, Inc. for Director Review 80-41. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM BROOKS PRODUCTS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. I. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contact and Lien Agreement from Ronald W. Nunnally and Susan L. Nunnally, husband and wife as joint tenants for 8880 Strang Lane. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM RONALD W. NUNNALLY AND SUSAN L. NUNNALLY, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. J. Award of Carnelian Street Storm Drain Project. The low bidder was K.E.C. Company at $272,306.00. The engineer's estimate was $344,781 for the project; this represents 21% below the engineer's estimate. Reco- mmendation: It is recommended that the Council award the contract to K.E.C. Company at $272,306.00, authorize execution of the contract, and authorize the contract amount plus 10% for contingencies from the Storm Drain Fee Account. k. Acceptance of Tract Map No. 11700. Located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Haven. Subdivider: Dann Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT NAP NO. 11700 (TENTATIVE TRACT NAP NO. 11700). 1. Acceptance of Map, Bonds, and Agreement for Parcel Map 4762. Located at the southwest corner of Sixth and Turner consisting of 19 lots on 27.6 acres of land. Owner: Westwards Properties. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 4762 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 4762), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Three m. A Resolution expressing opposition to Senate Rill 314 which supports binding arbitration. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO SENATE HILL 314. n. Set for Public Hearing on May 6, 1981 the Victoria Planned Community. o. Set for Public Hearing on May 6, 1981 the Street Name Ordinance. Motion: Moved by Mikels to approve the Consent Calendar with Items a, a and f removed for discussion. Seconded by Palombo. Motion Carried 5 -0. Item "e" Alcoholic Beverage License for Sizzler Family Steak House - Councilman Palombo stated that the response to questions 9 and 10 was not clear and requested clarification. Mr. Robinson stated that he would follow -up on this. Item "a" Approval of Warrants - Councilman Palombo requested that Warrants 6531, 6537, 6540, 6559, 6564, 6585, 6362, 6633, and 6635 be removed. Motion: Moved by Palombo that warrants be approved subject to confirmation of the warrants indicated above by the Finance Committee. Seconded by Frost. Motion Carried 5 -0 . ADDED ITEM Resolution No. 81 -49 Honoring and Acknowledging Leonard Gorczyca Councilman Jim Frost read the Resolution in its entirety and expressed the Council and City's appreciation for contributions that Leonard Gorczyca had made to the community . RESOLUTION NO. 81 -49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND ACRNOW- LEDING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LEONARD GORCZYCA TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Motion: Moved by Frost that Resolution 81 -49 be adopted and staff be directed to provide a copy of a joint Resolution for signatures of full Council and Historical Preservation Commission to be presented to Lila Gorczyca at a later date. Seconded by Mikels. Motion carried 5 -0. Councilman Frost also suggested that a City Plaque be presented to Mrs. Gorczyca in appreciation of Leonard Gorczyca's contributions to the community, and further to Laura Jones and Jorge Garcia in recognition of their service as members of the initial Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Frost to consider presenting City Plaques to Mrs. Gorczyca, Laura Jones and Jorge Garcia. Seconded by Mikels. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. SD F"EST BY FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT RE: THE UPCOMING ELECTION (This item moved up from City Manager's Staff Reports). Marge Stamm, stated she represented the "Friends of the Foothill Fire District ", a committee formed to help generate support for the ballot proposition being proposed by the Foothill Fire District in order to obtain funding to maintain the current level of fire service. She reviewed current and future funding needs of City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Four the District, noting that if the ballot issue is passed, it would cost a maximum of $y5.00 per year per single dwelling. She stated that the Citizen's Advisory Commission and the Chamber of Commerce had already indicated their support, and Char. she was asking the City to also give its endorsement. Bob Lee reviewed some the present and anticipated funding cutbacks and the need for additional funds to maintain the present levels of service. Michael Jauron Director of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chanter did indeed endorse the effort of the "Friends of the Foothill Fire District" and he read a memo from the Chamber which had been mailed to all of the members of the City Council. Motion: Moved by Bridge that staff be directed to prepare an appropriate Resolution, as an indication of the City's Endorsement of the Proposition. Motion Carried: 5 -0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 11609 AND 9441 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission con- ditions for tentative tract maps 11609 and 9441 by Mark III and Bob Jensen Homes, He stated that since both tracts are being handled by the same firm and deal with basically the same issue, they were being considered as one item. Mr. Hubbs indicated the condition being appealed is the construction of the Alta Loma Channel which is contiguous to the two tracts. He discussed the flooding problems and the reason for this condition, noting that this condition has been imposed on all tracts along the channel. In summary he stated it was staff's opinion that the tract is subject to flood hazard without the required improvements and that we would be unable to find, as specified in Ordinance 24, that the site could be free of flood hazard without those facilities. le stated that Ordinance 24, which implemented the Federal flood insurance program within the City, is a requirement basically for any Federal grants and was implemented to prevent development in flood hazard area. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. * Jim Stroffe stated he was an Attorney for Surr 6 Hellyer and represented the appellants, Mark III and Bob Jensen Homes. He stated that there was a difference in the two tracts and the conditions they were appealing. He indicated that the northerly tract was also subject to a condition of providing a bridge across Wilson Avenue and that condition was also being appealed. He stated that the basis of their appeal is that the City is not authorized to impose a condition of actual construction of these channel improvements on the developers pursuant to the Subdivision Hap Act or pursuant to the general police power of the City. He stated that there was no indication that the development would In any way affect or be benefited by any improvements to the Alta Loma Channel. He stated that insofar as building the bridge as a condition, that the Map Act does not authorize the general imposition of fees to con- struct improvements to highways, drainage facilities or bridges. * Dick Hunsinger, 3001 Redhill Ave., Costa Mesa, CA. was the Engineer asked by the developer to examine the channels. He stated that the channel that is there today, which is 15 feet wide and eight feet deep, has the capacity within the reach between Wilson Avenue and the basin to handle the flows through this area. He stated it was his opinion that only marginal benefits would be gained by the homes if a new channel was put in. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Five * Jack Reeves, Mark III Homes stated he would like to clarify one thing. He referred to the Flood Plain map, and stated it was his understanding that those flood plain zones were determined prior to the construction of the temporary channel adjacent to their tract, and had not been re- calculated since those improvements were put in. Therefore he questioned the accuracy of the flood plain zones referred to by Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Hobbs replied that the flood hazard maps are not periodically updated and there could potentially be some areas of revision. However, he stated that he was not aware that the basin had been expanded since the maps were prepared, and that in his opinion the improvements that are there are not of a substan- tial nature to alleviate the types of flood danger that exists. Mr. Hobbs again reviewed the flood problems in the area and the importance of obtaining the needed improvements as the area is developed. In reference to the box culvert or crossing of Wilson Avenue, Mr. Hubbs clarified that there are provisions in the condition to allow the credit addition of systems development fees to offset the cost of the improvement. There being no further response, Mayor Schlosser closed the Public Hearing. In the discussion that followed, Councilman Bridge suggested that this item be continued and Councilman Frost concurred that more time was needed. Mr. Dougherty, Deputy City Attorney, recommended that the matter be acted on this evening, unless the developers,through their attorney, consented to the matter being continued. Otherwise, Mr. Dougherty stated, the Attorney for the developers would try to have the appeal deemed automatically denied for the purposes of his court action. Mayor Schlosser called at ten minute recess at this time (8:30 p.m.) to allow the developers time to consult their attorney regarding a continuance. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. Mayor Schlosser asked if they would agree to a continuance. Mr. Stroffe stated that, based on his advice, they would not agree to it. Motion: Moved by Bridge to uphold the Planning Commission decision. Seconded by Palombo. Motion Carried 5 -0. Immediately following the motion, Mr. Stroffe served a lawsuit on the City Council and City Attorney. 4B CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 79 -01: INDUSTRIAL STREETS AND STORM DRAINAGE Because Mayor Schlosser has a company in the Industrial Par!:, he turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Arthur Bridge and abstained from participating in the discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Bridge requested that anyone who had not filled out a request form to speak on this subject, to please do so. Prior to the Public Hearing, Walt Hamilton and Mack Brown, Engineering Consultants for the Assessment District, reviewed the changes and modifications and briefly explained the formula. At this point, Mayor Pro Tem Bridge opened the meeting for Public Hearing, calling those who opposed the Assessment District to speak first. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Six * Bob Natase, C.L. Builders, indicated thier opposition, stating that the parcels they own are not subject to flood hazard and will not receive any tangible benefit from flood control improvements. * Matt Felipi, representing the 36 acres on the southwest comer of 6th and 8th, stated he opposed the district, even though the property was not indicated In pink on the map. * Hal Halldin explained why he felt a 45" drain could adequately serve the areas he represented and would cost much less than the 48" drain proposed for the new District. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, responded that all of the numbers have contin- gencies built into them and that the size of the storm drain could possibly be reduced when the detailed design work was done. Mayor Pro Tem Bridge asked who Mr. Halldin's clients were. Mr. Halldin replied that he represented Robert DeBard, Matt Felipi, Royal Creations, the owner of the southwest comer of Arrow and Haven, as well as others. * Vito DeVito Francesco representing the Sylvester property, stated the owners have no development plans in mind and the property is not for sale. He stated the owner was willing to pay his fair share when the property was developed but opposed paying while it was still undeveloped. He requested that this area be eliminated from the Assessment District. * Morton DeVor stated he represented eight parcels which do not have a serious flood problem. He discussed the cost savings of installing the drainage pipe themselves as opposed to the assessment cost and said that the benefit should be proportionate with the burden. * Dr. Golomb stated he represented eight parcels in the region bounded by 8th on the north, 6th on the south, and the freeway on the east. He said that all of the property owners were greatly concerned about what the route of New Rochester will be and who will pay for it. Mr. Hubbs responded that severe'_ options have been developed to take to the Planning Commission and that the issue will be resolved during the design period of development. He pointed out that the issue will require a Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tom Bridge stated that those in favor of the Assessment District would now be asked to speak. * Michael Todd stated he has 20 acres north of 4th on the west aide of Milliken. He stated that he felt the proposed Assessment District was equitable, logical and conducive to the overall success of the City, which would accrue long - range benefits for all property owners. * Richard J. Tine, Racor Development, stated his project was the fully developed 17.5 acre business park located at 4th and Cleveland. He stated that Rotor Development was in favor of the District, but requested reimbursement for the development monies already expended in the development of the drainage facilfes. * Robert Neary, representing the John Lusk Corporation, indicated approval of the district on the following conditions: (1) application of credit for $162,000 of storm drain improvements, and (2) reduction in fees for devel- opment coat to about $4,100 per acre. * George Mimmack, representing Mr. B.D. Galiano, owners of the 50 acre site on the south side of Haven Avenue, stated they are in support of District and felt an acreage fee is historically and equitably appropriate. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Seven * Betty McNay, owner -agent of a five acre site on the north side of Jersey, indicated her support and relayed history of costs borne by herself and other owners. She stressed the importance of a cooperative spirit. * Jeff Sceranka commented that we are talking about a master system of storm drains to provide drainage for entire industrial area and that each person should look at it on a community basis. * James Westling, O'Donnell, Bringham and Partners stated they developed the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center at the northeast corner of 6th and Milliken. He stated that the orderly development of an Assessment District would help to attract major industry to the area. * Charles Caldwell, owner of 85 acres at Haven 6 8th, along with partner Cadallac Fairview, stated that the formation of an assessment district is essential to the future industrial development of the City. He also noted that it will benefit all property owners by increased property values. * J. Murphy confirmed his support. * Richard Ortwein, Roll Company, stated he is managing partner for 211 acres between 4th and 6th on east and west side of Milliken. He indicated they had withdrawn their protest of March 3rd and were now 1005 in favor of the District. * Robert Howes, Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, stated they owned the 130 acres on the north side of tracks just east of future Milliken and that they indicated their support of the District one year and and half ago. * Michael Jauron, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, read a memo directed to the City Council indicating the Chamber's support of the Assessment District. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Brown and Mr. Sullivan summarized the options available to Council and indicated that thb total protest was 25.43 percent if Mr. Bucola's property is included. (Property referred to by Mr. Felipi) General Discussion followed by the Council regarding some of the issues raised by those protesting the district. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TOTHE PROCEEDINGS AS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Motion: Moved by Palombo to proceed with the Assessment District and to approve Resolution No. 81 -50 and waive further reading. Seconded by Mikels. AYES: Bridge, Frost, Mikels and Palumbo, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schlosser Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the Title of Resolution No. 81 -50 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA MAKING FINDS AND DETERMINATION$ AND OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Motion: Moved by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -51 and waive further reading. Seconded by Palombo. AYES: Bridge, Frost, Mikels and Palumbo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schlosser Motion Carried. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Eight Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the Title of Resolution No. 81 -51 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA., FINDING AND DETERMINE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANCES SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO THE "SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION, LIMITATION AND MAJORITY PROTEST ACT OF 1931," AND THAT THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE, AND THAT THE LANDS WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -52 and waive further reading. AYES: Bridge, Frost, Mikels and Palombo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schlosser Motion Carried. Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the Title of Resolution No. 81 -52. Motion: Moved by Mikels to take the following actions as outlined in the City Engineer's Staff Report of April 14, 1981: 1. Authorization of the loan up to $350,000 from storm drain and system development fees for design, right -of -way acquisition and assessment counsel services. 2. Approval of consultant selection and authorization of con- tract negotiations. 3. Approval in concept of the Reimbursement and Re- acceleration agreement with final approval at May 7 meeting. 4. Addition of North /South street between Pittsburg and New Rochester to be assessed to fronting property owners. 5. Approval of inclusion of requested paysouts from abutting with expression of Council's desire to complete as nearly as practicable the full street improvements. Seconded by Palombo. AYES: Bridge, Frost, Mikels and Palombo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schlosser Motion Carried. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:45 p.m. Meeting was called back to order at 11:00 p.m, with all members of Council and staff present. 4C APPEAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -01 -- COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY The development of a 26,800 square foot bottled beverage distribution "re- house facility on 9.2 acres of land located on the north side of 6th street, cast of Haven Avenue. Barry Hogan, City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission approved the projecC with Conditions of Approval as outlined in the April 15 Staff Report. Mr. Hogan reviewed some of the concerns expressed by the DAsign Review Committee and the Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision by the City Council. Mr. Hogan discussed the options available to Council. Councilman Frost stated his concern was in reflection to input he had received from the Industrial community regarding the use of a metal building and chain - link fence because of the specific location. City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Nine Mayor Schlosser stated he would like to see some exhibits of the proposed facility. Robert Markum, Head of Facilities, discussed the proposed facility and the landscaping that would serve as screening. He referred to other Coca Cola facilities in Irvine and Los Angeles as examples of the quality of their design. David Hutchinson, Architect for the proposed building, reviewed the conceptual plan with Council, noting that they tried to create a different type of facade than normally seen on a metal building. In reply to inquiries from Council, he stated they selected a metal building to meet future expansion needs and cited some of the other advantages of metal buildings. He showed Council a sample of one of the wall panels. In the discussion that followed, Barry Hogan, City Planner, asked if this type of architecture is indicative of the type of structure Council wishes to see in the Industrial Park category. At this point, Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. * Chuck Caldwell, Developer of Cadallac Fairview, stated he was opposed to a metal building at the entrance to the Industrial Park and noted that the other CoCa Cola buildings referred to were not metal buildings. * Richard Bookman, principal of DiCon Development Corporation, stated that his partner and he were opposed to allowing metal buildings. * Ron Tannebaum stated the important thing is whether the building looked good and not what type of material it is built of. * Jews Westling, O'Donnel, Brigham and Partners, stated he is not a proponent of metal buildings and questioned whether this facility reflects the standards the City is trying to establish for the Industrial area. * Doug Hone pointed out that metal buildings can be very well done and cited some examples. * Bob Vaugh, representing C and I Builderst contractor for Coca Cola,stated he personally felt this was a very good application of a metal building and that they take a great deal of pride in what they do. * Dick Corbine with the Roll Company stated he did not dispute that metal buildings have a place but questioned whether they should be permitted on 6th Street which is a main arterial. There being no futher response, the Public Hearing was closed. In the discussion that followed Councilman Mikels indicated that due to the location and the inconsistency with kinds of uses and design standards that have been set by the City in the past, he would have to oppose the design of this project. Motion: Moved by Mikels that the project be returned to the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for further review and then brought back to Council. Seconded by Bridge. Motion Carried. 5 -0. 4D APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 11606 - WESTEND INVESTMENTS A residential subdivision on 70.32 acres of land divided into 277 single family residential lots in the R -1 zone located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way, between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek. city Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Ten Barry Hogan reviewed the project, and stated that the developer is appealing the condition as follows: "the developer shall install and construct that portion of Deer Creek Regional Trail System adjacent to the project. Appro- priate bonding shall be completed prior to the final map approval." He reviewed the staff reports and Planning Commission recommendations noting that the only issue to be considered is the improvement of the trail since this development is not subject to credit under the provisions or Ordinance 105. At this point Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. a ]bug Gorgen indicated that he was appealing the requirement to put the improve- ment on the flood control channel for a regional trail. He pointed out this was not a horse tract and he did not feel it fair that they should bear the burden for a regional trail system. He stated that they were being asked to pay park fees, dedicate land to the Flood Control District and bear the cost of improving the trail and that he did not feel this was fair. He requested that the condition for the improvement of the trail be eliminated or they be given a credit against fees. Barry Hogan, City Planner, stated that Ordinance 105 specifically refers to the credit being applied to Planned Communities and would not apply in this case. Also, in the discussion that followed, it was the consensus of Council that the dedication of land to the Flood Control District was not an issue since it is a requirement of the District. • Doug Hone indicated his agreement with the appeal and stated he felt the code was not in agreement with the California Code and California Map Act. • Pam Henry stated that what the Planning staff and Commission had done was in accordance with what other Cities with regional trail systems were requiring and she stressed the overall benefits of the regional trail system. • Chris Benoit pointed out that an improved trails system would be an asset to the development. There being no further response, Public Hearing was closed. In the discussion that followed, concern was expressed by Council regarding who would maintain the trails once the improvements were put in view of the absence of any type of funding mechanism at this time. Sam Dougherty, Deputy City Attorney, discussed the issue of credit under the provisions of the Ordinance and the options available to Council. Councilman Frost stated it was clear that at the time the creek was improved that area would be graded and accessible and indicated he could not see the City getting into a maintenance program unless on -going maintenance was paid thorugh some type of user fee or City wide assessment. He suggested that the land be retained as other flood control areas have been. Motion: Moved by Frost that the developer is not required to landscape and maintain the bridle path and that this condition be removed, Seconded by Bridge. Motion Carried. 5 -0. Appeal Granted. Mr. Hogan noted that this is a Policy decision which the Planning Commission would be informed about and this would not be required as a condition on future tracts. 5A REQUEST BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF SECTION 301 OF THE FUEL USE ACT. Randy Bond, Commonwealth Edison, reviewed their request for the City to pass Resolution NO. 81 -47 City Council Minutes April 15, 1981 Page Eleven RESOLUTION NO. 81 -47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF LEG- ISLATION REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF NATURAL GAS IN UTILITY POWER PLANTS. Motion: Moved by Mfkels to approve. Second by Palombo. Motion Carried 5 -0. Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the title of the Resolution. 5B RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR LICENSING SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS Randy'Bond reviewed their request for Resoltuion No. 81 -48. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF LICENSING THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS. Motion: Moved by Bridge to approve. Seconded by Frost. Motion Carried 5 -0. Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the title of the Resolution. 5C REQUEST BY NATIONAL ORANGE SHOW (Deleted) 5D REQUEST BY FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT RE: UPCOMING ELECTION (This item handled immediately preceeding Public Hearings) 5E APPROVAL OF THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE" Acting City Clerk Jim Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 142, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 142 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE." Motion: Moved by Frost and seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried 5 -0. Second Reading for Ordinance No. 142 was scheduled for May 6, 1981. 6. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS Deputy City Attorney Bob Dougherty requested that Council adjourn to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Mikels to adjourn. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned to executive session at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, i Ginny 2ientara, Acting Deputy Clerk