The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988/02/17 - Agenda Packet�s _r Ir ;, Ids `r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays — 7:30 p.m. February 17, 1988 lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga a ♦ a City Couneilmembers Dennis L. Stout, arpa, Pamela J. Wright, uaw,pprm Deborah N. Brown, Charles J. Buquet, eaaaraww t, Jeffrey King, con.rrrmne„ Lauren M. Wasserman, cto ma. p, Jarnes Markman, elp t,..ay Beverly A. Authelet, ea cwt city once: 989 -1831 Lom Part 980.3143 ,q 1.11 PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 1 s x i All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in 4 writing. The deadline for submitting these Items is 5;80 D.■ on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clera s office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER i; 1. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. 2. Roll Call: Brown Buquet Stout King and yr gait _ r r. 8MNOWiCE4ffNTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of DAFFODILS by Fran Menzano, American Cance^ Society and presentation of a proclamation to } American Cancer Society by City Council. C. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may w removed by a COuncflmember or member of the audience for dfscussloa. 1 andr Payroll Warrants, 2/41881 forlothe 2total aamount0 /of 1 f2,S08,585.15. 2. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 1988 January 20, 1988 February 3, 1988 3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Type 0200 Off -Sale 12 Beer and Nine, Circle K Convenlenca Stores, Inc., HNC or Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane. 4. Approval of Parcel Map 10972, located between Highland 15 Avenue and Banyan Street and between Milliken Avenue and the Deer Creek Channel, submitted by Ahmanson Developments, Incorporated. 1988) Nan PAGE; (; City Council Agenda - February 17, 1988 2 �r r Si. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -053 16 Y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY x� 4 OF RANCHO CUCAMOUGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVINS PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10972 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10972) r 5. Approval of Resolution Ordering Preparation of 18 Reapportionment Report for the Storm Drain Channel (Assessment District 86 -2) for the Lot Line Adjustment for APH 201- 271 -71, APN 201- 271 -72, and Tract Nap 12873. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -J71 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REAPPORTIONMENT REPORT AND AMENDED ASSESSMENT AND DIAGRAM IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING REAPPORTIONMENT FEES — •- FOR THE STORM DRAIN CHANNEL (ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86 -2) FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR APN 201- 271 -71, APN 201 - 271 -72, AND TRACT MAP 12073 6. Approval to authorize the City Engineer to issue letters 21 holding the state harmless as a result of improvements adjacent to Cal Trans rights -of -way within 30 feet of the curb line which are consistent with City issued conditio -s of approval. 7. Approval to award and execute (CO e8 -018) Professional 22 Services Agreement with GPS Consulting Engineers to a prepre Line RoadP StreetSImprovementss Phase 1Imfrom Etiwanda Avenue to Victoria Park Lane. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -072 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CNCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GPS CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF TUSiIN, CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR BASE LINE ROAD STREET IMPROVEMLNTS PHASE lI FROM ETIWANDA AVENUE TO VICTORIA PARK LANE lip- t v. -_GE City Council p91980 3 / February 17. 80 -019) professional 24 - e Design The amount Contract PpDroval award and execute (CO p raement for landscap arious B' to J.F. Davi {3 °toAbecVnidzirom v Services g 20'000.00 25 not totex eed S Services protect funds. professional Inc. to to sward and execet mac Consultants. ices to be for 9. Approvnt gg -OZO) wietsal Acquisition sery ht•ot -Nay ADP ,i ppathYst• Such work pnraement (CO 440.00 plus costst�om prepare $tree t Zircon to be fun from to exceed Sps+ dad 19th for a fee not title. 27 done w fees. P°llcy escro ent Fund• 2 (� 87-21) for systems Develops a Order No. orris- Repke+ Inc'. in execute Chan�9ement with H various IO, ADPrOVaI lstrnttoa Services for by professionalOesi9° Admin ° �otalito °$69.474.75 to perform It is recomm °ndeco ^tfa t Projects•s to bring theiro coot funds. � 29 $36,474.7•. various D 4 (CO BB- to be Paid from Change Order 110 nc. for Randol4h Hlubik A'�eemaent +tor plans, r rival to execute Contras A9 lan Aan s, 11. qP their it 114) with Services Haven Avanuand professional and Estimates for nded to exP ons Specificati Construc iO 00 to bring air ficatlon Funds to ,sland $4 31 I contraetobbyto be Paid from the He. 2 (CO 85- 524.760. Change Order sneers and pp roveI to ex�e° aryl opszociates Civil E Agreement for 12. 794 with Had° t0nal Services Raven Avenue a Profess £stlmait �Srranome dad to Surveyors for to bring their I Plans, Specifications as 59'912.00 aid from the Hedian Island Construction• to be D expand their contoa$76b718•QO 33 contract total 5 (Co as- Beautification Funds. Change Order ctten plans, cot' execute Contract ztlmgates for the Day Creek 13 APDrov°1 to re oration of Boyle- tudwi9 spa ifeca 1 pin the amount otJS12,6B0 bringing ro 04Y Creek I Channel 4 041 to be Pa csntracti amount to $584. Funds. 14. i 15. 16 Council Agenda 1 4 City 17, 1908 February 0.ESOLftttON W0. 88 -013 WiAEL lnrn pEl) alto end Etiwandapcobblestone t sill's cf f contract C the east si A°rih efor tae d on Ivement D y��toriacpvenueLtside OfoEailroad .nue from and on the wes Pacific Railroad i pvense south of Souththe Southern 1 10280 feet souaanent o4 528,238.50 to be for crossing{ icatioe funds. Lhe Ras e%ec ailroad 8eaut f t (c0 Og.922) for funded from contrec ect betweau Arc' ADDroval Wideni g t,,roveleaed rt0 J.E.O X254 ^307 Line Avenues aMa tha am°UOt Of end Heitman orateds'Or company• ifrom the SY Fund. the improvement of be funded the bid f kern PncifitnRtar the 17. 35 Approval to aver the rout Constructio Riverside ��ossi 9 pro`ect to funding from Federal Section 203 amount d Systems the Ramona Street toc19tthetreet Fund and Y City APPS °vat to acecttfro, Victoria autborizc the 9pro", nt e,o3ect a bonds an letion' and aPPrOVe as comp to file a 'Itotice o89 429,92. thei f Engineer contract amount °f $ aadl4 36 37 38 41 43 T Fjy City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 PAGE {' ' 5 V - .y 18. Approval to` modify and approve the Conditions of 44 Approval on_ an appeal of the Planning Commission ; Conditions" relating to Environmental Assessment and Conditional Us- Permit 87 -05 Cross and Crown Lutheran Church confirming Council action of a hearing held February 3, 1988. RESOLUTIO3 NO. 88 -075 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -05 TO ALLOY THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 4900 SQUilE FOOT SAMCTUARY BUILDING; AND OPERATION OF AN EXTENDED DAY NURSERY AND PRESCHOOL ON 5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DUELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIYANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 6723 ETIYANDA AVENUE, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 19. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement 61 Security for DR 87 -43, located on Lhe north side •f North Victoria Windrows Loop, east of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane, submitted by La Petite Arademy. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -076 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -43 20. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 64 12772 -2, located on the south side of Base Line Road, between Ramona Avenue and Turner Avenue, submittal by N 6 S Residential Development. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -077 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHOiGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND I IMPROVEMENT SECUR',TY FOR TRACT 12662 -2 � J lµ1 r 1$ n ! •i ire y. fC `- PAGE 7 ' City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 6 , 21. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel 66 Map 9498 (Fourth Street Median), located on the ; northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street, submitted by Reiter - Rinker Gateway. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -078 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 9498 (FOURTH STREET MED:AN) 22. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds, and filing Notices of Completion far: DR 85 -19 and DR 1`_1O - located on the northeast corner 68 a C vic Center or ve and Utica Avenue. Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $7,600 (DR 85 -19) Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $7,000 DR 85 -20) RESOLUTION NO. 88 -079 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C04NCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING THe PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR OR 85 -19 AND DR 85 -20 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK OR 8133 - located at 10220 4th Street, between Turner 70 Avue and Center Avenue. en Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $10,000 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -080 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR OR 81 -33 AND AUTHORIZINO THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK Parcel Ma 9301 located between Haven Avenue and Utica 72 Avenue, nort of 'ersey Boulevard. Faithful flerformu -_, Bond (Street) $50,500 ' ( City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 PAGF� mao RESOLUTION 40. 88 -081 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PM 9301 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK OR 95 -24 - located on the north side of Trademark 74 Street, west or Haven Avenue. Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $11,000 RESOLUTION NO. 68 -082 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARCH) CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR OR 85 -24 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF _ COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 23. Approval to accept Improvements, release Maint,, 76 Guarantee Bond for Tract 12530, located on the northwest corner of Church Avenue and Hellman Avenue. Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $3,460 24. Approval of an Indenture between the Southern Pacific 77 Transportation Company and the City for construction of City- maintained landscaped slopes within the Railroad's right -of -way, between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard northerly of Base Line Road - submitted by The William Lynn Company. 25. Set public hearing for (larch 2, 1988 - ENVIRONMENTAL 79 ASSESSMENT A.nD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -OIB - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the purpose of accomplishing the following change: The realignment of H11131de Read to replace the double intersection of Hillside Road and Amethyst Avenue with a single intersection at Amethyst Avenue and a reverse curve between Amethyst Avenue and proposed Klusman Avenue. 26. Set public hearing for March 16, 1988 - Approval of 80 intention to vacate Emmett Way between Summit Avenue and Tract 11549. �N f mao 0 RIME - City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 8 RESOLUTION NO. 88.083 81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ; 7 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUhTY OF SAM BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE EMMETT WAY BETWEEN SUMMIT AVENUE AND TRACT 11549 27. Set public hearing for March 16, 1988 - Approval to PS Annex DR 87 -24, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street, to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 as Annexallon No. 15. A RESOLUTION NO. CB -084 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF IHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT _ FOR ANNEXATION MO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - DISTRICT NO, 3 RESOLUTION HO. 88 -0SS 93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT MO. 3, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, OESIGMATINr SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO Li40SCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARIJG OBJECTIONS THERETO 28. Set public hearing fur March le, 1988 - Approval to 95 Annex DR 87 -24 and DR 87 -43 (Industrial /Co=aralai) to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 as Anneratlon No. 38. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -036 96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. FOR ANNEXATION N STRICT NO8CiTO CSTREETRLIGHTI G PAGE � W City February Agenda a + Februar 17, 1968 9 ,i c. 4 +' L A RESOLUTIOK N0, 88 -087 103,E A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANCNOA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO aTREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION N0. 38 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 140. 1; aURSUANr - TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 ' AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 29. Set public hearing for March 16, 1988 - Approval to 105 - Annex OR 87 -43, located northeast corner V',ctoria Park Lane and North Victor'a 4!ndrows Loop to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 as Annexation No. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -008 '106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGI, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXAVION NO. 8 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -089 112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OECLARINO ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 TO STREET LIGHTING MWNTEIUUICE DISTRICT NO. 3; PURSUANT TO THE L!NDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 30. Set public hearing for March 16, 1988 - Approval to 114 Annex DR 87 -24, located an the northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6. F PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 10 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -090 1 115 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY I OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 11 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 80 4)91 1 121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ODCER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION N0. 11 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 0. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had p;;blic hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk ;fill read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT lirllENOh N R -1 CITY OF RANCHO UL ON - ey�e5t to amen the ODVeT0 sent Distr ct p rom Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) to General Industrial, Soarea 1, for 2.31 acres of land, located north of 8th and west of Baker Avenue - APN 207 -541- ORDINANCE NO. 335 (second reading) 1 123 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHANGE NO. 87 -10, REQUEST1NU A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH STREET AND WEST OF BAKEP AVENUE - APN 207 - 541 -60 .v PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 11 �_'4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 0.VD INDUSTRIAL?- :SPEECCI,FFIICC PLAN AARENNDM 8 -03 - Y HD LUCAMURUA - A requc t to amend the IndUStrial Specific Plan to expand Subarea i to include 2.31 acres of land generdlly located north of 8th Street and west of Baker Avenue - APN 207 - 541 -60. ORDINANCE N0. 336 (second reading) 125 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFCRNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -03, REQUESTING AN ADDITION TO SUBAREA ENE LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH STREET AND VEST OF BAKER AVENUE - APH 207- 541 -60 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENttiENT B�0�'C3 N U ON - ut amen went to section 11.10.030132 of the Developmen, Code pertaining.-,- to parking lot and sidewalk sales. ORDINANCE NO. 338 (second reading) 126 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUdCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.10.03OG2 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMUNGA MUNILIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING LOT AND SIDEVALK SALES 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AYNN D H06T AL SPECFIC PLC! - D amendment to the AMIN ON 11 - P an or the ndustrial Area Specific ss ru at on ceM Plan (Subarea 10) to eliminate Cleveland Avenue, north of 7th Street - APN 209- 272 -02. ORDINANCE NO. 339 (second reading) 129 AV ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (I.S.P.) AMENDMENT 87 -04 REQUESTING THAT CLEVELAND AVENUE (LKLRTH OF 719 STREET) BE DELETED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY VACATION OF CLEVELAND AVENUE BETWEEN 7TH STREET AND THE T. 6 F. RAILROAD Y -069 - located between Maven in connection with Milliken venue an venue, Amendment (87 -D:1 to the Access /Cirulation Plan for the Industrial Area - pecif!c Plan to eliminate Cleveland Avenue. �_'4 PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 12 RESOLUTION NO. 88470 131 rm UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HTHEUVACATIOA OFLICLEVELANDAdVENUE H 7TH STREET ANO THE A.T. a S.F. D ADVERTISED PUSLIC rss required by law.erThe sed chair /rill ospen the e public testiaony. 1, rNy1RONNEHTAL ASSESSMENT AND G eq0stpt�emenNOLEeT an 134 0 - y R -4itP P se ement o t e General Plan frog Ofttce to °"-+ "- - NeSghborhood Laaocerctal far 3.58 acres of land, located � Avenue SDAPN 202'151.33. o (Lonttnedofro aDecemberbl6a I 1987) RESOLUTION N0. 87-574 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TVE CITY OF REQUESTCTO AMEND XTHEALANDL USE R DENYING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL P1AN, AMENDMENT NO. 87 -04B REQUESTING ICE TO GINNEIGHBOR DOD COMMERCIAL FOR FROM 3 OFFICE 58 ACRES THE LOMITA COURTEANDXARCHIBALD AYE•,3E CORNER 202- 151 -33 ENVIRCHMENTAL pSSESSMEXT PMD DEVELO3•MEHTDISTRICT request END N 8 -03 - w I K PROP - among t e Deve npment 0 str ct s maD from "OP" (Office /Professional) to "NC' (Neighbo mm rhood coercial) for 3.58 acres of lend located on the southwest corner of Lomita Cfom Decembha 198 Avenue - APH 202- 151 -33. (Continued r or 16 s PACE .ity Council Agonde February 17, 1988 I 13 r RESOLUTION NO. 87 -575 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DEN "IHG DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHANGE 80. 87- 03. REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE /PROFESSIOAAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONMERCIAL FOR 3.58 ACRES LPCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST,, CORNER OF LOMITA COURT AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE - APH 202 - 151 -33 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 138 E�DN U-8 - CARTER; request to amen the Development D str cts p fro Office /Professional (OP) to Heighborhood Commercial (NC) for approxiNately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APR 208- 202 -13, 14. (Applicant has requested a continuance to March 16,. 1988.) RESOLUTION NO 88 -092 210 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP, DOA 87 -11, FROM OFFICE /PROFESSIONAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR A 3.45 ACRE PARCEL LOCAT -cD ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LIVE ROAD AND HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - AFH 208- 202 -13, 14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AHEHDMENT 88- 01 CAL TER - request to amenu the Genera plan and use ap from 'Office• to 'Neighborhood Commercial' for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road end Hellman Avenue - APN 208- 202 -13, 14. (Applicant has requested a continuance to March 16, 1988.) fa, PAGE City Council Agenda I ._ February 17, 1988 1 14 J RESOLUTION MO. 88 -093 221 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFOWIIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMENO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN, GPA 88 -01A, FROM OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 3.45 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LIKE ROAD AND HELLHAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 2C8- 202 -13, 14. 3. APPEAL OF THE AMENOMERT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR 224 CUCAMONGA VILLAGE CL G ONOITI M L US P RMIT -OS KAN a request to appeal Planning Comw soon s e3 cis{on in denying the proposed amendment to the previously approved sign program for tucawnga Village Shopping Center, lotted at the northeast corner of -_— _ .. Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue. AN 4. ENVIRONMENTAL A3SESSNEiD T :® IsVE TRACT 13579- 256 e Y UB - appeal o oAs on s c s on t e�Tng the development of 9 units on 69 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), touted on the east side of Hellman Avemle, 325 feet north of 19th Street - APN 201- a74 -12. 5 ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH: A. ANNEXATION NO. 1? FOR OR 87 -05 AND CUP 87 -07 288 N U I Ca AL AREAl f0 NGSC P _iE'R U-IffElik—iff—VISTRILT NO. 3, I I RESOLUTION M0. 88 -094 289 A RESOLUTION OF TOE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. ORDERIMB THE WORK IN CONMECTIIN WITH MJEXATIDY NO. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINT1NANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND ACCEPTING THE FIR4L E "nGINEER'S REPORT FOR OR 87 -05 AND CUP B. ANIIEXATI011 NO 36 AML' ANNEXATION NO. 9 FOR OR 87 -05 296 NO UP 0 N U IR L L MER L REIIi —T�i STREET LIGHTIN(i MAINJUMILE UniTITiY MUI'I AMU 6, RESPECTIVELY. J .t.. PAGE City Council Agenda rebruary 17, 1988 15 wel RESOLUTION NO. 88 -095 297 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAACH0 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE YORK IN CONNECTION WITH AH.YLKATION 110. 9 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTEKAY.CE DISTRICT M0. 6 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR DR 87 -05 AND CUP 87 -07 RESOLUTION NO. 88-096 304 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHD CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 36 TO STREET LIGHTING 14AINTENMCE DISTRICT NO. I AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR DR 87 -05 AND CUP 87 -07 F, PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. ON F TA SHT F A SPEED LIMIT- 1. 'OHS" O ES O 311 ecameERAT n a 40 MPH speed limit on Hermosa Avenue between Base Line Road and Sun Yalley Drive; a 40 MPH speed limit on Ninth Street between Baker Avenue and Archibald Avenue and a 50 MPH speed limit on Rochester Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road. ORDINANCE NO. 340 (first reading) 313 4N ORDINANCE 0.1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN STREETS 2 CONSIDERATION OF A NODIFICATIOq TO OADIIUJILE NUMBER 70 31.7 INCREASINP NAL7:ES 0 DOING CIVIL EMEDIE - An ordinance of the City Council of e LIty of Kancho Cucamonga amending Section 2.24.210 of, and adding a new Section 2.24.220 to, Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, thereh) increasing criminal penalties and adding civil remedies. wel Y1 ��. PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 16 ORDINANCE N0. 70 -F (first reading) 324 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2.24.210 OF, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 2.24.220 TO, CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY INCREASING CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND ADDING CIVIL REMEDIES G. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following Items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. SIGN ORDINANCE - Review of changes proposed by Chamber _ q26 of Commerce. 2. EAR REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPRDYEME14T BUDGET FOR FISCAL 338 ;VD_ AR 198 -88. 3. REVIEW OF STAFF'S DENIAL OF APPLICATION FO0. PERMIT TO 374 ON RUCT ORI ! RO CH ON U H IOE OF H L5 D. IRNING CANYUN WAY, BL K L R ID N SSIC-MORNING CANYON Y. 4 REVIEW OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REPORT ON FIRE 380 RV 10E FE IBILi Y STUDY 5C 88 -01 5. MINIMUM UNIT StZE FOR MULTI - FAMILY DWELLINGS - A request 384 y WIT P inn ng Cosa ss on to car fy L1ty Council direction as to potential modifications of the minimum dwelling unit requirements for multi - family dwellings. H. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. DISCUSSION TU APPOINT A SUBCON.9ITTEE FOR THE 1SOTH 386 NNIV RS RY 0 H CMO, r ght 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING DISASTER PREPAREDNESS. (Brown) 389 c PAGE City Council Agenda February 17, 1988 17 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING APPOINTMENT TD RANCHO CUCAMONGA C�MNUNI7Y FOUNDA N BOARD TO FILL VACANCY CREATED B RESIGNATION OF GARY SCN F R. 4. OISCUSStON OF TELEPHONE SITUATION IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA uquet 5. CONSIDERATION OF A MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE HISTORIC 390 , R RY N LuRNISSIon. rows 6. UPDATE ON ETIVANDA FLOOD CONTROL STUDY. (King) 392 7. CONSIDERATION OF AN URGENr.Y ORDINANCE FOR PURPOSES OF COHRCI L PING CENTERS RE 1RING CUP R L NE wl IN P REO ffhMUWT AREAS. Brown 8. VEBAL R UPDATE ON PARKING SITUATIO14 AT KLUSMAM AND 00 HIL wr g t .•— - i IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEK'f fEETINo This is the tine for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next . meeting. J. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the Lice and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council gay receive testimony and set the natter for a subsequent m2eting. Comments are to be limited to five ninotes per individual. K. ADJOORKMCNT 1, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 4ereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing aaenla was posted on February 12, 1988, seventy -two (72) hours prior to the meeting per A.B. 2674 at 9320••C Base , Line Road. I <r• 1 r\ I r ` x ' I } a e i e S Y i C t n T Y p b s A r Y z .. e 9 4 . 4 S • - PYPrYp j!!P P(.i Jby} OPPOIP P MNOOiO ►yp.IM QNrI� PpVOP M�YOr y V V y l O �.O OObV i.M i01MrW +QY�P +uJ0y00 Nrp OOOP V ± O N R Ono OOYODOTS} Yff }iYtf} Ds1Y N + >� jS �� }� caaitrrrnns. .� ^ i ^rc�swmA a° oaraNrDtCaTmK 9mnrnn a'YC y1L.l it }�10 iamN s-aa(r ays_ w r 11i. •z m =i p'YaMr DSSSHr 1�4a x '• rOF OmAY -> NFN� ^ QK �9 a m +renea eo« rzi z�rQ T � QaAz � omYg <NeSPo +r din ail�K eo>ow c'1 '� + 4 w O Q iO flT lrl•YmCIIOPym aYOn riII aKDrrYa n�EYD Na'n^ } O f. r• � � KtxDM ONN NSy^ }» O Z a z T�Nax. nrr r� • N O Dnn n _ � r c�� i ac 1^•mo i�f K na _ s� z ° nK z ' oa «< >o «osCppC °gyrNr��p`n `°T�y mODir Qfy. an •.n n p T.. AmT TC�m�.y+maa Nn�nTaJ��1 ° «.>nOT TT ~ �M1T1 prw e¢ Ca pN i >AY'T >jATp�atl }wn•.aOi�Q;:�2 }OaCOSr TffP Y y Y Y �Il w�V•a909+S�7 Yf �N r. y YYITy1Y ±y KY Sm TNO y! n. Y1..mS x .m°. x' E.Mr2)PS'•°.wTwTlflO .'ANi°lL1 1•N y� O \ \ 1 OY.+Om OO i II O O p p p OO cp ��DOO a °c °� °c op��i 7R C ��:iT Es c °z �•$y - s p p � • : II• i`, :l° s rl°. � of n nrlr >nntny r Pa.'nn� Tiinni�iim o n uil e y z• + > TDpOb tiN «[ PO«�IN wOp2 y- y y0 �( NmL °OON•JI00 AA O_i am p~ NpDO ;y } p DA P NY PN OPT -• O JM OYwm N nY «.N. �..T y ^ « > N N N pNiy >1 «1 Y JN 1 1 �Nr��w�v�u1�N�NNNMVVY��N�IVNNN NY�NNNN!• r `wN= P.V Mr «I. ++^. +P + +�.J r ^VVYYrNNywyOONNr iOYO PJUN /JiPYP MJ.NNr(I .pa Y ►gpVN•p.: «:N= •01 ' O O r rp V N r� y. a «ysu. -re °m «OOY 1 M 1 p u I .• r ePS0 :14YrisNE« srear -•`o p.^. 000N o v u OUOONPPNPOPOp +uPpVOPPNP i 4.0 OOJOI•NOOOOOPO00••MO+00 -.•Prp 0000 000+ Oa N P y V O I <r• 1 r\ I r ` x ' I } a e i e S Y i C t n T Y p b s A r Y z .. e 9 s�( a00e�y00YlOPPYyPPPIPIP N >y!!.. PPOYry' PPP II. M.a liL �� )` ) YPYN° '•y°MP..YKNMNeyPyYKNPOi000yyy'I OP yyyM' � ° 1. _�� "S ) (`�, Y�' ♦NPpyNyY•IPNyyy m•.00JOr NwyyMMyyIOONy00► IY- ��'� YC -rw t i � '_�. e � •_•. � � li 4r 'Pu .., zYOaaite ea>ao aT Am,.�mm�oT>vanvnnn n na .n. T °, �T Y SSOmPKyT2rNNNMnN ZO >Z mnS n(C(��Sya°Z Srs � >�-` �.S- P•` 11eYL �� __ `In11TTV� yryyy Two >iZ• K YY11�° • Q nN2� 1' M _ OM >symmOY SxPOTan K2D S�Z CC A�yy mO'II_ l� TN SS rf >1> ZO T{•N. NOOO ... y O P r r YLNSYS 2 f ZTmS If a � -. °. s °nw_�n• E1: 1S lfP bg _a� 2 -,Ta i s e CACPOK> . °.• 1NmZ 2 CY »M nti�M p ry Kn SPA y T �� >ZwNwySfl >M••nZy s npTP� n•T GO 2 >yNt�y�0y0 °n y2m�20yMa 1 L� Y ST 4 OTnI O Nn�Z MOSam yOSDP°y Nr > 1 r OT y_AYDT > a 2> K�Dyfpr °SCc ((�Y/ <Pe mnT S > _ ♦ >NOG Z y� '} y O m;Y N_Y21�YTNr T s__OK 1 P f TYm�Y � M m �Tr2PP 1 NyN9 1 2 Cy fin (a� n� 2� w ^aT0 KPaA OT S`• 9yC Ti 1 }' n N1 8 Ot0 4• N n Y° O N M (fnn ' N roe u o Z y r a ya i mo i P An y > Y r1 K 1 �S�GT44T�4� °� °" >y.:i' >�44R44°4o ° >Gi4 °on gca °Ai$�orrl$.rri Zvi a'a"� °iao�ea �fv�$�.vN•a$P ^fPO'8ai O >YZIYi }(tmT> OmyLYY N> }N }P } }O//�� Tn K_ PKPKwNmO� }D2K�OKKy.P(��T•(K yl�l N T �P 2 >N°m2A nZ� i 1> iT O aZ �r >ry Tn�In�1 am aym M° y220202 m.+ 2 YSYi2P2�Om lr'SNN rie ayArDNA �°Y Ky`KKTyrMASKyY NA Mew �vYV�•y iii P °oTas >r }r'� a'1TO � z °11n! m a-.A n° ° 1 e NrmmP rye m . Mgc78e cy ccnr � NN a•z ST gNN�NNTNes>zaNN }> " > �rr °r+rNY r,°zlr�.�rr rr�rrP -n nnGlrrmi°n °a nn nn�n� nnnn %rnn nnynnnnnnn n $ °P v• m vvvy o w Pvoo• P aw ya �N y.• N ww s ^Nays +ya♦ -, y N TY T••22>SYP dN2222yu 2 N N i�P SmYy prNfmmmmo0 ENV ar P aA DI,1 °DOV ±uONPPPAM� a .Si1N nNNNMN M7;rN M KK 1T 1 S �P Pd IP+'o Y�NNN ^�NNYNNNN��SM��N �NM��FNNNNNN`NNY Odyd wap± dddd000 }MJSSSOMyy"yy +KtiypPPPPPppPP OdOy> yN•.OdOyP Od°y00lV N••O dOJP OfyNYO P a N PY P y JVNyV�= V K VP.! py� dpJ rOPOPNMOJO yf OdMfPNVdPdOnyOVnPPyPMdONdyOP •• O PPOOOOPUN V1yitO 00Nwre OS000'JN OON�PNO.PtO dOOJ.O aO 'L 2 nqq i 1 a 20 w E > O a > a r K 1 .• � 4 i N r �1 i oraropn fno- .ePOnNnpeeP000OnrnooY..f rPOOOFmo •� onoPNm a. -nononoamorov000pmNrroo..nnYaoN 9 n � 1 p... -o .voF•.roneann .o�.nmoo�oa »mn oe�iF nril- .�o�nY R.o < �rY as oNe. -f r..yS NSF rPa °..nn Pn rya ol`+ •1 °! ry N°n jl i p a l oOOONOOOpO..Nnf�.°iw.°i.P.O •.N nrv.°�nnnnR n.N•nn nadi.Fn�q�i L 61 YRry ryNNryNrylry'. 1nYry NNNNNNryryryryryNNM1NnryNN AJ 1 NI.NNryryNNf NryNnNryNNNNM1NNNNnNryNNnNM1NNNNNNNNry Y u 5W r Y yy fLL.. i I pO eJ�.'.OY OF frwr aN.Yn lw�r .. WaP .Y nPOn NOWwOP n W66¢ d°°6¢ YQ Q Q PY 1 N.. M1.. ..YNnn PNi W Owu.WFnWWW �Nn 1 �r.pr. n .. .. aNO -zzzn o�.•xswwzrs z urF �Em moswaw mDE JFr -ro w- .wrrPwFaF NN�w zW N omp� .. oon aWO ar 1 u..u,.u..ww wLLNM�Y MwW°uuuD ^.\muu¢WA unRuu 1 O Z� w j RV •<wr J�F J6�JJJ JJr¢ 22x JOJ f0 � JJ 255 rer WNF53 mm��F° i�u1J -mmo J � zF��j ra�rNwJN wl a <i� mmzw om m� YrNri�m >1 aJnSMNr�66mm GF � �¢LLLLW i>•.. g6¢usiW ryiLLrYOU 00YYW <wWWu QI Opop WlW�Xf 06°000 OONJ .I_ \00 yON {2ptr �jJV�NOO .Vr. 1 WyCn F_ <JM_Y_.• Ny` Yn S O 6F.J..F .Pa040Y 1 WWy1UrJ° EWV�I <_t SNZwZWZO•no6 Yw .y OI 'LLL<Ft ^WN>=i clW W %¢ }Y 40iLLWGY¢L� %WW220TLL «¢Z¢233Y0Y2zV<¢Jw{ i > -¢Q 1»pn« 16i R @f >YtrK° VCR @Z @Cu <FOIZC�60�OC6 :CWm •b <4 °d r. o3�s�< �< b��S3o rbb� »��3:g3 „b<:o < «2ae�.aY :6o 1 ¢ Y 6 yji u Ly Wp ° _ p �O MTN .E+OU 6 2 YZV Y pJ O ¢ SW O y Q ..} NC Op VO YJ Yr pY i 1 VVO W06 � jNj Wiir6 .WiS JuNWZ6N f� U 9 ZNM W 1 % oEi J pJt w.J »W.W.+ N.J.O F <iN si.Q- i ¢6L�Q 6 i l u > zu� oWU <eWpz < >oJ oWwN QNri ¢N F` .6 Y60 ^WZ� <6°W6 }VJJ# COwJFO {w 6J> O 1 ZW J F VLLR FY <Nir JF Y1 UVYOJ YY «ui� <YW 2V'J .NLO WYY.OWW W y `MW OJ »O1yZO SY�.WL40 _ <rLLJjV =pWL NQ `< ifiwN Q2t {OS Y »QN <O1yOWRL {J <NYNY < ¢W Oww CLI` WIR ZN JNW04N <L }�W�NV yyOWY J VOJJJJ <K W E=N1 >w w J ;rJ w-U 1 i6J_JJOL061 F6WV2N} Ym2YNZ6 � <J'J' F WDCEVYJ WI Y Mw..w MFwwYI .1'f %%XJJJOJiL¢wCLCi2�2200m n Y 1 p ry 6� °OONMNad°wdPPawO PIaq ryN1�•r �p OPMwwPfNO�wnRAMP 1 w.a.�nwrwrwM w.aiaiw °.a•I .ai ..ww.N.w °wNw few °wN °wNwnww a I {!��'F.i'S..- i3��'^gi 3 �Y..'�i �"d_� ll. �i�•a. •.qfi. Y, .'+�^ryQyy�Y �'`( {."yL{a,4, Y YYSyJ YY Nz yyZr4NVwyP�y rOOdN OPPYPNYPV. NOPNVPP OONPNNNONyyrMY�1NOPOtlN «YPYdNOdpYaaYy 41+1 yYy r••JrOPdOwdJP PPNYOPgVOYwNPd °.•O POyN r.•yJ I.>Y- �A 1• .. 1 Jt j. :. r. I K Y . oeiN}• fN \1p TfOaayO�fT fTAA „4T4444 � <41 I •mi• Y�r lrPm>i" i.IN con > iw _ S »i � >r myT a r Nmorn z ps oyssv ��T.- I Nny,Nxmww }nr faaa rK zzeNanNMmamwrm > w �mTf. Ilin oNNf�r wood yr av y 1 ymwzf pp o zTOaPYM> (� iTTpN :.n ioNl•• Ti e_I N- 3 LrO�OEZ -n OOm003fM ^> }y.jYppNNN n !L Npny40DTmmmaNCCy ppNnaS} i� >rNtrn 1 T IfON NIAw nn>YO mTN pm a 2m Ip OOr n{IIV AOy22 1 C�NCynOOY r4 •a•TM 'r>OOm pylp.Fj•Nm C yrrYFFOC.1 ••� 9r�a0 //f�N i b >n�OnCC M € rr8OODY y N ode S pm nZyCK^ r > �21w> S OmT y OnPNNl11 or in mnaFiK 44 • •'.>.."' cry az>oE s RP Lr naONr q i wg z 0 4 zip nl ..4 »rn «N y rn y N i o: ^8 � NT T > v m n Q a^ N e m I S d n v 1 P a 1 a o z A i P n r014 im iro °On"'%= 1'n"4m gosa °�ml�i ir�lb°•K.. i+�m •An��i�m u>imyiliz••�" i YT }m r r•zoonel^••g.4i �I�Po� ^ab if>•ni•i!J•Bm S.i.V T eaiiY�•NeObs Iri �irS KPOTryRrK•` K Lrr KN >K pNyVr .(rM �. IR T ^3•TNS O E3 34_MO 93(1 4 3r nm ! eT^nmRnmP p� >PSL1Ze2y Y 2 40>S N3 IO OrVmEOK>T ^l•yN YrO Y•Ei•O pmrr • y>••O aTrm yAOMm R��m.•.. p n�rn 1.( ' CC ry r P p Tr ye. : ^rea�mc3f o i zo r r•��N c�`ois w�ww «.. t Se YT eNFTQr °e eon. 9wNmP r pipyONw °A°r rl°R TSOAN 1 e• CNn S TOC C 4°C FriNC C>rY M•a CCOM PNi SO 4SKNr • 2r", • NyO+ 'v my • Y rah O,A • :• • O /9 .r.•na ;Nn."r r Mra r rTYr lrr rrirp I nnn nr1.2.0 • nn•! .l nnann nnnnAn yNr nnn^O 1 Oq0 N T• q <O•• q OO.MCPY YHa�y� • 'y «fK 1 Srm r yNN qq mOPi PSYS 2 PP Tyrr>^ P •'la J OY OMayO apJ00 VP«9eP •d•N YaiOO 1 T y N Tq PnyY° P ON ° ! De Oy 1 Z r r rri N •.VrP.Ni r•'I>P> i 2 N ISiI R.Sw (V M Vii .in r w M i S n NNNNNUN4UN NNNNUNNNNNNy MNNNNNNMNUNN4NNNNN IE S . N •MrNNNMNNNNVNMNNNNMNNNNNNNNNNNN V�.NNNNNNNN 1> NMOyrryyVyyyyCPPOPPPPPP OdPrPPI VNNOd °yPgJVNrOrONrP°VNrPJOyagJJN 12 E 1'r O YJ b jp Gp } JS O qr NJ la R NJVAH °dP NION YPPON�w rV•rq Nr YPJyP. IY PNOdOVJN Y•PIVgV00••NNPNPOVNdJSJJJ dPVdVOdP f 1 Nr y0y�00000MNOdPPwOSVS1NIPO00SrOM0040P� r000 . +Yi o .r ^::�r2: ��c y`.•;�j�t1u'f�y M: -w v ':ii- 'i v:z us'�: :t.: . +ww � t% '(.J. .Ji.YP OdPJVNP JVm yYVOJyJVOJVpVm Y,Y 1 OaYPNVPwV�w NY.OY PYMYrPOOpOYYY PYmd >VVPp m(�10y VY. Y 1....N > <JNOP >PYmPV V� I L ' •tdN %n >y.Z! !!�w<•C<« CCKKKONNNNNNNf'I �3> TAD >rNry `M 021�r rrww �'O` «MIn'f OTCC 2TY1].•TanVO«O >m_rrrrlV _ iiGV J. Li- � y � }> Y «2N ryr II P y111 I p �� n nO..Pi fPpaTi P�TT!(�OTTOn TyNyOaFj Oj SSD Y�1 � <>nTO, ♦ZKwN� I�.m nr•d `D .T Z> C, n + sw Nq`i>m n,�rs e^ ri�zmm PnaN<nnn Tyz> Pare a P1� TveP caWM »PO r3.° pPn4 <mwaY..4 <.4a <tmY 1�"orD�zrsAYpnmmAPPm�mmmT ^11.m�m .in mrtiJa amiJ scn a• iGO 1 1« : PNT.Ii Dr tt 1N.( <tK oKKKV TyN any v Ams >NS N'l zs>a�1• a> z Kw � ' _ NJ OTKIN «mOP 11nnY ••��1ZZ..I.TmNm� >.Ar�11 10 ON 09L <.r'1"SwMOi YYiON1�yKyJi'YKT �nOT ysJP j N e" i � n w rigY (1P °A °.1 °1�i°. a 1 °wrYOa .}n 1011 } D°P �°.�°1 +�Y •°.w S o�+°1 J7R'b I ro �xl'i lrwn rv1_pm.Knwwo " P mm��'1 �mi 1" mCCK�T{• TCNNNT I 1 a0�'P �. 9 N: 1 TN +<a D D I j1 nn i nT nnli n n. nnn�nnyn nn m 00 P 00 y PO aOfNy 1 t O CSO a_irPaNa y S ym NP .ni V I O u P «dV TS Pr In Vnm JmNmPN(� }py P' In Da aD DONO�D PDyDpWOPP O DD � � D PJ24�`•r P N NN MN I'S M N h.� I O mM w 1 n N.N.. F.N.rMr�.N.N.N..N.NN.Ni ✓N.N. N�N.r �.N..Ni IZ C .Ni i.�N�N�N VVUVVV((Y�fV YYVYVYVN NNNNNNNNNNNNN ID S lYNrOaP.yPMlwOiNrOCprP aaj.0 N«O.mOS yPMrmI Iaj Z O> 3I a r Fl N 1 1 } Jl�rN V V P P aM�1.0 Y p'� < OYOmPM�O�PPPPP...........00PNNY SL OrPOJrO�NyNOJaOJOPJOYOlOPl.O O yd 1'."1 p N O PN.'NO CC PoraoouKSO«PNOOdoS gp� I y :i o; ,,��yt:��gy[= rv'-'- 5':': +.9..a _ ., ', -'t� .a= ✓a-:ps3r +: E2: OMWPYYJ OJY Vf PPNVN ..ONyWJV.f NYNp P•Oy ± .pr r YOPrONf♦.y NO lVNNff«POOiOJYV mN U W ! . °rw9 ^Y =YT ' nlNRwnTM O'J�091N J ' !R• Y R } mzT{y O irnma! oN�v`ei � ; `im � R; �T YYSrym MN _!N MwMyy. O -T � nnDrD ::O TTO JY� ROYTwm a rl ' O: is )^bl�lMnvmY aSAAY T..'l p1r�0N /y� ig T )'iY savDSr- MYs.�t[ •°. }-` .n ° il' LJa :c NiA tYN e7°n ;[ °nY gaN C y�yy� �� •�'Ni' AIwC. fNC �i I' Y O Q = ST a � j y� MY T~ DOr My�J IwnSSJ � O N 11 i ! n s Y aYm S! rmrgo �+v� ^ °N°rTT°vIT"'T".T"{r• wMaT� c c! NYMT�TT. � _`v4 Lm vm ^a __yNTFSSNMeemsmC 'y v° �JaSys Y« O"I.aiR� °''i{wOyM S.=i'SM y Tm T ' =Tr...O TI=. 1'yi TY i�FN SIT\'C myO.Ni C.°iCF I=i' O �O. :.SLR' o r �T'!.T =y n� wOayy =09RaN Y C M\ r M I C•.HC'TN R=Oy t0 C N3 nY4 CTN 1'1 TO T VO 6 p 1 �aD =CT •' S QQ O {y nAM W 7 V a��wfAr L sx Y r Y IA•� f1 I S rz"sa:\m x P.. a MMZ � n �n a mWD I 2 J aie oWw.i INI 1 NI 1 j urry4^ y�NNN `�`Ny`��`F�r��NNMNMU�NNNNNNNr 1 • VYVVYYVVVVVYVVYVYWWVVVU NN NN000J000 ; N4NNN4NNN�rrrr r.p ppPq«fNNy 1 VVr�yOYPPJVNrO= ::::::Nr O.p::PPJVN:yrOiVNr W V O VN NOO � r NPr agNN ep° o'°.w .IV wi rN .p'Wf � {q• rl u' M r00«rO�VrNY OOOMO yO V.O pNPpNrymjN N py m 1 NOOO yJONrJ.q BVCOPOJONSp O'P.Ob P O OY p O ! OOpPO O.OPyO y •�B a w a 0 C ! O ! � T 1� ry ii W •1 V 61 6 3 o al � QI J V I i i I i a 6 M L 0 1 O N I °- N.00 °o..$ °o °onvno.°. °o a0000noanw$�$o °D n ooai%.°.$ne° -- °or. P riaa�oroaNOpooro +orTOnnN.e a« + +n n.NCnaoena�a On norNaaNYPgffnP ^qn�q P-I PnaV�'�F�rl -DN»aa a Nr n N r ^ r + aarePernn +ganoPOrNnfgaroPOrNnrraTOPerNnr rYrr +gNONaq °a+.q �aRn °Ong °n n��n.rin.r..^in nn °n n.o. °n °n NM1nNNNnnNNNrynNNNryNNnNM1NNNNNryNNNNNNNNNNNryN i .J-s Y o< rum `m «..w raow �wp oww nN aa- ay°NQyNn: alWvi ra2SOT rJYNY2W OZ ZwZOwV �ZS� T22 YO aaJ�n •`.- oo a s nb��ar�or eo 0 oiu< QU Y N ai < `xW ue+ +uau �Y -aN pY ra`�QtiM 2 QN a Q..N 12 -r - - I..O QN6y <iw6r JWO� l �R a r °i s o poaire LL: x i e -moo 12 Y�NWYyJW 3 zaTa Jo •o �+ o � s { V UYW <N pONWN`J`w< OQW W YYIIV NU U �h�vl.Yi �a��W QY <WWyOy�mVwW< .i OY4��W .Ni W.�t + .6r> Wf0 M a4J 6N.t6 �Mw �' 2S1- O Otii O_M W N_O_ t1 -24[NI 0WWM6 ONJY N_C SON O�N.. u. O7 VG O YW Oop NQOW OWfLMW M Ftl^ r 4-5 iWWOiOMON JW iTVTN <rW ai u_J.n_iW j61wNr�N N6iN 01- WJiuxi Y.-J W[ W.WwTWrWNWVJW WN < a J Q> <x4NLL 2 <` aNnOwtwNtr aNTa <worai zzJVO �JUQ F>Taroo NW z z a�Fz <.-7sF .(iYrWt iw < ry p u i 3 J W O y 0 N Q � .`ii i 2O6 Y 6.Oi O T M p V 6 YSH iO4 O�WWV � e w J r � • S' y aii J{W{ONLL WW21 -.i.0� J O LLy� y p N `Y_ V'f T Yr0 <rN 6 N W yr< N6 Cy li-u 3� of W�aiL2 26 t i �NQ000 wr..< 6� paWNWO i1 VY 02p'J SWL�� W SYp Jf[ yI YULOJU FST OM SS{ p{ „ x3 IWt <tYr <o[Y> SW< p` iWNMia°� JjNN <i JrwwiV Wl- <U1y i «.-wJE NQtl TOYwJee � OJM 1<iLi` y2Jr0SO Ul]u`Wi O_ jYw00 yOrOWaOWOyLy06ap[.i Y1VJ i W > OYtJyrtlO 2y OOOLL <W1. yLLi �`O` YOr ��{{Nt y�J`O 3b'SH H iOC.i+L20Y.[S.i-i WVM�uMpa JT W�apa i�V4TyL0�V20 QOOII O�u mY Y(G'Cff'ae'e vu VioVU��VUS <pOODO NPNgrrM n•YOrNffnnnOrOOOgdrJPOrn N1-V Pf rrPNd qNN� -OdFd �pgnMgMnMNgNNdNMFnnOieqq0 ..00. -0Y gwr4M wriw+ � qwN... PHA OO M rriN° P��yra'q i ■, M: efl POP O,R. >.a P TSwNn pP P1 r a r r4YMrMMOYPYYO rI.ybMJPYOyONbOY I.r >rA 't' r. MYrYYYpp nlJ�O YMYOPPPOMVVIbVPPN V.pOlPM4P d.DYOrMPV4N Il "Ir PPP�PVWPPPr PPIarPVPOOPPlP Nr i1 �.•� YI�WNWWYMPlYYWY 1} >Cn ^y .n }r�1 LLNyYFru V }Mr2MiiY;f �L� }yPOLLyPy�TTLTTPl11u.T io a o�z :�szs9 °{r�ISi�e4 °i i�.z.P.��i r}µN °•t nPP oeo >r >a�•i -, P�� u. s ip yQ �ZS 81ri1�nzw AITI IZr1$z}y NN I °`} f , }OSO�SiYN2y !'r MNA>S.(P 1110 �r >Y ~ yYy 1 RNSppS !SO >O OA> S� AO �.fb M G P Tr��} -I Cn_OCIIr�Y(r ff N >NyNSKwR °1M1 OwIPn>911. y °�[.Z 1 n12 }I+S �90 O Spy }p , �! 1 ra, SI r•y C SY>9A �(0�0SNCb T� I•.IYY T M z !!9��ST >r CA ySTORTPIN }rT (. 1.. YT �f1 PPP }y.N•IrlO n T(1 ri T9 fjinra r'i ^O M`1fS I .z rrN FRO. 21y 1 w°T1C' pL Cp 1w Oj N } »> TT > �TaM1Z iafl \l 1 �O YiSPrrn{I~S N M a1n pY Ya SYG . LI_°I. W P Nn SYaP n Tn . •' M1 %P N r•rrrYr x ° 1 O naTN y PO } P n 1 = s N iaf r a ai n z n � z a n Ni Prn PawIM1 Z� POP O,R. >.a P TSwNn pP P1 r a GOrM >rA 0> ^U r9^=n >Cn ^y qoP 9! 0Y Y M »2 n5 Na 21y W � r•rrrYr x ° »zw M1 H R a°t y BP M 2 e x n N ZA 0 F YD »n M1X a Q11 SA b c I A i ~ 1 « NN�YYrN�N�MNw��NNNNwMNMNNMN ^MMrN =MNY r,Niyy J ♦+JJJdJdJdJJdJJw pJpi pJpidf rrW+YYWWYYYYYNYWW rJY 4.N.4OP�IP MdYVwOi }YPPJY�HSOO YP »jVYr000MPN N o C N N POYOrVPpOVNPN6VN PPPgNrrOd�OP �! O!N P QOOPMiMONOHOJVPpPdOdNO0iY0YVO0YOPdJ }POYj.M O POOPSOPPrVSgOVPP rOSSSOJYSNIOSVPSpVPOSOOr x A d a b s i a r a n } y V i� ■ FI 000- . +ON.Jf OOpOYp vi M1p vv! O .... O +OPP0......NpJ. f L1; PJP �•.ON °NfR »f OPNryN0000P +JPPP.°.Mw °NPOVP�.„`IY Y.NY a aNP +NNNJTaONaJNT�JNNf 1 a`� 1 p1 i 1 a.- OPO.•.N.Mf.1.01-OPO +NI1f A.p�°iOaNNMNMh°P Op»ry Nf NJ �• i C' f�wf J•fiw wwwffw�Y•fiM ��y y w�w•fiyMM �f w.fiww•fiYH +N-.+w � �SI NryNNNNNryryNNN ry.VryM1ryNNM1NNNNryNNNNNNNNNNNNM1ryNN •�� JJJ Y e Ne O 1 L SY rR0 O -O L '5; JS 1 WO\ OM1\ =NIw JWW J2 efq hw.B »+ nwR hW.. ¢ 1 R¢ NON ¢OI.Q V» •LLi +\ Q +QJU.Yn W.Qi. .`fN It 6hN } SU25WY a »¢ya iYt<Z }uZW R ZO+ I ^a i<GhwOOC a YQ.` O O :OJ<O =OY O VjY 1I Zu ^1 40 ywy uyYLLY yJiJ y YYNHa 1 •ii J6j W¢<n \W»¢•'�¢111.. <' C266 N J V JJW - 1 h+6 1 NYr ;V¢ WUWWNN.+„J UYOV ��w J a.- Jtl \OYV <wW .(IC)ip¢ ryJ7 Y66Y O •Y2.»- a. -+6f Y.•'_ ,Wa "dy o » »u Wi< `i» I w N.• w l�N O 2W • NNNY -J W6LLLL« si W oz ops� 9i F„$Nnp ow zE &w +Wa � »app u. rh'a »z <Q +s+yNiozJEi C Q »+ z a`' of os .- ..i � inNWJJ¢z »WWbWW a <zWa ; »WWSo 1 wCF6 Or »N aJay npQ�r¢ON; s I uxTi »� zaWere •z�e�.W�az :zz� -< Y >E i O•.J 2NQw3 ej�WWh Sii33J NOyy QfLp^ »I NUNWNep >`.- QN6N� <ryNNO+i "`NNNes OOWOaFWW6LL J 1 � < 1 » 9 _ Yp _ u » 1 Vi u> Y G i V OGa M W V w 24 O YVS O U .ii 6 ..O 1 E!4 • NN QS ° v 6 2 .- C <JpY J OYJL OZN »20 6 W QO•V f pLL +U >WOF { Off»+ JI. 4JLYJrJ¢W •�CTO M MEN-. aN 0e20>2 y. f[SRO°4[�t iJ Y`�.Wi.w j» •j<, »Op O 1 WVW[OINaWV °¢'� <YLO <.JnlS ;'•O JbWOMLLU i•4016 MNWOC •' YAW Y iV +r = M`a ¢jOJ JU SN N..Q>< JWW »i W iW W W6t4 »LLN02i»W�JQV J 1 8 <� : ¢ {tr1�SF 20 �•' Q : Y: pa 1 � +� z'.>fLLN »J i�Waaoo.�uuL` vli. -'ouuW pJ..0 ui ��i�asa Na +u< <r a< ydaasz» »¢nom O JJ! 2; ; «6�pY 422JOLOy460iM1LL 6.�ry V4Q; O }1 p p -' 61 °P Ni�Qn0 Y1la.TFOaOryOJPPPnf PJRw�JN�YrOT N.O'I °fT.NVIP- N 1 O +NhNhNTP I-N �hJnl- rnryON1- R . f t fy PYPd/.Mb_JV �MA.ap�YJlN ++b yv OJ JYPIJ.PON...NSf J.MJ NNPr ,y'�,t �. Y^ MdP NAO �r YNdPAb«dl.Y ^PYd Mf0N.1NdO�IYd wYq YPNY Jf POYO(:j >.jY -� xN>Sx V�IxK�Gi rrN.. ��._._._- ___a•• ... n''. y.•6.n`[t K.y Q.k IDO PON"�s(\pp\ u OSCS _Nrii��(i Gw MOOO TP�O R \.e= >N'�•i iT 1(.tl, yy wM' �OSrO bN}a!wT 'pppbp0 yy e51 - NQ 'Yy QL 1naiM •' yi F D r0 9 n K 'gig 1 GT pp.Orn 7 >` «OGyy� 9Vbb }OtT if rl'Ofl6G T'"�2' Y..� ~ � r "O nTS.. Y.N•trii J['Yi >'n �iAY +j e1 li SM� AIY.4T �NK KZtn% 3 +y i a« »NnrrP > «�bTPP i-e A 1, rN 8c°'« v$ IPnD��arl 'nm °'.°•PC..z::Nnc,z % °v A�s'z^�y D...t.,wi. ^' °ANI:- wjN T» }^Ny�NTapzYY..N Ir YT�'y VmS >O11"I YPNMOT' °Tt4i\Cinx: Tnn ly `*xn -.* ^S""111( +nµY�SV;LTT T±ya MTO TTyyO 1 Ty', ° bTN-IlR TStOPnSTC^ T°D fC�N�Nr ny 1 . �Ty2a L. e4 .•w «zz VPO 1 P.. . ^OY V. t: `�� eG bra>i I�DITi'VIZ ° 7 rrr alifi p nn��dN n�\a °ny 10 Orr n "° n.. S' b^ ; nnn�n n n 1 t PL9 SZ,xm- AW}Z YPY(w (nPP�YY t t(t O \TI+w > T Df PwZ I1 jD Nlej(M •jM A�DD�a O D � \YOT+ ~ ^ r YNtiyT N >I�Y t° wN 1 �z\ x N ON N NM Z 1 li 4 rrrpN.. r. N.^ HrneN. �rwF�N�r .N.NNNFHrMMnrr.4.NF.4.MNNS` L �{ ` OOgOW006Jdd+. Odd�� .JyYOOt +�YIYOyO�IVMyrNY�YyPPP P 4..0 � +°YPOfY4^O +OYP YYOd°YPplY4..Od°Y tD> rp 1� i I n 4 , ^ � N yY�y�VY Oy.e...O..PY M.N. Y14pp y � NPOwdN�COpYO e.PY «VN +PfOJ^ Nd IT > A T �> PWY � fOP O.I.YPP <W dJd Od YMY.p°pSdoN VdP ly p OdP6py0 PNOJ.Op OMJOMNfI.4dYV0gd0'J �IOOe ePp OOOJOO OSYVOOOGOYP060WPPfONOOdNOPV ppO O(.PN g � 10 °' j It 1 X� irvl k �t ,w a" M1i 1 wPOPwt r � 1 O Y`[1 OOywww !� `•'i � t� MOe��w M1NhNhN _ ...a 1 VI _. 1 wZRI V {2 `i iHwOwp r 1 + Luau 1 41 KSOiV OW WwWwWO NI �SN� H WI YI °2 _ NOW_ y 1 W g W aJ� »a �uu6 3 i xqN� r i i - 1 Y 2 w 2 1 i p Y j 1 <etta. WgCw+°p i hL0 O 1 _ J <SYS i SzNx >s s orw 'kY -f.7 •�7,�r'+ �r•. • " -,ya . ,y; ... � r,�..: •- •,Ye ye �'i= �I,SS�b., /= �cOYr:I •. __'rrt w11i wD. r... rw u.-r.r rar`�w+n «r APPUCAMM1 IS ----- MW 1. Te"M OF M 110.. To Iyarr N I/dND bw*W Cr d IMI Ma1Dw y: •.'^,' yR w,Ar" TT onr Ott Ufm iwrnr. Cri MIN RMt W4 OYw .. .rrnoa.rrrDw. � h DJn1yDMMW wIU Ia ,. .� � "• Icr Mriwlw Mwr ' i HAV"W aAr-#P R e•I• Y 1� COICLR K C0NVWWJ4CR STORM WC .t 1 TTMM OF MAIaACFAMM r allMet 1101.11 1 NRC a .w,l••v awID.+M A•11•ua.. re 1e+.1 --- - �_n•••••••• IA.M flue, tilr'q Ai IfI7DIM1 - � , t. IIM Tr w Mr arwmi N D tND•TI 16 NwA 1« � wNNr M N h IwwYw N h AYrre.+ _ tiw,re Grp Aw r wwrA N �OR.)rlw R „ NIA I1.ew1y�.'TtP rewrr Mtr llrrrdwl•r DDND /V MMrrilw'1NMb rW� , IL A »Ifor 4.r W hl w �� rweel� N r.i b.M Iran Da New r h Nr1A°. N • laws W AIYa..elr.Wrn rrrDD+YrY.iNwN r/Nh IMYw NI.aWsY.wMt.++lA6 y IL ITAtl 01 CUVO0 Crwy Dl G+1\!�•I" wY. r r rr rWr r.r r r r.w.. rwYrY W r� r .w. r wr..r• . r ew..e. •D r r r ti r ..... r.....w. rl Yw.rr�y�r,y�l wlwrr�r .w. rww wr W.W�rr .... r•4rr.r' .tirYW. /. w�YUrr y.r�r. rf�/•T 7�""C llir^i/••� ly v ANtICATION RT TRAMUMOR I& IIAtt OF CAIIONIA C'r'I N tDr i �.. Y r .r/WwrnyV.yY.WW V,•�w/..�s rw4y.� Y r r�ww.�..�..r.� w�.W yr.Yl�., .w�..,.Ww.• : y w.•�.�•r. i e •�� r.wlW M 4FYf.Vw�1w.., �..i Y�M.lrryi�L DrwM.. r. I..�� .� w.i�w� . �Mrt .W.wwr.ww....WreYw•.r•w..rrw Y.PwrM D.Nw Wd&92AMThk LINIi>a/wt D U"O* v .1 _ I �4wrYMN Wr aaar �huYe ND' � 1. � \ � __ PAAC _I .e � 0 � § \k � ` \; " |,|;0' E; m!9 \ � __ PAAC _I .e � 0 � 14. 1 O9 17 'YOSr • `�� M MI 017 16 •r r t L1 • Y t If / T t LANE f I vKTORiA �- I•e 4 14 J0 �D e N ,► J � 1p� 0 r gd CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 3, 1988 TO: City Coupcil and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Enginter BY: Linda Beek, Engineering Technician p SUBJECT: AvenuoaandfBanyan Street lnd72between located Milliken Avenue land ,and_,' the Deer Creak Channel, submitted by Ahmanson 0.ovelcpments, Incorporated RECONMENCI,TION: it is resolution- approving that authorizing he City Clerk et cause same- to record. Background /Analysts Tentative Parcel Map 10972 was approved by Plnning Commission on December 9, 1987, for the division of 73.6 acres of land Into 3 parcels in the Medium Low Residential Development District, located etwean l Avenua d Banyan between the Deer Creek Channel. Im ovements are t be constructed at the time of building permit issuance. Respectfully submitteQ, Qtr ylriy �iy�r RHM:LB:sd Attachment �5 RESOLUTION N0. R - 053 r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10972 OENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10972) ,Y C WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 10972, submitted by Ahmanson '{ y Developments, Incorporated and,consisting of 3 parcels, located between s` Highland Avenue and Banyan Street and between Milliken Avenue and'Deer,Cieek ,t- a CnannelI was approved by -the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho 1: Cucamonga; and - WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 10972 is the final map of the division of i land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and e WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite'to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have.now blktaat..� F`. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Number that said Parcel Map Nuer 10972 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. i, M t ♦ zo 0 ,..., 11c, , • alnn 1111, vn.11 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TOt Mayor and Membern of the City Council PROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Assistant City Manager BY, Jerry B. Fulwood, Resource Center Coordinator SUBJE.'Tt Approval of Ror,,olution Ordering Preparation of Reapportionment Report for the Storm Drain Channel (Assessment District 86 -21 fot the Lot Line Adjustment for APN 201 - 271 -71, APN 201- 271 -72, and Tract Map 12873. RECOMMENDATION: Appr0VAl of Resolution Ordering Preparation of Reapportionment Report for the Storm Drain Channel 1Assessment District 86 -21 for the Lot Line Adjustment for APN 201- 271 -71, APN 201 - 271 -72, and Tract Map 12873. EVALUATIONS Pursuant to Part 10 of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for Apportionment of Assessments because of the subdivision of lands the approval of Resolution Ordering Preparation of Reapportionment Report is necessary. This Resolution directs the Assessment Revenue Section to prepare a Reapportionment Report, amend the assessment diagram and establish fees for apportionment which is six hundred dollars for the Lot Line Adjustment for APN 201 -2r1- 71, APN 201- 271 -'2, and seven hundred twenty dollars for Tract Map 12877 Respectfully submltted, R e Assistant Sty Manager RAR:JBP:sgr Attachments Resolution Ordering Preparation of Reapportionment Report - 9 r RESOLUTION NO. O S RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO' CUCAMONGA,r'CALIFORNIA, ORDERT,IIG THE PREPARATION OF A REAPPORTIONMENT REPORT AND AMENDED. ASSESSMENT AND DIAGRAM TN STORM DRAIN CHVINEL (ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86 -21 AND ESTABLISHING REAPPORTIONMENT FEES FOR LOT LINE ACJUSTMENT FOR APR 201- 271 -71, APN 201 - 271 -72, AND TRACT MAP 12873. WHEREAS, the C17Y COUNCIL of the CI71 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, has proviously,coufirmod %sessments.,in i'cpectal assessment district„ pursuant to,thc teraw; and provisions of the -Municipal Improyecnent,,Ac6 of; i31.9•, being Division% 12 t`of the Streets and Hlghweya Code of the State of Call£ornie, and:bonds were Lnsued to represant.the.costs for-•unpaid,'assexamonts pursuant to the terms and Frcvlsicns of the !Irovement Bond Act of 19150. being• Dlvlsicn� 10 of said code,,, eampid� spacial assessment district knuwn and Designated as Assessment District�86 -2 (hereinafter referred to as the -Assessment District') and, WHEREAS, subsequent thereto, certain lois and /or parcols.,of land upon which tnere are unpaid assessments have boon apportioned or divided: and. WHEREAS, at this time this legislative body is desirous to order the reapportionment of said unpaid assessments pursuant to the provisions of Part 10 of the 01nprovsment Bond Act of 19150 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVdD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 That the above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2 That the Superintendent of Streets is hereby ordered to file with the City Clerk a report entitled •Reepportfonment Report- and an amended assessment and diagram of the original parcel or parcels of land affected by such dlvislon or transfer of ownership, segregating and apportioning the unpaid installments of the original assessment in accordance witl: the benefits to the several parts of the original assessment in accordance wlth the benefits to the several parts of the original lot or pascal, plus costs and fees of making the apportionment. SECTION 3 That this legislative body hereby determines and establishes a fee In the amount of six hundred dollars for the Lot Line Adjustment for AFN 201- 271-71, APN 201 - 271 -72, and seven hundred twenty d..ilars for Tract Map 12873 19 ip r�. v+� - .. _.� - .. �.%3 : „� •4:�: 'W4'4'Y CITY COUNCIL R RESOLUTION - • •,y TM 12873 February 17, 1 1998 ' Page T SECTION A. T That the`Superintendent of Streets shall, prior to •, : making a division and making the amended • :4 assessment, notify the owner of the• original;;;: a a parcel or parcels assessed, as, the;name of the' owner or owners appear on the last equalized assessment roll for taxes, or as said owner cf s s owners are known to the Superintendent of Streets, " "i” of the order of this Z , Zegislative b that the payment of ahch costs and'fees be made to. - - the Superintendent of Streets within fifteon.715) . days of such notification.' In the event'that the , , reapportionmenh fee in not paid within fifteen 1151 days of such notification ,>the'SUperintendent of Streets shall procaod to prepare the amended assessment and shall tshow separately thereon, but;.,_- _ _ as a part of the tota:L, the reapportionment fee- .20 is I a •. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager IN FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Laura Psomas, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: A request- of the City Council to authorize the City Engineer to' issue letters holding the state harmless as a result of improvements adjacent to CalTrans rights -of -way within 30 feet of the curb line which are consistent with City issued ^.onditions of approval RECOPMOkTId1: That the City Engineer be authorized to issue letters holding the state harmless as a result of improvements within 30 feet of the curb line which are consistent with City issued condttioas of approval. Background /Analysis With increasing frequency, staff has encountered difficulty implementing improvements as conditioned adjacent to CalTrans rights -of -way along 19th Street, Highland Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard. The conflicts are occurring because the state mandates that no fixed objects be within 30 feet of the edge of the travelway. This stipulation elimina :es most street trees, perimeter walls, street furniture, etc., due to what the state perceives as a potential liability situation. Since the City requires these or related types of improvements within the 30 -foot zone, the state requests that the City Engineer submit a letter which holds the state harmless due to these improvements. "ouncil is therefore regvested to give a "blanket approval• for the City Engineer to write such letters to CalTrans as the need arises. Respecsf /Mwitted, RHM:LP:sd aI � W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT' .j Date: February 17, 1988 To: City Council and City Manager From: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer By: John L. Martin, Associate Civil Engineer Subject: Award and Execution of Professional Services Agreement with GPS Consulting Engineers to prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Base Line Road Improvements, Phase II from Etiwanda Avenue to Victoria Park Lane It is hereby recommended to award and, execute a Professional Services•- - Agreement with GPS Consulting Engineers to prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates along with various engineering` studies and field surveys for Base Line Road Street Improvements, Phase Ii from Etivanda Avenue to victoria Park Lane. Such work •.o be done for a fee not to exceed $27,500.00 to be paid from Systems Development Fund. BALKGFDMIAAALYSIS• On January 8, 1988, three firms responding to a Request for Proposals for the Base Line Project, submitted detailed scope of work, background reference and design team credentials to the City of Rancho Cucaoocga. All three teams met the professional and scope of service requ ±reeents established by staff. A ranking of the fee proposals are listed below: L.D. King, Inc. $31,900.00 CPS Consulting Civil Engineers 27,500.00 Don Greek and Associates 39,132.00 Staff recommends GPS Consulting E.bineers for award of the project. The Not to Exceed Fee will be paid frow the Systems Developvent Fund and is included In the Capital Improvement Program list for 1987 -88 wit.'i budget allocation therefore. RespectI401y.substitted. RHH lip Attachment • - in ' Y REsoLurloN No. QTS - 07a- - A _"ESM.UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AWHO CV_Mn WTO AFJIRD'AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL• - SERYICES'AUSE ENT,NITN'BpS.CONSULTING ENGINEERS.OF TUSTIN,� CALIFORNIA ,TO PREPAAE'PLANS;fSPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIIYATES,FOR BASE'LINE,AM STREET,INPROYEIENTS' .,. PHASE II FROM ETINANDA AVENUE TO'YICTORIA'PAPR_ LANE 1WEREAS,'tbe City Council of„the " City- of,"Raorho Cucaeonyya,a desires to widen and tap6nva Base Line Road;frbo;Etfimnda Avenue -to Vfctoiia Park Lane, being Phase II "of an overall 'widening project; Engineers, has reEs�nded•,toeag rittangReqquest fornProposalflssued Consulting deslin,fstud studies calculations, nrithrservlces rforntheuarrparaMor of Plans, Specifications and Estimates °to,wften and irprove Base Liner Road, PnAse from Etiwanda Avenue to Victorta1ark Lane -ILY submitting a -fee proposal for—• - the same; BE IT THEREFORE Services Agreement with GPS ConnssSulting�Engteeers:to provide professional professional�ai engineering services to Frepare Plans, Specifications land Estfastes to provide for the widening and improving of Base Line Road, Phase 11 from dtfwanda Avenue to Victoria Park Lane. Such work she,I be performed for a fee Not to Exceed S27,SDO.00 to be funded by Systems Davelopesent Fund. shall also be established for uuse under athe napproval ana directioncofathenCity Engineer for extra work or change order during the course of the plan preparation. a3 �S F CITY OF RA NCHO CUCAMONGA y yA STAFF REPORT r , DATE: February 17,'1988 >! TO: City Council 'end City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Laura Psomas, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: Approval to Award and' Execute Professional Services Agreement for Design 'Contract Administration to J.F. Davidson Associates RECOMMENDATION: To award and execute Professional Services Agreement with J.F. Davidsgg,- Associates for an amount not to exceed 520,000.00 to be paid from various -- project funds. Background /Analysis The firm of J.F. Davidson, Incorporated has been selected to perform contract administration for several Beautification projects currently in design. Projects to Ne administrated will include but not necessarily be limited to Beautification projects along Archibald Avenue. Haven Avenue, Base Line Road, 19th Street and aleo the Entry Monuments. The contract also will provide for additional design services for minor projects as 0.9 need for such workings arises. All nark shall be performed on an hourly basis. The contract amount, $20,600.00 it to be drawn from various project funds. ResPer ful submitted, RHM: by u J ,.i Date: To: From: By: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 17, 1988 City Council and City Hanger Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Heny %rakoshi, Associate Civil Engineer Subject: Award and Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Rm,o Consultants, to prepare Right -of -Way Appraisal cqquuiisition Services for 19th Street from Zircon to AECON E,WATIOM• Award and Execute a Professional Services Agreement with-- ,Rswco- Consultants, Inc. to prepare Rtsht -of -Nay Appraisal Acquisition Services for 19th Street from Zircon to Amethyst. Such work to be done for a fee not to exceed $85,440.00 plus costs for eicrex fees, policy title, ea., to be funded from Systems Development Fund. eACKRRCM /NUIY51S: On 8ece ter 15, lad7, five Right -of -Nay Acquisition - Appraisal firms responding to a Request for Proposal for the 19th Street Improvements from Zircon to Amethyst Avenue, submitted detailed scope of work, background refer^vur and project taaa credentials to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. All five teams Let the professional and scope of service requirsaents established by staff. A ranking of the fee proposals are as follows: ASL i Proposal Withdrawn Willdan 89,000.00 (including title reports) i, (including t reports) 94800.00 uscossfort tereports) L.A. Wainscott 10;,984.00 (plus Costs for title reports) ASL Consulting Enginears requested not to be considered for award for the right -of -way services only and suggested City negotiate directly with thei- sub - consultant, John Cutler. Staff decided to request not only John Cutter, but all the top three firms to resubmit their proposals. The three resubmittals were received on January 27, 1908 aM ranked according to fe-i proposals are listed below: Ramro $ 05,440.00 John Cutler &;,100.00 Rilidan 89,000.00 3 P5 A M' W ccsit Re: Ramco Consultants February 17,1988 Page 2 All fees are Including title report Consultants for award of the project. from $1stems Development.Funds. Res L(uy submitted, L z R �-I;Pcm Attachment costs. Staff recommends' R*4'co The Not, to Exceed Fee will'be paid, CITY OF RANCHO CUCADiONGA STAFF REPORT _ rt Date: February 17, 1988 To: City Council and City Manager From: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer By: John L. Martin, Associate Civil Engineer Subject: Approval and Execution of Change Order No. 2 for Professional Services Agreement with Norris - Repke, Inc., to perform Design Administration Services foa• Various Projects, C.O. /87 -21 1ECf MW"TIOM: Approval and execution of Change Order No. 9 •- Profensioncl Servi;es Agreement with Norris- Repke, Inc., to perform Design Administration Services for various projects, C.O. CK -21. It is recommended to expand their contract by $36,474.75 to brird their contract total to $69,474.75 to be paid from various project funds. 8W.GR W&VAtM.YSIS• On March 4, 1987, the firm of Norris-Repke, Inc., wes engaged by the City for tha preparation of design reports for Vineyard Avenue Rehabilitation, Upper Hellman Avenue or Area II Storm Drain System and Project Review for t e Industrial Assessment District 82 -1. Such workings were to be performed on an hourly basis. It is now found necessary to argment the original contract limit to continue these workings. In summary, the additional work includes: a. Vineyard Avenue Rehahilitation S 474.75 ((completed project) b Hellman Storm Drain, Phase I 5,000.00 Cucamonga Storm Drain (Heilman, Phase II) (New Work) 10,000.00 c. AD 82 -1 8,000.00 d Turner Hermota Storm Drain (New Work) 335.76 TOTAL In meetings with the consultant, a price of $36,474.75 has been arrived at and is recommended to add to the original contract to continue the studies in progress. This brings the contract total to $69,474.75. Resp y s bmitted, RHM: am Attachment a-) r 3., CITY OF RANCHO axAm BA CNGIHEERING SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Project Administration 8 Studies - Vineyard Avenue/Hellman Storm Drain AD 82 -1 1 -29-88 Date:__ T0: Norris- Repke, Inc., 507 E. First St. Ste. P, CA 9268o grneer You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the agreement for engineering services. Continue Project Administration Services adding two new projects; the Cucamonga Storm Drain and Hellman Phase II and design report for Turner - Hermosa Storm Drain. The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Incre ased) by the sum of: Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and 75/100 Collars ($36.474.75 The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be: Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and 75/100 Collars ($69,47a:75 "j— The Contract period provided for completion wilt be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged) Work on an hourly basis. This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. Requested: Kusnserl �n 4 neer a Accepted: �,e-,�( Fig n—i e - - a Approved: Mayor, Ci y o anc o ucamonga Date This Informaiii I 5i 1541 as rcor o agreement dated: Approval March 4, 1987 0 na en nee ng C -21 a3 DES JLCREASE --- gp�-- 1. Vineyard Ave. Rehab. (22- 4637 -8752) in Contract Price la Contract Price $ 474.75 2a. Hellman Storm Drain (23-4637 -8763) 5,000'00 2b. Cucamonga Stoi„r Drain (Hellman Phase II) (234637 -8763 10,000.00 3. 4. AD 82 -1 Turner - Hermosa Storm Drain (83 -4637 -6028) (234637 -8108) 8,000.00 9.000,00 (See Attached Letter) TOTAL $36,474.75 Continue Project Administration Services adding two new projects; the Cucamonga Storm Drain and Hellman Phase II and design report for Turner - Hermosa Storm Drain. The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Incre ased) by the sum of: Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and 75/100 Collars ($36.474.75 The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be: Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and 75/100 Collars ($69,47a:75 "j— The Contract period provided for completion wilt be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged) Work on an hourly basis. This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. Requested: Kusnserl �n 4 neer a Accepted: �,e-,�( Fig n—i e - - a Approved: Mayor, Ci y o anc o ucamonga Date This Informaiii I 5i 1541 as rcor o agreement dated: Approval March 4, 1987 0 na en nee ng C -21 a3 I' Y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 17, 2488_ �y To: City Council and City Manager From: iossell N. Maguire, City Engineer By: John L. Martin, Asscciate Civil Engineer Subject: Contract Change Order No. 4 for Additional Landscape Architectural Services for Riven Avenue Median Landscaping IlTidl: - It is recomended that the City council approve Contract Change Order No. 4 for additional Landscape Architectural Design Services on Raven Avenue ofd$4 SDO 00 (plus a110%i o tangency), is to be dram from eeeutifiacation° Funds. 696ROLW AWYSIS Additional Landscape Architectural Services are needed to address revised median configurations of the Phase III and Phase IV split and rew tagging of planting materials and combined will bring the contract total to a new total of $52,687.00. Respect ubuitted FM:JLN:pam Attachment N 1 t re �S M1 a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOM6R i ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Haven Avenue Medians 0 r er Fo. : 2 -3-88 irate: T0: Randolph Hlubik Associates, Inc. — Engineer You are hereby requested to comply with the following change, from the agreement for engineering services. 1. Field observations at direction in Contract Price In Contract Price of City Not to Exceed $3,500.00 2. Additional Design for Phase III 8 IV Project per attached letter (2 -1 -88) s1 ;bwoo TOTAL $4,500.00 UMIFICATIOW- Additions, modifications and completion of landscaping plans. The amount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Increased) by the sum of: Four Thousand Five Hundred and no /100 Dollars ($41500.00 ��- The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be: Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven and 95/100 Dollars ($5_2,687:95 -'- The Contract period provided for completion will be (Increased)(Decreased) (Unchanged) As required to complete job Days This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisiois will apply hereto. Requested: f ng neer a e ftLAccepted: Approved: yor, y o and o ucamanga ----------- Zlaf- agreawnt dated: , -- -- - -- C.O. tae_ •• IIi xII 5' i I' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 17, 1988 �r-0 To: City Ccuncil and City Manager v From: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: John L. Martin, Associate Civil Engineer Subiect: Contract Change Order No. 2 for Additional Engineering Services for Haven Avenue Median Design and Plan Preparation with Madole and Associates RECCMM RATION• Approval and execution of Contract Change Order No. 2 with Madole and Associates Civil Engineers and Surveyors for a Professional Services Agreement for Plans, Specifications and Estimates, C.O. 85 -79, for.Haven Avenue Median Island Construction. It is recommended to expand their contract by $9,912.00 to bring their contract total to $76,718.00 to be paid from the Beautification Funds. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS: Additional Engineering Design Services are required to address an extended scope of work alcng Haven Avenue. The original contract, C.O. 85 -79 with Madole and Associates, Incorporated, required design and construction document preparation for medians bet-.4een Arrow Route and 19th Street. The revised scope of work included ill Haven Medians from Fourth Street to Wilson Avenue. Recently, difficulties encountered with LalTrans has lead to a decision to split the project, Phase III North of 19th Street, into two (2) phases. Phase III will exclude all portions under the control or influence of CalTrans (approximately 300 feet north of Highland to 19th Street). The portion under Calirans control will be,:ome Phase Iv. An additional concern was included in Phase III to recun.truct the intersection of Haven and Wilson Avenues to remove the abrupt 0arge in grades for traffic on Haven Avenue. With this split, we can proceed more quickly with construction of Phase III. Therefore, an additional fee of 59,912.00 is required. The contract fee, therefore, will increase from $66,806.00 to $16,718.00 and will be paid from Beautification Funds. Respe t submitted, RHM :JLM:pam Attachment 31 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOIM ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER COMiRAL;i FOR Haven Avenue Median Island Construction Order o.: 2 -5-88 -WaUF.— TO: Madole and Associates 545 N. Mountain Ave. Ste. 105 Upland, CA 91766 MR., You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the agreement for engineering services. DES in Contract Price In Contract Price 1. Additional Surveys $2,112.00 2. Modify Plans for Wilson Intersection 3.000.00 3. Modify Plans to show split between phase III and IV 2,500.00 4. Prepare Signal Plans -2 3D0 Addition of redesign of Wilson Avenue Intersection Modification and completion of street plans. The 'mount of the Contract will be (Decreased) (Increased) by the sum of: Nine Thousand_ Nine Hundred Twelve and no /100 Dollars ($9,912.00 The Cvntracf Tots" includlnq this and previous Chango Orders will be:Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen and no /100 Dollars ($75,71 _ The Contract period provided for completion will be (IA :reased)(Decreased) (Unchanged) 90 Days This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. Requested: City Engincer a Accepted: X (/ ."n Nsan r ?ate Approved: yor, 61LY 01 KancnO LUC&=nga — a re— This a infu7a on us as recor o any c nges or g na en .neer ng greement dated: C.0 85 -79 August 8, 1995 3Q. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA y� K 4 , STAFF REPORT ,I DATE: February 17, 1988 f TO: City,Council and City Manager FROM: Russell M. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Shintu Bose, Sr. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Contract Change Order No. 5 for the preparation of designs, construction plans, specifications ,ands cost estimates for the Day Creek Channel improvemimt. protect 'ay Boyle- Ludwig Engineering, in the amount ofj$12,6e0ilring the total contract amount to $584,041 to be ;paid from Day Creek Funds RECOMMENDATION: The Contract Change Order No. 5 in the aanunt of $12,680 is recamnended for acceptance and execution. This Change Order will increase the previously approved contract amount to $564,041. Background /Analysis During the Design - Development phase of the Day Creek Drotect, additional items of works were identified and sone modifications to the design were required in order to complete the work. The design for these works was not stipulated in the original scope of work for the consultant, requiring this change order to the original contract. Resp f submitted, R'-A: SB: dlw Attachment CITY OF RANCHO WCAV&cA ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Designed of Day Creek Improvement Project Order No.:_T- A/C No. 86- 4637 -5028 P.O. /9493 February 2, 1988 Date: TO: Boyle - Ludwig Engineering `' ng neer You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the agreement for engineering services. DECREASE in Contract Price In Contract Price t 1. Highland Avenue Redesign $ 5,200,00 2. Foothill Boulevard Redesign S 1,000,00 4. Base wLineeRoad, ArroweRoute ondu6th rStreet sdesign modification S 4, 0.00 - TOTAL $12,680.00 OL-ing the final design phase, additional work were identified which were not stipulated in the original agreement, to complete the design. The amount of the Contract will be Increased by the sum of: Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and 00 /100 Dollars ($12,680.00) The Eighty-four cthousand forty-one and 00 /100 Dollars ($5849041.00)rs will be: Five Hundred The Contract period provided for completion will be (Increased)(Decreased) (Unchanged) _ Days This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. Requested: us u re, y ng neer / ate Accepted: ng neer ---fie Approved: dyer, ty o anc o ucamonga ate This informat on us as TCW 'cFan es to a 9 na n nee-r-in 9 agreement dated: June 6, 1985; C.O. 185 -63 Zq M;, r. .3-50 RCSOLUTION NO. 19' 1073 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C(AMCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMORGA, CALIFOFMIA.''APPROVING CONTRACT,CMNGE ORDER 5 IN TO C.O. 085-6VAND AGREEPMFOP COIMSULTANTmSERVICES FOR THE FREPARATIOK,OF.I)ESIGN CONSTRUCTIOR-PLA.4S, SPECIFICATIONS'AND COST:CSTIMATES FOR THE-DAY CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Coun�ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga has. previously engaged the services I of Boyle-Ludwig Engineering by any agreesweni for consultant services (C.D. 85-63 for,the preparation of construction plans for Day Creek Ch&,inel); and WHEREAS, the City now desires to change the,.;cope and direction of the workings and whereas Boyle-Ludwig Engineering Is in agreement-to sudi changes in scope and direction in the project and agrees to perform the additional work for a fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to accept and execute the attached En ineering Services Contract Change Order No. 4• to C.O. 85-63 in the amount of 512,680.00 to be paid from Day Creek Funds. .3-50 q ±_,. • �'Y_) �"«C'.��3�- .- 'i:s�r r _ '1"'r' �<l,G'�`•' -:."rs :°�'! CITY Or_r%ANCHO CUCAMONGA 'STAFF REPORT. DATE: s` February 17, 1988 T0: City Council.and City Manager FROM: Russell H: Maguire, City_ Engineer BY: Steven Allen,.Jr. Civil Engineer SUOJECT: Executo"contrict "for. the; Etiwnda Avenue Cobblestone Curb-- and.Gutter Improvement Project. located on the east side K Etiwnda Amue'from Victoria Avenue to 253 feet Month `of Victoria '`Avenue,- and ri, the westside,of Etiwndat'Avenue from 10 feet 'south of, the Snuthern Pacific Railroad Crossing to 280 feet south of the Southern Pacific.Railroad i- rossioq awardeu to.DeAm=d Construction for the amount of $28,238.50 to be fucded from Beautification Funds. IJH: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clark to execute the contract documents for the Etiwnda , Avenue Cobblestone Curb and Gutter Iey,.vement Project, and authorize the Administrative Setwtces Director to expend $32,000.00. ($28,238.50 plus 105 contingency) to be funded from Beautification Funds. Backgroun..(Analysfs On January 20, 1988, City Council awarded the subject project to Dehrmond Construction. Staff has received from PeArmond Construction executed contract documents, bands and insurance documents: reviewed them and found them to be complete end in accordance with the contract proposal. Res ubmitta d, cc: Purchasing d ---ti, .4i- i.,e�e4�_.c. :.ix�- •s-,,r•,.^::t- rtliY-. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ST"FREPORT," „ DATE: rebruary 17, 1988 TO: City Council•and City Manager- FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steven Allen, Jr. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Execute contract for the Baseline Road Widening Improvement ProJect_ between Archibald and Hellmazi Avenues awarded to J.E.G. Construction. Company, Inc, for the amount of 5264.307.17 to be funded fret. the Systems Fund. ' RECOtMOATIOH: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to- rt execute the contract documents for the Baseline Road Widening Improvement Project, and authorize the AOainistrative Services Olrector to expend $291.000.00, ($264,307.17 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from the Systems Fund. Background /Analysis On February 3, 1988, City Covicil awarded the subject project to J.E.G. Construction Company, Inc. Staff has received from J.E.G. Construction Company. Inc., executed Contract documents, bonds and insurance documents; reviewed them and found them to be complete and in accordance with the contract proposal. Respe u'bmitteedd, l ' RHM: SA,. Jh cc: Purchasing 3? Y r- 4 C!TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - :; .• - ST_APF,REPORT! • V Aj`: DATE: February 17, 1988 T0: City Council and City Manager FRUM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steven Allen, Jr.-Civil Eng.necr SUPIECT: Award the Improvement of-Archibald, Ave at the Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing Project to Rip..,cidetonstructicn for the amount of S112,456, with funding from Federal- Section 203 Fund and Systems Fund RECOINENE£1TION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all bids as submitted and award Oe contract frr the Improvement of Archibald Avenue at the Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Riverside Construction for the amount of $112,456. Background /Analysts Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on January 25, 1988 for the subject project. Riverside Construction is the apparent lowest responsbile bidder with a bid amount of $112,455 (see attached bid suanary). The Engineer's estimate was $216,800,00, Staff has revidNed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectj�u4qy submitted,_ RHM:SA:dly Attachment cc: Purchasing �t im 38 i^ i..yyr _ .• SJ U, \� \ —e&7�� ) \ ® § \ { � _ { § \ § § ■ ƒ2!6 § - ■ k k � k , § ` k a ! § n K @ d _ � k ) � § ■ ■ B § § � ■ " "■ } U, \� \ —e&7�� st / �7 9$ \ -< -} / ^� � � A $` � \ f . ,�� 2) � mQ§§\ 2` § �-- — CrrY,OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �54ft. STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988[] T0: City Council and,Clty Manager " FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steven Allen, -Jr. Civil Engineer, SUBJECT: Accept the Ramona Avenue Reconstruction Improvement Project from Victoria Street to 19th Street as complete, release, bonds and authorize the City Engineer to flle "a •Notice of _ Completion• and approve the final contract amount -of $89,529.92. RECOMMENDATION: _ .. It is recommended that the City Council accept the Ramona Avenue Reconstruction Improvement Project as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion•, and authorize the - release of the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of$85,670.60 and accept the 10% Maintenance Bond in the amount of $8,600.00 for one year, and authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $8,952.92 and the Labor and Materials aond in the amount of $85,670.60, 35 days after the recordation of said notice of no claims have been received. Also, approve the final contract amount of 589,529.92. Background /Analysis The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved pl6ns and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount is $89,529.92. Resp 'y submitted, c RHM:SA:dlw cc: Purchasing r, \ _y RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN RECORDED WAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box O07 Rancho - ucamonga. California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in'the " ' hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: Ramona Avenue Reconstruction 2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base Line Road, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3. On the 17th day of February, 1988, there ras completed on the hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the contract documents for: Ramona Avenue Reconstruction 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: Inland Constructors S. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, C,lffornla, and is described as follows: Rsmona Avenue between 19th Stree. and Victoria Street CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQVGA, a Muni oration, Owner Feb_ruar 16, 1988 , ;ate City Engineer t�� 1jar RESOLUT1041NO f.47 A RESOLUTION OF-THE CITY'COUNCIL OF TMEXITY OF RANCHO, CUCAMD4GA-,-CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUMIC IKPROVEKENTS FOR RAMONA• AVENClEiRECOMMUCTION-AND,AUMORIZING THE4.7 FILING OF A liOTICEAF.'COMPLE.TION FOR THE WORK-' WHEREAS, the construction of public improverints f 6e. Redona, Avenue, Reconstruction have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEP�EAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filea,'cert4ying the work complete. I - - NOW. THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to,sign and file a notice of Completion- with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County.' - CITY OF RANCHO COCAAIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Bsrbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 87 -05 = Cross and Crown Lutheran Church - Approval of a�Resolution confirming the conclusion +from a City Council hearing• of February 3, -1988, to modify and approve the Conditions -of Approval on an appeal of the Pla:ming Commission Conditions relating to Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 87 -05 Cross and Crown Lutheran Church Staff recommends that City Council adopt 'he attached Resolution. Background /Analysis On February 3, 1938, the City Council heard the applicant's appeal of two (2) separate conditions of approval. The attached Resolutior reflects the Council's decision sumarized as follows: 1. The Council continued to require roof material of tile. 2. The Council modified the requirement to construct a turn - around on Vista Avenue to payment of in -lieu fees as contribution to the future construction of the turn- around at the ciao of the City's rehabilitation protect Resp y bmttted, RIM: BK: sd Attachment ly - 7� RESOLUTION NO. T8 -0-76 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF RAFCHO E IFYING AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -05 TO ALLOW THE V: A 4,900 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY BUILDING OF AN EXTENDED DAY NURSERY AND PRESCHOOL .4 LAND IN THE VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL S THAN 2 DUELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE IFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 6713 ETIWANDA AVENUE, NOINGS IN SUPPORT-THEREOF A. RECITALS (i) Rev. Richard A. Nelson, on behalf of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, has filed an application for approval of Conditional Use Permit 87 -05, described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereafter, to this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit rbg56i- - is referred to as "the Conditional Use Permit•. (11) On November 25, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter of the Conditional Use Permit, and follow.rg the conclusion of said hearing, adopted their Resolution No. 87 -209 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit. (iii) the applicant has filed a timely cppeal of the approval represented to said Resolution No. 87 -209 on the basis of two (2) Conditions contained in said Resolution. The Conditions appeal,v are described as follows: a. Planntn Condltton No. 3; •The roofing material must , be tile. A sample o +e ma era s m e submitted for Planning Division approval prior to issuance of building permits." b. En ineerin Condltton Na.3: "Vista Street abutting the east property line o +e pru ec s e s+a a completed with a temporary cul -de -sac, 18 -foot radius, within the existing street width, designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (iv) On February 3, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter of the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit and, on said date, concluded the public hearing. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. TS RESOLUTION PAGE 2 B. RESOLUTION NON, THEREFORE, It is Vound, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Macho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and concurs with the issuance of the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on November 25, 1987. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced February 3, 1988, hearing, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above- referenced Noveoter 26, 1987, Planning Commission meeting and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 -209, this Council specifically finds as follows: a. The Conditional Use Permit applies to property located at Etiwanda dwelling uunitshpertacre) rofttheDEtiwandaeSpecificlPlao trlct b. The property to the north and south of the subject site is within :he Very Low Density Residential District and is currently developed with a Garden and Greenhouse facility and a single family residence, respectively. Tito property to the east and west is within the Low Density Residential District and is currently developed with single family housing to the east and is vacant to the west; c. The Conditional Use Permit contemplates the development of a sanctuary building and classroom building and is permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit within the Very Low Density Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; d. The requirement of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 -209 (Condition No. 3 - Engineering Division) that the developer shall complete Vista Street, which abutts the east property line of the project site, with a temporary cul -de -sac, 18 -foot radius, within tha existing street width, is modified to require the pgymcnt of an in -lieu fee to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in the mmunt of cost to construct a straight curb across the west terminus (curb to curb) of Vista Street The amount is to be held in an account for the Local Street Rehabilitation project, Etidanda Area 1, to be used to cover a portion of the cost for the Cit•, project to construct the modified turn around at said location; Wo RESOLUTION PAGE 3 e. The requirement of Planning Commission No. 87 -209 (Condition No. 3 - Planning Division) that the developer must provide roofing material of tile continues to be an important and necessary condition in furtherance of the granting of the subject Conditional Use Pemmit. The requirement is consistent with the intent of the current policy which requires concrete or clay roofing for any new projects in residential areas; f. The Conditional Use Permit request as specified will not contradict the goals or objectives of the General Plan, Development Code or Etiwanda Specific Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would not promote a detrimental condition to tiro persons or properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 4. Based upon the substantial evidance presented to this Council Luring the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1, 2 &A 3 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: , , 1 a. Ths Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, b. The design er improvements of tha Ccnditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c. The subject site is physically suitable for the tide of development proposed; d. The design of the proposed development is not likely to cause substantial envirorunental damage or avoidable Injury to human> or wildlife or their habitat; e. The development 1s not likely to cause serious health problems; and f. The design of the development 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. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Council hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit subject to all of the Conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 -209 (a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A ") with .he specific exception that Condition No. 3 - Engineering Division shall be replaced to read as follows: z 2 �� - � _� _. v ^_. _e ,•T a_:ta.r.= .%rum. _ _ - __ r � "- .- 's_- r..-- nyr+^rn 3_•' -�'y RESOLUiION 'aka PAGE 4 r_ of Vista tStreet` straight curb across the 'westfterminus.(cu'r'b to curb) the satisfaction of the City Enginear prior"to issuance ` shalt be paid to of a building permit. Richarthir,w n 6, The Council hereby provides notice to Rev. the vetch" I4tiOnithin Nelson of the Cross:and Crafn_Lutheran•ChurcD ;ethat review Of f- CalifcrniasCoda oftClJijst be governed by�£ hecprorislonseo .- ' -, Procedure Section 1044.6. -•- - - _-- "'� 7. The City Clerk is hereby; directed to: (a) certify to`£he copy t?. (b) forthwith transmit cted' adoption o' this Resolution, and to Rev- Certified Nsil, Return Receip"' ReQuested; to Rev. _ this Resolution, by Richard A. Nelson at his address as per City records. .S 4 H 'A•:: J ;ti-.a 4H.=ry .ry T. i-A lf;�e'p�i ^".u��LV— a -' ♦ �. ..C-`✓i:Y.l t*''?'1t i'_]"_ =t, �aY_ �• a tf� � :1.! "�•'h _ ;,j a -'1. •E !7' Y r • WIBIT -A- ' RESOLUTION No. 87 -209 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROIING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87 -05 FOR A PROPOSAL y TO BUILD A 4,900,SQUARE'FOOT SANCTUARY BUILDING AND A ` 2,300 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND CLASSROOM BUILDING; AND OPERATE AN EXTENDED DAY NURSERY AND PRESCHOOL ON 5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2'11WELLING UNITS PER ACRE) 'OF THE ETIVANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 6723 ETIWANDA AVENUE - APR 227 - = 061 -03 ai• Fk F A. Recltais. (1) Cross and Crown.L theran Church has filed an applicatioi for the' issuacce of the Conditional Use,Permit No. 87 -05 as described in the title of th1: Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as 'the application% . — : - -• - (fi) On the 25th of November, 1987; the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a_duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. xOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence oresented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on November 25, 1987, includinq written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hert`y specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property locate'i at 6723 Etiaanda Avenue with a street frontage of 331.18 feet and lot depth c+ 662.70 feet and is presently improved with rack curb which vast be restorea per the Ettwanda Specific Plan; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a garden /greenhouse facility, the property to the south of that site consists of rural single family residences, the property to the east is existing single family residential, and the property to the west is vacant parcels. PLANNING eo*I5SIDN,RESOLUTION N0. CUP 87-05 - CFoSS • CROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH November 25, 1987 Page 2 3. Bssed upon the suustantial evidence presented to this Coaatsston_ during the above- referenced public hearing and upm the specific findings of facts Let forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this Comission hereby finds and concludes as fpllbws: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the Etiwanda Specific Plan a:rd. general Plan, the objective -s of the Devalopunt Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with, the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to -the public leaith, safety., or orliprovementas toatha icinitys to Properties (c) That er c�s Deofo e aplicabi,rovisionsOf the Development nd the Etivande Specific Plan, 4. This Comission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered ir covpliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ano, further, this Coemissio,-, hereby is3ues a 4egative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth s rth inebj,gtato 1, 2 and b above, this Co=ission hereby approves the apD l and in the a*tached Conditions attac below hed hereto and incorporatadherein by this reference, Standard PIann/ng Divisioe (1) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed at the north and south property lines to the point where the site a will prequi re a exteennsi ofuture of development 1 perimeter eter block wall (2) All windows of each building shall be rilti- paned. (3) The roofing material must be tile. 1 sample of the material approval shall to eiss ee e Le Division of building permits. 14) aplicant plesalOf submit siding and an Planning si rock prior to issuance of building permits. Also, the applicant review bt prepare Pla Planning Divisioniduring construction to verify gcality of rock mrterial and workmanship. n,• w - _ ;w ;.ids '. ., ; s``iEitT -:ci•, ' _ PLANNING COINISS10.41RESOLUTION NO. CUP 87 -05 - CROSS & -CROWN LUTHERAN CHURCH y' a November 25, 1987 Fa Page 3 Engineering Division "? L (1) The existing curb and gutter on Etiwanda Avenue be City Standard for i. shall removed and replaced per Cobble Curb and Gutter (No. 307). ° 2) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications - and electrical) on the project side of Etiwanda Avenue shall be undergrouided from the first pole ` off site north of the proJect's north boundary to • the first pole off site south of the Project's south boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or '3 occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement' agreement to recover one -half the City adopted cost for undergrounding ! from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs - »b on the opposite side of the street. `.- (3) Vista Street abutting the east property lire of the temporary project site shall be completed with a r u within 1designed 3 street width, to thesatisfacti satisfaction on of the h o City Engineer. 3. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25114 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCN40NGA 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the F:snning 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 en the 25th day of November, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL. Bt AKESLEY, EAERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY 9 _ n �i I v ■ i IL °r.,'ii�r SIN t` •" i . t Jj x8 s e 1 " yl 7 a� ' •iils ' -J? 3��=' iii�y _rile iT Jet gulp -• ., %Ss IL °r.,'ii�r SIN t` •" i . t Jj x8 s e 1 " yl 7 a� I I '1 Wg I k' H" is5° 1 -4j -- a I ov Wit a a4�Efc ��F;E Ia' F�F srs_�e3 a Ial 1CF�a t1 -�e I� r r r ■ r' ea -q_rs F r -s Y E S '! =i ce3j c �: gF 6J!3 pI'; g� as iii N £ Nf ip c iaG f r r ly �S E? a ra• is�^rs + a al W-9 s s S 3 �F sa �rz�i tit cF`� ale yr.ts *r r. tit H�; IaYF�gr� ac= i'6 ��tiE yi I I Q r t R`_`i3if 111I_ �_al Tl! ` eS tir, gEE£} # &kE lug; 1,4� :�F sfgg� Esi� irE pY •Y �LL ' 7• t. � 5" a i7:k 331 rk i I- it — ' i s =d •pka k�.� °a F y Lei i 8C _ysg c fill 3`1:9 1 L��•. Ya V£ Gra iar " 3i 3 =id NS 21 i+5 ia 1 ri � -� 4 � ,1 5..1 jv �� c d 1!$fi5— wl ix III ar It E = Har sr :a— "3igi a9 3s 8T,3 ci .sa -Eris i4 ai d {y xgt a 5a� j ?i -sy1 3�3i iD k Syr yto 9 _e d& ;= iaa Iy 3H i3ts s i . z ii —: li I W ; -8B yi9 E 21 ! h list €5 ?i °I�i °Y iii 'e� 4� �� =a• �;py ° 54 °5& -ja :'s _°3 Fri ;i rzI js ft raka V r -ilF a r; F k� Cs 4XI ikya Sills dH�8beiy i�'is €y�mi5� NI M � ;Hi aIxyllfh ggj! �n- !va;1n1 ;i! 0 sop. a $� s - � sF$ SF z s i 4 5 �' � g: aisa �i IF: i $ ela` f -a t I sg a: pi ?g! - �QTd SEr 3E is d s FF E- i� 3 Rat ss• t3 R _gE s� t s i Rs— Est @ �. aFz a ea: rF s@t6 �RgRg � lF��C nCa ! OF Ft_ i' ZOI Eg MIS Eg s 3il9I _* ri fit y�ppiee B =de: IY r g Ns .. r �lt @ � Q Sa;; R 3FgSi�t S � � F Fp� = A fill E Js y�C} !tie s c ¢r } fill, c ag= -a acs! a; Ssa 01 K-1 a". s =F L $ :k I $ Ail $ A�A Will iC` 6 hit h a�i A9tsa °i T, s� sa s;k3tB =a$7 9 3 3 3 ak Nil QVI o ' $f_« 3a3 9. 1 Y •a a bx e :f -I �I 1x k7 * $a s Mi k. a a *M$ 13? ka-rw a5 a f39 e9 I s iii s+Il Jr.a1 as 421 31 a bit =° ; zk 3i e e s _yyj .3 3 B N4 fk$! C-yay tra -a s s x� $t- A - s Ju R-1 � 3aA a] YL A$ dtar r� 's$lri a$ y3 =rr�s a 3aaA °�7k s �. x of 33 61 - I -P Ak$_ s ac s sa 3 -� :fi r x =s jeaA �•' s8 x-s 33 sm ! 83 : $a3rz ;sHT hsfp3kY �nssaF <$ §ifa <3�d des 1' "g'r� " AT J" 'has a£� " Frs "r H a sg" ell till -z E� 4j a'tr is c =3Y �--` �Ess Ell VIV "s in g c 3tEi S�v+a �i 1�- rCb `Cif co 'Etc Ed Its G .t-Fs :rr.a 's 3 c.°-,ia ri E £ x e Ffi ; i fia .s 111 r n r 5 rYE 3- $- SOME "a= is Est � I g MIKE c F sgs i8 ?f£ rgi 1111►1E[ as MINE !3ff _E s 3 e i3 Fe_ i E: c as ir pp� 1 G .t-Fs :rr.a 's 3 c.°-,ia ri E £ x e Ffi ; i fia .s r n r 5 rYE 3- $- ES = r "a= is Est � I g �= c F sgs i8 ?f£ rgi as !3ff _E s 3 e i3 Fe_ i E: c as ir pp� 1 cI� -car y r E3 ar' jc s �= It. g - - •r GC3 I R E L G .t-Fs :rr.a 's 3 c.°-,ia ri E £ x e Ffi ; i fia .s a it ry rYE 3- $- ES = r "a= is Est � I g �= c F sgs i8 ?f£ rgi c. a " "3 a s rsE fi?Y gga 3a ��9 cI� -car y r E3 ar' jc s E Pip i 9eis a it ry �\ j % z • `\ /� \ 2 T2 \ - ! ;. - . j \ | sq \ #r | E || ]` |! d !! \ / ■ 13- f| Nit IR • 2�! ! ! #,1!§ !�/ ■� !� , � � %� #� -f® � \ GJ/ 14.124 =2E a | it I q /! 2 OR a ®| D 'l � q 1 | | \ N ! I lL r Lrm wlw rwr �c 1 ` a L 1� yt �:•:s U ♦arty it r '1 4 s .• •wlr. � r, V w• r1 ■ r^ _ V NORTH T CITY CF rrEMl L V-***7 07- wC c RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7=1, lrftili ��P >. nANNQYG n[tigm EXHIMTI s,— . ,— •r. y �•7 ✓ Y lil�.yici i.-Pril �•r+ •147 1 . r^ _ V NORTH T CITY CF rrEMl L V-***7 07- wC c RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7=1, lrftili ��P >. nANNQYG n[tigm EXHIMTI s,— . ,— NOM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNUC DJNW*-` EX1411VT -,Pq (DO "TMTI Uri NOM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNUC DJNW*-` EX1411VT -,Pq (DO 4 1 9 IL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tiZ STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer 8Y: Linda Beek, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Impronsamt Agreement and Improvement Security for OR 87.43, located on the north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop, east of the intersection with Victoria Park "Lane, submtttnd by La Petite Academy RECOPMOATION It is recoemanded that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the subject agreement and security and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSISIBACKOROUND OR 87 -43, located on the north side of North Victoria Windrows Loop. east of the intersection with Victoria Park La-.e, in the Victoria Planned Community, was approved by the Planning Commission un December 3, 1987. The Developer, La Petite Acadeaw. is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off -site improvements in the following rmunts: Faithful Performance Bond: $34,000 Labor and Material Bond: $17,000 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water District. Resp_e A rVIV ubmitted, P :sd Attachments ! "•i Ly .sr zr� _ '••."�+i+�Ja£,'•, _7. �" .v`v� t�'' ._ _ Fv ". ftS Y,i�*!•,�N a'1y RESOLUTION N0: 8 ' [�7� • „= A RMILUTION OF THE•CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AHD IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -43 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rauho "Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on January 29, 1988, by LA Petite Academy as developer; for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specificelly described therein, and generally located on the north side of North Victoria'Wtodrass Loop, east of the intersection with Victoria Park Lane; and - WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Development Review No. O' -43; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Imprnvement Agreement or. behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest tnereto. m •� �s I a � y�L \y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ir t �a: i c � •f � 63 4CiM n�1�� • 1r a a a "• •_• PROJECT C _ N DR 8r -43 1 r CITY OF RANCHO CCCAMONGA ; STAFF REFIORT h . Rk'' DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspec o — SUBJECT: Approval of Iopruvement Agreement Extension for Tract 12772 -2, located on the south side of Base Line Road, between Ramona Avenue and Turner Avenue, submitted by M & S Residential Deve:opment RECONODATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject agreement extension and security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS /BACKGROUND Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Tract 12772 -2 were approved by the City Council on July 17, 1986, in the following amounts. Faithful Performaice Bond: 560,000 Labor and Material Bond, $30,000 The developer, M & S Residential Development, is requesting approval of a 12- month extension on said improvement ate Bement. Copies of Cho Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's Office. Res y submitted, i RHM:SMS:sd Attachments Gy i ,- �'�,xfq"y°7k'y •.", fe .. y,, -y "' ... L� • .`rea�l� v'r**:.,. M RESOLUTION N0. S $ ' d? / ?'; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAK%GA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT -1 E %TENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 12772 -2 ;•.� c WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration in Improvement Agreement Extension executed on February 17, 1988,'by M L S Residential Oavelopeent a3 "developer, for the improvement of public right -of -ray adjacent to the real property ' specifically described therein, and generally'loca'ed on the south iide of Base Line Road, betr..en REMO Avenue and Turner Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such ioprovements, described io said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the developmert of said Tract 12772 -2; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identifled"_ in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of he City of Rancho Cucamo�pa, California, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to si said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cuca mga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. M q' M A N• ■■e -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 1i, 1988 60: City Council and City Manager FROM- Russell H. Maguire, C'.ty Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspectg�, SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel rap 9498 of Aver* A 4th Streett, �submittedobytReiter- Rinkerc Gateway Haven REGOI�F.N011TI01! It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject agreement extension and security and authorizing the Meyor and City rlerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS /R4CKGROUN0 Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Parcel Map 9498 (Fourth Street Median) were Approved by the City Council on December 18, 1986, 4n the following amounts. Faithful Performance Bond: SSO,WO Labor and Material Bond: 525,000 The developer, Reiter - Rinker Gateway, is requesting approval of a 12 -month extension on said improvement agreement. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respe submitted_, RHM: Attachments 6G i r >N� DATE: February 1i, 1988 60: City Council and City Manager FROM- Russell H. Maguire, C'.ty Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspectg�, SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel rap 9498 of Aver* A 4th Streett, �submittedobytReiter- Rinkerc Gateway Haven REGOI�F.N011TI01! It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject agreement extension and security and authorizing the Meyor and City rlerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS /R4CKGROUN0 Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Parcel Map 9498 (Fourth Street Median) were Approved by the City Council on December 18, 1986, 4n the following amounts. Faithful Performance Bond: SSO,WO Labor and Material Bond: 525,000 The developer, Reiter - Rinker Gateway, is requesting approval of a 12 -month extension on said improvement agreement. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respe submitted_, RHM: Attachments 6G i r RESOLUTION NO. 0.7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL" OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 9496: (4TH STREET MEDIAN) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on February 17. 1938, by Raiter-Rinker Gateway as developer, for the Improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically dese.-ibed therein, and generally located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street; and WHEREAS, the Installation of,such improvements..described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done In conjunction with the develop=it of said Parcel Map 9.498 (4th Street Median)--- and WHEREAS. sa . I lmproveme4'Aqreem2ot Extension- is secured,and r accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is Identified In said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, OE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and `.J' said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Ranchj. Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. 6 7., CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 .J: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector SUb,IECT: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion RECDMMEMORTION: The required street improvements for OR 8 5-19 and DR 85 -20 have been completed in an acceptable manner and It is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $7,600 (OR 85 -19) and $7;000` (DR 85 -20). Background /Analysis DR 85 -11 and OR 85 -20 - located at the northeast corner of Civic Center Drive and Utica Avenue. DEVELOPER: Forecast Corporation 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: ( ( ) Faithful Performance Bond Faithful Performs -a Bond (Street) $7,000 (DR 85 -20) Respectfu ' u itted. RHM: u. N Attachment 6s - -Y MEN All A. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION, OF THE CITY'COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF RANQIO EUCANMGAi CALIFORNIA,- ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS'. FOR DR,85-19 and'OR 85-20 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK-- EHEREAS, the construction of public ioVrovements for DR 85-9 acid DR 65-20 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion Is'reqUired to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE.'be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and - the City Engineer Is authorized to sign and'file a Notice of*Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. M Pr,,yw: -. +" c�v.= �=:, �vli :`,�¢�-i,7t!'�Tfw'".�.- �3�5v �• �A %�:•�:}:!%::`;Y+.'- .t�v:.i"t`.: ws e.{f: i��°,r%' -: _ .p.- 'try n :tI' J " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAA16NGA .. " 1h 'STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City Council'and City Manager - �•�� FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer ,,��' BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspact`J `J SUBJECT: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion RECOM ERIATION: The required street improvements for OR 81 -33 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recomw -nded that City Council accept said ^� improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Sopddin_ the amount of $10,000. — h' BACKGROUHO /AIIALYSIS - DR 81 -33 - located at 10220 4th Street. DEVELOPER: Brooks Products P.O. Box 4488 E1 Monte, CA 91734 kelease: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $10,000 Respec submitted, RHM :SMG:div Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLVION OF\THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMMG4, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC44PROVEKENTS FOR DR U-33 AND AUTHORIZING'THEE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COKPLETION FOR THE 4OK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for OR 81-33 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEMS, &-Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THMEFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby excepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the C,)i!nty Recordar of San Bernardino County. 5 trir „•h. (( '_S -- ;titi y..]" j.u.tw..ey..,-x'c. i�g�- i�r.s` ✓:,'Y: }.:ra = —'•� / .V A%* %.•.l Klv1((G' W✓ `� +'. .. i { �{S.—!i'lei�V 1.S.F�V+II � ;n'. .'..'S'��gs:^iJ•`ia!t " >`•y'y`� ` ter', v: Esc - _ �� _ •fit .3n ,a�rtic�.�.r�{ r CITY OF RANCHO CUGAINONGA - STAFF REFnRT Y .� DATE: February 17, 1988 t`t� tf TO: City Council and City Manager ,t >. FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer 7 v BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspect" :i SUBJECT: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion RECOMMENDATION: ri c +' The rewired street improvements for Parcel Map,9301 have been completed r `- in an acceptable manner, and it is' recommended :hat. City Council•accept 4 said improvements, authorize the- City Engineer to file a Notice of A + Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Fefthm_'° n ety Performance fond in the amount of $50,5W. Background /Analysis r �',• PH 9301 _ located between Haven Avenue and Utica Avenue, north of Jersey Boulevard. :i DEVELOPER: Forecast Corporation 10670 C1,0c Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $50,530 ResppectfGf submitted. Attachment Attachment • °iii "� %L gv a,-., 93 RESOLUTION NO. .44A A RESOLUTION OF,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY (IF RANCHO' CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IPIPROVEMTS FOR PARCEL MAP 9301 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF C(MPLETIOM FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvemeilts for Feral Nap 9301 has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, & Notice of Completion is'required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 93 �i"�di ..Z : >`WCrC�+f`��w.`2- "''v,4 :,^, L}it'•c .':'^.,;;W-'t`•;.:}`i� „"v a'_`j��.+;c'�: °'*e..rrJ.k�� §. CITY. OF- RANCHO CUCAIAONGA STAFF REPORT 0ATE: February 17, 1988 i• TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspectorrl. SUBJECT: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion RECONICK)ATION: The required street improvements for CR 85 -24 have been LoWleted in an acceptable manner and it is recomendeJ- that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Cowletion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in- the amount of $11,000.00. Background /Analysts OR 85 -24 - located at the north side of Trademark Street west of Haven Avenue. DEVELOPER: The Lusk Company 17550 Gillette Avenue Irvine, California 92713 Release: r Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $11,000.00. RespectfiLW submitted, KIM: :sm Attachment t 7V 4 '1 RESOLUTION WO. -, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OFAAXCHD CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA'.'.ACCEPTIMG THE-PUBLIC IMPROYSMEMIS FOR OR 85-24'AND'AUMRIZINd THE-FILING OF A NOTICE OF-., COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improv%mnts for OR 85-24 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and - WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, cortffyinq the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work'is , hereby accepted and the City Engineer Is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completicn with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. n- - �:?F�w:,:..t ��._ u�'�'+t��yy$yw�,L"�i1Y�'J.�S� ar.�: Sf�ti� ✓"J:y �f :j t:'4:''.•= � ,'.�,= Yr!.:?.i %i`r "Wx' CITY OF,,RANCHO CUCAMONCA x: STAFF REPORT DATE: February`17, 1988 T0: city'Council and City, Manager FPOM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works InspectQt_� ' SUBJECT: Release of Maintenance Bcnd for Tract 12530, located on the northwest corner of Church Street and Hallman Avenue RECON .DATIOR: ' L It is recommended thtt the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds Background /Analysis The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street aa improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. 3. F DEVELOPER: Citation Hom_s 17731 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 201 Tustin, CA 9268n Release: Maintenance Guarantee Band (Street) 53,460 Respec su mitted, r RHM:SMG:sd x a' DATE: TO: FROM: BY: ro y — CITY.OF RANCHO.CMAMONGA STAFF, REPORT`; February-17. 1988 city Council and City Nanager Russell H. Maguire. City Engineer Yartno yartanians, Assoc. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of an Indenture between the Southcrn Pacific Transportation Company and the City, for construction of City - maintained landscape slopes within the Railroad's right -of -way, between Milliken Avenue and Day -Creek Channel; notherly of Baseline Road. It is reca•seended that the City Council adopt the attached Resoorut'ion ' approving the attached Indenture between the City and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same. Background /Analysis In conjunction with developent of Tract No. 13219, the William Lyon Company, the developer, is to construct certain landscaped slopes within the Railroads right -of -way between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Channel, along the southerly property line of the subject tract. Upon completion of the landscaping and acceptance thereof, the landscaped slopes will be maintained by the City. The subject Indenture will take eff7ct at such date as the landscaped slopes have been accepted by the City. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company wilt be notified of said acceptance date. Resp .13 utaitted, IM:11Y: jh '. 1-, sir i i jI�� Lm Ly Lm yll Lm VIII Ix Ix .I X M KEY MAP kO SCALE - AREA r/iVLlER 4'O.vSi06,a�ATi 78 ■ s.- ..- �`+e..a r -,, CITSTY, OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . W „•.Y.mry °.AF'F REPORT Attachment 01 7 �' Date: February 17, 1988 Tr City Council and City Manager Wj From: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer By: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer Subject: Set public hearing for March 2, 1988 - Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 88 -018`- City of Rancho Cucamonga - A request to amend the Circulaticn Elwnt of the General Plan for ' the purpose of accomplishing tin: folloring change: The realignment of Hillside Road to replace t a double intersection of Hillside Road and Amethyst Avenue wit, r single intersection at Amethyst Avenue and a reverse curve to future Klusman Avenue. RECOM ORTIOR• It is recommended that the City Council set a public hearing for March 2, 1m88, for the above referenced General Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND /AHALYSi L, At the City Council meeting of December 2, 1987, the Council approved the concept for Hillside Road Realignment and directed staff to prepare a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment. On January 27, 1968, the City Planning Commission approved Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 88 -018, the Realignment of Hillside Road at Amethyst Avenue and recoarcended approval by the City Council. Respectful Ly4ubmi tted, Attachment 01 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOGA STAFF REPORT February 17, 1988 ,ity Council and city Manager Russell M. Maguire, City Engineer Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer , >a r .. S Approval of intention to vacate Emmett Way between Stmnit Avenue and Tract 11549 and setting the date of public hearing for March 16, 1988 RECOIMDKTIOM: It is reconnended that City Council adept the attached rdsylution declaring its intention to vacate Emmett Way and setting the date of the public hearing for March 16, 1988. Backgound /Analysis Mr. and Mrs. the vacation ofeEmmett Way eacross �their iproperty uatt the pnorthwest — requesting nerof Shasta vacation al mitts to include the lots6north Endasouth ofaf hsaWhiitehouse property but excluding the Shasta Drive intersection. The subject street right -nf -way is 30 -feet wide and unimproved. It is not prrt of any circulation system, and the present alignment is not required for ordarly development of the area. Mr. Rocco Albaneso owns the property on the southwest carrier of Emmett Way and Summit Avenue. Mr. and Ctrs. ScymoLr own the property on the southwest corner of Emmett Way and Shasta Drive. Bath utilities haveibeen otifiedindac'ncuriwith thehvacataon. CucamwnlafWater District has abandoned its water lines in Emmett Way so they do not need an easement. If vacated, the street will revert back to the adjacent properties. ageeeasementt this area proposed t i b serve to e vacated. Planning Commission tentatively approved the vacation at its January 27, 1980, meeting. Respect s bmitted, RHH Attachment vie] r..W� � a , ywfy.. � i � v '�.E- Y, �yY 5 9 •. _ -.. � �.L '�R1Y.... z) g3 RESOLUTION N0. S S L' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ' DECLARING ITS INTENYION TO VACATE EMMETT WAY BETWEEN SUMMIT AVENUE AND TRACT 11549 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: v, SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed under Se :lion B' 77 -sea., of the Streets and Highways Code, also known as the Street Vacation Act of 1941. a ' SECTION 2: That the. City Council heraby declares its intention to i vacate Emmefl-RA—y-between $uanit Aven+y: and Tract 11549, a City street, as shown on Nap Ho. V -077 on file in the')ffice of the City Clerk, a legal description of which is attached herein marked Exhibit "A" and by reference - made apart hereof. .. . :-:. SECTION 3: That the City G+uncil hereby fixes Wednesday, the 16th day of MarcT 7?M , at 7 :30 p.m., in the Lions Park Community Center Building, located at 9161 Base Line, Rancht C++cawnga, California, as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed vacation for the purpose of its determining whether said City street is necessary for present or prospective street purposes. SECTION 4: That the Citi Street Superintendent shall cause notices to be poste-T—Uri along the line of the street or part thereof proposed to be vacated at least 10 days before the hearing, not more than 30 feet aoart and vot less than three signs shall be posted, each of which shall have a copy of this resolution a+ them and shall have the following title in lettering not less than ono in:h in height: "NOTICE OF HEARING TO VACATE STREET ". SECTION 5: The subject vacation ;hall be subject to the reservatiaas of a stormra{n easement V, the 0 ty ove- the area being vacated and exceptions, If any for existing utilities on record. SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Resolution anr+ the City -'lerx shall attest to iFie save, and the ri +y Clerk shall cause same to be published 10 days beivre the drAe se, for the hearing, at least once in The Oail RReeport, a newspaper of general circulation lid311shed in the City aria, Ca lI'"ornia, and cirr,ulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. sr x DESCRt'TION OP THAT PORTION OF OFFER OF ' DEDICATION FOR EMMETT WAY ADJACENT TO PARCEL MO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP N0. 4029, P.N.B. 38(2 TO BE VACATED. , All of that portion of Offer of medication for Evert Way as shown on Parcel Map No. 4029, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga as recorded in Parcel Nap Book 389 Page 2, records of San Bernardino County, State of Califoroia, described at Joliowal _ > ? Cosssencing at the loterasction of thg centerline of Shasta Drive with the Eat line of said Parcel Hap No. 40291 e, Thence No. 0' 14'03" E along said East line a dir•cnce of 30.00 feet to } the True Point of Beginning; t'. Thence conticuing N 0'141 03" E, along maid Eastline a distantis of 295.85 feet to an interaction with a line parallel with and distant 44.001-filet- southerly ([natured ac right angles) to the centerline of Su it Avenue; Thence N 89'50138" W along said parallel line a distance of 50.03 feet to ' a point of cusp with a tangent circular curve concave southwesterly and having a radius of 20.00 feet; Thence southasterly along said :urve a distance of 31.44 feet subtending a central aog'0 of 90'04'41 "; Thence S 0014'03" W along the east line of Parcel No. 2 of said Parcel Map No. 4029, a distance of 255.86 fat to the .eginning of tangent circular curve cc •ave to the northwest having a radios of 27.00 feet( The :a southwesterly along said curve a distance of 31.39 feat subtending a centr, angle of 89.55126 ", to a point on the Korth line of Shasta Drive (60 00 lest vide) Thenco S 89.50'31 "E along the projection easterly of said North line of Sh.sta Drive, c distance of 49.97 feet to the True Point of Beginning •� _y EXHIBIT• "A" =t r, ^.+ter ; ;�',3• DESCRIPTION Or rAAT PORTION or OFFER or DEDICATI0O r02 0iMETT.WAZ AD.,ACrM TO PARCEL NO. 4 OF P.N. NO. 4029 TO Be VACATED. All of that portion of Offer of Dedication for Essence Way as shown on Parcel Nap Mo. 4029, to the City of Rancho Cucmongs, as recorded in Parcel Map Book 38, Page 2, records of San Bernardino County, State of California, ' described as followo; Co neing at the interaction of the centerline of Shasta Drive with the ' East line of said Parcel Map No. 40291 Thence S 0.14'03" V along said East line, a distance of 30.00 feet to — - the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S Ovt4'03" V, along said East tine for a distance of 295.86 fete to the South line of Parcel Map No. 4029; Thence N 89.50124" V a distance of 30.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 4 of said Parcel Map No. 4029; Thence NO. 14'03" B along the Eat live of said Parcel 4 a distance of 275.83 feet to the beginning of a tangent circular curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 20.00 feet; Thence nnrchveateriy along said curve a distance of 31.44 feet, 9 .•,bcending a central angle of 90. 04'34", to a point on the South line of 4 Shasta Drive (60.00 feet wide); Them, S 89.50'31" E &tong the projection easterly of said South Sine of Shasta Drive, a discace of 50.03 feet to the True Paint ns amign,t..._ Whitehouse Dascr:ption LFIN 2 -2 -88 II 1 ,Y{SI,;y.:�.Inr }� *•4•'s 1,{ :;Y7� � •A• Lh'7 ' - !:. :•: e' .�t'a°:; PhILF:L. Ii.. i:'; _.... P�,,N:M1. l51:. °J ! !fi.R : °L.•xa 0, }' M1 n 5UKKIT'AVENUE, f2 rrsw vu i e I�O.�i� -�� S• a`��. —_ AOPIT /f1 w1G1 (16D /CAT /ON S2.7,` 3� i0ee • JL4s n PA12CEL NO. t —� � —�� -�1 fLGefi is / `� —e•t �• z, _ Q•,0:04•N• \ v ° n•z0.00 L •J7 44 T•20.0J PARCEL NO. 2- uy n e W y TO 15E VACATED e " z•z0eo L• T. AlsM .vi 1 Iv92 C off CATION +— e 1 _ sartrlr 4.70171- •— _ --- [ _a+ DANE _ 1z A all 1 t 004'J+• R• - 20,, 0 00 1 r~ o L• 31.44 ` +1 .• T 21.17 ! PARCEL NO 3 ti PARCEL. NO 4 TO BE VACATED- I � W + 313 7? 313 .7 zon . anae•rnu es) zdu1C "•r '�si��,%fJ ) ►O IAI ewe 71161 1I M'NOe x 112701 ..10.00•) (jdpool< HIGNLAI`ID 90za0r mr-1 AV Hill _ — - --- S rzdD Doi 20`a.)'7 ti 1 � gy ti x w _ v a . }Lnj •,iii 1' its 0 c w - OT w = , a . , U O x U r• IA � lie 11r � 4 r � f t ,p� r•a. Ol t pit aWAN 4 .. ._. 8$ 0 c U O x U r• IA � ,1+•sr '10.00 31.3• M, 'L u� • � W.1 _ � P(.ALf4M1 S{I'•'�w +'£1 T7.2�FL Fl: 3 � __ P SUMMIT'AMMIE rl 1 csT+ C �2111 ura +ry .i; •� �nn.TlftwlAl, DICJ ,T /Cq— phl —. 77 nl C ; " W � r� 14 es. f IR.• 1131 I k 213 LS ft-to 00 w + � � _ 6•!30'N [ aDIG�iT1ON ji , � T. 2003 I PAf2CEL NO. 1 Z PA2GEL $ Y� • 4� C P W C a TO BE VACATED ry 77 nl C ; " W � r� f IR.• 1131 I 213 LS ( T• I M7 243 11 w + � � _ 6•!30'N [ aDIG�iT1ON ji , � u'._ ,C '• zs3.0 -• � 1 zv3.w A• 40. a•3r 0 R• 20.00 I r•. r L• SL \\ T 11.13 � PARCEL NO 3 PARCEL NO A TO BE IIACATGD .x a w I� a ~ L 4 � Q W 313 77 ( '� �• •� 31317 — t J ! Nf16: x31 rye n/61 N11' N I72] CI 71306.j oz'FW �iTAN UO DODT = . •/ ° 7 0• L Y� • 4� C s v`I ` ..' t_ f e i y A .� I C' T • t yy� . '� � � a. •rte .mow C 1 r -- U � vq log U C7 r_ I a 3 ,; AN — C1TY•OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .n *: STAFF REPORTS DATE: February 17, 1983 i �r TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell N. Magufre, City Engineer BY: Judy Acosta, Jr. Engineering Aide SUBJECT: Approval to Annex DR 87 -24, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street, to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 as Annexation No. 15 and setting the dste of public hearing for March 16, 1988 It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions: approving the Enginter's Report for Annexatior. No. 15 and setting the date of public hem•ing regarding the City's intention to annex the above described development to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3. Analysis /Background Attached for City Council appiovai is a resolution declaring the City's intent to annex OR 87 -24, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street, to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 for Annexation Mo. 15 and setting the public hearing date for March 16, 1983. Also attached for Council consideration is a resolution giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the subject annexation. Letters from the developers requesting the subject annexation are on file to the Engineering Division. ResD submitted, R :sd Attachments M :.s a t» I B RESOLUTION NO. O 8 � D �'v A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIM MY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 WHEREAS, on February 17, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report to writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or shouid•be- modifl:d to any respect. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses o T and work and of the Incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the A sesiment District referred to and derTFc=n said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and coaf i rmed. SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of land in sai�ssessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the Incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION <: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Report for�iTie purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district. 0 Ys�: CITY OF RDACHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 Annexation No. 15 for OR 87 -24 CECTION 1. Authority for Report This report 1s in compliance with the requirements of Arti ^.le 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. General lescriptiar This City Council '%s elucteJ to annex all new developments into Landscape Maintenance District K 3. The City Council has determined the areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all the developments as mentioned abover— - All landscaped areas to oe maintained in the annexed developments are shown on the recorded Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 3. Plans and !cifications The plans and landscaping are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and specifications for landscaped improvement an the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto. SECTION 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred by the District for parkway and median improvement construction. All Improvements will be constructed by developers and or /by the City. Based on historical data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (5.30) cents per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 has been demarcated into two zones. Tone 1 Is comprised of Parcel Map 7349, comprised of 8 parcels, totaling 6,057 square feet The district was formed to October 5, 1983, for the maintenance of landscaping a detention basin and storm drain within the protect. This zone will be assessed on per lot basis for the maintenance costs within the project boundary only as stipulated In the Engineer's Report for the formation of the District. ,iA .:ry" i4 lti Zone 2 is comprised of all.other projects that are being annexed or will be 3 q annexed to this District 'Ali Aots or parcels within Zone 2 will be assessed 3; on net acre basis for the maintenance of landscaped median islands on Haven -Creek Avenue from 4th Street to Deer Channel, Foothill Boulevard and 4th Street from west to east City limit, Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue,, c {0 from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard, 6th Street from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue and median islands on other major divided highways and some parkways within the Industrial Specific Plan Area and Foothill Boulevard overlay area. 4' The estimated cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 including *. Annexation No. 15 is as follows. r Zone I Existing District Total estimated maintenance cost (2,070 e Assessment units Total cost - assessment unit for year and month S_ 270 $258.75 /year or $21.56 /mo. /lot Zone 2 Existing Annexation New District No. 15 Total Total estimated annual maintenance area - Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 Assessment units, acres 380,576 18.83 380,594 Total cost + assessment unit for year and month 0 x $.30 - $ 0 /year 0 /mo. /acre --7M-.5W- Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated In Section 6 and the attached assessment diagram. SECTIOn S. Assessment Diagram A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and labeled "Exhibit A`, by this reference the diagram is heraby incorporated i witnin the text of this report. $9 c 't - T SECTION 6. Assessment J Improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to 11 lots within the District and that assessment shall be e;aai for each parcel for Zone 1 and shall be equal to the irext acreage for each lct or parcel in :§ Zone 2. The City Council will hold a public hearing in June.., to determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the previous fiscal ye r which are to be recovered through assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer-'s Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex to District and sets public hearing date. 3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and .- determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in Nay, the City Engineer flies a report with the City Council. 5. Every year to June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. 90 Properties and Ioprovements to be included within Annexation No. 15 ` (Zone 2) to landscape Maintenance District No. 3: .. r.l1 PROPERTIES .,vr PROJECT ACREAGE 1- DR 87 -24 18.83 : IMPROVEMENT ARE1S TO BE ANNEXED IN ANNEXATION NO. 1 _ y YAr Area L Haven Avenue 0 Foothill Boulevard 0 Milliken Avenue 0 4th Street 0 l: Rochester Avenue 0 A 6th Street 0 •c.r. 1 s N l� RESOLUTION NO. 0 8 ' d 9 `5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO IANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LAhDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3. PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PUCE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO ,1051, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of - Rancho Cucamonga, persuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division It if the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. Descrt Lion of Norl convenience req�e an� the inten maintenance district in the City of Ran operation of those parkways and tacit' t greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded boundaries of the proposed maintenance hereof. Said maintenance and operation any sprinkler system, trees, grass, pla lighting, structures, and walls in conn That the public interest and. of this City Council to form'h` Cucamonga for the maintenance and thereon dedicated for common lvistoh tract map within the riot described in Section 2 Ludes the cost and supervision of gs, landscaping, ornamental SECTION 2. Location of Mork: The foregoing described work is to to located wTvw;•n ma'dway rig.�t -bf way and landscaping easements of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, entitled 'Annexation No. 15 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3•. SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District: That the contrzplated work, in trie opinion or said y Counc , is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the slid work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed to pay tte costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain 'Map of Annexation No. 15 to Landscape Mainte.ancu District No. 3' heretofore approved by the City Council of said City by Resolution No. +, indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the territory included within the proposed assessment district and which msp Is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Q3 RESOLUTION PAGE 2 SECTION 4, Re or'�of En ineer: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. as approved the report of the engineer of work which report Indicates the amount of the proposed fseassmmt, the district boundary, assessment zones, titled 'Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 15, Landzcape Maintenance District No. 31 1s on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Refcrence to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. SECTION 5. Collection of Assesssclits: ThG assessment shall be collected ai m same me sn n same meaner as County taxes are collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City Council of said City and said Ccuncil will annually conduct a hearing upon said report at their first regular meeting In June, at which time assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined. SECTION 6, Time and Place of Hearin : Notice is hereby given that on March 167r981�, ax a our o p.m. n the City Council Chaabers at 9161 aass Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having any objections to the work or extent of the assess went district, may appekr"— and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of Intention. Protests must be in writing and must :Zatain a description of the property in which each signer thereof Is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must be :eiivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not sham upon ire last equalized assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the prc,,+rty described in the protestt, then such protest nust contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described, SECTION 7, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work herein proposes s�iall be done and carried through n pursuance of an act of tho legislature of the State of California designated the Landsccping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streats and Highway Code of the State of California. SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice shall be made pursuan to Section 61961 o—F—EK—eU"—ve—r=—e—nETode. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clark shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in The DailX Re ort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 0 i' a: e rt. — CITY OF RANCHO CUC.UIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1928 T0: City Council and City Manager XN FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Joly Acosta, Jr. Engineering Aide SUBJECT: Approval to Annex OR 87.24 and DR 87 -43 (Industrial /Ccrosercfal) to Street Lighting Maintenance Oist:'ict No. I as Annexation No. 38 and sotting the date of publi hearing for March 16, 1988 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resofut Sns- approving the Engineer's Report for Annexation No. 38 and setting the date of public hearing regarding the City's intention to annex the above described developments to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1. Analysl5 /Background Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's Intent to annex OR 87 -24 and DR 87 -43 (Industrial /Commercial) to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation 38 and setting the public hearing date for March 16, 1988. Also attached for Council consideration is a resolution giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the subject annexation. Letters from the developers requesting the ,ubJect annexation are on file in the Engineering Division. Respe tf jy submitted, / r R Attachments 96 .. : A'I M, RL,cOLUTION NO. Q �; 0 g7° .r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA,`OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINSER'S REPORT•FOR,ANNEXATION NO. 38 TO STREET LIGHTING FAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 1 ' WHEREAS, on February 17, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk-of said City a report 1. writing as called for pursuant to said Act, „Mich report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said C1:Y Council has duly cansldered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or shduTd"6e_ modified in any respect. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT REShc.VED by the City Council of the City of ,ancho CuLamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the Engineer': Estimate of the Itemized costs and expenses or" sale' Mork and of the incident,] expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of thew are hereby, preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to and desc— rWed7n sold report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of land in said-Assessment District ir proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the Incidental expenses thereof, as contained in Baia report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 4: That said report shall stznd as the City Engineer's Report for —ilia purposes of ail subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district. M w i, ■ CITE OF RANCHO CIJCA14DNGA Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenan_e District No. 1 Annexation No. 38 for OR 87 -24 and DR 87 -43 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in camliance with the requirements of Article 4, h, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Hfghueys Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. General Description :i This City Council has elected to annex all new developments into Street determined hthat the nstreet lights lto be� maintained iwillohave l a aneffeEt upon all lots within said developments as well as on the lots directly +, ebutting the street lights. Work to be provided for with the assessments established by the district are: The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street light 1pprovenents on major streets (arterial and certain collector streets) as shown on the Lighting District Altas Map which 1s on file with the City Lngineer. Improvement maintenance 1s considered of general benefit to all areas 4n the District and !;. cost shall be assessed on a per unit basis. SECTION 3. Plans and SDecifications The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development plan and the assessment diagram for the enact location of the street lighting areas, Tne plans and specifications for street lighting improvement on the .ndividual development is hereby made a part of this report to the saw extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district Include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any Improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area. r 97 A s =• SCCTIOM 4, Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred for street lighting improvement construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on available date, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will be as indicated below. These costs are estimated only, actual assessments will be based on actual cost date. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. I has been demarcated into two zones. Zone I is comprised of street light improvements or major streets for residential improvements (siogle family, multi- family, condominiums and apartments) throughout the City. Each dwelling unit in this zone will be assessed as one assessment unit for the operation of the District. Zone 2 is comprised of all industrial, commercial and institutional projects throughout the City. It has been determined that one acre of land in industrial, commercial and institutional areas derives the same benefit as two assessment units in Zon.• 1. ' The estimated total cost for Lighting maintenance District No. Yir�"•, shah below: 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Ener4V Cost: *High pressure Sodirm Vapor Total No, of Lamps Lamp Size Lamps Law, Annex New Lamp Lamp Size* YID No. 38 Total 5800L 444 0 444 95001- 485 0 485 16,000L 16 0 16 22,000L 4 0 4 27.500L 6 0 6 *High pressure Sodirm Vapor 2. Total Assessment Units: YTD Assess Units before this annexation • 16,021 Assessment Units this annex per page 4 • 42 Total Assessment Units 16,063 W Total Total Arnual Lamp Size Lamps Rate Moo. Maint. Cost 5800L 444 X S 8.93 X 12 S 47,579.04 9500L 485 X $10.16 X 12 59,131.20 16,0)OL 16 X 512.08 X 12 2,319.36 22,ODOL 4 X $13.84 X 12 664.32 27,500 6 X $15.31 X 12 2,939.52 Total Annual Maint. Cost • $112,633.44 2. Total Assessment Units: YTD Assess Units before this annexation • 16,021 Assessment Units this annex per page 4 • 42 Total Assessment Units 16,063 W IV 3. Cost per Assessment_ Unit: ..» $ _ -- Total Annual Maintenance Cost $112 633.44 f7.01Jyear /unit .. k_ No. of n s in DTSTr c ZS;Ob3- i? Assessment shall, apply to each lot or parcel as explained in Section 6. SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this report and labeled 'Street Lighting Malntenanct: District No. 10, Annexation No, 38. These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the I text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment d� Y, Improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to all units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each unit. When units are based on acreage, assessment will be 2 units per net acre. SECTION 7. Order of Events ' 1. City Co'mcil adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City yr Enginetr', Report. 6; 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and ' sets public hearing date. 3. City ;ouncil conducts public hearing, .unsiders all testimony and determines to form a District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council. S. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. 2 .J M. M, ms % V EXHIBIT 'A' Properties and improvements-to be included within Annexation No'. 38 to Street Lighting Maintenanie District 1. Assess. No. of L to be Annexed Project Acreage -Un-iT— ink -,9!WUL , ib,VuuL 22, 1 OUUL —777MOL Zone 1 DR 87-24 18.83 38 0 0 0 0 DR 87-43 2.17 4 0 0 0 0 0 Total 21.00 42 0 0 0 0 0 /00 K I ■ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGIiTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. Z AN EXAYION NO. 38 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALEPORNIA T v. I� lv I� m 11 0- ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION 140.30 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRa7-43 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO t. OTATE OF CALIFORNIA t r4: RESOLUTION NO. g'9 ` Q S 7 A RESOLUTICH OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT M0. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS 1NNEXATION NO. 38 TO STREET LIGHTINGG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERIRG A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVFD by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, bQing Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. Descrl ti on of Work: That the public 'nterest and convenience— rye an s e a en ion of this City Council to form 6... maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and operation of those street lights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described In Saction 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation Includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in connection with said district. SECTION 2. Location of Work: The foregoing described wort. Is to be located wT —tFTn odway —righ -o -way enumerated in thr report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps chich are on file in the office of the City Clerk, entitled Annexation No. 38 to Street Lighting Maintenance District no. 14. SECTION 3. Descri,tion of Assessment District: That the con:empla� in—Se up n on o sa y aunt , is sf more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hcr6y makes the expense of the said work chargetble upon s district, which said district is assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary tines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No. 38 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 10 maps is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. SECTION 4. Report of Engineeerr: The City Council of said City by Resolution N�Fas approve f eereport of the engineer of work which report indicates the amount of the propeseo assessment, the district boundary. assessn nt zones, titled •Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 10 is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the unount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. X03 4 W,' RESOLUTION PAGE 2 orz SECTION 5.�ColleCtion of Assessments- The assessment shall.be csllected at the same t w,an n. same manner-as County taxes are collected. The City;Engl -, shall file a report annually with the:City Council of said City" and Isaid,Council will- annually conduct a.,hearing upon' said report at their firs 'eegular�mftting'in June, at-which time assessments for the next fiscal year,,! Ill bedetermined. Hearinq. N"Gti SECTION 6 ce to heiiby,giii6:thit_ on Marcii TS; IM at -the-hourn . 7:30 pm., City Council,Chamber3'it,9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga .-any-and all personvhavfhg any' objections to the work' or. extenf; of, the assessment district., may appear and - show cause why said work'cho--Id not be done•or carried out or- why said district should not be formed in accordance with this Rcsolution'of, , - Intention. Protests 'must b and'oust:'conWnta descripticR,-of the property in which each sign:rinhwerreiatfingis Interested, sufficient to identify 'he same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to iho time set for the haarinq,'-and no other protests or objections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shoes upon the last equalized assessment roll of San Bernaidino County as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer Is the owner of the property so described. SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work herein pr—op—o—se-F-sW all —o—e-one an carried.through in pursuance 011 an act of the legislature of the State of.California designated the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice shall be EaTe —pursuant to section 61961 oFTffe_Uv_erme_ntCode. The Mayor sn, I sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the sm to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in The Di Regt, a newspaper of general WER aj'� , orn circulation published in the City of Onter15, all is, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. M, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNG a., STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1968 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM. Russell N. Miguti-e, City Engineer BY: Judy Acosta, Jr. Engineering Aide SUBJECT: Approval to Annex OR 8743, located northeast of Victoria Park Lane and 9orth Victoria Windrows Loop, to Street Lighting Maintenan:e Ofstrlct,No. 3 as Annexation No. 8 and setting the date of public hearing for March 16, 1988 RECOI�JpitTION It is recommended that City Cou., it adopt the attached resolutions approving the Engineer's Report for Annexation No. 8 and setting the date of public hearing regarding the City's intention to annex the above described deveiopmient to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3. An0y1is&1SkJMR d Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's intent to annex OR 87-13, located northeast of Victoria Part Lane snd North Victoria Windrow Loop, to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 as Annexation 6 and setting the public hearing date for March 16, 1988. Also attached for Council consideration is a resolution giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the subject annexation. Letter. from the developers requesting the subject annexation are on file in the Engineering Ofvisior.. Respe fogy ubmitted. r , RHM:• m Attachments 10 Y { RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, OF PRELINIWARV APPROVAL OF CITY a' EMMEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION No. 8 TO STREET LIGHTING i MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 W , f , l WHEREAS. on February 17, 1988, the City Council of the City of-Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act ,. of 1972; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer Ras aide and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as callel for pursuant to said Act. which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and q WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and-each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be modified in any re spect. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ranrho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses a sf a wiork and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and confused. SECTICH 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to and dsKcr_M_eTTn said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of land in said msment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 4: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Report for TTe pu— rposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district. 'r. 10(0 CITY OF P.ANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance Dfstrfct No. 3 Annexation No. 8 for OR 87-43 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division IS of the Streets and Hf s Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 972 ) . SECTION 2. General Desertptton This City Council has elected to annex all new developments into — Street Lighting Hatatenance District No. 3. The Cit; Council has determined that the street lights to be maintained will have An effect upon all lots within said developments as well as on the lots directly abutting the street lights. Work to be provided for with the assessments established ',y the district are: The furnishing of services and caterials for the ordlnsry and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street itTTgghht streets) as shown onrthe LightingtDistrictdAlias HapcwhichtIs on file with the City Engineer. Improvement maintenance 1s considered of general becafft to all creas in the District and cost shall be assessed on a per unit basis. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications fnr street fighting have been prepared by the derelepors. Tie Mans cad street lights are as stipulated in the ronditicns of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engine ^ring Division. Reference is hereby made to the sublact tract map or Cevelopment plan and the Issessmnnt diagram for the exact icca *ton of the street 11ghtln2 areas. The plans and specfficatlons for street lighting improvement on the individual development is hereby code a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or r+, part of any improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area. 107 sc SECTIO.0 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be im:uned for street lightiny Improvement construction. Ail improve>Amts will be constructed by developers. Based on available data, it4s estimated that- maintenance costa for assessment purposes will be as lndfcaUW }Delhi. Those costs are estimmted only, actual assessnsenta will be based on actual cost data. Street Lighting Maintensnce District No. 3 has been demarcated into two zones. Zone i is comprfse4�'Of strtet,llght improveants:on local streets for residential Improvement (single family, multi - family; condominiums and apertaimts) throu,hout the YicWria Planneq Ca%manity. Each dwelling unit in this -zone w0l,be assessed as one assessachu eit for tre operation of the Distrf•t. Zone 2 is comprised of all Industrial, commercial and lnstitutitvral protects through.-Qt the Ytetoria Planned Community, it has been daterwined that oas acre of land in -industrial, c-- "rcial and institutional areas derives the same bonafit as two :sse3smant units -in Zone 1. The estimated fatal cost for Lighting lklntenance District No. 3 is shown below: 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Enerm' Cest: No. Of Lamps Lamps annex New Lamp Lamp Size* YTO No.8 Total 5000L 1058 0 1058 9500L 82 62 "Nigh Pressure Sodium Yapor R- Total Total Annual Lamp Size Lamps Rate No's Mafnt. Cost SBDOL 1058 X S 8.93 X 12 • $113,375.28 9500L 82 X $10.16 X 12 • 9,997.44 Total AnrW Maint. Cost $123,372.72 2. Total Assesu*nt Units: YTO Assess Units before this annexation • 3182 Assessment Units this annex per page 4 • 4 Total Assessment Units 3186 �4s Y I� a�s ` Jos R- 14 3. Cost oer, Assessment Unit: -- Total Annual Maintenance Cost $123 372.72 0 $38.72 /year /unit o. or n s n District — ' MW �,. Assessment shall apply to each lot or parcel as explained in Section 6. z SECTIONS. Assessment Otaarma ' Copies of the proposed Assessment Ding-am are attached to this ' report and labeled 'Street Lighting Maintenance Oistrict-No. 30, r Annexation No. 8. These•dtagrasa are hereby incorporated within the text of this report. a SECTION 6. Assessment Improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to all units within the District and that assessment shall be equal tor_each .. unit. When units are based on acreage, assessment will be 2 units per ;y net acre. SECTION 7. order of Events I. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and sets public hearing date. 3. City Council conducts public hearing, ctnsiders all testimony and determines to fors a District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City e Council. S. Every year in June, 00 City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the Individual assessments. 0 EXHIBIT 'A' Properties and irproveients to be included within Annexation No. 8 r; to street Lighting Naintenanca District 3: Assess. No. of L s to be Annexed Project Acreage Unit g5 a m Zone 1•i� r< Zane 2 a DR 87-43 2.17 4 0 0 0 „> 110 0 0 N ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DIS'r "I:T NO.3 ANNEXATION NO. B QC 1 a V• � i> ITI1� m r Cr" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO e PROJECT 0 1 x � q f: RESOLUTION NO. 3 �-y O " ro A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOReA CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE A)DIScATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 TO STREET LIGHTING l MINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3l PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FO.r. NEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO nc NOW, THEREFORE DE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1x72, befog Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as follows: t SECTION 1. Cescrl tion of Work: That the public interest and .p V convenlence-rs an is the intention of this City Council to form a maintenance district in the City of Poncho Cucamonga for the maintenance and operation of these street iights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in connection with said district. SECTION 2. Location of Work: The foregoing described work is to be located ritHifn—roi' gdwyy Ri -Tway enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the office of the City Clark, entitlee mexatlon We. B to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 ". SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District: That the can ea%la in we opinion or said ty wu-n-FTT is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the said work chargeable upor. a district, which said district is assessed to ay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain *Kap of Annexation No. 8 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3' maps is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. SECTION 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said City by Resolution me. - has approved the report of the engineer of work which report indicates the amou of the proposed assessment, the district boundary, assessment zones, titled 'Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3' Is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the cssesssents and for the extent of the work. // 2 N SECTION S. Collectfen of Assessments: The assessL\V.t shall be collected A-t7VWsm@mVme arsd_in saft scanner, as Count; tAXeS are - - - collected. The Cityjn2inier.sholl ' jila'a•reportannvally Wito% the-City Council of said City�_a said CounciliwilVannually condict aikiiaring upon-- said report at their first . regular meeting In'June, at which, tixk,,t assessments for Vii nut fiscal year=will be- determined. - SECTION 6. VoW and-Place"of Navin �fxo c*;4s-hereby' that- pe 1n.MM;CItYf . - . I �� I on March I(#, Ina, Icil i6:at 9161' in the City of�.'RaKho CV Base Line. _&XMgj' . any` a -all-ptnons- v ftq'aw4 objections to the work wextent=of_kthe aswmap, -district, a show cause why.said wort "Should.notbe,&Pe Wc ed'bdvo af t district should not be-Jorned-in,accordance with this Resolution o Intention. Protesti,.must'be In,uriting and•susf'contain-a description of the LL property in ouch each -zigneF,'ther*ofGis interested. -suffictent'.3o'-Identify the same, and must beldelftered th,_Cfty Clark of s&td,Ct Prib'r-,to the-, time set for the hearing. and protests-or.obdectiont w111 bay considered. if the stgner,of any prv:est'is'not,shm- -1 last-equalized assessment roll of San Bernardino County as-the owner -of the,properf*. described in the protasts,"then such protest must contain, or be acaWiKfe-d by -: written evidence that such signer is the owner of property so I described. SECTION 7. Landzggiinynd Lichting All the work herein pr—opi-se-d—Wall-Weld cArrTeo TAM n pursueace of in act of the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping nd Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and HighWOS Me of the State of California. SECTION 6. Publication of of Intention: Published notice Se_ _T_ c JDF shall be mare pursuait to 2 ZFvernmenz cde. The Mayer shall sign this Resolution and tine City Clerk shall attest to the same,- end the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before -the'date sct for the hearing, at least once In The GaiIX Reeort. a newspaper of general c:rculation published in the City of 6RAFFo_.California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cuc&=ga, California. 14 ay CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: City-Cotincil. and City Wager FROM: Russell It, Maguire, City Engineer BY: Judy Acosta„ Jr. Engineering Aide SUBJECT- Approval to Annex DR 87-24; located, on V,,e northwest - corner Of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street, to Street Lighting, Maintenance District No. 6 as Annexation No. U and,sattlnq the date,-of public hearing for March 16, 1988 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached reso"Iu�tions approving the Engineer's Report for Annexation No 11 and setting the date of public hearing regarding the City's intention to annex the above described development to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6. Analysls/Backjrgund Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's intent to annex OR 87-24, located on the northwest corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6tn Street, to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 as Annexation 11 and settinS thrpublc hearing date for March 16, 1988. Also attached for Council consideration Is a resolution giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the subject annexation. Letters from the developers requesting the subject annexation are on file in the Engineering Division. Resp Ct submitted, RHM:JPA:sd Attachments a 2t IN t A, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMC40 r CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR, ANNEXATION N0. 11 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00. G WHEREAS, on February 17, 1488, tra City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Light.ng Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has mode and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said re part _Is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should'bT— ` modified in any respect. WOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized colts and expenses ooT— s— &'dwork snd of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained to said report be, and each of them are M•eby, preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to and descrTU -eT Tn said report, the boundaries of the stbdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. SECTION 3: That the proposed assessmant upon the subdivisions of lani in sard- sit se:sment District to proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, frrm said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and tonfirmed. SECTION 4: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Report fo—rT- purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district. //5, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 Annexation No. 11 for OR 87 -24 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the rewirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (LSndscapleg and Lighting Act of 19721. SECTION 2. General Description This City Council has elected to annex, all now developments into Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6. The City Council has determined that the street lights to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within said developments as well as on the lots directly abutting the street lights. Work to be provided for with the assessments established by the district are: The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street tight improvements on major streets (arterial and certain collector streets) as shown on the Lighting District Altas Map which is on file with the City Engineer. Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be assessed on a per unit basis. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area. i .Y r. �a SECTION 4, Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred for street lighting I rovement aa - construction. All iaprovents will be constructed by developers. Based on available data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes 'Will be as Indicated-below. These costs are estimated only,, actual assessments will be based on actual cost data.- Street Lighting Maintenance District, NA. C -is comprised of-street light improvements on local.streets.,for ult industrial: coaaerciai and - institutional projects -,throughout,_the City. It has been-determined that one acre of land in industrial,_coeaercial and institutional areas..., - derives the same benefit as two assessment units in'residential Tones. The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. o;js shown below: - A 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy Cost: No. of Lamps Lamps Annex Lam Size* YTO No. 11 _ Total 58OOL 44 0 44 9500E 2 0 2 *Nigh Pressure Sodium Vapor Total Total Annual Leap Size Lamps Rate Mo's Maint. Lost SBOOL 44 X S 8.93 X 12 $4,715.04 9500L 2 X $10.16 X 12 243.84 Total Annual Maint. Cost $4,958.88 2. Total Assessment Units: YTO Assess Units before this annexation • 355 Assessment Units this annex per page 4 w 38 Total Assessment U4its 393 !/7 I i V ` - 3. Cost oer assessment Unit: ` Totes Annual kalntenance Cost $4,958.88 $ 12.62/year/unit o. o n s n s r N- sr sse Assment shall apply to each lot or parcel as explained in Section 6. � z. h -• SECTION 5. Assessment Diegra�, ... K 11 Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are tttached to this report and labeled `Street Lightiag Naintenence District No. 6 ", Annexation No. 11. These diagram: are hereby incorporated within the ?•7 text of this report. ' SECTION 6. Assessment =M y 1 Improvements for tM District ua found to be of yenerat benefit to sll units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each unit. When units are based on acreage, assessment wilt be 2 units per ^ net acre. w. SECTION 7, order of Events 1. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and sets public hearing date. 3 determines t conducts District orrabandoconsiders he and proceedino. 4. Every year in Nay, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council. S. Every year Council public hearing and apprvsormodifies and aproves the individuaassessments //7, _ a i .. .- x4•ei5..?w6+.�. EXHIBIT •A• Prope*.-ties and Improvements to 'Je includd jithin Annexat'On "0. il to Street Lighting mentenwe Distriect 6: Assess. No. 04 Dsto be .Annexod ?Z2Lect Acreage n oR 87-24 18.83 38 --- ... --- --- yx ,'m Y ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. (o ANNEXATION NO. II SITE Y I M Y� i> �m CTi-Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF UN BERNARDINO N W RESOLUTION NO. D F; - 0 / I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 11 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJCCTIONS THERETO NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of ttce City of 3ancho *ucawnga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Street: and Highways Code of the State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. Description of Mork: That the public Interest and convenience repo re an t�iTs Lhe n, ion of this City Council to forma maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance aBd _ operation of those street lights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in Section 2 horeof. Said maintenance and operation Includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in connection with said district. SECTION 2. Location of Mork: The foregoing described work 1s to be located wl'EFTnroadway right-of-way enumerateu to the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file to the office of the City Clerk, entitled •Annexation No. 11 to Street. Lighting Maintenance District No. 60. SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District: That the contemplated work. in the opinion or said ty ou..cil, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Ccuncil hereby makes the expense of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shorn upon that certain 'Map of Annexation No. 11 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6" maps is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. SECTION 4. Re ort of Engineer: The City Council of said City by Resolution No -rWas approve a report of the engineer of work which report Indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary, assessment zones, titled •Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6• is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments en,' for the extent of the work. /.V RESOLUTION k'•_ PAGE 2 -. SECTION S. Cullection of Assessments: The assessment shall be collected aW'fFe—sm.e —time and in the smos manner as County taxes are wllected. The City Sngineer shell file a report annually with the City Council of said City and said Council wilt annually conduct a hearing upon said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined. r. SECTION 6, Time and Place of Heaarinng: Notice is hereby given that on March 1671M, at nour_o pm in he City Council Chambers at 9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having any i�:• objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of Intention Pretests most be in writing and must contain a• description of the property in which each signer thereat is interested, suffi_ tent to identify the same, and must to oalivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized asses =ent roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be acct-anted by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property sn described. SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work herein proposed— em;Fall' e�one�arried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTt01 B. Publication of Resolution of Intentiun: Published notice Shall be mae—e pu-suant to Section 61961 of the „overnment Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at le st once in The Oail Re rt, a newspaper of general ci- culation published in the City of Ontar o, a ornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. I;q- ORDINANCE NO. 335 AN CRMIMHCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 08 RANCHO OUCAMMA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT. DISTRICT AIENIMUT 87 -10. EMURSTINC A CHANGE IN SHE DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROM HEDIUH -HIGH AND LOW RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF AIR STREET. WEST OF BARER AVENUE - APN 207 - 541-60 WLB83AS. on the 25th day of Nwember, 1987, the Planning Cocm4Aaion held a duly advertised public hearing puratust to Section 65854 of the California Government Code and recommended to vbe City Council adoption of a change in the district designation fror Maditm -High and Low Residential to Industri 1 Specific Plan. 1 WHEREAS. on the 20th day of January. 1928, the City Council -bald a duly advertised public bearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga city Council bag made the folloving fiadingst 1. ;bat the subject property In suitable fcr the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of atceee, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding &reel and 2. That the proposed District Change would not have significant impact on the environment, nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed District Change is in conforxanre with the General Plan. SECTION 2t The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has found that this project viii not create u significant adverse impact on the environment and approves issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 20. 1988. NOW. IHEMEFORB. BE IT RESOLVEDt 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 6585f If the California Government Code, that the City ;oluncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approv •a on the 20th day of Janaety, 1988. Development District Amendment 87 -10 changing the district designation from Madium -Righ and Los Residential to Industrial 1A3 "' 4 f Ordinance He. 335,'; Page 2 Sp%cific Plan tar those Vrop4rtlea located-torth of Sth Strs6t, east of Grove Avenue, vest of Uker Avauuc•�snd south of an existing Santa Fe Railroad line. 1 :j. r ORDINANCE Y.O. 336 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OOGNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C;CAION;A. CALIFORNIA. APPROVI.NG INDUSTRIAL SPECITIC PLAN ANENONENT 87 -03, RMURSTMG AN ADDITION TO SUBAREA 1, LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH STREET, NEST OF BAKER AVENGE - APN 207 - 541 -60 WHEREAS. on the 25th day of November, 1987, the Planning Coar%eion bald a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Coda and recommended to the City Council adoption of a an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan requesting an addition to Subarea 1, located north of 8th Street, east of Grove Avenue and vest of Baker Avenue. .IHEREAS, on the 20th day of January, 1988, the City Council held a duly advertised public bearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1; The Rancho Cucamoe ^t City Council has node the following Pindingst 1. That the subject propetry is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with oristing lend use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed Amendment would act have significant impact on the environment, nor the surrounding properties; and 3. Th. the proposed Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. S8CfION 2; The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impart on the environment and approves issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 20, 1988. MM. THEREFORE, BE IT RPSOLVED; That pursuant •o Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves on the 20th day of January, 1988 Industrial Specific plan Amendment 87 -03, adding those properties located north of Sth Street, east of Grove, vast of Baker + t Avenue and south of thw Santa Pe Railroad lino to Subarea 1 of the Induacrial Specific plan. .0 r� •a ORDINANCE NO. 338 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF nANIXO CUCAMONGA. .'�JLITCENIP. AMENDINO SECTION 17.10.03002 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING 70 PARSIN3 LOT AND SIMMALE SALES A. Recitals. W On Janwry 13. 1988. the Planning Tnmmieaion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public bearing with respoct to the proposed amendment to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamongn Municipal Coda (bereinefter raferred to as the "Development Code ") regarding regulations for the review and approval of parking lot and sidewalk sales. (ii) At the conclusion of said Jenuaty 13. 1988 public hearin$t_ the planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88 -010 thereby recommending that' this Council adopt the proposed Development Code amendmonto as not forth in this ordinance. (iii) On February 3. 1988. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamanga conducted a daly noticed public hearing with roapa.•t to the propoeed Development Code amendments as not forth herein and said hesria% was concluded prior to the r.doption of this Ordinance. (iv) A11 legal prerequisites prior .o `he adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. r THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOU;A WES '1 °REBY ORDAIN AS fOLLOUS: SECTION 1: That all of the facts as net forth In the Recitals. Part A. of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Section 17.30.03001 of the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby ananded to read. in vcrds and figuros. aY follows 2 Partiaa Lot end Sidcvrlk Sales. Parking lot and sidornik aalea may be permitted on private property is the commercial /retail areas of the City. including retail /vbolanale businesses located vithin industrial areas. in tonnaction with current orsite businesseso subject to tba approval of a Temporary Use Permit as provided in Section 17.04.070 wd the following criteria: !2-I wtx • .., _ �rs!'1 -k� {4 M eN(A^ n. A:�rv,y•Rr't1 I'd Ordinance No. M Page 2 _ WW a. Each sale is limited to a mndmum of three (3) .�7 consecutive days= i b. No sale for any' single busineaa or any other A businesses located on the same lot or parcel, or within a shopping center, shall be permitted within thirty (30) days of anotkar sale. . 4 �y4 $ C. A maximum of three (3) sales shall be permitted for ,each business during, each calendar year: however, ( one (1) additional sale may be permitted for any ,usinsss located within a shopping canter prwidad that at least fifty percent (SOS) of the businestes occupying the ' 6 "f^ canter participate concurrently in such sale: ±t. d. Tho applicant for such sale must obtain the °.� weitten authorization of the property weer and ' must provide proof of notification at least thirty (30) Jaya prior to proposed sale to all other businesses on the same lot or parcel, or within tba same shopoing center, that a parking lot or sidewalk sale will be conducted, the times it vill be omnduct._ and that no char sale within thirty (30) days •i such vale will be permitted. r1 e. The items to be said shall be of the same type ' that are regularly displayed and sold at the business lccation: f. The activity rhall not prasent a hazard to pedestrians or encroach on a required building , exit: 2 S. Safe vehicle ingress and egress shall be provided at all times: and b. Adequate parking shall be provided ana maintained during the course of the activity for both the business of the applicant and all other buaLuaeces on the same lot or parcel or within the same shopping canter. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any prwiaion, socti,n, paragraph, sentence or uord of thLa Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any Vnal court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive leg;lslatloa, the retaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, ceutemces and vorgs of this Ordinance ahnll remain in full force ., and offect. !2-I % 'R�, 338 OrdInacce 'P 'a 13, It --j The Mayor aball sip this Ord.Incnea and 'the "Clmik -4, •shall rates the aftn'to tAipubliabod within fifteaL (15) -uys aftez iia pai"go at least Once iu The Dully- Report, a mewspiper or general circulation i`ubXiubtd in the City Of llr�FaftoCsliforod,A. and circulated im' the -City of PATi o' oucamonsa. California. ssg ". MEN,, m J. ti?Y ti 00iv�' ORDI22A9LB NO. 339 A2; ORDINANCM OF THE CITT CDONCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO O2CAM)C/4 CALIVORN" APPROVING INDOSTRIA`. AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (I.3. P.') AXERDVJWT 87 -04 RfipOESTIt; THIS iLEIELAND AVlrF (NORSE O? 71H STREET) BE DELETED PRO."• THE IHWSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California Boas ordain an follows: •' SECTION it The Raacho Cucamonga. City Council has made the following findinsat ' 1. That tLe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recommended that the City Council approve .� Industrial Arm* Specific Plan Amendment 87 -004 based t upon substantial evidence presented to said Commission during a public hearing conducted on January 13, 1988• including written and oral staff reports; and W 2. The application appliaa to property located at the southeast corner of 8th Street (vacated) and Cleveland Avenue, and is presently vacant; and ? °. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with ind,utrial woe• and is provided access from Vincent Avenue: and 4, The property to the uouth and east of the L -e ie currently vacant, is owned by the applicant, auj will have access and circulation patterns master planed and completed as development occurs; and 5. The property to the vent in partially developed with a manufacturing use, which is provided access from Toronto Avenue• a cal- da-aac street. 6 That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have vigaificaat impact on the environment, nor the surrounding prorarties: and 7 That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. . .. - -f .. .. .4, . . , r M I Ordinance No. 339 Page 2 f ^z, C 11 2 SEUIO. The Rai& Ckicamongi Plarn;nS Oiudgsion has found th"•'- tbix proj;ct 1 no ' V,crastdiVsr,'glgnif icamt • adv'erte', impact on the evvi ='tmko-ot and recomauded JeSVAZ'uij 6f.-a,Wjjatjva '1 Declaration on inausFy 13. 1980., • - �tv�� NOW. MOMMRS, -BE'!T,,RESMVMI 1. That the City Goimcil. of the City of Rancho'Cuctmonga has held 'a, public heiijuZ in ' the time and - io�ioner prescribed hj ard and,bar da-e-raimed that the street demijuntion for CLevelind &ianut. north of 7th, Stisat an' 'ludicatad co'Ex:h1bit *A" zwy be deleted frog the Ind=tAml A.:ed SpecirkIl". SECTION 3: The FWyor shall sign this Ocdlvanze and the--City eek shall muse -thu name to be'publisbad within fifteen (15) 'days niter its passage at least once In , rt. a newspaper of general cLvculr.ttoii,pnblizhsd, in the City of OnW9zC&,If2.ruIa and circulated im^ -he- City f Rancho Cucamonga, California. RESOLUTION 't0. T g' O —7 0 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLViCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMGA,,CALIFMiIA; SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF CLEVELAND AIENUE BETWEEN 7TH'STREET AND THE A.T. 6 "S_F..,- RAILROAD , ' I - WHEREAS, by Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 8330, of the Streets and Highway Cade, the City Council of the City of Rancho'Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate a portion of the City Street hereinafter more particularly described; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that the portion of Cleveland Avenue between 7th Street and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad has not been used far street purposes for five consecutive years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AESOLVEO by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucmmga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council of tt; ty of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ma e7-s�ts order vacating that portion of s : on Mtp Y -069 on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part thereof. SECTION 2: That said vacation shall be effective 30 days after the date o e activeness of Ordinance No. 339, an amendment to the access /circulation plan for the Industrial Area Specific Plan (subarea 10). SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to recorded in the office oP the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. +y � r . 131 . -1110 NiZ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 EXHIBIT "As Legal Description A strip of land 30 feet--in' width ,over that portion of the unnamed street,,x• (known as Cleveland Avenue), as shcrAi on the map, of Cucamonga lands In the City of Rancho Cucamonga,, County,' of San Bernardino. State of Californ i a._as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 9 of maps in the Orfice of the County Recorder of said county bounded a's.follows: On the North by the easterly projection of the North line of Parcel-27 of Farce'. Map Nc. 6194 as per nap recorded in Parcel Map Book 62, Pages 62 through 66 inclusive per records of said recorder. On the South by the easterly projection of the South line of Parcel 11 of ssid Parcel Map No. 6194. On the West by the East lines of said Parcel Nos. 11 and 27. On the East by a line parallel with anc 30 feet easterly of the East lines of said Parcel Nos. 11 and 27. E"11- rl fj I } 4 N (Z� I aw■ ■ ■1 1] . y v, 0 N c7+ rA ILMilill 4 a Y� l �Z6 ryq i r 0,. q lution No. 8A- •=° P'1 C 4 Cli 0 r U\ �IIIIIIII • ,1 iE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Arq STAFF REPORT c r O Q V Z DATE: February 17, 1988 W7 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -048 request to amend the TanSe emen a e veneral Plan from Office to Neighborhood Commercial for 3.58 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - APN 202- 151 -33. (Continued from December 16, 1987). ENVIRONKENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT aAEAOMER -H7 0�AE1R1 AA request to aun e eve'opmen s r- crap from 'OP' (Office/ Professional) to 'NC' (Neighborhood Commercial) for 3.58 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 151 -33. (Continued from December 16, 1987). I RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council continue a-1 - iil;Ted -Meems as referenced in the beginning of this report to the meeting of June 1, 1980. II BACKGROUND: WeiricK Properties is proposing to develop the grope ty`at the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue as a mixed use office /neighborhood commercial center. A General Plan Amendment and accompanying Development District Amendment is necessary to allow the applicant tj proceed with the project proposal The General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment were heard by the City Council at their meeting of October 21, 1987. At that time, the Council continued this item to the meeting of December 16, 1987 with the direction that a Development Agreement be submitted as part of the application for the purpose of providing more specific development controls on the site which would provide for maximum efficient utilization, of the site in accormance with sound planning principles. At the December 16 meeting, the applicant requested a farther continuance as a result of having changed architects for the project. The change in architects has delayed the completion I)f the development pldns. Since these plans are an integral and e-: M1 CITY COUNCIL STtFF,REPOAT OPA 87 -048 - YEIRICK PROPERTIES ;S DOA 87 -03 - YEIRIM PROPERTIES ' February 17, 1988 ={ page necessary exhibit of the Development ,Aq,4cMent, tae Agrehoent cannot be completed until the plans are ready to be included in the package. At; the'..time of -.the December ,16, 1987„City;;;Council meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to February 17, 1588 with the expectation that this would allow sufficient opportunity to complete bll necessary dcvelopment,plans. fie applicant has retaineJ1! new erchitectu�al firm. Staff•;has'had initial wetings with no architects to 'revier concept4i site layouts and ouiiding design. , However, as of this date, the plans have yet to Section 65857 of the Agree2ents be reviere are submitted to the Agreement would then be- -ead meeting of June 1: ISM Th itm be continued to this city ull pitted" Z 1 B1 nner BB:BC:te c11' review at -their recommends that this '4 All I. i IM 0 MFIOAYIT OF NAILue DIVISION - mail Clark -far iU)o City of broch'a Cwlbwg& 0 hereby'sla ir'that,cn !f' 1g38at loroxioutely Cu.awgs grant t 0 C, 00; 1 �mposiffd in the cu;;tt -0mc or critv,addressed st, tefs nar lOC&U4 at 9607 dwilness to and regarding 62 Signed: n.t*': A., (RYASE MUM WM SIGWjM) 1'a(o M+ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RANCHO CUCAM)KGA CITY COUNCIL The Rancho Cucamonga City Council will be holding public hearings at 7:30 p.m. on February 17, 1988 at the Lions Park Community Building located at 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, to consider the following described pro3ect(s): ERYIRONNENTAL ASSESSMENT ALB) GENERAL. PLAN 41ENOMENT 87 -34B - WEIRtCK f— ro — e rcques o amend—We an, se mn o. a enera an to Neighborhood Cmmerciol for 3.58 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - APH: 202 - 151 -33. ENYIRO1OiENTAL ASSESSMENT MD OEYEL.OPitENT DISTRICT AMEMAW 87 -03 - reques o amen a are apmen s r c p rom ce Professional) to 'NC" (Neighborhood Commercial) far 3.58 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - AP14: 202- 151 -33. Anyone having concerns or questions on any of the above items are welcooe to contact the City Planning Division at (714) 989 -1861 or visit the offices located at 9340 Base Line Road, Unit B. Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at the above - described meting or may submit their concerns in writing to the Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonaa prior to said meeting. February 5, 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council lime l 3'7 JAXIS CARTED DEMOPMEW COMPANY ' 888'NOrth?MaLiL Street. Suite 801 Santa:ACa {t California 92701 . ' (710) 513 -9259 r February 11, 1988 Mr, Dennis L. Stout, Mayor 1} City of Rancho Cucamonga Poet Office Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 r Res GPA 8801A - JAMES E. CXITER DDA 87 -11 - JAMES E. CARTER Y Request for continuance of public hearing of agenda F item 92 frora February 17, 1988 to March 16. 1988 1•� Doar Mr. Stouts I request that the public hearing before the City Counsel regarding the above applications to amend the general plan and development district map be continued until March 16, 1988. As I indicated on the telephone, ire are working to resolve some-of the problems raised by the Planning Staff and Commission in connection with that project. Thank you. Yours very truly, E9 E. CARTSR� scg ,y a - ,f= CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIdONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Plainer BY: Bruce Cook, Associate planner SUBOECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01A - WE requast to amend the General Plan an se ap rom Office to Neighborhood Cormercial for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208 202 -13, 14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT c - - - reques o amen e evif�opma c s a c s ap ram ice /Professional (OP) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-202 -13, 14. I. RECOMMENDATION: At its meeting of January 27, 1988, the Planning omm soon recommended the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 88-01A and Development Districts Amendment 87 -11 If the City Council concurs, adoption of the attached Resolutions of Denial would be appropriate. II. BACKGROUND: The project applicant, James E. Carter, has submitted at the request of the propert_ owner, Rancho Center .,Ssociates, this General Plan and Development Districts Amendment requesting a change of the existing designation from Office to Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant contends that this change is necessary because current market conditions does not war -ant the development of this site for office use. A traffi- study and market feasibility analysis have been submitted as attachments to this application. The Planning Commission reviewed this project at their meeting of January 27, 1988. On July 16, 1986, the City Councii directed that five Office /Professional sites and one Commercial site be studied by the Planning Commission for possible General Plan land use changns. The project site at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue was one of the five sites identified by the City Council. Y• CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GPA 88.OIA - Janes E. Carter DDA 87 -11 = Janes E. Carter February 17, 1988 Page 2 The Planning Commission reviewed the five sites at their meeting of August 27, 1986. In the review of the Base Line /ilellmcn site, three alternative land uses were cons 'e• j: 1) Mediu� Residential, 2) Neighborhood Commercial, tnd •i G'fice. The Commission determined that multi - family residential would not be appropriate adjacent to Base Line and therefore, was not in favor of the first alternative. Likewise, the Commission was opposed to the second alternative to Neighborhood Commercial. The Commission concurred that the site was a difficult one to develop, and their concern was that to redesfqnate the site to a more Intense Commercial use would only magnify the already existing problems. The consensus of the Commission was to recoamend to the City Council that this site retain its Office designation. At their meeting of November 5, 1986, the City Council reviewed- 'the-Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the various sites for possible redeslgnation. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's analysis and the Council chose not to change the site's existing Office designation. III. PLANNING COMISSION ACTION: The current proposal, as requested by Mr. Carter, Is en ca to the one reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1986. In their review of the current proposal, the Commission arrived at the same conclusion as they did with their previous review. The Planning Commission found that the subject property's physical design constraints render the site incapable of adequately handing the increased land use intensities resulting from a land use redesignation to Neighborhood Commercial without significant edverse impacts resulting to adjacent properties. Therefore, the Planning Commission, at the meeting of January 27, 1988, adopted Resolutions recommending that the City Council deny the proposed Dencrai Plan and Development District Amendments. Resp ully s tted, C 6 e City P1 nner BB:BC:vc Attachments: Planning Commission Staif Report of January 27, E988 Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-24 (CPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 88.25 (DDA) Draft Resolutions of Denial DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I II CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT o z U January 27, 1988 ts:: Chainaan and Members of the Planning Commission I Brad Buller, City Planner Bruce Cook, Associate Planner WIRONNENTAL ASS;.SVEIIT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-OIA - dAnns L. LAwrew - A request to amend tee Uenerae roan a-K-T se Map rom;Office to "Neighborhood Commercial" for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208 - 202 - 13,14. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT requesE-fo emend' ihe�evo opine. s r c R'ap�prdm Office /Professional (OP) to Neighborhood Comerctal (NC) for approximately 3.45 acres of Tend, located on the southwest corner of Base Lino Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208.202- 13,14. ABSTRACT: The applicant, James E. Carter, hrs initiated both a nerd lan and Development Districts Amendment to change the existing Office designation to Neighborhood Commercial for 3.45 acres of land on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue. The Planning Commission previously considered redesigaating the site from Office to Neighborhood Commercial in August, 1985. At that time, the Commission recommended that the site stain its Office designation. The Commission felt there were a number of design difficulties associated with this site and was not in favor of a Commercial redesignation which could potentially Increase the land use intensity of the site, and therefore, magnify the Identified design difficulties in its development. Although staff has required the submittal of traffic and market studies, a further analysis of this proposal has not Found any appreciable change of conditions since the last review in August of 1986. Therefore, staff has provided Resolutions of Denial for this project for the Commissions review and consideration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION; A. Action Requested: Amend the General Plan from "Office" to "AeigghborI1000 Coomaercial ", amend the Development Districts Map from Office /Professional (OP to Neighborhood Commercial (NC , and issuance of A Negative Declaration. ITEM P ' PLANNING COMMISS10i fAFF REPORT RE: GPA88.OIA, DDA 87 -11 January 27, 1988 Page 2 B. Location: Southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman veennue C. Parcel Size: Approximately 3.45 acres. D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Church and single family residential; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). South - Multi - family apartment complex; Medium Residential (8.14 dwelling units per acre). East - Service Station and Office Buildings; (Office /Professional). West - Library and Lions Park; Low Residential .,(2 -4� dwelling units per acre). E. General Plan cations: � o ec s e -- OO�� North - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residailtial (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Office Nest - Civic /Community and Parks F. Site Characteristics: The site is covered with annual weeds and grasses anT9-FnTTy slopes in a southerly direction. There are no existing structures on the site, but a two -way access drive with median island bisects the property in a north to south direction to provide access for thq multi- family apartment complex directly adjacent to tie south of the project site. III. BACKGROUND: On July 16, 1986, the City Council directed that five ce ro essional sites and one Commercial site be studied by the Planning Commission for possible General Plan Land Use changes. The City Council did not give any special alternative land uses to be considered, but requested that the Planning Commission study the sites identified and provide recommendations to the City Council. The project site at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue was one of the five sites identified by the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the five sites at their meeting of August 27, 1986. in the review of the Brse Line /Hellman site, three alternative land uses were considered: 1) Medium Residential 2)Nuighborhood Commercial 3)Office. The Commission determined that multi - family residential would not be appropriate adjacent to Base Line and therefore, was not in favor of the first . alternative. Likewise, the Commission was opposed to the second /y2. PLANNING COMMISSIO1 :AFF REPORT RE: GPAB8.01A, DDA 87 -11 January 27, 1988 Page 3 alternatfvo to Neighborhood Commercial. The Co®tssicn concurred that the site was a difficult one to develop. Their concern was that to redesignate the site to a more intense commercial use would , only magnify the already existing problem. As a result, the Commission concurred, as a process of elimination, that Office would have the least impact and was the appropriate choice. The consensus of the Commission was to recommend to the City Council that this site retain its Office designation. At their meeting of November 5, 1986, the City Council review" the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the various sites for possible redeoignotton. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission analysis of the Base Line /Hellman site, and they chose not to change the sites existing Office designation. _ IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has conducted a Preliminary ^� v rmnmen sessmen natal StvQY Der the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that this project could result in significant adverse effects resulting from both socio- economic factors and health, safety, and nuisance factors. As a result, staff cannot make a finding of no significant impacts and would recommend against the issuance of a Negative Declaration with this project. V. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS: A number of design constraints res r—i c Fe eve op=cen� po�en a of this site. Base Line Road 1s a heavily traveled thoroughfare. The Use Line /Hellman intersection is a moderately impacted intersection. At peak hours of use (weekday morning and evening rush hours), traffic movement will back up into the existing driveway on Base Line Road. Also, the access potential off Hellman Avenue is severely limited. The site's relatively short frontage along Hellman (295 feet) restricts driveway locations because driveways must maintain a minimum distance of 200 feet from Base Line on the west side of Hellman. Secondly, access from Hellman is limited because of Hellman's configuration where the street bottlenecks at the railroad crossing. A third factor that constrains development potential of the site is the existence of a multi - family apartment complex adjacent to the south of the project site and the attainment of reasonably compatible land uses. Due to Hellman's configuration, the apartment site could not access off of this street. This left this site with direct access only to Base Line Road. In response, an access easement was obtained by the apartment site through the project site to Base Line. The result is a two -way driveway across the entire depth of the project site that, essentially splits the property in half. 1'13 ,7 PLANNING CINNISS101 'AFF RE: GPA98 -0'J1, ODA 47 -11 January 27, 1998 Page 4 In the analysts of this proposal, staff has identified three specific issues. They include: 1) land use, the appropriateness of the site for coaaaercial designation; raffic /access, traffic circulation and ingress /egress issues rely e s e specific criteria; and :) market /ana Isis, to determine the economic feasibility of the s eTior conercial rather than office use. Land Use: In comparing alternative future land use a Lions for the pro ec site, an unavoidable consideration 1s the existence of the adjacent arulti- family apartment complex. Due to unique design constraints previously highlighted, this apartment complex must share access with the project site. The present configuration betA:en the two sites would require a substantial buffer from ,whatever is ultimately etveloped on the project site. In their previous review of the proposal to redesignate this site' as'- ccmrerciat, the Planning Commission determined that multi- family residential would be an inappropriate use because it was undesirable to locate higher density residential units so close to Base Line Road. The City's goal for land use is per the General Plan (Page 12) is, 'land use shall be manag %. A th respect to location, timing and density /intensity of development in order to be consistent with the capabilities of the City...' A stated objective to this goal is to, 'Organize land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses.' The Commission felt that to redesignate the site to a land use that permits a areater intensity of use would only magnify the existing problems and would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the Commission did not recommend redesignation of this site to NeighLorhood Commercial. In staff's opinion, since the tine of the Commission's previous review to redesignate this site to Commercial, very tittle, if any, of the conditions have changed. The issues and resulting analysis as determined by the Planning Commission with their previous review are still valid today. Traffic Circulation - The Applicant had Greer and Company Engineers prepare a traffic study to address the traffic issues associated with this site. Staff's primary concern is that Commercial is a more intense land use than is Office /Professional. With intensified land use comes increased traffic. traffic study compares under four conditions: Under current conditions with the site, With the site built out the Office designation. 3 i; PLANNING C"ISSIO.`'; rAFF REPORT RE: GPA88.OIA„ ODA d7 -11 January 27, 1988 Page 5 (3) With the site built out with 31,000 square feet of Ceamercial /Retell Use, and (4) With the site built out with 31,0000 square feet of Commercial /Retail Use, including a 6,000 square feet convenience store. The traffic stuPj looked at what mould be the traffic conditions both in 1989 under the four alternatives, and also the traffic conditions in the year 2010. The results of the traffic steely are that for 1989 the traffic circulation system, i.e. Base Line Road and Heliman Avenue would be moderately impacted with development of the site. But, the intersection would still be operating at a better than acceptable level of service. In comparison of tfefffe impacts of commercial development versus Office development, the traffic study concluded that more daily traffic would result from Commercial rather than office use, but there would be no significant difference to the operating level of service of the traffic system resultinf from either the Commercial or Office use. Likewise, in 2010, the study concludes that the traffic system will be heavily impacted by that time due to City build -out, and whether there is an Office project, Commercial project, or no project, it will have little impact as to the overall condition of the traffic system. Again, in the comparison of traffic impacts of Commercial development versus Office development, '1e traffic study concludes that more daily traffic would r*30t from Commercial rather than Office use, but there would be no significant difference to the operating level of service of the traffic system resulting from either the Commercial or Office uue In analyzing the results of the trs,fic study, certain points must be kept in mind: (1) The Traffic Study only considered the effects of the potential site development alternatives as they relate to impacts to the peripheral street system, i.e. off - site circulation. (2) There are a number of on -site traffic issues that must be considered with this pro ec : (a) The project site "ores access with the adjacent apartment complex to the south. With Commercial uses as opposed to Office uses, there would be a greater amount of on -site truck traffic for delivery purpos_s leadingg to a greater number of traffic conflicts with auUbile users. �S« 'A is I PLANNING COIMISSIO. TATF REPORT RE: GPA88.01A, ODA 87 -11 January 27, 1988 Page 6 (D) Commercial use produces the greater number of trips to and from the site then would office use. With the shared access with the apartment complex the greater number of trips onto the site would increase traffic conflicts with the apartment users. (c) office related traffic is generally on week days during business hours. Peak use is at morning and_ evening rushes with limited use at other times. hours ecubutdwillgalsoo occur business ccurduring the evenings and /or weekends. Therefore, increased, traffic use is extended over a longer period of time and would result in increased impacts to -then— _. apartment users and users of the center as they traverse both on -site and off -site. (3) Finally, the traffic study indicates there would be no significant d0forence between Office and Commercial uses in terms of traffic impacts. However, in assessing this conclusion one must understand the assumptions on which the comparison was made. in this study, co= rcial use is based on 31,000 square feet of assumed 40,000isquare feet off idevetopmentp�nA.lso, the traffic study was completed under an assumed office mix and of 10 percent 40 percent general s office. OInetthe generationdofttraffic numbers general office results in tie least impact, with financial and medical /dental having significantly greater impact in the term of number of trips generated. If the office mix were recalculated in greater favor of general office at the expense of medical /dental and financial the traffic numbers would be changed that significa could nce betweenco= possibly rciala alter ndoffice us se of the site. Market Analysis - The applicant indicates that he is requesting s c ange ram Office to Neighborhood Commercial because it is his belief that there is not sufficient demand to absorb 3o,00M square feet of professional office space that would be provided if this site was completely built out as office use. At the proposal City's t a amarke research the studyitonco mppared as the existing N ting market conditions between office and commercial use. The findings of the study indicates that the existing supply of office (Community- scale) has approached the point of equilibrium and t is questionable as to whether the need exists to absorb the additional square footage that would be provided with this PLANNING COMMISSIO1 'AFF REPORT RE: GPA88.OlA, DDA b7 -11 January 27, 198A Page 7 development as office. The study indicated that there 1s strong market poteatlal for certain commercial retail uses such as family restaurants, speciality food stores, and apparel shops. A question of the market study concerns the basic assumption under which it was compiled that if the site were to be left with its current office designation it would be developed 100 percent as professional office use. This is a questionable assumption. The office /professional zone of the Development Code permits a number of service /retail uses within the office designation. The office designation has a flexibility of available land uses to permit the development of a mixed - use center, and is not confined to just the development of professional office space. A key point to consider, however, "1s'. - -. that the se.•vice /retail uses permitted under Office are of a low intensity type that would be more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The Neighborhood Commercial designation permits a. "number of higher intensity type of uses that would not be as compatible with the eilacent apartment complex. A final concern of the market study 1s that the market study area used to assess need was based or a 1 -1/2 mile radius of the project site. Thus the study areas was confined to the area south of Banyan only. There is a significant population that resides north of Banyan that could potentially make use of the services provided on the site. A question remains of the market study, that If the entire population from north of Base Line and west of Haven was—M—ct-uded in the study, would there then be sufficient demand to varrant the provision of additional office space? VI. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT ANALYSIS: State Law requires that e ere opaxm s r c .e., on ng Ordinance, be consistent with the General Plan (Section 65860, Government Code). If findings can not be made to warrant a General Plan Amendment of the site to a Commercial land use designation, similar findings should also made regarding the proposed Development District Amendment of the site to Commercial development district to maintain this requirement of consistency. VII. FACTS FOR FINOINCS: In order for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project, they must find the following: 1. That this project is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan. 2., That this project would be in the best interest of the h -alth, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. l47 - \...B..shy.L` Ira 'Sr;."✓`L3cz:.it£`_- �d /_.}.`a.: � -: +i- _ ".,5: '' .. _ 'd'�t'�i ^�i "_ya.'l.;e <'�" - _n...;� � ^•:: �;.,.z _Y R'rC�'s•�itp'Lyx. �Y',�G j.:.�- � r _ . PLANNING CdM ISSIO'. - 'AFFIREEPORT y d , RE:;, GPABS OIA, DDA 81- 11`' JanuarY -27; 1986,-_7" „ C' ' Page 8 r 3. That this project would not result in any significant adverse r' impacts to persons and property in thG- vicinity of tha project sits. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been ddvertised,in 0e Daily Report Aewpaper as a Public.Hearing item, all property owners within 300 feat of the project. site were sent direct mail Public Hearing Notices, and the property was posted with a 4 foot by 8 foot large notification sign per the City supplemental noticing requirements. f IX. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recoaeends that the, Plenning Comission f —io cite City Council resolutions raccamending the denial of orwa this project for the reasons as stated in the resolutions. If the Comission concurs, then the adoption of the attached resolutions— would be appropriate. Brad Buller City Planner BB:BC:js Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Location /Surrounding Land Uses Exhibit 'B' - General Plan and Development Districts Exhibit 'C' - Development District Amendment Map Exhibit 'D' - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 'E' - Applicant's Statement of Justification Exhibit 'F' - Traffic Study by Greer and Company Exhibit 'G' - Market Feasibility Study by Urban Research Associates Resolution of Denial (GPA) Resolution of Denial (DDA) 'ta`�f+c•'a'r'. s- - .'+�LX ?'fist ?' __ - wrt': =Y.e �\e'��•'�i�i9'w v 1 44 CITY OF rrEM, GPA. 88- 01& /DDA 87-11 RANCHO CUGAMniNUA T n.E, LOCATIOWSIAMUNl1 MG LMM USE, PLANNING D1VLSK)tN EXHIBM Ah SCALE, _ 144 :MM:. SITE :;::i :: r H ' •�•• General Plan;-:'. LM SITE rte•.•, :' ;r.l`•` : S •1R.0 ! . Development Districts CITY OF 17ES1, GPA 152- 0IA /DDA 87-11-- ' R LNCHO CUCAMCANGA '('(n,g, OEVELaPMEA/T O157R1CTS RANNM. DIVMON EXHIBM B SCAL•?, ISO :M Idl®! ix` � � • 0 I , -••R i! erW r .v r° O tl1 6 • — �sa'4. .. .F W A e Rt F • I:I�l µ S • f / • I / LL7MIIY Swill rte. r d "' PAW RI b • 0 VIVO j r • e ° ---` •. 1 '/ NORM .r3 CITY (X r,1,,_GPA 88-01A/MA F-7-11 RANCHO ClEAMONGA ?nut inEupwar DIsTRILT 99MDMEMT MkFi PLANNING DiVISM EXH19T, C SCALD ` r rpL • OMAN, �. i l!� °� us E ItOY N „eccarov YM AN •1lYY qRW NF � NY �YI�MN 047M f V M/II�Y�11 I t IY�M ( /I_��4 V��y V_� 1`Itr[tt C1 aLM,GPA 88- 01A /MA 87-II TnU, PROPOSM S1'E PLAM EXHie[T. sCALE, tiY. l JDSTIPICATIC -N WITH i.MONS FOR AMENDMENT Applicant request4 that the General Plan Deeiination and the Zoning of the subject property be chan.ed from Ofticc /Professional District (OP) to Neighborhood /Commercial 'istriet (NC). The site is a 3.45 acre pars -1 proposed to be used as a retail /service commercial center and is intandei to provide day -to-day roriven- ience shopping and services for vff$ce peraonnal And'.rasidents of the immediate neighborhood. The proposed change is requested for the following reasonse 1. llith the existing OP General Plan daaignatiou and zoning, these parcels would support at least 40.000 square f4at of professional /administrative offices. However, at this tine there appears to be a large vacancy factor in tho existing of:1co buildings in the immediate vicinity of this site., There Is no need or demand for additional Offices. 2. The City of Uacho Cucamonga w! 11 be moving its �. Cacilitiea from the tmaediate area with -n eighteen months creating an additional supply of professional /administrative offices. 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has planned the dowelopment of a subetantial office /professional district on Haven Avenue which is drawirg a itrge number of the professional uaes away from the subject property. This will continue to draw those potential tenants for the foreseeable future. 4. There will probably always be some lemald for certain local professionals such as family doctors, optometrists, den - tiatc, and family lawyers. Although this demand could not till a 40,000 square foot professional building, it would be adequately accommodated by the proposed project. The proporod ptojeCt is designed tt attract professional and personal service tenants as well as retail tenants. S. 'this property is located in the center of an established of Cice /professional /residential area and would provide day - tt day crinvanience shopping and services for the office personnel and residents of the immediate neighborhood. f.. The detignaticn of the two parcels as 17eighborhood/COm- me:cial would require the two parcels to be developed in a tonaiseent, unified pattern.. r ^ i' MAT 721 South Magnolia Avenue Anaheim. California 92804 Qi CiTy C74NtC4t 0. (71et552.29a6 ..t • "4%XWot(714) 952.7175 ENGINEERS a PLANNERS "" •'t January 8, 19e3 23. Jam" Carter Jams Carter DavelaQDant Cmpwly 888 North loin Stratt, suits 801 Santa Am, M. 9TT01 Im: Tmffic zgpwt AnalysiA in Conduction with the 13aposed Neighbotzzia Conumcial protect on tCat Soutbuser. Coal¢ of Easallns and Eallan Avwm as tin City of Rancho QXZZMM, California (:479 -01) Dater Mr. Garter: As authorized, w are pleased .x a2ASit ;iris traffic inpwt analysis in connection with the Fcp -vAd lmknlhborb=d =zzaarcial project on the sarthwa6t maxr of FAsslioe wed &Mznn Avean in the City of R =%o , thlifn ria. 13n analysis ermines the irpata oS tba prp2rad project on the intersection at Baseline and kiallaen Avcrna with that develcpwM of that project site as neighborhood creedal instead of the prasnnt professional office zoning. in addition to evaluating an office develop=* for comparison gapoaats, two alternate develo ,=* plans t are evaluated —one as all naighboti»od :retail user, and a second with a food market or =Atnience store integrated vith neighborhood retail uses. That analyses alx oddrrss the affect of pass -by traffic typical trip genaratian rates for retail ax*ping cantars. Uz proposed project consists of a zone change from professional office zcnin; to neighborhood commercial for the develgaent of 70,100 sq. ft. of rni4iboncead retail Hues. A devalopment alternative providing for 25,100 sq. ft. of nelghbarbood retail t>ses and app -tncimataly 5,000 sq. 1t. of convenience store use ISy dr. Jaaes Cbrtar Janes Carter Devalcpaent C=PWW Traffic Dpacd: Analysis hoighboaincd 1Xnw...i.n Project ea- .alirx and Hallman Avenue Doomber 30, 1987 - Fags Z uas analyzed. A project vicinity map and si'a plan are &ham in Figures 1 and 3, respectively. Diswmicn with the City staff rem, cad in the detasmitatiat to omdvct p.m. peak has analyses for 'die intersection of Baseline and Hellman Avenue and to aumdm I=deet arras operations. Greer i N. staff d:anned traffic operations and ornductd p.m. ^� paak has tuming mov®rtt counts from 4:00 to St00 p.m. on Monday, Droamber 28, 1987. T!s mdetirg turning wMent volumea for p.m. peek IK* s are shorn on Figure 3. Projected b iIM.M traffic Voluae4 wars Cbtalnad fron the City Traffic Dginsar and utod for an analysis of e>q=W fubrs oonditions. Based on existing intersection gecastrics and signal operatims, the intersection capacity analysis was ca=r ted using the IIrter`soctron Capacity Utilization aan (1) me&luodolcgy. Table I presents the volum- to- capacity (V/C) ratios ud levels of service (LW) for the study inter- section under current cariitlaa. Utder adsting conditions, the intersection of Ha.elino and Hellman Avenue cperatlrg at a high level of service with IM ^C^ and a V/C ratio of 0.706 during the p.m. peak has. (1) "E>:ployin,) Ditersoction Capacity Utilization Volumes to Estimate Overall Level of Service^, Traffic Ergumxing Pagazine, Syr 1974. 165 �arw � Vi SLD MAP e t1 i I WE PLAN Pit 34 r m ` N N h P 4 -46AL&D- 000 /080 0 / p0 /wo ?p$1- �E -T EXiSTU/6/ o O / ?O/0 ZO /O ,r TRAFFIC VOLUMES xr. James Carter Jame Cartar 09vacment Omvw Naiclocrboml C=*rQiaa Project Besel.iry and lianlam Awna J..ry 9, 1988 - Pop 6 nmmsw=m CNPACPIY AtAL45SS-1' r�w, R76`f ^PAC1TflCT .- {.w�....�wv� - YPEhFmTI'Cr' Ai0) - •••1•• -r_ —�- ' 1` { Betaline and -Aalrm A MIA o x. PrK_i63x_ - -- 1 R -tul ua- vic .-IM x.706 C tydstinq 0.673 B 1989 lb Project 0.7:4 C 0.690 8 2010 V/OP Project 0.893 D 0.852 D Alternative 1 (OP u+*✓0ffi e) : 0.739 C 1989 v /OP Project 0.773 C 2010 v/OP Project 0.893 D 0.852 D Alta=tive 2 (I4aWbaChcrd ).0 0.730 C P,mt- projact (1989) t.7 post -Prof eR ( 2010) 0.888 D 0.848 D calve:rivma �cla1): Alit e 3 0.780 C 0.746 C (1989) Poet - Project (1989) -prof post-project ( 2010) 0.899 D 0.859 D (11 y/C _ volume- totapwcity ratio 531 rrx - levo source: Greer 4 CO-, Englrraers and Plaicmara. Hr. James Cuter .Tznw Carter Development Ospany Traffic Impart Analysis Neighborhood 0:amercw "u Project Base, w rr and Hallman livarw January 8, 1988 -Page 7 pre7xnjeet traffic voltar were dataxirad 1sj apprl ring an anneal grow Il factor to the existing traffic volumes to wswt far traaally evectad traffic ir=%mass resulting from general region-.1 dradc; wet. The annual growth rate was determined by eanining the dif F rra between mdsting traffic volumes as caart'ad by thA arroltant and the projected peak bas voluum ..� for 2010 and calculating the Wnal increase for the 0 year period between 1987 and 2010. The growth rates vere calculated on the basis of dfzxtia traffic on Baseline since the projected increase is differieet for the "th:u d and wsatbaad &rw.:Lzn. The apactai co platlan date floe this project will be in 1989. Tharefan, the amid growth rates woe applied to the existing traffic volumes for a two year period to the 1989 target year to obtain the 1989 pre- project traffic volumes, ainich assess no project built on the subject site. Pre- project traffic voLmea ware also calclated and analyzed for the year 2010, is. projected buildout traffic volumes imltdin7 the project site bt i t-out render the OP Zoning. The pre- project traffic volumes for Wth 1989 and 2010 are sham in Figtun 7 for the p.m. peak tots. The into motion capacity analyses were conducted using the ICU analysis methodology and 1989 and 2010 pre- pzojr_t traffic volumes. Table 1 shows ttw V/C ratios and pffi for the pre - project ooditlons in both 1989 and 2010. Under 1989 ,3e- project cmaticro, the study intersection will continue to operate at a high level of service at I= "C" with a V/C ratio of 0.724 da-ing the p.m. peak has. Under projected buildout conditions in 2010, the study hrtzrsoction with existing lane geometry will deteriorate to ILe "D" and a V/C ratio of 0.891 dying the p.m. peak has. LDS "D" is an aoorptable leel of service for urban oaditlons, although the irrtnzsection operations will be approa&d rg undesirable �2tior al conditions. ((DO mr. James Carter James Carter DrM1- Cpmnnt C<aperry Traffic ayect Analysis Nslylbattaod ctce. .dare project 8=2riM and Hansen Avecar Jawry a, 1Cea - page e Trip generation rates bosad an data am=bld by the Intitot• of Trm tation Engineers ( =) were utilized to sstimata fume trips that would be generated ty both an office project order the present 01? zCnin9 (Alternative 1) and for two alteaatives for the proposed project uaw the proposed nct.hbcxb=d retail zoning. Alternative 2 prcpoees 30,100 sq. ft. of rrlghborboo3 retail teems. Altenative 3 incorporate up . to 5,000 sq. ft. of food store or cMvwd nos stare use and 25,100 sq. ft. of n9ighbOr400d retail. In each C=91 the effeC: of paaaa-by trips was applied to the trip 9WAratiatvolume for the nriltorhocd stain ap" and in the case of the office pcvjett-, it was also applied to the financial uses. >as-by tripe are em4 trips that wand be using the adjacent streets •Nether or not the pviect we= dsvalaped. pass 'by trier Cara cppo¢tLmistic trips instead of destination tripe, ion, drivers avail themaelver of the Cn=bzrlty to strop at the neighborhood retail eccres becanne thlay were driving past the project anyway, = trip rates and projected trips for all three altanrative:9 are presented in Table 2. As sham in Table 2, the office project (Alternative 1) would generate apg=dmatsly 1,989 daily trips, and appradantaly 310 trips durlrg the p-m. peak has. By =Varison, the retail alternatives Will generate slightly higher daily trips with Alternative 2 ex?eeted to generate about 2,819 trips and Alternative 3 abrnut 3,173 trips. Howvcar, for the p.m. prole has, Alternative 1 will generate appcoodmataly 31C trips, while Alternative 2 Would be slightly less and Alternative 3 slightly muse at 275 and 969 trips, rssp5ctively. All three alternatives will generate -p.m. peak has traffic volums withtn a range of only 75 trips ditferanroa. I(o/ A + Hr. Jaaaa cb. -tor Jam" hrtar co"acpWnt O:apaay Mmffic 1]pBCt Aralysis chic bambood Oaarcial Preject TTwraiina and H&Umn Ave" i Jaryny 8, 19te - P" 9 r RATQli 2 Amjaeb Trip camatim a Traffic_ Monet )7147 VfLwnit,QrrtCCd ggMAU; 7 PraiS= }� � �,. Vw ThItz n.ity P.2T }lair ,peek . in Alter aciw 1 — OP 7Axdrr2/Officm — 40,000 of f 7Ldlml Off. 20,000 of 7 Pates pvr 1,000 of X4.6 3.47 5.17 Tripe 1,092 69 103 Pinw=ial 4,000 of i.'.. Rates per 1,00D of 792.0 16.0 15.1 i Trips ., 768 56 00 Peso -by 204 =Lwd =11 =.$ a NEr 614 45 48 Prof. Owes 16,000 of ' Rates per 1,000 of 17.7 0.40 2.41 Trips —cBl _ _4 --32 TOTAL -------------------------------- 1,989 110 190 zr Altoative 2 — NaiSMorbood ratan — 30,100 sf Rates per 1,000 at 117.9 5.77 5.81 " Trips 3,549 174 175 Pass -by 203 =714 Z 3u Z-U NET 2,839 139 140 ., --------------------------------- )Ll temative 3 — NaiO ba ftWOrnvaniarne Ratan — 30,100 of Nail 25,100 of Rates psr 1,000 of 117.9 5.77 5.81 Tripe 2,959 145 146 Pass -by 203 - 592 :-22 =22 TOIL 2,367 116 717 Cmvasanca 5,000 of Rates par 1,000 of 322.6 23.3 23.3 Tripe 1,613 117 117 Pass -by 563 - 807 # NIT TOTAL �(Q� 3,173 174 175 f% r 5 Fh. Jamcs CaLtor James Cuter Oaalcp=nt oopany Traffl,¢ Zvoct Ena?ysis Neighborhood Commercial Project Baseline and Hallam Avenr Janmry 8, 1988 - Pop 18 Feat - project traffic 2 or Alternative 3 for 1-89 and 2010. port- smmjeet cocditic tta p.a6 peak has V/C ratios Oxier 1985 1. csditims assess that either Alternative are dsuelcpwi in 1LC1 of an office project 7ba Ion anuly" were applied to 1989 cu. The peat- mjmct traffic volumes for ezra sham in rieuse is. The Im values and post - project conditions are shorn in 7.1ble ,Aid= 1989 post - project conditions, the afudy intersection at Baseline m1 Hallman ^vagse vill cahUnar operating at pen- Xoject levels, is. at US "P, for bath Altstta•ivm 2 a_nd 3. Bar Alternative 2, retail shops, the IDS will be "G with a V/C ratio of 0.764, and for Alternative 3, thz L.1? will be "C" with a V/C ratio of 0.780. This omgates to WS "^ and a V/C ratio of 0.773 for Alterrative 1. Any of the three project alternatives will increase Litmsactim voDmew nm inally and vill not result in a sig niftcant impact an intersection operations. 7hs in5aasctim will cparate w'dor acceptable ccrditi.am in all three cases. Buildart oaditicns in 2010 were also emlned with Alternatives 2 and 3 aartructed in lieu of the offlcu project under the op zoning. 71m 2010 poet- project volume are also sha.n in °icpua 3 with the mmlySis xaanits &C60 in Table 1. With tta projactad traffic volumes for the bnildcut actditich of the entire City, estimated to accts approximately in 2010. the Study Intersection will detaricrats to ICS "0". Hawevcr, again all three alternatives will operate at IDS "0" with V/C ratios of 0.893, 0.888 wd 0.899 for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, rag=tively. All three projector result in the Sams relative traffic affects, and none of the three alternatives will have a significant impact m tr cfic cparations. With the addition of an oastbaad right turn lane on the easUm d Baseline approach, the intersection omdd be slightly I G 3 Hr. jars Carter Jams Carter Develogaent CMPWT T=ffic xapect Analysis Hairfixdi=d Commercial rrajeet Breslin@ and Hallman Av@lae aanrary 8, 1988 — rasa u icproved in all taeee. 'An results of this yossibie ixp¢owxnt are also storm in Table 1. The proposed Hallman Avann access is criti` -a to the arooesa of the chopping cantar as %all as to 1zpvre accessibility to the residential units to dia rear of the project. Was reafdwow '... presently take their access from Baseline across tie project prep' -may. """' A of traffic 4etid up a.. the intirsoeticn on eastbaarf roseline during the p.m. peak hour, it is sometimes difficult to as3ra a westb=d left turn from Baseline into the preset driveway so==. With the Hellman aooess, residents could bake their left turn from Baseline onto sarthbaad Hellman and thin a right turn into the project, thereby avoiding the left ten conflict on et—line at the existing driveway location. similarly, baking a left turn exit arts Baseline from the project and the e)datirg residamm could be made easier by exiting the proposed Hellman driveway and turning left at the MLM14na intersection. For Parposea of this analysis, these mcve=*x wise ass mined to be predominant during the peak -- due t* the volume of traffic cn 5--Aline and the queues at the intersection. During rxTepask hours, both the left tam in and the left turns out could be raft with relative easo and safety. Hallman Avwm is programmed to bo widened and a new storm drain installed scvth of the project boundary within the next two years. striping on the south log of Hallman Averan should provide for a left turn lane rnzthbamd at B&wline with a cmtinmus two-way left turn law sarttnrly to a distance of 125 to M feet south of the project ect?h property line erica the widening is ompletod. until the completion of the widening and dr..irage project in Hallman, a left tun lare should be provided r=U*aad at Baseline, and oFposimg left turn lanes provided at the Frojoet's Hellman Avw= driveway and tin driveway on the east side of Hallman. The project's driveway axmld be located w on the same contarline alirgmen� with the existing driveway on the east side of Hellman. - Mr. James Carter Jaese Carter Davalolsent Captay Traffic nVact Analysis Maighborbood Commercial Project Haeeiins and Hellman AVene Janary 6, 1968 - Page 12 under existing oceditic m and u ier 1'%39 omditima with any of the three project altmnatives, the BomelinWIkIlmen A-ase intersection will be cpawtirq atmS "C•, an acceptable IAYA of Service, dn*q the p.m. peak hour. The proposed project Alternative 2 and 7 will result in slightly laver and slightly higher V/C ratios, respectively, than the office project under Alterative 1. Any of those three alternatives will represent a - - noedral incense in existing traffic volume end nun will result in any o4i fimnt impacts nn the study intersection. order ultlmte ba ldout cceditine for the entire City cstimted to occur in appsanimataly 2010, tdl intersection will be oparating at nmmr cm mm ty conditions at ICS "U'. At in the case of the 1989 =ditio s, all three alternatives result in similar traffic conditions. Me intersection will a.,xvas'ate at an acceptable level of service with no significant traff:,c ice+• resulting from mT of the three alternatives. Cosa potential igzmo osnt to aid intersection cperation would bo to reatripa the existing vxatbaund approach to the intersection to provide for the dAd7aticn of a separate rio ht turn lane. The right !m= Ism can ba achieved simply by striping the existing bit without rmccnfiguring the prasent striping or widening the rcedtay. The present roadway width is zta..i.,.i width and providws apace for the right turn lane. The Hellman Averse access for the project is critical to thn dower of local ac.. Am for the :. xWi g center and the access for local residents located behind the project sits. It allows for easier and safer a000sa to both ehcppers and residents. 7hm Hphlcmin Avenue ancess should be located directly oppceite the (rUsting driveway of the east side of Hallman. Helluan should ICOS ee, . =I 'A� —..r'Vp q YS. Jana Cart= Tame CRXtW DVMlCpmr&'CMlpMM' . I - I I - Traffic nVewc ilI iftivas Naighbmt=d Omi'" Project Besou ne and Uftalubmun Jammy 3, .19w—ruge 13 be attired for a ]aft" turn Iwo 'YvirC`.tiard at baselim 6nd opposing IaM turn lines at the H&l2wn'&ivwh-,W to icbe pLvj*ft'-- and the wdstiM we are pleased to of-awifficarm to ym and t27A City of ArrCho aril an thli ji6j*ft. If eAr* are MY q2fte40i0 Cif ug, please do not beafteA to owracZ us. PAspwtful3l- 0*Xdtwl larry E. arear, P.E. pr1rcipal tMat IVP I , s. I INTIMCTICN CAIACIIT 4TILIZATIOf (ICU) City of mrUAe CtCl M-sa, COUfomLo Itetfne Ono NOt{MI AMMO P.A. 76AX WAR CAM t CO.. 71Mlntro rM ftrern 1219.01) I DotnLor 31. 19" .v EXISTING CIOIT /ICS I .............................................. I 1979 ZOIO I .Y I EXISTING V/C I V/W MWECT V/C I w 09 ZON: Y/C I DItECTIM LAWS I CNACIT7 VOLI/AI RATIo I MAMS RATIO I WAWS tAT10 j I wUlsed Thry 1 1Tw 189 0.199 j 197 0.207 j 276 0.267 j I might 149 I 173 I 2011 I Loft 1 1600 229 0.143 I nt 0.119 I 308 O.1Pi I I Seuth6 " Thry 1 1700 173 0.106 I 161 0.100 I 208 O.tb I I might 22 • I 23 • I I Loft 1 1600 19 0.012 I t0 0.013 I 26 0.016 I I tadsW thry i 5500 964 I 0.317 I W I 0.323 I 1176 I 0.306 I I IIMt 113 its 136 I Loft 1 I TRW b O.m9 I 7 7.029 I 0.037 I I UrdeeN inN 7 3400 in 0.210 I 719 I O.m I 12o6 03.7 I I might 4 I 43 I ri Left I 1400 66 0.441 I 70 O.C" I I16 -0.071 I TeltoV 0.100 : 7d lwr 0.100 ; Tdlw i 0.100 I I I L/C • 0.7Ci I V/C • 0.726 I Yrc • 0,893 I I Los C I LOS C I LOL D I I (219.01: I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) EttR s CJ.. GIIITww led 9lertwrl I CITY of trehe Osemrte. COtltwnlo Dec"" 31, 1967 I 19ueli r r1 Mllan ArrtA P.M.ft" NOUN I.......................... ................. VIII NITIGAT101 lwtvAMmfs 1..9 I 2010 I I EXISTING VIC I WN 9M)ICT WC I w OF zm V/C olturi01 LANE$ CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO i YOLWtl RATIO I MIME RATIO j I mor[hOaNk Tnry 1 Inc 109 0.199 I 197 I 0.I01 I 271 I 0.267 I I might 149 I 173 I 200 I Loft 1 1600 w 0.143 i 238 0.149 I 308 0.193 I I saudOard ThN 1 1700 177 0.101 I 161 I 0.108 I 208 I 0.140 I I MNt 22 . I 23 I 30 I I left 1 1600 19 0.012 I 20 0.013 I Z6 0.116 I I I I I Eu[Doule Thry 2 K60 966 0.284 i 983 0.289 1176 C.346 I I light 1 1600 113 0.011 I 113 0.07! I 138 O.OIN I I Left 1 1600 16 O.C29 I I 47 0.029 I 36 1.033 I I wodiwla Tnry i 1400 673 0.210 1 719 I 0.227 I 1206 0.377 ( light 42 I a I 73 I I Wt I law 66 0.041 I I 70 0.0t4 I IT8 0.074 I I I follow 0.100 i Tellw I 0.107 i Tollw I 9.100 I ' I Y/: • 0.672 I Y/C • 0,690 ( V;C • 0.852 ! I I Los 9 I tot I I :Cf O - i. ItTRAVICUOR WACITT UTILIZATION (1CU1 ON" 1 CO., zmlON s ed Alemere (219.01) I ice' City Of Aende Cucs"Mao btlfernle lULARAtlYO 1 Oeeuler 31. 1967 1 Iuelim efd lellewl Mee" 9d. 9IA0 40Vt 1%177100 C[wrAte9 I --- - - - - -- ...:...........I - -: I _____ ________.________ 2010 1 v /O9 916IICT :969 VMUKs - RATIO I 254 I 0.267 1 14ISTI12 WC I V/09 "clute7 WC 1 Ol"CI+ON LAII5 CAPACITY VC{NNS RATIO I I VOLMS RATIO I 14ort0Oen6 TON t 1700 109 0.1971 rig 7.1:3 VIC 1 tight 116 Ito I IBS jVIC . O.I93 j Left I +600 211 0.143 I us 0.1K I 1 IeutADwtl tAry i 1700 v3 1 oeu I +60 0.113 tight Iight 22 I 23 - - I Lef- i t600 19 0.012 j 20 0.013 I I [wtDaM 1Ary 2 3600 fd{ I 0.31/ I tOK, 0.310 1 Iatneoud tight 1 IT" 113 . I 110 - 206 Left I 1600 4i 0.0291 47 0.029 I I vntrned fwry 2 3400 673 I 0.210 I 7n 0.230 Left ll/tt 19 42 I 4 L 0.016 We I +600 66 0.041 I q O.oY I I I Oros I n7s Tell" I 0.100 I T.t:" 0.160 jtit'. 113 0.071 I 117 0.706 j V/a • o.m 1 I I I Left IOS C I LOS C 0.629 I S6 0.033 I VeelOa•d IAN 2 3400 I IITt37ICTION CAPACITY VTILIZATION (ICU) vatl 1 CO., GNlneen +d 9leette a 4219.01) City of lance" CLerop., Ctlifemia AL1[AI4TItf I DtesiGr 31. 1967 I Ism Im end 9tl teen Av P.M. KAC NMI VITM MITIGATION IM9IOVI MT6 i---------------------------------- _------ __ .................... _-------------------------------- 2010 1 v /O9 916IICT V/C I VMUKs - RATIO I 254 I 0.267 1 200 I 301 0.193 1 . zu I 0.140 so • N 1 26 0.016 I 1176 1 0.366 in txlstl40 56 ,MISS I 1 1106 1 o.s71 VIC 1 116 O.m I I M1ll" I 0.100 I jVIC . O.I93 j I Los D I I IITt37ICTION CAPACITY VTILIZATION (ICU) vatl 1 CO., GNlneen +d 9leette a 4219.01) City of lance" CLerop., Ctlifemia AL1[AI4TItf I DtesiGr 31. 1967 I Ism Im end 9tl teen Av P.M. KAC NMI VITM MITIGATION IM9IOVI MT6 i---------------------------------- _------ __ .................... _-------------------------------- I I 1969 I 2010 1 I txlstl40 V/C 1 0109 9IC3tCT V/C 1 1009 9IOVLCT VIC 1 OtAICTION uwx RA9ACIfT VWAMI ILTIO I VOLWB 94TIO I Vl4UQ9 RATIO 1 I I IbftnDan/ TIN 1 +TOO 169 I 0.199 1 222 I 0.2 45 I 233 I 0.267 I I Iight 149 I 197 - I 2Lo I I Left t 1600 229 0.14 I us 0.166 I 3N 0.19S 1 Iatneoud TAN 1 IT" 171 I 0.103 I 169 I 0.117 I 206 I 0.140 I Mehl, u I 27 I 30 I I Left 1 1600 19 0.012 I 20 O.Lts I L 0.016 I euteand rnN t 34W 966 I oau I 1040 I Oros I n7s I 0.3t6 I I light 1 1600 113 0.071 I 117 0.07 I 134 0.066 I I Left 1 1300 td 0.029 I 47 0.629 I S6 0.033 I VeelOa•d IAN 2 3400 673 I 0.210 I 77 I OASO I 1206 I 0.37.• I •. I light 4 I is 1 7s I c I Left 1 1600 66 0.041 I 67 O.OSt I 171 0.074 1 I I I w I Tell" 0.100 I tell" 0.•00 ( Tell" 0.100 1 _ I I I I I V/C • 0.673 I V/C • 0.739 i Vfr . 0.652 LOS 0 I LOS C I LOS D , /_9 Y� 1 tetnllctia6 CAPACITY UIILIEXTIOR (ICU) UED 6 CO.. Irtsimrs see 9lemen (219.01) 1 City of A•rche cmeeerpe. Cellferm14 ALTEXMTIVI 2 Derse1w 3I. 1967 1_ . 1 tauti r Red 66tl•r1 A• I.M. 9EXC ROA EXISTIeO ctommICI 1 ................................................................... ..............................I •t I (219.01) 1 IeTUS1CTI0e CAPACITY UTILIZATION 41N) gSSS 6 CO.. Srylr erd ►l•men I t9n I Iota I . 1 W= ............................................. Wife MItiCATIOI I)9ROIO1[MTI EXISTING Y/C I gash -mICT V/C 1 e=.PwrIR Yrc 1 2010 DIRICTIOt LAMO CAPACITY VOLUIS RATIO 1 VWM S RATIO I VO IMS ' RATIO 1 VOLUR f ATtil I VOLUMES RATIO I VOLUIS RATIO 1 I eeftneORd ihN 1 1700 109 I 0.199 1 211 •�'1,'" 1 eotoomw ISM / 1700 IS, 0.199 1 211 0.233 1 M4 9.x76 1 ap I Right 250 119 1 in 1700 112 I 0.104 1 ±q I left 1 1600 229 0.143 I DS 6.161 I 300 0.1" I 1 Left 1 j 19 O.Ot2 1 20 j 0.016 1 I 1 cot0evd tnN x xw - 1:gy Swthimm" TOM I Ina 177 0.104 171 0.114 j 210 0.141 j ,r 4; I light Left 1 1600 22 1 n I 30 I 673 1 740 I 0.x31 1 1210 19 0.312 I 20 0.013 1 U 0.016 1 1 75 I Left 1 I 1600 66 0.0.1 1 as O.C33 1 to 0.076 1 I- ci ' I I"tWvd Thm 7 3400 %6 0.317 1 ion 0.333 1 it" 0.364 1 I Right ' - 113 1 its Y/C • 136 0. &0,1 Left 1 IAN AS 0.019 1 47 0.029 j m 0.033 j thm 2 j j Weerooutd tight 3400 - 673 42 0.210 I 740 4 0.x31 I t:t0e'b'.37/•j 73 - I 1 Left 1 1600 K 0.041 I as 0.933 1 in 0.076 1 1 Yellow 0.100 I Tulles 0.100 I Telt" 0.100 1 I I I f I VAC • 0.76 1 vrc • 0.764 1 V/c • 0.666 1 P y 1 N LOS C I I= C I IN 0 t r� a r (219.01) 1 IeTUS1CTI0e CAPACITY UTILIZATION 41N) gSSS 6 CO.. Srylr erd ►l•men I CITY of breve httteap, Glllomle ALTI1t11ATIV1 2 On~ 31, 1967 1 1 Sant fm erd Not la AvmWt ......................................... P.M. "a ... W= ............................................. Wife MItiCATIOI I)9ROIO1[MTI 1 I 1 1960 1 2010 .........I 1 I axis, .• v/C 1 NR•IMto)ICT V/C I gOic•IRO)ICT VIC 1 DIRICTIO LAMB CAPACITY I VOLUR f ATtil I VOLUMES RATIO I VOLUIS RATIO 1 I eeftneORd ihN 1 1700 109 I 0.199 1 211 I 0.235 1 244 I 0. !Sb 1 I Right 147 1 167 1 192 1 I Wt 1 1600 229 0.14 1 250 0.161 1 300 0.160 1 I I iwlheOYd i11N 1 1700 1SS I 0.104 1 171 1 0.114 1 210 I 0.141 1 I Right 22 1 25 1 30 1 Left 1 1600 19 O.Ot2 1 20 0.013 1 26 0.016 1 I 1 cot0evd tnN x xw 966 I 0.264 I ton I 0.301 1 1166 I a.w 1 Right 1 1600 113 0.071 1 its 0.072 1 136 0.0% 1 I Left 1 1600 4 0.029 1 I 47 0.029 I SA 0.03- i I 1 vju0 d thm 2 3400 673 0.210 1 740 I 0.x31 1 1210 I 0 .370 1 Right Al 1 /s 1 75 I Left 1 I 1600 66 0.0.1 1 as O.C33 1 to 0.076 1 yellow I 0.100 i Tell" I 0.100 I Veit" 1 0.100 I . 1 I v/C • 0.673 I Y/C • 0.130 l /C • 0. &0,1 6 1 to$ C a r IMTORtC11001 OPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) OIO 6 CO., Imimon Rod ►lt.w" 1219.011 I I City of Ancno 04ma15R, CAllfamf/ ALTOMATrA 3 Otcrbor 31, 1407 I Iuellm tm No/latfl Agate P.M. NEAR WIMI VITS MITIGATION IMPLOVINENTS I t.................................................................. ..............................1 EXISTING VIC I Pw-PI I DIRECTION LUIS CAPACITY VOLUtI! RATIO I VOU I I Ror[ADard TON 1 1700 159 I 0.1199 I _ I Riot 3 I 149 I I Left 1 160 I IMttltic.:4 ON4ItT LlIL12ATtm (ICJ) :1111 6 CO.. 1m~s ,N 1t,mero W901)] '= I City of 4 n Nc1•o•yN, Calffvnle AL7RANA,t'.•lt 3 0•ctec•r 31, 1967 i I Ncolim M06 Molltr0 AUwUA1 P.M. PINE M0.A EXISTING CiCMtflics Left I' 19 ................................................................. I i [uttaud ibry 2 7100 966 ............................... I light 1 1600 I 0.071 I I I 1969 N 2010 I I VeR[taud q I 677 IX12TINC WC I POST•Ptaiter V/C 1 POST•111101ICT VIC I I DIRECTION lAMI$ CAPACITY VOL"$ RATIO I VWMS "TIC I VaUMII RATIO I I 0.104 I Team, urthbw d TMN 1 1)00 169 0.199 I 310 O.ZQ I 771 0.264 1 6' I AISNt 149 I Litt 1 1600 229 0.117 I 263 0.161 I 3" 0.191 I I Soutb and Thm 1 1700 179 0.106 I 177 0.117 I :.3 0.162 I t- I It6MC 12 I b I 30 - I I Loft 1 1600 tN, 0.012 I SO 0.017 I 8 O.C16 I /to[Oatd ibry x 3:C. •65 I 0.7n I 1046 I o.3tt I n7 I 0.356 I k I AlfAt - •ti I 113 I 176 ` I Left 1 Ism 46 0.039 I 47 0.029 I 56 0.635 f r I I I I I On[Meud TIN 2 3400 417 0.370 I 717 P.732 I lY1T 0.760 I • I Right 42 I AS I 73 I I Sent i 1 1600 b 0.041 i 9A 0.0s9 i 170_�O.asO'- I TetloM OJr4 I YOU" C.1IO I Tftlm 0.100 I I V/C + 6. 4 I V/C • ..454 j VIC • O.m I IOC• C I Los C I Las 0 I IMTORtC11001 OPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) OIO 6 CO., Imimon Rod ►lt.w" 1219.011 I I City of Ancno 04ma15R, CAllfamf/ ALTOMATrA 3 Otcrbor 31, 1407 I Iuellm tm No/latfl Agate P.M. NEAR WIMI VITS MITIGATION IMPLOVINENTS I t.................................................................. ..............................1 EXISTING VIC I Pw-PI I DIRECTION LUIS CAPACITY VOLUtI! RATIO I VOU I I Ror[ADard TON 1 1700 159 I 0.1199 I _ I Riot 3 I 149 I I Left 1 160 229 0.143 I I butlOn,rC iMry 1 1700 15! I 0.106 I i Atsht i 1 0.232 I 22 I I Left 1 1600 19 0.0121 I i [uttaud ibry 2 7100 966 I 0.216 I I light 1 1600 113 0.071 I I Itft 1 1600 N 0.029 I I I VeR[taud Tbry 2 3400 677 1 0.210 I I Al1At 42 I I Loft 1 1600 d6 0.041 I I I Ttltm, I 0.104 I Team, I I WC • I 0.673 I V/C I I ICS 5 I Las • _ 170 CT 7/C I POST•PRO)IC• ! /C RATIO I VOLUMES RATIO 9 0.243 I 271 7.264 I 7 I 190 I J O.tA I 306 0.31 I 3 0.113 I 212 0.142 I 3 I 30 I 0 0.013 I 20 0.016 1 b 0.700 I 1177 I 0.34S I 7 0.0721 136 O.P66I 17 0.029 I $6 0.033 I i 1 0.232 I 1217 I 0.360 I s I 73 I 4 0.039 I 116 0.900 I 1 0.100 I Tello• I 0.100 I I 0.716 I V/C • I 0.050 I C I LOS 0 i F JANUMV 1988 UIZA URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES I �-= P-d a -Lw X A 4k COMMERCIAL-CErTER MARKET ANALYSIS BASELINE AND HELLMAN SITE RANCHO Ct)bAMONdA, CALIFORNIA JANUMV 1988 UIZA URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES I �-= A COMMERCIAL CENTER MARKET ANALYSIS BASELINE ANL HELLMAN SITE RANCHO CUCAMONOIA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for James Carter and City of Rancho Cucamonga January 1988 RSPORT AUTHORSs Ray Young, Ph.D. William J. Lloyd, Ph.D. RESEARCH ASSISTANTi John Carroll URA URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 2565 E. Chapman Avenue Suits 103 Fullerton. CA. 92631 ,4 t h V CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office Market Conditions .. . . . . . Existing Otflc* Conditions 4. Future Market Conditions . . . . : : , I: : : : : S* The Regional Otfico Market . . . . . . .... . . . 10. 1 Retail Sector Potentials . . . . . . . . . . 11. Trade Area and Population Base . . . . ... . . . .12. Retail Development Patterns . . ... . . . . . . . 16. Alto Loma Projects in Pipeline . . . . . . . . . 21. Retail Demand Modelina . . . . . . . . . . . . 23: Area Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 1-73 h h I. INTRODUCTION ` y `J The construction of new retail contorts office buildings$ and v'« public aervlce facilities characterize* the evolving land- scape of raoid- growth communities. Since commercial,develop- a mznt typically laps behind the pace of population growths most new projects readily achieve market success$ particularly if E they are sensitive to cempetition and are targeted toward y r ;. consumer needs. In built -up areas$ Rowever$ one face■ the i " c. nstraints Imposed by already- establishetl retail$ service$ f, aid office centers which define tha range of one's optionb: �`. h' Identifying appropriate uses for specific sites$ therefore. 5 should be a major coresrn of the private - sector investor and public officials all e. This report presents the findings of x market analysis of a commercial site in the Alta Loma area of western Rancho Cucamonga. The site covers 3.45 not acres at the southwestern corner of the Baseline Avenue and Hellman intersection. The parcel under consideration 1s zoned OP (Office /Professional), a designation reserved for professional and administrative offices or personal service businesoes. A general plan amendment and zone change to Notyhborhood Commercial classification are being sought by the property owners. The market analysis conducted by Leman Research Ass.ciates It presented in two sections. Chapter II examines the " -. ■ v =( �I ti a •tM K 8 d 'd88p ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 ANNEXATION NO. /S r SITE U; .InK � wa 39 c, a O f °`vc� �., CITY OF RANCHO CtiCk%,IONGA ` nR 87 -14 ENGINEERING DIVISION CUD im VICINITY MAP d c ® �O t mu un•c ar at tit . t7 .t .1' ol wMlt/ U; .InK � wa 39 c, a O f °`vc� �., CITY OF RANCHO CtiCk%,IONGA ` nR 87 -14 ENGINEERING DIVISION CUD im VICINITY MAP d c n market conditions within the Alto Loma arse, office those olth-.thm office onvkrenment citywide. Ths- 1 compares to followed by 411, MOSRS"00 t of the rat* i f socto ow,t2on pertinent to the site- Thu pp,,tunLtz@v and constraints retail analysis include% an cibmrv;l*w Of the Population, support for retail and service Ousiness'sl an inventory Ot.� .,:5uting COMP*tttivw a , hopping contersiland not., on,commer- c1,1 projects which_ arm in-various sta gas of plAnning.aod davglopmunt. . - •e.° Fes.;+ h =•� .:�L;.m ., - - _ - - .. . - .,, fr�,��°n z�"k.k � Y �,r ILOFF'CE MAQKET CONDITIONS The office market in the City of Rancho Cucamonga smrvs■ both regional and community scale activities. In recent years, a maJor regional office complex including a number of , :arg� multi -story office buildings has developed along Havan Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard. Proximity to Foothill Boulevard; the I -10 freeway and Ontario Airport are among the attractions of that cite fnr firms which serve a broader C regional market that in many inetanerrs extends beyond the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga. Community -scale activities such as medical offices, branch banks and similar kinds of activities tend to be spread out ' in individual buildings or small cluuters located along principal thoroughfares throughout thm remainder of the city. The principal site consideration for those office developments is good arcoss to the local market as defined by residential patterns and traffic flows. brcause f the size and location of the site at Baselinn Avenue and Hellman Avenue, any office development for this OP -zoned vacant parcel would have to draw upon the community -scale potion of the overall office market. In ordzr to dntermine the market potential for additional office oevelopment, the URA staff completed a deteiled field inventory of existing office uses for the Alta Loma study v. • -_ _ - •.acv; A - .. - .,+ <- _ '�*, -: ;a:: 4. area in December 1907. The Following section of the report provides a discussion at existing office uses within the Alta Lama area along with an analysis of market potential for key segments of the overall office market. Existing Office Congltlon■ The Alta Loma area contains slightly more than 240,000 square feet of office space (Table 1). Of this total, 160,000 square feet or approximately two - thirds is found in small to medium stand office buildings located on or •+ adJacent to Baseline Avenue (Figure 1 and Table 2). The remainder - -some 039000 square feet—occurs in conjunction with retail uses within the numerous shopping centers located at key intersections throughout the are&. MNdical offices, which occupy about 25% of the total office L space inventory, comprise the largest single office Category within the Alta Loma area (Table 1). Other important office use•" include dentists, financial institutions and Professional services such as insurance, real estate, and .aw offices. Together with medical offices, those uses account fur over 16090n0 square feet of office %pace or apprartmately 70% of the total office inventory. Miscellaneous "mall office uses comprise the remaining 30% of the total. m i+ 1 i7% i TOTAL OFFICE, 243,200 199,700 <43,500> Vacancy Rate, 6.6 2 Oversupply$ 17,9 Z Sources Fiala survey and damand mddeliing by Urban Research Assoclates, December 1987. a +� lib •q• } '- TABLE 1. f OFFICE SPACE INVENTORY t£ ALTA LOMA COMMUNITY AREA � --- __ - - -�— Existing Category Supply Demand Unmet Demand (square feet) < Oversupply> L Financials s' Banks 23,000 Savings & Loans 15,100 t Other Fina,yclal 1249199 a. - Total Financial 57,700 68,200 600 •.f. Health Care$ ..r.- Medical Offices 61,800 - Dental Offices 14AQQQ Total Health Care 70,800 73,100 <1,700> a.f. Professional Servi =as, Insurance & R.E. 20,300 Legal -9AQQ Total Prof. Sar. 29,700 29.200 <4,500> s.f. Gans-al Offices 65,000 43.200 <2I,800> Vacant Office Space, 16,000 TOTAL OFFICE, 243,200 199,700 <43,500> Vacancy Rate, 6.6 2 Oversupply$ 17,9 Z Sources Fiala survey and damand mddeliing by Urban Research Assoclates, December 1987. a +� lib •q• -- 13AI 9AV WJaH 7A A cn pleql4o pi, z newo of< LU — GAV UBWIIGH cr (n LU LU cc LL 0 M U. _j 0 OD OUl < U) U""OUJL c / x W .00 ..0. 1-79 w=: Sources Field Inventory by Urban Research Associates, December 29137. 1 180 wZ � TABLE 2. EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS A ALTA LOMA AREA 'Ft Buildin.2 Area (Zq ,'o A. Medical Center 3,400 NW corner Baseline and Amethyst B. ftseline-Businus Cinter 72,00 0 • NC corner Ussualisi!..'and Hellman C. Forecast Professional Cwn"twr 16;300•x` SIE ccrn,r Baseline and Hellman D. Los Arcos 14,700 SW corner Baseline and Beryl E. The Exchanee 47,100 SE corner Baseline and Carnelian F. Rancho Cucamonga Madi;;a) Bu!IdIng 4,600 Carnelian south of Baseline Totals 160,100 w=: Sources Field Inventory by Urban Research Associates, December 29137. 1 180 By comparing the eulsttng office space inventory wlth'demand estimates ba■o;f,on, average per capita off ibe spate'uses -for comparable commu:.ttiss, it is possible to measure the degree to which the existing supply masts the expected"demand. The results of this analysis indicate a condition of market equilibrium or oversupply for most major categories of uses 1Tab1e 1). The predicted space demand of 38,700 square feet-- for .financial institutions and 73,100 square foot for health J care services are almost exactly in balance with the -vo-- -. existing supply, professional sarvices show anJoversupply r amounting to about 15%# chile Cho general office category shows an oven greater• oversupply -- 37,000 square feet or nearly one -half of the total supply of general office space. lyrfElLv�r'irksL ConCitf ens In order to understand the market potential far- additional office space in the Alta .ama arse over the noxt few years, it is necessary to consider the recent rate of office space absorptton, existing supply /demand condlttone, expected growth of demand for nffice uses, and planned additions to the existing supply. The rate of absorption In tho office market in recent years is estimated to have been approK- imately 709000 square foot per year. Viewed from this perspective, the 36,000 square feet of vacant offfcs space in existing office buildings does not represent a sertouz i; 9. oversupply. However, the other Indicators o•^ future office - potential suggest that the actual market 4ir new office buildings) is likely to be saaall or non - existent. Y d It is unlikely that pro.lacted rates of population growth .. V will support continued space absorption at rates comparable , to those occurring in recent years. Most of the area's , growth has already occurred, Over the next few years, population in the Alta Loma area should increase by less., than one percent per year. The market effect of•ilow growth in office apace demand is likely to be aggravated by subs L•antial new additions to the supply. Two additional madical office buildirg■ have been prcposnd for the Alta Lama area, one containing 23,000 square feat iocatsd at Baseline and Archibald, and another with 6,234 square feet looted at Baseline and Beryl, In addition, the expected relocation of the city government functions f -om its temporary space on Baseline near Hallman is expected to release an additional 2390044 square feat to the market by mid -1989. This total of 36,000 syuars fast of anticipated now and vacated space, combined with the existing 169000 square feet of vacant space, rapressnts a potential oversupply of substantial proporticns given the expected slow rate of growth in now demand. - The Recicnal Office HarA" The overall office market in Rancho Cucamonga is dominated by the emerging regional office complex along Haven Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard. This concentration of medium and large office buildings has become an attractive location for firms which require large amounts of space or a more prestigious location, as well as those looking for good access to the broader regional market. Although no accurate Inventory of office buildings is available, the overall supply is clearly many tuns that of the small concentra- tion found along Baseline Avenue. Some idea of the magnitude of devil op*Mont along Haven can be even in the more that 200,000 square feet of protects approved in both 1985 and 1961 which have either boon completed or are still under development. Because the markat is dominated by new construction, the typically high vacancy rates provide little useful Information abuut market conditions. The absorption of new space through leasing agreements, currently running at an estimated 1009000 to 1509000 square feet per year and doubling every two yeare, is a better Indicator of the area s relatively healthy market condition, the availability of an amplu supply of modern office wpace along Haven may weaken demand for new construction along Baseline. Bansrd ly spedking, however, the two areas draw upon .wry different sagmants of the office market. 183 III. RETA:L SECTOR POTENTIALS T1.a isolation of the property under consideration from the - ,ajar office area In Rancho Cucamonga, rising oversupply _ of office spaLS, and the relatively small parcel 01 =e all imply that retail businesses merit study as a development - alternrtive. Prospective customers at businesses -in sue, A Center will be drawn primarily from the northwestern por- tion of the City. Urban Research Asoociates thus has dnlim- ited a relevant trade araa to identify the levels of existing - and future market support as well as the pattern of retail competition. This section examines that consumer support bass along with the dsttiiiled attributes of competitive retail centers in that trade area. Retail land use% as well as offices along Baseline in Alta Loma cre f,upported almost exclusively by residents of .� nearby neigh barnoads. One mutt consider various demographic factors such as total population, household vi =a, household I typa, and income distribution patterns in estimating commer- cial land use potentials. Moreover, interest should focus on those types of retail or service uses which Can serve as anchors Or magnets to give the center an identity and result- ing drawing power. A center of mtscsllaneous uses, be they office tenants or retail firms, often brings w:th it a host of potential problems, including high business turnover and e diminished revenue potential. ,- t 1134 .12. I _ Ica9 :_eCSe_eDa_eueyasilgD_B @8s For this analysis. Urban Research Associates defined the rectangular trade area shown earlier. It is 'comparable 'to a •community- Scala• market areal that Is, it extends roug.ly one to one - and -a -half miles from the property. Thu southurn limit reaches ,lust scuth of Church Street, reflect- ing the shadow affect of Foothill Boulevard development.- Population dynamics for this Alta Loma trade area and for 4' the City at Rancho Cucamonga are shcse in Table 3. The 1 e, approximatoly 33,300 residents in Alta Loma constitute about -' 42 percent of the city's total population. During the 1980* i r• this area's Fopulatlon•'lias increased at a rate comparable to that of the city as a whole (6.5 % per year versus ].9%) Orining of housing tracts in the planned communities of F y Victoria and Terra Vista since 198] signal • shift of the , growth center fu -ther to the east, a phenomenon which will continue through the and at this contury. Hence, Alta '• Loma will take on a 'maturing or settling -In' character i rather than that of the rapid change which dominated its appearance between 1970 and the mIC- 1980s. Y Taole 3 also compares household characteristics in Alta Loma with those of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Based on figures Provided by the California Department of Finance and Urban Decision Systems, there are bout 12,800 householdi today in = + N Notesi Age, Ethnictty, and Employment Piguees are 1980 cou- dltions. All other date reflect mid -1987 estimates. Employment data are by place of residence, not place of work. Sourcess California State Department rf Pinancu, Urban Decision Systems, Inc. and 1980 U.S. Census of Population and trouping. Percentage calculatirnc by Urban Research Associates. e J, T 't. Rye y r ��" inY'4.4 4'1 TABLE 3. CONSUMER PROFILES s� ALTA LOMA AREA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ;y -�-�- Rancho _ r Indicator Alt_ Lama Cucamonga Area _ City ------------ '- ----------- -�..- _- _- _- ____'_____- ___ -__��r �- Population July 1, 1987 Est. Total 35.330 84,000 1980 Total 22,360 55,253 Annual Growth Rate (X) 6.5 5.9 July 1, 1987 Est. Households 12,030 26_,400 C, Persons Per Household 2.74 3.17 Age and Ethnicity (198e Profile) r.q Median Age 27.0 26.6 Percent Under Age 6 12.7 12.,9t„ w. Percent Age 6 - 17 23.3 22.7 - -- :;'. Percent Over Age 55 9.2 10.1 of Percent Non - Hispanic White 76.5 70.3 Percent Hispanic 12.6 16.7 Employment (1980 Profile) Total 10,314 :4,943 Employees Per Household 1.52 1.47 White Collar Workerst _ Prof. and Techrtcal (X) 16.6 15.4 Managerial and Proprietor tY.) 14.9 13.7 Clerical and Sales (X) 29.5 28.6 Craft■ and Operative Professions 25.0 26.6 Housing Percent in One -unit Structures 90.6 78.3 ± Percent Owner Occ..pled 64.2 79.8 Notesi Age, Ethnictty, and Employment Piguees are 1980 cou- dltions. All other date reflect mid -1987 estimates. Employment data are by place of residence, not place of work. Sourcess California State Department rf Pinancu, Urban Decision Systems, Inc. and 1980 U.S. Census of Population and trouping. Percentage calculatirnc by Urban Research Associates. e J, T 't. Rye y r ��" inY'4.4 4'1 14. the trade area of the proposed center. The average house- hold size of 2.71 parsons is lower than the average for the city (3.17), illustrating the beginnings of neighborhood stabtlizatiOn. Owner occupancy in the housing market and dominance of single family homes are also more characteris- tic of this area than of the remainder of Rancho Cucamonga. i• using districts and well-maintained matur- higher elavatipn ho ` -' mpanied by nigh income ing neighborhoods are generally acco profiles, as one might cape[[• According `.o income ssttm� s _ J $' z. prepared by Urban Decision Systems, the modish household in- ` came for Alta Loma in 1987 was s 37,216 as shown in Table 4. For Rancho Cucamonga last year it was s 30,476. This moans that half of all households had incomes above and half had incomes below those amounts. The t -ade area median income thus 10 =-1 percent above the median for the city. During 1987, almost half of all trade area households had gross incomes above s 40,0001 the comparable figure for the city wao 4Z,4 percent. Overall, the demographic and income profiles signal a strong retail market - -- a large group of young, though maturing family-oriented households, most Of whom have lived in the area for close to a decade or Mora but who no longer don — Sider theMe91VOC 'newcomers.* Basic necassltla lnl. such items as ham: furnishings and quality wearing apparal are i high priorities among this market segment. Dining out ,�I i s' C TADLE 4. ESTIMATED 1NComE PROFILES CUCAMONGA- 1987 ALTA LOMA AREA AND'CIn CF RANCHO - - w - -�� Alta Loma Cucamonga Area -City f 11112.3 Aggregate '"come in Milliors } 493.0 i 37.213. ! 30,476. Median HouseholO Inco^9 ! 13-241. • 14,010. per Capita Income Percent of Household Incomes„ x - 9.6 X 11.3 Selo,u s 35,0 00 4.8 5.6 ! 13,000 - f 19,999 6.6 7.3 6 20.000 - f 24,999 10.2 11.0 3 234000 - f 29,999 2 ?.B >2,2 s 30,000 - } 39,799 18.3 17.2 s 40,000 - f 49,999 27.7 :.3.2 s 30,000 and Above Indox of Alta Loma Area 122.1 Median to Caty Median, Source, Urban Decision Slat' a rch h Associates calculYe. update from 1980 census records and Urban Resea- tions. w .r is fly tit •� R 'y 1 16. llt:wise 1s a highly regarded activity, though quality dining experiences must be tempered with concern for value. ;'- 9a2aa1_RsY ?18eman2_2diieena e- •` Residents at the Alta Loma community are served by numerous convenience and neighborhood -level retail centers. Rillow- 0. ing the city poli,:y of nod &1 development, or clustering. ze r virtually all such centers are located at the intersection of 1- major arterial streets. As shown in F!gure 2, the most prominent retail clusters auy he found at the ,Junctura,.ot,_ Archibald & 6aselinei Carnalian & 19tH and Baseline & Car- Hne l i an. The detailed configuration of each commercial center is described in Table 5. In the aggregate, these centers and a smaller number of freestanding businesses, provide over 640.000 square toot of shopping opportunities for the Alta .' 5�- Loma area. Vacancios are rare, underscoring the stability and strength of local consumer demand. Our field analyst found ,lust 12,700 square foot in vacant modules, for a y modest vacancy rate of 1.9 percent. A normal retail vacancy factor ralls within the four -to -seven percent range. True neighborhood -lovel centers here are anchored by mcuor chain sunarmarkets and average 76,600 square feet of gross .vasable area. Virtually all incorporate a freestanding r v IB9 c� w 2 Ul W w CE C4 c W J H0 (i W LL 4 C7 �- J z� y X W _ Jy e. Y� H WJBH J a FU3 ABS PIBQI43JV, UEWJJGH *W O - C .O N t (i (n N A ai C7 Z O �• CLL- cc c ca N F�• H �Y i 4 W a •a+ Q K r. o O LL J •J<+ r u � Q J Z m o 1<- C Q Z u ZV V Z JU H� C m r Y Y cg ~ U O � = n 1 C ✓ I I m I I mLL I 1 N I 1 N O I N I I I I I 1 I I I C 1 m I I ✓ n U I J I 4 a 1 a 1 « b I V 1 I i I I n I q Q I Z �• I r c c 3 c Az A4: L u 14 U 71 Y P C P Y- P G C Q 9 U C Q p 0 L G C 4 n q L n a RI O L• m 9 14 D +• 6 ) m G H U L q Y u 0 Q U vamQ « mu q ar•- o• a L mPa ceMu CF o N9c cm .Oar MG N n m x O n 41 L m m O P q Y .. yy • m m « C N m fl cGD.• 7 >Y Ca DNS w'F 6n N CNC q a c O C 4 0 m •� r L M w •� N 4 4 tl« n 6 > a U B Y O a L q 8 m 6 a m M TIDY] L ]]n a • L1 33B >M« �Cd m O O U b .• L♦ C q Lq L m n b O II�� m a L to 3 P° O S Z LL� 6 Q'f Z Ifl S u i S u 1+....�• - B O D 8 B CO B e m � • w w m d p L m a a m M laC Q p M 0 Y G G G Y « « G 4 W !m w w w •' a R1 V-0 Ld d d m4 Ma L•J •a 71 m D « M c 9 9 .r w w m 9 L o c n L G 713 o D d U D O" C +• R1 .. P .. .� q w C a m 4 a F•C C 4G LL L L mC ]IC NC U \ u M m4 J L «L n L \ L L .• L Y L G L 4 M 4 d 4 nQ a6 jQ 06 < 0u LV V 4 . a L 0 L m L U L nL L N l {L• L E L A O a 0 ^ O D O O O O O m u Y u u a u L u G u \ u J u G3 m1lrm a3 qW r W >3 q W -1 W D 42 °V1 qN c nZ cZ c m Q 6 W? N V > Q ] n Y C Q q V O W LL l7 = V Iq! i• i J 6 aZ ¢ 0 W=3° J +2Y W O C ¢ C E V W j v 2V u0 J xZ 6 Q w ¢ W W)" .. l -1 �-, m P m C u M I O q yu qU u c °a¢ .mt o u mu m ¢ la I m0 1 � L 1 a c I i � m° I C C 1 •. q I D O i LL C I r 1 U G u � a I O I N 1 It■ 1 I II! iy I 0 p�0 IL q I C 1 q mu c1 @C I m H I m r g C 7 • D@ V a U YY 3 m I O O c m c d L D D I C =° I ^ MHU9 TLgIL I I m M L L m m 0 9 C S 1 a non °a LQILCIyI I I r LNL mq. V GamiM I 1I I I I I �Y f➢ � i HLL 1 O Q 00 I i I I G q G I 1 w y I i i c I 0E c 1 Y � M q I•I A V $ UM j I L q m I) I D I G Q Y w ~ UV uC°p u I da 1 G I tm GO 96 d0 m C m31 C N Q I C I =O W)" .. l -1 �-, m P m C u M I O q yu qU u c °a¢ .mt o u mu m ¢ la I m0 1 � L 1 a c I i � m° I C C 1 •. q I D O i LL C I r 1 U G u � a I O I N 1 It■ 1 2D. , fast road restaurant. At several sites the •sightorhaod ; centers are flanked by convenience centers of 17,000 - 26,000 square feet. Convenience centers provide space for lower-- volume tenants and, in some instances, represent the initial Phases of larger proposed complete %. ' Since the fall of 14051 now retail projects totalling about 110,000 square foot have been completed in the Alta Loma - area. More than 96 garesnt of that now space was occupied at the time of our field inventory. This implies a commer- cial absorption rate of 50,500 square feet per year during the latest 27 month period. In light of the below - average vacancy factor cverallf -'ths market may still be underdeveloped in selected categories of retail and service functions. Mayor retail construction continues elsewhere within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Two of the largest such projects are the 13.1 acre Virginia Dare specialty center and a 15 3 acre community -scale center underway at Baseline and Haven. The latter of these, Terra Vista Village, is a DicKer- uarmington development which eventually may contain as much as 141,000 square feet of retail space. Since these and other smaller retail projects along Foothill Boulevard are incomplete and still in their lease -up phases vacancy and absorption estimates tar the city As a whole would be virtually meaningless. �1. eaie_6cme_ecojes5a_ao_eleraane City planr.ing and building officials were contacted regard- ing the status of commercial protects under construction and prop�sad for the Alta Lama community area. AV of this writing, there are only tour retail Or office protects in the development pipeline which may be competitive to the center proposed for Baseline and Hallman. Characteristics of those have been outlined In Table b. The office proposals were discussed previously in Chapter II. Although each of these projects lies within a halt mile of the Baseline /Hellman alto, none signifies any major change to general market conol;tions. The principal result will be an intensification of the commercial node at Archibald and Baseline. Southwest Savings plans turth"r development on its 5.7 acre mixed -use property with the bulk of Future construction likely to be allocated to office usria. Wairick Properties also has proposed 39.990 square feet at retail uses to be built an 3.6 acres ,lust ncrth of the axlstinq Aloha B.ita center. As with all types of development proposals, the realization at these is subject to some uncertainty. Timing normally IS delayed and land use concepts frequently are moditied. Hence, the protect characteristics shown in Table b should D& interpreted as a general market prospect rather than as an exact picture. h .i M >, oc. J a �z I I �u 1 I C U 1 I we Ju 1 m cad ~oii a I I IfI L I 1 L u u > o m 9 a al m Y => 0 ,vti�V •., I p mm I L Y Wm C� n a o L 0 \ rl S ' I I (V 6 U 6 c � I I• � •'Sr,\ I1,�4� a.L.•I o f r '� Y u Nen .umaa 1u a f 0 n •m0 "u N Plm 9m -0 1• u n u U4 u0V „BG n u - - 9.0 L• �•J n P a I lx1 o`oml 1 7 1 IfI L I 1 L u u > o m 9 a al m Y => 0 I p mm I L Y Wm C� n a o L 0 O ,L I L OlV I I (V 6 U 6 c mR a.L.•I o f y 9 u Nen .umaa 1u a f 0 n •m0 "u N Plm 9m -0 171 u n u U4 n L n u 1 V; .iq B• FI4 o`oml 1 7 1 L c p. a . 67 1 d P Y• V O 1 i C m YL 1 L LI u U ' m N 1 D N u A L O > 6 1 7 N V 0 04 7 aIL 1 NN f IfI L I 1 L U j C 1 al ^T O I C w I Y m O ,L I u d I I V i° mR a o f y 9 u J I J 1 a f 0 n C O.G. 1 0. m J 1 G w uu o`oml 7 1 c p. a . O u Y .. 0, .. 1 1. u U N 1 D N u A O I xZW 91=0m 901 i I = = I � O I I I �q5 I I I I I 9 I I � 1 a uI u L c 1 E « I i ya 1 e I u L I 0 I ^ U I �N I m 1 Q 1 1 I 1 m P Y ^ I L . 0. 2 0 m p mom 71yb y O ^ eon m� o: am V � y R y U �N o 64 m U � C 7 O = G u m U m G m C dq� y 69 U C C 1 v u N i -14 ry 23., In order to determine the market prpypects for specific retail uses at this lots +.on, Urban Research Associates simulated t•e demand levmis for key anchor -type tenant's .-Id t on compared results of that modelling with findings from the existing land use invmntar J. The demand model used by URA takes into account noulahold characteristics - and typical western Inland Empire expandtture patterns for retai) goods and con"umer services. hindinys from the modelling process tnen provide a basis for the evedtual- - site devolop•:snt concept, The simulation was propired for functions which typically carve as ancno:s or destination. in neighborhood centers. restaurants, while not true 'anchors,* are major genorat.irs of patrons, partirularly where tonditiona do rot Intl toam- s�t..as to a _ups'murket ■nchnr, %e•_sui. ` their run Arta in the Alta Vist• area ras * -t c restaurants were not included in the simulation, in aggregate land use terms both supormari.ets and orug stores are in approxinate equiltbr.um wr•ere supply is in oala�ce with market demand (See Table 7), In contrast, less than half the total marlvt potential today is addressed oy e.,1stiny storos in the apparel and specialty grocery lines. Family - oriented restaurants As well as ethnic or 196 SUMMgpy TABLE 7 OF KEY RETAIL TENANT C04DITIONS ALTA LO NA MARKET AREA, DECEMBER 1987 ounetionel Catepgry Current Existing -Market --- Demand SupP1Y Prospect Grace V Stores 02,603 137,340 -- Speeia.ty Groe ery • 8,290 - 3,040 H.F. ,3,100 Drug 46,000 43,430 -- Apparel 16,400 6,3 °0 H.F. Family Reataur ' ant: 37,300 11,300 11. F. Ethnic /Spaciaity Restaur. 46,900 7,609 H.F. 1. olnclu vaaa meat' fish, and JOtabl% poultry; trash frult _------ markets{ __ - and deli outlets. — Sources Ci Old inventory and y Jrban land use demand modeelinD Research Associates, December 1907. 25. higher -end dining opportunities are undersupuliod by a wide margin. d 12,106 square foot In the specialty grocery lines. That shortfall has t •in accommcdated to some extent uy the greater- than- oxpectpd floor area of full -line grocery stores in ttis area where ,'.any supermarkets are likely to inclede bakery and doll departments. Rbstaurarts, other than fast -food drive -thru 'futlets, also i represent a retail sector opportunity. Family- ortanteo restaurants appear to have slightly higher support than do ethnic or specialty eatorios Regional chains of the first type, such as Eaker'i Square, Cocos, or Marta Callonda -'% are conspicuously absent. Clearly, certain retail businesses and restaurant services of'er tr.a market support not founC for office -type uses. .n l 1cis Speelalty grocers such as n.aat markets, de s, and trash p'or+t'rs stores enjoy good customer support in higher income r�. art-as comparable to Alta 'jma. That groco�y catago'V ac lalii, encomeasses a wide range of specialty types, In -- Js eluding health foods and bakeries in addition to the product +, r lanes aLreacy noted. Snood an national norms, consumer demand supports between ' 200 and 9,600 square toot of such %toran - for each 100,000 square toot of supermarket space. Therefore, �� the hi to Loma trade area k.ur,antly in undersuppllyd by 12,106 square foot In the specialty grocery lines. That shortfall has t •in accommcdated to some extent uy the greater- than- oxpectpd floor area of full -line grocery stores in ttis area where ,'.any supermarkets are likely to inclede bakery and doll departments. Rbstaurarts, other than fast -food drive -thru 'futlets, also i represent a retail sector opportunity. Family- ortanteo restaurants appear to have slightly higher support than do ethnic or specialty eatorios Regional chains of the first type, such as Eaker'i Square, Cocos, or Marta Callonda -'% are conspicuously absent. Clearly, certain retail businesses and restaurant services of'er tr.a market support not founC for office -type uses. .n l 1cis .y Although A number of service business types, including restaurants, are permitted in the Cffitle/Profeselonal land - rrs �`- restrictive conditions accompany their approve l, -I use district, For example, restaurants which serve wine, a common practice }, among better family restaurants, must pass through the con-- ditional use permit process, Incurring finahelaL costs net , c associatetl with their location in Neighborhood Commercial - districts. Moreover, two potential anchor usaf. At this location, specialty food stores 0- apparel shops, are iM1 disallowed under the. current land us e policy, Yet, they'' "^' -. -" � •' currently nave stronger market support than most alter- ., native functions. ?Cae_Egcssspig When market analyred are undertaken in rapid- growth communities it is instructive to knew it future reoidential b9velopmsnt may dramatically cnznge the population size or character of the affected market area. As noted uarlier, approximately 35,700 people live in th•i A)ta Loma area of Rancho :ucamonga. The city's planning matt forecas +s the aecition of 0,515 dwelling units to the Alta iuma and CuCa- monga areas between 1985 and the yoar 2010 buildcut. The distrioution of vaunt residential sites suggests that about one -th.rd of that number will be in Alta Loma. Multiplying the estimated annual increase in housing units for the area '11.) times the average household size (2.74) produces a ' 1Rq ,n,fw,e ■ems ti to of"the avers o ann 1 h - Y roue as g ua population prow[ in crement for Alta Loma (310 parsorn per year). Application of that method to anticipated chpngs between mid -1987 and 1992 implies th&t five years from now the j `- trade area will have a total population on the order of 36,900. That would be only a slight pain of 4.4 percent _. above the level of today. In sum, consumer support for local retail, service, and office land uses in Alta Loma five years from now will not differ radically from tho '•'- present support base. h :j00 . . El INS: REFERENCES Barrrtt, G• Vincent and John P, Blair tl4Lr_ 24_ S4ugy55 _iDD_9�135(-rf_HlS1_ElteS! tlsc6lS_sDg_Elscigiliiy_SSW�,lox (Now York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982), Buller, Brad 'SCAG Disaggragatton of Demcgraphic /Housinq/ Employment Forecasts' memo to KorrW Forsythe, San Bernardino Associated Governments, May 7, 1956. Davies, R. L. and D. S. Rogers, ads. 924c!_ostor and No_S24C!_A!John Wiley & !CS!!• (CAleMSHr and New York, John Wiley y Sons, 1984). City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Development Department, 'Monthly Status Report" (November 1987). of Rancho Cucamonga. Q"ffl me82_Sggo. Chapter 17.10 `Commercial) Office Districts• (December 1983). Urban Land Institute. Q411ec4_4_4 lSS!_gi_Sbagglc4_ Coal ec - 1497,. (Washington, The Urban Land Institute, 1987). Urban Resparch Associates. 'Baseline Economic Analysis Foothill Boulevard Corridor, Rancho Cucamonga, CA,- (Fullerton, CA, processed, July 1986). fin , r C1' °- t. �• ;cl • Iq, V 25. r Or ;J :_ n ■ I 1 k , Station 17.10.030 C. Oensrrl Cossmcdel District (OC)r This district is Intended for general commercial activities and services of a more Intensive nature. Mae uses would _ be located primarily alung major, transportation routes ad.would include major shopping facilities, major service- oriented uses, m11or fluwtclal and corporate headquarters which ere designed to erne the City or the region as a whole. Section 1710.020 Use 14lelatiasw Uses iis.sd In Table 17.10.030 shall be allowable In one or may of the commercial districts as indicated In the column beneath each commercial district. What% Indicated with the letter "P ", the use shall be a permitted ues In that district. where indicated with the letter "C ", the use shall be a conditional use subjeot to the Conditional Use Permit process. In the went these is difficulty in catsgarixing a given ur 'a one of the districts, the procedure outlined In Section 17.02.0 40 stall be tonowd. _ TASLZ 1T10.020 USIK RMULAT1OM FOR COMMXRC1AUOMCi D=Ri6M ME O! NC OC A. Offices end Related Usse �— 1. Administrative and executive offices. P P P 2. Artist and photographic studios, not P P P Including the sale of .equipment or supplies. •• 3. Clerical and professional offlues. P P P a. Financial services and Inst' tutions. P P P 5. Medical, dental and related heelth P P P services (non - animal related) Including laboratories and cllnicsi only the sale of articles clearly incidental to the services provided shall be permitted. 0. Prescription pharmacies, (also when P P P located within a building containing the offices of 5 or more medical practitioners) 7. Public buildings (library, city and county P P P buildings, special districts and post office). S. Public utility service offices. P P P 9. Public safety facility (pollee, tire, C C C ambulance and paramedics). 2 b7 B R , 07 Section 17.10.030 USE OF He .6C` 10. Related commercial uses (blue pint p P l, odp et Jh incidental to office wilding or complex. B. aenerd Commercial Ueee 1. Antique shops - P P 7. Adult bustnaee 094 special requirements - C per Section 17.10.030 3. Animal Care Facility (animal hospital' veterirarian, commeroial kennsi, grooming). (a) RxelWing exterior kennel, pomp or C p P runs. (b) Includ1% exterior kennel pew, or rum. - - 4. Apparel stores. p p S. Art, music and photographic - tudics and C P P supply stores. S. Appliance stores and repair. - C p T. Arcades (see special requirements per - C C Section 17.10.070 P.) 8. Athletic and Health Cl rb, yyms and p P p weight re,lucing clinics. 9. Automotive servlon (Including motorcycles, ti �!, trader and camper) (a) sdes C - C (b) rentals - C (c) repairs (major engine work, mufner - - C shops, painting, body work and upholstery) (d) Coln-op washing C C C (e) Aitomatle hashing C C C ti�rp� �M -,a e Section 17.10.030 ' _ 7 cat • - OP NC -GC _ • ..) (Q Service or iLsollne dispensing C C P stations ( Includhng mina repair -_ such as tune -up, brakes, batteries, tins, mufflers) (g) Puts and supplies - P P 10. Bakeries (rotsA only). - P P It. Barber attd beauty shops. P P P 12. Bicycle oh�gts. - P p- p P P 13. Blueprint and photocopy services 14. Boat and camper sales and services. - - C IS. Book, gift and stationary stores (other C P P'• - that adult related material. 10. Candy stores and confect)onaries. - P P 17. Catering asta:.tshmente. " - - P 18. Cleaning and pressing establUments. C P P 10. Carpenter shop er cabinet shop. - - P 20. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge, tavern) Including t slated entc- rtainment. (a) Operated independent of a C - C restaurant (b) Acceatory to a restaurant C C C 21. Commercial recreation facilities. W Indoor tsar such as bowling, C C P theaters, billerds, (b) Outdoor tree such is golf, tennis, C C C basketball, baseball, trampolines, etc. 22. Contractor yards (screerlttg of outdoor - - C storage required). 23. Dairy product stores. - P P 205 ' �.a� >1•?'� 3 N. Secticn 17.10.030, D" OF NO GC""- 24. D*partmentstore& p 26. DrIV4,4n businesses, IncludIn theaters. C 0 (other than fast food rar•aurmt3) 26. Drug stores and pharmacies. p p 27. Equipment rental yards. C 28. Fast-food restaurants. C C p 29. Feed/Tack stores C p 30. 1"=Ist p p P 31. Food stores and supermarkets. p 32. Furniture stores, repair and upholstery. p F 33. General retail stores. P p t 34. Hardware store. _ p P 35. Home Improvement centers. (2) Material stored end sold within P P enclosed buildings (b) Outdoor storage of material such as C lumber & building materials 38. Hotels and Notzb. C p 37. lee Machines (Outdoor). C C 38 Janitoral services and supplies. C p p 39. Jewelry stores. P p 40. Laundr"elf-service. p I? 41. Liquor Stores. p p 42. Kiosks for key slope, film dPOPS, etc. In C C parking lots. 41. Locksmith shop. P p _4 44. Mini-storage for public use (no outdoor C storage). n r: ti Section 17.10.010 i t 1� OP NC OC 45. Mortuaries and eemetarles. C C C tell • 46. Motorcycle sales and service. _ _ C `d 47. Newspaper and magazine stor m ' printing, - C P A and publishing. 48. Nurserss and garden Supply stores; - P P S provided, In the NC district, sit •,, .`J. equipment, supplies and material are kept within an enclosed eras. r 49. Office and business machine stores. C P P •�, S0. Parking facilities (commeroW where fees C - p are charged. a'( 51. Political or philanthropic headquarters. C C P ...- • 52. Pet shop. - P P a 55. Plumbing shop and supplies. _ - p i? 54. Photocopy .. P P P 55. Printing shops. - - P 56. Restaurants (other than fast food). (a) With entertainment and/or serving C C P of alcotolle beverages (b) Incidental serving of beer and wine P P p but without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment or dancing 57. Recreational ".n1c1e Storage Yard. C C C $8. Shoe stores, salad and repair. - P P 59. Second -hand stores and paver. shops. _ - P 80. Stopping Center subject to provisions in - C C Section 17.10.450 -P.5. St. Spiritualist readlnb-j or astrology forecasting. - _ p 62. Sporting goods stores. 'i 1 P p , r, 67. Stamp and coin shops. - P p .•� J ;r Arr __ *. '.207 �7t•ttt3tTa•-= �M's.,.�a�rl; w r r� Section 17.10.330 r .. s DO Op KC w 84. Swimming pool supplies. - P P 85. Tailor. - P P 88. Taxidermists. - - P 87. Television, radio Was and strvlee. - P P 88. Tire sales and service. - C 09. Toy stores. - p P 70. Travelagencles. P P P 71. Transportation facilities (train and bus, C C C taxi d3pots). M Ttuck and trailer rental, sales and service. - _.....0 . 73. Variety stores. - P r 74. Vehicular storage yard vd towing service. - C- C. Public end semibubUe uses 1. Day Care Facilities C C C 2 Convalescent facilities and hapltals. C - C 3. Private and public clubs and lodges, C C C includigg YMCA, YWCA and similar youth group uses. 4. Educational Institutions, parochial, privr-te C C C (Including colleges and universities). 5. Libraries dt museums, public or private. C C C 8. Parks and recreation facilities, public or C C C private. 7. Public utility Installations. C C C S. Vocational or business trade schools. C C C 9. Churches, convents, monasteries and other C C C - religious institutiors. i �01 �- �(�jtw IIFSISI � �' if RESOLUTION N0. 88-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCMSINGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECWOMING DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAUD USE MAP CF THE GENERAL PLAN, GPA 88 -01A. FROM OFFICE To HEIGUBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 3.45 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED OH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HELLMAN IN SUPPORT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKE FINDIgGS PORT THEREOF A. Rec_it (1) Janes E. Carter has filed an application for the General Plan Amendment No. 88.OIA as described in the title of this Resolution l Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment request is referred to as The Application. Rancho Cuclamonga� conducted e7 duly noticedppublic heoarring On h Me-City pli a of and concluded said hearing on that date. 9 The Application (iii) All legal prefequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have acurred. B. Resolution. 9 NOMi sipn ofEthe it Is City ofrRanchooCucemong aasnfollows�esolved by the Planning C i This Cnmission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission written the and oratrestaffcede public together with public 1988, including Commission hereby ostiawny, this Y specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to a 3.45 acre parcel of land basically rectangular in configuration, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue. Said property is currently designated as land the Land Use Map of the General Plan and is substantially vacant north -South for an existing access easement that bisects the property to a developed; andrection over which a two way driveway with central median is desi noted (b) The roperty to the north of thPPe subject site is g Loa Church ddsurroundi 9e SingiesFamtlyogpe "erel Map and consists of sidentia I the property to the south of the subject site is designated Medium Restdertl, the 14 du /act on the Land Use Map of the General Plan and consists of a multi_ family apartment complex, the property to the East is designated Office on the Land Use Map of the General Plan and consists of a Service Station and Office PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88_24 RE: GPA 88-01A Page 2 buildings, and the property to the west is designa Lions Park; and ted Civic /Community and Park on the Land Use Map of the General Plan and consists of the public Library and (c) The application requests the Amendment of the Land Use Map Of the General Plan from Office to Neighborhood Commercial for the 3.45 acre Parcel; and (d) The application would net he consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, could potentially result to s! nificait advsrse ands would notsbesin theb stJintere tsmmofedtate vicinity of the subject site, the citizens of the city of Rancho Cucamonga as fellow+, safety and welfare of 0 as follows; (i) Severe site constraints limit the development potential of this site. Speciftcatly, this site must share access to peripheral streets with an adjacent apartment complex This shared—access requirement limits the site's potential to be buffered from the adjacent intensity than under The urrentl General plaid permit land uses of greater Y designation. Therefore, this Application he the potential tntlalcrusea land use incompatibility of this objectives of the Land Use Element of the Generald his is contrary to the Plan. site would be subjected With tend the app o alrof this application, the project adjacent residents to greater amountsg eater intensity that would expose light/glare, ruck traffic, litter and of noise, objectionable odors, conditions have the potential to result in other inificant nuisance adversecimpacts to the people and property in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and welfare of he citizens bofithe City of Rancho Cu of the health, safety, and Cucamonga. this Commission durt g Based upon the substantial evidence presented he specific findings of facts set forth In Paragraphs public hearing and upon the Commission hereby finds and concludes that ppiication w ulodVenotthbe consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to organize land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses would Protect in the health, safety, and welfare Of Of Rancho Cucamonga, and would not the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Study /Preliminary (1 Environmental�uAssessment The ADD1lcation, w Initial requirements with the California Environmental Quality conformity with the Prepared; however, Commission has determined that thislprojecticouldshave ea significant adverse effect on the environment, and hereby declines to make a finding of no significant impact and to certify a Negative Declaration. (v) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends denial of The " .0 Application and directs tnat a certified copy of this Resolution and related,' material be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. I .i tea. J}+.yNf'±;•— c "s.�^crr. -: - .t "y-' PLANNING, COIWISSIGN RESOLUTION N0, 88 24' RE: GPA 88.011 Page 3 to the adoption oflthis Th e Deputy Secretary to this COmd3si0n shall certify Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED T41S 27TH DAY OF JANUARY. it CM PLANNING CaMISSION OF THE CITY nr _._..�.. t Rencho C Buller, Deputy Secretary of the planning CoasisatOn of- the `Ctty ofK ' regalarly introduced, passed. andYadopted a the foregoing Resolution was duly and on tthef27thcdayOOfaJanuar at a•regalar tt'ig of the Planning ttoeelsslonI.' Y, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, EMERICK. MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MJES: C"lSSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY .. M `2 g- Kid «a I - RESOLUTION NO. 88 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMIMING DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO VEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS W. ODA 87 -11, FROM OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR A 3.45 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOMIA, AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (1) James E. Carter has filed an application for the Development Districts Amendment No 87 -11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Districts Amendment request is referred to as The Application. (ii) On January 27, 1988, the Planning Commission of the-City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on The Application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resole -d by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1 ;his Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts i set forth n the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2• Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on January 27, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to a 3.45 acre parcel of land basically rectangular in configuration, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue. Said property is currently designated as Office /Professional on the Development Districts Map and is substantially vacant land except for an existing access easement that bisects the property in a north - soutn direction over which a two way driveway with central median Is developed, and (b) The property to the north of the subject site it designated Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) an the Development Districts Map and consists of a church site and surrounding Single Family Residential, the property to the south of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8- 14 du /ac) on the Development Districts Map and consists of a multi- family apartment complex, the property to the East is designated Office /Professional on the Development Districts Map and consists of a Service Station and Office 4A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-25 RE: ODA 87 -11 January 21, 1988 Page 2 buildings, and the property to the west is designated Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) on the Development Districts Nap and and consists of the public Library and Lions Park; and (c) The application requests the Amendment of the Development Districts Nap from Office /Trofessional to Neighborhood Comercial for the 3.45 acre parcel; and (d) The application would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, could potentially result in significant adverse impacts to persons and property in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, and would not be in the best interests of the heattn, safety and welfare v: the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: (t) Severe site constraints limit the development potential of this site. Specifically, this site must share access to priphel streets ts within an adjacent apartment complex. This shared:access requirement potential to be buffered from the adjacent apartment. The Application would permit land uses of greater intensity then under current Development Districts designation. Therefore, this Application has the potential to increase land use incompatibility of this site with the adjacent residential use, and;this is cc;trary to the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (1i) With the approveI of this application, the project site would be subjected to land uses of greater intensity that would expose adjacent residents to greater amounts of noise, objectionable odors, lignt /glare, truck traffic, litter and other nuisance factors. These conditions have the potential to rR-ult in signif? int adverse impacts to the people and property to the immediate vicinity of the project site, and therefore, would not be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (111) Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during thi, above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes that the application would not be consistent with the cbjcctives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to organize land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses would not be in the best interest of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and would not protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, California. (iv) In conjunction with The Application, an Initial Study /Preliminary Environmental Assessment, in conformity with the requirements with the California Environmental Quality Act, has been prepared; however, Commission has determined that this project could hata a significant adverse effect on the environment, and hereby declines to make a finding of no significant impact and to certify a Negative Declaration. (v) Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends denial of The Application and directs that a certified copy of this Resolaion and related" material be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. rr y.- -'. •- - �n,nry = t;.A >yc�pt••z- ��,`,5�i ya�rr=% "`". .- ..- c-f<,... -- u rra�� .��.ee *r Fy FLAI:NIIIfi COlM- SSIO&ESOLUTION NU. 88-25 . RE: DDR 87 -II• ` a rtr.' January 27, 1988 - w Pega 3 E to the adoption of NO Resolution. Deputy mm Secretary to this Coission shall certify APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JA4UARY, 1988. PUWNING COMMISSION CF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONBA BY: (l. u i °- arry 1. NcKw. Chairman I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comaeission of ttie L`iiy -of-, Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that-the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly Introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning CoWssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at &•regular meeting of the Planning r4wission held on the 27th day of January, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BMESLEY :5ri�1+, 4`4t. :moo- •.4e. =%t. = -i ..l: r:. e,. .Nyy - - .>.i u. *'� 3'.:¢ia.rhCL'r't�''�:4'S Y4 ON I.AR -. AW w MR101 1 —J&2d4A4d&� mail clerk for the city of Rancho Cucump do hereby Amgr that on approxfUltaly --4—;W -'olclocl Center Drive, M—drW-Mt*d SUs�cf 10catcd at 5607, Business Cucasionga Bran it 0 (8'm-/F-R-L I '100sited in the a letter &ddmsgd to Cnd r*urdf no (FLUX KPM WM UGMM) 3 "M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RANCHO CUCAWiNGA CITY COUNCIL Th. Rancho Cucamonga City Council will be holding p0lic hearings at 7:30 p.m. on February 17, 1988 at the Lions Park Community Building located at 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, to consider the following described project(s): Uftice /Professional (OP) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208 - 202 -13, 14. wun�nna „� naacaanor, won, uznL"& rLM MCnYOLnI a6-UTA - JMtS t. reques o amen a emera an an Use rom -e' 'fo °iTelghborhood Commercial" for approximately 3.45 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208.202 -13. 14. Anyaw having concerns or questions or any of the above items are welcome to contact the City Planning Division at (714) 9e9 -1861 or visit the offices located at 9340 Base Line Road, Unit 8. Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at the above - described meeting or may submit their concerns in writing to the Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to said meeting. February 5, 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council aMaTe 1. Ella VV ,.pu ��.. a.�1 fi t:�'- � lv✓1.�� '. Y ..L Ui.V ..Y If. 500 N. Garfield Ave., " Summers Suite 210 -9190 Baseline Avenue Monterey Park, CA 91754 Alta Lama, CA 91701 202- 091 -17 202 - 242 -11 Rosia C. Del R&al •� Patrick J. Brennan 7285 Hellman Avenue 7389 Lion Alta Lana, CA 91701 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 202- 091 -18 j 208- 011 -28 .......................:..... George J. & Batty M. City of Rancho Cucamonga Hetzler Newport Desch, CA 92663 7275 Hellman Avenue Ranco Csrahionga,CA 91730 Alta Lana, CA 91701 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 202- 091 -19 200- 011 -57 Jose etal & Esporanza County, of San Bernardino JT Villaloboe Forecast /Rancho Cucamonga 7265 Hellman Avenue San Berna inn, CA Alta Lama, CA 91701 Brandt 202- 091 -20 208- 011 -58 Y.V tlp.0 J. Wp � 'µf 540 S. Pasadera`Avey� nJe! Glendora, CA 91740 208- 431 -23 Paul A. & Geraldlyn M. Chavez 9336 Pepper Rancho Cucamonga,CA91730 208 - 431 -24 Ernest E. P Juanita R. Hraunwalder 7390 Kirkwood Avenue Rancho Cucamonga,CA91730 208 - 431 -25 Mobil Oil Corp. c/o Property,Tax Dept. P. 0. Box 290 Dallas, TX 52217 208 - 431 -27 Bernard O. & Helen M. Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. .................... TAC Devolopsent Corp. Benoit P. 0. Box 1026 7333 Hellman- •Avenue 7255 Hellman Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Rancho Cucamonga, CA91730 Alta Loma, CA 91701 208- 172- 12thru 17,20,21 208 - 431 -28 202 - 091 -21 208 - 202 -01 thru 17 August H. Reiter. III James P. Previti . Leonard D. Jr. &Virginia P. 0. Box 7250 9333 Baseline Rd., E. Jackson Newport Desch, CA 92663 Suite 290 7275 Lion St., 202- 091 -38, 39 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Alta Loma, CA 91701 208- 431 -29, 32 202 - 242 -12 Charles J.Jr., & Catherine Forecast /Rancho Cucamonga Marvin !1. & Elizabeth Hamilton c/o Dennia L. Geller et al Brandt 7480 Hellman Avenue 1401 Dave St.,Ste 200 9188 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Alta Loma, CA 91701 208- 172 -10 208 - 431 -31 202.242 -10 Pacific Conf /Brethren In Virginia Ercek Christ Church 9180 Alder St.. C/o Alta Loma Ccmm.Ch. Cucamonga, CA 91730 P.O. Box 398 j 208 - 454 -24 Alta Loma, CA 91701 202-241-06..07 ... .... Jerry & Rosemary Owen Paul D. & Ellen C. 9258 Base Line Rd. Graham Alta Loma, CA 91701 9170 Alder Ave., 202- 242 -CF Cucamonga, CA 91730 200- d5a -75 Lamb of God Evangelical Herbert G. & Francis E. Lutheran Church Gomez 9212 Baseline Rd. 9140 Adler _ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 202- 242 -09 208 - 454 -28 Joseph A. & Virginia M. Theodore J. & Melanie A. Panasicl Rinker 540 S. Pasadena`Ave. 9197 Carrari Ct. Glendora, CA 91740 ;_y - �1.A1ta.Loma, _CA 91701 217 RESOLUTION NO. $8-09 a, A RESOLUTION OF rUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS W. ODA 87- 11, FROM OFFICE /PROFESSIONAL TO NEIGHBORHOO9 COMMERCIAL FOR A -a.45 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER of BASE LINE ROAD AND HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AND HAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209402 -43, 14. A. Recitals. e i (t) James E. Carter has filed an application for the Development Districts Amendment No. 87 -11 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Districts Amendment request is referred to as The Application. (ii) On January 27, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City -of- Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on The Application, and issued Resolution No. 88-25 recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. (iii) On February 17, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (1v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereh•, specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, a• this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on February 17, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to a 3.45 acre parcel of land basically rectangular in configuration, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue. Said property is currently designated as Office /Professional on the Development Districts Hap and is substantially vacant land except for an existing access easement that bisects the property :n a north -south direct'on over which a two way driveway with central median is developed; and CITY COUN:IL RESOLUTION NO. RE: DDA 87 -11 February 17, 1988 Page 2 (b) fie property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential (2 -4 di /ac) on the Development Districts Map and consists of a church site and surrounding Single Family Residential, the property to the south of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8- 14 du /ac) on the Developmont Districts Map and consists of a sulti- family apartment complex, the property to the East is designated Office /Professional on the Development Districts Map and consists of a Servici Station and Office buildings, and the property to the west is designated Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) on the Development Oistricts Map and and consists of the public library and Lions Park; and (c) The Application requests the Amendment of the Development Districts Map from Office /Professional to Neighborhood Coaaeerciat for the 3.45 acre parcel; and (d) The Application would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, could potentially result in significant adverse_ impacts to persons and property in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, and would not be in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: (i) Severe site constraints limit the development potential of this site. Specifically, this site must share access to peripheral streets within an adjacent apartment complex. This shared access requirement limits the site's potential to be buffered from the adjacent apartment. The Application would permit land uses of greater intensity than under current Development Districts designation. Therefore, this Application has the potential to increase land uce incompatibility of this site with the adjacent residential use, and this is contrary to the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (ii) With the approval of this application, the project site would be subjected to land uses of greater intensity that would expose adjacent residents to greater amounts of noise, objectionable odors, light /glare, truck traffic, litter and other nuisance factors. These conditions have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to the people •nd property in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and therefore, would not be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the application would not be consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to organize land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses and would not protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, California. O7 9- s r yr �Yl V• a1�4 ... CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. =u ; RE: DOA 87 -11 -« February 17, 1988 f Page 3 ° %'_• - • .. _ :SLY 4. In.conjunctlon,.wlth'The Application,. an dnittal -StudbJ ` Preliminary Environrntal .Astessnent, -.in-confoisity,Wth the - requirements, with the California Environmental Quality,Act, has been prepared; however; Council has determined that this project.could'have.a siggnnificant adverse 'effect .on r the enviromaent, and hereby declines -to make a findl"eg,of no-sig0ficant , Impact and to certify a Negative Declaration.•, S. Based upon the findings and.,conclusions set forth in par'agrdphs . .k 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to section,65853 to 65857 of the California Govement Code, that -the City.Counciltof the "City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies on the 17th-day of February,•1988, , e Development District Amendment No. 87 -11. - nL 10 )1F� f� 1" ti W. u RESOLUTION NO. '0- 0 93 A RESOLUTION OF WE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN, GPA 88 -01A, FROM OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR 3.45 ACRES OF LARD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AHD HELLMAN AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AND HAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208. 202 -13, 14. A. Recitals. (i) Jacks E. Ca-ter has filed an application for the General Plan Amendment No. 88.OIA as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment request is referred to as The Application. (1i) On January 27, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of— Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on The Application, and issued Resolution No. 68-24 recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. (ii) On February 17, 1988, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on February 17, 1988, Including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Th.. Application applies to a 3.45 acre parcel of land basically rectangular in cotfiguraticn, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue. Said property is currently designated as Office on the Land Use slap of the General Plan and Is substantially vacant land except for an existing access easement that bisects the property in a north -south direction over which a two way driveway with central median it developed; and 'Z Z S• I ¢ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RE: GPA 88.OLA February 17, 1988 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential (2 -4 di /ac) on the Land Use Map of General Map and consists of a church site and surrounding Single Family Residential, the property to the south of the subject site is designated Medium Residential (8- 14 du /ac) on the Land Use Map of the General Plan and consists of a multi- family apartment complex, the property to the East is designated Office on the Land Use Map of the Genoral Plan and consists of a Service Station and Office buildings, and the property to the west is designated Civic /Community and Park on the Land Use Map of the General Plan and consists of the public library and Lions Park; and (c) The Application requests the Amendment of the Land Use Map of the General Plan from Office to Neighborhood Comeercial for the 3.45 acre parcel; and (d) The Application would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, could potentially result in significant adverse impacts to persons and property in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, and would not be in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: (i) Severe site constraints limit the development potential of this site. Specifically, this site must share access to peripheral streets Seth an adjacent apartment complex. This shared access requirement limits the site's potential to be buffered from the adjacent apartment complex. The Application would permit land uses of greater intensity than under current General Plan designation. Therefore, this Application has the potential to increase land use incompatibility of this site with the adjacent residential use, and this is contrary to the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. (ii) Hith the approval of this application, the project site would be subjected to land uses of greater intensity that would expose adjacent residents to greater amounts of noise, objectionable odors, light /glare, truck traffic, litter and other nuisance factors. These conditions have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to the people and property in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and therefore, would not be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon tle specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the application would not be consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to organizn land uses to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses and would not protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, California. :M. e,.; ? PLANNING COMMISSION RCSOLUTION NO.' RE: GPA 88.01A•( m�r,;.,_I February 17,'1988 '• s Page 3 d • 4. In coi6unctlia wltli; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAb10NGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR xANitm - me request to appeal the Planning- Cooniss —ion's TeRcTsTon in the proposed amendment to the previously Centered located Pat r the northeastngcornerlaof Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue. I. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City ounc any a appeal. 11. BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting of January 13, 1988 the ann ng ommission considered an appeal of the staf ^'s decision in denying the amendment to the Sign Program for the Cucamonga Village Shopping Center. The proposed amendments were to allow 30" letter size, to vary the color from red to blue, to place the sign higher than 20' from the finished grade, to allow neon lights, to add a wall sign of extraneous information such as "Music, Video, Software for the major tenant, The Wherehouse; and to vary the design of the monument sign for the shopping center. The Planning Commission, after taking public input, found that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance, the approved Sign Program and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and therefore denied the appeal. The applicant, The Wherehouse, is appealing the Planning Commission decision to deny the proposed wall signs and the extraneous information wall sign of "Music, Video, Software ". With regards to the monument sign, the developer, Kanter and Associates, has agreed to redesign the monument sign to comply with the approved design and therefore is not an Issue for discussion tonight. III. ANALYSIS: 1. The Proposed 3D" Letter Size: One of the criteria established in the apvrove sign Program is a maximum 24" letter size. No criteria has been included to allow the flexibility for major tenants. The design standards of the Sign Ordinance state that the dimension of the sign shall be 'proportional to and visually balanced with the size of the building.' The Planning PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 85 -01 - Kantor February 17, 1988 Page 2 2. Commission found that a 30' letter is too large for the building, in particular because it is so close to Foothill Boulevard. This is especially so when the 18' sign copy of 'Music, Video, Software' is placed below the 030 inch Wherehouse' sign. The Planning Commission found these signs overpowered the architecture and were out of scale proportionately with the building size. es#-blish uniformity in color. The color established for this shopping center is red plexiglass 92283. It does allow for some flexibility in color for major tenant, subject to staff review. The Planning Commission found that this center is a small five arse strip commercial center where uniformity =in- color allows for $igyns to relate better to one another and the building. The Coomission stated that too much color variation could take away from the architecture with the sign being the most dominant element in a small center such as this. 3. Neon Lights: The Sign Ordinance prohibits exposed tubing ss gnsT such' as neon lights. Therefore, the proposed neon lighting bolt across the sign copy of 'The Wherehouse' is inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance. The Chamber of Commerce will be discussing this issue in a separate item at tonight's meeting. 4. Extraneous Information of Wall sign of 'Music Video, ware he appellant's reason for requesting suc ex raneous information of wall sign is to properly identify the store. Mother reason is that the City has approved such type Of signs in the past such as music Plus (compact Discs and Videos) or Sizzler (Stesks, Seafood, Salads). The appellant feels that Music Plus is their competitor so they should be allowed to advertise equally. The Sign Ordinance states that the sign copy shall include minimal information only. The use of subordinate Information such as telephone numbers, list of products, pictures of products, and etc. are discouraged. The name of the use or the business shall be the dominant message on the sign. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan also has a design provision that prohibits material and product advertising as shown in Exhibit 'E'. The Planning Comnisdon's interpretation is that the words 'Music, Video, Software' constitutes extraneous information; therefore, should not be included as part of the sign. The Planning Commission also stated that allowing this; wall sign would set a precedent for all future shopping centers in this city. aas PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 8541 - Kanter February 17, 1988 Page 3 f� Staff Comment: In the past, staff hss allowed -on rare , occass ons the business name to include list of products. This e' is based on the' interpretation that a nationally 'registered trademark could be considered as the name "of,the' business. Such is the case with Sizzler (Steak,. Seafood. ySal id) - .Music Plus (Compact Discs and videos) or,Harry C's, (Steak'; „ Seafood, Price Rib): to regards with Music Plus, -the SNopping'Center had an approved Sign Program in 1981 where W, sic.,Plus,.aras considered as a major tenant. The nationally:,registered trademark is stated as 'Music Plus, , - -Records; ;Tapes %,Last year - Music Plus requested for a replacement of the existing sign for maintenance purposes. However' the nationally_ registered trademark has been changed from Music Plus - Records,'Tapes' to 'Music Plus - Compact Discs, video.' The nationall registered trademark for The Nherehousa is 'The llherehoute °--„,_', without the ' Husic Video and Software•, The City Council decision tonight w1il again clarify this provision of the Sign Ordinance for future development. 5. Sign Placement at 22' in Height: The appellant stated that were are signs w n e can r that are placed higher than - 20 feet. A survey of all the signs within this shopping center indicated that all of the signs are placed 'within the 20' height limitation except for three, 1) the Try Out Restaurant, 2) the Beauty Supply store and 3) the Merle Norman store. These three storefronts have a particular problem in that- the design of the storefront and roof prohibits any placement of signs below 201. Color photos and /or slides will be available at the meeting for your review. Copies of the January 13, 1988 Planning Commission staff report and minutes are included in this report for your review. /'as "Y matted, 9 ler City lan er r BB:NF:vc c Attachments: Appeal Letter from the Appellant January 13, 1988 Staff Report and Minutes „ e rAi7uunop LUMINOUS NEON LI®NTINO i0L10C 7 C1AI uun �0EP7t(i LION COMPAN31+�� `AOYEA 7449 Scout Avenue . Bell Gerden % CsWom a 90201 . Phones (21319274701 . 773.0282 . (7141523.1862 IE0EI "tlE0 CITY AoROCHO Ci oNaKCA � ltb'c .0 JAN 211988 January 20, 1988 Fir 51819(101n1�11t24&l1b1R C'G`•�� Ms. Beverly Authelet, City Clerk J<dtf/h� +'- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 Re: 9950 West Foothill Blvd., Unit N -0 -� C.U.P. No. 85 -01 Dear Ms. Authelets On behalf of our client, Wherehouse Entertainment Inc., we are appealing to the City Council the decisions of the Planning Commision, at the meeting of January 13, 1908. The following is a list of rebuttals to the Planning Com- mission decisions. 1. 24" versus 30" letters Landlord will grant "The Wherehouse" an exemption to the 24" height restriction on account of their major tenant status and larger sign band and extended store frontage. 2. Red plex faces versus blue plex faces. Exhibit "A" in the city approved center sign program ex- cludes the major tenant from both letter style and the red plex face color. 3. Additional Verbage City has approved additional verbaga in the past and our client feels it is essential in properly identifing their store. Examples of other businesses with verbaga are, Sizzler Steak House, (Steaks, Seafocd, Salals), and Music 2 Zxi r° 1" T ■ Page 2 January 20, 1988 +, (Video, Compact Discs), special note should be made that Music + is a major competitor of 'The Wherehouse', and they feel that they should be allow to advertise equally. 4. Neon Bolt The bolt is a widely recognized logo and incorporated in all of "The Wherehouse$s' print and television advertising, - Wherehouse feels the bolt is essential for proper store identification. 5. Sign placement at 22' in height The shopping center currently has other city approved signs in excess of the 20' height restriction.. Please place this matter on the earliest available City Coun- cil meeting. Please feel free to call Gamma Marshall or my- self with any questions or comments. Slpgerely, -- �ames Wright would be willing to take the monies it would cost them to pmt,the screening along the west boundary line to put this money 10 A trust fund or whatever the City establishes to help screen the freeway area which helps screen all the facilities in the area. This would help the City enhance its beauty along the freeway corridor. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City should concentrate on the freeway landscaping and accept the offer tram Tamco for the beautification fund. Commissioner Emerick moved to delete the perimeter landscaping requirement of the conditions of approval and encourage the applicant to contribute the money to a City beautification fund in an effort to landscape the freeway. Cow ssianer Tolstey seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOi.STOY, BLAKESLEY, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, 1MCWIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HONE x e x x x x x S. i amendment to the previously Shopping Center, located at Boulevard and Ramona Avenue. -- carried r Cucamonga Village corner of Foothill Nancy Fong, Associate PI a, Dresented the staff report and a pictorial presentation of signs throughoot the center. She addressed size of the letter and the extraneous information on the wall sign. She also discussed the approved monument sign and the applicant's proposed monument sign. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ms. Gemma Marshall, Berk Sign Company representative, presented to the e.oamission a site plan and presented a slide presentation on sign!. throughout the City. She gave background regarding the Wherehouse sign and the actual signage of other businesses in the center. 6�r Richard Oda, owner of Tiffany's Ice Cream Emporium, requested the Commission consider the Wherehouse proposal. Ms Connie Johnson, owner of Merle Norman Cosmetics, stated she supports the addition of Wherehouse as an anchor tenant in the center and requests the Commission conside- their application favorably. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 13, 1988 a ag t I V Patricia Schrody, owner of the beauty salon, stressed the importance of having the Wherehouse in the center and regtr4sted the Commission's consideration. Chairman McNiel stated t'ur issue is not whether to allow the Wherehouse into the center but what would be the appropriate signage. Mr. Mike Altsdumi, owner of the Donut Shop, regvested the Commission's consider a compromise of the sign proposal. Lori Mullen, owner of T A L Flowers, supports the proposed Wherehouse sign and requests the Commission's consideratfon. Mr. Gary Kanter, Gary Kanter and Associates, a ner of the shopping center, stand his reasoning for the proposal of the Wherehouse sign proposal. Ms. Betty Albala, representing Wherehouse Entertainment, gave background on Wherehouse stores and their proposal for coming into Rancho_ Cucamonga. She addressed the issues of sign re garding the size of the letters, verbage, the color of the sign, and the tolt. Chairman MDNial questioned Ms. Albala regarding the Upland Wherehouse r store regarding their sign; it does not have the extraneous information nor the bolt. Ms. Albala responded this store was an older stare and is undergoing remodeling. Mr. Dale Frisby, representing the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber of Commerce has been working with staff on several issues regarding sign ordinance. He suggested that if there is a situation of compromise regarding this proposal, perhaps a decision could be delayed until the next meeting when the Chamber recommendations regarding sign ordinance are reviewed by the Commission. brad Buller, City Planner, stated there are two stages to the proposed recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce. Planning Commission would review and consider input on whether they would entertain a possible amendment to the ordinance or setting a public hearing. The City Council would do the same. He stated the time frame for this procedure would be approximately 2 1/2 months. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the original monument sign designed for the center looks balanced, but the one proposed is not and is aesthetically out of scale They are trying to do too much for what the sign allows. Regarding the Duilding signs, it would be inappropriate to have any letters larger than 24 inches. Color should be uniform and neon is not acceptable as it does not fit in the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 13, 1988 a � Chairman McNiel stated that the sign ordinance 1s designed to Identify as opposed to advertise. Commissioner Blakesley stated he would not support increasing the letter size, he supports uniform color, does not support neon as it is not appropriate according to the ordinance and does not want to vary from it. Regarding the monument, he would like a compromise in between the proposed and approved monument signs. CommissionerggChitiea stated she supports the ordinance as written and shouldnnotihidenthetarchitecture �TheiFoothill Specifics P anais tr Signs ing to stay away from the overabundance of signs that have spoiled Foothill in other cities. She felt that letter color should be uniform: Regarding the proposed monument sign, she felt it was too large. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be willing to consider a compromise on the monument sign only if it meats the requirements of the ordinance with no exception to the standards. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Kanter stated the ossibility of the Wherehouse and another tenant in the center is contingent on their signage. He felt there was very little flexibility on the Comaission's part on the Wherehouse submittal and proposal. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that most merchants and retailers have a problem with the sign program proposed by the developer not the City's sign program. The sign program in this particular center could have been thought out in a way that within the existing ordinance, prominence could have been given to a major tenant. The City should not change the si ri ordinance to correct the sign program that was presented by the developer. Ccmmissioner Tolstoy moved to deny appeal to the uniform sign program but indicated his willingness to look at other options for the monument sign, Emerick seconded the motion. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE + + + + • + -- carried 10:28 P.V. - Commission Recessed 10:35 P.M. - Commission Reconvened r Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 13, 1988 . C °W 5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAmONGA STAFF REPORT v. DATE: January 13, 1988 Y' TO: Chairman and Nesbers of the Planning Commission x R FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner 4�• SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT To THE UNIFORK SIGN PROGRAM FOR- e request o appeal s s decision in denying Te proposed amendment to the previously sign program for Cucamonga village Shopping Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue ABSTRACT: The developer, Kanter 6 Associates, on behalf of the or enant, The Wherehouse, is appealing staff's decision in denying a proposed amendment to the approved Uniform Sign Program in the areas of letter size, color, height of sign placement, neon lights, extraneous informational wall signs and the design of the monument sign. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the City Planner's dental. iI. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 1985, the Planning Commission conlfftTion0ly approved Conditional Use Permit 85-01 for a five acre shopping center. One of the conditions o. approval required a Uniform Sign Program to establish criteria for ualform size, placement, ai.d color of signs for future tenants. On November 24, 1986, staff approved the Uniform Sign Program for this shopping center, as shown in Exhibit 'C1' through Exhibit 'C114. On November 6, 1987, the developer requested an amendment to the approved Uniform Sign Program to vary the color, letter site, height and placement and to add an extraneous informational wall sign of 'music, video and software' for the moor tenant, and to modify the design of the monument sign. Staff determi ^ed the request as inconsistent with the Sign ordinance, the approved sign program and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plau. Therefore, staff denied the request. 111. ANALYSIS: A. Nall Sign 1. Letter Size. The Wherehouse is proposing a 30 inch e T ft r size with the reason that they are the major tenant in the shopping center. X32 ITEM S PLANNING COHHISSION,•'1FF REPORT RE: LUP 85-01 - APPtni January 13, 1998 Page t The maximum letter size established in the sign criteria is 24,inches. The design standard of the Sign Ordinance stated that the dimension of the sign shall` be proportionate to and visually balances with the size of the building. Staff Mieved that t1a 30 inch letter size.is out of properticn to the building because the perception of size is inversely ►6`oportionate to distance. For example, the 30 inch letter -would appear - much bigger at 175 feet away from the sign as in this case, versus 400 feet away as in the case of Lucky Store at Haven Village Center. In other words, this 30 inch sign would overpower the architecture and seem •out -of- scale" proportionately with the building size. _ 2. Letter Color. The Wherehouse is. proposin•1 a' blue sign copy WriFi re neon lights and a,whlte logo., Mother established sign criteria for the crtnter is the uniform color of Red Plexiglas No. 2293. This uniformity in color allows for signs relating to one, another and also to the building. This center is a small 5 acre strip ccmmercial center where too much color variation could take away frast the architecture with the signs bring the most dominant element. The architecture of the building should be the major identity and not the signs. Tho Uniform Sign Program does give the major tenant the flexibility to use a different letter style from the other retail tenants. 3. Neon. The Sign Ordinance does not have provision to a cw for neon lights. Therefore, tNe proposed nsom light across the sign cony of The Wherehouse `is inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance, This issue is currently being studied by staff seal the Chamber of Commerce and will be discussed at length later this month. ,. ,. •�.. •i, 4. Extraneous Informational Wall Sign. The AhereNouse has requested a information su as 'music, video, N, software" signs be allowed as part of the wall sign as shoM� in Exhibit "Dl ". The reason is to prcaarly identify the store. Another reason is that Music Plus is a major competitor of The Wherehouse and they fall that they should be allowed to advertise equally. V The Sign Ordinance states that *Sign copy shall include,\, \, minimal information only. The use of subordinate information, such as telephone numbers list of \` ro�,ducts, pictures oP products, etc. are aisCOOT'dgeL: c; PLANNING CMUSSION VF REPORT RE: CUP 85-01 - APP—A. January 13, 1988 Page 3 The name of the use or the business shall be the dominant message an the sign." The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan also has a design pruvision that prohibits material and product advertising. Therefore, the proposed additional wall signs would ageor to be 1 extraneous and not in compliance with the intent o7 the Sign Ordinance and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Last August, 1986, the Planning Co®ission reviewed a. similar appeal from Lucky Store at Haven Village Shopping Center, to allow for extraneous informational wall signs of "Deli, Liquor, Bakery'. The Planning Commission upheld the City Planner's decision and denied the appeal. The Planning Commission decision tonight will again clarify this provision of the Sign Ordinanre- for future development, in that, approval of these extraneous wall signs would set a precedent for all future shopping centers in the City. S. Sign Placement at 22 Feet to Height. The Wherehouse sign is of appro mateZ�2 feet from the finished grade. The Sign Ordinance stated that all signs cannot be placed above the roof and in no case be higher that 20 feet from the finished grade. A survey of all the signs within this shopping center indicated that all of the signs are placed within the 20 feet height limitation except for three Mich is The Try -out Restaurant, Beauty Supply Store, and Merle Norman Store. These three store fronts have a particular problem in that the design of the store front and roof prohibits any placement of signs below 20 feet. (Color photos and /or slides will be available at the meeting for your review). B. Hon=ent Sign. The developer of this shopping center is - propos ns n —revise the design for the monument sign as shorn in Exhibit '02'. After careful review, staff determined that it is in substantial compliance with the approved monument sign in areas of physical dimensions specifically the width, the height, and the total sign area. However, the design of the sign copy area appears to be out of balance visually compared to the one that was approved as shown in Exhibit 'C11 ", in that, the area for the future tenant sign phase including the large Mite plexiglas background dominates the entire monument sign. Further, the proposed blue sign copy and red neon light are inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance and sign program. a 3y PLAKNING COMMISSION WF REPORT RE: CUP 85-01 - AMAL Januar, 13' 1988 Page _4 IV. RECOMMIDATION: Staff :recomends that the Manning Commission OPTM-MeMry Planner's decision to deny the proposed amendment to the sign program for. Cucawn?3 Village Shopping Center' and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial with findings for adoption at the next meeting. "5' 'y 5u ted u r City 11 nnor BB:NF,,ko Attachments: Letter from Applicant November 23, 1907 Letter of Ceni3l Exhibit OAO - Location Kip Exhibit '8* - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit OCO - Approved Sign Program Exhibit *Dd - Proposed Amendments to the Sign Program 1i n. GARY KANTER ASSOCIATES SHOPPING CENTER DEVEIOPMENT v1°tOP' bt5:ea 1 November 24, 1987 Ms, Beverly Autheleg, City Clerk w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: 9950 West Foothill Boulevard, Unit N -0 C.U.P. No. 85 -01 Dear Ms. Autheler: On behalf of our prospective tenant, Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc., we hereby appeal the decision of your Planning 'S aff regarding signage as stated in their letter dated November 23, 1987 (copy attached). 'The Wherehouse• has leased a 6,790 square foot area at the above- re£eranced location, is a major tenant with over 210 stores throughout California, Arizona, Washington, Nevada and Colorado and has a registered trademark. Pursuant to Exhibit A. Section 6, of the Rancho Cucamonga village Sign Criteria, approved November 24, 1986, we exercise our right to official review of 'The Wherehouse* wall sign. Enclosed is our chock No. 671 in the amount of $62.00 to cover the appeal procose Lee. Please inform us of the first available date to be put on the Planning Commission Agenda. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to the same pleasant working relationship we have enjoyed throughout the development and construction of our shopping center. Should you require further information, please feel free to contact me at (714) 592 -4337. Very truly yours, Janice M Taylt Project Managez JMT: jvs Enclosures cc: Bette Albala, Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. X314 623W ARROW HIGHWAY • SAN DMAS. CA 91773 • (818) 914-4888 a (714) 592-4337 r CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA November 23, 1987 San Taylor Kanter d Ascociates 623 Nest Arrow Highway San Dimas, CA 91773 ro"ono 9. X7. Ru C�Cffi rnlo, nur"wain SUBJECT: PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN FOR RANCHO CUCANONGA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER AND WALL SIGNS FOR 'THE NHERENOUSE" (CUP 83.01) Bear Ms. Taylor: Per our conversation at the Planning Counter on Noveaber 19, 1987 it was my understanding that your prospective tenant, 'The Wherehouse" chooses to pursue the proposed one wall sign and two monument signs as submitted on November 6, 1987. As stated in the letter of November 13, 1987, staff has determined that your proposed signs are inconsistent with the currant City's Sign Ordinance and the approved Sign Program as follows: A. Monument Sign. It is in substantial compliance with the approved monumeni -sign in areas of physical dimensions, specifically, the width, the height, and the total sign area. However, the design of the sign copy area appears to be out of balance visually compared to the one that was approved, in that, the area for the future tenants sign face including the large white plax background dominates the entire monument sign. The proposed blue sign copy and the red neon light are inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance and Sign Program. B. Wall Signs. 1. The maximum letter size is 24" versus the proposed 30 ". 2. The color of the sign face should be of red /2283 versus the proposed blue. 3. The proposed "Music Video Software" are considered as extraneous information which are not permitted according to the Sign Ordinance. 4. The logo design is acceptable; however, neon light is not permitted. S. The letter style for "Wherehouse" i3 acceptable. N. a Q �..,X je v.r. b"r,h ro"n l,ftrq 1 y �T _ `.� «.4 v,�e �L t+ \�fi..��°*"'yj� - - .' :• � ..� .� arl ^ -I� _ _�f LrN �._ ' CUP 86 -01R- The Wherehouse November 23, 1967 Page 2 �• 6. The maximmm height placement for all signs is 20' seasured from the finished grade. The placwent of your wall signs h_ show a height of 22 . ` Based upon the above identified inconsistencies, staff sate tho findings ^" that the proposed signs are not in cosplience with the Current Sign Ordinance and the approved Sign Progra for the shopping center, i' therefore, denied your sign, applicatlitn. This decision shall be ?� thieffective etter. Appeals musttbeafiled In~w iting with the City Clerks office, state the reason for requesting the appeal and include a $62 appeal fa. Should you have any questions or if I can be of further assistan e please do not hesitate to contact w at (714) 989-1861. Sincerely, COIMITf DEVMOPlENT DEPAR714W PLANNIIrA DIVISI0N Nancy Fofp Associat NF:vc cc: Fernando Acosta Bette Albals a3g 1 0 ;" Q ! I.(, X1. m IIIIIIIII I I 314A of. o •• ___- 1 OWwron Aii1 Nvu �J .....w • -- � VONOV(tl0lU OHONVy I saavaoaav �narvv tnw I ��' i 2 litI n _ ' 71 cti - 1 I�aec � V 6 110 cc> i oil wre �Yt 4 IDdR.L I' Z � 2 Z O V5 O _z Z Z Q J a r Z W t; J W W f" Z O U IL O Z W Y .L LI1 0 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga r> > Name of establishment R)r LLCM- 26JS& VI LAfi&ate Applicant's Name `.YI Addressl7hplY.A OWNERS CEPMFIC Ownor's Nameg"M Addr03422 W. SIGN DESCRWTION Sign Permit Application Number and type of sights): Temporary Wall?<Monument Canopy _Subdivision _Window _.kC Uniform Sign Program _Directions[ _Pedestrian _ Other Size: Length Width Depth Overall �I Sign {,a�l�►.g„ -slams ' ~ �L` eldFace �FW �,.� Sign[. Sign 9. UABM r "u 1st t c�-raets LJ,7. Tt�.ltlJTS Sign 4. e*p.' PM. -10 Ci GQTl="i 8D. Vr I.ejAiiii", Sign 5. Sign 8. It temporary or subdivision, date of Installation It temporary or subdivision, date of expiration Cash deposit amount Indicate sign copy, size, color and materials on plans described on the attached thesis, CTIO PHOTO c7,r,� L_.NN1NTcTlJ�� i1 DIVtIS-ON - EiwiEIT t`7. j �.7 ';b .t.L R6C61Vc0 - cIP OF xANGro CJCR, +aNGf FRANCHO CUCRrtONGA VILLASE SIG CRITERIA ry] � PUNNINO Da7iro•1 A. GEN ^..1 T ( < nn =( u CUCAM0Nda AUG 061986 I. Within 30 asP,7C7� �TCOg1�1�atI we mimmnp C�as+nn Jl }l� q }�.,4 �9 pq?WfZ tenant shall subs& or cause �to�be subuittedtt ttt�(`Y�Hdlmiai rd• approval, prior to fabrication, four (41 copies of detailear/ arawinas indicating the location. al_e, layout. specifications and metnoo Of attachment. i+ 2. Within 15 days of landlord s approval, tenant shall submit or cause to be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning S Department, for approval, prior to fabrication. 2 copies of t landlord s approved plan with all information as noted above. Y =. All permits for signs ono tneir installation shall be obtained 4. by licensed sign contractor at the tenants expense. L �^ 4. All approved signs shall be constructed and installed at the tenant s expense within 60 days of tenant s lease commencement�or i receipt of approvals which is later. 1' 5. All signs shall be reviewed for conformance with this criteria and overall design quality. Conformance with this sign criteria shall be rigorously enforced and any non - conforming signs will be removed at tenant s expense upon 15 days prior written notice. 6. Tenant shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of tenant s sign by licensed s'gn contractor. Should tenant s sign require maintenance or repair, landlord shall give tenant 30 day written notice to effect said maintenance or repair. Should tenant fail to do same. landlord rav undertake repairs and ten (10+ days from date of invoice. plus interest at the maximum rate allowable. B. PRIMARY SIGN SPECIFICATIONS (reference attached sign exhibits) r 1. Tenant signs shall be individual Pan channel letters with solid metal backs and sides. _. Letters shall be constructed from 22 gauge sheet metal and shall be S" deep. Letter int@riore anall ce Painted white enamel zor even lion: reflectlor 4 Letter exteriors (returns) shall be paintec min. 2 coats aemi- gloss automotive acrylic enamel over primer undercoat. Color shall be Dueler #3769 cream (vellow- beige) or T- 1748 -Cream R -M formula no :69170121. 5. Letter retainers shall be 3/4" red Jewelits brand trim cap with #7 Phillip type retaining screws painted red to match. 2 q;L to, rx+ r< F PLAINNINT(.r DIVISID•r Ai T:''_bDVAL Fl:;;oo Cucamonga F/ancno Cucamonga VillageD 7 Cr! 4 �C -O F R A T C H O O U C A M ONO A Anse cortact "a Ftann,n4 Orv:%,on at ,714, 989.1861 Ict tmal mspecuon CmavatEC�oc� •� PLANN,IG CtV;r AUG QG 1590 PM 8191p1U1p11j213141g A Letter faces shall be 1/8" thick 0226C red flat surface. lexiglas as manufactured by Rants and Haas. or approved equal. 7. Letter illumination shall be 13 millimeter clear neon glass S" on center or less and SO milliamp. S. 30 ma. high Power factor transformers shall be us*Q. S. F.).. nousinq_s will be used for all neon tube system installations. 10. All sign letters shall be secured by concealed fasteners: stainless steel or nickel or cadmium Plated and pegged out from the background 1/4" to allow water - runoff. 11. No exposed lamps or tubing will be permitted. 12. No audible. flashing or animated signs will be permitted. 13. Electrical service to all signs shall be on tenant s meter. 14. No exposed raceways, crossovers or conduit will be permitted. 15. All Penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation Shall be sealed in a water tight condition and shall be pitched match adlacent finish. 16. No sign company labels will be permitted on the exposed suface of signs except those required by Underwriters Laboratories W.L.), which shall be placed in an inconspicuous location. C. DESIGN REGUIREHENT6 I Letter style will be a choice of "Raleigh Extra Bold" and or "Souvenir Demi -Sold" from Letraset. example Is attached hereto e nibit "D1" L 11D2" Letter stcos are as followst a. Maximum letter height is 24" b. Minimum letter height is 18" c. Maximum sion width shall not out, id 702 of leased storefront width. 1. Tenant sion shall be restricted to the established business name and Product or services Provided. No advertising slogans. and product brands will be permitted. EAamPles of acceptable tvpa business nomest Joanie s Fashions. Fantastic �Ono Hour Photo '+arvev s �i o^lf�tal��yAJ AiPA*4/ ;q3 r i�. ' 'iI P�•�'aL"' :1 tr ......P � TfI / `• A L 1 t Rancho Cucamonga Village Sign Criteria �,/ /_ q</y Fsge S By 1D 0.T4 ��Iy7 /Iv C I T Y OF a ANC 1 J C U C A M O PItJS( C9n:aC t ^9 i�pnNnD !i'Y�S.On JI j7141989-1 861 Ic, Lnai inspection -� 4. !te .tor cenamt utflfzing over 5,000 square feet of leased floor area and is part of a chain with C,or "sore store locations are exempted from the letter style re uiremants and is subject to individual review by city Planning s" f. 5. In the event of a minimum storefront width where a tenant ■ name is long. and will not fit within minimum size guideline as outlined hereto. The secondary copy may be two lines in height. however, the total copy height of the lines shall measure " from the top of the first line to the bottom of the second line�V" ((y" 6. Primary plus secondary (if any) copy shall be centered'"' horizontally and vertically in tanant's sign area(,). D. WINDOW AND DOOR SIGN SPECIFICATIONS For purposed of score identification, hours of business, emergency telephone, etc., tenant may place nn entrance door(*) not more than 144 square inches of white vinyl die -cut, gold leaf or decal application lettering. Individual letter height is not to exceed i ". Additional window graphics shall be subject to landlord's approval. E. DESIGNATED SIGN CONTRACTOR 1. In order to minimize the cost of signing to the tenant, to insure safe and high quality workmanship and materials, and to further provide for conformity, the landlord has designated the following sign contractor as the project sign contractors Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc. 1700 W. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813 ATTN: Marl. A. Franl' (714) 995 -9356 24La e' x- el I !oil - •�l� u Q ■ ti 7 a el I !oil - •�l� u Q ■ r. m Sax! 1= joiji)dns All co r 0 cn RHO ,i I w w■�i Ii f Ett ( S F V m i o� .v ~r� lu Gu 34y G � d -- i k^ � 4-0 n } co {0 V w w■�i Ii f Ett ( S F V m i rF 1� Y M • j4�)4 Nl 01 `✓t W i n a =IAL 4 a • i W �a & >4 riu Q c u F � � N Now CZ242 IS- 4�. �_,••a UI r �n aL T H �r �a a r W i W 3 P Z i :1 J 9y �yr Oil z OWN 1c RIO � |t ` � �} ! ! ]�- � � �, - -- - � Ali | � �3 � . ƒ \ � 9 � » c � - _ - )) 7 � b b - N , Of c, �s y Q ��N POt N;N dz7 1 HNpp F .F h t t - • Internal pedestrian systems, linking office complexes with nelgtboring commercial or office developments, should be located close to buildings and be partially covered. • Add large (13 gallon to 240 box) canopy trees to existing landscapes consistent with City standards. • On -site plant masses would assume a non-uniform arrangement. The diversity of massing types should be great enough tL --wide Interest, but kept to a level which evokes a relaxed, natural, feeling. • Water conserving Irrigation systems shall be used in all public and private landscaping. 8.2.7 signs • A sign should express an easy to read, direct message: keep It simple. Brand names of merchandise shall not be displayed. • A storefront should not have more than two signs - one primary and one secondary. The secondary sign, shall be pedestrian in scale s,td not visible from materials on Foothill Boulevard. • Signs may identify only the firm name or major enterprise on the premises on which the sign Is locat- ed. Material an Product advertislno logos of products may be Incorporat- ed within the signing but are con- sidered part of the overall allowed sign area SY • Temporary signs are regulated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign� Ordinance. • Pedestrian - oriented signs may be applied directly to the face of the building a6d may not exceed city sign area requirements.- The shape of the sign can be a positive feature. • No signs shall extend higher than the rldgellno of the structure. • Window signs shrsdd not obscure tin display area. The color of the letters should contrast with the display background. Light colored letters or gold leafed letters with dark borders are effactivn. • All buildings using rear parking lots stall clearly Identify their businesses with rear wall signage. All struc- tures shall exhibit clear address In- formation on the front facades (re- commended guideline: minimum address number site shall be b• fort a 1 story building and 100 for a 2 story building.) For night Identifi- cation, the numbers shall be Intern- ally or externally Ilt. ,Otherwise all signing shall eomply with the Rancho Cucamonga Sign Code. • Existing billboards are regulated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance and new billboards are prohibited by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance. EXHIBIT `F.' . 253 GENERAL DESIGN i :s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor acd Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB- appea o e Planning o® ss on s s oan n eny ng the developwent of 9 units on .69 acres of ld in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the east :ide of Hellman Avenue - APR: 201 - 474 -12. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning mom ss on s esolution of Denial of Tract 13579. II CHRONOLOGY: The application for Tract 13579 began on January 12, Tb1i7Wft5-a density of 14.3 dwelling units per acre (10 units) which exceeded the 14 dwelling units per acre maximum within the Medium Density designation. The application was re- submitted April 29, 1987 with 9 units and a density of 13.0 dwelling units per acre. The application was accepted as complete and acceptable for processing on June 25. 1987. Cnce accepted Tor processing, the project was scheduled for Review Committees. The Design Review Cohxmittee reviewed the project on August 6, 1987 (DRC Action Exhibit 'A'). Generally, the Committee expressed concerns regarding overall density of the site and suggested the elimination of a unit; that appropriate 'landscaping be provided to screen adjacent properties, as well as to enhance building architecture; that additional architectural treatment be added to the north and south ends of the buildings and to include vertical retie' to the roof line. The applicant did not wish to lower ov —all site density, and proposed to mitigate Design Review Committee ancerns by concentrating on upgrading landscaping, adding a 2 x 10 trim detail to the ends of the building and lowering the roof line of each end unit 120. On the Design Review Consent Calendar agenda of October 8, 1987, the Committee suggested an additional 12` break in the roof line, and staff indicated that many of the plant materials indicated on the Landscape Plan were either inappropriate for our climate or were planted in areas that would not allow free growth. Q5G CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: ENV ASSESS A TT 13579 - AYCUP February 17, 1988 Page 2 The project was then forwarded to the Planning Coomission due to the fact that the applicant was not amenable to towering site density and had addressed other Design Review Committee concerns. 3 The applicant had hoped to mitigate other concerns to the extent •� that the density would then be justified. The Commission, on October 14, 1987, (Planning Commission Minutes, Exhibit 'C') expressed concerns about general site density, extensive amounts of hardscape, lack of open landscaped area and suggested that the .yplicant work further through Design Review Committee to address the problem. At Design Review Committee on October 22, 1987, (ORC Acti -)n - Exhibit 'D'). the Committee more specifically stated that this site did not seem suited for the maximaR density in this cone due to.r- size and neighborhood character. The 2 -1/2 story building at the street frontage would be incompatible with the Hellmaa Avenue streetscape and suggested that the structure be reduced to 1 -1/2 story height, as well as possible deletion of a unit. Again, an December 17, 1987, the Committee reviewed this project. At this time, the applicant had produced a revised Site and Landscapt Plan that reflected the elimination of the Fire Department secondary emergency access. The Fire Chief had agreed to the elimination of the access if both buildings were to be completely fire sprinklered. This allowed the Site Plan more open space at the north and south ends of the westerly building for landscaping, berming and screening of the large ends of the structure. The revised Site and Landscape Plan was basically all the Committee was presented that evering. They requested that the a•chitecture, site planning and landscaping be presented to them as a whole, prior to forwarding the project back to the full Planning Co®ission. Meanwnile, the appplication had been a continued public hearing at the Planning Commission. The original hearing of October 14, 1987 was continued to November 10, November 25 and then January 13, 1988. On January 13, 1988, the Planning Commission directed staff to include a Resolution of Denial for the January 27, 1988 hearing. The project had been continued numerous times and unless the applicant had completed the Design Review process by then, the Commission would consider acting on the Resolution. The applicant did submit revised plans on January 14, 1988, and had been placed on the February 4, 1988 agenda for Design Review Committee consideration. The revised package primarily constituted a change to the Grading Plan that lowered the westerly building approximately 2.5 feet. With additional bcrming along the streetscape, the applicant hoped to bring down the scale of the building with respect to Hellman Avenue. However, the Grading Plan proposed using a sump pump to pump drainage water off the site, 10-149 '•r CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: ENV ASSESS a TT 13579 - AYOUB February 17, 1988 Page 3 which was rejected by the Grading Committee. Staff's opinion was that lowering 2.5 feet of a 1 30' tall structure did not achieve the effect that the Commission and Design Review Committee continued to_ express regarding site density and Hellman Avenue streetscape. III. COMMISSION FINDINGS: On January 27, 1988, the Planning Commission concluded the pubM hearing with respect to this project and acted on the Resolution of Denial. The Commission determined that the project as proposed would be contrary to goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Development Code for the following reasons: 1. The Optional Development are provided to allow ( designated density rang achieve a superior quell of such projects. The sl beyond that Mitch is be and buf•'ers from low( Application, as contempt units per acre. The ex' east is at a density of remaining neighborhood I units per acre. The P1 density of the site as adjacent properties. ^ds within the Development Code ent at the higher end of -the. �;.. !se standards are intended to compatihility for developments and expectations are above and requlred to ensure transitions nse residential uses. The is a density of 13.0 dwelling mlti- family develocment to the telling units per acre with the density range of 2 -4 dwelling Commission determined that the :ed is not compatible to the 2. The project, as proposed, does not provide a gradual transition from one land use to another, but insteed proposes a sharp contrast. As an 1nfill site, this project must reflect the character of the overall neighborhood. The Hellman Avenue neighborhood character is that of low - profile single family residences which is not reflected in the 30•foot tall by 79- f3ot long building located at the Hellman Avenue street frontage. 3. The project, as proposed, does not relate the mass and scale of the building proportionally to the site size, street setback and open space. The 3D-foot tall x 79 -foot long building is located at the minimum street setback allowed. Larger buildings such as this require more setback area for a balance of scale with the adjacent single family uses. The landscaped open space on the project site is basically limited to the front setback and the rear 20 feet of the site. The open spice does not appear to be an integral part of the project, designed to enhance building design, as well as public views on the site. Many of the landscape planters that are intended to buffer large building walls o+ adjacent properties are 3 feet or 4 feet in width which may inhibit plant growth. �Ss 4. s k ,:.Y• _ u®ii� �5y4a `Y .`'>�4: �v.+c�,' -� .. . ; 'Y.:. °Lr- iliY+iX CITY COUNCIL STAFF'REPORT - PI: ENV ASSESS 6 Ti' 13579 - AYOUB February 17, 1988, Page 4 4. The architectural character of the project as proposed does not promote the Planning= Commission's expectations of superior quality based an the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of,the Development Code and Genera?` Plan. --The structure is _ basically block-'in form frith little variation in roof outline. - The height, 30, feet, and-,bulk are not representative of the hollman avenue streetscape.,_ 5. The ultimate density allowed within any residential density range shall be determined through the Development Review process and public hearings. =The Planning Commission, having the right of discretionary, approval, - determined that this _ project did not provide the proper transition between land use districts nor compatibility with adjacent residenti4lf development. Attached for your review is the Planning Commission staff report for October 14, 1987 outlining the project as reviewed by the Commission that evening. All pertinent staff reports, minutes and Design Review Committee action has also be included to review the progress of tha. project between October 14, 1987 and January 27, 1988. Rj 'y icte1, rCier BB:DM:ko Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - DRC Action of August 6, 1987 Exhibit 08' - Planning Commission Staff Report of October 14, 1987 Exhibit 'C' - Planning Commission Minutes of October 14, 1987 Exhibit 'D' - DRC Action of October 22, 1987 Exhibit 'E' - Planning Commission Staff Report of January 27, 1988 and Resolution of Denial No. 88-13 Exhibit 'F' - Planning Cmmission Minutes of January 27, 1988 Exhibit 'G' - Applicant's Letter of Appeal DESIGN REVIE1i CINICUS IT 13579 - Ayoub PAM t b. I97 I 3. The applicant is proposing composition shingle roofing. It has been the policy of the Planning Commission to upgrade the roof material to concrete tile. Design RWW CJRNittee Action: %�,•- Members Present: Bruce Emerick, Brad Buller, pan Coleman - ,r Staff Manner: Debra Meier The Committee determined that the project required site plan and architectural revisions prior to being forwarded to the Planning_" ` Commission. The specific concerns wen: 1. The site design is very tight. It does not alleq sufficient perimeter lanoscaped arts or adequate landscaping along the ,- ends of the b:iildtngs. Somc alternatives may be to yyaim emergency access to the north through the Alta Moods project or eliminate a unit, 2. Provide an appropriate landscape screen along the east propdrty line to achieve screening for the pool area from the Alta Wood project adjacent. 3. The ends of each building need additional architectural treatment, Sou suggestions disrissed at the meeting included: a. Use of siding materials on these elevations. b. Gradient change in color from upper and lower levels of building. C. Brings 4. the balconies around the cones of the d. Sou form of stucco triming details. <. It would also be desirable to fdd interest to the roof 11" with changes to ridge location, or some vortical relief such as bringing the roof lower at the ends of the buildings. S. The Planning Comission policy has been to v grada ail roof material to concrete tile. Fo: this parti.ular project the suggesticn was flat black tile. EMSEVA ago riv ■ nrmv nn n I Wn I A vnvn STAFF REPORT �,�� <s O Lew iFS z DATE: October 14, 1987 : »7 TO: Chairs. +a and Kembers of the Planning Commission FR0M: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Debra Meier, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB. aw - am y res en a oeve opmen conpr s ng units on 0.69 acres of land is the Medium Residential District (6-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 325 feet north of 19th Street - APH: 201- 474 -12. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the subdivision map, conceptual T D plan conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, and building elevations for the development of 9 townhouse units, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Project Density: 13.0 dwelling units per acre. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: or - Existing own omes; dium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Existing Single Family Residences; Medium Residential (8.14 dwelling units per acre) East - Existing Townhomes; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Existing Single Family Residences; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) D. General Plan Desi ,'Lions: Project e - e um es dential (8.14 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8.14 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) E. Site Characteristics: The site slopes from north to south at apprax ma e y a percent grade. The parcel contains an existing single family residence and accessory structures which will be removed. Also, two trees will be removed, a 24 inch diameter cedar and a 24 inch diameter pine. ?6l ITEM I t PLANNING COMMISSIi .MiF` REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 135/9 - AYOUB October 14, 1987 Page 2 F. Parking Calculations: Type ' of Use 9 three - bedroom units (2.0 x 9) (0.25 x 9) Total II. ANALYSIS: Number of Number of Spaces spaces Required Provided 18 18 enclosed 2.2 3 open vI A. General: The townhouses are designed in three levels, two s tTs -of living space over a two -car garage. The units are., ' -• provided within two buildings. Private open space for each unit consists of entrance patio and two rear balconies. On- site amenities are clustered to the rear portion of the site, including pool, spe, sun deck, tot lot and open play area. 8. Design Review Committee: fie project was preser d to the Ues gu ev ew amm ee rick, Buller, Coleman) on August 6, 1987. The Committee determined that various architectural and site plan revisions were necessary. The specific concerns were: 1. Comittee's Concern: The site design is very tight and does not allow sufficient perimeter landscaped area or adequate landscaping along the ends of the buildings. Some alternatives may be to gain emergency access to the north through the Alta Woods project or eliminate a unit. Applicant's Response: The applicant did try to gain emergency access to the north onto the Alta Woods townhooe project. The Homeowner's Association for the project denied his request. Rather than delete a unit, the applicant is concentrating on all the specific problems related to the denseness of the site as described in items 2 and 3. The applicant added two Maple trees to each end of the building adjacent to Hellman. However, the planter depth is too small for trees and a tall the shrub, such as Podocarpus is suggested. 2. Committee's Concern: " Provide an appropriate landscape screen along the east property line to achieve private screening for the pool area from the Alta Wood project adjacent. PLANNING COMIISSII TIFF REPORT TENIATIYE TRACT 13si9 - AYOUB October 14, 1987 Page 3 Applicam's Response: The landscape area along the north and east edge of the pool and deck area now contains a continuous screen of trees on t 15 foot centers. The trees proposed are Naple. Staff suggests using a species more adaptable to our climate. Liquidambar or Sycamore could provide a similar appearance and are better suited for drought tolerance. 3. Comrlttee's Concern: The ends of each building need additional architectural treatment. Some suggestions - discussed at the meeting included: a. Use of siding materials on these elevations. b. Gradient change in color from upper and lower levels of building, c. Bringing the balconies around the corners of the building. d. Some form of stucco trimming details. Applicant's Response: The applicant has provided vertical wood siding with a horizontal 2 x 10 trim piece at each floor level. The siding is painted, carrying out the blue -grey color range of the desired Cape -Cod theme of the project. 4. Committee's Concern: It would also be desirable to add interest to the roof line with changes in ridge location, or some vertical relief such as bringing the roof lower at the ends of the buildings. Applicant's Response: The roof line of the end units has been dropped 12 inches below the middle portion of the building. S. Committee's Concern: The Planning Commission policy has been to upgrade all roof material to concrete tile. For this particular project the suggestion was slate colored flat tile. Applicant's Response: Roof material proposed is now concrete tile. C. Technical Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the project and a erm ne d that with e recommended standard conditions of approval and special conditions as provided to the attached Resolution, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and Ordinances. X103 ' -F. •w' "s'.'v%v.z`+�1W +°lf s- ." ... �7 - . ..7 �,� +'.'�,ty`. 4,�+ >. .v .. .✓ r. 4L" PLANNING COMMISSIi TAFF. REPORT - 7- NTATIVE TRACT.13b /9 - AYOUB October 14, 1987 Page 4 D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial +Study has been cu§91cccu DY tne OPPlIcAnz. Staff has completed Part,11 "of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant impacts on. the environment as a result of this project.,, III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS:' The project•is consistent „with the Oevelopient "de ana Me tieneral plan, and rill not be`,detrimental;to ' ayacent' properties, or cause significant' impacts. "The ppro o.'adt:use, building design and subdivision,- together with all regoamiended ” renditions of approval, are in compliance with applicable regulations of the Development Code. - IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing V-5-e-M-Try—Report newspaper, the property posted, vnd notices were seem o a property owners within 300 feet of the project: ` V. RECOMNENJATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve -Te-nT&Ilve Tract 13579, subject to the conditions of apSrc,eal, through adoption of the attached Resolution and tssuatre of a Negative Declaration. ' Res uily s matted, 9 1 City anner BB.DM:te Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Location Map Exhibit 'B' - Site Plan /Tree Removal Plan Exhibit 'C' - Tree Removal Permit Exhibit 'O' - Conceptual Landscaping Plan Exhibit 'E' - Prellminery Grading Plan Exhibit 'F' - Fire Department Circulation Exhibit 'G' - Bulldiny Elevations Exhibit 'H" - moor Plan Resolution of Approval w-,'th Conditions s, a(Dy i s t 1 �w� ■ ■ C �SFR) HIGHLAn) AVE. �a P ACY"1C ✓!• r5FR) R- 1.850Q. (SFR) I - _. -- .- . —_ _L R-1-8500 PROJECT ( vccanT) LOCATION I (conmm,rnums) R -3 -T I t ninETFZF:nTH ST. R -I INURTH CITY OF RAINCHO CUC.-M IO \GA TITLE- 4 10 17 PLANNING DIVISION I- EXIMT, 4 SG \LE, }�77. +J:- ti i4 'tlik i,t:Y� � i-� -••1,r 4 �Nice• -` j 1 •��1�• •wrr• er � v�i ..�} 1 t _ 44 LL 9 r, "' n 19 J _ .i r. SITE PLAN a •�i �. w• — ••il lip j� � ,.Y •.t0 =M �A ♦ •i`w u ur .c.. -, u'r •-r„ii LUM TI V CITY OF fIFNt l, -e RANCHO /CG�em CUCL1MOrGA X15 PLfLMM DIVIWN QUA Z O Z Z Z a f-' Z W a 0 W W r� Z L Q U L- O h Z W H W Q Q. W 0 rs City of Cucamonga GENERAL INFORMATION OR MORE 'emoval'Perni't . DEVELOPMENT; ..( j Ordinance No. 276, pertaining to the preservation of trees on private property, requires that no person I remove or relocate any woody plants In excess of fifteen (15) feet In height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen (15) inches or more and multi-trunks having a circumference of thirty (10) inches or more (measured twenty lour (24) Inches from ground level). without (list obtlaning a Tree Removal Permit from the city. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE. 6649 Hallman Ave. _ i NAME. ADDRESS. TELEPHONE OF APPLICANT: Richard Avoub. 6649 Hellman Ave i I U ;a Lora .CA 91701 (714) 980 -1220 NAME ADDRESS. TELEPHONE OF PROPERTY OWNER (it other than applicant): SANE mEA50N5 FOR REtAOVAllatteeh neCes90ry sheets) Trees are rn cite proposed la_rttvon o[ Outldln ads. (SEE TENTATIVE TRACT HAP) oROFOSED METHOD OF REMOVAL. Trim crm r ac cncn av:._._ ( APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE, =` _OA7E ' ADDITIONAL FILING REQUIREMENTS app• canon shag .,:Iuce a plot plan indicating location of all tree: to cc removed end retained Tre sDer-as. number and sue of the treez to be removed shall be so deilgnated. If a 1.00 Is diseased .nan a e lien statement tram a licensed arbonst stating the nature of me disease shall be required ACTION — Evaluation of this application Is based on the criteria an the reverse aide___ - _ -- APCROVEO -- _ - -- ❑ DENIED Reasons Date NCI -.talon of appliedlWn shall be given to p prior •o approval II to appeals are received, D date of action Th -s dp: roved tree removal Pon 0, bu.Id,n3 perrut .asv..ace whichever comes Jo, per-od a ae.% permit snail be required, un dsp "ahn _a: I'. ce_mr rmNgr TraGf /3579 Tr>�,Ti�Rerr�v�a/ EXHIBIT, `/ SCAU, .. _ 1 :91 i 3 1 �laJ I �/I Vas% 1wil�� i.erJSCA'FIf.O P6d9? Out next �„•• _ CITY CF irF -kll Tr�f /. 57'4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Try:: A DIViSM EXHIE SC PLNNING hu, II �i Y �i rn rs crw GRADING PLAN 4050, � �o m4m • •• •- • Ezell i JME Yl h �I C, 0•�4 I' 1 I L:: U V Nom rrEm, ra4l �:%onF TM-E , IgN;ti EXHIBIT, SGIEs S 1 p 0 AD V, FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN LEGEND %j, CITY OF rm RANCHO CUCAMOSA Tnul PLANNM DIVISON Extiar, zQ70 c� INOKM n GARAGE ENTRY ELEVATION FRONT ENTRY ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATIONS I north oNvaUons alcnUar I CITY OF RANCHO C[JGd NKX-, Gta n AMM DIVISUN aas,Aa_ aea7.m- BUILDING SECTION - A TYPICAL ELEVATION, PROPERTY LINE BLOCK WALL —.,.— =.o r�M, Tr�Gf /35'9 �, Buildiiaq�,(eaa�ior�s MINT, SCALE- r �.. u•- -_��- yj.Fsy;iJ C C / FENCE SECTION - 2 -- units drive turnaround SITE / FENCE SECTION - 1 CITY OF RAN UM CiJCAMONCA PLANNQJC D[VEM a7-- V V '-MT'H n I M. -rj 13579 mu i/diisA E,�a�fion 5 EXHE4 4QZ SCALE: -._,E street -'""' unit alley unit w -- �- --� setback "' " — setback / FENCE SECTION - 2 -- units drive turnaround SITE / FENCE SECTION - 1 CITY OF RAN UM CiJCAMONCA PLANNQJC D[VEM a7-- V V '-MT'H n I M. -rj 13579 mu i/diisA E,�a�fion 5 EXHE4 4QZ SCALE: -._,E Mr ) 1 ) aARAa! L!V!L Zy I� . veo -- FlRBwT FLOOR LEVEL" • ■? : ass £XHLVIT- SCALE, mozol. i fl. n. r H. TEL El NSIO��HODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR r s on o'F= nto 14 acres at parcels -within-11W-Ni nlmum Impact Heavy re In ustrial n a (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Arrow to Rou`e, east an west of Milliken Avenue . APN 229- 111 -23. VE Sf Barrye Hanson, Senior toil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened t public hearing. Hr. Robert Sandstrom, rep eating Williams and Schmidt, questioned the a undergrounding of 66KY ltres. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Eng ear, clarified that the undergrounding xi1 of the 66KY was not being reques d but the single strand comnication wire for the 66KY line can he un rgrounded and this is what is being requested to be undergrounded. M� Mr. Sundstrom stated they will not dis rce with the added modifications cf the conditions for the time extensio � Chairman AcN1e1 closed the public hearing. r Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the re lutlon with the approval of the applicant to include the undergrou 1ng of the utilities. Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion, Lion carried by the following vote: AYES: CHITIEA, EHERICY., BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTO NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE I ENVIRONKENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB - A ma - am y residential deve opmen comps s ng o units as 69 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 325 feet north of 19th Street - APR 201- 474 -12. Debra Meter, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned whether the perimeter walls match the adjoining developments and if there is a decorative finish on the front porch walls. She did not feel cinder block in the front was not appropriate, it should have a matching stucco cover and a cap and be consistent on the interior within the project itself. She stated she is Planning Commission tlinutes -6- October 14, 1987 particularly concerned with the front portion with a decorative finish and feels that stucco would be most appropriate. Chairman Mcniel opened the public hearing. Hr. Richard 110, owner of the project, stated he is in agreement with the staff report. He agreed with Commissioner Chitiea's recummendation about putting up cinder block and stuccoing it. Chairman McHiel closed the public hearing. Commimaaoner Slakesley axpressea his concern about the amount of hardscape and drive between the two buildings and the sound attenuation. He was concern-24 them is very little room for landscaping Commissioner Tolstoy stated that sow language be gut in the requiresents so that the wall situation is taken tarn of to the satisfaction of the City Planner. In his opinion. Hr. Tolstoy stated-he-- did not feel it was a very good project as the developer has tried to ove• develop the piece of property. Comissioner Chitiea expressed her concerns rogardinr the massive amount of hardscape in relation to the landscape. Also the balconies extend right over the asphalt and this woWd not seem to be appealing as the asphalt generates a great deal of heat. Commissioner Emerick commented an the lack of landscaping that grows upright to the sky and the expansive concrete to the south. He is also concerned about the emergency fire access to the north which means there will be no landscaping In that access. It 011 be open for fire truck access. He would like to see the intensity of use dropped and the design reviewed with a little sore lardscapinl. Commissioner Chitiea stated the site plan atd the landscaping needs to be readdressed but the basic concerns regarling the architectual issues have been mat. Brad Buller, City Planner, summarized the major concerns of the Commission stating the amount of handscape that abuts the property, especially to the south and along the alleyway of the driveway to the garages. Staff would work with the applicant cn increasing the width of the planted areas to allow some more significant landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Mr. Buller and reiterated that there was just too much project for the property. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the north and south faces of the building closest to the street as wail as the interior alleyway court faces of the project could be softened through landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 14, 1987 -�7S Mr. Richard continuance of this Ayoub, itemplicant, indicated he would agree with the Chairman McKie) reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick moved to continue this project to the November 10, 1987, 4:00 p.m., and in the interim refer it to Design Review for further comment and review. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EKERICK, TOLSTOY, 8LAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • f f � � t -- carried 8:07 P.N. -- Planning Commission Recessed 8:22 P.N. -- Planning Commission Recon•iened J. EAIORMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 87 -02 - CITY Ur KRK6MV 6U6NUKUA - M amenament to the Bevel opme—nt-Cc e o re o ant o ucamonga Ordinance 211, to revise Section 17,12.040 pertalnin to upgrade of parking allocation standards and to require enclosed ga ges for all apartment and condominium projects; and, to revise Secti 17.08.090 pertaining to upgrade of General Design Guidelines for arking areas In multiple family developments; and, to revise Sect n 17 .040 pertaining to upgrade of minimum residential unit s e. Alan Warren, Associate Pla. er, presented the staff report. Chairman McN1el opened the pub c hearing. 1 Mr. Stephen Ford re resentative the William Lyon Company, addressed the Issue of tie 000 minimum are footage as proposed in the resolution. The 1,000 square foot mi mum is applicable to any single family del ^hed unit regardless of the land use designation that it would be constructed in. They have a s ng concern about the 1,000 square foot minimum in Lox - Medium or Me categories. Victoria Planned Community has a number of single fa y projects in the Low- s and Medium categorl and a number of prof s have been built well under 1,000 square feet. Their best sellfn home is 917 square feet. Setting the 1 000 square foot minimum incre es the tests of a single family detached home that could be on a 3,000 - ,000 square foot lot enough that it would eliminate the opportunities r that type of home ownership which is most desirable to the market plat This would be inconsistent with the goMls of good housing practice. Planning Cortssion Minutes -8. October 14, 1987 a7(, x . -w a DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS � 6:00 Debra October 22, 1587 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB - A multi- eve apment coxp s ng un on acres of land the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) — located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 325 feet north of 19th - Street - Apm: 201- 474 -12. ` s Design Review Coomittee Action: r �• - Members Present: Bruce Eimerfck, Dan Coleman, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Debra Meier ' This project was reviewed at the October 14, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, at that hearing the Commission determined that the present site design did not meet the design goals of the Development Code or the Genoral Plan and continued the hearing to November 10, 1987 to- time time for site design revisions. - , The Design Review Committee expressed the specific concerns as follows: 1. Although this project is in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) the committee felt that this particular site was not suitable, due to size and neighborhood character, for maximum density of this zone. 2 The 21% story building at the streetscape is not compatible to the surrounding single family character along Hellman Avenue. 3 Because of the density of the site there is a large percentage of hardscape and not adequate areas for planting of significant sized landscape materials. The Committee prov #:td direction to the applicant for the following reconnended revisions: 1. Delete one unit from the building facing Hellman Avenue. This would lower the density from 13 dwelling units per acre to 11.6 dwelling units per acre. 2. Scale down the height of the building facing Hellman Avenue to a maximum lls story height. The building design should reflect a large single family home. 3 To soften the appearance of the entry patios the Committee Suggested using a hedge rather than the block wall to define the patio area. 4 The site design of the Heitman Avenue frontage should include additional landscaping along the driveway and at the north and south building elevations, along with a bermed, landscaped streetscape DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT tq k 4 O y 2 NCO January 27, 1988 ti4n Chairman and Members of the Planning COMISSion Brad Buller, City Planner Debra Meier, Asseciate Planner ENYIRONMf:rYAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13579 - AYOUB mu _ m y res n a eve opmenx compr s ng 0 units on 69 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the APM: side of Hellman C (Continued from January Of 13, 988) - I. BACKGROUND: As mentioned in previous staff reports, this item has S ` re-e-n-Urr-ou—Sh a series of continuances beginning with October 14, 1987. At the last meeting, January 13, 1968, the Planning Cpomissi haddirnotod been staff sutettted include fo Resopllanning f CMISSion consideration. The applicant did subaft a set of revised plans on January dsdletteconstraints, DesigReview Cc®ittee is n tcheu torviewth selans until February a, 1988. Per Planning Co ®fission direction, the Resolution of Denial is included• however, the project is scheduled for Design Review Committee rev ?ew February 4, 1988, if it is the Commission's desire to proceed with processing of the revised plans. Respectyl ly su mf teem it irad 8 r / City Pl ner BB:OMAO Attachments: Staff Raport of October 14, 1987 Resolution of Denial Jik%4�'"r... -.r r '-' • rQW ,�y;Y,e,:�u � � ,Q,y._ „�� _ ... .,�.,. �;. X._ r - `�- a3.,4'.',�f..�v,,.q.� 01 1 RESOLUTION NO. 88-13 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING,COMIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENYING NITHOUT'PREJUDICE TO REFILE THE TENTATIVE TRACT---NO. - 13579, A MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EWAtSED OF 9 UNITS ON 0 .'69 ACRES OF. LAND IN t THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (6 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER a ACRE), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HELLMAH AVENUE;'t 325' NORTH OF 19TH STREET, AND WING FINDINGS -IN SUPPORT ;. THEREOF '�. A. Recitals. - " (i) Richard Ayoub has filed an application requesting the approval J of Tentative Tract No. 13579 as described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request shall be referred to as the "Application.' (ii) On October 14, 1987, the Planning Commission of -tFe- my -`of Z Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticod public hearing on the Application and said public hearing was continued At the request of the applicant. (iii) On January 13, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and continued the project. The Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial should the applicant not submit a revise application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above - referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: The Application applies to approximately 0.69 acres of land within the Memun Residential District located on the east -side of Hellman Avenue, north of Nineteenth Street; 274 1 11 .e� PLANNI11G COMNISS! RESOLVrlOW No. 88 -13 RE: 7T 13579 - AYOUB Page 2 b. within a Medium ResidentialL Distr District and Is (develosubject as aitdriveway nand landscaped area accessing the Alta Woods Townhouse development to the east of the subject site. The property to the south is located within a Medium Residential District and contains an existing single family residence. The Property to the east is located within the Medium Residential District westltsel ated within the Low ResidentiailOtstrlct and lsltur ntly developed with single family residences. c. The nine dwelling units of 1391.83tsquare feetmoflivingparea or each unpimt. The total square footage of building area on the site (fncludinS garages) is 15,966.18. Amenities include swimming pool, spa, barbeque facilities and tot lot. The net site density is 13.0 dwelling units per acre which is permitced using the Optional Development Standards of the Development Code. The proposed nine dwelling units is the maxfmm number of units that could be allowed within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). d. The Application as contemplated would be contrary to the goals and objectives of both the General Plan and Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the following reasons: (i) The Optional Development Standards within the Development Code are provided to allow development at the higher end of the designated density range. These standards are Intended to achieve a superior and11expectationsaarelaboveoandebeyonnddnthat which isobasicallyThrequiedrto ensure transitions and buffers from lower intense residential uses. The Application, as contemplated has a density of 13.0 dwelling units per acre. The existing multi - family development to the east is at a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acres with the remaining neighborhood in the density range of 2 -4 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission determined that the density of the site as proposed is not compatible to the adjacent properties. transition from oneiland Buse jtoot,another, pobut, Instead not proposes aagrsharp contrast. As an infill site, this project must reflect the character of the lowr profilegsingle I residences which is of reflected In is that of ofamilyevngh character the 30 -foot tall by 79 -foot long buildng located at the Hellman Avenue street frontage. and scale of the Dulldi) The project, as proposed, does not relate the mass Open space. The 30 -footp tallrtxo 79-foot t to the longs building is street setback and at the setback minimum area for a balance afescale with the fadjacentusingle amity require ses. more landscaped open space on the project site is basically limited to the front setback and the rear 20 feet of the site. The open space does not appear to be an integral part of the project, designed to enhance building design, as well as public views On the site. Many of the landscape planters that are intended to buffer large ouliding walls or adjacent properties are 3 feet or 4 feet in width which may inhibit plant growth. 280 PLANNING COMMISSI' RESOLUTION NO. 88 -I3 RE: TT 13579 - A,. D Page 3 (iv) The archittctural character of the project as proposed does not promote the Planning Commission's expectations of superior quality on the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the with little variatl n ineroofpoutline. The height, 30 feet, and bulk am not representative of the Hellman Avenue streetscape. density range shall( be de The through the Development hRevieeww precesstand public hearings. The Planning Commission, having the right of discretionary approval, determined that this project did not provide the proper transition between land use districts nor compatibility with adjacent residential development. 3. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Application, as proposed, is not in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. n the 1, 2 and 3, above,dthis Commission9he b and cd niesiwithout prejudiceptoarrefile the Application. S. The Rancho Cucamonga shallucertify to the adoption of this Resolution. the City of APPROYEJ AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: mil. h1f ksZY arry , airman ATTEST: ram buller,- e0 putt' Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wis 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 27th day of January, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES- COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, CHITEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY i.. i. MV--T FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIROIKHTAL ASSESSIiEMT AND TENTATIVErrppTRACT 13579 - AYOUB - A L-n of lad 1n theaMedium Re�sidenNalrDisUHct (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hallman from January 325 north of 19th Street - APN: 201- 474 -12. (Continued from January 13, 1988). Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned staff as to what yps of changes had been made. Foothill Fire District was Debra Haler requiring has snow been elisinated with the condition that the buildings be fire sprinkled which the developer has agreed to do. They have eliminated the access and moved the building to the north to :take_ advantage of the extra space. The building size and site density remain unchanged. A few minor changes were made erchitectually, including wood sldiny and stucco detailing. The size and the scale of the structure is identical. commissioner Tolstoy stated in the last review of this project in Design Review Committee, that' saw the elimination of the fire lane access so atithest really them the u11dirg height was of scale with the nelghborhwd of one story single family homes across the street. This building was 30 feet high and it was asked of the applicant to address this in a design change and it doesn't appear that the applicant did so. The next reflect the�kind iof project hange thelcom1 sion is Design ooking fore it Debra Maier stated it would not reflect any changes to the bulk or height of the building. Chairman McMiel rpened the public hearing. Mr. operty, Lynch, taU•d the developerlhastaddressed four issues ineordertoto meet the object ves and the concerns of the Design Review Committee. At that pe ception was of the height o�finthe the buildingtand how iticoul but could be changed or modified and the softscape be enhanced so to minimize any visual properties. Mr. that stated Mr. construed on presented those adjoining issues to the Design Review Committee and an additional one greatly enhancing the softscape of this facility incorporated orated lnuldtha substantial number of trees, shrubbery, D site. The perception from the frnr..t of the property would be extremely softened in its also be utilized iinal characteristics softening the cperception a frmthe front o would f the Planning Commission Minutes -5- ,� sa January 27, 1988 t 1.1:1 ^ }•� 3 i'QF: Licr.s_c.0 • ,.:J i^'::.5s .r..iiLY itrgot. Hr. submitted to the h6 Grading Committee, is facility by they lcould Incorporate the lowering of the height of the building four feet lower Into the ground which brings additional relief. The coloration of the facility was incorporated to be harmonious with the adjoining propu'ties. The roadway is now a meandering sidewalk with landscaping which precluded for eme 9 ncy accesss to because che rear of the roperty. department WkInting this r. Lynch stated that all the buildings would be fire sprinkled. Yith the res}oval of the emergency access lane, the develcper an move the building and provide for lush tnahi units anl bedrooms o serve families where landscaping. rensnd children anejoy� facilities. bothlthheerend units They have clanged the roofnline to give sdvissuual I have Zmet with alllthe concerns of relief the De ign view building. feel they 6u�ding nerfourifeet hquestion they drain developer was lo+nring the y Mr. lynch stated Mr. Ake had met with Otto Kroutil, Deputy Cilnner. and the drainage would be provided through a sump pump operation. This has gone before that ComaiLtee�ttee but the developer had not heard the Debra Meier stated that the Building and Safety Division is not supporting the use of the sump pump and it was Ms. Meier 's recollection that the building was not lowered quite four feet. Planning Division's opinion was that the building was not lowered enough to make the architectural statement that Building and Safety felt much more sitronglytabout hissthanaPlanning pump. commissioner Chitiea questioned if the developer was familiar with the flooding problem on the Hellmann? Mr. Lynch responded to a:sd quested by ®staff and the rdeveloperahas hgonevbeyond that by adding a tremendous amount of softscape. Coommitteeconeuof the possibilities discussed w that as ift the ebedroomsRcoe d be put in the front of the building which would obviously help to lower the building. The architect for this project stated this would put the building dawn onetheesite and raise aise the berm up forvvis al impact. the Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner 7olstoy stated that one of the times the Design Review Committee first reviewed this project, he had stated at that time that he felt the developer was trying to overdevelop the ppiece of property he with project some changes mshadnbe no made second useable Planning Commission Minutes 6- _ - . --...11anuary 27, 1988 iav" I J:- eFU.: f rr•C)Ft DncucsiCPu ONLY space but the height of the building has always been a concern. This has been talked about at two Design Review Committee meetings. The house across Helloen are the houses Comaisaioner Tolstoy 1s cOncereed with, rgency ccssoceatanly east helps b ffer the project f elimination east,'but the scale of the pm.wt from the streetscape, which is Hellman Avenue, has not been is just too much project addressed. r this piiece of land. a y r°iterafad Commissioner Emerick stated he concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy's ccmments and also stated his concern with the building silhouette from the street. Commissioner Emerick stated ht agreed with the resolution of denial in that it is not keeping with the residential character across the street. Commissioner Chitien agreed that building mass and scale is a sericus problem with this project as well as the potential flooding problem. Ullman Avenue is probably the worst street in the City for flooding and to allow a devclopment on this street below street level is unreasonable. To send this project back to Design Review is not going to oathiedoer u t of prejudice so the developer can spend the amount time required to do the project without having to wait a year to refile. Otherrise, she cannot support the project. Chairman McNiel stated essentially the same problems harp arisen but the basic problem it that there 1s just too much project for this piece of property and it is inappropriate. Commissioner Emerick moved to deny without prejudice the project, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, IC.HIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY * * * * * * -- carried E. ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMLKl Amu ILKWITL 1e 1 aoic. res• en a su v s on o s ng a am y lots on o and 1n the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner or Carralian Street and Highland Avenue - APN: 201- 214 -11. (Continied from January 13, 1988). Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report - Chairman McHlel opened the public hearing. Planning Comission Minutes -1- January 27, 1988 X84 eI •!if)VACO 'DEVELOPMENT aaaaa�aaaao„ amaaaaavauavuavasaaaaavaveauauauavavvcaa '�'� - 6649 Neilson Aventiet Alta Lana, California 91701 - (714) 980 -1220 JPVARY 29, 1988 -e a eew.3 L01 Cli, l -LE°A 432x• 'C' EA:E LINE ROAD F44:00, '- LCArW4 A,CA 91703 I he-eby orpoat the actt•n of b•o roemissicr on = altative trick _oeetaG on the Best side cf Hsll ^an Ar,ana_o, 325, north of lZtn Serer. The bests of this appeal is sa (011]Mmi 11 1 have substa ^tislly modified Ma proposed pr:loct is 4•4969t8d at weri.er Design Review Coaslttea Aeetings. 23 The esuittng modified Project r 11 benefit the arav %Ad (;;estly e^navco properties along lnllcan Avenue. 31 rho teig�t and appearance of the building, :u;Po ^es to t'is other devalcpea propart:ea to the Nortt and Cost. L 'he pr-pcsed project carfo ^as tr ewv eieaent cf *he =anchr A :a^arga reveiepaent :odes. city, County, e^id Fire Itars'al cr•Gas. 51 The Peaten Feview Committee did not .Of2l&t& final 'sv.eN ' the -evisea Pro)rct. 63 at tie nearing, of November 2511, 1937, the 0.•mm,asion stated t] epresentatises of the Cosign Psview Coestttee, that Me reign of the builung was rot or issue, at that time. 71 The olanri-g Comeissi:n was gtaen or ors„us info, +at!;r b, staff -agar r.9 the above ltlns. 33 The-s are no adverse taprcts, to othe• properties yr their too, w the same 10" Or viclnit. Respectfully Submitted, A E 0 1 8 Er D CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA ADMINISTRATION JAN 2 81988 Riche 7 P. Ayoub ` w Mme ^'0svo:tcer 7181911�j>�l�f8t�iQj8 :.tea Jacv radfen U.• - 1i�"�"'�- ;�.6y� *etc,' Lyn :h Ake ,ate AMOART OF KULIA RANUM'DIVISION 3A oo mail cl ark for the City af Rancho:! Cucmmga do hereby zwear that on, approx1mately o'clock Cucm Ogam dasiUd lwtfto'l' viri;ce•loutad 4-N-o"W"UnIted s at 9607 ftusinaftz. Center drive, a letter addressed to and'regarding V-Ac Signed: VAI, oats: (num REnu wm slaumwE) A WTICE OF IN6 CITY C)ULCIL The I ° Cucamonga itj, Council 166 at�the Licn51 park public Comnity Building considerathe161 easingiEescribed project(s): ^Ra, California 91730. to ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13879 ° - Ao aJ nt o`f 9aunits o a t nson s s on enY n4 on .64 oand 1n the Medium Residential D1strle (9-14 duelling units re), lowied on the east side of Hellman Avenue, 325 feetnorth of Street - APN: 201- 474 -12. Aryone having cuncens or Pp7qq7��estions on any of the above item are welcome t Located to he City Annna Division n at B. 989-1861 or visit the Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at to thea oven d gc ibed ion City may Rancchio Cucamonga prior ppriornto said tin meeg. etin 5 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council ae "A A:A{a ti'tG 'CITY OF RANCHO Cl CAINONGA �`. - BTAFF. REPORT ' "'' DATE: February 17, 1g88 Y T0: City Council and City Manager ., °A FROM: Russell M. Maguire, City Engineer ' Judy Acosta, Junior Engineering Aide gy; SUBJECT: ORDERING 8705 AND CUPK87 III -07 q(INDUSTRIAL /COMMERCIAL TU LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3 f RECOMMUDATION: - . It is recommended that City Ccmc11 aDPreve the attached resolution ordering the District w k In connection 3 and itng the Engineer's Report Landscape',,. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Attached for City Council approval 1s a resolution ordering the work In ipe fornDR181- 05LandnCUP 87 -07 o(Industrial/ Commercial)enannc1eeDdevatopers of the subject developments have been notified of the public hearing by Mail. tentatively he approved byresolutionn also88 -034 approves the Engineer's Report Respectf submitted, RNM:• :diw Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 9'3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN'JNGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND r.: ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR DR 87 -05 AND CUP 87 -07 -tic y WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 20th day of January, 1908, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 88 -035 to }••, order the thereto described work in connection with Annexation No. 13 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3, which Resolution of Intention No. 88 -035 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by ' fate shown by the office of Affidavit of Clerk; uba i n of said Resolution of Intention on s.. WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said y1 Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement•, was duly and legally posted in the time, form, manner, ocation, and ntnber as required by law, —as <a appears from ,e Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of the City Clerk; and i� WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 88 -035, according to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on tale in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence, oral and dggocumentary, concerning the Jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning therefrom candasaid for the City Councicontemplated aving now acquired jurisd benefits iction to order the proposed work. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation to the District and the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby orders that the wr:k, as set forth and describes in said Resolution of Intention No. 88 -035, be gone and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer siT�y finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it further resolved that the assessments and method of assessmen n ie ngineer's Report are hereby approved. SECTION 4: Be it finally resolved that said assessments shall not begin unt a er 0 percent of said tracts have been occupied. r 14 ,yG di as9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 ANNEXATION NO. 13 for DR 87 -05 and CUP 87 -07 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Californ'i (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2, General Description This City Council has ele: "ad to annex all new developments into Landscape Maintenance District No. 3. The City Council has determined the arear•to-be - maintained will have an effect upon all the developments as mentioned above. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed developments are shown on the recorded Nap as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and landscaping are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and specifications for landscaped improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto. SECTION 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred by the District for parkway and median improvement construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers and or/by the City. Based on historical data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty ($.30) cents per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 has been demarcated into two zones. Zone 1 is comprised of Parcel Nap 7349, comprised of 8 parcels, totaling 6,057 square feet. The district was formed in October 5, 1983, for the maintenance of landscaping a detention basin and storm drain within the project. This zone will be assessed on per lot basis for the maintenance costs within the project boundary only as stipulated in the Engineer's Report for the formation of the District. X90 mi ''r; - "xis' 4y fi7r 4 .�S Zone 2 is comprised of all other projects that are being annexed or will be annexed to this District. All lots or parcAis within Zone 2 will be assessed on net acre basis for the maintenance of landscaped median islands on Wan Avenue from 4th Street to Deer Creek Channel, Foothill Boulevard and 4th Street from west to east City limit, Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue, from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard, 6th Street from Haven Avenue-to Rochester Avenue and median islands on other major divided highways and some parkways within thm Industrial Specific Plan Area and Foothill Boulevard overlay area. The estimated cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 including Annexation No. 13 is as follows. Zore 1 a Total estimated maintenance cost s� v- Assessment units Total cost - assessment unit for year and month r Zone 2 Total estimated annual maintenance area - Sq. Ft. Assessment units, acres ` Total cost # assessment Existing District $2,070 8 S2,070 - 5258.75 /year or $21.56/mo. /lot 70 Existing Annexation New District No. 13 Total 0 0 0 380,570.69 1.95 380,573 unit for year and mor.th 0 x S.30 - S 0 /year 0 /mo. /acre r@0= Ass. �'t shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and the attached ..sc:sment diagram. SECTION S. Assessment Diagram A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and labeled •Exhibit A', by this reference the diagram is hereby incorporated within the text of this report. 291 - , 1 .F �y ' SECTION 6. Assessment 7i d Improvements for the 'District are found to be of general benefit to 'all, lots within the District and that assessmart shall be equal for each parcel for Zone 1 and shall be equal to the next m:reage for each lot or parcel in Zone 2. The City Council will'nold a public hearing in June, to determine the _ actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the % r previous fiscal year which are to be recovered through assessments as'required y the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adepts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Englnrer's , Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District and sets public hearing date. 3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in May, the City Engineer Liles a report with the City Council. S. Every year to June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. r - -a [ �' �Y •�` Y^ l •�a§J..:.W'rR Y`i rM ..• r .a # r. . r .t -y +4N `z`i Properties and improvements to be included within Annexation ho. 13 (Zone 2) to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3: PROPERTIES PROJECT ACREAGE OR 87 -05 .69 CUP 87 -07 1.26 Total 1.95 yyk� IMPROVEMENT AREAS TO DE ANNEXED IN ANNEXATION N0. 1 :54 r .J(A�refaa 1 Haven Avenue 0 Foothill Boulevard 00 Milliken Avenue `? 4th Street 0 .� Rochester Avenue 0 6th Street Y i h g� y .t a93 (v = r! $1 A; ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM r, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. s ANNEXATION NO. 13 ` 6TH STREET r- f siTE .MAY 1 ri IIIb(WM .. ..� ••w S_ r - srMf• y i • °� • o� • •� t � •1 0 � A • •1 W • !I M N •I f/ M q i F M M M M •r. ��•�• M Y �f M p• ^ :1 CITY OF RANCHO Ct1CA,11101VGA �T - ENGINEERING DIVISION w T un VICINITY MAP lv p2$e , t r W �o ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 ANNEXATION NO. 13 rr�- r li •: •�% tM��s C 'RANCHO C[JCAM MA c clstLr�2L !1Z alNEERING DIVISION �T VICINITY MAP 1 �1 page rt .1 l- f� .2: qtr ; ci'�+`.rt c�'`��r tyv :'� <� ` ��. •'t:' ':.� — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 1938 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Judy Acosta, Junior Engineering Aide SUBJECT: ORDERING NEXAATION E NO I9 CONNECTION W 87 -05 ANNEXATION ANDCUP 381 07 (INDUSTRIAL /COMIERCIAL) TO TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6, RESPECTIVELY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolutions ordering the work in connection with Annexation Nos. 36 and 9 to Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, respectively, and approving the Engineer's Reports. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Attached connection owith tAnnexation allos. 36 and 9 resolutions ordering to St eet Lightin Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 87 -05 and CUP 87 -07 (Industrial /Coamercial). The developers of the subject developments have been notified of the public hearing by mail. The attached resolutions also approve the Engineer's Reports tentatively approved by Resolution Nos. 68 -036 and 88 -038. Respe tf submitted, �� r RHM.JA:dlw Attachments a i• �r 0 RESOLUTION N0. O 9 - Z)y- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCO"GA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 9 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR OR 87 -05 AND CUP 87 -07 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 20th day of January, 1988, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 88 -039 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation Ho. 9 to Stieet Lighting Maintenance District No. 6, which Resolution of Intention No. 88 -039 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required' by law, shown by the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, headed •Notice of Improvement*, was duly and legally e� posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by. -law, as t appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 88 -039, according to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed wor :. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation to the District and the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 88 -039, be done and made; and SECTION 2: The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; ana- SECTION 3: The assessments and method of assessment in the Engineer's epor are hereby approved. SECTION 4: The assessments shall not begin until after 60 percent of said trac s ave been occupied. X912 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for r= Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 Annexation No. 9 for ,a DR 87 -05) and CUP 87 -07 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirmrents of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. General Description This City Council has elected to annex all new developments into Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6. The City Council has determtned that the street light: to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within said developments as well as on the lots directly abutting the street lights. Work to be provided for witn the assessments established by the district are: The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street light Improvements on major streets (arterial and certain collector streets) as shown on the Lighting District Altas Map which is an file with the City Engineer. Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be assessed on a per unit basis. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development plan and the assessment diagraa for the exact location of the street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the illunination of the subject area. IAM Yi r'Ni SECTION 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred for street lighting improvement construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on available data, it 1s estimated that maintenance costs for assessment - r purposes will be as indicated below. These costs,are estimated only, ? actual assessments will be based on actual cost data. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 has been demarcated into two zones. Zone 1 is comprised of street light improvements on ma,ior streets for residential improvements (single featly, multi- family, condominiums and apartments) throughout the City. Each dwelling unit in this zone will be assessed as one assessment unit for the operation of •,d, the District. _ Zone 2 is comprised of all industrial, commercial and institutional proyects throughout the City. It has been determined that one acre of 5: land in industrial, commercial and institutional areas derives the some _+ benefit as two assessment units to Zone 1. The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 is shown below: ?, 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy Cost: _r no. of Lamps Lamps Annex New Lamp Lamp Size* YTD No. 9 Total r 5800L 42 2 44 9500L 2 - -- 2 c, 16,OODL - -- ... - -- s22,ODOL ... --- ... 27,SDOL --- - -- ... 'High Pressure Sodium Vapor Total Total Annual r Lamp Size Lamps Nate Mo's Maint. Cost 5800L 44 X S 8.93 X 12 $4,715.04 9500L 2 X $10.16 X 12 243.84 16,000L - -- X $12.08 X 12 0 22,000L - -- X $13.84 X 12 0 27,500 - -- X $15.31 X 12 0 Total Annual Maint. Cost $4,958.88 2. Total Assessment Units: YTO Assess Units before this annexation • 346 ' `4 Assessment Units this annex per pago 4 • 3 Total Assessment Units 349 t ■; ■e 3. Cost per Assessment Unit: Total Annual Maintenance Cost " $4,958.88 . 514.20 /year /unit no. o n s n s r c —'349 Assessment shall apply to each lot or parcel as explained in Section 6. SECTION S. Assessment Diagram Copies of the prnaosed Assessment Diagrams are attached'to this report and labeled •Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6•. Annexation No. 9. These diagrams are hereby incorporat:d within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment Improvements for the District are found to bn of general benefit to all units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each unit. When units are based on acreage, assessment will be 2 units per• _ . net acre. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineers Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex a District and sets public hearing date. 3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to form a District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council. S. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public bearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. s r; ..C„ I X- � EXHIBiT •A• Properties and Improvements to be Included within Annexation No.,9 to Street Lighting Maintenance District 6: Assess. No. of Lancs to be Annexed Project Acreage —O—nTE- Zone I Zone 2 DR 87-05 .69 1 --- --- ... --- --- CUP 87-07 1.26 2 2 --- Total 1.95 3 2 --- --- --- --- !S , jeee ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENAWCE DISTRICT NO. (o s ANNEXATION NO. h d. 6th Strest 1 " •'., CM OF RANCHO GJCAXONOA COUYTY OF SAN BUNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA N ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. & AIAEXATION NO. R a S 1 TE • �� •r Q�• ALPfNE Sr, a s +.cy,.. ! • y re 3 oq , •' n � aoa ' e ;, CPiR OF RANCHO C[JC"0103A .�� COUNTY AF 8AN BBRNARDINO STATZ OF CALUORNIA 1� T c; 6 +3 l�l 117 _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH A4NEKATION N0. 36 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTEuANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR DR 87 -05 and CUP 87 -07 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ran0c Cucamonga did on the 20th day of January, 1988, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 88 -037 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation No. 36 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention he. 88 -037 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as requirel by law, shown by the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of intention on file in the office of the City Clerk; and igiEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, headed •Notice of Improvement', was duly and legally posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by -law, as appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property proposed to ee assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 88 -037, according to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and marnar as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence, oral ono documentary, concerning the ,jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation to the District ani the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby orders that the wcrk, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 83 -037, be done mid made; and SECTION 2: The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; ane SECTION 3: The assessments and method of assessment in the Engineir'S We -port are hereby approved. SECTICB 4: The assessments shall not begin until after 60 percent of said tracts ha e been occupied. Soy t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenanco District No. I .• Annexation No. 36 for OR 87 -05 and CUF 87 -07 s e• s- SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, ' Chapter 1. Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTIOII 2. General Description ,. This City Council has elected to annex all new developments into _ Street lighting Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the street lights to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within said developments as well as on the lots directly abutting the street lights. Work to be provided for with the assessments established by the district are: The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street light Improvements on major streets (arterial and certain collector streets) as shown on the Lighting District Altas Map which is on file with the City Engineer. Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be assessed on a per unit basis. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area. .305 s Syr.• _,� "��.':; . SECTION 4. Estimated Ccsts No costs will be incurred for, street lighting improvement ' construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on mailable .data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment• purposes will be as indicated below. These costs are estimated only,_ actual assessments will be based on actual cost data, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 has been dema.'cated into two zones. Zone 1 is comprised of street light improvements on major streets for residential improvements (single family, multi - family, condominiums and apartments) throughout the City.- Each dwelling unit 4n this zone will be assessed as one assessment unit for the operation of the District. - - Zone 2 is comprised of all Industrial, coame-rcial and institutional Projects throughout the City. It has been determined that one acre of land in industrial, commercial and institutional areas derives the same benefit as two assessment units in Zone 1. _ The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 is shown below: 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy Cost: No. of Lamps Lamps Annex New Lamp Lamp Size* YID No. 36 Total 5800L 444 0 444 9500L 485 0 485 16,0001. 16 0 16 22,0001. 4 0 4 27, 50a 6 0 6 *High Pressure Sodium vapor Total Total Annual Lamp Size Lanes Rate Mo's Maint. Cost 58DOL 444 X S 8.93 X 12 $ 47,579.04 9500L 485 X $10.16 X 12 59,131.20 16,0001. 16 X $12.08 X 12 • 2,319.36 22,000L 4 X $13.84 X 12 664.32 27,500 6 X $15.31 X 12 2.939.52 Total Annual Maint. Cost $112,633.44 2. Total Assessment Units: YTD Assess Units before this annexation • 15,867 Assessment Units this annex per page 4 • 3 Total Assessment Units 15,870 WG T I 3. Cost per-Assessment Unit: Total Annual Maintenance Cost $112 633,44 $7.10 /year /unit No. of Units TFUs-Er-Tc—t Assessment shall apply to each lot or parcel as explained in'Section 6. SECTION S. Assessment Diagram Copies of the proposed Asset. sMnt Diagrams are attached to this report and iabeled 'Stre Lighting Maintenance District no. 1%. Annexation No. 36. Thes:tdiagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment Improvements for the District are found to be of general benefit to all units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each unit. When units are based oi acreage, assessment will be 2 units not a-re. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Aporoval of City Engineer's Report. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex ajOistrict and sets public hearing date. 3. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to form a District or abandon the proceedings. 4. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the city Council. S. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. i. v -�7 EXHIBIT OA" Properties and improvements to be included within Annexation No.' 36 to Street Lighting Maintenance District 1: Assiss. No. of e-Annexed ProJect Acreage IUUUL V:,WL Vs to m ed,�L Zore I Zone 2 OR 87-05 .69 1 --- --- ... --- CUP 87-07 1.26 2 Total 1.95 3 --- --- --- --- �r _= s Y N ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO. 3(o 6th Street --517r r« r I r • / .7 u S ' ti 11 •fir. ti x �f r �i �i wY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO : STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATI Y] IF" 1 nnM A M b VIM M 0 -- •4 a I I� yr• .n _ _ _1j r !I I S ' ti 11 •fir. ti x �f r �i �i wY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO : STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATI Y] IF" 1 nnM A M b VIM M 0 -- •4 a I I� ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO. 36 sITE -ARRW ROUTE' sa POP l'3 O AL WE SZ+ W W �t • {� , pip � y 0 u � •emu r ;�ol �:e..eva. =1 SAUNA Sr , ,o. o ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r 1) PS7 -07 COUNTY OF SAN BMARDDVO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A T 1Vm Y- 1' • .,. � .max= K;✓t .. .` -, - - •_ 'i"'` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONJA gk ;k-. STAFF REPORT A • , Date: February 17, :988 m[> To: City Council and City Manager From: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer By: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer Subject: Recommendation to establish speed limits on Hermosa Avenue, Rochester Avenue and Ninth Street RECOPMORTIOM• It is recommended that Section 10.20.020 of the Municipal Code be amended to provide for speed limits of 45 MPH on Hermosa Avenue between Base Line Road and Wilson Avenue; 40 MPH on Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Sun Boulevard YandeBaser Line Road�and 40 MPH one Ninth Street between betweenoBake� Avenue and Archibald Avenue. BACKGPOUND/AI STS:, Continuing surveillance of unposted streets in the City has resulted in conducting traffic and engineering surveys for the purpose of establishing speed limits according to Sections 22357, 22358 and 40801- 40805 of the California vehicle Code. The vehicle Code allows cities to set speed limits of other than 25 MPH or 55 MPH in accordance with such surveys in order to more precisely establish the 'reasonable and prudent" speed which is required under basic State speed law. This speed then becomes the basis for enforcement, eliminating the extreme discretion which otherwise could occur. Such a survey, less than 5 years old, is also required where radar is used for enforcement. Surveys as required above have been conducted on the aforementioned -'Teets. The surveys involved the determination of the prevailing speed of existing traffic by the use of radar, an analysis of the recent ,:.ident history and a search for any conditions not apparent to drivers which would require a reduced speed. The results of these surveys are summarized in the attached table. After review of these results, it was found that the safety record of the str +ets are within expected levels and there are no unusual conditions not apparent to drivers. Thus, the observed prevailing speeds must be the predominant consideration in determining the speed limit. 311 - -f_ •:;7: W� CCSR Re: Speed Limits February 17, 1988 Page 2 OMCLUSION: A speed limit should be established that would be consid ered reasonable by most of the drivers on the-strat and 'still provide for effective enforcement. A speed limit such as this should be set to place no more than 15 percent of all drivers In violation, based on scientific-•analysis of driver's speeds. The proposed speed limits fall close to this guideline, being exceededby 15 to 20% of the drivers observed, and should provide an effective tool for law enforcement. Respectf Witted, ��,;—ctfr; RKM-PAR:pam cc: Clyde Boyd. Chairman - Public Safety Commission Attachment 4 B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMANGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga City Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: 10.20.02D Decrease of state low maximum s eed. It is determined by City Council resolution an upon ass o an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets, and it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hererof: Declared prima Facie Name of Street or Portion Affected Speed Limit (MPH) 1. Archibald Avenue - Banyan to North end 50 2. Archibald Avenue - Fourth Street to Banyan Street 45 3. Arrow Route - Baker to Haven 45 4. Banyan Street from Beryl Street to ); London Avenue 35 i4 ORDINANCE N0. 3 VD " r ro, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAl10NGA, CALIFORNIA, SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAGA CITY CODE, REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS lh1N " fir': UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS i ., A. Recitals cc (1) California Vehicle Cade Section 22357 provides that this City Council may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of >s, any street not a state highway. (ii) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering-and traffic survey, of certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which streets as specified in Part 8 of this Ordinance. i° (111) The determinations concerning prima facie speed limits set a; forth in Part 8, below are based upon the engineering and traffic ,survey identified in Section A iii), above. 4 B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMANGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga City Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: 10.20.02D Decrease of state low maximum s eed. It is determined by City Council resolution an upon ass o an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets, and it is declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hererof: Declared prima Facie Name of Street or Portion Affected Speed Limit (MPH) 1. Archibald Avenue - Banyan to North end 50 2. Archibald Avenue - Fourth Street to Banyan Street 45 3. Arrow Route - Baker to Haven 45 4. Banyan Street from Beryl Street to ); London Avenue 35 i4 m 1L i CCSR Ordinance February 17, 1988 Page 2 S. Banyan Street - from west City limits to Beryl Street 6. Base Line Road - Carnelian to Haven 7. Base Line Road - Hemmosa to Haven 6. Base Line Road - West City limits to Carnelian 45 9. Beryl Street - Banyan to end 10. Beryl Street - 6C0- north of Lemon to Banyan 40 11. Carnelian Street - Foothill to end 12. Center Avenue - Foothill Blvd, to Church Street 13. Church Street - from Archibald Avenue to Haven Avenue 14. Church Street - Haven to Elm 15. Eighth Street - Grove to Haven 16. Et,wanda Avenue - Foothill to Highland 17. Grove Avenue - Eighth to Foothill 18. Haven Avenue - Highland to Wilson 19. Hellman Avenue - Foothill to Alta Loma Or. 20. Hellman Avenue - 500- north of Hanzanita to Valley View 21. Hellman Avenue - 6th to Foothill 22 Hermosa Avenue - Base Line Rd. to Wilson Ave. 23 Highland Avenue - Amethyst to Archibald 24_ Highland Avenue - from Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue 25. Highland Avenue - from Hermosa Avenue to 600- west of Haven 26. Hillside Road - from Ranch Gate to Amethyst Street 27. Lemon Avenue - Archibald Avenue to Haven Avenue 2e. Lemon Avenue - Jasper St. to Beryl St. 29. Ninth Street - Dater Ave. to Archibald Ave. 30. Rochester Ave. - Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road 31 San Bernardino Road - from Vineyard Avenue to Archibald Avenue 32 Sapphire Street - Banyan to end 33 Sdpphire Street - 19th to Lemon 34. Spruce Avenue - Elm Avenue to Base Line Rd. 35 Terra Vista Parkway - Church to Belpine 36. Turner Avenue - Fighth to Foothill 3/y 40 40 45 45 45 40 40 40 45 45 40 50 35 40 45 45 35 35 45 35 40 35 40 So 35 45 40 40 40 45 ,y a a (iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on said streets; and (iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed limit declared herein. Section 2 The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the sane to be published as required by law. Section 3 The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Dailv Re art a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, ralifornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. .. • i M n'P i�� a rvr CCSP. Ordinance February 17, 1988 Page 3 37. Turner Avenge 'Ra mos& Ave.) - Foothill to Base Line 'bad 45 38. Victoria Avenue - from Etiwanda Avenur ' ' to Rout, 15 40 39. Victoria Pari Lane 35 " 40. Victoria Windrows Loop (north 6 south) 35 41. Vineyard Avenue - Church to Base Line Rd. 40 ' 42, Vineyard Avenue - from 8th Street to Foothill Blvd. 45 43. Rhittram Avenue - Etiwanda to cast City Limits 40 (Ord. 169 Section I (part), 1982: Ord. 39 Section 5.1, 1978). Rancho Cucamonga 5/82 124 (1) Both sixty -five (65) miles per hour and fifty -five (55): miles per hour are speeds which are more than are reasoncbl-t or safe; (ii) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie speeds which are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said streets or oortions thereof; (iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on said streets; and (iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed limit declared herein. Section 2 The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the sane to be published as required by law. Section 3 The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Dailv Re art a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, ralifornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. �()\ )� a )B }d )■§§ )B%= ) & ;2 ) §k \ E! |99§ \}) ) ° \k §. §B \k!■ it \� � ^^ _ :6 - /.- ._ � ||■ ■ t} !!3 ! 3§ ( | |!! ! S! � | a2 B \ ) ; -2 §§ 77 ------- - - - - -- : e|■ | u■ § : B_4 8�� ) : ■.� a .a ) mg- IN, ! §■ ) | ; §# § | |_ !§e k ea ! ■| §!!! \! it ■ .13 \k} §k\ ! ` _ \.( | \| 2 |! , ) / \k : p; ; ; |!k2 §k /B§ | a §) |! ! f I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 17, 1988 To: Mayor and City Council Prom: Historic Preservation Commission �yy By: Paula Pachon, Administrative Assistant' 8d , RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission recommends City Council adoption of ordinance 70 (P) amending section 2.24.210 of, and adding a new section of 2.24.220 to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, thoreby _ increasing criminal penalties and adding civil remedies. DACK6ROUHD: At the April 2nd, 1987, Historic Preservation Commission meeting the Commission discunsod the currant penalties that are associated with violation of any of the provisions of Ordinance 70. Under section 2.24.210 it currently states that "...Any person, corporation or other entity violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to (a) fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment of not more than six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment." It was the consensus of the Commission that due to possible irreconcilable loss to the community that could occur with the possible removal of or damage to an item deemed of historic significance that the penalties associated with Ordinance 70 needed to be increased /strenCthon. To this cri, staff has worked with the City Attorney by providing the Commission with written guidelines for strengthening tho penalties associated with this Ordinance (see attached correspondence). Based upon the strong belief of the Commission it was decided at the January, 1988 Historic Preservation Commission meeting that the attached modification to ordinance 70, as summarized below, be forwarded to Council for your review and approval: e Increase the penalties j= a $500.00 fine and /or a maximum imprisonment of 6 months j2 a maximum $1,000.00 fine and /or 6 months imprisonment. 317 :� 1 Mayor and City Council _- February 17, 1988 Page 2 - acs. Si4yQ e Adding specific. language to the code establishing the authority Of the' City, Council ' _ to maintain civil actions for enforcement ofrthe:•., _ Municipal -coda. - - ';: The Historic Preservation commission urges City Council 'to- adopt the attached modification to Ordinance 7o'..and ito support them in makinc a strong stateaant..to the community q'r that structures, landscapea,., and', objects - identified- of •- - ' possessing historic significance to the City : _ as! �i Cucamonga shall be protected to` the maximum,-extent- provided by the lay. Attachments cc: Historic Preservation Commission Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Manager ' Brad Buller, City Planner ' Larry Hendarson, Senior Planner AIZ CITY OF .RkNCHO CUCAMONG A. TMEMORANDInT I S , DATE: April -28, 1987 •- TO: Ji= Hark=an, City Attorney JFROH: Historic Preservation commission _. ✓ _ BY: Paula Pachon, Co=unity Services Coo=dinatov� ,r SUB., =CT: Guidelines-at Reasonable Range of Penalties for Ordianaa 70 At the April 2, 1957 Historic ?reservation Co ©iusion' meeting .'s the Commission discussed the current penalties, that;�ams - tp associated with violations 'of any of -the provisions of--�• Ordiance 70. Under Section 20, its= b, Ordiance 70 states �,. that "...Any parson, corpora ion or other entity violating any of the provisions of this O :diance shall be subject to u fine of not acre than fiva hundred dollars ($400.00) or imprisonment of not mire than six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment." • It was the consensus of the commission that the penalties ' pertaining to Ordianea 70 need to be increased.' To this end, the commission respectfully requests that Counsel provide to toe commission written guidelines for strangthenin7 the penalties associated vitb this Ordiance. Thank you in advance for you` assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Paula Pachon at axt. 428. S , .wo +sw v.. +cnea +� a• V.. O. N.w1eM o e•ue roe w.wa.• •o eu LLe+ Bill Holly Community Servicer Director City of Rancho Cucamonga P O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ew[ [,�e [[N.[• tl • +cy ouro•N�w uu, -wu (mN oo -oae� f[l[r.ew[ Lil UH)an May 22, 1987 Re: Penalties for violation of Ordinance No. 70 Dear Mr. Holly: The purpose of this correspondence is to respond to a request by the Historic Preservation commission for review of the above - entitled matter. Specifically, the question has been presented as to what further penalties might be impcaed for vio2etior.9 of 0rdinanc• No. 70 which essentially requires that persons desiring to alrar "landmarks" obtain a permit prior to so doing. Currently, Ordinance No. 70 is codified in Chapter 2 24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cade. Section 2.24 210 of that chapter establishes a maximum $300.00 S no and /or maximum imprisonment of 6 months. Since adoption of Ordinance No. 70, cities have been legislatively authorized to impose a maximum $1,000.00 five and /or six months imprisonment. Additionally, the City may utilize civil remedies in enforcing the previsions of Chapter 2.26. These remedies are generally limited to the use of irluncticns to compel compliance with the Cit;Is rewilations. In order to avail itself of such civil remedies, however, the City must adopt an ordinance Specifically authorizing the use of civil remedies in the enforcement of its code. Upon review of the code, Section 1 12.060 appears to be the only sectica dealing with such civil actions. However, that section merely authorizes the City to recover its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Current cases regsire that there be specific language authorizing the use of civil actions for code enforcement purposes. Although Section 1.12.060 obviously contemplates the use of civil actions to enforce provisions of the Coda, that section does not appear to satisfy the requirements established in currant case law. 326 Bill Molly .... .. I May 22, 1987 1i Page Two Accordingly.-in order to"'piccead civilly-against code violators, 'specif ic: -'language- should. be added to the "Code establishing the authcxity-cf%the City Council to baintain civil actions for enforcement of the,-Municipal"Coda:_ Similarly, Section --7'.74.210'r�'hic�h stablishas-'a' maximum $500.00 fine z�ziy."eiiihoir'bo'elitiln-ited,>whQraupon Section 1.12.a20 „which-estaLblishes-a"maxi--Af=-.$1;000.00 fine may be utilized, or Section 2.24.210 may simply_'ba_uCodi:idd,�* 17' reflect a maximum $1,000.00 fine. Although the Cty!a aptions.a=c IiZitac• ccrta�in' modifications may bi made which would improva•the degree of-, enforcement available to the City in cases where provisions of Chapter 2.24 are being violated. In'this regard, plea” feel'• free to contact this office should,.yc!i have any qaestionb concerning any aspect of this correspondence. Very, truly yo1rsA D. Crslg Fox Deputy catorney City of Rancho Cucamonga DCF: 111 11 - \131\t.Holly W 11ti RECEIVED MAY 27.1937 rtTy or R-W-JO WrAIA6(L4, x3 M1e .o S + c 1' . J CITY OF,, ILLNCHO CUCAMONGA TMEMORA3 NDLTNI Date: October 27, 1987 To: T!M'Karkran' City Attorney y Pro =: Paola ra_han, Adnirist -ativa assistant Subject: Ordinance lh =ber 70 At the last Historic rresarvation Cosmission meeting, October 1, 1987, the Com=i3s'.an discussed the options, that YOU outlined for rho= earlier ` this , year pertaining to strengthening the penalties aaaoeiated with Ordinance 70. A= the Comaissicn's diraction 1 nn writing to request that you kindly prepare draft laaquaga for the Cc=ieslOn -!Ea-- review that would inc:easa the penalties associated with Ordinance 70 = a 4700 fine and/or a aaxi=v= i=prieo =ent of 6 ac'Aths s2 a $:,000 fine a: for a five /six month i=priso:uent tor_. In additioc, the co==issien would like to add specific lang::rge to the ;3unicipal Code establishing the authority of the City Council to maintain civil actions for an_orcammt of the municipal Cade. The Com=issian resceettally requests that the above mentioned changes ir_ the language for Ordinance 70 be developed as scan as counsel'a ti=e psri`a. if you have any questions or require additional information Concerning this request, please feel free to contact =e at, (714) 989 -18E8. Thank in advance for your assistance in this matter Cc: Historic Preservation Cosissiot. Bill Holley, Direccoc, a»aunity services Doma=t ---r.t : f Ar. y Paula Pachon ' Community Servicec coordinator City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91770 Re: Modification to Ordinance No. 70 increasing penalties { Dear Paula: �- s Pursuant to your recent request, enclosed please find an ordinance modifying Chapter 2.24 of Title 2 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Per your request, this ordinance is increasing the criminal penalties to the maxi--um allowed by law and, further, is adding a civil remedies provision. Should you care to discuss this matter at greater length, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly youre,, t CLI 6-�?i j(J D. Cra}.g -Pea Doput City Atorney City o Ranch Cucamonga DCF:131 Encl. E\132 \LPachon \RC 1.3.1 cc: Bill Holly - Encl. FiECElVED NOV 1310087 ctt CAMuon risEAV� S ' r_ _ s 313 XVMttw ewc emcee"". C".. �- c..066 .. -[a ....... .•.0.a v. MCb`r a.. twU. U..IeIx15 tttaa -.eaa A✓ o- x.xan+ Jinq ue -eaa o ct.ro ron rntwewt ao, o.- ao, r.an...e eaa�a W November 12, 1987 Paula Pachon ' Community Servicec coordinator City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91770 Re: Modification to Ordinance No. 70 increasing penalties { Dear Paula: �- s Pursuant to your recent request, enclosed please find an ordinance modifying Chapter 2.24 of Title 2 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Per your request, this ordinance is increasing the criminal penalties to the maxi--um allowed by law and, further, is adding a civil remedies provision. Should you care to discuss this matter at greater length, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly youre,, t CLI 6-�?i j(J D. Cra}.g -Pea Doput City Atorney City o Ranch Cucamonga DCF:131 Encl. E\132 \LPachon \RC 1.3.1 cc: Bill Holly - Encl. FiECElVED NOV 1310087 ctt CAMuon risEAV� S ' r_ _ s 313 ORDINANCE NO. 70 f AN ORDINANCE OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING SECTION 2.24.210 OF, AND ADDING A HER SECTION 2.24.220 TO, CHAPTER 2.24 or THE RANe=O CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, DD ATIzN6 CIVI L SNCREASING CANAL PENALTIES AIM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA• CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Pg_q= j. s,iction 2.24.210 of Chapter 2.24 of Title 2 in the pAand figures, Cucamonga M! llovse Code hereby is amended to read, "> >4 2:0 Z=& v = Diolation QL SbD4..SL- "It Ohall be unlawful for any person, film, part- nership, or corporation to violate any provision or to. _ Lail to Comply with any of the requirementts Corp ration Chapter. Any Person, firm, partnership, violating any provision of this Chapter orbfailinadto comply with any of itn requ guilt, -)f a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by it fine not exceedinn7 one Tl%tsusordby Dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding both such fine and lozatJon shall becdeemed guilty ofia partnership, or Corp day separate offense for any or any portion thereof during white any violation of any Of the provi- ions Sermi to this Chapter is committed artnership, orrcorpora- pehmittad by such parson, firm, therefor as provided tion, and shall be deemed p in ap this chapter." Ss chap A now section 2.24.220 is hereby added to Chapter 2.24 of ritle 2 of the Rancto Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "> >4 220 Civil Rsn di " Available "A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated Of by the City through civil process s bmeans injune- restraining order, preliminary permanent tion, or in any other m ner Provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance." '•J -ya,« .,i..i°,','mis,�Jt_la -- 7 ;.,' :. •.wr ., �.. -. ,'�+ ti- ..��.. - Y?;S :£1C,E.r ordinance No. 70 (F) Page Two SECTION g,. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive .i legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in lull force and effect. gg�jp� 1• The City Clerk shall certify to the passega '- of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) d.ays attar its passage at least once in MM Daily 8eport, a newnpaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. ._ PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1988. Mayor I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular =eating of the City council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of 1988, and was finally passed at a regular meeting o! the c ty council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of _, 1988, by the following vote: AYLS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DES: COUNCIL MMMERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST. Beverly A. AurMe ec City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga L \132 \ORD1 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Senior planner rial- SUBJECT: SIGN ORDINANCE - Review o.' changes proposed by Chamber of Commerce 1977 I RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City - ounc no en ertain an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding neon signs and window signs. II BACKGROUND: The Sign Ordinance prohibits signs with exposed ui 9ng, such as neon signs. In response to the growing proliferation of these signs, the Planning Division conducted a survey in June of 1987 and determined that fifty (50) businesses had illegal neon signs. Most of these signs were small siqns advertising "Open', "Coors', 'Pizza', etc., that hung in the storefront window. Letters were sent out informing these businesses of the violation and the need to comply with the sign regulations. Several businesses contacted the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber Commerce created a task force to review the City's Sign Ordinance and to make recommendations for possible changes in the Ordinance. The City Planner and staff participated in several meetings with the task force between July, 1987 and October, 1987. The attached Planning Coamissirn staff report contains a detailed analysis of the Chamber's recommmendations. III PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Ple ping Commission reviewed the Z1T—a der s recommen a ops at their January 27, 1988 meeting and received public testialroy from the Chamber, tusiness owners and sign manufacturers. The Commission's deliberations focused on the issue of neon signs. The majority opposed thn use of neon signs which advertise "Open ", "Liquor', or otherwise .idvertised products or services. The majority of the Commission concluded that it would be inappropriate to amend the ordinance to allew exposed tubing (e.g. - neon) signs because of the difficmlty of trying to legislate good taste in neon sign design. Regarding window signs, there was some discussion about the possibility of further limiting window sign area for large businesses, ra *iler than increasing window sign area for smaller businesses t, correct the advantage larger stores have because of ti,eir exparAve window areas. r. 3 ;6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: SIGN ORDINANCE February 17, 1988 Page 2 le,,L "Y J ra �A er C ity P anner BB:i)C:ko Attachments: 0•, M� } DATE: TO: i FROM: BY: I SUBJECT: Ink. Crry OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 27, 1987 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan C0120a, Senior Planner SIGN ORDINANCE - Review of changes proposed by Chamber of, orserce. I ABS -MALT: This report presents the recommendyyations of the Chamber thhe�s of reenrsigns, windowntsigns andOpolitieal signs foe your discussin. II. DACKGR, suh The as neon signs. nee signs with the growing u proliferation of these signs, the Planning Division conducted a sury ey 1n June of 1987 and determined that fifty (50) businesses had ttlegai neon signs. Mott of these signs were small signs advertising 'Open", 'Coors,, 'pizza*, etc., that hung in the storefront window. Letters were sent out informing these regulatl regulations. Several obusinesses contacted the Chamber f the commerce.r The ignCOrdinance and dtto make created macomaendations fort City's possible changes in the ordinance. The City Planner and staff participated in several meetings with the task force between July 1987 and October 1987. The Chamber er,s November clw, 1987 i (see Exhibit ri) ed below from their letter of III SIGN ORMMCE REGULATIONS: A. Neoc Saresproh bited, Incluordinance but nottlimitedpto, flash signs ng The Sign signs, revolving signs, animateo signs, billboards, and exposed tubing signs. The prohibition of exposed tubing signs includes neo•i type signs. These regulations were adopted to make our City attractive to residents and visitors and prevent the Las consideredito be undesirable+(i.e. Holt Boulevard). that were 3�8 ITEM U, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN CRDINANCE January 27, 1988 Page 2 B. Window Signs: The Sign Ordinance permits window signs to ber: _. use tor temporary messages such as sales. The signs are intended to be oriented to the parking lot and pedestrian walkways along the storefronts. Window signs are allowed to cover up to 30 percent of the window area, with a maximum height of six (6) feet. These limitations were established to discourage the competition between signs for the viewers attention that can create a visual clutter and to maintain A certain degree of visibility into the business for public safety. C. subject o cerszin The Ordinance exempts with whenitheylcan9be put up, size, height, etc. No sign permit is required. ^_ IV. CHAMBER RECOMQIEWDATIONS: The Chamber of Commerce's desire is to wo owar an m Rance that will make code enforcement easier through voluntary c iance by the majority of businesses. Thera are three recommendations from the Chamber: A. Nemn e— ns ndow Allow signs. The Chamber wall propo es in general for the u e of neon as a sign material be allowed for wall signs to identify the business nacre, subjeo. to the same regulations that apply to other types of wall signs depending upon the use. Tor example, within shopping centers the Sign Ordinance permits 3 wall signs per business, up to 10 percent of the building face, not to exceed 150 square feet (see Exhibit 'e'), and one wall sign per building face. When used as a window sign, the Chamber proposes limiting the sign area to 9 square feet and allowing no more than one brand name trade sign. This is intended to discourage multiple neon signs listing products. The 9 square feet would be considered as part of (not in addition to) the overall restriction for window signs of a certain percentage of the window area or building face. B. Window. Signs* Eliminate 'Temporary Signs' from the permitted s gn c ass and replace by an exempt sign class called 'Display Signs': 'This would consist of window signs not exceeding 30 percent of the window area or 10 percent of the building face, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of ISO square feet. There would be no reference to a maximum height.' Therefore, no sign permit would be required for temporary window signs. This proposal is intended to eliminate the advantage a business with a large window area has for temporary signage over a business with little window area by allowing calculation of the maximum window sign size using the building face. This is illustrated in the attached Exhibit 'C'. 3;19 PLANNIMC' -CU#ftiildW STAFF REPORT JX1 S IGA OVDlWAMCE,-Z-,:;' W nuary* V 1988 Page 3 C. political_ Signs: The Chamber proposes to exempt political F— signs, owever. . ordinance alrwdy eAmts Political signs. Therefore, no amendment is necessary. % re�d S'Si V. REMWENDATION: - Staff recommends that the Planning Cceiiissi on rev re-Q--a—nd--consider the recommendations a! the Chamber and recommend to the City Council tether amendments.-to the -City's currant Sign Ordtpanae are needed. RasRa¢fully submitted, B' S 'rltay:i 0anner BB:DC:te Attachments: Exhibit V - Chamber of Commerce Letter Exhibit :B' - Window Signs - Existing Exhibit Co - Window Signs -.Proposed Exhibit 60a - Excerpts from Sign Ordinance •_ , , ... - 70 r 0 r 'rancho CHAMBER Cucamonga OF COMMERCE November 11, 1987 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 -0807 Commissioners: 7385 CARNELIAN STREET, SUITE 130 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 --R ERNE 714/987.1012 Ct1y OF RNIcNO cLT=t" PLANNINe CIYm.'ON 41d NOV 171337 . ^ °t'�131= 111 ^.t3r1t5 9 Due to concerns over sign code enforcement problems, par- `° ticularly with window signs and the exclusion of neon signs, the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce created a task force to review the City's Sign Ordinance and to make recommendations for possible changes in the ordinance. Since vigorous enforcement of the existing sign ordinance has been held in abeyance pending the Chamber's recommendations, we are submitting those elements that we have been able to address for your consideration. The Sign Ordinance Task Force has met numerous times and has had the benefit of considerable staff interaction. While these are the Chamber's recommendations, there is an intent to make suggestions that would result in an ordinance that would make code enforcement easier. The basic principle behind this pro- posal is the timo- tested maxim to manage by exception. It is our desire to work towards an ordinance thrt will be respected by all of our citizens and which will be voluntarily observed by the greater preponderance of the sign uaera in our community. Our major recommendation, as approved by the Board of Directors, is to eliminate 'Temporary Signs- from the permitted sign class. We recommend this be replaced by an exempt sign class that would be named "Display Signs•. This would consist of window signs not exceeding 301 of the window area or 106 of the build- ing face, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 150 sq. ft. There would be no reference to a maximum height. Furthermore, we would recommend that neon signs be allowed for wall signs in general and for limited window signs, such as up to 9 sq ft., but with no more than one brand name trade sign. ail _ _ �• City of Rancho Cucamonga'' e Planning Commission November 11, 1987 Page 2 a r r ' We would further recommend that political signs also be j_ placed in the exempt category, subject to the same limi- tations that now exist in the ordinance. It is hoped these rdcommendations will result in an ordinance it that will make enforcement simpler while allowing the businesses of the community to prosper. _ Sincerel C tape Lowell Gomes, President Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors LGije J * A 1 333 11 . -, , \, 1J irLr _.y., v.l. ♦. i r.-Y } T. SIGN ORDINANCE - Review of changes proposed by Chamber of Cosaaerce. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. John Mannerino, spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce, reviewed the Chamber of Commerce recommendations for a sign ordinance. Mr. Mannerino stated that the proposed changes for window signs would correct inequity which prejudices small businesses. He also stated that the Chamber proposed to lift the absolute ban on neon signs and clarify the ambiguity regarding 'exposed tubing' signs. Mr. Pete Gamber, owner of Alta Loma Music and resident of Rancho Cucamonga, stated although he understood the need for uniformity in } signs, he also felt the need for maintaining artistic neon signs for advertising. Mr. Joe Kim, owner of Joe's Market in the Music Plus Plaza, would like to see neon used for advertising purposes. Mr. Mike Mitchell stated through his business, his retail clients feel the sign ordinance is too restrictive for them to attract business. He felt it is imperative to the growth of the City to establish a stronger retail market and without certain signs businesses cannot survive. Ms Renee Garduna, owner of Renee's New Mexico Restaurant, stated the use of neon, properly designed, would be helpful to the business. Mr. Dale Frisby, representing the Cnamber of Commerce, requested the Commission give some guidelines and recommendations regarding the revisions by the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman McNiel, in response W Mr. Mannerino's comment regarding the prejudice against small window conditions, felt that expanding the ordinance W provide a greater percentage may not be appropriate, perhaps greater restrictions on large businesses W eliminate the prejudice might be a more advantageous direction with respect W the signs. Chairman McNiel stated that though neon may be done tastefully, he does not support neon. Chairman McNiel felt there were no advantages to neon if everybody has it. Though other cities may have neon and this 1s very trendy, he feels it 1s not in the best interest for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Emerick stated he liked neon, however, it doesn't belong on every window. He also felt it would be hard to exercise discretion and control on the quality of neon signs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated though he agreed with Chairman McNiel, he wes a devote of neon. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how would the City legislate neon and control it. He is not amenable W 'beer`, 'liquor', or 'video' signs in store windows. Commissioner Tolstoy Planning Commission Minutes - 1 - January 27, 1988 FOR Discua suggested maybe using the logo of the company in graphic form would warrant consideration. He felt there is place for neon in the City if would be tasteful to the City. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with Chairman McNiel and though she has seen attractive neon inside the building and in soar instances outside the building, she faels the use of neon escalates to catch_t1w consumer's attention. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be very difficult to Judge the tastefulness of neon, it would become a very emotional issue. She felt either:yorr allow neon and anybody can do what they want or you say no and nobody has it. Commissioner Chitiea felt the problems far outweigh the benefits. It would be a serious mistake to allow the visual garbage since Rancho Cucamonga is raving towards a city with such more sophistication and design. Neon overpowers the architecture around it if it is blinking or flashing. Mr. Bob Forrest, 8734 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that neon is very expensive. He cited a case where the neon sign was removed and now the window is painted which looks worse than the neon. Mr. Mitchell stated that as part of the task force a survey was sent out to other cities and Rancho Cucamonga is the only city that does not allow neon. Mr. Cr-1 Evans stated how a material 1s used in the sign can actually enhance and compliment a building. He felt that businessmen, as a community, could Judge the use of neon. Mr. Bob Thomas, representative of the Chamber of Commerce, asked for the opportunity for neon to be used at the discretion of the Commission. Regardinging the size of signs, he felt that the removal of Height restrictions would he appropriate. Mr. Mannerino stated that with regards to the exercise of discretion with the regards to neon, the Commission exercises the discretion of good taste with regards to a wall, a project, etc. Mr. Mannerino stated that the purpose for the existence of signs is for the business to exist economically. Mr. Kim stated that neon signs would allow for a smaller business to become more prominent in a large ousiness center. Mr Thomas stated that advertising in a newspaper is too costly and the use of signage is imperative for a business. Mr Gamber stated he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that using logo in a neon sign would be appropriate. Mr. James Hann stated depending upon the locatica in the City and depending on the size of the business, the current sign ordinance can be an absolute sweeheart or a killer. The problem seems to be the form of structures and their signage. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - 336 January 27, 1988 '.a a a, f f FOR Chairman AcHiel closed the public hearing. qohh questionedchowlsuch tmort dots a business need for tieirlsignage- It was Crejiof Rancho Cucamonga of maY prominent neoneSLhairmanoNcNie fe lsthls Is admirable. If neon is allowed to begin, rcg+rdless of the ntarAards applied to it, neon will rise above the standards. Chairman Nct1e1 stated he cannot support the Chuber of Commerce recommendations as they written are Commissioner C having it makes would the notyli eci o see neon 1n Rancho Commissioner Enerick stated that staff could legislate and administer neon carefully. Commissioner TolstoY stated he would like to listen to more information concerning The smaller businessmen is at large at a disadantagee window and feels areas more _ alsoi fltithatresose 'qutdelinestregarding neon efor C1090ssigns, without consderaton each store owner turWng his name into Joao, might be supported. Caommission would Senior belareported to that he CityisCouncil Of the nthe recommendations of the Chambor of Commerce. ir the 9ycamore questioned the yagcssiao' what t stgns4elings were regarding the signs are wellede eaeven �though heidhoeessnnot like vneon. Chairman McNiel stated the City has a rare opportunity to be exclusive. Cowmissioner TolstoY stated he felt though he liked neon he did not see a war the City could ever arrive at a way to use neon and the way he would like to use it would not meet s no support neon at tNhis port ant to use it. Commissioner Tolstoy Coleman, � 'sa staff tnforautfon and coaentsto City Council. would forradthe Co ®isstous - - . .. -.-. —. planning Commission Minutes - 3 - 33-7 January 27, 1988 z `� ti DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: — CITY OF RANCHO CUCA140i GA STAFF REPORT February 17, 1488 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Duane Baker, Administrative Assistant Mid -Yet nview of Fiscal Year 1987 -88 Capital Improvement Budget RECON 03ATION: It is recamended that the City Councll accept and file the attached mid- year review of the Capital Budget. It is also recommended that the Council approve the following protects for addition to the Capfief Budget: Design - Archibald Avenue 0 Highland Avenue Traffic Signal Design - East Beryl Park Master Drain City -Wide Tree Inventory and Maiatenance Program Development City -Wide Street Facilities Inventory Review and Update The above protects reflect priorities or opportunities that became apparent after the budget was originally adopted in July. BaLkgrounG /Analysis Attached you will find a copy of the Mid -year Budget Review which consists of Exhibits •A', •B•, and "CO. Exhibit •A' lists all capital projects by their type: streets, traffic, drainage, railroad, beautification, programs or master plans. Following is listing of new projects for each project type. These new projects include those listed above and protects which Council has already approved during the course of the year following the original adoption of the budget. Streets The following protects have already been approved by Council and were added after original adoption. - Case Line Road reimbursement adjacent to the Central Park site - Wilson Avenue right -of -way acquisition (purchase of the house at 5702 Amethyst Street) - Foothill Boulevard Capital Renovation - north side from Archibald Avenue to Ramona Avenue. 5 .3$ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 17, 1988 <; PAGE 2 Traffic Tho following protect is new and needs to be approved by Council G with the adoption of this report. - Design - Archibald Avenue 9 Highland Avenue Traffic Signal The remainder of ,lew protects in Traffic have all been approved by Council following the original Capital Budget adoption. Turner Avenue 2 Foothill Boulevard Traffic Signal Drainage The following project is new and needs to be approved by Council with the adoption of this report. - Design - East Beryl Park master drain Railroads No new protects. Beautification The following protects were added by Council pending the residents entrance into the landscape maintenance district. - Monte Vista Median - Rochester Avenue - Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road Programs No new protects. Master Plans The following protects are new and need to be approved by Council with the adoption of this report. - City -wide tree inventory and maintenance program development - City -wide street facilities inventory review and update Exhibit •B' lists all protects by fir funding source. You will note that some protects are listed more than once. This is because some protects have multiple funding sources. The main factor to note in Exhibit •B' is that the funding amounts and sources of some protects have changed from the original Capital Budget. These changes are the result of more accurate information regarding protect costs and scheduling. Some protects actually cost more or less than originally estimated and these new costs are reflected in the review. Some protects will not be entirely finished this fiscal year and as such their budgeted amounts 339 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 17, 1988 PAGE 3 have been adjusted accordingly. Another change reflected in Exhibit 084 is a change in funding source. In order to bring the Capital Budget into balance, tin, funding sources of some projects were adjusted. Below is a listing of those Frojects which have had their funding source adjusted. Gas Tax t^ - Transportation studies and facilities Inventory This project was ort finally funded entirely from Systems Development but has been split $70,000 Gas Tax and $5,000 Systems to help bring fystems into balance. K TOA 19th Street B Amethyst Street ,r - Base Line Road b Etlwanda - Grove Avenue 0 8th Street These projects were originally funded entirely from Systems but have now been split funded to help balance Systems. - SB 300 No change in funding source. Although $10,000 in Gas Tax has been added to the miscellaneous slurry sealing project to complete this years program, Federal Funding This is a new fund reflecting Federal revenues to the City attar ,Y than CDBG. As a raw fund there are no changes. ., Beautification No change in finding source. System Development See Gas Tax and TDA above for changes in funding source. In addition, Area VII Storm Drain Phase I was incorrectly charged against System Development instead of Drainage. The amount of the charge ties $441,100. Since this project is reimbursed by RDA set - aside funds, the reimbursement will go to Systems Instead of Drainage then no negative impact is created. A similar situation occurred with the Baker /Arrow improvement. The storm drain portion of the job was charged to Systems, thus the set - aside reimbursement intended for Drainage will go to Systems so that no negative impact will be experienced. Ilk' 340 • 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 17, 1988 PAGE 4 Drainage See System Development above. The final section of the mid -year review lists the capital funds available for use and compares the funds available with the amounts budgeted as shown in Exhibit B. The funds available figures are based on the worksheets in Exhibit C which use the June 30, 1987 audited fund balance as a starting goint. Below in analysis of the funds available and amounts budgeted in each fund. Gas Tax Gas Tax has $851,900 available compared to $542,200 in anticipated expenditures. This leaves a talance of $309,700. It is recommended that this positive balance is left intact to provide for any unanticipated costs or change orders or to help balance System Development by funding some Systems Projects. IDA IDA has $1,242,700 available compared to $1,240,400 in anticipated expenditures. This leaves a balance of $2,300 which should be kept aside for contingencies. SB 300 The entire amount of SB 300 funds will be spend on various slurry sealing projects, thus there will be no remaining balance. Federal Funds All Federal Funds will be spent on the various projects that have been approved for federal funding. By Its very nature, there will be no balance left on Federal Funding. Beautification The Beautification fund has $3,493,100 available and anticipated expenditures of $3 201,700, leaving a balance of $291,400. This balance shoul4 be kept intact to cover any contingencies and to assist in funding projects which carry over into next fiscal year. Systems Development The System Development fund has $5,564,200 available and anticipated expenditures of $6,037,800 leaving a negative balance of $473,600. Iri FCITy EBRUARYNI7, 1988 REPORT PAGE 5 The primary reason for the ,negative balance were some unexpected Ye me Theacenc�ebrncezeoccuarired after nthe initial 5224'600 change orderlfor year. he Arrow hrehit111ttaat on, $257,800 change order for the Ninth Street rehabilitation, and Park'develapmenten The es unanticipatediitems hadta negative Impact on the estimated June 30, 1907 fund balance of is ne 77, Dr Ject schedules iand'determining which mprojects wouId realtst.cally have expenditures against them this he reduced totf473h6pp'boTa s remaining negattveibnlance will be eliminated bc:ause of an additional 5810,000 worth of construction costs which may be deferred until nett year. These construction costs are on projects which have construction contracts scheduled to be awarded during the lastngmon calf year Bfiscat Year with construction scheduled The above projects are: Grove railroad and 11 1on 19th imp roemnNermo atoCart11a 19th improvement -west limit to Jasper Amethyst improvement at 19th Archibald wtdenin4 "Malachite to Archibald Hillside widening - untiis next above thesSystem Oevelopm"nt funding iis under considered adequate for this year. Oratna e to Drainagenfund wills have a zero balance this year.ts, thus the ;unmar The Capital Improvement Budget is a refle ;tion of those approved at a by Council. There the are roe j� it 1Lh15 which have become apparent and require app document. All projects in the Capital Improvement Budget are being Sorojects different sources 'to hellp bring the budget into balance, from 3ya- I CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Yar, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 x PACE 6 Finally, all Capital Funds will end this year with either it zero or positive balance. This includes System Development which shows a negative balance but will end with a positive or zero balance as described above. This review reflects the arbitious ".apital Improvement t Program which the City undertook this year. This' is an ambitious program which is largely an tract and on budeet. ri Respectfu fitted, :O •sd Attachment A■ syy I It S AT IC )Now( ONE .31;6 uj n 0 IL LU LL, O am r- 0 C5 0 C; C! E O to Lo Go c'! O 0 0 Ln V) U) V) cr) co Ln rl CO r- LO cr) 0 cl; C 0) ci 04 z 40 to cli le to O r- 0 E F 3 4 3 _ ° E t g 38883 3 liz .... _... 343:.: 8 R i 4 °. x 534.8 is.Sq�3 : tIIq= SBit.Q:9A3 {,q' {:jFgS"q °�yVQ ?4"9 j 4{ q y j t j j 9 { it6f 0Ei� lBQE{�B3lIif�Yi7�0�Y�i9e��fi�i� jl d �1F 7 #AID i 6 101 ti ,i � t 1se a 347 in- N r�`r j5 Hl W ji ^• d„ • d � 9§ :2 ! 2::� ' { / ; } ! :�,..� :.... : || / . � J . . 3q? 7 � , -Y 4S I sg $ 356 h 9 °.8 I :S: i= ?°CMUSY 9.. _ .: SSS II.S'SSfi_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIII J r� fit • .z ; i fill mj~ M, s a 3 .. �e ij {s5 Aiq Y 1 8t 9l �, 353 �s ZE 9 A $54 Vp 'Ch7 Ct 2 0 0 0 0 0 V, 1 ° /!� q |�`2 � , 1 1110 � \ Ste\ 3SS wr'_ -_- ,••;x1�.a„ys1: �` ;may {�,.y ' `irv* ��'�.t ,f.ayy��h. vi P` -n i y_• O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N N O O p O O O H ANNOO�7�NNn ^NOONOO N r R N _ *ago O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 00000aoaog a0000 p000c� - g0000000unon Fri e.rioM�� «iri �iow��oein �, oNe «on - N EaL'�C�L'° ec4�e7lL7 $�$_2S CrFrrrrrrrrrr� -r i ORHll t 0 'A I Vill co oe •' av; rtl:,<:j .` + ''yam • y �r� �5 - ^p � =a ,T a F �4 j� oeoe 0000 000N .:ow - awo� tl - coo* �000 0 OtlNY s —, - i EF � � LL ;��' IPA ssasasssss °ss °s s° °s° on000n� woo oo�� o noon � r A 11111iilillifll91f1191f1 P r y n 5 3 fill fill 36F Y ooe a 0oo �0000000 oo�000 0000000 0000poo �� w000 00 eees +e woa 000 $$00000e000$e0oo0o0oQ0000gggo o$0 0oos00000 oou000 330000 0 0 oe000a 000e�n0000�o« on0000o0 Die �i�ueri�i�ooeee000'e oeaw�e ri .�o�io�rie eeoaa00000eooee 00 °0000 °o �rS$000� °e tie:�e= ^oowOrr „r °n k ne3 ®& 3400 a y 0 O QQ SS g 0 0 0 0 0 q iS t-g i. e?o°o,no°oa fl :OM4'�nn0 ne din^^ p0n400 yl�O ^O n 0 t n S i 00000000000 S��S$nSoSS� :^uu.uanen n�apwnne= $eke e 0 ^ n 0 4 n � gill� Z6/ g H I ■ Ly r z ,, gqe0000$ o tw 0000000 O 0000000 O GN OIY000 O OI�A 0000 M ., r OwOOA ,O ds 1 n 3%.5 a ti 1'9i &� � ` '¥: \ �} �f ,,. � ;; � � $} \'\ ;/� KIM r� k k i` O c 00 n H H 00 N W o S Cl C3 2 a N O N Ol t� � s v 0 p 0 O O O O O O o m N N n co q O v O ? N O n C st O CD a O a O `C N 1 N O 0 m co �,.) LL C7 cd m a0 H 49 6% h G CO ^N N O m O O O O O O O q 0 O O O O O O O N r N V Q ID R tD O O (D O +" C y CD N r m C9 . ID m ~ C 19 cl 19 N 19 C h p 7 LL m E ui U LL O F CD m W fA O �r a s Y !w i C; O o w $NOOOo t LL h P �V N S �C•a° LL Qn m4nU � �WL.UN y6 5 SNg X000 cac 0 0 0 e mNOCN ' b h O y 0 0 !r O O W N N N W N a O n N h N v N to �mVN^ g g g •� CL IL li ` m m 1 n CR C O O C •4 ^ N N � N ... Zi 3 g � 3a amp o oho Z CC cp N Q 72 m U F g LL .S W � m O D O p O 0 0 0 N �CQQ�jjmnO� ONNN W {Lnmm•by °D NNO Q4NmOU9^ C LL N N 9NN 4 LL LL LL � Cm} o O mCl.o c 000 N G O 0 O C4 C4 NbNm N CS0 yygm c m ¢ O r N d m T Sag, N ° ¢ N m LL IL M a c°D o too 0 Lc s m m m ¢ m m N pc � LL LL U G PI mum m m G _ LL LL LL S 6 N_ m C 0000 Maw O m 0 0 0 0 1 p A O r J O y O I O r mm w m Q m tL LL m IcI` N O C m G 0 4 N Q m d m T Sag, N w m g qJ N_ n z LL 3�9 N � N i uh l' \ ! § @ k §02 e 22k !k■ k�k �kk � 7k) ;!! a )ki 3/a ■ 1 k 2k $; §k 7� 7ags Af � � ! |` dc | _ =5 2\ f 7a §02 e 22k !k■ k�k �kk � 7k) ;!! a )ki 3/a '(� '4•frF13 ))��00 y Y ,.i e N s h �i C1;• �x ir•. m m O a � N i 6 sm r C m O O O cc '� O �$NOxO Vi VW LSQ m t`'C?�3? Yi m p m O N 9 m < C C cd IL CL N 0 E C «x000 O m ui m n 66 Rmo w� 99 LL N �a�a O Q �p r 5 m N W tttLLL $y �y yi y1 371 xr X� 3= f 2i 4 a OO N 0 m gxm o 9W N LL m + m mN n U Q m. 5 pp0000 O p b� O N m N - W N w A O �OmON� yv V V O yi m O m vm _ a LL' ci N m C ° m m O y w m N LL Yi p ° ° m m o � 4 S@ a Q y$_ a ro � e a ro A g ryyb b 8 F m rz � S c cc� Li9 'oS c ,$ , @q uws� 0 � " m S N b m C C "-o U O wND mOv b ee�e� 3 73- N R k n § | /# �t �2 ;a }) |2 )- !§ §7 §� k\ |k !r ;m kk ($ lee 273 )� \' •� } S \I ■ � §$ §� 2 ° -all § 2 77� ( E k K- �- ! a \I% j .e \ G» 2 ■ -29- !§ cis �k� | /# �t �2 ;a }) |2 )- !§ §7 §� k\ |k !r ;m kk ($ lee 273 —• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Wurks Engineer SUBJECT: Review of staffs denial of application for permit to construct drive approach on the southside of Hillside Road. west of Morning Canyon Way, Blakely Residence, 5514 Morning Canyon Way. RECOMMEMORTICK: It is recommended that City Council not approve a drive approach for vehicular ingress and egress on the south side of Hillside Road, west of Morning Canyon Way, adjacent to 5514 Morning Canyon Way. Background /Analysis The homeowner located at 5514 Morning Canyon Way submitted to the Engineering Division an application for a construction permit to construct a drive approach on the south side of Hillside Road ,lust west of Morning Canyon Way. After review of the application by staff, it was determined that the proposed approach would be too clrie to the intersection and there is an existing approach located on the south side of Hillside Road at the rear lot line of the subject property The homeowner, in anticipation of obtaining a permit, constructed an on- site driveway that encroaches on Hillside Road right -of -way. The homeowner has been directed by staff to remove the existing driveway from the Hillside public right -of -way. The property owner contends that prior verbal approval was given by staff. Staff members that would have reviewed the proposed drive approach with the applicant, do not recall any prior approval. Monte Prescher contacted Mrs. Blakely in December when it was first noticed :hat a concrete slab had been constructed in the Hillside Right - of -way. Mrs. Blakely was advised that an approach at that location may not be possible, also, that non- vehicular access may be indicated on the recorded Tract map. She advised that the City Engineer, during the Council meeting regarding the block wall, had given verbal approval. 37Y i NO - _i' February 1T, -1988 - '.,r`�' Page 2 After soce research,. Hrs.'Blakely'was told that a drive approach-at. that location would oot bepossible, even though access is not'restricted on.' - the Tract Nap wd that the'City Engineer did not give prior %approval. The application was-then received and denied.' Hr. Blakely contacted the City Engineer and And icated,that during discussion-in August,?1987'at4the wm yr uyuacu ayyr vain. nrwuuyn mm�c rr caun:r uvca wc rcw n.,,yr,nry verbal approval, -it , 1s possible that- _ the "approach - may •have? been discussed. However, tM, applic -nt would have been- advised�to ;submit an application prior to commcing with any work,' The driveway located withir the Hillside Road right -of -way was constructed without a permit. The property owner should have obtained a permit prior to constructing improvements in the right -of -way. See attached letter advising the property owner that an approach as the proposed location cannot be approved. Respectful) submitted, t RHH: Attachments 375' .. - >1 .- . .- . . CRY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA rewam a..mr. aerr cv.�.a.c�.el•�lnamo +n-1n1 January 21, 19219 Mr. Carl E. Blakely SS14 Morning Canyon Way Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear Mr. Blakely: This letter 1s in regard to your application of January 12, 1988, for a permit to construct a drive approach on Hillside Road vast of Morning Canyon Way. A "ter -kviewing the application, a visual inspection we$ performed at the site. It has been determined that the application cannot be approved for the following reascns: I 1. The proposed drive approach 1s too close to the intersection of a collector street (Hillside Road). 2. There is existing rear yard access and a drive approach west of the proposed drive approach. In addition, the exist:ng on -site concrete slab encroaches upon City right -of -way. The City right -of -way at that area on Hillside Road is thirteen feet from the face of the curb. That portion of concrete slab or driveway will have to be removed from the right -of -way within two weeks from receipt of this letter. Understand that if any verbal approvals are given they are tentative until the application is received and a proper review and investigation of the proposed improvement can be conducted. Your application was reviewed by the City Engineer, the Public Works Engineer and other staff meebers to determine if any tentative approval had been given. To their knowledge, no tentative approval was given. Cordially, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Monte Prescher Public Works Engineer eve ! . l i l an d P0,11c Works Inspector SMG:sd c� v..r DcOOna N &vie limey x,.., 0',.. L Sm cmd" 10w "11 Pemelel Wryly uw.AL WUUrw 3��0 - Pat & Carl Blakely 5514Morning Canyon Way Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 Lot 27, Tract 10047 To Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager, Rancho Cucamonga (Ref Jan 21, 1988 memo: Drive Approach, Hillside Road) xc City Clerk Sir, Again we are requesting to appear before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council This time to leak a variance to construct a driveway approach on Hillside road 38' West of Morning Canyon Way A concrete driveway Is airead/ in place. After our last problem with obtaining approval for our wall racing Hlliside we made sure we rev lewed the desired drive access with Monte Prescher On Sept. 15, 1987, my husband and Tom Sanders (our buI lder) asked Monte Prescner about the Hillside driveway approach and the City Property conflict After about thirty-five (35) minutes -Of exam'^' ^g large blue prints and plot maps, Mr Prescher assured the •wr ! ^a• we ^aa no problem In obtaining a per-It With tris •^Ior -at— ne proceeded to have our builder construct the driveway !o'•iil's•de with the thought (also from Monte) that the f,nal drIvewiy access approval could be obtained when the driveway was completed wnen we took a drawing of the proprosed access down to City Jff ices 'b' f lrai approval, our request was denied Since then we have also received a letter, dated Jan 21, 1988, from the City Engineering Division that said that the concrete slab built to facl+ltate Hri'side access has to be removed wit ^'n two weeks' /•^ya'^ we have had a terrible orob'e° W'tr, Co^'^'7 ^'C3!'0 ^s v!••^ ;he •y s13fr Please pv! u: or the C'tv CourC'i aCe^dd for ire =eb i 7th ' °a.e V; w:•. _:b_d'c_CO r_lubro,�pe , c z•e °r t wr Al -31S616e ^era Cry ^z .S' 377 - I'M -t Pat & Carl Blakely 5514 Morning Canyon Way Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 Lot 27, Tract 10047 To: Dennis L Stout Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Sir, Again, my husband and I are forced to come befoly the Rancho Cucamonga City Council because of a flagrant failure to communicate correctly on the part of a City Staff Support person. This time we have to seak a variance to construct a driveway approach on Hillside road 38' West of Morning Canyon Way. A concrete driveway Is already In place 7 "mil The lest time we appeared before the council, Oct. 21, 1987, we were �- appf aiing City Staff's desire to have our block wall removed from HI1'slae Road Public right-of -way, located on the south side of Hillside road, west of Morning Canyon Way Our builder had obtained ve^bal approval for this wall from a member of the Planning Staff (Tne council denied our appeal ) Al ter our last problem with obtaining the approval for our wall facing Hillside we made sure we reviewed the desired drive access witn Monte Prescher (We did this specifically because we could not afford the money to redo any more construction work' On Sept. 15, 1987, my husband and Tom Sanders (our builder) asked Monte Prescher about the Hillside driveway approach and the City Property conflict After about thirty -five (35) minutes of examining large blue prints and plot maps, Mr Preacher assured the two that we had no problem in obtaining a permit My husband and the builder walked away with the ab °olute conv,ction that there was nothing el,e to be done With Mo,lte n information, we proceeded to have our builder construct the or veway to Hillside with the thought (also from Monte) that the final dr ,vewav access approval could be obtained when the driveway was Completed When we took a draw,ng of the proprosed access down to City Offices for final approval, our request was denied. Mr Prescher has no recollection of the September conversation. Since then we have also received a letter, dated Jan 21, 1988, from the City Engineering Division that gave us several reasons for the denial but also stated that the concrete slab built to facilitate Hillside access, had to be removed within two weekei 3.78 How can the City SZaft '-do such a disservice to the trust their positions demand? 4!e reailze.that'in this fast growing cit ,,, our problems seem to be of small consequence, However, it Is absolutely unconscionable that the Staff continues to disrupt our lives so severely with their disinformation ,We also can't understand how fY Prescher being a professions ?,Engineer, did not advise us that his verbal review was not'enough to guarantee approval or remembrancen If there was any doubts, at the Very least- he should have told us to submit the request In writing. We don't even understand the reasons given for denial of our driveway access! The letter said that our - requested access is too close to the corner, yet It Is 38 feet'from the corner and our neighbor across the street has his driveway 39 feet from the corner. We have reviewed several houses In the city that ant on collector streets and found driveways from 15 to 20 feet from the corners (pictures are Included as examples). The second reason given for non - approval, says that there is an existing rearyard access and a &Ive approach west of the proposed drive approach We really du not understand the problem with this) Our requested drive approach Is for the driveway in front of our house which will allow us to expand our current driveway to a modlf led 'U- driveway that will be used dally. The rear yard access Is strictly for use If we ever buy a Recreation Vechicle which we cannot keep In front of uvr house. We have askeo to be put on the City Council agenda for the Feb. 17th meeting If you have any help for our supreme discouragement please give .s a call Thank you, Mr & Mrs Carl E B akely Home 945 -0096 Mr Slakely's Work 1- 818 - 915-9815 (Honeywell, Inc ) Mrs Blakely's Work 668 -3156 (General Dynamics) Ivy �� a P]� c: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - STAFF REPORT C W77 DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Clyde A. Boyd, Chairman Public Safety Commission SUBJECT: COMMISSION REPORT ON FIRE SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY (PSC 88-011 The attached report is forwarded pursuan%, to your requests of February i7',1987-��-- and January 20, 1988. • CAB/dja Attached s , go 1. ?' B•ckaround In February, 1987, the Council created the Public Safety Committee and directed that body to make recommendations to Council regarding the future of fire -' protection services in our community. For three months, the Committee studied all facets of the current fire service operation. In April, 1987, we requested Council to retain an independent consultant to examine certain financial aspects attendant to three possible fire service options. a Ralph Andersen a Associates has completed that report and the Commission has read and discussed the same. Council requested comment and recommendation from this Commission. II. After study the organizational findings of the Foothill Fire Protection District, 1 The District's current available funding sources (property tax and State augmentation funds) are unpredictable from one year to the next. "• 2. Augmentation funding levels are at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors. 3. State augmentation funding may be limited or abolished by the legislature at their discretion. A. equipment to the Redevelopment cuerently et providing fire stations and 5 Differences of opinion between the City and the District regarding measures, andiplan matters checking policies and proeeduresgiome required mes exist between the City and the Fire District. 6 A duplication of some administrative services (budgeting, administration and supervision, personnel matters) presently exists. 7. The District's Board of Directors and Fire Administration cannot realistically accomplish long -range financial or fire service planning due to legal restrictions on establishment of reserve accounts and the unpredictability of future funding levels. 9. CountyirSp Special District'sE Administrator, (b) several a Districts elected Board, and (c) the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. 38I '� "' -P:�� -' - -'r �'irw"l.:_�:) pi?�i:• -tY '� �ir :- `;�:`_"_`: - 'G,'.`t:.� .1�'. _ .d.- `!�"��.=._°'si'�. sgLRi'S 7. Due to the nonavailability of funds and resources, the Fire Dist7ict is forced to establish -Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts to provide service in areas, of new or expanded growth. 10. No capital reserves for replacement of fire apparatus exists due to funding restrictions. Similarly, no reserves and currently set aside for payment of employee benefits such as sick time or vacation buy -out in the event of resignation, disability or retirement, ' The Commission (Committee) concluded in April, 1987, that a basic reorganization was needed in order to provide.future fire protection services at the level of i service which our rapid growth dictates. The District's Board, Fire 7 Administration and fire service employees have done an exemplary Job of providing service within the constraints that currently exist. It epppears clear, however, that the augmentation funding mec +n1sm itself is (al too unpredictable to count on in today',s rapid - growth climate, and (b) in potential political trouble in the legislature. r The Commission is of the opinion that a basic change in the future "R - ?ire' service protection is needed. After analyzing the consultant's report, we believe the appropriate change is to form a subsidiary City district. Recommendations The Public Safety Commission recommends that Council take appropriate action with the Fire District to •arm a City subsidiary fire district. Such a City district will provide: 1. Stable long -term financial planning for capital expenditures, equipment and long -term personner'- ts. 2. Expanded capability to provide fire protection to new and groa,ing areas of the community. 3. Consistency in overall City lap nnina functions. 4 Expanded professional staff support :n management and technical administrative functions. 5. Assimilation of duplicative services. 6 Long -range career stability for fire service employees. 3t3�- -�v Q X. 0, -1 4-116AVE0 % Conclusion The decision to form a City subsidiary district, or any reorganization for-that matter, is a policy decision ,that Only the City Council should 'determine. Because this Commission does not have knowledge of the 'big picture', insofar at the ramifications Of such a 'reorganizatio-e upon the City's current,and'future' budgets, we have not Included the financial consideratfons-�as part of, our recommendations. That decision is best, left to policymakers who can better determine the financial- feasibility Of assuming this municipal function.- t ia�' Assuming that a subsidiary district is a financially feasible option, we would A recommend that the City and Fire District proceed with plans to consolidate into a subsidiary City district. -�v Q X. 0, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiISONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 1988 - TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller. City Planner rrh BY: Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner SUBJECT: MINIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR MULTI - FAMILY DNELLIIIGS - A request y e ann ng Commission clarity ity Council re diction as to potential modifications of the minimum dwelling unit requirements for multi- family dwellings. I. RECOIWNDATION: The Planning Commission is requesting additional rec on rom the City Council on the issue of minimum dwelling — unit size requirements for multi - family dwellings. — II. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 1986, the City Council asked the ann ng omission to review the City's Development Standards relating to small lot subdivisions, including minimum unit size for single family dwellings. In addition, the Commission was also asked to ex mine the need for minimum dwelling size requirements in multi - family projects. The single family dwelling size requirements have since been increased, and the Commission is working on modifications to other Develooment Standards per Council direction. However, the Commission and staff need additional feedback from the Council; specifically, a clearer dafinition of the problem with existing multi - family unit sizes as perceived by the City Council. III. DISCUSSION: Currently, the City has no multi- family minimum unit s zesianards in plice; the size of multi - family dwellings is controlled Indirectly by the Uniform Building Code. Based an the suggestion of one of the members of the City Council to look at Upland's unit size requirements, the Commission has discussed this issue and the following options were briefly considered: Existing Standard Possible Option Multi- Family: LM (4-8 du /ac) None 1,000 sq.ft.** H (8-14 du /ac) None 1,000 sq.ft.** MH (14-24 du /ac) None 900 sq.ft.** H (24-30 du /ac) None 750 sq.ft.** +*100 sq.ft. reduction permitted on 10% of the units. 9M CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Minimum Unit Size for Multi - Family Dwellings February 17, 1988 Page 2 As in Upland, these minitaus would be graduated based on the density range, with smaller units generally permitted in higher density categories. However, in staff's a arience, unit sizes are more affected by unit type and the number of bedrooms than by density category. The trble below outlines unit size ranges typical of recent projects in the City: Unit Type Type Range 1- Bedroom 530 - 750 square feet 2- Bedroom 806 - 1,250 square feet 3- Dedroom 1,000 - 1,425 square feet In addition, smaller units typically exist in Senior Housing — Projects. IV. DIRECTION REQUESTED: The question of appropriate niniman unit size s very subjective in nature. Appropriate unit size cannot be determined purely by technical criteria. Rather. It is a function of a variety of influences, community expectation.., market forces, etc. In order to develop workable criteria, the Commission and staff need to have a better understanding of the Council's perception of the problem. If the problem is that some units are too small for their type, retulting in small rooms and a lack of adequate living space, minimum sizes can be developed for each unit type. Or, if the objective is to avoid overconcentration of smaller units, staff can develop criteria for an appropriate unit mix, with the number of smaller units limited to a certain percentage. Finally, if the problem is a crowded appearance .f some multi- family projects, perhaps it's not the unit size, but setback and open space requirements that require modification. The Commission is requesting direction as to these or other options. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:CK•vc C- 1. 1 I 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Ell Dates February 17, 1988 To: mayor, members of the city council and the city manager From: Robert Rizzo, Assistant city manager Sys Paula Pachon, Administrative Assistantq Subjects sesquicentennial Anniversary of the "Rancho Cucamonga" As you know, Rancho Cucamonga so a City is young, having orly been incorporated in 1977. But her history dates back to the prehistoric times with the Indians of the Shoshorsan stock who lived here. Then came the era of exploration with man like Juan Bautista de Anza, Father Francisco Carcos, and- - Jedediah Smith, who visited this area. Finally occupation of the land came by a Mexican land grant given to Don Tiburcic Tapia on march 3, 1839. Hamed *Rancho Cucamonga", the land grant consisted of 13000 acres, which included today's Upland and parts ck Ontario. On March 3, 1989 we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of this land grant and the rich he: 'Itage that surrounds our community. In meeting wits the Historic Preservation Commission it was felt that it would bo fitting for the City to celebrate this occasion with a series of different types of festivities. The primary foc,,o that the Commission would like to sae taken with thin project is to develop a broad based community committee to raise corpunit/ awaranesw of the harituge of the area and to devoinp a seLlos of major events /products which could be used in part to raiso funds for the special projects of the Commission. Uztao below are a number of the ideas which were raised by the Commission that could be used to this end: s A kickoft fund - raising dinner fo- Fridey, March 3, 1909) county fair which might include ouch items as: - old fashion baking contest hand - crafted items - old time picture booths - baby contest - dunk machine - individual balloon launch - horaephas contest .3,2 (D x Mayor, Members of the city Council and the city Manager W_ February 17, 1988 '- 'r - Page 1 - '. S t • Pageant utilising the concert -in -the Park sarieet • Sesquicentennial runt • Historiu landmark tour; • Libraiy exhibits both at the Rancho Cucamonga aranzb Litsary and at Chaffey Collagist • Horse show complete with comtumest ._ • An old 2ashion 4th of July picnic; • Art fair /contest; • Antique costumes show; • Golf tov- nam•nt; • Incorporation of the theme into the follZortj events: - Grape harvest Festival - Founders Day Parade • Hispanic Heritage weak: - Fiesta • Development- of memorabilia for the events: - Rancho Cucamonga game (trivia, monopoly) - Pontcards /notecards - T -shirts - Historic calendar - Commemorative Pins - Rancho Cucamonga Cookbook • Know Your Heritage Class offered through the City recreation program; • Development of a time line of the history of the area for display or publication: • Development of a historic map of the area showing the original Rancho to be available at various locations throughout the City; 387 Mayor, Members of the city Council and the City nanager February 17, 1988 Page 7 e Development of a simplistic map showint-T the sites of local landmarks to be available at various locations throughout the city; and working with the local and national press to raise awareness of the area. As you can sse from the list above the number of ideas for this celebration are abundant, however, with the time left available for planning not all of them are feasible. There are a number of ideas which could be relatively easily incorporated in the special events that the city already sponsors. These include; the annual 4th of July picnio at Red Hill Park, the craft fair held this last December and the one scheduled for early Spring, 1988 could be expanded into a country fair in 1989, the City sponsored poster and photography contest for this years Bicentennial celebration, — for the U.B. Constitution, which has the these of "Past /Prosont /Puture of Rancho Cucamonga" could become an excellent exhibit for our library and community centers, and the Founders Day Parade for 1989 could certainly reflect the 150th anniversary of the "Rancho." In addition, there are a number of items on the above list that could be accomplished if planning were to begin immediately, i.e., commemorative pins, a historic calendar, sesquicentennial run, and a horse show. Attempting to determine if other organizations had planned for this event, I have also met with the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. while no specific plans are currently underway, the Chamber was enthusiastic about participating in the celebration and indicated a strong willingness to adopt the "Sesquicentennial of the Rancho" as a theme for a number of their activities in 1989. In speaking with members of the Historic Preservation commission it was realized that not all of the ideas for this celebration could be at this late date actualized. The commission is excited, however, about the Council's interest in remembering the heritage of our community and working together to develop a calendar of events throughout 1989 that will reflect the pride the City has in our past. If Council wishes to undertake such a project it may be advisable to develop a workable schedule o: events and to identify costs associated with such activities and potential funding sources. cu: Brad Buller, City Planner Ierry Henderson, Senior Planner .93r k A i t DATE: February 17. 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Deborah M. Brown. Councilmcmber SUBJECT: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAA After completion of the California Specialized Training Institute coutse —on_ earthquake and disaster preparedness. I believe the development of our disaster preparedness plan would be best served if the City Council took the lead on this project. Vith this in mind, I am suggesting the City Council consider the following two actions: 1. Modify the Public Safety Commission's work program to remove the development of disaster preparedness plan and place it with the City Council directly. 2. Form a City Council subcommittee to work with our Disaster Preparedness staff to develop and implement our disaster preparedness plan. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact me. DRB /dja 88- 044/0701 -11 389 i i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT i ,• DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner SUBJCCT: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MISSION STATEMENT I RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and cons�tre—tffraft Mission Statement for Historic Preservation. II. P.CKGROUND: At the January 20, 1988 regular City Council meeting; ounc m er Wright requested that consideration be given on development of a Historic Preservation Mission Statement and that this item be placed on a fiture City Council agenda for discussion. This Mission Statement is very similar to the Mission Statement prepared as PPart of the City Council's recent goal setting sessions. The following preliminary draft of the Mission Statement for Historic Preservation has been drafted for Council review and consideration: COMMITY VALUES THE CITY OF RAMCHO CUCAN M6A ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION We the members of the City Council, City Commissions, and Professional Staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are dedicated to the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures and sites of historic, architectural, and engineering significance located within the City which are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. We believe that the economic. cultual and aesthetic standing of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be enhanced by representing the heritage of the City through its commitment to: Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures and sites which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic benefit of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past by establishing adequate educational program an(, events which will make the public aware of the valuable heritage which exists in the City. 4390 5 j CITY COUNCIL'•STAFF REPORT a� HISTORIC PRESERVATION MISSION STATFlW February 17, 1988 Page 2 ci Stabilize and improve Lhe economic value of historic structures and sites by educating the property owners of such sites as to the improved property values and tax incentives io i-C preservation of such property. Protect and enhance 'the City's culttrai and aesthetic herltayye by encouraging both public as well as private pirticipation`in all aspects of both funding rehabilitation efforts and- educational awareness programs. " N,omote and encourage continued, private ownership in the rehabilitation and maintenance of such buildings, other structures, and'sites now so owned and used to the fullest extent possible under the objectives previously listed. Res fully ittrd, Ora u e City P nner BB:te 0101j. ,• Cr-Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT _ of DATE: February 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the 'City Council ` FROM: Jeffrey King, Councilmember SUBJECT: ETIMAMDA FLOOD CONTROL STUDY I am requesting the City Cuuncil receive a status report on the flood_ control study currently being done in the Etivanda area. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact me. JK/dSa 88- 04E/0701 -11 34�. I Z Awuim 'LUM1hK3U8-Nff0N LIGHT11sla iucrMUi ln"Ena_> e_IGN COMPANY�' 4, AM 7448 Scout Arenas EW Glrdu Ca" 9=1 RMW (213) 827-4701 7?3.SM 1714) 5234562 Feb, jary 10, 1988 Mo. Nancy Fong, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamnge, Ca. 91730 Re: 9950 West Foothill Blvd., Unit N-0 C.V.P. No. 85 -01 Dear Ms. Fong, On behalf of Wherehouse Entertainment Inc., I would like to formally recind points 1, 3. 4, and 5 of our city council appeal dated January 20, 1968. we will reduce our letter height to 24• and remove the additional verbage. Also, the sign will be lowered to 201 from grade. We would continue to appeal for the blue channel letter faces. A red plex bolt with red neon internal ill- umination would replace the exposed neon bolt. Thank you with your help on this matter. Please feel free to call Ge=a Marshall or myself with any questions or comments. Sincerely, A z/� 4Jim wrig thi JW/cmd `�R -a.n - _ -v- ..y.+a: -.�.}_ �` `.s+:- __ -- .rte - _ • r _ � .T....aty CiTti_OF•RANCHO CUCAMCNG& - ENGINEERIRG DIVISION -. TERM VISTA PLANNED COMIUIITV ,STIMIT IMROVEMEIIT IMLEPOTATIOI pMTCV Projects within Terra Vista shall be required to construct street improvements as follows: A. Streets adjacent to projects shall be constructed full width to include curb on the opposite sides. 8. Streets shall be extended (full width) off -site far enough to proWi two means of access. L. Projects within the individual Devalogaent Areas shown on the map below shall construct the specific street Segments designated as folicws: AREA STREET Sf"A T 1 Foothill - Haven to Spruce and Haven - Foothill to Town Center 2 Foothill - Haven to Milliken 7 Foothill - Haven to Rochester 4 Rochester - Foothill to Poplar S Rochester - Foothill to Church 6 Rochester - Church to Base Line 7 Base Line - Milliken to Rochester 8 Base Line - Milliken to Mountain View 9 Same as adjacent area depending upon where access is taken. 10 Milliken - Foothill to Base Line 11 Soruce - Foothill to Elm 12 Most of this area is already conditioned or developed. 13 Haven - Church to Base Line NOTE: Projects that cross area boundaries (at corners in particular) snail construct all segments required for each affected area. LEGEND L!N! A . Area boundary r r• W w W7 1 Area number W � I W UI W� • e IW a w a 2 1 r W r 'iw _ r al L-71 z • r aF0OYM/LL a eLVQ -11• �, r `5/1/87 �t